Weather Channel Co-founder Tells UCLA Forum: “There Is No Climate Crisis”

The New American
by Warren Mass

John Coleman
John Coleman

In an open letter emailed to the officials of UCLA’s Hammer Forum, Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman (shown) stated straightforwardly: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.”

Coleman sent his message to the forum officials four days before the October 23 event held at UCLA’s Hammer Museum, titled “Tackling Climate Change Nationally and Globally.”

A description of the event provided by UCLA revealed that it unabashedly took the “global warming is caused by man” side of the ongoing climate debate and that the only two presenters were well-known global arming alarmists:

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a danger to the planet, little progress has been made to reduce CO2 emissions. Climatologists Brenda Ekwurzel and Michael Mann join us to examine the issue. Ekwurzel works with the Union of Concerned Scientists leading education aimed at increasing support for strong climate legislation. Mann shared the Nobel Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is the author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines and Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.

Mann, a professor of meteorology at Penn State University, became famous (or infamous, depending on who does the defining) more than a decade ago with his hockey-stick graph showing temperatures spiking abruptly in the late 20th century after holding relatively steady for most of the last millennium.

However, many scientists, a congressional investigation, and even the 2009 Climategate controversy called Mann’s research methods further into question.

After National Review published a reprint of an article originally appearing on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) website, Mann filed a complaint in 2012 against the journalists and their publishers for libel and the “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Mark Steyn, the National Review columnist who had reprinted the CEI piece, wrote, “I noticed on the press release (published on his Facebook page) that Dr. Mann claimed to have been ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’ and that on the complaint itself we are accused of the hitherto unknown crime of ‘defamation of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.’ ” When National Review asked the Nobel Foundation, it denied Mann has ever won a Nobel prize.

When Thomas Richard of The Examiner contacted Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, Lundestad stated: “Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Lundestad continued: “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

Yet, the Hammer Forum promotion’s description, “Mann shared the Nobel Prize,” clearly implies that Mann was a recipient.

Breitbart News published an article about the lawsuit on August 15 (headlined: “Mann v Steyn: If This Trial Ever Goes Ahead Global Warming Is Toast”) in which writer James Delingpole noted: “Michael Mann is exploiting the flaws in the US legal system to try to draw out proceedings as long as possible in order to exhaust — or bankrupt — Steyn into submission.”

Delingpole is optimistic about Steyn’s prospects, however, and writes: “Unfortunately for Mann he picked the wrong victim. Steyn is a fighter who knows his way round the courts.”

He continues:

This, if Steyn is successful, could be the moment the dam bursts: the one where the global establishment is finally forced to acknowledge the fraudulence, the corruption, the mendacity, the trickery, the deception, the junk science, the big money and the official complicity which for the last two or three decades have been underpinning the Great Climate Change Scam.

The other presenter at the forum, Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, is a “Senior Climate Scientist”at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has been widely condemned by conservatives, libertarians, and even Dr. Jerry Falwell, who warned Christians against “falling for … global warming hocus-pocus” propagated in the mass media, with the UCS “leading the charge.”

A writer in Human Events on May 8, 2007 said of UCS:

For almost four decades, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has manipulated the high reputation of “science” to serve the low ends of politics. It has done a good job of cherry-picking scientific facts to stir up public fears to advance its agenda. This time it is promoting alarmist claims about global warming by leveraging the prestige of the “concerned scientist.”…

That UCS is a highly partisan operation — well funded by left-leaning foundations and Hollywood celebrities and happy to ignore established scientific methodologies for its own purposes—is apparently not newsworthy. The group has a long history of being just plain wrong on many scientific issues, and its current agenda conforms to the extremes of environmentalist ideology.

With Mann and Ekwurzel as its only presenters, the Hammer Forum on climate change was obviously stacked to present only one side of the debate. This prompted Coleman to write:

William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences. [That there is no manmade global warming at this time and efforts to prove that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.] Yet at your October 23 Hammer Forum on Climate Change you have scheduled as your only speakers two people who continue to present the failed science as though it is the final and complete story on global warming/climate change. This is [a] major mistake.

Britain’s Express reported that Coleman based his research on the findings of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a body of scientists that have joined together to offer an second opinion of the assertions made by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC is sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP); and The Heartland Institute.

A statement on the NIPCC website notes:

Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.

The New American

‘We need a new global consensus of responsible powers’ (I)

Oriental Review
By Vladimir PUTIN

We are publishing full text of today’s address of the Russian President Vladimir Putin to the members of Vaidai International Discussion Club. This year the main topic of the event was The World Order: New Rules or No Rules?

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

I hope that these changes in organisation and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.

We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

41d51294b81530c6c8b4As we analyse today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

41d51293fadea744baafPardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

41d51293f810372eef87A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I have always spoken of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces and use double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

ISIL-iraqWhere do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the “Evil Empire” in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, an Evil Empire, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

41d51293f49e4ff0c77bBut these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

41d51293ebd0f5e81f28Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

To be continued...

Source: Kremlin.ru

Oriental Review

UN Day: Obama and UN Boss Urge Celebrations, More Power

The New American
by Alex Newman

UN

Citing multiple real and imagined crises facing the world today, United Nations boss Ban Ki-moon celebrated the 69th anniversary of the dictator-dominated outfit he leads by claiming it is now “needed more than ever.” In a statement, the UN said its festivities would highlight the orgaization’s focus on “education of global citizens.” Rabidly pro-UN President Obama, meanwhile, issued a presidential proclamation celebrating “UN Day,” urging America’s 50 governors and all officials under the U.S. flag to also “observe” the controversial day with “appropriate ceremonies and activities.” Obama and the UN chief both suggested that the would-be global government should be further empowered, too.  

Left unsaid by Ban and Obama, of course, is how much misery and tyranny has been inflicted on humanity by the scandal-plagued UN and its oftentimes barbaric member regimes — many of which continue to serve on the UN Security Council and the disgraced “Human Rights” Council. Indeed, from UN “peace” troops raping and murdering civilians around the world to growing UN assaults on U.S. sovereignty and liberty, the organization is increasingly out of control. And it will only get worse without strong action.

It is time for the United States to withdraw from the UN and defund all of its tentacles.

However, if Obama and Ban get their way, the UN will not only continue to perpetrate abuses with impunity and legitimize mass-murdering regimes, it will get more power and more U.S. taxpayer funding to do it. In recent years, for instance, despite $17 trillion in federal debt, Obama has been seeking to drastically increase the amount of American wealth funneled to the UN and its various organs — especially toward its ruthless “peacekeeping” machinations. The presidential proclamation on October 24 makes the administration’s agenda clear.

“In 1945, in the shadow of a world war and the face of an uncertain future, 51 founding nations joined in common purpose to establish the United Nations and codify its mission to maintain international peace and security, encourage global cooperation, and promote universal respect for human rights,” Obama said in his proclamation, without noting that the UN’s vision of human rights is entirely incompatible with the God-given rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution. “Nearly seven decades later, we once again find ourselves at a pivotal moment in history — a crossroads between conflict and peace, disorder and integration, hatred and dignity — dealing with new challenges that require a united response.”

“As we confront these global problems in an increasingly interconnected world, the United Nations remains as necessary and vital as ever,” Obama continued. “On United Nations Day, we recognize the important role the United Nations continues to play in the international system, and we reaffirm our country’s commitment to work with all nations to build a world that is more just, more peaceful, and more free.” By “nations,” of course, Obama is referring to the collection of governments, dictators, and mass-murderers that make up the UN’s largely totalitarian membership.

According to Obama, the UN “enables progress on the world’s most immediate threats and critical long-term challenges.” His first example — alleged man-made “global warming” — comes amid the ongoing implosion of the dubious theories underpinning climate hysteria and the failure of virtually every falsifiable prediction made by warming (and global cooling) theorists over the last four decades. Obama also claimed the UN helps “eradicate poverty,” which, of course, is ridiculous, as the overwhelming majority of poverty in the world today is caused directly by oppression and bad policy foisted on humanity by UN member regimes (often with UN support).  

“In this spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, the international community must continue to find common ground in the face of threats to the prosperity and security of all our nations,” Obama added. “On this day, let us resolve to strengthen and renew the United Nations. Let us choose hope over fear, collaboration over division, and humanity over brutality, as we work together to build a tomorrow marked by progress rather than suffering.… By harnessing the power of the United Nations, we can build a more peaceful and more prosperous future for all our children and grandchildren.”

Obama did not bother to mention that much of the UN’s focus in recent years has been attacking the independence, liberty, and constitutional system of government bequeathed to the American people by the republic’s Founding Fathers. From calling on Obama to unconstitutionally overturn state laws approved by voters, to demanding “international standards” in America on everything from policing and water “affordability,” to attacking the God-given rights to self-defense and arms, to demanding that the federal government defy the Constitution that created it in the first place, the UN has completely discredited and exposed itself. Fellow civilized nations have also come under UN attack even as operatives for the world’s most brutal communist regimes are selected to lead UN agencies.   

Like Obama, though, UN boss Ban was similarly full of praise for the increasingly power-hungry Leviathan he leads, not-so-subtly calling for the organization to be empowered to control virtually every aspect of human activity. “Poverty, disease, terrorism, discrimination and climate change are exacting a heavy toll,” Ban claimed in his “UN Day” statement, with no reference to the tyranny, death, and horrifying suffering inflicted on humanity by UN member states. “Millions of people continue to suffer deplorable exploitation through bonded labour, human trafficking, sexual slavery or unsafe conditions in factories, fields and mines. The global economy remains an uneven playing field.”

In other words, Ban believes the role of the UN includes everything from setting global labor standards and law enforcement to wealth redistribution and rationing emissions of what scientists call “the gas of life” (CO2, exhaled by every human being) supposedly under the guise of stopping non-existent warming. “The founding of the United Nations was a solemn pledge to the world’s people to end such assaults on human dignity, and lead the way to a better future,” continued Ban, who earlier this year was rallying Third World dictators to create a “New World Order” based on global socialism. “There have been painful setbacks, and there is much work ahead to realize the Charter’s vision. But we can take heart from our achievements.”

In an almost mind-boggling claim, Ban also claimed that the UN had “inspired the most successful anti-poverty campaign ever.” In reality, of course, free markets, economic liberty, and voluntary charity are entirely responsible for reducing and eliminating poverty around the world. Studies show that taxpayer wealth showered on dictators and Third World regimes actually perpetuates poverty and oppression for the masses, while economic freedom lifts everybody out of poverty. That is why, for instance, the United States, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Hong Kong are among the wealthiest places on Earth, while Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and various totalitarian-ruled African nations are among the poorest.

“At this critical moment, let us reaffirm our commitment to empowering the marginalized and vulnerable,” Ban continued, perhaps oblivious to the irony. “On United Nations Day, I call on Governments [sic] and individuals to work in common cause for the common good.” The “common good,” of course, has been the rallying cry of tyrants always and everywhere throughout human history. For a brief overview of the UN’s activities toward the “common good” in recent years, check out the “Related Articles” section below this for a tiny sample of news articles on the UN that have appeared in The New American.

But despite all of that, the UN and its establishment backers have much, much bigger plans for the future — and they have had such designs in mind since the UN’s founding. One of the key architects of the UN at its founding conference was John Foster Dulles, who would go on to become U.S. secretary of state. In his 1950 book, War or Peace, Dulles, who also served as a founder of the global governance-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, offered insight into the outfit’s true purpose.

“The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” he wrote. “Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” Later on in the book, he noted that he had never seen any proposal with “teeth” in it to create a “world government” or “world federation” that “could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Instead of celebrating UN Day, Americans should redouble their efforts to get the United States out of the UN “dictators club,” and the UN out of the United States. Legislation in Congress right now, HR 75, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, would do precisely that. In the meantime, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives could stop all U.S. taxpayer funding to the UN and all funding for the implementation of its radical schemes within the United States.

Withdrawing from the UN would save U.S. taxpayers vast sums of money and would deal a massive blow to the plans of those who seek to use the outfit to extinguish the liberty and independence of these United States. 

The New American

Land of the Free – 1 in 3 Americans Are on File with the FBI in the U.S. Police State

Liberty Blitzkrieg
by MICHAEL KRIEGER

Zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes has led authorities to make more than a quarter of a billion arrests

cops

The sickening transformation of these United States into an authoritarian police state with an incarceration rate that would make Joseph Stalin blush, has been a key theme of my writing since well before the launch of Liberty Blitzkrieg. One of the posts that shocked and disturbed readers most, was published a little over a year ago titled: American Police Make an Arrest Every 2 Seconds in 2012. In the event you never read it, I suggest taking a look before tackling the rest of this piece.

Fast forward to fall 2014, and the Wall Street Journal has a powerful article about how children in schools systems across the U.S. are being arrested or turned over to police custody for doing things that children have always done since the beginning of time. Things such as wearing too much perfume, sharing a classmates’ chicken nuggets, throwing an eraser or chewing gum.

As a result of our insane societal obsession with authority and disproportionate punishment, the WSJ reports that “nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.

USA! USA!

From the Wall Street Journal:

A generation ago, schoolchildren caught fighting in the corridors, sassing a teacher or skipping class might have ended up in detention. Today, there’s a good chance they will end up in police custody.

In Texas, a student got a misdemeanor ticket for wearing too much perfume. In Wisconsin, a teen was charged with theft after sharing the chicken nuggets from a classmate’s meal—the classmate was on lunch assistance and sharing it meant the teen had violated the law, authorities said. In Florida, a student conducted a science experiment before the authorization of her teacher; when it went awry she received a felony weapons charge.

Over the past 20 years, prompted by changing police tactics and a zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes, authorities have made more than a quarter of a billion arrests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates. Nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.

Did you catch that too? “Zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes.” Indeed, the big criminals go to Wall Street, crash the economy and then receive trillions in taxpayer bailouts. Or they get a top job in the Obama Administration, such as Jedi-master of cronyism, Tim Geithner, being chosen as Treasury Secretary.

Back to the WSJ…

At school, talking back or disrupting class can be called disorderly conduct, and a fight can lead to assault and battery charges, said Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project, a national civil-rights group examining discipline procedures around the country.

If these rules were in place in my day, I would have been arrested about 150 times.

“We’re not talking about criminal behavior,” said Texas State Sen. John Whitmire, the Democratic chair of the senate’s Criminal Justice Committee, who helped pass a new law last year that limits how police officers can ticket students. “I’m talking about school disciplinary issues, throwing an eraser, chewing gum, too much perfume, unbelievable violations” that were resulting in misdemeanor charges.

According to the U.S. Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, 260,000 students were reported, or “referred” in the official language, to law enforcement by schools in 2012, the most-recent available data.

The number of school police officers rose 55% to about 19,000 in the 10 years to 2007, the last year for which numbers were available, according to a 2013 study from the Congressional Research Service.

The schools crackdown has had its intended effect. Victims’ surveys compiled by the Education Department show that there is a lower rate of violent crime committed in schools, falling to 52 incidents per 100,000 students in 2012 from 181 incidents per 100,000 in 1992.Supporters say that alone proves the worth of aggressive policing.

Well yeah, and pigs in a pen are easily controlled too, but are these the types of children we want to raise?

And what about the downside, such as:

Brushes with the criminal justice system go hand in hand with other negative factors. A study last year of Chicago public schools by a University of Texas and a Harvard researcher found the high-school graduation rate for children with arrest records was 26%, compared with 64% for those without. The study estimated about one-quarter of the juveniles arrested in Chicago annually were arrested in school.

A science experiment that went awry turned into a 17-month battle for Kiera Wilmot and her mother as they tried to clear the honor student’s arrest record. According to the police report, she was on school grounds outside the classroom trying out an experiment that hadn’t been authorized by her teacher. Ms. Wilmot, now 18, said she put a piece of aluminum inside a bottle with two ounces of toilet cleaner to see what would happen. The teen’s mother said she was trying to simulate a volcanic eruption.

“It popped,” blowing the top off the bottle, she said. She was handcuffed by the school-resource office, escorted out of the Bartow, Fla., school and taken to a juvenile facility where she was charged with possessing or discharging firearms or weapons at school and making, throwing, possessing, projecting, placing or discharging a destructive device.

Think about what sorts of lessons we are teaching talented students about experimenting and being creative. A modern Benjamin Franklin would most likely be rotting away in solitary right now.

So as we militarize the police, we police the schools. See the direction this is all headed in?

Keep chanting muppets.

Liberty Blitzkrieg

White House Emergency Alert Interrupts TV Viewers Across America

InfoWars
by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

Weird message warns viewers not to use phones amidst Ebola concerns

Americans watching television across the country were puzzled earlier today when an alert from the White House interrupted their viewing, told them to stand by for an emergency message and warned them not to use their phones.

TV channels automatically changed to local news stations but no White House message ever came, prompting confusion and concern, especially given heightened tensions amidst the Ebola crisis.

The message was seen by viewers in Austin, Atlanta, Detroit and across North Carolina, as well as other areas of the country.

WSOC-TV out of Charlotte, North Carolina later posted a statement on their website saying they would investigate why the message went out, indicating TV and radio stations were given no advance notice of the test.

An AT&T spokesperson later indicated that that the alert notification was sent out erroneously.

“Earlier today, U-verse TV customers may have received an Emergency Alert notification. We confirmed that there is no emergency at this time and we are investigating why this occurred. We apologize for any inconvenience,” read the statement.

However, the Emergency Alert System is mandatory by law – stations have no control or power to block the signal once it is sent out by the federal government. Broadcasters are required to install and maintain FCC-certified EAS decoders and encoders at their control points, meaning the signal cannot be switched off or interrupted.

How sensible is it that the feds ‘mistakenly’ sent out an emergency alert – potentially causing panic – amidst national concerns about the Ebola outbreak in the United States?

Back in 2011, a similar test of the emergency alert system, in this case for cellphones, went awry when residents were told that a “civil emergency” was in progress and that they should “take shelter,” prompting 911 lines to be flooded by panicked callers. Authorities later apologized, claiming the test was a mistake.

Did you see today’s emergency alert message? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

InfoWars

The PSYOPS of the Coming EBOLA Genocide (Part 1)

The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges

"Psst, there is something called a New World Order and they don't like us".

“Psst, there is something called a New World Order and they don’t like us”.

Why won’t America stand up for herself? Why is our country, once a country which possessed courage and conviction , now sitting idly by while allowing itself to be taken to the slaughter without so much as a whimper?

As I predicted, Ebola is beginning to make its way across the country. There are serious allegations of Ebola patients being “disappeared” in order to cover up how widespread the crisis has become. We have an administration which refuses, under any and all circumstances, to protect the American people as evidenced by the fact that we allow unscreened immigrants into the country and our airports are still open to travel from West Africa, the site of the Ebola outbreak.

It matters not if its Ebola that is going to rip through the country like a Tsunami coming ashore, or, whether it is the hastily prepared soon-to-be vaccines that are soon going to be thrust among us which will potentially devastate our collective  immune systems. To those who are still debating if the Ebola crisis is a false flag, you are wasting time and you are causing the public to take their eye off of the ball. Does it matter if the Ebola is an instrument of oppression or it will be the vaccine that serves this purpose? The full or partial spread of Ebola is a prerequisite condition for the roll out of mandatory vaccines. Both Ebola and the subsequent vaccines are like “love and marriage”, as Frank Sinatra once said, “You can’t have one without the other”!

The presence of Ebola in America is not going to end well for the American people. Whether the decimation of America comes from the virus itself or the resulting vaccine, does not matter and those perpetuating this debate are doing a disservice to the country. The fact remains that we will soon be faced with some very dire circumstances and we need to be focusing on how to wake up the public instead of engaging in this meaningless intramural debate!

The Process of “Waking Up”

The bankster degenerates, have mastered the art of an effective PSYOPS. They have perfected brainwashing practices as well as the stunting of human initiative. The globalist PSYOPS strategy is based upon the principle that it was much easier to control a population through psychological means than  by committing genocide. However, when the people begin to wake up, PSYOPS will eventually give way to extermination as a means of political control as evidenced by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

waking up nwo summary of despots

When Did You Wake Up?

Do you remember the day that you woke up? Do you recall rejoicing in the fact that the seemingly unconnected events in the world now made perfect sense because you knew who was behind much of the evil on the planet? It is as if you had stolen the globalist playbook and everything suddenly made sense. We all remember our profound excitement to our new found fortune in which we realized that the world suddenly made a lot more sense and we could not wait to share our “new knowledge” with anyone who would listen to us. But suddenly, we found yourself marginalized by a society that was still being held captive by the same PSYOP forces that had previously kept us trapped in our former matrix of externally imposed ignorance and conditioned obedience.

The term “waking up” has come to denote the period of time in which a person stops believing the lies being perpetrated by the six corporations which controls the 98% of the mainstream media. The term “waking up” also has come to mean that day when a person realizes that the left-right paradigm, the Republican-Democrat pretense of political choice and even the major elections are a facade designed to give the illusion of choice.

On that day when you found yourself awakened, did you realize how very much alone you were as you watched the masses sleep-walking through life while serving false Gods and living lives of quiet desperation in a futile effort of trying to find some meaning in their lives?

The Public Knows That Something Is Terribly Wrong and the MSM Is Not Providing Answers

waking up bush if the people only knewThe general public knows that something is terribly wrong with this country and its not being covered in the MSM and they are seeking answers. Returning veterans who have served in Afghanistan are returning home with stories of how American soldiers are providing protection for Afghan drug lords. Their neighbors and friends are wondering why these stories are not on the nightly news.The American people are beginning to view the police with more distrust because of the rampant instances of police abuse taking place in this country.

Many Americans know Obama is a foreign national who cares nothing about the plight of the middle class. Obama’s anti-American policies and unwarranted EBOLA swat teams  are in place as America joins the ranks of a police state.

A growing number of Americans have awakened to the fact that this is not the case and are looking for “alternative” means to get their news. Once an obscure term, most average Americans have now heard of FEMA camps. Most Americans are aware of Fast and Furious despite the minuscule attention paid to this Watergate type of event by the MSM. The sheer number of disenfranchised groups have alerted the rest of us that we are not getting the full truth in the MSM. Most Americans have had some exposure to the alternative media and as a result, we are seeing a lot of Americans in flux in terms of what they now believe about their government.

The MSM Is Now the Dinosaur Media

According to a recently released Pew Research study, the number of prime time viewers for CNN, Fox and MSNBC  fell by a combined fell by11% last year. Eleven percent may not sound overwhelming, so allow me to rephrase this in another light. In 2013, over one in ten Americans have stopped watching the corporate controlled media propaganda which serves to anesthetize and  lobotomize it viewers, listeners and readers from the realities of what is really taking place in this country. Here is the breakdown of the decline of the corporate controlled media empire:

Fox News has lost 6% of its prime time audience and this is the good news for the MSM.

CNN is down by 13%

MSNBC is down by a whopping 24%

Newspaper ad revenues are down by a third and major magazines are selling 20% less ad space in today’s advertising wars.

Sorry George Noory, Coast to Coast AM ratings are also in the toilet. Since Noory fired the more popular John B. Wells, earlier this year, Noory’s audience has caught on to the fact that the show and host fit into the corporate controlled category and they do not represent any semblance of true investigative journalism as we formerly saw with Art Bell and presently see with John B. Wells.

A recent Gallup survey found that an amazing 77% of Americans distrust mainstream media television and are turning to other sources for news and information. According to the Gallup Poll, only HMO’s, the banks and Congress have lower public trust ratings than the media. And would you care to guess who owns the banks, HMO’s and Congress? It is the same people who own the media. This fact tells me that an increasing number of Americans, whether they realize it or not, are rejecting the New World Order. It’s that most Americans don’t know how to label their arch enemies. We in the truthful media are teaching them and we are having an effect. These are the potential foot soldiers of tomorrow’s resistance.

The Ten Percent Factor

ten percent factorScientists from the prestigious Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have determined that if just 10% of any given population holds to an unshakable idea, that the idea will become adopted by the majority of the country. However, the scientists who belong to the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) found that if the ideas are shared by less than 10% of the population, the idea will not progress and will eventually die out. The research was first published in a peer reviewed E Journal in an article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities.”

Computational and analytical methods were used to discover the tipping point where an obscure idea eventually becomes the majority opinion. The finding has dramatic implications for those of us trying to wake up the sheep in this country.

The SNARC scientists found that the 10% figure was applicable whether they were talking about the spread of innovations or to advance a political ideal. There is evidence that nearly 10% of the sheep have been awakened and this is why the globalists are introducing us to our newest friend, Ebola.  The release of Ebola is an act of desperation by the globalists. To use an athletic analogy, the wakening masses are forcing the elite to keep their starters in the game a lot longer than they want to.

The Evidence Is In

The evidence about Ebola is in and it is official, we are being lied to.  From mid-September to earlier this week, I wrote over a dozen articles, with documentation from government sources and peer reviewed scientific journals which exposed the lies of the CDC on behalf of the Obama administration regarding the threat being posed by Ebola and the subsequent vaccines. In these articles  I exposed the following:

The new strain of Ebola is weaponized, otherwise the CDC could not own the patent on all Ebola and up to 70% of the variance of the virus. The CDC does not realize royalties unless the virus is treated within the U.S. Therefore, there must be more Ebola in order to fulfill the profit motive. 

There has been a vaccine in existence, from Crucell but now owned by the National Institute of Health. This vaccine has been in existence for over 10 years.  Then why is GSK developing a hastily prepared NEW vaccine? This fact does actually inspire trust now does it?

Bill Gates has put in over $650 million dollars of his own money in the development of the “new vaccines”. 

The CDC lied about the ability of Ebola to be transmitted through airborne means. This  single factor is the strongest evidence of a conspiracy being perpetrated against the American people because 100% of the evidence comes from peer reviewed scientific journals.  

Conclusion

If you are one of the sheep that is too lazy to spend about an hour reviewing these articles which are specified within previously mentioned date ranges, don’t worry, come back here tomorrow and I will build upon this last section. Further, tomorrow’s article is going to expose the very nature and mechanisms of the PSYOPS being utilized to keep most Americans in the dark about the dangers our country faces. Further, the reader will be presented with some strategies which could be applied to personal survival.

The Common Sense Show

Global Warming Debate Over: We’re Doomed

LewRockwell.com
by RYAN MCMAKEN

temperature
Image Credits: Jackie, Flickr

According to Guy McPherson, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources, Ecology, etc., at the University of Arizona, (presumably man-made) climate change is “irreversible” and, basically, we’re all doomed.

As I’ve noted before, anyone who actually values human liberty and progress shouldwelcome declarations of the “irreversible” nature of global warming. After all, if there’s nothing we can do to stop it, then we can just get on with our lives and leave humanity to dealing with environmental problems as they come, which is what homo sapiens have been doing for millennia.

So, McPherson’s pronouncement that it’s irreversible is a real load off. We can stop having the debate about whether or not to crush human economic progress with global regulatory efforts to massively reduce everyone’s standard of living via carbon emission controls (except for the super-wealthy and politically-well connected, of course).

But not so fast.  McPherson has come up with a novel twist on this one. Even though humanity is totally doomed, that doesn’t mean we can now just drop the issue and get back to increasing our standards of living as fast as possible in our last remaining years. Nope, we apparently have a responsibility to destroy ourselves to that other animals can have the planet instead. The method of suicide? We must “terminate industrial civilization.”

Since McPherson considers himself qualified to speak on these matters, I’m going to assume that he is in fact aware that terminating industrial civilization would result in the near-immediate starvation of a large portion of the human race. This no doubt fits into his plan to destroy humanity for the sake of amoebas and elk, but he then implies that he doesn’t understand what the end of industrial civilization means when he declares that, being doomed, our only choice is is to “enjoy and create moments of joy while we are here.”

So which is it? Should we terminate industrial civilization or “create moments of joy,” because those  two propositions are mutually exclusive for the vast majority of humans.

Perhaps McPherson is one of those people who is under the mistaken impression that prior to industrialization, life on earth was some sort of bucolic joy-filled wonderland. Such risible nostalgia for a past that never existed seems to infect many environmentalists. The reality of the good ol’ days of the pre-industrial world, of course, is one of scratching a subsistence out of the ground from dawn until dusk while hoping one isn’t struck down by some plague.

For most people, joy comes from having some free time in relative comfort, and access to modern medical amenities when one falls ill. Without industrial civilization, there’s no modern medicine, little comfort, and certainly no free time to speak of. Where we’re supposed to attain this “joy” is a mystery in McPherson’s vision.

LewRockwell.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,067 other followers

%d bloggers like this: