Nowadays, everything is political and everything is tainted with politics. Nothing much that happens these days is an accident or a coincidence.
A previous post explained how many fields of scientific study are being systematically corrupted by political correctness, which infects anthropology, paleontology, psychology, sociology, archaeology, history, meteorology and of course political science, among others. The issue of man-caused climate change is among the most obvious of examples where political correctness rears its ugly head. Why is this important to recognize?
Let’s speculate a little about how politically corrupted science can further efforts to “fundamentally transform” our free Republic.
Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections:
Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and … [integrating environment and development] in decision making.
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
That summary touches upon a few of the many worrisome topics that have made Agenda 21 so controversial: sustainable development, global action, how to change consumption patterns, how to create a more sustainable population (in other words, how to reduce it), atmospheric protection and pollution control, deforestation, fragile environments, the rights of children and “indigenous” peoples, and financial mechanisms (to redistribute wealth).
An imposed global agenda is incompatible with our Constitutional Republic, which is unique among nations. We the People of the United States of America are a free people, with our freedom enshrined in our Constitution, which protects our inalienable, God-given rights. The USA has a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. We will never be part of any “global government”, unless every other nation on Earth wishes to join as States in our Union, provided that We the People of the USA agree to let them in.
The items on this UN agenda can only be implemented by mandate, force, or subterfuge, despite the specious claim that Agenda 21 is “voluntary and non-binding.” The people of the USA are unlikely to support or vote for implementation of most of Agenda 21.
A website called Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21 interprets the agenda as follows:
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. …
In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.
So conservatives are not alone in their concern about this “global” scheme.
The myth of man-caused global warming is a means to an end, with the end being the imposition of Agenda 21 on the people of the United States. This plan to impose Agenda 21 upon the free people of the USA via the global warming myth is exactly why it had to become politically incorrect for anyone to reject the proposition that humans, in particular the citizens of the USA, are to blame for climate change and owe its victims climate justice.
If some other explanation for a changing climate is allowed to gain traction (such as sunspots; or the tilt of the Earth’s axis; or movement of the magnetic poles; or the expected natural variation in climate over millennia, with wide swings sometimes evident over just a few centuries), then there is no ready excuse to redistribute (aka steal) the wealth of the USA. Without a “crime” to pin on the United States, then the “global community” can’t force U.S. citizens to pay reparations and, at the same time, cut the USA down to size.
To succeed with this agenda, any studies that refute the notion that human activity is mostly responsible for an ever-changing climate must be suppressed, ridiculed, or prevented from being published, if possible. Those who do not follow the program must be purged. Anyone who doesn’t ascribe to the politically correct mindset with regard to global warming is ridiculed as a “climate denier”. This is necessary for the scheme to work. Global warming extortionists plan to use U.S. tort law and “international law” against us when demanding compensation for wholly natural events:
“Loss and damage” entails claims by the developing world from rich countries to provide compensation for the “losses and irreversible damage, including non-economic losses” … associated with climate change. The idea is taken directly from tort law, which is probably why North America, Europe and Australia have been virulently opposed to having a separate track discuss the issue. Part of the problem is that the notion of loss and damage might also include non-monetary forms of compensation, whose character might sometimes be unclear. For instance, if small island nations like the Maldives and Kiribati were to become submerged as a result of sea level rise from climate change, the resulting disappearance of these nation states would require unusual measures of recompense, including mass migration to other countries and citizenship rights for the migrants, rather than just money.
In cases of civil negligence, in the U.S., but also elsewhere, courts have long established that where a proximate cause to a loss can be established, whether the action was intentional or not, the perpetrator will bear the liability and will have to pay for damages. This means that if enshrined in international law, the countries most responsible for historically caused losses associated with climate change will have to provide the most compensation for various identified damages that will mostly be in developing countries.
Got that? We and other Western and/or “rich” nations may owe not only money but also citizenship in our countries to these “refugees”. It’s interesting that other countries that pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in large quantities (China, e.g.) seem to be exempt from this scheme of “recompense.” Note also the race of the inhabitants, for the most part, of those countries targeted to pay climate reparations.
We already see how the media will blame nearly every natural event on global warming. Even some non-natural events are blamed, by specious extension, on global warming. Algal bloom in Lake Erie? Global warming. Sewers overflow in Chicago? Global warming. Sinkhole in Siberia? Global warming. Fewer polar bears (except there aren’t)? Global warming. Flash flood in Detroit? Global warming. Shark attacks? Global warming. More tornadoes or weaker tornadoes? Global warming. More rain? Global warming. Drought? Global warming. Earthquakes? Global warming. Tsunami? Global warming. Landslide? Global warming. Volcano? Global warming. War? Global warming. Unusually cold summer? Global warming!
I could spend all day finding more examples.
Suffice it to say that the globalists have hit upon a very clever scheme to impose their dreamed-of world-wide collective on everyone (ruled by themselves, of course):
Whatever happens blame it on global warming. If the sun shines, it’s global warming. If the sun doesn’t shine, it’s global warming. And whatever you do, brook no dissent.
Once the free nations and the wealthy nations (wealthy because they’re free) are sufficiently indicted as responsible for all misfortune, natural disasters, and adverse events, then we can “move forward” with fundamentally transforming their countries and redistributing their wealth.
The current “humanitarian crisis” on the USA’s southern border, where 57,000 “unaccompanied alien children” have flooded into the country this year alone, is just the tip of a frightening iceberg.
Too many people with a political agenda want to define these “children” as refugees. Why might that be?
Could it be that they’re setting the stage for the next influx of “refugees” into the USA? Could it also be that they’re creating a precedent for the redefinition of the term refugee, so that current international law will instantaneously apply to climate “refugees”, too?
Yes, the next wave of refugees might be climate refugees (aka environmental refugees, climate migrants, environmental migrants, climate exiles, climate-change exiles. Again with the morphing terminology, a tell-tale sign of the politicization of a topic.)
If everything adverse is caused by global warming, then anybody who wants to migrate to the USA can become a climate refugee!
Under the global climate change meme (and Agenda 21), the USA, among other nations, will be expected by the UN and the “global community” to accept all of the environmental refugees because the global warming myth blames climate change on these developed countries. To succeed, they must first redefine the term refugee.
The ability to seek asylum is an inalienable human right. In theory, any individual has the capacity to flee political, economic, social or religious persecution and endeavour to make a better life for themselves in another state. Furthermore, with the impacts of climate change set to displace millions of the world’s population, a solid and humane refugee policy needs to be at the forefront of every nation’s agenda.
However, at this stage, citizens that are displaced due to environmental factors are not considered to be true refugees under the 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Traditionally, a refugee is defined as someone who is ‘…unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’ (UNHCR, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, p. 3).
Yet, this does not include people who are displaced from their homeland due to environmental factors such as sea level rise, extreme drought and a lack of crop yields. Across the globe, millions of people are currently at risk of displacement due to changes in the climate that will leave much of the Earth’s land mass uninhabitable.
The argument goes that nations must, therefore, fix this problem with labeling: Nations need to change the definition of “refugee” to include anyone (allegedly) displaced by climate change. This proposal reiterates the argument cited above:
The Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has argued that the people who will be forced to move due to climate change currently have no adequate recognition in international law. The EJF contends that a new multilateral legal instrument is required to specifically address the needs of ‘climate refugees’ in order to confer protection to those fleeing environmental degradation and climate change. They have also asserted that additional funding is needed to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change. Sujatha Byravan and Sudhir Chella Rajan have argued for the use of the term ‘climate exiles’ and for international agreements to provide them political and legal rights, including citizenship in other countries, bearing in mind those countries’ responsibilities and capabilities.
They’re referring to the United States here, too. If you doubt that, then here’s proof:
How many should go where? Under our formula, the top cumulative emitter, the United States, would absorb 21 percent of the climate-change exiles a year; the smallest of the 20 major emitters, Venezuela, would absorb less than 1 percent. If such a program were to start in 2010, the United States, for example, would have to be prepared to accept 150,000 to a half-million immigrants a year for the next 70 years …
Got that? These guys expect the USA to accept 10.5 to 35 million new “citizens” into the country over the next 70 years. (It’s only fair!) Keep in mind that a huge proportion of these people would be coming from countries that are autocratic, communist, Marxist, impoverished, undereducated, and/or Muslim-majority countries. Another report, however, proposes a far greater number of climate refugees:
However, it is projected that between 25 Million and 700 Million people will become ‘climate refuges’ [sic] as the planet continues to experience the impacts of a warming climate.
Consider: If the USA is required to take in 21% of the expected climate exiles, accepting the worst case scenario cited above (700 million displaced), then the total number of new U.S. citizens will be 147 million. The current population of the USA is an estimated 318,651,000, so these people are proposing that the USA accept nearly a 50% increase in the U.S. population as partial payment for its crime of causing global warming!
How will such an influx of instant citizens change the demographics, culture, debt, and economy, indeed the very system of government, of our free Republic? I’m not alone in asking that question or worrying about the answer:
As President Barack Obama considers sidestepping Congress to loosen U.S. immigration policy, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Americans are deeply worried that illegal immigration is threatening the nation’s culture and economy.
Seventy percent of Americans – including 86 percent of Republicans – believe undocumented immigrants threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs, according to the poll. …
Despite arguments from the White House and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that legal immigration benefits business, 63 percent of people in the online survey also said immigrants place a burden on the economy. …
45 percent of people in the poll, carried out between July 15-22, who said the number of immigrants legally allowed to enter the country should be reduced.
Only 17 percent thought more legal immigrants should be allowed to come to the United States. …
At the same time, a new study says that what We the People want has little to no effect on policy in these United States. Small wonder that the powers that be dislike the Tea Party, especially when
“fundamental transformation” is so within their grasp!
Why else is the Obama administration building a huge refugee infrastructure that will itself become sustainable so long as it has a continuing influx of “refugees” and taxpayer money, if not to “prepare” us for climate refugees?
Kevin Dinnin is the CEO of [an alleged] faith-based, nonprofit organization called BCFS, formerly known as Baptist Child and Family Services. This obscure charity has emerged as one of the biggest players in the federal government’s response to the influx of more than 57,000 unaccompanied children who have trudged across the southern border so far this year. It runs two of the largest facilities for temporarily housing immigrant children, as well as six permanent shelters in California and Texas. Since December, BCFS has received more than $280 million in federal grants to operate these shelters, according to government records. …
BCFS is just one part of a sprawling system of shelters for unaccompanied children across the country. As the numbers of children entering the country balloon, so do the dollars required to care for them. [h/t Leza]
Why else does the Obama administration use a 2008 law intended to protect children from sex trafficking and slavery in order to admit into this country children who do not qualify for the special treatment accorded by that law? In most cases, these “children” are accompanied by a parent (coming in as families) or they are eventually released to a parent within the U.S. already (and in many cases here illegally as well). Therefore, these children do not qualify to stay under the 2008 law and should not be accorded hearings but instead should be immediately returned to their home countries, as are Mexicans and Canadians. Obama chose to misapply this law, despite the clear definition of unaccompanied minor, via a policy change. He is not following the letter or spirit of the law. Why not? To get that refugee infrastructure built? To get the organizations that will benefit fully incorporated, with mouths eager to latch onto the spigot of taxpayer money? To get the jobs filled and the unions who will represent the employees organized? To make this refugee bureaucracy a self-perpetuating system for at least the next 70 years?
Why else does the Obama administration want to create a ridiculous “pilot program” wherein U.S. government employees travel to the “donor” countries (such as Honduras) to screen “children” in situ for entry into the U.S., presumably as refugees? Setting a precedent, creating a behemoth of a refugee infrastructure, and preparing these new refugees for citizenship are the answers to that question!
If individuals are labeled as refugees in their home countries and then enter the USA as refugees, they can more easily and quickly become eligible for citizenship than can legal immigrants who enter under the usual path.
Even if the outstandingly ridiculous proposal by Sujatha Byravan and Sudhir Chella Rajan to pay off environmental refugees with immediate U.S. citizenship does not come to pass, current law with regard to refugees states:
If you were granted refugee status while in another country, and then entered the U.S. as a refugee, you can count your date of U.S. entry as the beginning of your permanent residence – assuming, of course, that you eventually succeed in becoming a permanent resident. All your years as a refugee in the U.S. will count toward the required five years of permanent residence for naturalization eligibility purposes. …
If you were granted asylum in the United States, a maximum of one year of your time in asylee status counts as permanent residence. If you waited longer than a year to apply for your green card, that extra time will not do you any good – you will still need to wait another four years after your green card approval before applying for U.S. citizenship.
So, it seems better to be a refugee than a legal immigrant or an asylee. While the parents may have to wait a long time for amnesty, at least their children may get to come in, be labeled refugees, and get a faster track to citizenship. Anchor babies and anchor refugees. Whatever works! Nudge, nudge, nudge. Incrementalism. Little by little.
These enemies of our way of life seek to redistribute our wealth to other nations. But they also seek to redistribute to our nation the poor of other countries and, by awarding them instant citizenship, to fundamentally transform us into a nation that has far fewer freedoms and that functions more like a socialistic oligarchy under global governance. In other words, they believe that they’ve found a way to destroy us from within.
Political correctness is one way that this global conspiracy to “fundamentally transform” capitalistic, free nations moves forward. Another way it moves forward is through the myth of global climate change–change that they allege was caused by those same developed, free, democratic nations. These nations must be blamed for all misfortune that happens in the underdeveloped world, and then they must be made to pay.
This is a war being waged against a few nations by the larger “community” of nations known as the UN. But the main target, make no mistake, is the USA. It’s a broad and clever conspiracy: Academia, science, politics, government, media, entertainment, law–virtually every realm of our society–has been infiltrated and corrupted.
We the People of the United States have a lot of catching up to do if we hope to stop the fundamental transformation of our free Republic.
We begin by recognizing what we’re up against.
Postscript for anthropogenic global warming true believers: A mere 20,000 years ago, the land where Chicago is now situated was covered by a sheet of ice a mile thick. A MILE-thick sheet of ice. That ice melted and was well on its way to being gone by 14,000 years ago. There were no SUVs or factories then. Who or what caused the ice to melt?