What’s the worst policy idea that would cause the most damage to society?

I’m tempted to say the value-added tax since our hopes of restraining the federal government will be greatly undermined if we give the buffoons in Washington a new source of revenue. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why Mitt Romney may be an ever greater long-term threat to American exceptionalism than Barack Obama.

But even though the VAT is fiscal poison, it’s not the most dangerous policy proposal.

At the top of my list is global taxation.

I wrote in 2010 about some of the awful global tax schemes being pushed by the United Nations. And I also noted that unrepentant statists such as George Soros are pimping for global taxation.

I even wrote a paper back in 2001 to explain why global taxes are such a bad idea.

The details of the tax don’t matter. It’s the principle.

(more…)

The Barack Obama Administration has, since its inception, been moving the United States dramatically leftward, trying to (at the very least) make us a western European socialist entity. Ideologically, a full-on participant in – rather than a rational outlier of – the patently absurd United Nations (UN).

Perhaps the greatest – and worst – example of President Obama’s UN-ing of America was his Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s December 2010 illegal Network Neutrality Internet power grab.

The Administration going to these unlawful lengths to commandeer control of the ‘Net makes it a little more difficult to persuade international autocrats and dictators to leave alone their portions of the World Wide Web.

Or ours.

Which brings us to the United Nations. (more…)

Chillin' at the ice hotel

As serious scientists pull back from the alarmist predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and from the extreme policy pronouncements of left-wing lobby groups, the complex reality of climate is starting to emerge.

AFP reports today, “Global warming rate less than feared: study”:

High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have less of an impact on the rate of global warming than feared, a study said Thursday.

The authors of the study funded by the US National Science Foundation stressed that global warming is real, and that increases in atmospheric CO2, which has doubled from pre-industrial standards, will have multiple serious impacts.

But the more severe estimates, such as those put forth by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are unlikely, the researchers found in their study published in the journal Science…. (more…)

The headline in today’s ClimateWire (subscription required) blares “U.N. says turning lights on for world’s poor need not boost CO2.” That is, we can provide electricity to 1.5 billion people who have never flipped a light switch and not see an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide (until the global warming fad/excuse for doing things statists like to do, this was called plant food, the driver of photosynthesis).

CO2 is released not just by oceans when they warm (absorbed when they cool) or decaying plants, or people exhaling, but combusting “fossil fuels” like the coal, gas, and, in some places, oil used to create electricity. CO2 emissions generally correlate with economic prosperity–more on that, momentarily.

But there is even less to this absurdity than meets the eye. Here’s how the ClimateWire story opens: (more…)

The past week was very interesting in Presidential politics.  The darlings of the rank and file Republican Party, New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, have concluded it is not time to run for President. Herman Cain (who was recently labeled a racist by a Democrat strategist on CNN) has become the sweetheart of the white-supremacist, right-wing Tea Party.

The popular press is lauding liberal Democrats for having finally found their own voice in the Occupy Wall Street protests. And Missouri’s Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, did not even show up for President Obama’s (who polls below 30% in MO) fundraiser in St. Louis. And a rumor is circulating that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has told Obama he cannot win passage of the jobs bill as proposed and will only take it in pieces to the Senate floor, thus distancing himself from the President.

Does anyone need to know anything else about the 2012 elections?

The problem for decades in Washington has been that lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, have spent their way to political success. Now that there is no more money, nobody knows what to do.  In fact, there is only one Congressman, Darrell Issa (R-CA) who has started (not inherited) a successful company that sold a product and wasn’t just in the service industry, law, accounting, insurance, medicine, banking, you get the idea.  The genesis of American capitalism is an agrarian society taking the risks necessary to make something from nothing and selling it.  He is likely the only one that has made the sacrifices necessary to build something from nothing, and make a profit.  The concept is that without actual profit you can’t spend money.  Everyone else, Democrat and Republican more resembles the Occupy Wall Street group who want to tell everyone where money should be spent, decisions based on personal interests and taxes, not capitalism.  The situation is exacerbated by the contempt and lack of cooperation between the congressional parties, as well as between members of Congress of both parties and the executive.

For some time, the question of when that animosity began has gone unanswered. Certainly there have always been hard-fought ideological battles in the halls of government. But there have also been famous relationships between party leaders, relationships that helped bring these leaders and the country together. When did our modern politics deteriorate so much? Recently a longtime friend and Washington insider suggested that it began with the defeat of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, the highly respected and superbly qualified candidate, for the Supreme Court. (more…)

The globalists at the United Nations are busy preparing their agenda for the Rio + 20 Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which will be held on June 4 – 6, 2012.  They have prepared a draft entitled “Enabling a Flourishing Earth: Challenges for the Green Economy, Opportunities for Global Governance”.  It is truly amazing that this is not being devised in Dr. Evil’s hidden lair in the depths of some inactive volcano or on a deserted island.  This has been made available for everyone to read.  It reveals the true intent; the hopes, dreams and aspirations for this new world order that they have been working on for twenty plus years.  The entire document can be viewed here.

In the document they make reference to the Earth Charter, which is purported to be “an ethical framework for a more just, sustainable and peaceful world”.

They understand that their “green” initiative has not progressed as quickly as they had hoped it would.  Cap and trade schemes that involve redistribution of wealth from developed countries to developing countries based on a market price on carbon dioxide emissions have not generated sufficient revenue.  A new or additional economic or market solution should be implemented, because humankind has transgressed against nature.  Humans have been treating nature as a commodity.  The “loss of biodiversity,  desertification, climate change and the disruption of a number of natural cycles are among the costs of our disregard for nature and the integrity of its ecosystems and life-supporting processes.  As recent scientific work suggests, a number of planetary boundaries are being transgressed and others risk being so in a business-as-usual world”,  according to the U.N. Secretary General’s report to the U.N. on Harmony with Nature.

Their proposal is to create a new world organization, naming it  the World Environmental Organisation (WEO) which will have a global legitimacy and mandate to have jurisdiction over what are considered the “common goods”, defined as “fresh water, healthy soil and clean air, but also the oceans, the atmosphere and diversity of life” since it would be difficult to implement or trade on these “common goods” that are not privately owned or traded on markets.

This document states “Our proposed WEO should be mandated with a trusteeship function over global public goals and common goods”.  Much like a legal guardian is appointed in the case of a person who is unable to represent him/ herself, such as an infant, insane or senile person, they are proposing such a legal guardian to represent and give “legal voice for the otherwise voiceless environment”.

(more…)

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held on August 2 – 6, 2010 in Bonn, Germany.  It was the third round of U. N. climate change negotiations with representatives from 178 governments present.  The meeting was designed to set the agenda for what they hoped to accomplish at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico in November and December of last year.

The information in their press release conveyed the urgency of the U. N. to get this moving forward with solid agreements reached by the November/December conference. The text in this press release is so extremely important for all of us to understand that paragraphs have been copied verbatim.

“Governments have a responsibility this year to take the next essential step in the battle against climate change, said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres.  How governments achieve the next essential step is up to them.  But it’s politically possible.  In Cancun, the job of governments is to turn the politically possible into the politically irreversible, she said.” (Bolded by Writer)

“Christiana Figueres pointed to the opportunity to capture the promises, pledges and progress that governments have already made, in accountable and binding ways.  According to Ms. Figueres, governments now need to resolve what to do with their public pledges to cut emissions.  All industrialized countries have made public pledges to cut emissions by 2020 and 38 developing countries have submitted plans to limit their emissions growth.”

“This needs to be captured in internationally agreed form, the U.N.’s top climate change official said.  More stringent actions to reduce emissions cannot be much longer postponed and industrial nations must lead, she added.”

“Ms. Figueres pointed out that governments agree to a comprehensive set of ways and means to allow developing countries to take concrete climate action.”

“This includes adapting to climate change, limiting emissions growth; providing adequate finance; boosting the use of clean technology; promoting sustainable forestry; and building up the skills and capacity to do all this.”

A brief history of the UNFCCC – With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC Parties.  Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments.  The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.”

(more…)

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held on June 14, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  At this conference, referred to as the Rio Earth Summit, the participants crafted a blueprint for the world, commonly known as Agenda 21.

In its preamble, Agenda 21, Chapter 1 states “Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.  However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.”

In other words, the goal of the United Nations is social and economic justice through a redistribution of wealth scheme using the threat of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming or climate change to implement the market based solution of carbon emissions trading. The International Monetary Fund has proposed a plan for a Green Fund to achieve this goal.

Following this Earth Summit President George H. W. Bush declared:

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced –a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

–signed by G.H. Bush, 1992

Despite pressure from the United Nations partners, U.S. delegates did not sign on to the convention.

(more…)

The International Baccalaureate Programme was founded in 1968 in Geneva, Switzerland, by Alec Peterson.  According to the IBO.org website Alec Peterson “was born in Edinburgh in 1908 and entered the teaching profession in 1932.  During the Second World War Peterson was deputy-director of psychological warfare (writer’s italics) for South-East Asia Command, serving on Lord Mountbatten’s staff; and from 1952–54 he was director general of information services during the Malaysian emergency.  This military background was to provide him with contacts at the highest levels—contacts that greatly assisted the acceptance of the IB by ministries of education and governments.”  Its mission is to create a better world through education.  In 2010 it implemented a five year strategy to establish its leadership in international education.

Although IB began as a secondary level education program, they now have three programs:  the Primary Years Programme (PYP) beginning with children aged 3 to 12; the Middle Years Programme (MYP) for children from 11 to 16 years old; and the Diploma Programme (DP) for students from 16 through 19 years old.

The IB has been recognized as a non-government organization (NGO) of UNESCO since 1970 and currently has the status of “formal consultative relations as a network” with UNESCO.  Representatives from IB participate regularly in UNESCO meetings and comment on UNESCO proposals in education in their Education for All initiative.  Although the IB programme initially began in private schools, today over half of all IB World Schools are state schools.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established on November 16, 1945.  The goal of this organization is to work “to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values.  It is through this dialogue that the world can achieve global visions of sustainable development encompassing observance of human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty, all of which are at the heart of UNESCO’s mission and activities.”

(more…)

How did he get out again? He should have been sitting in a padded room wearing  one of those nice trench coats with the long sleeves that tie into a knot around the back. But somehow the  slug from the Nation of Islam, one of the biggest purveyors of hateful venom in the world Louis Farrakhan, must have escaped again.

The Muslim leader who was recently quoted as saying America will be bathed in blood, and told Al-Jazeera that 9/11 was planned by the US because “America was looking for a New Pearl Harbor.”

On June 15th Farrakhan  joined such “luminaries” as Ramsey Clark and the always-crazy former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a press conference near the UN to speak out against the US action in Libya.  No, Farrakhan is not suddenly  concerned with the constitution and/or the war powers act, his concern was that no one knows Moammar Gadhafi like he does and the Libyan tyrant is a real nice guy (he didn’t mention it but I bet Gadhafi calls him mom every day).

Farrakhan gave a speech that lasted more than an hour, praising Libya and bashing the West.

(more…)

The Congress shall have Power….  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions… Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution.

Earlier this week Speaker Boehner sent a letter to the President warning Obama that he will clearly will be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act as of this weekend as the POTUS did not seek congressional consent for the operation within 60 days of the March 19 U.S. air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

“Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Boehner wrote. “The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination you have made.”

Yesterday the President gave his response. He sent a 30+ page report (embedded below) justifying continued military involvement U.S. military involvement is “legitimated” by the UN Security Council – saying that therefore no congressional authorization is needed.

(more…)

The Washington Post had a story on Sunday titled, in its print edition, “Obama’s return to Europe in a changed world”. It chronicled how “the dominant themes of the president’s European tour, set to begin Monday, highlight how much the world has changed over that time. As he enters the second half of his term, security issues, in South Asia and the broader Middle East, have replaced the economy as the chief shared interests of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful allies.”

Er…what? The absence of a certain ‘greatest threat facing mankind’ is a bit of a red-flag for someone who has chronicled the establishment press having thrown in completely with (selective) political hysteria over the climate issue, and the havoc that ’skeptics’ of the computer model projections and the policies have allegedly caused. And, incidentally, with no interest in the havoc the actual models have caused here in the real world through policies premised in them.

I scanned the full-page article for mention of Obama’s swift reversal of Bush’s alleged recklessness or, barring that, of the now surely worsened climate crisis and the stalled Kyoto process, that Obama didn’t, in fact, rush to ’sign the Kyoto Protocol’ as Bush supposedly neglected per the media for eight years (Clinton signed it; Bush never unsigned it), comfortable I would find no such cheerleading, or keening.

That is of course because of the uncomfortable truth that political realities led Obama to continue the Bush policy of continuing the Clinton-Gore policy of not seeking ratification of Kyoto. And, further, he continued the Bush rejection of the Kyoto model, agreed to by Clinton-Gore to the great foreign policy and otherwise political detriment to the U.S. in ensuing years.

And, on cue, a story in a trade press outlet yesterday writes:

(more…)

President Obama bypassed Congressional approval when, on July 19, 2010, he signed Executive Order 13547 – Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes .

On June 12, 2009 he established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and charged them with “developing recommendations to enhance our ability to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of present and future generations.” This task force was comprised of 24 senior-level officials from executive departments, agencies, and offices across the Federal government and was led by the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

The task force finalized its report to the President on July 19, 2010. Executive Order 13547 adopted the recommendations of the task force and directed executive agencies to form the National Ocean Council, which will be comprised of the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (Nancy Sutley) and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Dr. John P. Holdren), as co-chairs of this Council. The Council also includes the Secretaries of State, Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Administrator of the EPA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (Administrator of NOAA), the Administrator of NASA, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Advisor and the Assistants to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Domestic Policy, Energy and Climate Change, and Economic Policy; and basically anyone else the Co-Chairs of the Council may choose to designate.

In an article by Henry Lamb posted on World News Daily on July 31, 2010 entitled Obama’s Latest Assault on Liberty he states “President Obama’s Executive Order 13547, issued July 19, further extends federal power, embraces global governance, diminishes the rights and privileges of individuals and brings the United States into compliance with Agenda 21, Chapter 17.6, which says:

Each coastal State should consider establishing, or where necessary strengthening, appropriate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy planning body) for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas. …”

This executive order also intends to pursue the United States’ accession to the Law of the Sea Convention, or Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

(more…)

When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The reason the American Founders reserved the question of war to Congress was that they wanted to assure that so momentous a decision could not be made by a single individual. They had watched European kings plunge their nations into bloody and debilitating wars and wanted to avoid that fate for the American Republic.

The most fatal and consequential decision a nation can make is to go to war, and the American Founders wanted that decision made by all the representatives of the people after careful deliberation. Only when Congress has made that fateful decision does it fall to the President as Commander in Chief to command our armed forces in that war.

The authors of the Constitution were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton drew a sharp distinction between the American President’s authority as Commander in Chief, which he said “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces” and that of the British king who could actually declare war.

To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject – and they said quite a lot.

(more…)

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan announced to the American people that the United States had begun bombing Libya. In his statement, President Reagan referred to Libyan dictator, Muammar al-Qaddafi, as a “monstrous murderer.” Here, he described Qaddafi’s heinous crimes against the Libyan people, Americans, and citizens of other countries.

Qaddafi has continued his reign of terror throughout the past 25 years, yet, as of March 1st- just a few weeks ago- the United Nations’ Human Rights Council was set to adopt a report which praised Libya for its human rights record. UN Watch, a nongovernmental organization based in Geneva, documented the path of the report, and ultimately urged the Council to reject it. The organization exposed the words of praise for Libya, in the report, from countries such as North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, among others. However, in his review of the report for the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto sarcastically recommended that the council “ignore UN Watch’s advice and approve the report praising Libya. For it tells us a lot about the U.N. Human Rights Council.”

Indeed, UN Watch Director, Hillel Neuer, observed that while the Human Rights Council was praising Libya, the U.N. Security Council was simultaneously approving a tough set of sanctions against the Libyan regime.

As the various councils of the United Nations operate at cross-purposes, so, too, does the current United States President, who holds the organization at the highest level of esteem. So much so, in fact, that President Obama has involved the nation in a third Mid-Eastern war, with no clear mission and no exit strategy. Yet, these serious deficits seem lost on the American president who would prefer to have the permission of the U.N. over that of the United States Congress to utilize the nation’s human and financial resources in an act of war.

(more…)

From The Telegraph:

MPs of all political colours paid tribute to David Cameron’s role in securing the United Nations resolution on Libya.

They talked glowingly of Mr Cameron’s “breathtaking courage,” and his “superb leadership.” Even those who admitted they had doubted the Prime Minister were forced to admit he had brought off a “remarkable diplomatic success”.

In the eyes of some, Mr Cameron has come a long way in fewer than three weeks – from naïve novice to bold statesman. The Prime Minister took a few days to consider his options on his return from a trip to the Middle East late last month, but soon backed President Nicolas Sarkozy’s early call for a no-fly zone in Libya. He probably wished he had not as the call was waved away by serious international politicians.

Mr Cameron was mocked for speaking out with no less a figure than Robert Gates, the United States defence secretary, condemning the “loose talk”.

But as he travels to Paris this morning for a meeting of the European Union and Arab League, the Prime Minister has a right to feel vindicated. In No 10 there is barely-concealed delight at how the cards fell his way in spectacular fashion.

(more…)

In North Carolina, collective bargaining in the public sector has been banned by the state for over 50 years.  A statute implemented in 1959 declared collective bargaining by state and local government employees “to be against the public policy of the State, illegal, unlawful, void and of no effect.”

To unionists, it seemed like a drastic and unfair law, but for years it has protected the individual’s right to choose whether or not to join a union and the right to work without being forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment.  In addition, it has protected the interests of the taxpayers of the state of North Carolina.

But a 2007 decision issued by a United Nations agency against the North Carolina law is back in the spotlight today, as labor unions are gearing up to use the argument in a mass campaign to repeal all currently existing Right to Work laws in response to Wisconsin’s collective bargaining outcome.

In an Emergency Labor Meeting that occurred last week in Cleveland, Ohio, nearly 100 labor leaders and activists met to construct an emergency action plan and strategy for the future to deal with what they say is an “assault on the unions.”  The meeting produced plans to hold a National Day of Action on March 12^th and again on April 4^th, as well as a “Perspectives” document that will serve as a framework for 15 key objectives.

Within the framework document are two specific objectives that are of special concern to supporters of the worker freedom movement and Right to Work laws. Labor unions and solidarity federations in the US and across the globe intend to use the UN-based International Labor Organization (ILO) decision to put pressure on US government officials and the public to repeal the Right to Work laws that exist in 22 states.

(more…)

On March 23, 2011, the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers’ union, will partner with Rock the Vote, a self-professed “nonpartisan” organization, for the first annual Democracy Day. This event is advertised as a celebration of the 40th anniversary of passage of the 26th Amendment, which gave 18 year-olds the right to vote. The NEA claims that this amendment was passed because of a joint effort by teachers and students, and so will mark this occasion by providing high school teachers with a lesson plan and a free video that will hope to “empower students to navigate the election system, register to vote, and use their rights in our democracy.”

The fact that the liberal teachers’ union organization, which has access to millions of American adolescents, will hope to bolster Democratic voter turnout for the 2012 presidential election by couching their political agenda in a “civics lesson” is, at the very least, unethical, and consistent with the incestuous nature of public sector unions. The fact that it is partnering with Rock the Vote, which produced a video, in support of President Obama’s Healthcare bill, that urged young people to abstain from sex (aka, the “f” word) with anyone who did not support Obamacare, makes their pitch laughable. Yes, NEA is even touting that this Democracy Day lesson will meet the national educational standards.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute to discuss problems facing the Global Fund. Then Pejman Yousefzadeh talks about the continuing unrest in Egypt.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Sweden, Germany Suspend Grants to Global Fund
Global Fund Corruption, Continued
Corruption at the Global Fund
New Test Finds More Fake Medicines
With Friends Like This, Egypt Doesn’t Need Enemies
The Pharaoh Comes Closer to Falling
Pej: And Now, Yemen and Jordan
(more…)

Just forget about that whole global warming scare that was still in vogue up until just over a year ago before the “climategate” scandal erupted, to say nothing of updated research that interlinks natural forces with warming and cooling trends as opposed to human activity. In fact, over 1,000 scientists from the across the globe have gone on record to question earlier claims advanced through the United Nations that have been used to justify “cap and trade” schemes modeled after the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

Small wonder then that opinion polls now show that alarmist climate projections evoke greater cynicism. However, the regulatory agenda that aims to extend government control over the private sector remains very much in motion, even as the rationale has changed.

This pivot away from global warming alarmism as a sales pitch can be traced back to President Obama’s first State of the Union Address.

“I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy,” he said.  “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.”

Get that?

(more…)