Obama increasing jizya to Jordan and other Muslim countries

 

Because we all know that Islamic countries have no sources of income of their own. If Jordan is really in economic trouble, it certainly can't look to, say, Saudi Arabia for help. After all, everyone knows how poor the Saudis are. And it is, of course, the Infidel's place to pay tribute -- to "pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29). Obama seems all too willing to oblige.

"Obama Increasing Aid to Jordan, Other Muslim States," by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz for Israel National News, June 20 (thanks to LGF2):

(IsraelNN.com) In the latest in a recent series of increased American assistance efforts for Arab and Muslim states, U.S. President Barack Obama has allocated an additional $150 million to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The regimes leading Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates and even Saudi Arabia have all benefited from recent American policy shifts....

On another front, in March of this year, it was reported that the Obama administration planned to dramatically increase funding to the Palestinian Authority for security training, which is conducted by Jordanian police under the supervision of U.S. General Keith Dayton. The U.S. allocated $75 million for the PA police training in 2008, but reports indicated that the Obama administration was planning to pump up to $130 million into the program in 2009. In any event, the U.S. has already pledged $600 million in funds to the Palestinian Authority, with another $300 million for humanitarian aid to the Hamas regime in Gaza.

Elsewhere in the region, the U.S. is set to help the United Arab Emirates become the first Arab nation with a developed nuclear power infrastructure. President Obama gave his official support and authorization for the $41 billion project, allowing private U.S. companies to compete for construction contracts.

In Pakistan, the U.S. president proposed $2.8 billion in aid for that nation's military, alongside civilian aid of $1.5 billion a year for the next five years. The military aid is ostensibly to allow the Pakistanis to more effectively fight jihadist and al-Qaeda terrorism emanating from the Swat Valley and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border....

Yet Pakistan has played a double game with that aid for years.

 

 

Israel threatens to shoot international activists

Press TV
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The postwar humanitarian crisis in Gaza takes a turn for the worse with the Israeli Navy intercepting a relief ship headed toward the coastal strip.

A group of 21 activists sailing to Gaza said Tuesday that Israeli forces had threatened to gun down their boat unless they changed direction.

“There is a patrol boat around us and we were told that if we did not turn back they would open fire,” Reuters quoted Irish activist Derek Graham as saying.

“We are continuing our course to Gaza,” he added.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

The Free Gaza Movement activists had left the Cypriot port of Larnaca earlier on Monday to deliver three tons of medical supplies, some tool kits and copper wiring to Gaza.

The activists onboard included an Irish Nobel peace laureate and a former US congresswoman (Cynthia McKinney).

Tel Aviv has tightened a blockade on Gaza, which is home to some 1.5 million people, since the democratically elected government of Hamas took power of the strip two years ago.

Full story here.

 

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d30-ATF-ICE-partnership-against-gunowners-now-a-reality

ATF, ICE partnership against gunowners now a reality

Jim Kouri Go to Jim's Home Page  Law Enforcement Examiner

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement updated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on Tuesday that clearly establishes how the two agencies will work together on investigations of international firearms trafficking and possession of firearms by illegal aliens.

While on the surface that may sound reasonable, some civil libertarians are less than enthusiastic. They believe that such a coalition -- ATF and ICE agents -- will target law-abiding American gunowners as was done in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when in the midst of a severe catastrophe the ATF's priority was disarming Americans in New Orleans.

According to government officials, ATF and ICE routinely conduct joint investigations. MOU agreement clarifies the notification process each agency is expected to follow while investigating the international trafficking of firearms, ammunition, explosives, weapons and munitions. Both agencies are committed to working together to reduce firearms-related violence along the US border, but neither agency possesses jurisdiction inside Mexico, where the bulk of the gang-related violence is occurring.

"This partnership reflects our ongoing commitment to working together to protect the American people along our borders and throughout the country," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

"Through enhanced information sharing, we will be able to utilize the full range of the federal government's capabilities to disrupt firearms trafficking while strengthening efforts to combat organized crime," she said.

"That statement alone should sound alarm bells since it means sharing gun registration information with an agency that is supposed to protect borders and fight terrorists, but appears intent on going after American citizens who are neither illegal aliens or terrorists. What happened to confidentiality?" asks political scientist and strategist Michael Baker.

"Under the guise of protecting Americans, the federal government appears to be targeting Americans since the jurisdiction of ICE and the ATF ends at our borders," warns Baker.

"The significant challenges we face from the Mexican cartels require a coordinated and coherent response across all levels of government, both domestically and internationally," said Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden.

"We know that when we work together, we can have a substantial impact. With the signing of this agreement, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security prove our joint commitment to combating firearms trafficking," according to Ogden.[Writer's emphasis]

The critical nature of these investigations and enforcement has been highlighted in recent years with the escalated gun violence between rival drug trafficking organizations in Mexico, and DTO violence against officials from the government of Mexico, which have claimed several thousand lives in that country.

"It is essential that we do all we can to stop gun trafficking that fuels violence by criminal organizations, especially along the Southwest Border," said Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for ICE John Morton.

"This new agreement will guide the use of our collective authorities to dismantle criminal enterprises and to interdict the flow of firearms in to Mexico," said Morton [Writer's emphasis]

"ATF's strategic plan addresses violent crime and firearms trafficking across the nation," said ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson. "This MOU allows ATF and ICE to better serve America by maximizing their law enforcement efforts and expertise to keep our citizens safe and secure."

In other words, Melson is pinpointing the targets for the ICE/ATF coalition: American citizens. Many law enforcement officers believe that once again the federal government is intruding on the rights of State and local governments to police their own jurisdictions.

This ATF/DHS agreement establishes a framework for both agencies to conduct investigations and share intelligence. The MOU was signed by both agency heads at the ATF-sponsored Violent Crime and Firearms Trafficking Summit in Albuquerque, NM

ATF is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing federal firearms and explosives laws, and has the sole authority to regulate and inspect those two industries. ICE is the federal agency responsible for the enforcement of import, export and immigration laws.

"By working jointly to exercise these unique law enforcement authorities, the two agencies are well-equipped to investigate gun law violations as they pertain to international firearms trafficking" according to the MOU.

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

 

 

 

From Climate Control to Population Control: Troubling Background on the 'Evangelical Climate Initiative'

A Joint Paper of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty

Download a PDF of this paper (72Kb)

Introduction

On February 8, 2006, the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” (ECI) was launched. Citing the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other sources, the ECI was described by its organizers as a Bible-based response to global warming: “We are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity’s responsibility to address it.”¹ The 86 signers argued that “this is God’s world and any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God Himself.” Moreover, they claimed that “most of the climate change problem is human induced” and makes predictions that that “millions of people could die in this century.” Their prescription is to “pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions….”²

ECI signers include megachurch pastor Rick Warren, Christianity Today editor David Neff, and former Vice President of Governmental Affairs for National Association of EvangelicalsRobert P. Dugan. Since those who signed the ECI are respected evangelical leaders, their statement was widely reported and discussed. That discussion reached a crescendo when it was discovered that one of the largest funders of the effort was the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The Hewlett Foundation, which contributed $475,000 to the ECI, is a major contributor to the causes of abortion and population control. Like many other groups, the Hewlett Foundation explicitly connects its interest in these causes to its views on the environment.

Why would a pro-abortion foundation want to fund an evangelical effort to fight global warming? Is there a connection between these efforts? There is. And that connection should trouble all evangelicals, especially those who endorsed the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

From Global Warming to Abortion

Logically, one can care for the environment without supporting population control. But for many radical environmentalists, the route from global warming (and care for the environment generally) to population reduction seems irresistible: since people use up natural resources, release CO₂ into the atmosphere and otherwise pollute the environment, the fewer people, the less global warming and less harm to the environment.³ To help the environment, therefore, we must reduce the human population. Q.E.D.

This reasoning hovers in the background of current environmental debates. So how does the ECI statement respond to this background? It doesn’t. It simply says that “climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.”⁴ Actually, scientists still fiercely debate the causes, severity, and results of climate change while policymakers fiercely debate the relative costs and benefits of various proposed responses to climate change. But what is important here is that the ECI signers seem naively unaware that such dystopic interpretations of human activity are often tied to and derived from campaigns to reduce the human population.

This connection is not a coincidence. Population control is official doctrine for many environmental groups just as it is in certain circles of the UN. This reflects the historical views of prominent founders of the environmental movement. Consider these examples:

• “Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.”
  John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club⁵
• “Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth’s community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed.”
  Paul Taylor, author of Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics⁶
• “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”
  Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard⁷
• “[W]e have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It’s an excellent way of making the humans extinct.”
  Geophilus, spokesman for Gaia Liberation Front⁸
• “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
  John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!⁹

Of course, not all environmentalists share such beliefs, but many do believe that the health of Earth’s environment requires drastic reductions in the human population. For instance, Don Hinrichsen of the UN Population Fund and Bryant Robey, editor of The Population Report at Johns Hopkins University, have argued:

Slowing the increase in population, especially in the face of rising per capita demand for natural resources, can take pressure off the environment and buy time to improve living standards on a sustainable basis.\.\.\. If every country made a commitment to population stabilization and resource conservation, the world would be better able to meet the challenges of sustainable development.¹⁰

The authors then specify what actions they believe should be pursued to attain “population stabilization”: “Family planning programs play a key role. When family planning information and services are widely available and accessible, couples are better able to achieve their fertility desires.”¹¹

While this language may sound benign, phrases like “population stabilization,” “family planning,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” almost always include abortion-on-demand.

For instance, in 1996, several prominent UN groups¹² sponsored a symposium on “human rights,” and released the following recommendations:

• The right to freedom of movement could extend to the consideration of laws which prohibit women from traveling abroad to seek an abortion….
• The right to protection of privacy and the home could include consideration of women’s right to make their own decisions about pregnancy and abortion….
• The right to freedom of expression and to seek, receive and impart information protects the freedom of women of all ages to receive and impart information about health services, including contraception and abortion….¹³

Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation notes that the UN has long sought to:

make abortion a “demand right” protected by national and international law, with unrestricted access for teenagers, and make the non-provision of abortion a crime in all cases, even for reasons of conscience. A report on Croatia, for example, finds “the refusal, by some hospitals, to provide abortions on the basis of conscientious objection of doctors… [constitutes] an infringement of women’s reproductive rights.”¹⁴

One finds similar support for this kind of “family planning” in important environmental documents such as the Earth Charter.¹⁵ The preamble of the Earth Charter states:

The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species.\.\.\. an unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems.¹⁶

The charter euphemistically supports “ SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction,” under a section aptly entitled “ SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.”¹⁷

The fundamental error in all of this is a one-sided and unbiblical view of human nature. Humans are seen merely as consumers and polluters of the Earth. The Bible describes human beings as fallen along with the rest of creation, yes;, but it still describes us as image-bearers of God, who can exercise dominion, produce wealth, and cultivate creation. The Bible claims that the Earth was shaped by a benevolent Creator to be the habitat that sustains and enriches human life even as humans sustain and enrich the Earth through our creativity and industry. Thus the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship affirms:

Men and women were created in the image of God, given a privileged place among creatures, and commanded to exercise stewardship over the earth. Human persons are moral agents for whom freedom is an essential condition of responsible action. Sound environmental stewardship must attend both to the demands of human well being and to a divine call for human beings to exercise caring dominion over the earth. It affirms that human well being and the integrity of creation are not only compatible but also dynamically interdependent realities.¹⁸

As part of our stewardship, God has blessed us and commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, and to fill the Earth (Gen. 1:28). Obviously there would be some Earthly limit to human population, since the Earth has a finite surface area. But there is little reason to think we will reach that limit, still less that we have already exceeded it.¹⁹ Indeed, a worldwide study conducted by Conservation International found wilderness areas currently cover 46 percent of the earth’s land surface, and intact wilderness sites on the planet occupy a land area equivalent to the six largest countries on Earth combined; or more than seven times the size of the U.S.²⁰

Claims to the contrary are little more than misanthropic myths.²¹ Unfortunately, many organizations conform their environmental views to just these myths. One such organization is the Hewlett Foundation, the main funder of the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

The Role of the Hewlett Foundation

The Hewlett Foundation funds both environmental and population control groups not by coincidence, but because it thinks that an increase in human population must degrade the environment. The Hewlett Foundation website states, for example, that “as populations have grown in size and affluence, so too has the negative impact on the environment caused by their greater fossil-fuel use.”²² The foundation’s population project is focused on “helping women and families choose the number and spacing of children, protecting against sexually transmitted infections, and eliminating unsafe abortion.”²³ Such language is a thinly veiled defense of abortion-on-demand, which the Hewlett Foundation supports generously.

The foundation aggressively seeks out groups that share its point of view. In the first two months of 2006, the Hewlett Foundation granted $13.7 million towards population control efforts. ²⁴ All but a few million of that went to organizations supporting women’s “reproductive rights”—programs that almost always include the right of abortion. During the same period, the Foundation awarded $12.1 million for its environmental program, of which $8 million went to global warming and energy efforts. And $475,000 of this money went to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), which funneled the grant to the ECI.²⁵

The NRPE bills itself as “an association of independent faith groups across a broad spectrum.” But in fact, it has consistently advocated radical environmental policies, from the misanthropy of James Lovelock to the atheism of Carl Sagan to various and sundry versions of New Age pantheism.²⁶

Of course, evangelicals can make strategic alliances with diverse groups on issues of common concern.²⁷ The problem with the ECI is not that it has alliances and connections that go beyond the evangelical community,²⁸ but that it is supported by and as a result inadvertently gives cover to population control and pro-abortion causes that evangelicals have historically opposed.

Evangelicals and Population Control

The landscape is starting to change, unfortunately, since some evangelicals now link care for the environment to population control. For example, the foundational document of the Evangelical Environmental Network, a member organization of the NRPE, states that environmental “degradations are signs that we are pressing against the finite limits God has set for creation. With continued population growth, these degradations will become more severe.” Similarly, their “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation” calls for the “thoughtful procreation of children.”²⁹

While there is nothing necessarily wrong with the “thoughtful procreation of children,” the notion of some fixed “carrying capacity” of the entire Earth is highly speculative, since large portions of the Earth’s surface are currently uninhabited, most inhabitants are not using the best technologies available, and there’s no reason to assume that technological innovations have suddenly come to a halt. The problem is not population. It’s how to create just, peaceful, educated societies in which people can use and develop technologies to meet their needs.³⁰

Yet in a May 2006 speech to the World Bank, Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, reportedly told the audience, “I’d like to take on the population issue, but in my community global warming is the third rail issue. I’ve touched the third rail\.\.\. but still have a job. And I’ll still have a job after my talk here today. But population is a much more dangerous issue to touch.\.\. We need to confront population control and we can—we’re not Roman Catholics after all—but it’s too hot to handle now.”³¹

Indeed. We doubt that this represents the opinion of most evangelicals, or of most signers of the Evangelical Climate Initiative. But any evangelical response to environmental issues should resist this fashionable but fundamentally anti-Christian ideology, not wait until a later date to address it.

Many environmentalists make a strong connection between climate change and population control. Some of the evangelicals calling for drastic measures to fight climate change, such as Richard Cizik and the Evangelical Environmental Network, are aware of the connection. But they evidently chose to leave it below the surface in the ECI statement.

Rather than dodging the issue, however, they need to confront it directly. If they are distinctly Christian and evangelical, they will have to state a position that puts them at odds with many of their environmentalist allies and their patrons at the Hewlett Foundation. If those allies choose to stick with them on this one issue, knowing their deeper philosophical differences, then all parties have shown integrity. But there’s no integrity in silence.

Conclusions

For Christians, stewardship of God’s creation is non-negotiable. Environmental issues deserve a well-informed and thoroughly Christian response that avoids the dangerous pitfalls of modern environmentalist ideology. Efforts are clearly underway to obtain endorsements from prominent evangelical leaders for a public relations agenda that, just under the surface, connects “creation care” to population control and abortion on demand.³² Such efforts, if successful, would give anti-Christian ideologies unmerited moral and theological cover that they now lack.

Unfortunately, it appears that those associated with the Evangelical Climate Initiative are unwittingly doing just that. As a result we fear that these Evangelical leaders who in good faith associated themselves with the ECI are being exploited by organizations that not only deny their biblically-based value system, but hold such beliefs in contempt.

Citations

---

[1] “Evangelical Climate Change Initiative,” www.christiansandclimate.org/statement.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The basic argument goes like this:

1. An increase in carbon dioxide in the air is causing catastrophic climate change.
2. That increase is the direct result of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.
3. The more people alive on Earth who drive automobiles and use electricity, the more CO₂ emissions are produced, the greater climate change for the worse.
4. Population control will result in fewer people driving and using electricity and will decrease CO₂ emissions, thereby reducing the effect of global warming.
5. Therefore, to protect the environment, we must reduce the human population.

[4] “Evangelical Climate Change Initiative,” www.christiansandclimate.org/statement.

[5] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “The Environmentalist Little Green Book,”
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/environment/greenbook.htm.

[6] Paul Taylor, Respect for Nature: A theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), p. 115.

[7] Access To Energy 10, no. 4 (December 1982). Quoted in U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “The Environmentalist Little Green Book,”
http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/environment/greenbook.htm.

[8] These Exit Times, no. 2 (July 1992); quoted in “Genocide threats from Green Terrorists,”
http://www.off-road.com/green/genocide.html.

[9] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Environmentalist Little Green Book (2000); quoted in James Sherk, “Responsible Creation Care I: Stewardship vs. Environmentalism,” Evangel Society (August 2, 2005),
http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/responsiblecreationcare1.html.

[10] Don Hinrichsen and Bryant Robey, “Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge,”, Population Reports 28, no. 3 (Fall 2000),
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m15edsum.shtml; quoted in Hinrichsen and Robey, “Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge,”
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html

[11] Ibid.

[12] The groups were the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. The meeting was called the “Round Table of Human Rights Treaty Bodies on Human Rights Approaches to Women’s Health, with a Focus on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights.”

[13] United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women sponsored the “Round Table of Human Rights Treaty Bodies on Human Rights Approaches to Women’s Health, with a Focus on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” (December 9-11, 1996), pages 22, 23.

[14] Patrick F. Fagan, “How U.N. Conventions On Women’s and Children’s Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder #1407 (February 5, 2001).
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/BG1407.cfm. Quoting Report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, 13th Sess., to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 53rd Sess. (1998), “Report on Croatia,” Document #A/53/38, Para. 109.

[15] The genesis of the Earth Charter came in 1987 when the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development issued a call for the creation of a new charter that would, according to its official website, “set forth fundamental principles for sustainable development.” The Earth Charter Initiative, “Frequently Asked Questions,”
http://www.earthcharter.org/innerpg.cfm?id_menu=38. The drafting of the Earth Charter was part of the unfinished business of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, but was ultimately finalized and unveiled at a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) meeting in Paris in 2000.

[16] The Earth Charter Initiative, “The Earth Charter,”
http://www.earthcharter.org/files/charter/charter.pdf.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship,
http://www.stewards.net/CornwallDeclaration.htm.

[19] There is no reason to assume that human population will grow indefinitely. See, for instance, Julian L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). In fact, in most highly industrialized countries today, populations have leveled off and some populations are even declining. Even the UN now speaks of world population peaks in the near future, not exponentially breeding humans. See, for instance, this recent UN press release:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/pop918.doc.htm.

[20] “Study’s Authors Surprised to Find Nearly Half of Earth’s Wilderness Areas Intact,” by Marc Morano, CNSNews.com, December 6, 2002,
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200212/CUL20021206b.html

[21]See Simon, ibid., Part 2. Any well-informed attempt to link population control to the environment must take account of the evidence and arguments in Simon’s book.

[22] Hewlett Foundation, “Energy,”
http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Environment/Energy/.

[23] Hewlett Foundation, “Population,”
http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Population/.

[24] One grantee, for instance, is the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club states in one of its publications that “population growth contributes to environmental degradation around the world … [and] the ecological footprint of the growing global population has far-reaching environmental consequences.” [Sierra Club, “Global Gag Rule,” Global Population and Environment,
http://www.sierraclub.org/population/global_gag_rule/.] No doubt because it connects environmental degradation to overpopulation, the Sierra Club recently received $75,000 from the Hewlett Foundation for its population plan. [Hewlett Foundation, “Grants at The William and Flora Hewlitt Foundation,”
http://www.hewlett.org/Grants/.]

[25] Ibid.

[26] National Religious Partnership for the Environment, “Partners in Stewardship,”
http://www.nrpe.org. The NRPE is a coalition of the U.S. Catholic Conference (now the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), the National Council of Churches of Christ, the Evangelical Environmental Network, and the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. It claims to represent a grassroots membership of over 100 million and bills itself as “an association of independent faith groups across a broad spectrum.” The creation of the NRPE dates to an event at Oxford University in 1988 called the “Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival.” The keynote speaker at this event was James Lovelock, a renowned environmental leader and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis. This is the belief that the Earth is a living and even divine superorganism. On this view, human beings, as Lovelock puts it, “.\.\. are not special. We’re just another species.” (Transcript of online chat with James Lovelock, The Guardian (September 29, 2000),
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/scienceandnature/story/0,6000,375194,00.html.)

It was shortly after this event that the Very Reverend James P. Morton, President of the Temple of Understanding, approached astronomer Carl Sagan, an avowed atheist, to write an appeal to religious leaders to engage them on environmental issues. This letter garnered signatures from 32 scientists and was sent to the heads of over 300 denominations sounding an urgent plea to create “an uncommon marriage between science and religion.” Several more meetings ensued between religious leaders, scientists, and even some politicians including former Vice President Al Gore and Clinton State Department’s Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Timothy Wirth.

Ultimately the NRPE was founded in 1992 through a collaboration of the United Nations Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival, and the Temple of Understanding in the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in New York City to coordinate a program of action to involve religious leaders, including Evangelicals, in the environmental issue. (See Henry Lamb, “Green Religion and Public Policy,” Eco∙Logic Special Report (October 2001); Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, “Organizations at a Glance: The National Religious Partnership for the Environment,”, Environment and Stewardship Review, p. 6; and Robert A. Sirico, “The Greening of American Faith,” National Review (August 29, 1994), p. 47.)

The Global Forum itself was co-founded only four years earlier by a joint venture between the Temple of Understanding and the UN and Paul Gorman, the NRPE’s Executive Director, was former Vice President of Public Affairs of the Cathedral of the Saint John the Divine, and Director of the Temple of Understanding’s Joint Appeal. (Ibid. Also see Henry Lamb, “Churches Duped by Green Extremists,” Enter Stage Right (April 1, 2001),
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0402/0402nrpe.htm.)

The Cathedral of St. John Divine has historically advanced what only can be described as radical environmental theology. Serving as the cathedral’s dean, James P. Morton delivered sermons on topics such as the “Earth as God’s Body” and held book parties for environmentalists such as James Lovelock, author of The Gaia Hypothesis. (Acton Institute, “Organizations at a Glance: The National Religious Partnership for the Environment,” p. 6.) The cathedral has also housed several new age groups including the Temple of Understanding. (Anonymous, “Green Theology,” Catholic Culture (n.d.).)

[27] In theory, evangelicals could work even with abortion advocates on issues other than abortion, so long as those issues did not contradict key Christian beliefs.

[28] Moreover, the problem here is not “guilt by association.” We are not implying that those who signed the ECI are pro-abortion because one of the key funders of the initiative is pro-abortion. Quite the opposite. We assume that few of the ECI signers were aware of this funding, and that most if not all of the signers are pro-life.

[29] Evangelical Environmental Network, “On the Care of Creation: An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation,”
http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php.

[30] As it happens, population growth slows in more technologically advanced societies. So even if one wanted to slow population growth, the most humane way to do that would be to seek greater economic growth for poor nations.

[31] Myron Ebell, Personal e-mail (May 2, 2006). Ebell is Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[32] In future months, we should expect to hear that “even the Evangelicals are on-board with global warming” as part of ongoing media efforts, mid-term election strategies, advocacy, and legislative proposals. The ECI will be held up as evidence and the signatories as advocates. Now that they have issued their statement, they will have a very difficult time preventing it from being used for causes they do not support.

 

 

Pelosi: ‘Remember These Four Words For What This Legislation Means: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs.’
Speaker.house.gov ^

Posted on Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:54:29 PM by Sub-Driver

Pelosi: ‘Remember These Four Words For What This Legislation Means: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs.’

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed the House floor this evening on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. She commended the work and leadership of Chairmen Henry Waxman, Ed Markey, Charles Rangel, and Collin Peterson. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 219 to 212.

On the floor, the Speaker said: “No matter how long this Congress wants to talk about it, we cannot hold back the future. And so, in order to move on with the future, I want to yield back my time, submit my statement for the record, and urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. And when you do, just remember these four words for what this legislation means: jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs. Let’s vote for jobs.”

* * *

The following are the remarks that the Speaker submitted to the Congressional Record:

“Madam Speaker, today the House has an opportunity to pass historic and transformative legislation: the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

“I would like to acknowledge the authors of the legislation:

* Chairman Waxman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce * Chairman Markey of the Select Committee on Energy Security and Climate Change

“I would also like to acknowledge:

* Chairman Collin Peterson of the Agriculture Committee for bringing the priorities of America’s farmers to this bill * And Chairman Rangel who helped ensure that this bill is fiscally responsible and fully paid for.

“And I would like to acknowledge the many staff who worked so hard on this legislation.

In his Inaugural Address, President Obama called upon us to, ‘harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.’ One week and one day later, we did just that. We passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the single largest investment in history in clean energy - with over $69 billion for new investments in clean energy.

“Shortly thereafter, we passed the omnibus spending bill, with significant investments in advanced energy research and the labs and equipment necessary to perform the next generation of advanced energy research.

“We passed the budget, which included a 10 percent increase in investment in clean energy and energy efficiency.

“This was building upon the work of the last Congress:

* The Farm Bill was the first in history to include a real investment in energy independence, with over $1 billion to leverage renewable energy industry investments in new technologies and new feedstocks. * And the historic and bipartisan energy bill signed by President Bush increased fuel efficiency standards for vehicles for the first time in 30 years and redirected this country’s energy policy toward clean, renewable energy.

“Creating a new energy policy and addressing the global climate crisis is: Energy independence is:

* a national security issue by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; * an environmental and health issue; * it is a moral issue; * and it is an economic issue for America’s families.

“There are four words that can describe this bill: jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.

“Madam Speaker, we debate this legislation as millions of Americans are struggling in this economy. This is our moment to transform our economy and create jobs.

“This is the moment when we can unleash private sector investment in clean energy to create millions of new jobs and make America the global innovation leader. It will promote clean energy technology – made in America. It will put America in the lead in the global competition.

“As we rebuild America in a green way, we will create jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. We are creating a framework in which innovation can occur and that gives business certainty that we are moving to a clean energy economy. That will unleash innovation, investment, and venture capital to drive new technologies into the market.

“America’s farmers will fuel America’s energy independence. They will do so with carbon‐offsetting crops and forests, and biofuel and wind farms to repower America.

“This historic legislation is the product of months of consensus building to achieve an effective and affordable transition to a clean energy future.

“I am so pleased that the diverse coalition supporting this bill includes everyone from:

* The Union of Concerned Scientists to the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops * From the business community to labor organizations, from ALCOA to the U.S. Steelworkers of America * From the U.S. Conference of Mayors to members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of business and non-profit groups.

“Today, we have an opportunity to lead America toward an effective and affordable transition to a clean energy future. It is a moment we cannot afford to miss. We have a responsibility to create jobs and make America more secure, protect the health of our citizens, and honor our moral responsibility to our children and our future generations.

“Vote to create jobs. Let’s put this Congress on the right side of the future. Vote yes on the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

“I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect God’s beautiful creation by supporting this legislation.”

 

Ron Paul: Democrats Who Opposed Climate Bill Voted For It Anyway

Revelation highlights how Congress members are bought and paid for by the elite in Washington

 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

In a Campaign for Liberty video commentary, Ron Paul reveals that even though up to 20 Democrats opposed the controversial climate bill, they voted for it anyway, underscoring once again how the vast majority of Congress members are bought and paid for by the elite in Washington.

The Congressman points out that the eight Republicans who voted for the bill did so in order to provide political cover for the Democrats. Even if those Republicans had not defected, some of the 44 Democrats who voted against the bill would have changed their votes anyway to ensure the bill’s passage.

“One Democrat talked to me, a friend of mine,” said Paul, “and I said how are you going to vote on this bill and he said I’m going to vote for the bill but then he sort of whispered and he said, but I sure hope it doesn’t pass.”

Asked why he was voting for a bill that he actually opposed, the Democrat responded, “yeah I have to do that.”

“I said are there any other Democrats that are going to be voting for it and they really don’t like the bill, and he said, oh yeah about 15 or 20 of them,” added Paul.

This underlines how Washington is completely corrupt at its core and how, even if individual members of Congress oppose a bill, they vote for it anyway just to satisfy the agenda of the elite and maintain the status quo.

If the 15 or 20 Democrats who opposed the bill had actually voted against it, the bill would have failed and America would not be facing another great depression, a massive lowering of living standards, and the complete regulation of every aspect of our lives, all of which the climate bill will grease the skids for.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Writing on the Campaign for Liberty website, Congressman Paul states that the climate bill will “put another nail in the economy’s coffin”.

Paul compares the carbon trading scam, a system that is owned and will benefit to the tune of billions or even trillions of dollars long time environmental hysterics like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, to how the Catholic Church sold indulgences to sinners from the 10th century onwards.

The Congressman illustrates how the Obama administration has cited Spain as an example of how a “progressive energy policy” can be successful, when in fact Spain is in economic turmoil partly as a result of this very policy.

“The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!”

“The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.”

Paul concludes by pointing out that the climate bill is based around the manufactured threat of global warming and that even if one accepts the premise that CO2 emissions cause significant temperature increases, the biggest polluters, the U.S. government and specifically the U.S. military, will be exempt from most of the new EPA regulations anyway.

http://michellemalkin.com/

 

Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

 

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m6d30-US-Food-Protection-Plan-leaves-Americans-vulnerable

US Food Protection Plan leaves Americans vulnerable

Jim Kouri Go to Jim's Home Page  Law Enforcement Examiner

Conservative US lawmakers are concerned over the nation's food safety receiving such a low priority.  The Food and Drug Administration  is responsible for ensuring the safety of roughly 80 percent of the U.S. food supply, including $417 billion worth of domestic food and $49 billion in imported food annually, yet experts say they aren't confident about food protection. 

Changing demographics and consumption patterns along with an increase in imports have presented challenges to FDA. At the same time, recent outbreaks, such as E. coli from spinach and Salmonella from tomatoes, have undermined consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply.

In November 2007, FDA released its Food Protection Plan, which articulates a framework for improving food safety oversight. In January 2008, General Accounting Office expressed concerns about FDA's capacity to implement the Food Protection Plan and noted that more specific information about the strategies and resources needed to implement the plan would facilitate congressional oversight.

"There are those who believe lawmakers should be more concerned over protecting Americans from tainted or dangerous food supplies than trying to takeover the entire health care industry," says political strategist Michael Baker.

"In a time when airline passengers are practically strip-searched at airports, food products are given scant inspection," warns Baker.

To address these issues, GAO reviewed FDA documents, such as FDA's operations plan, and FDA data related to the plan. GAO also interviewed FDA officials regarding the progress made. In addition, GAO analyzed FDA data on domestic and foreign food firm inspections. GAO also analyzed the status of past recommendations.

Since FDA's Food Protection Plan was first released in November 2007, FDA has added few details on the resources and strategies required to implement the plan. FDA plans to spend about $90 million over fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to implement several key actions, such as identifying food vulnerabilities and risk.

 

From the information GAO has obtained on the Food Protection Plan, however, it is unclear what FDA's overall resource need is for implementing the plan, which could be significant. For example, based on FDA estimates, if FDA were to inspect each of the approximately 65,500 domestic food firms regulated by FDA once, the total cost would be approximately $524 million.

In addition, timelines for implementing the various strategies in the plan are also unclear, although a senior level FDA official estimated that the overall plan will take 5 years to complete. Importantly, GAO has noted that public reporting is the means through which the federal government communicates the results of its work to the Congress and the American people.

FDA officials told GAO that they had prepared a draft report on progress made in implementing the Food Protection Plan, but as of June 4, 2008, FDA told GAO that the Department of Health and Human Services had not cleared the report for release.

"The Food Protection Plan identifies the need to focus safety inspections based on risk, which is particularly important as the numbers of food firms have increased while inspections have decreased," said one FDA official. 

For example, between 2001 and 2007, the number of domestic firms under FDA's jurisdiction increased from about 51,000 to more than 65,500, while the number of firms inspected declined slightly, from 14,721 to 14,566. Thus, conducting safety inspections based on risk has the potential to be an efficient and effective approach for FDA to target scarce resources based on relative vulnerability and risk. FDA has implemented few of GAO's past recommendations to leverage its resources and improve food safety oversight. Since 2004, GAO has made a total of 34 food safety related recommendations to FDA, and as of May 2008, FDA has implemented 7 of these recommendations.

For the remaining recommendations, FDA has not fully implemented them, however, in some cases, FDA has taken some steps.

However, the planned activities in the Food Protection Plan could help address several of the recommendations that FDA has not implemented. For example, in January 2004, GAO recommended that FDA make it a priority to establish equivalence agreements with other countries. GAO analysts claim they found that such agreements would shift some of FDA's oversight burden to foreign governments.

As of May 2008, FDA has not yet established equivalence agreements with any foreign countries. The Food Protection Plan requests that Congress allow the agency to enter into agreements with exporting countries to certify that foreign producers' shipments of designated high-risk products comply with FDA standards

 

 

 

 

 

ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics

By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
06/21/09 5:07 PM EDT

 

Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) leaders are using the threat of a law suit to silence and intimidate critics, according to current and former members of the liberal activist group.

 

 

 

 

 

Iran Update

 

 

 

 

Obama may tax health benefits

PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key leaders of Honduras military coup trained in U.S.

 

At least two leaders of the coup launched in Honduras today were apparently trained at a controversial Department of Defense school based at Fort Benning, Georgia infamous for producing graduates linked to torture, death squads and other human rights abuses.

Leftist President Manuel Zelaya was kidnapped and transported to Costa Rica this morning after a growing controversy over a vote concerning term limits. Over the last week, Zelaya clashed with and eventually dismissed General Romeo Vasquez — who is now reportedly in charge of the armed forces that abducted the Honduran president.

According to the watchdog group School of Americas Watch, Gen. Vasquez trained at the  Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at least twice — in 1976 and 1984 — when it was still called School of Americas.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

The Georgia-based U.S. military school is infamous for training over 60,000 Latin American soldiers, including infamous dictators, “death squad” leaders and others charged with torture and other human rights abuses. SOA Watch’s annual protest to shut down the Fort Benning training site draws thousands.

According to SOA Watch, the U.S. Army school has a particularly checkered record in Honduras, with over 50 graduates who have been intimately involved in human rights abuses. In 1975, SOA Graduate General Juan Melgar Castro became the military dictator of Honduras. From 1980-1982 the dictatorial Honduran regime was headed by yet another SOA graduate, Policarpo Paz Garcia, who intensified repression and murder by Battalion 3-16, one of the most feared death squads in all of Latin America (founded by Honduran SOA graduates with the help of Argentine SOA graduates).

General Vasquez isn’t the only leader in the Honduras coup linked to the U.S. training facility. As Kristin Bricker points out:

The head of the Air Force, Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, studied in the School of the Americas in 1996.  The Air Force has been a central protagonist in the Honduran crisis.  When the military refused to distribute the ballot boxes for the opinion poll, the ballot boxes were stored on an Air Force base until citizens accompanied by Zelaya rescued them.  Zelaya reports that after soldiers kidnapped him, they took him to an Air Force base, where he was put on a plane and sent to Costa Rica.

For previous Facing South coverage of controversy surrounding the School of Americas/Western Hemisphere Center, see here.

 

 

 

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - The United States has joined the international community in condemning the the coup in Honduras that ousted President José Manuel Zelaya. The Central American nation was set to hold a referendum on Sunday on changes to the Constitution that would have allowed Zelaya to continue beyond his term.

In a statement, U.S. President Barack Obama expressed concern about Zelaya's expulsion to Costa Rica by the Honduran military.

"I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference," Obama said.

Earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the coup must be condemned by all because it "violate[d] the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter" and that "Honduras must embrace the very principles of democracy we reaffirmed at the OAS meeting it hosted less than one month ago."

The Obama administration successfully worked quickly over the weekend to have the Organization of American States issue a resolution condemning the coup as an "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order" and calling for the "immediate and unconditional return" of Zelaya.

The OAS also warned, "No government arising from this unconstitutional interruption will be recognized."

But Hondura's Interim President Roberto Micheletti, who was the speaker of Congress, said in a speech that was supported by Honduran lawmakers that he had been sworn in to replace Zelaya "as the result of an absolutely legal transition process," according to the BBC.

Micheletti has also reportedly pledged to hold presidential elections scheduled for November 29.

The Honduran Congress had voted Zelaya out of office, following a ruling from the nation's Supreme Court that the referendum set for Sunday was illegal.

The new Honduran government has said Micheletti will serve until January next year, when Zelaya's four-year term expires.

The expulsion of Zelaya coincided with the detention of Honduran Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas, who was taken away by soldiers along with Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and Nicaraguan and Venezuelan ambassadors while they were meeting in Tegucigalpa.

Rodriguez has told La Demajagua that soldiers with hoods on their faces broke into Rodas' house and brought her and the ambassadors to the Tegucigalpa air base. He and the ambassadors were later released, but Rodas' whereabouts are still unknown.

The OAS has demanded in its resolution for Rodas be released immediately and her "physical safety and security be respected."

The OAS meets for a special session on Tuesday to "take whatever decisions it considers appropriate" to push Honduras to comply with the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015635118#ixzz0JpoB81GO&C

 

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/buchanan-climate-bill-is-transfer-of-wealth-to-world-government.html

Buchanan: Climate Bill Is Transfer Of Wealth To World Government

Former presidential advisor slams fearmongering that led to passage of nightmare legislation

 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 29, 2009

During an appearance on MSNBC, political commentator Pat Buchanan correctly defined the “Climate Bill” for what it really is, not just a new tax on the American people, but a complete transfer of power and wealth to a global government that is using the manufactured fear of global warming to grease the skids for total domination.

Referring to the passage of the climate bill and global warming in general, Buchanan said that the legislation was passed through the use of fear and that, “More and more scientists are coming forward to say this is a hoax and a scam which is designed to transfer wealth and power from the private sector to the government sector and from the government of the United States to a world government. Which is what we’re going to get in Copenhagen when we get this Kyoto two agreement.”

Buchanan labeled the legislation a “tax bill” that would raise the prices of utilities for every American, hammer the middle class and working class, “for a danger that we don’t even know is really there”.

The former senior advisor to three U.S. presidents accused the Obama administration of hyping the apocalyptic myth that the oceans will rise and that cities will be underwater in order to ram through the legislation.

Establishment left-wing blogs like Crooks and Liars and Media Matters are carrying the video of Buchanan’s remarks with little or no accompanying commentary, as if Buchanan’s comments alone are enough to discredit his position.

Those who act as shills for the climate change hoax may believe that anyone who dares challenge the authodoxy of the church of global warming is automatically a heretic and that no evidence whatsoever needs to even be presented to counter their sacrilege, but here in the real world we prefer to stick to the facts.

Empirical satellite data shows that mean global temperatures are the same that they were 30 years ago and that global sea ice is also at similar levels. Following a spike in global temperatures at the end of the last century that coincided with the sun undergoing its most active period in recent times, the planet has now cooled to 1979 levels. At the end of summer last year, despite hysterical predictions that the North Pole would be free of ice for the first time in history, Arctic sea ice had actually expanded by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany.

Coinciding with expanding ice sheets, there has been no rise in sea levels for the past three years. Tropical storms and extreme weather events attributed to global warming like hurricanes and typhoons are at a record low.

The United Nations’s IPCC, the heavily politicized organization that is often erroneously cited as an independent scientific body by climate change promoters, was last year caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception.

“This was startling,” reported the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures for October.

As David Deming points out in his excellent article today, temperature data collected by weather stations is being artificially impacted by measuring systems placed nearby to sources of heat. This is why claims that global temperatures are still rising are completely contradicted by real world evidence of falling temperatures and what some scientists are warning is the beginning of a new ice age.

“Why do people think the planet is warming?,” writes Deming. “One reason is that the temperature data from weather stations appear to be hopelessly contaminated by urban heat effects. A survey of the 1221 temperature stations in the US by meteorologist Anthony Watts and his colleagues is now more than 80 percent complete. The magnitude of putative global warming over the last 150 years is about 0.7 °C. But only 9 percent of meteorological stations in the US are likely to have temperature errors lower than 1 °C. More than two-thirds of temperature sensors used to estimate global warming are located near artificial heating sources such as air conditioning vents, asphalt paving, or buildings. These sources are likely to introduce artifacts greater than 2 °C into the temperature record.”

“Every year in the US, more than forty thousand people are killed in traffic accidents. But not one single person has ever been killed by global warming. The number of species that have gone extinct from global warming is exactly zero. Both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets are stable. The polar bear population is increasing. There has been no increase in infectious disease that can be attributed to climate change. We are not currently experiencing more floods, droughts, or forest fires,” he concludes.

As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.