February 7, 2023

Fraud: IPCC Exposed

“As UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart harbored no such illusion. In 1988, she told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
That justice and equality pitch serves as a central plank in the UN’s global governance platform to accomplish its wealth redistribution agenda.
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Former President Jacques Chirac of France shared that priority.”<<<


Regionalism Used to Redistribute Wealth

Think of regionalism, the priority of the region being synonymous with the priority of the nation (nationalism), of the commune (communism), of the environment (environmentalism), of the globe (globalism) all of which deny traditional American individualism, that is, the priority of our individual rights as set out in the US Constitution.

For more perspective about the importance of individualism against other “-isms” consider what Chief Justice Roberts said about our individual right to Free Speech in 559 US 460 (2010):

“As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).”

USSCT cite discussion of an illegitimate ad hoc balancing test.
U.S. V. Stevens
559 U.S. 460 (2010)

The foregoing describes the interaction between illegitimate ad hoc balancing tests and the various -isms that are used to deny our rights.

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.


What The “Science” of Global Warming/Climate Change is Really About

The fleecing of America.

It looks an awful lot like world-wide central planning (oversight) for the purpose of the redistribution of wealth ala the last two pages of Chap 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

From the National Association of Scholars:

“At the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, leaders from more than a hundred nations gathered to consider an agenda that included a massive transfer of money from developed countries to the Third World. The developed states were tagged to provide $130 billion by 2020 to help developing nations deal with the consequences of global warming. The proposed transfer was widely discussed as “reparations” for the damage caused by use of fossil fuels in the developed world.

The Copenhagen proposal went down in ignominious defeat. A motley collection of Third World countries brought the idea up again in 2013 in the run-up to the UN’s climate conference in Warsaw, but by then whatever impetus the idea had had was gone. President Obama instructed the U.S. delegate to oppose it. The State Department explained:

“It’s our sense that the longer countries look at issues like compensation and liability, the more they will realize this isn’t a productive avenue for the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] to go down.”

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from the southern high plains of Texas.


More Bad News for Rural America

Guest post by Jim Beers

With all of the winds currently buffeting rural America from government wolves and state governments becoming federal contractors for federal intrusions to federal land and water controls; a new wrinkle has been added. When federal politicians talk about “redistributing wealth”, who knew one of the “redistribution” vehicles for rural wealth would be federal health legislation? Not me.

Minnesota is a state that apparently seldom questions government growth of any sort, so it is not surprising that we formed one of the first state health care exchanges called MNsure as the federal Obamacare legislation rolls forward. A recent newspaper article explains the expected differences in cost for Minnesotans divided into 9 “regions”.

Under the MNsure rules and charges, the Twin Cities to St. Cloud corridor (our most urban and most populous region) will be charged a monthly premium of $634 for a family of four. All other (rural Minnesota) regions will be charged $668, $704, $742, $816, $854, and $1,200 respectively. These very significant differences are mysteriously credited to nonsense like “people might be sicker in some regions”, “doctors in some regions might opt for treatments that are more or less expensive” and “differences in the prices that different health care providers get paid for performing the same service”.

Dismissing all the associated smoke and mirrors; rural Minnesotans, and most likely all rural Americans as Obamacare becomes the only game in town, are embarking on a massive transfer of wealth to urban precincts in their state. This is yet another result of this Red/Blue – Rural/Urban voting shift in our country. Federal schemes from wolves to healthcare are at base thinly veiled political pandering for votes in concentrated urban precincts. Giving them more and more government services and the granting of their imaginary environmental dreams in rural precincts (despite the harms to farmers, ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, and rural economies) are what keep federal politicians and their parties in power.

Recognizing what is happening and why it is happening is the first step. The second step is seeing what must be done. The third step is doing it despite the names they call you and the accusations they hurl at you. Freedom is never cheap and rights must always be protected. Rural Americans have been in the crosshairs long enough. Transferring wealth for health is right up there with destroying a village to save it.

Jim Beers
20 Sep. 2013