A new Speaker – Tea Party Nation

November 8: Republicans gain control of Congre...

November 8: Republicans gain control of Congress (Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pictured) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

A new Speaker – Tea Party Nation.

 

Posted by Judson Phillips

 

CNS News reported that under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, our national debt has risen more than $2 trillion dollars or almost $19,000 per person in this nation.

 

 Boehner gives us sound bites about cutting spending and cutting the deficit but the reality of life is that he is not interested in doing either. 

 

 There is another painful reality we must face as well.  John Boehner is a disaster as the Speaker of the House.  With the Senate and the White House in the hands of the Democrats, the Speaker of the House is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.  He is the opposition to Barack Obama and the Party of Treason.

 

 John Boehner has been a complete failure in this role.   He must go.  But it is not enough to say he must go.  Someone must replace him.  This must be someone with leadership skills, convictions and courage to fight for America.

 

 Who could replace Boehner?

 

 Let’s start with who could not.

 

 None of the current House leadership is good enough to replace Boehner.  Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy are just as bad.    Neither of them has stood up for Americans against the insanity that has transpired in the last two years.

 

 There is no other Member of Congress right now who stands out enough that I could comfortably say has the aptitude to lead right now.

 

 We need not simply a leader.  We need someone who can articulate our message and get it out to the American people.  We need someone who can take on Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the Party of Treason and run circles around them.   We need someone with the skills of a field general who understands that this is a war and we need a strategy to win this war.

 

 There is only one person in the Republican Party or the greater conservative movement who fits the bill.

 

 That man is Newt Gingrich.

 

 Newt is not currently a Member of Congress.

 

 That does not matter.  The Constitution does not mandate that the Speaker of the House be a Member of Congress.

 

 Newt is brilliant.  Newt is a visionary.   Newt has fought the best the Democrats had in Bill Clinton in the 90’s and he came out on top of those fights.   While the drive by media likes to give Bill Clinton the credit for the 90’s, the simple truth is that after Newt became Speaker in 1995, it was his agenda that was passed.  It was Newt’s agenda that set up budget surpluses and the prosperity of the 90’s.

 

 It is time for conservatives to set up a draft Newt movement. 

 

 ohn Boehner must go.   He is not a leader.  He is a joke.  If he remains as Speaker of the House not only will he destroy what is left of the Republican Party, he will allow Obama to completely destroy America.

 

 We need a Speaker committed to a conservative agenda.   We need a Speaker who can take on Barack Obama and defeat him in the battle of public opinion.  We need someone who can articulate the conservative message and conservative agenda.  We need someone who can and will implement a conservative agenda.

 

 

 

We need someone who is not going to have a sharp learning curve as Speaker.  We need someone who can hit the ground running.   We need someone who will be a leader on day one.

 

 We need Newt Gingrich.

 

 Join me in urging House Republicans to dump John Boehner and draft Newt Gingrich to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

 

Barack Obama: The welfare king – Washington Times

Barack Obama: The welfare king – Washington Times.

“They’ll turn us all into beggars ‘cause they’re easier to please.” So goes a Rainmakers song. Beggars also are easier to control. Just ask the drug dealer. It is not compassion that motivates him to give away the first hits of heroin for free; it is the promise of control.

President Obama wants to give you free stuff. Lots and lots of free stuff. At least, he’d like you to believe it’s free. Free health care. Free welfare checks. Free food stamps. But as the saying goes, free stuff or freedom: Choose one.

As any teenager knows, you don’t escape mom and dad’s rules until you pay your own bills. Some say our overbearing government is similarly paternalistic, which is insulting enough but simply untrue. Good parents prepare their children for independence, whereas Mr. Obama wants to increase Americans’ dependence on his government.

Consider the pernicious nature of Mr. Obama’s deeply rooted hostility toward individual achievement: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” A rationale for confiscatory taxes? Certainly, but it’s so much worse.

Mr. Obama’s notion that government, rather than people, creates prosperity is not only an insult to every hardworking American, it is the subversion of the individual. If your success is the result of someone else, then you are nothing more than an expendable cog in the wheel. On a fundamental level, you no longer bring value to society other than taking up the space government provides you. So long as your rulers build roads and public schools, Mr. Obama claimed, you could be replaced.

As antithetical as this is to the American ideal — and to common sense — it gets worse. Much worse. Mr. Obama is actively attempting to sabotage the middle class by turning it into a group of beggars.

What exactly is the middle class?

Classes cannot be defined by some arbitrary income number, as politicians like Mr. Obama and his magic $250,000 would have you believe. What of the billionaire who opts to take no income for a year or the low-income family that realizes a one-time windfall by selling a farm? Neither suddenly changes class.

Instead, class structure is best defined functionally. Here’s how: The middle class consists of those who can take care of themselves if they keep working. Those in the upper class may choose to work but in reality don’t need to do so. Those in the lower class, for a host of different reasons, cannot take care of themselves. Mr. Obama is strategically targeting the middle class for elimination by forcing its dependence on government and, one by one, squeezing Americans down into the lower class.

Consider Obamacare. Despite his false promises, since President Obama has taken office, health insurance premiums have increased by more than $2,300 per family per year. But not to worry, Mr. Obama wants to give you free stuff! Obamacare provides “assistance” — in reality, welfare — to families earning up to $88,500 a year. Let that sink in. In Mr. Obama’s worldview, even families earning twice the nation’s median income should receive welfare.

Consider Mr. Obama’s new welfare rules. In 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress implemented welfare-to-work requirements. It worked astonishingly well. Welfare caseloads dropped 70 percent. The American dream was restored for nearly 9 million Americans who worked their way out of poverty. Mr. Obama, however, prefers dependency and recently gutted the work requirements. More free stuff!

The rise of the Obama welfare state is unmistakable. More than 100 million Americans are receiving some form of federal welfare: an astonishing 1 in 3 Americans. An unprecedented 1 in 6 Americans — 45 million — are on food stamps. A staggering 23 million are unemployed. This is a train with too many cabooses and not enough engines but that’s exactly what the food stamp president wants. After all, cabooses just quietly go wherever they’re told.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

Does the Democratic Parrty have a Death Wish? – Tea Party Nation

 

 

Does the Democratic Parrty have a Death Wish? – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Does the Democratic Party have a death wish? It continues to display a suicidal desire to offend the delegates to its forthcoming convention and the rest of the voters.

In recent days we learned that it is contemplating a platform plank that would endorse same-sex marriage, something that its core African-American voters detest. Maybe they are after the gay vote, but gays constitute barely three percent of the population and not all are Democrats.

It has been announced that former President Jimmy Carter will address the convention via video. Widely regarded as the worst president of the modern era, if not of all the presidents until Obama was elected, Carter in his post-presidential life is best known for embracing every dictator he ever met, for attacking Israel as an “apartheid” state and as a staunch defender of the Palestinians whom even fellow Arabs dislike. I am sure many American Jews, another voting bloc for Democrats, will likely be offended by his participation.

Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts candidate for the Senate who originated the “You didn’t build that” meme that Obama embraced will be another convention speaker and, it turns out, she enhanced her resume by claiming to be a native American with an infinitesimal amount of Cherokee blood. Even the Cherokee nation has disowned her. There goes the Native American vote.

In an odd decision the Democrats have given the job of nominating Obama to former President Bill Clinton. Never mind that he was the first President since Andrew Johnson to be impeached while in office or the first to be exposed for having an affair with a White House intern as young as his daughter. As President, he witnessed the return to power in Congress by Republicans. Many of the programs for which he is given credit were initiated by them. Obama has just used yet another executive order to gut the welfare reform program he signed into law!

Meanwhile, President Obama continues to campaign by calling for higher taxes on everyone, but carefully never mentioning his much-hated signature legislation, Obamacare. Catholic delegates to the convention may be wondering if they have to park their conscience at the door given the Obamacare mandates regarding abortion issues.

Then there’s the little problem of more than forty-two straight months of unemployment in excess of eight percent or the three years without a budget vote. Running a nation on continuing resolutions is a very bad idea.

Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate who has blocked more bills from even being debated than anyone in modern memory, recently stood in the well of the Senate to announce that an anonymous source—a little birdie—told him that Mitt Romney had not filed his tax returns since shortly after the end of the Civil War. He was soundly denounced for such piffle, but it does reflect the kind of lies the Democrats are now resorting to.

Advertising supporting Obama’s reelection has included one that suggests that Mitt Romney was responsible for a woman’s death even though it occurred years after he had left Bain Capitol and was filled with other lies. An earlier Democratic ad portrayed Vice Presidential pick, Rep. Paul Ryan, pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff. Campaigns have always been ugly, but suggesting one’s opponents are murderers is a new low. The odds are we have not yet seen them reach the bottom rung of iniquity.

The Ohio Democratic Party law suit to deny an early voting option to those serving in the U.S. military is yet another dumb move and it is widely believed that the Democrats are again looking to have dead people vote in large numbers.

Has, in fact, a political party ever had a more deceitful and distasteful group of leaders than Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the current DNC chairwoman?

Does it strike anyone as hypocritical and absurd that while the DNC hammers Romney to release his tax returns, Obama has yet to have released his college transcripts, the passport on which he traveled to Pakistan, or any records that might provide some truth as an alternative to the fairy tale memoirs he has written?

Who else can the DNC offend? It would not surprise me to see a Muslim imam get the call to provide the opening and closing prayers.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

Our Disgraceful President – Derek Hunter – Townhall.com

Our Disgraceful President – Derek Hunter – Townhall.com.

Warren G. Harding was corrupt, as was Richard M. Nixon. Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were like blind golfers, looking for a hole, any hole, every hole. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were power-mad narcissists convinced they knew best how everyone else should live. Jimmy Carter was clueless. But as we approach the 100-year anniversary of the first of these men to serve as president, all have been lapped in debasing their office by its current occupant: Barack Obama.

It is understandable President Obama would not want to run on his record. Who would? “Give me four more years so I can make up for the first four” is not the stuff of campaign slogan greatness.

But even that wouldn’t work because, as he told CBS News this week, “The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.” In other words, his only flaw is he’s too damn close to perfect.

It’s like someone bragging about being the most humble person on the planet.

The president of the United States thinks he needs to tell us stories to give us “a sense of unity, purpose and optimism…”

This struck me as odd because a.) he’s already told us stories, the story of his life, in – count ‘em – two autobiographies written before he accomplished anything, and b.) he’s made zero effort to bring people together at any point in his presidency.

Putting aside his autobiographies, which should be moved to the fiction section of the bookstore considering the 38 provable falsehoods uncovered in them – remember the uproar when James Frey’s A Million Tiny Pieces turned out to have exaggerations and lies? Obama does it; crickets – the fact this man would feel comfortable enough to speak the word “unity” without laughing is a testament to just how far we’ve fallen as a nation.

Barack Obama has done nothing but try to turn American against American based on income and accomplishment. He’s done nothing but sit silently by, smirking, while his defenders, allies, surrogates and staff have called Americans who disagree with him racists, homophobes, sexists, xenophobes, rednecks, idiots, Uncle Toms and anything else you can call someone when you can’t rebut what they say with facts or accomplishments.

Silence while disgraceful words are spoken on your behalf is just as disgraceful as uttering them yourself, which, of course, makes Barack Obama a disgraceful president.

When his attorney general isn’t dodging subpoenas and being held in contempt by Congress, he’s calling anyone who thinks we should have to present a photo ID to vote a klansman. MSNBC, a network that seems to exist only to parrot the president’s line, unsurprisingly gets praised by the White House. This is unity?

The White House has to use and condone this because the alternative is reality, and reality is not Barack Obama’s friend.

The president decided, against the express language in the law itself, he could unilaterally remove the work requirement from President Clinton’s welfare reform law. There is no precedent or legal justification for this action, but to question it is to be anti-poor.

Putting aside the unconstitutional nature of all this, it remains a mystery how it could be anti-poor to support a law that provably improves the lives of poor Americans, gives them their best shot at autonomy and helps move them get out and stay out of poverty. But the charge gets made, the grenade gets thrown, and the person doing it gets an invite to the next Georgetown cocktail party or White House concert.

The administration of Barack Obama embodies the worst characteristics of the worst Presidents in our history – the abuse of power, the incompetence, the laziness, the bigotry, the disinterest, the dishonesty, the arrogance. The reason he’s still personally popular is the same reason we know the names Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Perez Hilton or that TMZ exists – A large portion of our culture now celebrates what it used to shun, cheers that which used to drive people into hiding and rewards existence over accomplishment.

That’s why the media parrots and trumpets attacks on Mitt Romney’s incredibly successful private-sector record but ignores President Obama’s public-sector failures. How people can question what Romney does with his own money but ignore Obama wasting literally trillions of ours is disgraceful. That President Obama would sanction the charge is worse.

Rush Limbaugh is correct when he calls President Obama “President Kardashian.” Only we’re on the receiving end of what Kim Kardashian became famous for. To paraphrase Andy Warhol, in the future we’ll all have our own reality show for 15 minutes. Unfortunately the ratings will suck and it will serve only as a perch from which to watch the economy collapse. We can call it “Disgraceful.”

November could not be more important, and it cannot come quickly enough.

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink – Daniel J. Mitchell – Townhall Finance

Back in April, I explained that I would accept a tax increase if “the net long-run effect is more freedom, liberty, and prosperity.”

I even outlined several specific scenarios where that might occur, including giving the politicians more money in exchange for a flat tax or giving them additional revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

But I then pointed out that all of those options are unrealistic. And I’ve expanded on that thesis in a new article. Here’s some of what I wrote for The Blaze.

The no-tax pledge of Americans for Tax Reform generates a lot of controversy. With record levels of red ink, the political elite incessantly proclaims that all options must be “on the table.” This sounds reasonable. And when some Republicans say no tax hikes under any circumstances, there’s a lot of criticism about dogmatism. Theoretically, I agree with the elitists.

So does that make me a squish, the fiscal equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts?

Nope, because I’m tethered to the real world. I know that there is zero chance of getting a good agreement. Once you put taxes “on the table,” any impetus for spending restraint evaporates.

But even though I’m theoretically open to a tax hike, I am a de facto opponent of tax increases for the simple reason that we will never get a good deal. We won’t get sustainable spending cuts. Not even in our dreams. We won’t get real entitlement reforms. Even if we hold our breath ‘til we turn blue. And we won’t get the “Simpson-Bowles” tax reform swap, where taxpayers give up $2 of deductions in exchange for $1 of lower tax rates. Let’s not kid ourselves. In other words, reality trumps theory. Yes, there are tax-hike deals that would be good, but they’re about as realistic as me speculating on whether I’d be willing to play for the New York Yankees, but only if they guarantee me $5 million per year.

I then point out that a budget deal inevitably would lead to bad policy – just as we saw in 1982 and 1990.

Here’s the bottom line: There is no practical way to get a good deal from either the Democrats in the Senate or the Obama Administration. Notwithstanding the good intentions of some people, any grand bargain would be a failure that leads to higher spending and more red ink, just as we saw after the 1982 and 1990 budget deals. The tax increases would not be relatively benign loophole closers. Instead, the economy would be hit by higher marginal tax rates on work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship. And the entitlement reform would be unsustainable gimmicks rather than structural changes to fix the underlying programs. Ironically, when a columnist for the New York Times complained that Republicans were being unreasonable for opposing tax hikes, she inadvertently revealed that the only successful budget deal was the one in 1997 – the one that had no tax hikes!

The last sentence is worth some additional commentary. As I explained in a previous post, the only bipartisan budget agreement that generated a balanced budget was the 1997 pact – and that deal lowered taxes rather than increasing them.

Some people try to argue that Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike deserves some of the credit, but I previously showed that the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget admitted – 18 months later! – that the nation would have triple-digit budget deficits for the foreseeable future.

What changed (and this is where Bill Clinton deserves credit) is that the nation enjoyed a multi-year period of spending restraint in the mid-1990s.

And when policy makers addressed the underlying disease of too much government spending, they solved the symptom of red ink.

Obama’s Black Friday – Tea Party Nation

Obama’s Black Friday – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, marked the beginning of the Great Depression, but for Barack Obama, last Friday was Black Friday because the U.S. Department of Labor announced that only 69,000 jobs were added in May, well below expectations that it might reach 150,000. The official unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2 percent, but it is actually far closer to 15 percent.

The news means that Obama’s hope of being reelected ranges between slim to none. Beyond the current numbers, on Friday CNS News reported that 766,000 more women are unemployed than when he took office in 2009.

Also on Friday, Generation Opportunity, a non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to younger Americans reported that unemployment among young adults, ages 18 to 29, was 12.1 percent in May. “The declining labor participation has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not counted as ‘unemployed’ by the Bureau of Labor Statistics because they are not in the labor force, having given up looking for work.” If their numbers were factored in, “the actual 18-29 unemployment rate would rise to 16.9 percent.”

On Thursday, Obama got more bad news. Former President Bill Clinton told CNN that Mitt Romney’s business record at Bain Capital was “sterling.” Clinton said, “I don’t think that we ought to get into the position where we say ‘This is bad work. This is good work.’ The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.”

Clinton’s appraisal came at the end of the third week that Team Obama had been trying to demonize Romney for having been a successful venture capitalist. Clinton isn’t the only prominent Democrat to jump off the SS Obama. Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick also refused to press the Obama attack on Bain.

Obama has little with which to campaign upon. When Karl Rove, Bush’s former White House advisor, examined “Obama’s Public-Equity Record” in a May 10 Wall Street Journal column, he noted that the Obama administration had forced General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy and, instead of allowing the process to proceed normally, the Obama bailout cost jobs.

“GM employed roughly 252,000 workers in 2008. Now it has 207,000, with 131,000 of them working in foreign nations.” Citing data from the National Automobile Dealers Association, Rove estimated that “as many as 100,000 Americans lost jobs at the companies’ dealerships.”

GM and Chrysler creditors were left without compensation while Obama ensured that the United Auto Workers Union gained ownership equity in both companies. Then he stood by “as the UAW forced the closure of a plant in Moraine, Ohio, where workers had joined a rival union.”

By almost any economic measurement the nation is experiencing, if not a Depression, at least a very serious Recession, despite the official pronouncement that it had ended in 2010. The Recession hitting European nations is having global repercussions as well.

Obama has had nothing to say about the pending “Taxamageddon” that will kick in on January 2013 bringing the largest tax hike in the history of the nation. He never mentions the “stimulus”, nor Obamacare. The latter is likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in June.

Even members of the mainstream press that were largely responsible for Obama’s election in 2008 are beginning to have second thoughts. Dana Milbank of the reliably liberal Washington Post in April wrote that Obama “is making me queasy because his nonstop campaigning is looking, well, sleazy—and his ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden is just the beginning of it.”

The polls are all trending away from Obama. On almost every issue, Romney has either tied or surpassed him. Obama looks weak because he is weak.

There’s just over five months to go before November 6, Election Day. They are going to be the worst five months of Obama’s life, but for millions of Americans out of work and unable to find work they will be just as bad or worse. Many of them are women. Many of them are young adults. Many of them represent a dwindling base of African-Americans and Latinos.

Many of them are voters.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Let’s start by cutting here – Tea Party Nation

Obama Cell Phone Charm

Obama Cell Phone Charm (Photo credit: BeInspiredDesigns)

Let’s start by cutting here – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Let’s start by cutting here.

When does a program become so wasteful that the government will finally decide to eliminate it?

That is a good question. So far we have not met that threshold yet.

There is one program that could be eliminated and we could save a billion dollars. This is the lifeline phone. The lifeline program started out as a way to provide landlines for poor people. Agree or disagree with the program, at least it had a purpose. If you had an emergency and you were poor, the government would pay your phone bill so you could call 911.

This program has since expanded beyond all recognition now. Instead of land lines they are passing out cell phones. These are not the old clunky flip phones that are programed to call 911. These are modern, new smartphones. And people are not just getting one of these phones. They are going and getting 2,4 10 or even more.

And the government is giving them away to “the poor.”

Arkansas Congressman Tim Griffin wants to eliminate the program completely and take it back to being just a landline program.

What is wrong with this picture?

Of course Griffin is opposed. Not only do you have all of the people who are receiving “Obama Phones” as they are sometimes known, you have the cellphone companies who are making money from the Federal Government because every time one of these phones is given away, they make money.

The real problem is an out of control government. Money is being spent and no one even knows where the money is going.

There is a bill that will deal not only with the Obama Phone issue but a lot of other bad government spending. HR2680, the Federal Realignment and Closure Commission bill is a great idea. Modeled off of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that Bill Clinton used to cut defense spending so he could blow the “peace dividend,” this bill sets up a commission to go through federal spending to find examples of waste, fraud, duplication or programs that have simply failed or outlived their usefulness.

This commission would come up with recommendations for the Congress to vote either up or down on, without amendments.

This is a great idea. You can tell it is a great idea because it is languishing in committee and will probably never see the light of day.

Why the hell not?

This bill should be the centerpiece of the Republican campaign this summer. Why isn’t it. This is something the Republicans could really nail the Democrats on and do something good for the country.

So why isn’t this bill sailing through the House of Representatives?

Maybe someone should be asking John Boehner that question.

EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21 – thenewamerican.com

EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21 – thenewamerican.com.

Written by 

One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven’t heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.

Of course, there were President Bill Clinton‘s establishment of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order in 1993 and President Obama’sFederal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have been incorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21 grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.

The establishment of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN’s ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21.

We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make the PCSD appear to be completely separate from the UN’s Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, said the following in 1998:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society…. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

This helps explain why virtually all federal activities in pursuit of sustainability rarely make any reference to the UN or the UN’s Agenda 21, even though these federal activities are very much in sync with the UN’s Agenda 21.

Nonetheless, there have been very significant developments regarding sustainability at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning with its 40th anniversary in late 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated: “Today I am formally requesting President Cicerone and the National Academies convene a committee of experts to provide to the U.S. EPA an operational framework for sustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions.”

Jackson added: “Today we have a new opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to focus on how environmentally protective and sustainable we can be. You see, it’s the difference between treating disease and pursuing wellness.”

The National Academies of Science (NAS) responded with a detailed study, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (aka the “Green Book”), which cost the EPA $700,000, and which was published in August 2011. The NAS also produced a five-minute video (see video also below) about this project.

Here are some excerpts from the 286-page “Green Book”:

• “The [UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development] called upon the UN General Assembly to transform its [1987] report into a global action plan for sustainable development. The nations of the world did precisely that at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, or ‘Earth Summit,’ in Rio de Janeiro. These nations, including the United States, endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21, and a set of 27 principles for sustainable-development, called the Rio Declaration. Together, these agreements modify the definition of development by adding a third pillar — environmental protection and restoration — to the economic and social pillars of development.”

• “First, the committee recommends that EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘Three Pillars’ approach of ‘Social,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Economic’ dimensions of sustainability.”

• “Sustainability impact assessment is used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”

Thus, the “Green Book” acknowledges that the nations of the world, including the United States, “endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21” at the ’92 Earth Summit in Rio. Next, the NAS committee recommended that “EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘Three Pillars’ approach of ‘Social,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Economic’ dimensions of sustainability.” Which would make the EPA sustainability paradigm exactly in sync with the three pillars of sustainable development agreed upon at the ’92 Earth Summit. Finally, the NAS proposed a new tool for EPA, the sustainability impact assessment, that would be “used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”

Therefore, it is apparent that the NAS “Green Book” is positioning the EPA to become the premier federal agency for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.



EPA spokesman are wary in this highly-charged, election-year political climate about making any definitive statement regarding whether and how soon the EPA would adopt the “Green Book” sustainability methodology. However, it is clear from listening to the audio of the November 30, 2010, meeting where the EPA commissioned the NAS to produce a new “operational framework for sustainability” for the EPA that the EPA sees the “sustainability paradigm” as the future for the agency.

Moreover, just to keep it real for those of us accustomed to the American way of life, here is what Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, said in his opening speech to the attendees: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” (Emphasis added.)



Based on Strong’s remarks, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to predict just how much downward pressure on our standard of living would be exerted by a sustainability oriented EPA.



It also doesn’t take too much talent at connecting the dots to understand that an EPA based on sustainability, an EPA that wants to pursue wellness, not treat disease, an EPA that wants to use “sustainability impact assessments” to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability — that would be an EPA that would aspire to regulate in detail virtually every aspect of our lives, thus completely destroying our freedom and prosperity.



The point of all of the above is that even though the EPA is already guilty of vastly over-regulating us, an EPA based on an operational framework of sustainability would be much worse.



There’s currently no legislation in Congress to stop the EPA from implementing the UN Agenda 21 concept of sustainability. Realistically, given the makeup of Congress, there’s virtually no chance that a bill could be passed this year to stop EPA implementation of Agenda 21.

However, in light of the rapid growth of the Stop Agenda 21 movement over the past year, and the changes that will occur with the elections in November, Congress could very well be more likely to initiate and pass anti-Agenda 21 legislation in 2013. Click here if you would like to send a message to your Representative and Senators about this issue.

Prison Planet.com » Arizona Bill Would Ban UN Agenda 21 Within State

 

Prison Planet.com » Arizona Bill Would Ban UN Agenda 21 Within State.

Alex Newman
New American
May 1, 2012

As nationwide opposition against the controversial United Nations Agenda 21 “sustainability” plan continues to build, a popular bill in Arizona that analysts say looks set to pass would prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions from implementing or supporting any portion of the UN’s so-called “sustainable development” scheme. The legislation was approved by the state Senate last month and has already cleared initial hurdles in Arizona’s House of Representatives.

As nationwide opposition against the controversial United Nations Agenda 21 “sustainability” plan continues to build, a popular bill in Arizona that analysts say looks set to pass would prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions from implementing or supporting any portion of the UN’s so-called “sustainable development” scheme. The legislation was approved by the state Senate last month and has already cleared initial hurdles in Arizona’s House of Representatives.

The two-page bill, known as SB1507, would prevent the state, county, and city governments of Arizona from adopting any tenets of theUN Declaration and the Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development. It would block any other international schemes that violate the U.S. or state constitutions as well.

Under the proposed law, all public entities in Arizona would also be barred from cooperating with, funding, or implementing any programs linked to a controversial global organization known as ICLEI (formerly named International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives). The UN-backed non-profit organization, based in Germany, seeks to force the “sustainability” plan on the world by stealth.

“Any way you want to describe it, Agenda 21 is a direct attack on the middle class and the working poor,” sponsor Sen. Judy Burgessaid during a hearing on the bill last month; noting that even though the U.S. Senate had refused to ratify the global plan, former President Bill Clinton used an executive order to start foisting it on America by stealth anyway. “The primary goal of Agenda 21 is to create social engineering of our citizens and it will impact every aspect of our daily lives.”

A Tea Party activist who testified at the hearing called Agenda 21 an insidious attack on American sovereignty in an effort to build a one-world order. He also said the Obama administration was using taxpayer-funded grants to prod state and local governments into implementing the “subversive” scheme.

In an e-mail to MSNBC, state Sen. Burges, a Republican, further explained why the legislation is desperately needed. “The bill is designed to protect the rights of Arizona citizens and prevent encroachment on those rights by international institutions,” she explained. “We have three branches of government and when one branch preempts the process through executive orders, the balance of power is lost in the process. It is that simple – no more, no less.”

Among state Representatives, alarm about the UN agenda is building, too. State Rep. Terri Proud, for example, told supporters that the scheme “will take away our rights as Americans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil. … It’s very real and it is happening.”

Another Republican, state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, said the UN did not have America’s best interests at heart. “I have concerns about us giving up our sovereignty to the United Nations and the World Court,” he explained.

The state lawmakers have also found strong support across America for their fight against the global “sustainability” scheme. Lawmakers in Tennessee, for example, just approved a bill slamming the UN agenda as an insidious socialist plot to dismantle national sovereignty and private property rights. Other states are considering similar resolutions even as a growing number of local governments continue to drop their controversial memberships in ICLEI.

At the national level, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution earlier this year blasting Agenda 21, too. And RNC members have publicly expressed support for the Arizona bill.  “SB 1507 will prohibit the imposition of UN Agenda 21 here in Arizona which is an insidious plan by the United Nations to force their governance on our state, counties, municipalities, schools and even neighborhoods,” noted National RNC Committeeman for Arizona Bruce Ash, congratulating lawmakers for their efforts.

“UN Agenda 21 preaches population control as well as control of where we live and how we live. The UN Agenda strips America of our wealth and threatens our sovereignty,” he added. “If SB 1507 passes and is signed by Governor Brewer we will … protect our liberty and way of life. This is a must pass piece of legislation.”

Because the UN agenda’s tentacles have spread so far over the last two decades, analysts are not entirely sure how broad the legislation’s effect might be. The bill could, for instance, potentially stop “green” corporate welfare by ending controversial wealth transfers from taxpayers to businesses that claim to adopt “sustainability” measures.

Some pro-Agenda 21 scaremongers, however, have attempted to drum up unfounded fears about the bill with hysterical and false claims about its potential effect on welfare programs. “We wouldn’t be able to use CFL light bulbs in state buildings because that would be considered energy efficiency,” alleged state House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, a Democrat. In reality, the bill would do nothing of the sort, and he almost certainly knows that.

Campbell also falsely claimed that Arizona’s welfare department could be dismantled under the bill. Ironically, he even said the state university system’s “sustainability” programs could disappear – saving taxpayers vast sums of money. However, fantasy-based straw-man attacks notwithstanding, it was not immediately clear why Campbell opposed the legislation.

“This is the most ludicrous bill I’ve ever seen in six years in the legislature,” Campbell claimed. “It’s the most poorly crafted bill in this state.” He also made headlines with a ludicrous conspiracy theory of his own, claiming that “the Tea Party and conspiracy theorists run the state now.”

Rabid supporters of Agenda 21 continue to claim that critics of the UN schemes somehow believe in a “conspiracy theory.” Of course, the global “sustainability” plan is neither a conspiracy nor a theory. In reality, the documents are all online for the world to see.

But pro-UN extremists, lobbyists, and people who depend on government-mandated “sustainability” programs for their livelihood are still attempting in vain to manufacture an outcry against the bill. Some members of the establishment press, meanwhile, have been dutifully repeating the hysterical claims even though the UN’s own documents are available online.

The chief architects of the plan have made its nature very clear as well. “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing — are not sustainable,” claimed UN Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong as he ushered in Agenda 21 two decades ago.

Despite efforts to paint opposition to Agenda 21 as a conservative movement, however, the broad coalition seeking to stop it largely transcends party lines – at least at the grassroots level. In Tennessee, for example, more than a few democrats joined the GOP majority to overwhelmingly pass a resolution condemning the UN schemes. And the organization “Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21” has been a key player in exposing the global plot.

But even as efforts to defeat the agenda gain unprecedented momentum in the U.S., the UN is moving full-speed ahead toward doubling down on the controversial plan. Recently released official documents revealed that the global body plans to use its upcoming Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro — known as Rio+20 to mark the 20-year anniversary of the Earth Summit — to amass a broad array of new powers and literally re-make civilization.

The Arizona legislation must clear one more hurdle in the state House of Representatives, a roll-call vote expected as early as next week, before heading to Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk for her signature. The Governor did not comment on the bill when contacted by reporters, as is typical.

 

When will it end? – Tea Party Nation

unemployment

unemployment (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

When will it end? – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Just in case you missed it, as of two days ago, our national debt climbed to

$15,574,371,000,000.    We will hit the debt ceiling later this year when our debt will climb to $16,394,000,000,000. 

 If your eyes are not glazing over at the thought of those numbers, they should. 

 Things are only getting worse under the Obama Regime.  If things continue the way they are going, the interest on our national debt will exceed defense spending by 2019.  If Obama has his way it will actually be sooner because he will continue to borrow more money and cut our defense budget to the point where America is not only not a superpower but may be incapable of defending ourselves against even second rate powers.

 While the Obama Regime continues to cook the books on the unemployment figures, claiming the unemployment rate is down to 8.2 percent, the truth his we have 88 million people not in the labor force.  This is a figure we have not seen since the first great depression.  Now, with the Great Obama Depression, more and more people are not simply jobless.  They are totally out of the labor market.

 Back in the 90’s, when Bill Clinton needed to get himself reelected, he came up with a great idea to make the economy look much better than it really was.  The government would modify the unemployment figures to exclude the underemployed and what economists refer to as the discouraged worker.  The discouraged worker is someone who has left the workforce because they have given up.  They no longer believe they can get a job so they look for alternatives, such as welfare or disability. 

 If you calculated the real unemployment rate, including those who are underemployed and those who are “discouraged workers” the real unemployment rate would be close to 20%.

 Obama is desperate to cook the books to try and get those unemployment numbers down so the undecided will think he is doing something to help the economy and a recovery is on the horizon.

 The truth is we can forget about a recovery until the Republican Party gets serious about being the Party of Reagan and standing for conservative values.    We have two Republican leaders in Washington.  Mitch McConnell looks like a card-carrying member of the new castrati and John Boehner looks like he is having a perpetual nicotine fit.

 If we do not have Republicans in Washington who will stand up and try to stop this insanity, our future will look like Greece’s.   While this is what Obama and the Party of Treason want, we can hope the GOP does not want this.

The question we need to ask every Republican who is either in the House or Senate or who is running for the House or Senate, when is Congress going to stop spending money like drunken Democrats?  When are Republicans actually going to start acting like real Americans and not Democrat lite? 

 We need to demand they stop spending like there is no tomorrow, because tomorrow is coming very soon.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,753 other followers