Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist
Is wealth creation sustainable? Of course it is. I requires an informed electorate to vote the reprehensible maggots we continue to elect over and over again out the door. No time better then this coming November.
On the other hand since it is impossible to have a meaningful, fact based discussion with voters on the left possibly slapping the living shit out of them might pound some sense into them, baring that duct taping them to a tree the first week in November will get the job done.
While taping them one might mention under their breath, ” I hear it’s true that democrats can vote more than once from the grave.” “Are you up to prove you are totally committed to the cause?”
By Frank Seabrook
Believers in Free Market principles and individual liberty may be wondering why the Keynesians in the government (and the New York Times) have not figured out that their policies don’t work.
What is the definition of insanity again? Maybe insanity is holding to a belief in a social policy that is unsustainable despite economic truths. Basically, insanity is religiously maintaining a belief in a social structure that destroys human beings because . . . well, because.
If one is unfamiliar with the United Nations’ Agenda 21, one must get familiar with it . . . now.
How many times have you heard the word “sustainable” in the last four years? It seems like the most popular word in the media. So, I was curious. What is NOT sustainable? From the United Nations News Centre:
With the growth of both population and prosperity, especially in developing countries, the prospect of much higher resource consumption levels is “far beyond what is likely sustainable” if realized at all given finite world resources, the report warns.
The report calls for improving the rate of resource productivity or “doing more with less.”
The report referred to is the United Nations Environmental Programme report of May, 2011 “Humanity Can and Must Do More With Less.” From the press release of the report:
Improving the rate of resource productivity (“doing more with less”) faster than the economic growth rate is the notion behind “decoupling,” the panel says. That goal, however, demands an urgent rethink of the links between resource use and economic prosperity, buttressed by a massive investment in technological, financial and social innovation, to at least freeze per capita consumption in wealthy countries and help developing nations follow a more sustainable path.
Communist regimes “re-located” populations either from the cities into the country (Pol Pot) or from the country to labor camps (Lenin and Stalin). The United Nations report suggests urbanization:
The trend towards urbanization may help as well, experts note, since cities allow for economies of scale and more efficient service provision. Densely populated places consume fewer resources per capita than sparsely populated ones thanks to economies in such areas as water delivery, housing, waste management and recycling, energy use and transportation, they say.
Therefore, if residents of rural communities and sprawling suburbia were to be condensed into urban centers, humanity would become more sustainable. This would imply that family farms and homes on acre plots are NOT sustainable.
The “unsustainable” religion started decades ago. Paul Ehrlich, as pointed out by Steven Milloy in “Green Hell,” compares economic growth to a disease:
“Perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell, but third-rate economists can’t think of anything else. Some leading economists are starting to tackle the issue of overconsumption, but the problem and its cures are tough to analyze. Scientists have yet to develop consumption condoms or morning-after-shopping-spree pills.”
Some quotes from the UN Report, “Decoupling, natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth:”
The optimal solution for all countries is to make sustainable resource management a central focus of policies for growth and development.
How can the current economic growth model be modified to realize the aims of ‘non-material growth’ through sustainable resource management? How can decoupling be demonstrated as a necessary precondition for reducing the levels of global inequality and eventually eradicating poverty?
UNEP’s International Resource Panel will be addressing the challenges of applying the concept of decoupling more comprehensively in separate reports, including applications to water, land and soil, and other key natural resources.
Is the “green economy” really intended to help America’s economic growth? Isn’t America one of the “wealthy” nations that must learn how to live with less? Isn’t America supposed to “redistribute” its wealth to end the “global inequality?”
One of the few bills ever sponsored by Senator Barack Obama, from govtrack.us:
S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007
110th Congress: 2007-2008
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.Sponsor: Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
“Achieving all the MDGs will require extra effort. Even where we have seen rapid growth, as in East Asia and other parts of the developing world, progress is not universal, nor are the benefits evenly shared,” said Mr. Ban. “Stubbornly high unemployment persists in rich and poor countries alike. And in many cases, the wealth gap is widening between the prosperous and the marginalized and between urban and rural,” he added.
John Bryson, President Obama’s nominee to head the Commerce Department, told a UN energy conference in 2009 that a global wealth redistribution program was needed to keep poor people in developing countries from using their own forest resources.
“What we’ve got to do is find ways to map out the affected lands, to develop plans for addressing them, find economic models in which the people who are driven to do these things to try to raise the livelihoods of their families, find alternative means,” Bryson said in laying out his vision for stopping people in poor countries from cutting down forests.
“Training of peoples, to maybe help in supporting this, development of law enforcement regimes, development of strong governance practices, all of those things have to be done,” Bryson continued.
From The New American:
President Obama signed his 86th executive order (13575) on June 9, which established the White House Rural Council (WHRC). According to The Blaze, the Executive Order seems to be in line with the United Nations radical Agenda 21, as it is designed “to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people.”
Evidence of this can be found in Section One of the Executive Order, which reads:
Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
Imagine Jerry Fletcher declares to Alice Sutton that there is a global organization that intends to influence the policies of all nations of the world. It is a Marxist organization of global wealth redistribution. And, that the policies are intended to manage all natural resources, including land and soil. Suppose he told her that the organization would be involved in social engineering: telling people where they could live and how often they could travel and by what mode. Then, Jerry would pull her close and whisper in her ear that the organization believes there are too many people. . . . and, he jumps on a bus and disappears. What a great movie that would be.
All highlights above are mine.
For a more comprehensive list of things that are “unsustainable” (like ski runs and grazing livestock) click here.
Note: Obama’s co-sponsors for the Global Poverty Act
Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Robert Casey [D-PA]
Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Susan Collins [R-ME]
Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Tim Johnson [D-SD]
John Kerry [D-MA]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Patty Murray [D-WA]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Debbie Ann Stabenow [D-MI]
Jim Webb [D-VA]
Ron Wyden [D-OR]
convert this post to pdf.Scridb filter