Watermelon Marxists

Global warming as a science is defunct. Evidence of scientific dishonesty abounds, and the recent e-mail revelations may be the last nail in the coffin. When all is said and done, temperatures are falling.

But as a tool for watermelon Marxists -- green on the outside and red on the inside -- climate change orthodoxy represents an opportunity to achieve age-old dreams of communist wealth redistribution. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Cass Sunstein, Obama's new regulatory czar and perhaps the most powerful bureaucrat in America:

It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.

He added:

We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

Furthermore, Sunstein thinks that "[i]f we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

Sunstein is not alone. Sacked environmental czar Van Jones talks of "eco-apartheid." To a like-minded audience, Van Jones exclaimed, "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No justice on stolen land...we owe them a debt."

President Obama is presumably on board, having pledged to "bankrupt" the coal industry, among other telling remarks:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

President Obama is also on record as favoring Supreme Court intervention to "spread the wealth":

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. ...

There are several things wrong with this statement, but the most chilling expression of President Obama's anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. ..." Somehow, President Obama thinks he is exempt from the oath of office he took to "protect and defend the Constitution." Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice.

President Obama's proposed cap-and-trade bill would reduce U.S. GDP by $9 trillion at a time of severe unemployment. Where is the indignation? Where are the calls for his impeachment? 

The U.N. Climate Change Conference wants to go as far as orchestrating a "planned recession" in order to begin the process. Cass Sunstein agrees

But who needs these people when the President of the United States is willing to destroy the American dream by his own hand? President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in U.S. history. 

Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. It calls for climate reparations to third-world countries -- what the treaty calls "adaptation debt." This isn't optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]." And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources. The treaty states:

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:


(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. [Emphasis added.]

World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified. Notice also the use of the words "financial mechanism." The Copenhagen agreement, for the first time in the history of international legal precedent, proposes giving the U.N. authority to levy a global tax on rich nations to pay for "adaptation debt." Page 135 of the agreement provides for "[a global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties."  Annex I countries are the rich ones.

What is astonishing about this "climate" treaty is that so little of it actually addresses climate. Emissions pledges remain mere pledges. The real focus of the treaty is the transfer of wealth. The words "climate debt" are used throughout the agreement, giving pseudo-credibility to the premise of wealth redistribution. But just what is "climate debt"? The essence of the concept is that rich countries raped the earth by emitting carbon and simultaneously deprived poor countries of economic opportunity. It would be funny if it weren't actually the position of the Copenhagen Conference. 

When all is said and done, what happens if we succeed in destroying American wealth and creating a world government to coerce the shift? Wouldn't world peace be a good thing? But the peace of submission is not a peace worth having, and the perceived economic benefits will be brief, owing to global economic dependence on American consumers. 

Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations -- and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale. 

Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we already have world government, and America is king.

Just like with the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He's the Devil. And paradoxically, for the world to destroy America, it needs America's wealth and resources. 

Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.
Global warming as a science is defunct. Evidence of scientific dishonesty abounds, and the recent e-mail revelations may be the last nail in the coffin. When all is said and done, temperatures are falling.

But as a tool for watermelon Marxists -- green on the outside and red on the inside -- climate change orthodoxy represents an opportunity to achieve age-old dreams of communist wealth redistribution. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Cass Sunstein, Obama's new regulatory czar and perhaps the most powerful bureaucrat in America:

It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.

He added:

We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

Furthermore, Sunstein thinks that "[i]f we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."

Sunstein is not alone. Sacked environmental czar Van Jones talks of "eco-apartheid." To a like-minded audience, Van Jones exclaimed, "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No justice on stolen land...we owe them a debt."

President Obama is presumably on board, having pledged to "bankrupt" the coal industry, among other telling remarks:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

President Obama is also on record as favoring Supreme Court intervention to "spread the wealth":

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. ...

There are several things wrong with this statement, but the most chilling expression of President Obama's anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. ..." Somehow, President Obama thinks he is exempt from the oath of office he took to "protect and defend the Constitution." Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice.

President Obama's proposed cap-and-trade bill would reduce U.S. GDP by $9 trillion at a time of severe unemployment. Where is the indignation? Where are the calls for his impeachment? 

The U.N. Climate Change Conference wants to go as far as orchestrating a "planned recession" in order to begin the process. Cass Sunstein agrees

But who needs these people when the President of the United States is willing to destroy the American dream by his own hand? President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in U.S. history. 

Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. It calls for climate reparations to third-world countries -- what the treaty calls "adaptation debt." This isn't optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]." And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources. The treaty states:

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:


(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. [Emphasis added.]

World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified. Notice also the use of the words "financial mechanism." The Copenhagen agreement, for the first time in the history of international legal precedent, proposes giving the U.N. authority to levy a global tax on rich nations to pay for "adaptation debt." Page 135 of the agreement provides for "[a global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties."  Annex I countries are the rich ones.

What is astonishing about this "climate" treaty is that so little of it actually addresses climate. Emissions pledges remain mere pledges. The real focus of the treaty is the transfer of wealth. The words "climate debt" are used throughout the agreement, giving pseudo-credibility to the premise of wealth redistribution. But just what is "climate debt"? The essence of the concept is that rich countries raped the earth by emitting carbon and simultaneously deprived poor countries of economic opportunity. It would be funny if it weren't actually the position of the Copenhagen Conference. 

When all is said and done, what happens if we succeed in destroying American wealth and creating a world government to coerce the shift? Wouldn't world peace be a good thing? But the peace of submission is not a peace worth having, and the perceived economic benefits will be brief, owing to global economic dependence on American consumers. 

Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations -- and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale. 

Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we already have world government, and America is king.

Just like with the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He's the Devil. And paradoxically, for the world to destroy America, it needs America's wealth and resources. 

Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.