Monday, February 27, 2012

In 12 swing states Obama trails potential opponent because of ObamaCare-USA Today/Gallup Poll of all registered voters

.
2/28/12, "72% of Americans Believe the Mandate is Unconstitutional," Volokh, Gallup Poll 2/20-2/21/12

12 swing states include Michigan, Ohio Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 35% of Independents are less likely to support Obama because of ObamaCare.

2/23/12, "Swing states poll: Health care law hurts Obama in 2012," USA Today, Susan Page

"The health care overhaul that President Obama intended to be the signature achievement of his first term instead has become a significant problem in his bid for a second one, uniting Republicans in opposition and eroding his standing among independents.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of the nation's dozen top battleground states, a clear majority of registered voters call the bill's passage "a bad thing" and support its repeal if a Republican wins the White House in November. Two years after he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— and as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about its constitutionality next month — the president has failed to convince most Americans that it was the right thing to do.

"Mandating that you have to buy the insurance rubs me the wrong way altogether," says Fred Harrison, 62, a horse trainer from York County, Pa., who was among those surveyed and supports repeal even though he likes some provisions of the law. "It should be my own choice."

"It seems like it forces you to take health care (coverage), and you don't really have a say in the matter," says Beth Leffew, 26, a college student from Cincinnati. She says the president "didn't really listen to people" when they objected to the proposed bill. "It seems like he just shoved it right through Congress."

Though the law has avid supporters, especially in the president's Democratic base, the net effect among middle-of-the-road voters is negative for him. What's more, the issue unites the GOP when the party is fractured among competing presidential contenders.

In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:

•Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum's lead narrows to 49%-46%.

•Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each.

Romney also has a health care problem: Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the battleground states, 27% say they are less likely to support him because he signed a Massachusetts law that required residents to have coverage. Just 7% say it makes them more likely to back him.

"If they used Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care program as a guideline for the Obamacare thing, what's the difference?" says Robert Hargrove, 37, of Sanford, N.C., rejecting Romney's explanation of differences between the state and federal laws. Hargrove, a truck driver for a propane company, scoffs: "It's just a bigger version. They put it on steroids."

The swing states poll of 1,137 registered voters was taken Feb. 14-21. In addition, a national survey of 881 registered voters was taken Feb. 20-21. The margin of error for each is +/-4 percentage points.

The battleground states surveyed include Michigan — where Tuesday's primary has become a critical showdown between Romney and Santorum — as well as Ohio and Virginia, which vote next week on Super Tuesday. The other swing states are Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Health care ranks near the top of a list of concerns for advocates and critics of the law. Nationwide, it trails only the economy and the deficit as being the most critical issues facing the nation, rating a bit higher than unemployment and terrorism.

Lynn West, 58, a retired state education official from Boscawen, N.H., is exasperated that a law she says has been "fabulous" for her family continues to draw so much heat. Under its provisions, her 24-year-old son has been able to stay on his father's health insurance plan after graduating from the University of New Hampshire two years ago. Her 77-year-old mother, who lives in nearby Concord, has seen her prescription costs decline.

"If you say the word 'Obamacare' — Republicans have made that a dirty word," says West, who was among those surveyed.

"If I had to fault President Obama or the people that help him put out his message, I think they need to be simpler. A lot of times it's the catch phrases that catch fire, like when he said, 'Yes we can' " in the 2008 campaign. "That's why the term 'Obamacare' has worked — a simple phrase, and they've been able to put a negative connotation to it. In fact, they ought to be saying, 'Obamacare! Let's rejoice!'""...

  • [Ed. note: Translation: Ordinary Americans are stupid and would accept anything if it were sold correctly.]

(continuing): "Bragging and basketballs

Thursday night at the mansion of Dallas Mavericks star Vince Carter in Orlando, Obama bragged about the law to a crowd of about 70 campaign contributors who had paid $30,000 each to attend.

"We were able to pass a health care bill that is already providing 2.5 million young people insurance who didn't have it before, and by the time it's fully implemented, will give 30 million people health insurance," the president told the audience gathered at Carter's indoor basketball court.

Although touting the Affordable Care Act is part of Obama's standard pitch at political events such as that one, at larger presidential events, he is more likely to be focused on proposals to foster jobs or promote education. In the State of the Union address in January, he referred to the health care law in only two sentences, almost in passing.

The Republicans seeking the presidential nomination hammer the law at every opening — at times targeting not only Obama but also Romney.

"Romneycare was the model for Obamacare and the government takeover of health care," Santorum declared at last Wednesday's debate in Mesa, Ariz. "It would be a difficult task for someone who had the model for Obamacare, which is the biggest issue in this race of government in control of your lives, to be the nominee of our party."

Romney replied that the Massachusetts plan differed in fundamental ways from the federal one. Then he tried to turn Santorum's charge back on him.

"The reason we have Obamacare is because …Arlen Specter, the pro-choice senator of Pennsylvania that you supported and endorsed in a race over Pat Toomey— he voted for Obamacare. If you had not supported him, if we had said 'no' to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obamacare. So don't look at me. Take a look in the mirror."

Opposition to the federal law is nearly uniform among Republican voters. In the battleground states, eight in 10 say passage of the law was "a bad thing." Nearly six in 10 want it repealed. Nine in 10 say the law's provision requiring Americans to have health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional — the centerpiece of a challenge before the Supreme Court.

The issue is whether Congress can force people to buy health insurance or pay a fine, a mandate that the law's architects say is critical for the goal of expanding coverage and one that has divided judges on federal appeals courts. Arguments before the high court are scheduled to begin March 26, three days after the second anniversary of the law's signing.

Voters in swing states stand overwhelmingly on one side of the debate: Three of four voters, including a majority of Democrats and of liberals, say the law is unconstitutional.

That reaction is almost instinctual, says Stuart Altman, a professor of national health policy at Brandeis University who has joined two briefs supporting the law. "People say, 'The government should not mandate that I have to do anything.' "

He faults the Obama team for not responding effectively enough to what he calls a "torrent" of opposition and misinformation.

"You have this drumbeat of negative comments and almost no positive," he says. "You're relying on the president to do the selling, and he's moved on to other things. The congressional people on the Democratic side are not supporting it. They're either being very quiet or running away from it themselves because they're afraid of getting tarnished.""...

  • [Ed. note: Again the belief people will agree to anything if sold correctly. There is virtually no negative talk about ObamaCare among elected officials because the GOP loves it as much as the left does. The GOP couldn't care less that we the people don't want it.]

(continuing): ""That debate will be had," says Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager. When the public is engaged in the general election, "there will be an intensive effort to ensure that families understand how they're already benefiting from the law and what would be taken away from them if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum has their way. The American people do not want to go back to the days of insurance companies discriminating against you if you have a pre-existing condition or dropping your coverage if you get sick."

That will be a hard sale to make to Hargrove, the North Carolina truck driver. He acknowledges there are provisions in the law he calls "good and needed." His 4-year-old son, Matthew, was born with a hole in his heart, requiring expensive surgery. Hargrove notes that the law's bar on insurers refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions could protect kids such as his.

"But the way it was done, passed before it was read and all this other stuff, that's underhanded," he says. "You've got to have it or pay a penalty? That's not the way the country was set up."...

Eleven percent of voters in battleground states say the law has helped their families; 15% say it has hurt. Looking ahead, they predict by 42%-20% that the law will make things worse rather than better for their families.

A pocket of support: those under 30, a critical age group for Obama in 2008. They are inclined to call the law's enactment "a good thing." Even among them, the share of supporters falls just short of 50%. The older the age group, the more opposition emerges.

Opposition to the law is eroding Obama's support among the middle-of-the-road voters both nominees will court this fall. Among independents, 35% say the law makes them less likely to support Obama, more than double the 16% who say it makes them more likely.

The intensity of feeling among potential swing voters also favors opponents. Among independents who lean to the GOP, 54% say they are much less likely to support Obama as a result. Among independents who lean to the Democrats, 18% say they are much more likely to support him.

Jason Carr, 40, a federal public defender in Las Vegas who describes himself as a moderate, credits the Obama administration with addressing a problem people had been talking about for decades. "You may not like what they did, but they did something," he said in a follow-up interview after being polled. He is likely to vote for Obama in November

  • but would consider Romney if he was the Republican nominee.

Vivian Robertson, 65, a retired nurse from Bangor, Wis., hasn't decided whom to support in the state's Republican primary on April 3, but she knows she won't vote for the author of Obamacare in November.

"I think it's terrible," she says of the law. "It's going to take our medical system, and it's going to go right down the drain.""

-----------------------------------

3/30/2010, "Health care law too costly, most say," USA Today, Susan Page

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds."...

-----------------------------

Ed. note: Expanding Medicaid is all that was needed if the purpose was to cover the uninsured. This is something different. The US medical system now equates to that of a third world toilet. Doctors are in the process of becoming subservient to politboro union clerks in DC.

.

Islamists take 80% of Egypt upper parliament vote, 65% of lower house.

.
The radical Salafists even got a quarter of the upper house.

2/26/12, "Islamists win 80% of Egypt's upper parliament vote," Jerusalem Post, Oren Kessler

"Islamist parties won more than 80 percent of seats in Egypt's upper house of parliament, the country's election board announced Sunday.

The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party took 58 percent of the seats in contention, while the harder-line Salafist Al-Nour party came in second with a quarter of all seats. The nationalist Wafd party came in third with just 7 percent of the vote.

The upper house, or Shura Council, has no legislative powers and fulfills a largely ceremonial function. Two-thirds of its 270 are elected, and the rest filled by government appointment.

Voter turnout was low for the upper house, which will hold its first session Tuesday.

Islamists also dominated voting for the lower house of parliament, with the Brotherhood taking 38 percent and Al-Nour 27 percent." via Atlas Shrugs

.

Rioters in Denver throw balloons filled with urine at police, dress in black body coverings and ski masks to conceal identities

.
Rioters hurled paint bombs, urine bombs, fireworks, vandalized cars, dressed in black body covering to conceal identities and blocked traffic.

2/26/12, "Protestors tag cars, set off fireworks downtown," 9news.com

"Police say about 60 to 70 protestors blocked traffic and set off fireworks in downtown Denver Saturday night in an anti-police protest.

Police say five people were arrested for tagging RTD, police and personal vehicles. The protestors also threw paint balls and balloons full of urine.

The group was using a tactic called black bloc, wearing black clothing and ski masks to conceal their identities.

The protestors forced the mall shuttle to shut down on the first night of Denver Restaurant Week."...

--------------------------------

2/26/12, "Protestors throw urine bombs at Denver police," KDVR.com

"Several protesters were arrested Saturday evening during a disruptive anti-police protest in downtown Denver.

According to Lt. Matt Murray of the Denver Police Department, at 7:30 p.m. close to 60-70 anarchist protesters started marching on 16th Street Mall.

The Mall Ride was forced to shut down as protesters allegedly threw urine-filled balloons, set off fireworks and sprayed painted several vehicles including an RTD bus.

Murray said a police car and several other vehicles were also tagged.

Five protesters were arrested and face charges including criminal mischief.

The group was allegedly protesting police brutality and not directly associated with the Occupy Denver movement."

-------------------------------

2/25/12, "5 Arrested In Anti-Police Protest," The Denver Channel

"At least five people were arrested Saturday night following a protest in downtown Denver. The group known as Anonymous, along with other activists, began their march down Denver’s 16th Street Mall around 7p.m. in what they called a protest “against police brutality.”...
Witnesses reported protesters with fireworks lighting them and throwing them. There were also reports that activists at the front of the group were carrying balloons filled with urine. Denver police spokesman Matt Murray confirmed that several cars were spray painted with graffiti by protesters. 7NEWS reporter Marshall Zelinger said he saw one car painted with the red anarchy symbol. There were reports one of the cars vandalized was a police car....In the week leading up to Saturday’s protest, the group Anonymous encouraged Anarchists and other activists to join them in marching and yelling, “F*** the police.” "
--------------------------------

2/14/12, "The Hysterical Fear of Urine & Feces Being Thrown at Police During G8 Protests," FireDog Lake

It's unfair to demonize anarchists who may or may not throw urine and feces, after all it hasn't been done that often so why make a big deal?

.

US Muslim judge OK's assault based on Islamic Sharia law, tells victim to keep in mind we're Ugly Americans always wanting to have our say over others

.
Update, 2/26/12, "Hundreds of threats for assault victim in case dismissed by Quran-minded judge," Daily Caller, Pamela Geller
-----------------
Acquitted Muslim immigrant 'didn't know' assault was illegal and besides wanted to be an example to his 9 yr. old son. US Sharia Judge: "This is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights."

2/26/12, "An American ‘Kadi’ in Pennsylvania’s Court," Andrew Bostom, Big Peace

"Fast forward six months to the unabashed sharia-compliant, Islamic blasphemy law-based “decision” of American convert to Islam, and Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin. The proceedings were in fact “surreal”, as summarized by blogger Al Stefannelli, and captured on audio. Simply put, Judge Martin chose to abandon his required fidelity to the constitutional law of the US and instead behaved as dutiful pious Muslim Kadi, albeit in a Pennsylvania state court....

The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death. Judge Martin’s comments included,

“... Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

Judge Martin then offered a lesson in Islam, stating,

“Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being....

Judge Martin further complicates the issue by not only abrogating the First Amendment, but completely misunderstanding it when he said,

“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say”

But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,

“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.”...

Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”....

Just below is Stefanelli’s apt synopsis of the full 36 minute 52 second res ipsa loquitur audio."...

.

As Shariah spreads like cancer 4th annual Florida Muslim Capitol Day in Tallahassee Tues., 2/28

.
2/26/12, "Creeping Shari’ah in America Must Be Stopped," Big Peace, Laura Rambeau Lee

"An American Muslim judge in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania imposed Shari’ah on a man who dressed as “Zombie Muhammad” in a Halloween Parade last year. He was accosted by a Muslim man who was offended by this display of disrespect of the Prophet Muhammad.

The video of the hearing can be accessed here (hat tip: Atlas Shrugs). embedded by Embedded Video

We are seeing Shari’ah becoming more “accepted” in America, usurping the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America in the decisions of judges in our courts.

We have Shari’ah-compliant mortgage financing. We have seen a Palestinian woman, Fatima Abdallah, brutally beaten to death in Tampa, her murder swept under the carpet so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities.

Please encourage Florida lawmakers to support legislation titled Application of Foreign Laws in Certain Cases (HB 1209, SB 1360). This legislation would prohibit certain provisions of foreign laws, including Shari’ah law, from being considered by Florida courts if they do not afford the same liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by the Florida and US Constitution.

The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations Chair has scheduled SB 1360 for consideration on Tuesday, February 28, 2012.

Thus far, three committees have approved this legislation with only one dissenting vote. To read the full details at Florida Family Association click here. There is a link to write to the Florida legislature to express your support for this bill.

This legislation has passed all of the assigned committees in the Florida House and is ready to be heard by the full house of representatives. However, this legislation must pass in this senate subcommittee.

Ahmed Bedier of United Voices for America will be in Tallahassee on February 28th to fight this bill. The group is inviting Muslims to Tallahassee on the same day for the fourth annual Florida Muslim Capitol Day.

The proposed bill would in no way diminish the ability of the Muslim faithful to peaceably practice their religion. It merely seeks to affirm the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America as the Supreme Law of the Land."

---------------------------------

The Tampa Tribune doesn't use the word 'sharia,' instead uses the word 'islamic.'

10/25/11, "Use of Islamic law OK in civil case, judge rules," Tampa Tribune, by Jose Patino Girona

=============

3/20/11, "'This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law'," American Thinker, Thomas Lifson

---------------------

3/20/11, "Sharia law has come to Florida," RedState.com by Tom in Florida

-------------------

2/4/11, "CPAC Honors Shark Tank for attacking conservatives?," Political Watchdog, Charles Robinson

--------------------

CPAC is sponsored by the ACU which now includes Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers. (Isn't everybody?):

2/7/11, "The Muslim Brotherhood and the ACU," RedState.com, Ben Howe

"This is about the influence of radical Islam over the organization that puts CPAC together, the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) board of directors. Unfortunately, it has become apparent that there are Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, apologists, and fundamentalists

  • sponsoring and speaking at the conference this weekend."...

.

.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Pakistanis put noose around neck of Obama figure

.


2/25/12, "We should NOT have apologised for Koran burning, says Santorum as another eight Americans are hurt in Afghan protest violence," UK Daily Mail, Roberts, Hills, photo AFP/getty in Daily Mail article

The media said everyone would like us because of Obama, that we could sleep peacefully now.

Above, cover of New Yorker Magazine, 11/17/08, after Obama's election. More Halos. Time.com notes about the cover:

"Why is the cover great? It doesn't do a victory dance. Rather, it whispers to the reader (the tribe): "Everything's okay now — we have our country back." It's set at night, a time when creepy things happen, but also a time when people sleep, safe and sound. It is beautifully rendered. Simply spectacular."

.

Obama 'hearts and minds' agenda massive failure, after 3 years 92% of Afghans have no idea why US taxpayers spend $6 billion a month there

.
‘There is a vacuum - and it's being filled by Al Qaeda and Taliban propaganda claiming that we are here to destroy Islam.’"


9/9/11, "Most Afghans do not even know about 9/11, according to disturbing poll," UK Daily Mail

"The vast majority of Afghans do not even know what 9/11 is, a disturbing poll has revealed.

Some 92 per cent, or 25 million people, said they were unaware that terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001, sparking the invasion of their country.

They called it ‘this event which foreigners call 9/11’ and had no idea what it meant.

The remaining eight per cent who did know often blamed conspiracy theories and said that America was responsible to justify its foreign policy.

The troubling survey raises grave questions over the failure of British and American troops to win ‘hearts and minds’ during the occupation of Afghanistan....

The study of 1,000 Afghan men was carried out by think tank the International Council on Security and Development in the Southern districts of Kandahar and Helmand

After being read a three paragraph summary of what happened on 9/11 the overwhelming majority of respondents had no clue what it was.

Among those who were questioned was 16-year-old Abdul Ghattar who was from the Southern Helmand province but was living in a refugee camp on the edge of Kabul, the capital.

‘Never heard of it,’ he said. ‘I have no idea why the Americans are in my country.’

When the researchers found somebody who did know about 9/11, their response was arguably more chilling.

Maulvi Abdulaziz Mujahed, an imam in Kabul who served as chairman of the Kabul provincial council in 2008 to 2009, said: ‘I saw the photos of all those who have been killed in the attacks, and I saw people bring flowers for their loved ones.

‘But I couldn't find a single Jew among them.

'The superpowers wanted a good pretext to invade Afghanistan, and these attacks provided it.'

Norine MacDonald, president of the International Council on Security and Development, said the survey showed that nobody has bothered to actually explain to Afghans why British and U.S. soldiers are there.

She said: ‘There is a vacuum - and it's being filled by Al Qaeda and Taliban propaganda claiming that we are here to destroy Islam.’" via RedState twitter

-------------------------

7/25/11, "U.S. trucking funds end up in Taliban hands," Reuters

Citation for $6 billion a month going from US taxpayers for an alleged war in Afghanistan.

.



Rio+20, Agenda 21, and 'smart growth,' yet another UN global gala wasting taxpayer time and money

.
UN personnel cannot be prosecuted by the US for any crime, abuse, theft or misuse of US taxpayer dollars even if admitted no matter how great. (Citation at end of post). In 2001, 87 US municipalities had already signed up for Agenda 21 (p. 10).

2/26/12, "Rio+20 meets Agenda 21," WUWT, Willis Eschenbach

"Well, the rent-seekers, money-hungry NGOs, grifters, post-normal “scientists”, con-men, Eurotrash, and the usual camp followers are gearing up again for another monumental waste of money. This time, it’s for the upcoming extravagarbonza, the new Rio+20 Climate Carnival.

The meeting features the usual dangerous bafflegab, which conceals wholesale theft under layers of rhetoric like this:

Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities. SOURCE

As is typical with this kind of mealy-mouthed official doublespeak, we need a translation to see who is getting fleeced, and how....

They say that they want to “promote the implementation of Agenda 21″. Now, “Agenda 21” was what started all of this nonsense. It was adopted at the original Rio Conference in 1992, and is as dangerous now as it was then.

The danger is highlighted by the recent meeting of the UN Chief, Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon, with his UN aides brainstorming about Rio+20. They talk about “moving toward a fairer, greener, and more sustainable globalization”, a very frightening thought. They talk about strengthening the UN “to manage the process of globalization better,” another scary idea.

  • I don’t want globalization of any kind, and if I did,
  • I damn sure don’t want the UN involved in any way.
To return to Agenda 21, let me take up just one tiny portion of the Agenda. (In passing, I doubt that they could have invented a more Orwellian name for this plan to take over the world’s economy than “Agenda 21″ … but I digress.) Here is Section 9.8.(d) of Agenda 21:

Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;

There are several things of note about this part of Agenda 21. First, in 1992 we didn’t know (and still don’t know now) if GHGs can cause “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system or not. For that matter, we don’t know what “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is when it’s at home. But despite that, the goal was not to find out what the actual effect of GHGs might be.

Rather than figuring out if there was a danger, Agenda 21 instructed people to establish an imaginary level of “dangerous interference”.

The same is true about “rates of change”. We have no evidence that changes in climate can keep ecosystems from “adapt[ing] naturally”. Despite that, we are instructed to determine the levels that do just that,

  • with no hint about what that might be or how to measure it.

Finally, you can see how early this was—GHGs were not listed as a “pollutant”. This is in stark distinction to the EPA’s ruling that CO2 is a pollutant … go figure.

Anyhow, that’s just a little bit of the garbage in Agenda 21. It has already caused huge problems, including the formation of the IPCC and the assumption of GHGs as the main (if not only) driver of global climate change when there is no clear evidence (even today) if that is actually the case—that’s what the debate is about.

To leave Agenda 21 and return to the first bit of translation, they say they want to rip people off “consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability”. What this means depends on the tide, the phase of the moon, and the desires of the person invoking it. Basically, it means whatever they want it to mean, unless it happens to favor development, business, or human beings, in which case it means the opposite.

Next, they pledge allegiance to the “Rio Principles“. The “Rio Principles” were an unprincipled declaration of how they planned to achieve their global redistribution of wealth. Among the un-principles are the “Precautionary Principle“, along with the usual feel-good clauses and paragraphs about how they planned to spend the money.

Finally, in a wonderful understatement, they back the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This is UN-speak at its finest. The “differentiated responsibilities” part means “the poorest in the rich countries have the responsibility of providing the money to pay to the richest in the poor countries, whose responsibility is to spend it on Mercedes sedans for Government Ministers.” Seriously. That’s what “common but differentiated responsibilities” means, except the part about the Mercedes, I added that because it’s the inevitable outcome.

So yes, no surprise, they have learned absolutely nothing in the last 20 years. How could they, when 20 years ago they claimed they already understood it all? They are doubling down on their stupidity, planning to restructure the global economy and have the industrialized world pay the whole tab. I mean, somebody has to line the pockets of the NGOs and the third-world despots, and who better than … you?

I’m not sure how we can fight this, but fight it we must. I see they are planning to use “social media” to try to whip up the faithful, so we can expect lots of that, fluff on Facebook and the like. In any case, Rio+20 is the usual, and still very dangerous, conflux of the useful idiots, greedy activists, pimps, prostitutes, and pseudo-scientists who have caused so much damage in the past.

Head them off at the pass, harass their flanks, destroy their supply-wagons, cut them off from their water supply, I don’t know what … but this madness has to stop. You cannot redistribute your way to wealth, and as Margaret Thatcher is rumored to have remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

A word to the wise … it’s your money that they are planning to run out of, in the process of propping up some of the planet’s most despotic regimes in the name of “combatting climate change” …"...

================

2001, "Environmental Governance and Institutions — Agenda 21: Number of formally committed municipalities," earthtrends.wri.org

In 2001 87 US municipalities had signed up for Agenda 21. The number is likely much higher today. It doesn't matter if the US as a country isn't signed up for it.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=2001-2001&variable_ID=661&theme=10&cID=190&ccID=

------------------------------

10/28/09, "UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You," American Thinker, Strzelczyk and Rothschild

----------------------------

"Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,"...

4/16/09,
"Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian

"
Two United Nations agencies spent millions in U.S. money on substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a central bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of "life threatening" collapse, according to an investigation by U.S. federal agents.

The U.N. ran a "quick impact" infrastructure program from 2003 to 2006 under a $25 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.N. delivered shoddy work, diverted money to other countries and then stonewalled U.S. efforts to figure out what happened, according to a report by USAID's inspector general obtained by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Due to the refusal of the United Nations to cooperate with this investigation, questions remain unanswered," the report says.

Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity, according to the report. USAID has scaled back its dealings with the U.N. and hired a collection agency to seek $7.6 million back, Deputy Administrator James Bever said. The aid agency hasn't heeded its inspector general's request to sever all ties.

  • "There are certain cases where working with the U.N. is the only option available," Bever said in an e-mail....

One U.N. employee told investigators that "about $10 million of USAID grant money went to projects in other countries, to include Sudan, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Dubai." That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse. Witness names were withheld by USAID.

The development program hired UNOPS to do the work and kept a 7% management fee, the report says. The finances were "out of control," an unnamed project services manager told investigators.

An unnamed USAID contractor told investigators that the program was "ill conceived from the beginning. This was a political idea to do quick impact projects that would look good," the report said.

  • Investigators found that projects reported as "complete" were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said. For example:
•A bridge near Kandahar cost $250,000, had to be overhauled by other contractors and still was not safe. The U.N. claimed the bridge was damaged by flood, but a colonel in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told investigators that "falls between absolute incompetence and a lie; the project was improperly constructed."

•An airstrip in the southern town of Qalat, originally budgeted at $300,000, cost $749,000 and could not accommodate military planes.

•A $375,000 headquarters for Afghanistan's central bank lacked electricity or plumbing, and basement flooding destroyed stacks of local currency.

Investigators found that UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007, months after the project had ended. UNDP has

----------------------------------

3/30/10, "UN immune from criminal prosecution. Did you know?" SciForums

MrsLucySnowe: "The international court of justice has denied allowing women from Srebrenica from suing the UN for their responsibility in the Bosnian massacre.

Srebrenica Relatives of Bosnian Muslims killed in Europe's worst massacre since World War II lost another round Tuesday in their attempt to sue the United Nations for responsibility. The Hague Appeals Court upheld a 2008 lower court ruling

  • affirming U.N. immunity from prosecution.
"The immunity from prosecution guarantees that the U.N. is not thwarted in the execution of its duties as a result of court cases being instigated against it, possibly for no other reason than to frustrate the U.N.'s work," the court said. "It is in the best public interest that the U.N. can avail itself of its duties untroubled."

Some 8,000 men were murdered in July 1995 by Serb forces who overran Srebrenica, which had been declared a U.N. safe zone for the Muslim civilians in the Bosnian enclave. The Dutch U.N. peacekeepers protecting the enclave were undermanned and outgunned, and failed to intervene.
  • International courts have ruled the slayings were a genocide.
Lawyers for the Mothers of Srebrenica said the ruling undermines their "fundamental human rights" of access to "effective legal remedies."

"How long can the U.N. retain its credibility, striving to protect human rights but at the same time
  • disregarding them itself?" the lawyers said.
However, the appeals court said the mothers do have legal avenues open to them as they are free to sue both the perpetrators and the Dutch government.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-netherlands-srebrenica,0,2525397.story
  • So are you down with that?
Should the UN be exempt from judicial process?"

=================

Ed. note: Even so-called GOP politicians will say not to worry about Agenda 21. Saying the name Agenda 21 will get you laughed at as a 'conspiracy theorist' even though it's a well established UN group. This single tool, ridicule, has been the key to success of these groups. People always back off when ridiculed. Hipster names for it are things like "smart growth" or "sustainable communities."

Under the guise of 'caring' about the poor, the UN has made everything worse for the poor and much better for third world profiteers. via Tom Nelson

===================

2009, UN Division of Sustainable Development, Core Publications Agenda 21


.