TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Media Ignore Communist Presence at Copenhagenwritten by Rebecca Terrell

Among the demonstrations accompanying the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was theSaturday, December 12 "Global Day of Action" at which protestors from 108 countries marched four milesthrough the city’s streets to demand "climate justice." Brent Baker with the Media Research Centerpointed out in his BiasAlert article, "Network journalists who were quick to see racists, haters andextremists amongst the ‘tea party’ protesters were oblivious… to communists" participating in the march.

Throughout Saturday’s demonstration, large red flags bearing the Soviet Union’s hammer and sicklewaved above the heads of marchers representing the Danish Kommunistisk Parti. The communists alsocarried banners declaring, "Socialism: A Cohesive and Viable Alternative." Baker quotes broadcasts fromNBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News touting Saturday’s march as a peaceful demonstration for "realchange." NBC reporter Anne Thompson gushed, "An extraordinary sight in front of Denmark’s parliamentbuilding: 35,000 protestors filling the square, stepping off on a slow march with an urgent plea: Save theplanet… The marchers have a simple message for the delegates. Stop talking and start acting."

Yet Baker found only two online posts that mentioned communist participation in the event:

• A Financial Times article noted, "The protesters were a mix of environmental campaigners, churchgroups and ordinary Danes, many with children, as well as anarchists and communists"; and

• A report from Ethan Stewart with the Santa Barbara Independent stated, "From Communist groupsand Greenpeace to radical vegetarians and a pro-Iranian crew, there were not many activist sub groupswithout representation in the march."

Though excited about the event, Stewart admitted, "Surveying the crowd just as the march got underway,I promised myself I would have an escape route planned at all times for the rest of this conference nomatter where I was." He also reported that police made 900 arrests before the demonstration ended witha candlelight vigil at which frozen participants huddled around bonfires outside Copenhagen’s BellaCenter where negotiators have until December 18 to decide what to do about Earth’s rising temperatures.The Financial Times reported that protest leaders at the vigil called for the need to "kill capitalism" and to

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

donate "$200 billion a year in new money to help the poorest countries tackle climate change."

Network broadcasts also failed to deliver the message communists brought with them to thedemonstration. The party’s website says its members joined the march "in protest against the richcountries’ irresponsibility and passivity toward problems facing our planet," pointing a particular finger ofblame at the United States. "The United States and its allies come to Copenhagen to strengthen their ownimperialist ambitions," writes party member Julie Malling. "Let us stand together for our commonrequirements and isolate the U.S. and the industrialized countries who have come to Copenhagen toensure the survival of capitalism." Malling calls for employing civil disobedience in the "climate battle,"claiming activists have successfully shut down coal-based power plants in the past.

Attendance estimates in the above-quoted media reports range from 30,000 to 45,000, with organizersclaiming more than 100,000. This video shows footage from Saturday’s march, with a brief glimpse ofCommunist party demonstrators about three minutes in.

Participants Freeze Amid Climate Conference Chaoswritten by Alex Newman

COPENHAGEN — Upon arrival at the United Nations COP15 Climate Change Summit in CopenhagenonDecember 14, the police officer in military fatigues guarding the gate informed us that no, those crowdswere not protesters, “They’re journalists.”

Snow was falling from the sky, and the rambunctious media personnel, national delegates, non-governmental organization representatives, and even scientists from around the world had been standingoutside the barricades for hours. Many never made it in. Even some who arrived as early as 9 a.m. left infrustration after eight hours of standing in line.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Two scientists who spoke with The New American were obviously dismayed about the situation. They weresupposed to give presentations to further convince the conference attendees that man was indeedresponsible for global warming, but at least one of them — maybe both — likely never even got theircredentials.

Every once in a while, somebody would come out with a megaphone to make an announcement. But it wasimpossible to hear. The words were almost immediately drowned out by the furious chants of the freezingmob outside: “Let us in! Let us in! Let us in! What do we want? Entrance! When do we want it? Now! UNshame! UN shame! UN shame!”

But even if the crowd had not been hollering, the line stretched so far back that most of the people in thequeue would not have heard it anyway. Rumors swirled through the air as would-be conferenceparticipants called their people to figure out what was going on and if anything could be done about it. Areporter for Al-Jazeera said somebody had told her the passport machine was broken, while a Danishjournalist who worked for the local public broadcasting station explained that for some reason the UnitedNations had approved tens of thousands more applicants than the Bella Center could actuallyaccommodate.

Nobody really knew what was going on, but the New York Times eventually reported that Danish policehad refused to admit more participants. Apparently the venue really was already filled to capacity.

Eventually several vans stuffed with police arrived at the entrance. As they assumed their positions,another voice came over a megaphone. This time, some people wanted to know what was going on so theyshushed the shouting crowd. “Nobody else will be getting in tonight,” explained the voice, which instantlyprompted more chanting.

Animal rights protestors dressed in various fluffy critter costumes stayed with the crowd throughout thewhole ordeal, offering delicious tofu sandwiches and all manner of leaflets insisting that the true solutionto “climate change” was global vegetarianism. Many of the people in line spoke of stealing one of theoutfits to stay warm, while a giant LED screen loudly announced that Canada had received the “Fossil ofthe day” award for failing to fully cooperate with the negotiations.

The world body aiming to regulate the carbon dioxide emissions for every human on Earth apparentlycannot even handle its own accreditation process properly. How any of the people chattering their teethoutside could possibly support UN regulation of the global economy is simply unexplainable. But the ironywas indeed delicious — even better than the tofu sandwiches: snow at a global-warming conference andabsolute incompetence in even the most rudimentary tasks.

Photo of conference attendees waiting to get their credentials: AP Images

8-Year-Old Suspended From School for Jesus Drawingwritten by Thomas R. Eddlem

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Taunton, Massachusetts, public school officials suspended a second grader for drawing a stick figure ofJesus on the cross after his teacher instructed the class to draw an image that reminded them ofChristmas. The eight-year-old special needs boy was then required to undergo violence counseling beforeofficials allowed him to return to school.

According to the Taunton Gazette, the boy had just days earler visited the local Catholic shrine NationalShrine of Our Lady of La Salette, and the image of the crucifix was fresh on his mind when the teachergave the assignment. The Attleboro, Massachusetts La Salette shrine is a seasonal tourist attraction formany Boston-area Catholics, as it includes more than 300,000 Christmas lights as well as numerouscrucifixes.

The image of the crucifix was deemed too violent in the current age of “no tolerance” for violence. Somehave speculated that the teacher brought the drawing to the attention of administrators because he drewthe letter X over the eyes of Jesus in the stick figure drawing. The incident happened on December 2, andthe child was allowed to return to school December 7 after receiving counseling.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father Chester Johnson told theTaunton Gazette. He added that his son has never been in trouble at the school. “He’s never beensuspended,” Johnson said of his son.“He’s 8 years old. They overreacted.”

Even the social worker consulted by the family in this case has protested this extreme reaction to astudent’s drawing. “When I got that call, I was so appalled that I had to do something,” Toni Saunders, ofthe non-profit Associated Advocacy Center told the Taunton Gazette. “They weren’t looking at the fact thatthis is an 8-year-old child with special needs,” she added. “They made him leave school, and theyrecommended that a psychiatrist do an evaluation.”

“I’m sure they expected Santa Claus or a reindeer, but that’s not where this child’s mind was,”Saunders told the Boston Herald of the child. And that’s just the problem with the public schools, not justin Taunton or the state of Massachusetts, but nationwide. They can’t teach about the most importantthings in life.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Some have argued that a crucifix was more appropriate for a Good Friday or Easter image thanChristmas. But the purpose of the nativity was so that Christ could die on the cross and redeem the worldfrom sin.

For Christians, Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection is not just an important part of most people’slives, it is not even the most important thing in the lives of Christians. Christ’s actions on the cross,Christians believe, is the reason for life.

What does it say when an eight-year-old special needs student understands this, but the collective wisdomof the public school system — with their masters degrees and doctorates — does not?

Thomas R. Eddlem is a Taunton school teacher … but he teaches in the Catholic school system.

Calling in the Big Guns: Oval Office Meeting to HealHealthcare Riftwritten by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

In what has been described as a last-ditch effort to save the healthcare overhaul that is first on hisChristmas wish list, President Barack Obama has summoned all 60 members of the Senate’s Democraticcaucus to the White House on Tuesday for an 11th-hour pep talk in anticipation of an impending vote onthe Senate’s version of a bill that would alter the healthcare industry by changing Medicare, offering long-term care to retirees and the disabled, and creating a government-subsidized and administered panoply ofhealth insurance policies.

The President’s urgent call to meet with Senators whose votes are crucial to overcome an expectedRepublican filibuster and other procedural maneuvers designed to prevent healthcare legislation fromreaching the floor of the Senate for a roll call vote, came just hours after Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)announced his resolve to oppose the bill’s expansion of Medicare coverage to Americans as young as 55

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

years old. This announcement caught Reid and the White House by surprise, as they thought Lieberman’ssupport was in the bag. An aide to a Democratic Senator summed it up this way, “It was a total flip flop,and leaves us in a predicament as to what to do.” Lunch at the White House is the latest attempt to swaywayward lawmakers to the side of Reid and President Obama. Prior to this audience, the job of finding amiddle ground was left to a dream team of influential Senators.

The compromise language hammered out by the Team of Ten led by Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Leftand Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) in the middle was believed palatable to all members of the 60 memberDemocratic Caucus. Lieberman, while not a Democrat, is a member of that caucus and as such his supportfor the bill is vital to fulfilling Senator Reid’s promise to deliver the package to President Obama byChristmas Day.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

All the impediments to presenting President Obama with an historic overhaul of the medical care industryin America that has been the hallmark of his legislative agenda were thought to have been overcome inthe Team of Ten’s re-write of the bill. The well-chosen cadre of representatives from across the spectrumof Democratic Senators worked for several days (and nights) to deliver a sleeker scheme that wouldattract the support of liberal Democrats eager to offer government subsidized health insurance to allAmericans, as well as more moderate members of the party determined to excise all new entitlementsfrom the measure.

Considered a “moderate” and a bit a maverick, Senator Joseph Lieberman’s support of any of the varioushealthcare bills has been tepid at best. On Sunday, however, Lieberman removed all speculation as hephoned the Senate Majority Leader and let him know that he would flatly reject any measure thatcontained a provision permitting those Americans 55 and over to buy-in to Medicare coverage, as thecurrent bill does. Lieberman told Reid that the already bloated bill was growing too large and that hecould not recommend such a behemoth be placed on the back of an American middle-class alreadysuffering from over-taxation and an economic atmosphere poisoned by government meddling in privateindustry. “We’ve got to stop adding to the bill. We’ve got to start subtracting some controversial things,”Lieberman told a television commentator on Sunday.

One of the controversial things still threatening to scupper the wholesale healthcare revisions promotedby Senator Reid and President Obama is abortion. As currently composed, the bill before the Senatecontains provisions that would permit women receiving federally subsidized health insurance to receive anabortion on demand. Despite, waffling between support and opposition, Senator Ben Nelson, author of theanti-abortion amendment that was rejected by the Senate last week, seems to be yet leaning towardvoting against the bill that would be put before the body sometime before Christmas.

Naturally, any ground ceded to Senator Nelson on the abortion front might inspire the defection of pro-abortion proponents from the critical coalition necessary to carry the legislation through the Senate andonto President Obama’s desk. Details of any concessions being considered are inscrutable, but there are afew possiblities being bandied about by anonymous legislative spokesmen.

One proposal maintains the coverage for abortion within the greater “public option” but prohibits the useof federal funds to pay for the controversial procedure. Critics recognize this bizarre barrier as nothingmore than a Chinese wall that will be susceptible to being pierced by zealous lawyers and activists judgesdedicated to finding a path to federally funded abortion on demand, in spite of legislative intent.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

There are several other ideas on the table and Senator Reid and his cohorts are frantically trying to cobbletogether some sort of small, but convincing concessions that will strengthen Nelson’s tenuous ties to hisParty’s proposal, as well as foster the fidelity of the 58 other Democrats whose votes are equallyparamount to surmounting Republican resistance to the march toward healthcare “reform.”

Court Grants Benefits to Illegal Immigrantwritten by Steven J. DuBord

A Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled on December 8 that an illegal immigrant who was injured on the job atCargill Meat Solutions in Schuyler, Nebraska, is entitled to worker compensation.

Odilon Visoso, who was using the name Adam Rodriguez at the time, was working at Cargill on May 9,2006, when a 100-pound piece of meat fell off a hook and hit the back of his head, neck, and shoulder.Despite his injury, he continued to perform light work at Cargill until he had surgery in October 2008.

Later that same month, Cargill fired Visoso because of his illegal status. News reports did not make itclear if Cargill knew all along about Visoso’s illegal status or if they only found out about it after thesurgery. By waiting to fire Visoso until after he had surgery, the company at least gave the appearance ofwanting to avoid incurring any more expenses for his care.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

The initial Worker Compensation Court decision came down in favor of Visoso. Cargill’s attorneys hadargued that because Visoso was in the United States illegally, he couldn’t legally work here and wastherefore disqualified from receiving worker compensation benefits. The court, however, ruled thatworker compensation laws are meant to "relieve injured workers from the adverse economic effectscaused by a work-related injury or occupational disease," further noting that “workers” include anyoneperforming labor for an employer, "including aliens."

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

The court’s decision, upheld by the Court of Appeals, was that Visoso is entitled to weekly benefitsamounting to $343.04 as determined by the wages he was earning at Cargill. He is also entitled torepayment of future medical expenses related to his spinal injury and reimbursement for any travelassociated with obtaining treatment.

"We find that although Visoso cannot legally work in the United States because of his immigration status,he is nonetheless an ‘employee’ or ‘worker’ who, as a general proposition, is covered by the NebraskaWorkers’ Compensation Act," noted the decision written by Judge Richard Sievers.

Ryan Holsten, an attorney for Visoso, pointed out that if the ruling had come down against his client, morebusinesses would have been encouraged to hire illegal immigrants because the illegals could always bedischarged when injured on the job. Not only would employers get cheap labor, they would get off easyeven when lax safety standards put these workers in danger.

"If companies weren’t responsible for workers’ compensation, they could hire more illegals, then whenthey got hurt say, ‘Oh, too bad. We are not going to pay your benefits,’ " Holsten said in a phone interviewwith the Lincoln Journal Star.

The Court of Appeals did postpone the decision on whether Visoso would be entitled to vocationalrehabilitation services until he has reached the full extent of his medical recovery. His condition at thattime would have to be evaluated, though the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled in an earlier case that anillegal immigrant was not eligible for rehabilitation.

As Sir Walter Scott wrote: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” If onlyAmerica’s borders were secured in the first place, the occurrence of such legal conundrums would beminimized.

Follow the Constitution, Armey Urges GOPwritten by Bruce Walker

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, one of the architects of the Republican victory in 1994, hasurged his fellow Republicans to pay closer attention to the Constitution. In an interview with CBS News,Armey said that Republicans did not need to worry as much as ideology as they did to be dutiful.Congressman Armey noted that every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. Duty,Armey reiterated, is different from ideology or philosophy of government. He did not leave out freespending by Republican controlled congresses from his scolding.

Armey urged a fresh start with a central focus on individual responsibility. The former House leader urgedthat Republicans take a practical approach. In Armey’s, it’s unrealistic to suggest that entitlementprograms vanish, simply because these programs were enacted under dubious constitutional authority.But, he continued, the direction of future policies on programs like Medicare should be toward voluntaryparticipation rather than state compulsion. While the guiding star should always be the liberty that theFounding Fathers intended to leave us, it’s vital to at least begin to fight for as much individual choice aspossible within government programs. He said: "if we can’t restore America to the full dimensions ofliberty, let’s at least clear up the transgressions of the institutions that are there."

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

The approach Armey outlined is perhaps reflected in the positions of FreedomWorks, the conservativeadvocacy group Armey heads. For example, FreedomWorks calls for scrapping our current tax code andreplacing it with a flat tax. By way of contrast, Congressman Ron Paul, who ran for President in 2008 onthe Republican ticket as the "champion of the Constitution," calls for scrapping the federal income tax andreplacing it with nothing.

Regarding healthcare, the FreedomWorks website says: "We want Americans to be able to use the freemarket to choose the care that suits their individual needs." It adds: "We believe that government shouldnot gain more control over healthcare" — as opposed to taking the position that the federal government’salready-significant role in healthcare should be phased out over time.

Armey has been a strong critic of President Obama’s healthcare proposals — which would expandgovernment’s involvement in healthcare — as well as the "cap and trade" legislation supported by Obama.He also warned about the dangers of compulsory unionization, which is something that President Obamahas been supporting. Congressman Armey noted that when the American people understand that theObama administration is moving away from everything that created the American Dream, in pursuit of apurely academic idea of what America ought to be, then the president’s current slide in public approvalwill increase.

Dick Armey, unlike so many other powerful politicians in Washington, is not a lawyer or a lifelong electedofficial. He attended college in North Dakota, far away from the powerbrokers in Washington, and later hetaught economics at North Texas University. Armey, a conservative congressman during his years in theHouse (1985-2003), acquired a reputation for supporting the closure of unnecessary military bases, aposition many congressmen generally considered conservative do not take.

In his CBS interview, Congressman Armey was asked about the Tea Party movement and whetherFreedomWorks helped father that movement. He was asked if he agreed with Paul Krugman of the NewYork Times, who called Tea Parties "astroturf events." Congressman Armey said that this movement wasgenuinely spontaneous and that this movement would have occurred with or without any help fromFreedomWorks. Armey said that this movement could lead to the genuine rehabilitation of the Republican

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Party, and that when Republicans adopt its attitude of freedom, then Republicans would win.

Photo of Dick Armey: AP Images

FCC Official Calls First Amendment a Tool of Right-wing Extremistswritten by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Despite dedicating five minutes of his recent 20-minute presentation at the Media Access Project forum todecrying the “right-wing smear campaign” he claims to be the target of, FCC Chief Diversity Office andAssociate Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Mark Lloyd assured attendees thathe was not carrying out “a secret plot funded by George Soros” to eliminate conservative talk-show voicessuch as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

In a rambling and self-obsessed scree that touched on everything from Rush Limbaugh to Hugo Chavez,Lloyd, the forum’s keynote speaker, spent the rest of his address defending his organization’s policies thathave been criticized as backdoor attempts to reinvigorate the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulationintroduced in 1949 that required broadcasters to present all sides of a controversial topic. Until it wasrevoked in 1987, the practical application of the rule was a prior restraint on broadcast of robust debateon prickly points of public policy.

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

Touting his own independence of thought and unalloyed determination to bolster the vitality of the publicairwaves by strengthening diversity, Lloyd reminded listeners that he was not one of President Obama’sarmy of czars, and he was a staunch supporter of free speech. One wonders why a man charged withmonitoring fairness at the agency tasked with policing the content of publicly broadcasted programswould feel compelled to trumpet his devotion to freedom. Perhaps the officer doth protest too much?

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

One thing Lloyd protested openly and vehemently is the vicious vendetta he asserts is being undertakenby a branch of the larger “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He claims that blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,and all other iterations of the so-called new media are being manipulated by tech-savvy opponents of him;his policy positions they deem contrary to established principles of freedom of speech, especially aspertains to the radio and television. “Anyone who suggests that Facebook and YouTube are the answers tothe problems of old media has not been confronted by a smear campaign using these social media tools,”lamented Lloyd. Lloyd remarked that the accusations made by these new media mavericks distort hisviews and paint an inaccurate portrait of his views on the First Amendment generally and the relevantsub-topics of unfettered free speech and continuing government funding of old media outlets.

Despite painting himself as the much-maigned innocent, Lloyd’s public record is voluminous and rife withstatements suggesting sympathy with stricter government regulation of the content of speech broadcastover the air. Also, Lloyd has learned something of the tactics of targeting from his detractors, as he hasmentioned Rush Limbaugh by name in several essays published online in academic journal and thereinhas suggested that free-speech protections enshrined in the Constitution should not hamstring Congress’ability to gag Limbaugh or at least constrain him to present both sides of the issues he confronts on hisdaily syndicated talk show.

While not categorically denying these accusations, Lloyd does describe them as “simplistic distortions” ofa complicated and distinguished chronicle of congressional testimony, articles, and books on the subject ofmedia and broadcast rights and restrictions. In his defense against what he calls “right-wing haters,”Lloyd maintains that his focus has always been the preservation of the American democracy throughcareful and conscientious control of communications.

A thorough exposition of Lloyd’s view on the central role played by communications in the overall schemeof securing the blessings of liberty to the American public was contained in his 2006 book, Prologue to aFarce: Communications and Democracy in America. In this 352-page defense of rigorous regulationpublished by the University of Illinois Press, Lloyd identifies fellow author Saul Alinsky as someone fromwhom he took “inspiration and guidance.” While not a household name, Alinsky is a radical bomb-throwerfrom the 1970s notorious for penning the guidebook of civil and not-so-civil unrest, Rules for Radicals, inwhich he allies himself with Satan, whom he identifies as the “first radical.”

In his book, Lloyd advocated the establishment of a network of public-broadcasting outlets funded byheavy taxes and fees imposed on private broadcasting interests that would be equal to or greater than themoney those companies invest in their own companies. That way, argues Lloyd, the government would besufficiently empowered with a bullhorn loud enough to counterbalance the increasing volume of thepopular message of “ultra-conservative” opinion makers currently dominating the AM and FM dials. Thisis the only way to assure obedience to rules designed by Lloyd and his cohorts to prevent “globalcorporations from [blocking] rules that would promote democratic governance.”

That is to say, as Lloyd figures, the most effective way to strap a muzzle on those who dare opposetightening the reins on the free expression of ideas is to flood the airwaves with old-style mediablowtorches (forcibly funded by competing commercial concerns) that would spew unrestrained pro-government agitprop throughout the nation and thus drown out the voices of those dedicated to thepreservation of those freedoms safeguarded by the enumeration of limited powers granted to theCongress in the Constitution (among which is not to be found the right to control, monitor, or licensebroadcasting of radio or television programming), and thus to the perpetuation of the Republic, not thedemocracy, bequeathed us by our Founding Fathers.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Photo: AP Images

Guantanamo Detainees to Go to Illinoiswritten by

The Obama administration announced plans on December 15 to acquire the Thomson Correctional Centerin Thomson, Illinois, to house terrorism suspects currently being held at the U.S. naval base atGuantanamo Bay, Cuba, which now houses about 200 inmates. Officials explained that President Obamaordered the federal government to acquire the correctional center — located about 150 miles northwest ofChicago — as part of efforts to close Guantanamo.

VOA news reported that the 1,600-cell prison was built in 2001 to house maximum-security inmates, but isnow nearly empty. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) had promoted thefederal purchase of the prison, saying it would create thousands of jobs in the economically distressedarea.

The Washington Post noted that the Obama administration’s decision was made despite the objections ofcongressional Republicans and from some residents of Illinois, who feared that the transfer could makethe state a target for terrorists. The Post quoted Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) who called the move "anunnecessary risk."

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

Senater Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) released a written statement after the decision wasmade public, asserting that a bipartisan majority in Congress "already rejected bringing terrorists to U.S.soil for long-term detention."

"The administration has failed to explain how transferring terrorists … will make Americans safer thankeeping these terrorists off of our shores in the secure facility in Cuba," said McConnell.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

McConnell neglected to follow the protocol required of every cub reporter and police spokesperson byfailing to use the qualifying adjective “alleged” before “terrorists,” since not one detainee has beenformally charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.

The administration official who announced the decision claimed that instead of increasing our nation’srisk to terrorists, the transfer would, instead, reduce it, asserting that closing the detention center atGuantanamo Bay "is essential to protecting our national security and helping our troops by removing adeadly recruiting tool from the hands of al Qaeda."

The detention camp has been harshly criticized by human rights advocates for the alleged abuse andmistreatment of the detainees, and news leaks from the detention facility about coercive interrogationtechniques such as waterboarding has fueled anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The Los Angeles Times reported that under the administration’s plans, some Guantanamo detainees willbe sent to their home countries and others to third-party countries that operate rehabilitation programsfor terrorism suspects. The administration has also considered operating a military tribunal at or near theprison, where combatants charged with acts of terrorism could be tried.

The diametrically opposed opinions expressed regarding the wisdom of closing the Guantanamo facilityand moving some detainees to domestic prisons emanate from two opposing camps that could bedescribed as follows:

1.) Supporting the decision are “liberal Democrats” who seem to have retained some semblance of respectfor the civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights (in this case the Sixth Amendment), yet who habituallyignore most of the rest of the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment, which affirms theConstitution’s principle of federalism by mandating a “strict” interpretation of the powers granted to thefederal government.

2.) Opposing the decision are the mostly Republican, supposedly conservative (whatever that term hascome to mean!) “neoconservatives” who give frequent lip-service to the concept of limited governmentconcerning domestic programs, but who in recent years have continued the extra-constitutional policiesinitiated by Democrat President Harry Truman to engage in war without a constitutionally requiredcongressional declaration of war.

Aside from waging war without a formal declaration, the neo-con agenda also includes using the open-ended war on terror as justification for suspending several guarantees provided by the Bill of Rights,including the aforementioned Sixth Amendment and also the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition ofunreasonable searches and seizure — adopted as a result of the bad experience Americans had duringtheir War for Independence, when the notorious writs of assistance (general search warrants) wereissued.

The Bush administration came under strong criticism not only from Democrats, but from constitutionalistsof all political stripes, for its use of warrantless wiretaps — a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.(For background, read, “The Emerging Police State”.)

However, there are few “good guys” or “bad guys” in today’s debate between the major political partyleaders, most of whom have little compunction about transforming our federal government into a freedom-robbing leviathan. Until most Americans realize that the ultimate objective of terrorists is not to hijack

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

airplanes or destroy buildings, but to goad our own government into taking away our freedom, neither thewar on terror nor the fight for freedom will ever be won.

If we suspend our freedom in the name of fighting terrorism, we will have surrendered to the sameterrorists we profess to be fighting.

Photo of Thomson Correctional Center: AP Images

Unemployment Wreaking Havoc on Middle America,New Poll Showswritten by Steven Yates

The economic conventional wisdom of the moment is that the U.S. economy has begun to turn around.According to mainstream economists, a tentative recovery can be found in the third-quarter numbers, andin the drop in new unemployment claims from October to November.

Tell this to the growing masses of unemployed people in Middle America, many of whom have been joblessfor most of this past year and are suffering the traumatic shock of the downturn — as the air went out ofthe bubble that had developed and lasted up to December 2007.

A new New York Times poll documents the effects both financial and psychological that joblessness ishaving on those put out of work in the worst recession since the 1930s. The poll, conducted fromDecember 5–10, surveyed 708 unemployed adults selected at random — many of whom, it is obvious, werecaught completely off guard when the economy turned sour. In fact, the disruptions of people’s lives, andtheir children’s lives, has been at least as striking as records dating from the Great Depression itself —with the exception that the overall mood of the country was more optimistic about the nation’s futurethen.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

The financial effects of long-term mass unemployment are striking. According to the poll, slightly over halfhave borrowed money from friends and/or relatives to meet basic expenses such as buying groceries. Overhalf have cut back on doctor’s visits or eliminated medical treatments they could no longer afford.Roughly a quarter have applied for or are receiving food stamps. A fifth have accepted food from anonprofit or religious institution. Over half stated that they had cut luxuries and cut back on necessities tosave money. Seven in 10 stated that their financial situation was bad or very bad.

Vicki Newton, a 38-year-old single mother from Mount Pleasant, Michigan, was interviewed following thepoll: “I lost my job in March, and from there on, everything went downhill.” She had been working as acustomer service representative for an insurance agency. She added, “After struggling and struggling andnot being able to pay my house payments or my other bills, I finally sucked up my pride. I got food stampsjust to help feed my daughter.” Eventually Newton abandoned her home, located in Flint, in the face ofimminent foreclosure. She moved into a rental house owned by her father. Her story is hardly unique.High unemployment has taken foreclosures to record highs.

The effects of unemployment are not limited to personal and family finances. The psychological effects arebad as well. According to the poll, almost half admitted that they had begun suffering from depression oranxiety. A quarter of those who reported depression or anxiety had gone to see a mental healthprofessional, although many are unable to continue with counseling because they cannot afford it or forother reasons, such as a car breaking down, they cannot afford to have repaired. Tammy Linville, a 29-year-old mother from Louisville, Kentucky, stated that she had been seeing a therapist for depressionfollowing the loss of her job as a clerical worker for the Census Bureau a year and a half ago. Medicaidhad been covering her visits. When her car broke down and she could not afford to have it repaired, thetreatments ended. She and her partner, who has been able to work sporadically at a local Ford plant, are"saving quarters for diapers" for their two small children, as she put it. "Everything I think about money, Ishut down because there is none," she saide. "I get major panic attacks. I just don’t know what we’regoing to do."

Almost half of those polled reported more conflicts between family members, or quarrels with friends.Fifty-five percent reported insomnia. A similar number spoke of feelings of shame or embarrassment —with the numbers higher for men, who are still perceived as society’s primary breadwinners. Many alsonoted behavioral changes in their children. They expressed fear of dropping out of their social class andending up permanently impoverished.

More than half had lost their health insurance, which often came with employment. They describedobtaining basic healthcare, when necessary, as a hardship.

Over two-thirds stated they were considering changing careers. Forty-four percent stated they hadalready begun retraining or enrolled in degree programs. Slightly over 40 percent noted that they hadmoved or were considering moving elsewhere to find work. It is true enough that some parts of thecountry have been hit harder by the recession than others. Some cities and towns are doing reasonablywell, while others are turning into ghosttowns.

The unemployed are divided over who to blame. Twenty-six percent blame former president George W.Bush. Twelve percent blame the banks. Eight percent blame outsourcing or jobs going overseas, and eightpercent blamed politicians generally. Just three percent blame President Obama.

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

They are more evenly divided over what the future holds. Thirty-nine percent stated that the economywould improve soon. Thirty-six percent expect things to stay the same. Twenty-two percent say thesituation will get worse. While mainstream economists contend that recovery is imminent, they havecovered themselves by adding that the recovery will be slow and that unemployment will remain high forsome time to come. Of course, if people do not have money to spend in an economy, 70 percent of whichdepends on consumer spending, continued high unemployment will hamper any actual recovery in MiddleAmerica.

When evaluating these findings, it is important to keep in mind that the “official” unemployment statistic,which currently places joblessness at around 10 percent (down slightly from last month’s 10.2 percent),woefully underreports the full scope of unemployment in America. There are several measures ofunemployment. Only one, U-3, is reported as the official unemployment rate. U-3 considers a person asunemployed only if the person is out of work and has sought work in the past four weeks. Those notmeeting these criteria, which would include those who have enrolled in job training or degree programs,aren’t considered part of the labor force and so aren’t considered unemployed for statistical purposes.This sleight-of-hand results in a number that is somewhat more acceptable politically. The conventionalunemployment rate also makes no distinction between those working full-time and those working part-time but would prefer full-time work.

A “broader” measure, U-6, counts as unemployed everyone counted under U-3 but adds “marginally-attached workers” and those working part-time who would prefer full-time work if they could find it. U-6unemployment had reached 15 percent last March. Presently, U-6 unemployment stands at approximately17.5 percent — over 70 percent higher than the official figure. According to John Williams of ShadowGovernment Statistics, even U-6 unemployment does not tell the whole story. What we may call SGSunemployment includes "discouraged workers" simply written out of the labor force by changes inmethodology for counting the unemployed introduced by the Clinton administration in 1993. According toWilliams’ figures, if "discouraged workers" are included in one’s count, the "real" unemployment rate inAmerica rises to 22 percent!

Paul A. Samuelson, ‘Economics’ Textbook Author,Dies at 94written by

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Long-renowned economist Paul Samuelson died on December 13 at his home in Belmont, Massachusetts,at the age of 94. In addition to writing Economics in 1948 — which became the best selling economicstextbook for several decades, having been translated into forty-one languages and selling over four millioncopies — Samuelson also won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1970.

The chorus of accolades of effusive praise continues to resonate:

“Through his research, teaching, and writing, [Samuelson] had more impact on the economic life ofthis country and the world than any government economic official…” —Larry Summers, nephew ofSamuelson, and Director of the White House National Economic Council.

“Paul Samuelson was both a path-breaking and prolific economic theorist and one of the greatest teachersthat economics has ever known.” — Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman

“Samuelson was the Julia Child of economics…” — Robert Lucas, Nobel Prize winner

“Paul Samuelson was far and away the leading economist in the country.” —George Akerlof, Nobel Prizewinner

“Paul Samuelson created modern economics…” —Robert Hall, Stanford University professor

{modulepos inner_text_ad}

Praise for his work, however, was far from unanimous, however. Dr. Mark Skousen, editor for Forecastsand Strategies, did a detailed analysis of Samuelson’s textbook in 2002, and concluded:

In my judgment, it is difficult to sidestep the conclusion that as the teaching of introductoryeconomics has followed in Samuelson’s footsteps, its advice has contributed to certain of theeconomic problems that the United States faces today.

Samuelson has appeared to favor a substantial role for the state…[he] has been a strong supporter of thewelfare state and [government] antipoverty programs.

From www.finance.yahoo.com comes the admission that “Samuelson was a liberal, and…a follower of

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

British economist John Maynard Keynes, who proposed that a nation needs an activist government thatcould foster low unemployment by steering tax and monetary policies, even if it meant deficit spending…”

Samuelson well knew what he was doing. He said, “I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws — if I can writeits economics textbooks.”

According to the Herald Tribune, Samuelson’s textbook “introduced generations of students to therevolutionary ideas of John Maynard Keynes…who developed the theory that modern market economiescould become trapped in depression and would then need a strong push from government spending…torestore them. Many economics students would never again rest comfortably with the [belief that] privatemarkets would cure unemployment [automatically] without need of government intervention.”

Business Week magazine once said his textbook had “gone a long way in giving the world a commoneconomic language.”

Free-market Economist Milton Friedman (who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976 and who firstmet Samuelson while both were students at the University of Chicago) disagreed with Samuelson’ssolutions and emphasis on government interference in the marketplace. The two would often appear inpublic debates, and wrote opposing views for several years in columns in Newsweek magazine. Inaddition, Friedman’s position was persuasively presented through his PBS television series, Free toChoose.

So effective was Friedman in his public debates with Samuelson that Samuelson said “he always had fearin his heart when he prepared for combat with Friedman, who was a formidable opponent.” He said, “Ifyou looked at a transcript [of a debate] afterward, it might seem clear that you had won the debate onpoints. But somehow, with members of the audience, you always seemed to come off as elite, and Miltonseemed to have won the day.”

According to James Poterba, former head of MIT’s Department of Economics, “Samuelson leaves animmense legacy…as one of the giants on whose shoulders every contemporary economist stands.”

Many, however, take strong exception to that. Nearly 300 economists recently signed a petition opposingfederal stimulus funds. The petition states:

"Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians, we do not believe that moregovernment spending is a way to improve economic performance.”

Peter Robinson, writing as Man Friday in Forbes magazine, quotes Samuelson as having said, “Everyoneunderstands that there can be no solution without government.” Robinson asks, “If [these] economists andmore than half the American people are against you, then who is this “everyone” of whom you spoke?”

Photo of Paul Samuelson: AP Images

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Developing Countries Demand Cash at Copenhagenwritten by Rebecca Terrell

Delegates from developing nations to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen are insulted atan EU pledge of 7.2 billion euros ($10.6 billion) in foreign aid over the next three years to help combateffects of greenhouse gas emissions. Relatively poor countries claim their economies and public health aredamaged by rising sea levels, deforestation, and other alleged climate-change problems, and they believeindustrialized nations bear the blame for their woes. They call for more long-term guarantees fromdeveloped countries.

European Voice reports that the Chinese ambassador, Song Zhe, demands "more ambitious commitments"before reaching any climate-change deal. Zhe says past promises from industrialized nations haveamounted to "empty talk." He suggests setting up a system by which developed countries "transfer theequivalent of 1 to 1.5 percent of their gross domestic product each year," an ambitious request from theworld’s largest holder of U.S. debt. When asked about his country’s rank as largest carbon dioxideemitter, Zhe pointed out that China has promised up to a 45 percent reduction in carbon intensity from2005 levels by 2020. Carbon intensity is a number measured in tons of CO2 per unit of GDP. This differsgreatly from the EU pledge to reduce total emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by the samedeadline.

China is one of 77 developing countries represented in Copenhagen. Delegates from China’s bloc agreethe EU pledge is not enough. EU Business reports the Sudanese negotiator, Lumumba Stanislaus Dia-Ping, complained the funds "are not only insignificant, they actually breed even more distrust on theintentions of European leaders on climate change."

Activist groups are quick to agree. "Copenhagen must deliver deep emissions reductions, and at least$200 billion a year in new money to help the poorest countries tackle climate change," demanded MaryRobinson, former president of Ireland and UN human rights commissioner. Financial Times quoted herleading a candlelight vigil of some 30,000 protestors huddled around bonfires in freezing temperaturesoutside the conference center on Saturday. Tim Gore, EU climate-change policy advisor for OxfamInternational, said in a press release, "Offering just a token handout for the next 3 years made up ofrecycled promises won’t achieve the breakthrough in talks we need." Gore claims the funds offered merely

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

cover existing aid commitments. Oxfam International, a confederation of 14 organizations, calls for the EUto promise 35 billion euros ($50 billion) per year starting in 2013. Greenpeace also complained that theEU is stalling progress at Copenhagen by only pledging short-term support. "EU leaders are avoiding thereally crucial issues of longer term financing," said Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace EU climate policydirector. "Climate change … carbon emissions … [and] deforestation in those countries will not end in 3years, so neither should the flow of cash."

Other officials view the EU pledge as a first step toward a final Copenhagen agreement. CNN reports thatthe executive secretary of the UN conference, Yvo de Boer, congratulated the EU on this "hugeencouragement to the process." UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown agreed, saying, "What we are seeingtoday is a very significant move forward in the search for a Copenhagen agreement."

Reporting From Copenhagenwritten by Bill Hahn

William F. Jasper, senior editor for The New American and Alex Newman, contributor to The NewAmerican, are in Copenhagen this week attending the United Nations Climate Conference.

Both will be reporting on their findings via live webcasts, uploaded videos, and written articles. You willfind their work published at JBS.org and TheNewAmerican.com. Check these sites daily for updates.

You can also catch William F. Jasper being interviewed on various radio shows this week, including:

Point of View: Tuesday, 12/15/09, 1:00-1:30 p.m. Central;Al Roney (WGR): Wednesday, 12/16/09, 8:00 a.m. Central;Alex Jones Show: Thursday, 12/17/09, 2:00 p.m. Central; andRollye James Show, Thursday, 12/17/09, 11:00 p.m. Central.

Bill Jasper is a tireless researcher and investigator with high-level official contacts around the world and

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

has a well-earned reputation as one of America’s top investigative reporters. Before embarking on acareer in journalism, he earned bachelor’s degrees in child psychology and education from the Universityof Idaho, after which he worked as a teacher in both public and private schools. Since then, as a memberof the press corps, he has attended several international conferences hosted by the United Nations, andhis ground-breaking reporting on the Oklahoma City bombing and its aftermath did much to underscorethe threat of terrorism years before 9/11. He is also the author of the books Global Tyranny … Step byStep and The United Nations Exposed.

Alex Newman is an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a smallmedia consulting firm. He is currently living in Sweden and has spent most of his life in Latin America,Europe, and Africa. He has a degree in foreign languages and speaks Spanish, French, Portuguese,German, Italian, and a little Swedish and Afrikaans. In addition, he earned a degree in journalism from theUniversity of Florida, with an emphasis on economics and international relations.

Third World Protest Stalls Copenhagen Talkswritten by James Heiser

As the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen begins its second week of discussions andnegotiations, it appears that an impasse between First World and Third World nations has been averted.

The leak last week of a "draft" of a potential treaty was followed by protests from the developing nations,who were apparently surprised by the intention that they would also be required to cut their “greenhousegas” emissions. The fact that the eventual outcome of the treaty would be that developed nations would bepermitted to retain more of their emissions than would be allotted to the developing world meant theagreement would not be an absolute leveler of wealth throughout the world. (However, the implications ofFirst World nations only retaining a level of “greenhouse gas” emissions that would be less than twice thatof Third World nations would still means a radical curtailment in the standard of living which recent

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

generations have worked hard to acquire.)

According to an Associated Press report:

China, India and other developing nations blocked U.N. climate talks on Monday, bringingnegotiations to a halt with their demand that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in theirgreenhouse gas emissions.

Representatives from developing countries — a bloc of 135 nations — said they refused toparticipate in any working groups at the 192-nation summit until the issue was resolved.

The move was a setback for the Copenhagen talks, which were already faltering over long-runningdisputes between rich and poor nations over emissions cuts and financing for developing countriesto deal with climate change….

"Nothing is happening at this moment," Zia Hoque Mukta, a delegate from Bangladesh, told TheAssociated Press. He said developing countries have demanded that conference president ConnieHedegaard bring the industrial nations’ emissions targets to the top of the agenda before talks canresume.

Poor countries, supported by China, say Hedegaard had raised suspicion that the conference waslikely to kill the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which limited carbon emissions by wealthy countries andimposed penalties for failing to meet those targets.

Poor countries want to extend that treaty because it commits rich nations to emissions cuts butdoesn’t make any legally binding requirements on developing countries. The United States wouldnever support that, since it balked at signing Kyoto in the first place over concerns that China, Indiaand other major greenhouse gas emitters were not required to take action.

"Trust is a major issue. We have lost faith," in Hedegaard, Mukta said.

In short, the Third World loves the status quo of Kyoto, with a treaty that virtually requires the First Worldto "outsource" its industrial production to the Third World. It would mean that, once again, the proposedenvironmental agreement has less to do with "saving the world" from pollution than it has to do withredistributing the wealth and industrial might of the world.

Of course, for Bangladesh, it may be even more overtly a matter of money: that nation’s delegation hasgone on record demanding 15 percent of all funds extracted from the First World as part of a Copenhagenagreement.

For Hedegaard, who previously said that a failure in Copenhagen would mean a failure of the “globaldemocratic system,” these developments must be particularly disheartening, since the leadership of asubstantial majority of the nations represented at Copenhagen have called into question the integrity ofthe entire proceedings in Denmark.

Still, as of this writing, it appears that any further impasse has been averted — for the present. A report atFoxNews.com (which had previously posted the above-cited AP article, before replacing it with a morepositive follow-up story) maintains that the talks are resuming:

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

The European Union says poor countries have stopped their boycott of climate change negotiationsat Copenhagen and have found a solution to their dispute with rich nations.

The EU environment spokesman Andreas Carlgren says informal talks at Copenhagen resolved theimpasse.

The basis of this resolution has yet to be revealed.

Photo of British Environment Minister Ed Miliband: AP Images

Poll Shows Drop in Belief in Global Warmingwritten by James Heiser

A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that a clear majority of the American people do not believeglobal warming should be a high priority for government action. What they do believe should be thepriority is the economy.

According to a story at CBSNews.com,

With world leaders debating how to address climate change in Copenhagen and the U.S. Senatepoised to take up a climate bill in the coming months, a new CBS News/New York Times poll findsthat just 37 percent of Americans believe the issue should be a priority for government leaders.

That’s a significant drop from April of 2007, when 52 percent of those surveyed said the issueshould be a high priority.

The Tiger Woods and Salahi distractions have dominated the media since the “Climategate” e-mailssurfaced and have crowded out attention that might otherwise have been devoted to breaking newsregarding the scientists responsible for the climate-change theory. Nevertheless, a long-term trend in

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

public opinion appears to demonstrate a steady decline in support for the theory that human activity isresponsible for global warming.

The complete poll results demonstrate the consistent nature of the shift in public opinion since 2007. InApril 2007, only eight percent of the public believed that global warming was “not serious” as a priorityfor government leaders, but today that figure has soared to 23 percent. At the same time, when people areasked whether “stimulating the economy” or “protecting the environment” is more important, theemphasis on the environment has eroded from 52 percent in April 2007 to 29 percent today, while theeconomy has gone from 36 percent to 61 percent in the same period.

The question that was not asked was whether the public believed global warming should be a seriouspriority if the proposed solutions would mean further economic troubles. Given the trends in publicopinion, it is hard to believe that the substantial shift from environmental to economic concerns would notbe pushed even further if the public becomes more aware of the radical nature of the proposals beingpresented at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The radical deindustrialization of thedeveloped world, as well as massive transfers of wealth from the First World to the Third World that arepart of the Copenhagen plan could cripple what remains of the economies of the developed world, at thesame time that the science that is being used to justify such radical plans has come into doubt.

What is not in doubt is that public opinion concerning global warming is clearly shifting in the direction ofheightened skepticism. For politicians already concerned for their reelection prospects, the implications ofrising public concern over the on-going economic crisis should be immediately apparent.

“Skeptic” Climate Conference Challenges UNwritten by Alex Newman

As global-warming alarmists met at the United Nations’ COP15 Climate Summit, attempting to create theimpression that the science supporting their alarmism was settled, a group of scientists and activists helda competing summit in Copenhagen last week to dismiss the whole notion that there is a scientific

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

consenses or that the world is facing a man-made global-warmng crisis.

The “skeptics” conference, as it was dubbed by the relatively few media outlets that covered the event,brought together prominent scientists from around the globe. The “Copenhagen Climate ChallengeConference” — which included between 50 and 75 participants — was organized by the Danishorganization Climate Sense and the U.S.-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

"There are people who know they are lying and do it simply for money and others who think they aredoing good," explained Graham Capper of Climate Sense. "But they are not good scientists." He alsocalled global warming a “myth.”

Craig Rucker, the executive director of CFACT and the conference chairman, also blasted the alarmism."We think there is no consensus on climate change and there should not be a treaty from Copenhagenbased on a lack of consensus," he said, adding that the world should have the courage to "do nothing untilthe science is clear."

Among the speakers who received the most attention was Professor Niklas Nils-Axel Mörner, a prominentscientist and oceanographer who works at Stockholm University and researches sea levels. He chastisedthe president of the Maldives for claiming that the island nation would soon disappear. According toMörner, who has studied the Maldives extensively, “we must rely on the facts, and the facts don’t supportthe president.”

He noted that some of the “very weird” climate models claim Bangladesh could be flooded by up to severalmeters of sea rise. But this scenario is “not even within the laws of physics,” he said, adding that it was“completely nonsense.” The professor has studied both areas’ sea levels extensively.

Mörner said various groups were using theories about global warming as an excuse to scam money out ofthe international community, and that these same interests simply claim nothing can be done about actualenvironmental problems affecting their nations that they actually could and should work on solving. “Weare the real environmentalists,” he said.

Other prominent scientists also offered expertise in their fields. Danish National Space Center physicistHenrik Svensmark explained that the world went through a similar cycle during the Middle Ages, and thatthe true cause was in fact the Sun. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Projectand also an atmospheric physicist who has participated in several UN climate summits, put it bluntly:“They have no evidence. None.”

Lord Monckton, who has grabbed headlines worldwide with his passionate opposition to the UN “climate”agenda, also attended the meeting. Geologists, authors, nobility, and even a former clergyman who hastaken an interest in climate science all took part in the event and offered a diverse array of opinions. Buton some points the alternative climate conference was unanimous: The nearby UN summit and its agendaare based on inaccurate science and their agenda must be stopped for the good of humanity.

Nearly every media report about the event noted that ExxonMobil had provided some funding for thegroup. What most of those articles did not mention is that the oil industry — and especially the Rockefellerfamily — have bankrolled countless global-warming alarmists and events, such as the so-called “350”global warming protest that took place in late October.

It is certainly refreshing to hear a group of scientists challenge the UN global-warming agenda in

TheNewAmerican.comThursday, June 23, 2022

Copyright © 2022 TheNewAmerican.com

Copenhagen on the occasion of the COP15 Summit. With the revelations from Climategate fresh in thepublic’s mind, this event should have received far more coverage. Of course, the skeptics do not havenational treasuries at their disposal to put on shows like the UN Climate Summit. But what is clear is thatthe science is far from settled. Anyone who claims otherwise is either uninformed or a liar.