Mar 242011


Feminism – Still Relevant?
Responsibility To Protect Doctrine Means Perpetual War.
Stepping Into The Briar Patch – Declaring War On Libya.
Business And Government – Giving Us The Business

Continue reading »

Mar 242011

With the declaration of war upon Libya by the United Nations the face of world conflict has changed forever.  War has now become a perpetual means to enforce a New World Order based on altruism.  We have entered a new age of despotism and we are at the center of it.

The proper question Stephen Harper, Barack Obama and the other world leaders who have responded militarily to the UN Security Council resolution of March 17th should have asked themselves was “under what conditions should I, as a leader of a Western Democracy declare war on another sovereign nation?  What could possibly provoke my nation to send troops to their deaths and spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars?”  With the experiences of Vietnam in their history the United States answered that question in the form of the Weinberger Doctrine.  US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger listed the following conditions:

  1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
  2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
  3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
  4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
  5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
  6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort

To this list I would add a seventh point; that no proper government should go to war unless the men and women who serve are volunteers.

The war in Libya does not satisfy at least five of these seven points neither for the US nor Canada:

  1. The governance of Libya, whether by Muammar Gaddafi or whatever government may arise from his overthrow, is not in our vital national interests.  While Gaddafi has been responsible for several assassinations and terrorist attacks and has been a brutal dictator in Libya responsible for many deaths he has been kept at bay since President Reagan bombed Tripoli during Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986.
  2. There is no clear intention of winning this war.  The Security Council’s Resolution 1973 calls for a No-Fly Zone to be enforced.  This will most likely not be enough to stop Gaddafi from protecting his strangle-hold on the Libyan population.  The operation is called Odyssey Dawn.  Aptly named since Homer’s Odyssey took 10 years.  This could very well turn out to by the dawn of a very long odyssey for us.
  3. There are no clearly defined political and military objectives.  Italy, France the US and Britain have already been arguing over whether or not taking out Gaddafi with an air strike is part of this mission.
  4. There is no reasonable assurance of the support of public opinion and (in the US) Congress.  In fact Obama went to war without even seeking approval from Congress which he is bound to do by the US Constitution.  There has even been talk of impeachment by some Representatives because of this breach.  (This is not a precedent however, as President Reagan invaded Grenada without the prior approval of Congress).  In Canada Prime Minister Harper unilaterally sent our troops, jets and committed the HMCS Charlottetown to the war without consulting Parliament.  He filled in the leaders of the Opposition on March 18th by phone.
  5. War is a last resort when all other methods have been exhausted.  This is usually a situation which would apply to a situation where our vital national interests are involved.  However since this is not one of these situations there is no need to even consider the last resort of war.

This war was instigated by a call from the Arab League and to a lesser extent the African Union.  Both of these organizations contain many states openly opposed to our political interests and many of the member states could even be considered hostile to us and dangerous to global peace.  While the impetuous for the war has come from these states they are offering virtually no material support for the war.  In fact, now that the war has begun they have even criticized the methods by which it is being carried out.

The war is at the request of the United Nations Security Council.  The UN has a long track record of acting against our best interests and those of the United States.  Any suggestion from them to go to war should be carefully considered for its long-term consequences.

The rationale for this war is not to keep the international peace but to protect the civilian population of Libya.  This is unprecedented.  The civil war in Libya must be decided by the citizens of Libya and in any civil war there are going to be casualties.  For us to pick sides of the Rebels over Gaddafi may backfire if the Rebels turn out to be worse than Gaddafi.  If they become led by the Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood we could see many more civilians murdered by the Rebels than by the Libyan Army.  We could then be thought of as being complicit in their deaths.

The change in the mandate of the United Nations from keeping international peace to interfering in civil wars in order to protect civilians has come about largely due to a Canadian.  Former Jean Chrétien Cabinet Minister Lloyd Axworthy while President of the United Nations Security Council in 1999 and 2000 tried to pursued the UN to alter its mandate to include intervention into sovereign states on humanitarian grounds.  The UN found it too controversial so he convinced the Canadian government to fund a study on the consequences of such intervention.  A commission was established called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.  One of the panel members was none other than Michael Ignatieff now Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Commission attempted to answer the following question posed by UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan:

if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?

The Commission responded by saying that

military action can be legitimate as an anticipatory measure in response to clear evidence of likely large scale killing. Without this possibility of anticipatory action, the international community would be placed in the morally untenable position of being required to wait until genocide begins, before being able to take action to stop it. (emphasis mine)

The Commission refused to define what they meant by large scale.

The United Nations has accepted the findings of the Commission and in doing so has set itself up as a World Police Force, it can now act if it suspects that harm might come to a large number of people.  It has become omniscient by saying that it can now anticipate when genocide will occur as it has done with Libya but will not do for Yemen, Syria, Bahrain or any of the many countries around the world which routinely murder its citizens, China for example.

The United Nations with the aid of Lloyd Axworthy, the Jean Chrétien Government of the day, and Michael Ignatieff has given itself new authority to wage war on sovereign states in anticipation of large scale violations of human rights.  For Canada, forever the lackey of the UN this is not out of character as our governments have acted on the evil philosophy of altruism since Conservative Prime Minister RB Bennett.  But for the United States to fall into this trap spells the death of any hope for freedom in this world.

President Obama has appeared on the world stage at just the right time to both destroy the productive engine of the US through his trillion dollar deficits and relinquish the moral might of that world power by acquiescing to the dictates of an altruist driven United Nations agenda.  On March 18th, 2011 the United States ceased to exist as we used to know it.  A new power has arisen in its stead, the right hand of the United Nations clenched into a fist to intervene in civil disputes throughout the world.

The question we should be asking now is what country will be the next to be bombed by the United Nations for so-called humanitarian transgressions.  The answer may be Israel.

A Reuters article from Tuesday, March 22nd reads as follows:

Investigator says evictions akin to ethnic cleansing

GENEVA — Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the eviction of Palestinians from their homes is a form of ethnic cleansing, a UN investigator said on Monday.

U.S. academic Richard Falk was speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour. The situation “can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing,” Falk declared.

Falk would like the Human Rights Council to ask the International Court of Justice to look at Israeli behaviour in the occupied territories.

The future of the world looks bleak.  Armed with this new rationale for war – the “Responsibility to Protect”, and a weak minded, immoral leader of the United States, Barack Obama we can only expect more interventions in even more countries, causing more cries of imperialism from third world nations, inciting even more acts of terrorism.

The proper action for Canada, the US, Britain, France and Italy to have taken when asked by the Arab League to intervene in Libya should have been that they must settle their own affairs, even though it may mean the death of thousands.  The only way for nations to evolve into capitalistic and democratic nations is for them to get there on their own.  Most often that path is bloody.   We may try to lead by example when we can (although that is getting harder with each passing day) but we cannot impose freedom and democracy upon other nations if their culture is not yet ready for it.  Until they establish freedom themselves the best we can do, the best we can hope for, is to keep their current medieval ideas from polluting the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, with the likes of Obama at the helm of the United States I believe such hope may now be lost.

(Broadcast on Just Right March 24, 2011 show #192.  To listen to the show visit

Jan 072010
Sun and Earth

Sun and EarthA recent Leger Marketing poll has revealed that 53% of Canadians believe that human-induced generation of greenhouse gases is a key driver of climate change and without immediate and significant action, the planet as we know it is in peril.

This shows a drastic need for immediate education of those 53% who apparently have been misinformed and because of the misinformation are urging the government to take drastic measures which have the potential of destroying our economy and threatening not only our way of life but our freedom as well.

What I hope to do is take on the falsehoods of the climate change fear-mongers in stages.  I want to challenge their science, specifically the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I want to show how acting irrationally out of fear and panic to false information can do more harm to humans and our planet more than any real climate change could do, and I want to hold accountable those individuals and groups, especially the United Nations, for their scare-mongering and out-right lying to the world.

Today I’ll just address some of the poor science the IPCC and Al Gore have been using to push their anti-human agendas.

Very quickly those pushing for the reduction of CO2 have taken this line of reasoning”

Global temperatures are rising,

CO2 is a green house gas,

Man produces CO2,

Therefore the climate changes or global warming they say we are experiencing is due to Man.

Their final conclusion and marketing point is that the science is settled, irrefutable and agreed to by all scientists.  Anyone who disagrees is disreputable, a climate change denier, a heretic.

I want to tackle that particular marketing point first.  A group of independent scientists which used to call themselves the Science and Environmental Policy Project but who now call their group the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change have produced a report with a petition appended to it.  The petition said the following:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The petition was signed by 31,478 American scientists.  Compare this to the fewer than100 individuals who had a direct hand in crafting the United Nations IPCC report.

While truth should not be a popularity contest this clearly demonstrates that the UN’s and Al Gore’s assertion that nobody refutes the science is patently false.

Regarding the science itself, the report by the NIPCC took apart every assertion made by the United Nations government picked scientists.  Here are some of the highlights:

Global temperatures rise and fall all the time.  In fact global temperate have been seen to fall for decades even though we see CO2 levels rise during the same time. The earth is currently nearing the end of a 10,000 year period of global warming.  About every 100,000 years there is about a 10,000 year period of warming clearly documented to be due to the changing radiance from the sun due to both the natural cycles of the sun itself but more importantly by several cycles the earth goes through as it orbits the sun and spins on its axis.  These cycles are called the Milankovitch cycles, the combined effects of the earth’s orbital shape or eccentricity, it’s axial tilt or obliquity, its axial precession, its apsidal precession, and its orbital inclination.  All of these characteristics of earth’s movement in its orbit are well documented and are known to drive earth’s climate from ice age to warming to ice age again.

As for the CO2, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is an insignificant one compared to water vapour which accounts for the vast majority of any green house effect.  Also the amount of man-made green house gas is again insignificant to the amount of CO2 release by nature.  The release and capture of CO2 by earth’s oceans account for the vast majority of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  Even then we must remember that CO2 is only a very small component of the atmosphere being only about .05% of the total volume.

All greenhouse models show an increasing warming trend with altitude in the troposphere, peaking around 10 km in altitude.  However the temperature data from balloons gives the opposite result, no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude.  This is clear evidence that any warming at the surface is not due to greenhouse gases including man-made CO2.

Anyone inconvenienced by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” would remember his graphs of global temperature changes over the past 400,000 years and his graph of CO2 changes over the same period.  Did you notice that he showed the graphs separately, the temperature graph higher than the CO2 graph?  He did this because he was hiding his own inconvenient truth.  If he had superimposed one graph over the other everyone would have noticed that the CO2 levels follow the temperature changes with a gap of about 800 years.  Yes, temperature changes precede CO2 changes.  CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes and not the other way around.  And the temperature changes themselves are caused by the variability in solar radiation.

The reason there is an 800 year gap is that it takes that long for the oceans to heat up or cool down and when the oceans heat up and cool down they release or absorb CO2 respectively.   This one fact alone should cause anybody to dismiss Al Gore’s hype and the United Nations’ anti-human fear mongering.

The report by the Nongovernmental IPCC goes on to cover all aspects of climate science making the following conclusions:

  • The evidence that the cause of current climate warming is anthropogenic is very week.
  • There is very robust evidence that the causes of current warming are natural.
  • The computer forecasting of future climate change the UN relies on are unreliable.
  • Sea-level rise is not significantly affected by rise in greenhouse gases.

And what I find to be particularly interesting are some of the report’s final conclusions:

  • Higher concentrations of CO2 are more likely to be beneficial to plant and animal life and to human health than lower concentrations.


  • The economic effects of modest warming are likely to be positive and beneficial to human health.  There would be longer growing seasons in temperate climates, benefitting agriculture and forestry industries and lower heating bills.  One study estimated that there would be 41,000 fewer people who would die each year from respiratory and circulatory diseases and that the overall benefit to the US economy alone would be $104.8 billion in 1990 dollars.

How should we hold accountable those nations among us who would send billions to other countries to prevent them from prospering and using fossil fuels to grow their economies much as Canada did?  We should throw out of office any politician like Prime Minister Stephen Harper who propagates the false belief that man-made CO2 is going to destroy the world.  This is a perfectly good example of why we should not trust the United Nations and why Canada should leave it.

(Originally aired on Just Right Show #134, January 7, 2010.  You can listen to the show by visiting //