President Obama seems intent on completing his fundamental transformation in the few remaining months of his term in office. Yesterday he signed climate accords in China. While the Chinese seem intent on building global challenges to American strength, our leaders seem focused on tying our hands in agreements best suited to periods of true global cooperation where all parties are acting with honesty and sincerity. Maybe those in China promoting climate action are truly dedicated to environmental concerns. Even more likely, however, is that powerful elements in China are using such agreements to further their geopolitical intentions. Sadly, this administration naively always seems to assume the best about Communist China, Iran, radical Islam, and others despite a clear track record to the contrary. Unfortunately, the media plays along.
Contrast for the moment the media's cynicism toward Donald Trump with the wide-eyed hopefulness displayed toward Chinese intentions. The media will point out every flaw and past indiscretion of Mr. Trump to explain away or overlook anything that might be seen as positive. This weekend, for example, Mr. Trump is reaching out to African-American churches. In the media's eyes, this is a sad example of racist pandering. But what if he ignored these Americans and said he could win without the black vote? He would be denounced as an evil racist. No matter what he does, it will be portrayed as negative.
Now, consider the Chinese climate accords hailed as historic by the fawning media. We are told that China is taking new leadership. Yet, the agreement appears pretty one-sided. China has agreed to stop the rise of its CO2 emissions by 2030 while the United States must reduce emissions by 26% over the same period. Let that sink in for a bit. Chinese emissions can grow for 15 years as long as they stop growing in 2030? Our emissions are supposed to be cut by more than one-quarter? The fawning media similarly reported a historic agreement two years ago.
Here is the statement this weekend:
Under the agreement, which has been ratified by the Chinese legislature, China has pledged to stop the rise of its carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. The United States has a goal of cutting emissions by 26% of 2005 levels over the next 15 years.
Here is the almost identical statement from November 2014:
"President Barack Obama, who has made addressing climate change a central part of his second term, set a target of cutting U.S. carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Chinese President Xi Jinping made his country's first-ever commitment to halt the growth of carbon emissions, pledging that Chinese emissions will peak in 2030…"
Now, how can that be historic? Even worse, how can we trust China's pledge? The fact is that China is the worst polluter in the history of the world. And they had been lying to us about just how much pollution they produce. They only chose to come clean (pardon the pun) about how much CO2 they were generating because it would provide an easier baseline for comparison. The fact is that China dramatically raised their announced emissions late last year after denying their true pollution levels for decades. Yet, we are supposed to believe China regarding their pledge now and celebrate? China promised to cap emissions in 2030 two years ago. Last year they admitted much higher coal usage than previously thought. Now they again pledge to stop the increase by 2030. Anyone else see a shell game going on?
At the same time that China has been misdirecting international attention to their climate promises, the nation has been escalating tensions in the South China Sea and rapidly developing military capabilities. President Xi has pledged a return to Marxism for the world's most populous nation. Unrestricted Warfare is the focus of Chinese military training. Remember that Unrestricted Warfare teaches how to use environmental restrictions to thwart an enemy.
This is why it is so essential to go beyond the simplistic and disingenuous media narrative designed to promote a highly politicized worldview. This is absolutely essential as we consider another fundamentally transformative agenda item for President Obama: Giving away control of the Internet.
We must acknowledge just how serious this is. In recent weeks we have learned how hackers could manipulate elections according to the FBI. We have learned how the Internet can place our global financial system is at risk. We have learned how George Soros might want to "rig the Internet" to promote his Open Society agenda. We also have learned that Soros wants global regulation over the Internet to achieve his objectives. Is this really the best time to force America to give up control?
The transfer date of Internet control is scheduled for September 30 of this year. The risks are serious. Many have argued that control of naming rights is no big deal. Yet, recent requests for information have exposed that there is no formal long-term plan in place. How can this be from a government that over plans everything?
So, the question becomes, if we give up control, who will take it? Will it be an international body like the United Nations? We are told "No," but that is a misdirection as explained in a Wall Street Journal article. Another organization might fall under the control of Russia, China or worse. If the control moves to private hands, how can we be certain that someone like billionaire Soros won't buy it? Consider this from The Wall Street Journal:
In secret planning discussions last year leaked to me, the Russian representative told other authoritarian governments that full government control over Internet stakeholders is a topic that "needs to be further examined" only after the U.S. withdraws, creating a vacuum of power.
In other words, Russia and other authoritarian governments are licking their chops for the time that we withdraw our oversight (as evidenced by an article in RT–Russia Today).
This alone is sufficient to delay handing over control of the Internet. Yet, the Obama administration appears intent on doing just that without any real public debate or discussion. The fact that he's willing to do it as his action at the end of his presidency, obscured by a circus-style election season, is quite telling. Wouldn't it make sense to make this an election issue and let the American people decide? Alas, that is not in the cards at this point and the media appears complicit. They trumpet old news as historic in climate change to make President Obama look like a hero, excoriate Mr. Trump for the audacity to dialogue with black churches, and virtually ignore the largest giveaway of American authority since the Panama Canal.
We will have a good deal more to say about this in coming weeks. For now, be aware that a fundamental transformation of the Internet is scheduled for September 30 and it is NOT in America's best interests.