By Howard Rich – The nomination of John Bryson as Barack Obama’s new Secretary of Commerce has been touted in some circles as “the latest in a recent string of moves by the Obama administration to mend relations with the business community.”
But is the selection of Bryson — who founded a radical environmental organization and helped spearhead the United Nations climate change movement — really a good choice for American businesses? Or is his nomination the latest example of Obama’s commitment to a massive expansion of “world welfare” — one that would further bankrupt our Treasury and place additional strain on our taxpayers?
By now, it has become abundantly clear that the real goal of the left-wing eco-radicals has nothing to do with climate change — and everything to do with international wealth redistribution on an unprecedented scale. Sadly, this goal has been enthusiastically embraced by the Obama administration — as Bryson’s nomination once again demonstrates.
At a 2009 conference leading up to the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, Bryson proposed the establishment of training programs and a new global law enforcement regime aimed at blocking poor nations from using their forest resources. In fact, funding for this massive undertaking was part of the “global climate tax” approved at Copenhagen — a radical wealth redistribution scheme which hopes to siphon $100 billion a year from America and other countries to developing nations by the end of the decade.
“All those things require, among other things, very substantial financial investments,” Bryson said in previewing this proposed heist. “And those financial investments as a practical matter will need to come from the wealthier nations and peoples of the world. And that seems to me right, and proper, and the thing that needs to be done.”
In addition to his advocacy on behalf of global wealth redistribution, Bryson is a strident opponent of expanded domestic energy production. Not only that, he once said that Obama’s proposed carbon tax — which was a bridge too far for the most radical Congress in American history — was a “moderate, but acceptable” reform.
Why would Obama nominate such a left-of-center radical to one of the most important economic positions in his administration? That’s easy — these are the same views he has been publicly advancing for years.
During his 2008 campaign, Obama made no secret of his affinity for the concept of wealth redistribution. In an infamous exchange with Joseph Wurzelbacher — a.k.a. “Joe The Plumber” — Obama summed up his tax policy with these ten words: “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Obama’s plans for global wealth redistribution are also well documented. In February 2008, then-Senator Obama responded to a climate conference in Bali by proposing that .07 percent of America’s gross national product ($845 billion) be distributed to third world countries to “fight poverty.”
“It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water,” Obama said. “As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.”
Last summer, Obama bypassed Congress entirely when he appointed another wealth distribution radical to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
“Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate,” Obama’s CMS appointee Donald Berwick said during the debate over socialized medicine. “Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”
Thankfully, a few courageous members of Congress are recognizing the real objective of Obama’s latest appointment — and rallying to block it.
“I will be working actively to defeat this nomination,” said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), adding that by selecting Bryson to head the Commerce Department, “President Obama is clearly demonstrating that he has no intention of backing down from his job-killing agenda.”
Citing Bryson’s opposition to increased domestic energy production, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) said that “the nomination of John Bryson to lead the Department of Commerce seems deeply out-of-touch with our current energy challenge.”
Let’s hope more lawmakers join this growing chorus of opposition. After all, we simply cannot afford for our economy to be led by an eco-radical who is committed to massive tax hikes, higher energy prices and an unprecedented expansion of world welfare.
The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
