Walter Patterson Herald ColumnistMy mother was a great storyteller.  I can still see her now, with my siblings and me huddled spell bound nearby, telling us a fairy tale or a cowboy story.  She put her own twists to most of the stories, and believe it or not, these new revelations were usually better than the original.
There were at least three stories that we made mom tell over and over again: Jack and the Bean Stalk, The Princess on the Glass Hill, and Robin Hood.  She made these stories come alive.  When she was telling the stories, I thought I could really hear the old giant coming down the beanstalk or Robin Hood surrounding the evil king and taking his gold. To a six year old, the stories were much better than the movies.  
It was only later in life that I learned that these stories had duel meanings.  The old giant in Jack in the Bean Stalk, for example, represented a cruel king who had taken his subjects’ money for himself and left them in poverty and hunger, barely able to survive.
Robin Hood, of course, was a pure socialist who “took from the rich to give to the poor.”  Naturally, the author had to have a rich villain for Robin Hood to rob; otherwise, the story would have been about a common thief.  Even the poverty stricken English could not identify with a highway robber.
The Princess on the Glass Hill was my favorite.  Mom could make this story so real that in my mind’s eye, I could actually see and feel the beautiful horses that the hero rode to the top of a glass hill to rescue the beautiful princess.
This story was one where the hero relied on his own steel nerve, his wits, and his ability to keep a secret to finally win the princess.  Even though the story was written long ago, this tale, more than the rest, symbolizes rugged individualism, hard work, dedication to task, and yes, even capitalism.  The hero was not only motivated by winning the beautiful princess’s hand, but he knew that if he rescued her from the glass hill, he would become a king with untold riches.  Not only did he marry the beautiful princess, but her rich and powerful father gave him half of the kingdom.  Naturally, they “lived happily ever after.”
Because these stories were written at an earlier time usually during the reign of a despotic king, there was always a hidden meaning.  Had the all-powerful king known the real meaning of the stories, the author would have been hanged.
Which brings me to the hidden meaning of “climate change,” formerly known as “global warming.”  The hidden meaning behind “climate change” is simple.  The United Nations wants to control the world economy, and the bureaucrats and criminals in the U. N. want to take what resources and money the United States has and distribute them, after taking their “fair” share, naturally, to developing countries.
Paul Joseph Watson, a reporter who has been following the Climate Change Summit in Durban writes, “Bureaucrats at the UN Climate Summit in Durban have outlined plans for the most draconian, harebrained and madcap climate change treaty ever produced, under which the west would be mandated to respect ‘the rights of Mother Earth’ by paying a ‘climate debt’ which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.”
We know beyond any shadow of doubt that man-made climate change is a hoax, a fraud, a fairy tale, yet the socialist elites keep repeating the mantra that the world is warming, and we’re all going to die unless something is done.  But this chant has hidden meaning.  It means, simply, that a few powerful, ruthless, and elitist men and women will run the world, and you and I will simply be  pawns to be used for their dictates.  
What are some of the other mandates being discussed in the halls of the United Nations?  “The treaty calls for the west to achieve a 50 % carbon dioxide emissions reduction within the next eight years.”  “The text (of the treaty) calls for a 2 degree Celsius drop in global temperatures, which, as one scientist points out, ‘would kill hundreds of millions of people and herald a new ice age.”
Watson states, also, “The reduction in carbon dioxide concentration the treaty calls for would actually begin to kill all plant life and trees on the planet because they need carbon dioxide above 210 ppmv to survive.” Believe it or not, this treaty contains even more madness.
I wonder how mom would tell this story?