It all about the money.  This unelected world government organization wants your tax dollars plain and simple. You do not have any say in it. Here is the most substantive U.N. quote from the AP story:

“Time is up,” Yvo de Boer said. “Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver.”

Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change.

Call and your elected official an tell them we cannot afford this U.N. tax and to vote against repressive taxes that will be needed to pay for this world government agenda.

Click here to join our forum discussions - (1) Posts

You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government spending and to hand out cheap money to your Masters on wall street which they used to rake in record profits while ordinary Americans and small businesses can’t even get loans for their everyday needs…you are the definition of a moral hazard!

12-03-09

Click here to join our forum discussions - (1) Posts

Today, in an AP story, we see the Progressives are concerned over public doubts about man’s detrimental effects on climate change and doubts about being taxed by a world government organization that is held accountable by no one.  Well, the AP, a proud proponent of perpetual propaganda commits to their cause by ratcheting up the rhetoric with their, “we’re doomed, it’s too late, we’ll never make it” BS.

This piece is to merely make a point. When progressives get fearful of losing their corrupt-laden propaganda wars, they put the fear generating machine into double-production mode. Examples please:

With the world losing the battle against global warming so far

ultimately moving people, plants and animals out of harm’s way

Society needs to be changing as much as wildlife is changing

climate change is happening rapidly

Adaptation will be particularly challenging because the rate of change is escalating

Cities, states and countries are scrambling to adapt

The U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said $10 billion to $12 billion a year is needed from developed countries through 2012 to “kick-start” things. Then it will get even more expensive.

failing to adapt would be even more expensive

a pretty strong moral case for us giving them assistance for the impacts that we’ve largely caused.

the world will have to create a triage system to figure out which living things can be saved, which can’t and are effectively goners

It’s a brutal way to go about things

some coastal cities will not be able to survive rising seas no matter what protections are put in place

Now for a moment, take all the quotes from above and read them together. it reads like the thousands upon thousands of boogie man climate change scare stories they’ve circulated in the last decade. And the newspaper industry is wondering why it’s in intensive care. It’s not the economy. People are tired of paying for news that’s controlled by a few (progressive or neo-conservative) that promote their own special interests.

Don’t listen to this mixed bag of neo-Liberals, neo-Marxists, Trotskyites, Democratic Socialists, and neo-Conservatives that have been working on transforming America since they fled Russia in the early 1900′s. These are the ilk that the White House is full of.

Wake up and Cut Off The TV.

Click here to join our forum discussions - (1) Posts

Australia’s Senate voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) as a step toward rejecting U.N. climate change legislation. They are obviously concerned about the implications of complying with the U.N. mandates when its citizens are split on the issue. There’s a huge concern over the cost of such a plan that will tax Australians to fund a cap and trade scheme. However, Australia’s government will seek to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through a Land Management proposal that will not involve cap and trade.

Well, the Labor Party (liberals) seems to believe that insanity is not defined as “doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result”. They are gonna keep throwing this thing against the wall until it sticks or falls apart. Here’s how they put it:

Despite the Senate’s rejection of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme establishing a double-dissolution trigger, Julia Gillard said the government would give the Coalition “one more chance” to change its mind. The Acting Prime Minister said Labor would introduce a new CPRS bill, including amendments agreed to by the Coalition under ousted leader Malcolm Turnbull, to parliament in February in the hope that “calmer heads” within the Coalition would shift their positions.

The Senate’s opposition leader made a great point:

Mr Abbott greeted yesterday’s Senate vote by declaring it had saved Australia from “a great big, new tax” by rejecting the CPRS…he said the Opposition remained committed to an unconditional target of reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020

Yesterday, Abbott ousted Malcolm Turnbull and scrapped pro-CPRS policy. However, just like the progressives in the U.S. Federal Government, Labor will not give up as stated by a Labor Party member:

Labor would reintroduce the bill when parliament returned in February, complete with the amendments agreed to by Mr Turnbull before he was dumped by his colleagues.”We are doing this to give the Liberal Party one chance to work through and deal with this legislation in the national interest…”

Well, the legislation will be brought up and voted on in 2010, but the Opposition said it will defeat it. Of course, the Labor Party states they’ll keep bringing it up for a vote until it passes (or falls apart) just to prove they are insane, as aforementioned. Maybe this will affect the U.S.’s position on the U.N. treaty. However, I would vote that insanity prevails.

Click here to join our forum discussions - (1) Posts

India re-iterated it’s intention of not signing any binding agreement to cut greenhouse gasses as proposed in the U.N. climate treaty. India and China, two of the largest emitters of greenhouse gas said the effort would stifle their economic prosperity. They would only agree that they will be more receptive to the U.N. goals if the majority cost of the scheme be shouldered by rich countries, like the U.S.  As reported:

In an interview on the CNN-IBN news channel, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said the draft proposal “clearly is unacceptable to us”.

India has said any cap on emissions growth would hamper its rapid economic expansion, which relies on heavily polluting fuels like coal.

India has yet to announce any figures for limiting its carbon output ahead of Copenhagen, but insists it will never accept legally binding emissions targets.

Ramesh said Chinese climate change envoy Xie Zhenhua would soon hand over a more acceptable negotiating draft to Denmark, adding that India stood firm with China, South Africa and Brazil “as far as negotiations are concerned”.

Climate envoys from the four developing countries met in Beijing over the weekend, reiterating their position that developed countries must shoulder most carbon emissions cuts.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last week that India would “sign on to an ambitious global target for emissions reductions” if rich countries paid more to fund mitigation efforts in the poorer world.

Hopefully, they will continue to reject ad infinitum.

Click here to join our forum discussions - (2) Posts

Lou Dobbs, in an interview with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), discusses Obama’s intentions of making commitments for the U.S. without American’s approval.

Click here to join our forum discussions - (1) Posts

This 8-part video, while a year old, gives insight into the politicisation and propagandising of the global warming scare.

Yes, I agree there are global warming trends. I also agree there are global cooling trends. If you listen to the alarmist (including the majority of the comma-induced state-controlled media), we’re doomed. A great crisis on a world-wide scale.

So the answer is to have a U.N.- backed global monetary climate trading and financial system to allow for the punishment of energy users and producers without repercussion and accountability. Any global governance system that seeks to contractually bind a country to any agreement without that country’s citizen’s approval is merely a device designed  to strip sovereignty from that country in order to diminish/elimiate personal freedom and liberty of its citizens.

This flies in the face of of our Constitutional Republic and is a continuation of our federal government’s expansionism  policy that was re-defined under the traitorous Woodrow Wilson’s progressive administration. It’s merely about the money and power.

There is a need to treat the earth kinder, but it doesn’t get achieved through a mandate established by an unaccountable world governing body.

Here’s an alternate choice to the 8-part video below in one video.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Wake Up America and Cut Off Your TV

Click here to join our forum discussions - (2) Posts