At some point, freedom-loving Americans have to initiate an investigation of Socialist/Marxist billionaire George Soro as he continues to interfere in U.S. affairs and uses his fortune to unduly influence American politics and pushes his America/freedom-hating agenda. This guy has worn out his welcome here and needs to return to Hugary or some other European socialist-loving country. No George, we don’t want any of the funk you’re selling.

From Bloomberg:

The panel, which includes billionaire George Soros and Larry Summers…estimated that selling carbon emissions permits could generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion

The panel assumed a carbon price of as much as $25 a ton on emissions…An additional $5 billion could be gained from a tax on carbon offsets in the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism…An additional $12 billion would come from a levy on shipping and aviation…levies on transportation need to be structured so as not to harm developing nations…direct contributions from government budgets…while being politically “challenging.”…a “wires charge” on electricity generation…the removal of fossil fuel-subsidies…and a carbon tax, which would garner $10 billion.

Read more here.

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.

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.

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.


This 8-part video, while a year old, gives insight into the politicization and propagandizing 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/eliminate 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.

Wake Up America and Cut Off Your TV

Let’s see, since many of us, including leading scientists around the world, do not buy this global warming fearmongering, the Obama administration will now take a new approach that will certainly scare the daylights out of the ignorant. These same individuals have introduced into our reality the war on terror, war on drugs, war on poverty, etc..  If Americans won’t buy into whatever policy initiative the federal government is pushing, then they declare war on it to scare the hell out of them and attempt to paint it with a patriotic brush. Well, now we have the “war on global warming” as reported by the NY Times this past August.

So here are some of the new buzz phrases we will hearing in the near future as the Obama team readies their gameplan:

  • raising the prospect of military intervention
  • climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions
  • sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response
  • policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest
  • the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought
  • U.S military critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges
  • The shrinking of the ice cap…opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition
  • climate change by itself…would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.
  • demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures

The most telling aspect of this strategy is noted by Sen. John Kerry, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, when he says,

he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill

So like it or not, the rhetoric is being ramped up to get ignorant Americans to somehow attach patriotism to global warming. I’m not buying it! Are you?