VIDEO: Listen very closely: Limiting CO2 is not without cost

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Post by Johnny2k's America.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Who needs their oil, anyway? ~ By Herman Cain

A revitalized and responsibly unleashed energy sector could be a significant economic stimulus to our economy right here at home.

Working families can't afford to spend more of their discretionary income on gasoline and energy costs, especially in a stalled economy.

America can't afford to continue spending billions of dollars to buy something that we can produce right here at home if we stop sitting on it. We must stop making other countries rich at our expense.

It's not just economic. It is common sense and a matter of national security.

This column will tell you what Herman Cain's energy policy would be if he was President of the United States! Wait, did I say that? Of course I did, because it is no secret that Herman Cain has an exploratory committee set up to determine if he should run for President.

The brilliance of this article is in helping people to understand that when energy prices increase, it ripples through the economy. Energy prices are directly related to the prices you pay for groceries and the number of jobs that are available. So, isn't it just common sense to develop our own energy in America, create jobs, and avoid having to purchase energy resources from countries that don't like us?

Who needs their oil, anyway?

HERMAN CAIN

By Herman Cain

March 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

In the early 1970s, America's dependence on foreign oil was a little over 20 percent. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is over 65 percent. We have become more and more energy dependent because we have never had a serious energy independence strategy, and we still do not have one.

Energy independence is within our grasp because we have plenty of energy natural resources. We have billions of barrels of oil, plenty of natural gas reserves, more coal than any other country in the world, lots of places we could build dams for hydroelectricity and some of the safest nuclear power technology in the world.

Wind and solar energy development is not going to get us to energy independence. Studies such as the Department of Energy's "Billion Ton Study" have shown that those two sources could at best provide 5 percent of our energy needs combined.

But by maximizing all of our other domestic energy resources, we could become energy independent. This would not only help to keep down the cost of gasoline and the cost of nearly everything we buy, but it would also be a boost to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. But most importantly, energy independence would keep us from being vulnerable to the current instability in the Middle East or the whims of OPEC.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

No man is an island ~ By Patrice Lewis

Ever since I first heard of any kind of environmental hysteria, which was during the Jimmy Carter years, I had my suspicions. For the last four decades of my life, I kept hearing that our dependency on foreign oil was detrimental to our national security. But yet, the same people that told us to cut back our thermostats to 60 degrees are the ones that are keeping us from drilling for our own oil. What is wrong with that picture? Do I really have to explain? It is such a contradiction of policy and public indoctrination, that how can you take environmental hysteria seriously?

And then, there is the way that our freedom keeps eroding. Erosion is a process, right? Over time, the Grand Canyon was created. Over a much shorter time, our beaches erode, and the process is accelerated with hurricanes. Well, folks, the hurricane is coming. I'm speaking of our liberty being eroded down to the bare bone before our eyes, and it will come from the far left environmental extremists.

In my humble opinion, I believe that the truth about environmental activism is that it's just a cover to justify limitations on our freedoms. I am sure that you are aware that our kids are terrified every day with the constant images of world-wide environmental catastrophes. Now that the public indoctrination centers have hooked the children, the next phase is to turn religion green:

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

I can only conclude that the Left is whittling away at our liberty. And to think, environmental hysteria is just one of the weapons of choice for the Progressives. But in this case, they have a united global front going for them, through the United Nations. Keep in mind, to paraphrase something that Ronald Reagan told us, "if America goes, you will have no where left to go for freedom." Not even a remote island. Just sayin'...

My first thought upon reading about this exercise is that the Norfolk Islanders are forfeiting their freedom for environmental slavery. It is about to become a penal colony to progressivism, an experiment in green shackles that the fascist overlords hope will spread. Today, the island. Tomorrow, the world!

The old saying "No man is an island" is certainly being underscored. As the inhabitants of Norfolk Island are about to discover, even the freedom to be left alone in the middle of nowhere is coming to an end.

No man is an island

By Patrice Lewis

November 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



There are two types of "green" people.

The first type live green because it's cheaper than the alternative. If they can't afford gasoline or a car, they bicycle. If they can't afford to buy food, they grow their own. If they can't afford the cost of bringing electricity to their home, they live without or go off-grid.

The second type live green ostensibly because they're concerned about the environment. Specifically, they believe humans are causing global warming and that people must scale back their lifestyles and resource consumption to live more sustainably on Mother Earth.

The biggest difference between the first and the second type of "greenies" is the first type has no interest in forcing you to live the way they do. They are simply doing what's best for their bottom line.

The second type would love nothing more than to compel you to live according to their beliefs. With nothing short of religious fervor, they try to convert you through a biased media and public-education indoctrination; and if that fails, they will force you to comply through government-backed regulations.

In short, we could describe the first group as frugal and the second group as thugs.

Keep this in mind as I introduce you to Norfolk Island, a tiny dot (population 1,800) in the middle of the vast ocean between Australia and New Zealand. Once upon a time it was a cruel place, part of Australia's penal colony system, but today it is a beautiful little jewel in the middle of the water.

I found it one evening by trolling Google Earth for isolated islands after my husband and I joked about moving when conditions in the U.S. became too socialistic. When I mentioned it in a column last year, I received a charming e-mail from a woman named Coral who invited me to visit. (Coral, if you're reading this, my e-mails back to you have always bounced. Please try contacting me again.) The impression I received is that Norfolk Island is a place I'd love to see.

But no more. Poor little Norfolk Island, it seems, is about to undergo an experiment in the name of fascism … (cough) sorry, I mean environmental activism.

The "warmies" (as the Australian environmentalists are called), with the enthusiastic participation of the Australian government, have concocted a scheme whereby the Norfolk Islanders will be issued a "carbon credit card" pre-loaded with a set amount of carbon credits to use over the course of a year. Every time the islanders buy gasoline, purchase some "fatty" imported food, or fly to the mainland to visit relatives, they get dinged. At the end of the year, those with leftover credits can sell them or cash them in, while those who used up their carbon credits early must buy more.

During the second year of the experiment, the number of carbon credits will be decreased. Ditto during the third and final year of this experiment. The goal, allegedly, is to make the islanders "trim, taut and terrifically moral." But of course, you and I know the real goal: to compel the islanders to live like good little global citizens according to the stringent and merciless criteria of the "warmies."

Reporters writing on this experiment were careful to select only cheerfully compliant people to interview about their thoughts. Garry Egger, professor of lifestyle medicine at Southern Cross University, is quick to point out his scheme will be voluntary and could provide islanders with cash for unused carbon credits. "We are not trying to impose ourselves on anybody out there," he said.

But in another article, Mr. Egger reveals his true agenda: "If (Norfolk residents) are in favour of it then it would justify scaling it up to a country level and ultimately to a world level."

Andrew Bolt, a columnist with the Herald Sun in Sydney, points out how this kind of social experiment was proposed in 2006 in Britain. The idea was endorsed and its proponents "insisted the Government defy howls of protest from mere voters." [Emphasis added.] Mr. Bolt also quotes members of Parliament as saying, "Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent." This was said, presumably with a straight face, before the members of Parliament were "driven off to dinner."

Australian Greens candidate Clive Hamilton believes "that climate change in the very near future will be 'so horrible that we [must] look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of "emergency" responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.'" [Emphasis added.]

In other words, these enviro-fascists believe mythical global warming is so important that it makes for a wonderfully convenient excuse to "save the planet" through enslavement. The experiment with Norfolk Island demonstrates that environmentalists, at their core, are bullies. They want you to behave the way they dictate or else (ominous music in background).

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Green religionists: Children in bodies of adults ~ By Phil Elmore

"They loved living here. But I can't let them stay. They'll have to find food. And I hope that they may. 'Good luck, boys,' he cried. And he sent them away." Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax" continues, "I … felt sad as I watched them all go. But … business is business! And business must grow … I meant no harm. I most truly did not. But I had to grow bigger. So bigger I got. I biggered my factory. I biggered my roads. I biggered my wagons. I biggered the loads. … I went right on biggering … selling more Thneeds. And I biggered my money, which everyone needs."

The Lorax -- Dr. Seuss

Video provided by jonathanichikawa

Yes, I think that Phil Elmore is on to something here. It's called indoctrination, it is started at an early age, and it's followed by years and years of streaming info coming at our children in schools, books, on TV, and in movies...(Remember "Avatar"?) They're taught, "Trees good, corporations bad." Yes, just as Dr. Seuss wrote in "The Lorax," as you heard in the video above.

Phil explains that while most people eventually grow out of the fear that has been instilled in them regarding the environment, many don't, without a doubt. It's the ones that don't that we have to worry about. And by the way, that video was a great reading of "The Lorax," wouldn't you say? I was impressed, which is why I chose it for this column today. And I was glad to find it, as I had never read "The Lorax" before, which may explain why I'm not much into hugging trees any more... Just sayin'...

This anxiety is the driving force behind today's environmentalist activists. While I eventually came to my senses, developing an adult's sense of realism and the ability to use basic logic, many wide-eyed children never realize this innate capacity for reason. Primed by fear, worry and helplessness at an early age, they become the hectoring, self-righteous, insufferable "green" cultists who spend their time trying to make you toe their environmentalist line. Previously in Technocracy, I described to you the spiritual fervor of these green religionists. If you won't listen to them voluntarily, then by Gaia, they'll make you listen by bludgeoning you with the force of law. Any violation of your rights as a free citizen is justified to the green religionists, because they're afraid. Their anxiety, their helplessness, instilled in them from childhood, is untempered by common sense, unleavened by pragmatism and touched by neither logic nor skepticism. They are true believers. In their minds, the failure to believe individually is a sentence of death collectively. Seeing them as frightened children, reading "The Lorax" with tears in their eyes, how can we not at least pity them?

Green religionists: Children in bodies of adults

By Phil Elmore

Posted: September 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010



...

With a familiar snapping noise, the lamp I tried to turn on instead remained dark. As I groped blindly under the kitchen sink for a replacement, eventually finding the carton containing the last of the household's 100 Watt "soft white" bulbs, those lines from Dr. Seuss' story came to mind. I remember reading that book and thinking, even as a child, that it was a horribly depressing story. Worse, it seemed only too prophetic to me as a youngster.

Growing up in the 1980s, I shared a common malady with most of my contemporaries. We were taught, from an early age, that we were all doomed. Television movies like "The Day After," not to mention the evening news, had us convinced that at any moment we could all be turned to piles of smoldering, irradiated ash. The specter of nuclear war hung low over our heads. While the ridiculous "duck and cover" drills of previous decades were before my time, the signs proclaiming my Depression-era middle school a "fallout shelter" were daily reminders. I don't imagine we'd have questioned it too much had our teachers taught us how to get under our desks, tuck our heads and kiss our posteriors goodbye. We were already being taught by hip new media outlets like MTV that life was a joke and the truly cool cared about nothing.

Those teenaged nihilist themes warred with much more deeply rooted childhood messages, however, in the form of the well-meaning (including stories like "The Lorax") to environmentalist indoctrination in school. I remember learning all about "pollution" during several weeks of "social studies" (a topic I've since learned is a euphemism for failing to teach "history" to our children) in third grade. I remember just how deeply concerned I became about the threat to the planet. I remember thinking that if we didn't do something, we were all, well, doomed. I remember how powerless I felt. Very briefly, I was poised to become an environmental activist, out of nothing so much as a deeply seated sense of worry over the future.


READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

North Korea Torpedo: SWAT Sent to Gulf Oil Rigs ...

Will covering this story make me a "Oil Rig Truther?" I think that a story that I just put up on this blog (US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig, from the EU Times) MAY be bogus, but then let's see, is there any parallel to the "9/11 Truther" conspiracy theory? To some extent it is, but "plausibility" is the key word.

I did a google search on the story. No kidding, there were 189,000 results on the search. There is no shortage of people checking into it, blogging it, or spreading it. One of the blogs I found had the following youtube video:

Video provided by o0Levitikuz0o on April 30, 2010.

In the video, we find that the President actually does say, "Earlier today, DHS Secretary Napolitano announced that this incident is of national significance, and the Department of Interior has announced that they will be sending SWAT Teams to the Gulf to inspect all platforms and rigs."  No kidding, he really did say that at about :20 to :28 in the above video!  But, what he said right before that was that he'd use all available resources, including "potentially the Department of Defense to address the incident."  With that in mind, it makes the EU Times story just a little bit on the plausible side.  In fact, it makes it much more plausible than the evidence the 9/11 truthers provide that President Bush continued to read to the school kids in Florida after hearing the news of the WTC being attacked.  This time, it is in the President's own words! Think about that.

Now, let's look at several other factors to consider:  

• When Katrina blew through the Gulf of Mexico, were there any major leaks from oil platforms?

• Why did the platform sink?  Yes, it was burning up, but I thought steel did not melt from a fuel fire, especially under water!

• You don't really believe that somebody lit up a cigarette on the platform that started that fire.  No, really... Have you heard any one ever say what started the fire? We more or less only heard that the cause of the fire was still under investigation, right?

You must admit, those are really good points showing plausibility of the North Korean torpedo story.

Of course, in cases like this, there will be a multitude of conspiracy theories to explain the greatest environmental catastrophy of Biblical proportions. In other words, there could be something else rather than the EU Times story to explain the disaster. As o0Levitikuz0o that produced the video above mentions, The EU Times website is full of malware. I was wondering about that, as my computer quit responding constantly while trying to read the article and copy it over to my blog. (In fact, to see the story at EU Times, I advise you to either go to the public library and see it on one of their computers, or better yet, try it on your evil mother-in-law's PC!) But I digress. What I am saying is that the EU Times may have lost it's credibility completely for that reason, or.... the story was a plant to take our attention off what may have really happened. Let's explore a few of the many possibilities:

• Environmental terrorists (tree huggers) did it in order to convince the public that off shore drilling is a bad idea for the environment. Case closed...

• Al Gore had it done because he doesn't want that oil to be used to catastrophically heat the Earth.

• Our own military did it by accident when a torpedo went awry during target practice, just like what happened to Flight 800 that was taken down off the coast of Long Island in 1996. That would be very Clinton-esque for the Obama administration to cover their... you know, hind ends.

• Al Qaida did it, and the administration knows it, but doesn't want people to start blaming the Islamo-fascists for everything - like the downing of Flight 800 - again. The CIA planted the North Korean torpedo story at EU Times, of course. (Quick, somebody call Jack Cashill and alert him to this possibility!)

• An oil rig worker was having a nicotine fit, and ignored the no smoking policy aboard the oil rig. BP and other oil rig operators will now need to do nicotine tests on any potential oil rig workers per new OSHA regulations.

Now, I know some of what I wrote on this was meant to be humorous. I apologize, being that this situation in the Gulf and potentially the entire East Coast is extremely serious. I think it was my satiric way of stating that stories like the North Korean torpedo/suicide attack will undoubtedly stir up all kinds of debate and probably continue on for a long time, just like Roswell (NM, 1947), the Kennedy assassination, or 9/11. And I am sure that guys like Alex Jones or Joseph Farah will find a way to cash in on inflaming the conspiracy world. (Note to Joseph Farah: I'm only kidding, that was a parody of what your detractors would say. You know I love ya, man!)  That was the parallel to 9/11 that I alluded to earlier.

Because the internet can be used by people that do not have good intentions, and that it can be so VERY difficult to actually verify just about any information, seriously, be alert and vigilant; don't believe everything you read on the World Wide Web. Just sayin'...

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

The Green Police take over ~ By Ben Shapiro

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

The left is crying out for a friendly tyranny, whether it springs from the holsters of the Green Police, the Food Police or the Obama administration. Whenever there is backlash against their agenda, their first solution is to dismiss the people. To that end, we the people are characterized as stupid, angry and easily manipulated. No doubt, we the people are stupid or angry or easily manipulated sometimes. But we are still the people. And we the people aren't made to be ruled by the iron fist of the know-it-all know-nothings who now occupy our nation's editorial boards and highest offices.

By Ben Shapiro

Posted: February 10, 2010 ~ 7:16 pm Eastern

© 2010

The most interesting element of the Super Bowl wasn't the Super Bowl. It was an advertisement for the Audi A3 TDI. The commercial depicted uniformed officials arresting Americans for, among other offenses, asking for plastic bags at the grocery, throwing away batteries, failing to compost an orange peel and installing incandescent light bulbs. "Green Police," announces one of the green-clad fascisti. "You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy." Believe it or not, this wasn't a parody of environmentalism gone wacko – it was a celebration of it. The end of the commercial informed viewers that by driving the Audi A3, they could heal their souls: "Green has never felt so right."

Audi confirmed that the ad wasn't designed to undermine environmental radicalism. "The Green Police are a humorous group of individuals that have joined forces in an effort to collectively help guide consumers to make the right decision when it comes to the environment," explains the Audi website. "They're not here to judge, merely to guide these decisions." By "guide," Audi presumably means "punish."

This would be funny if it weren't frightening. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom twittered, "Ok … That 'green police' Audi commercial hits home." There's a reason it hits home – San Francisco currently requires that citizens compost their food waste. The punishment for violation? Up to a $500 fine for businesses. On a national scale, President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to pass "a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America." The actual results: punitive fines on carbon emissions, higher electric costs and lower standards of living.

READ FULL STORY >

Give Al Gore his due ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: February 03, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 I never thought Al Gore was very bright, but you've got to give the guy his due. He's got the whole world trading carbon credits and measuring carbon footprints. He has turned the economic order of the world upside-down. He's whipped up more apocalyptic hysteria than the Mayan calendar. Al Gore did all that with his invention of manmade, catastrophic global warming. And, make no mistake about it, unlike his claim to birthing the Internet, Al Gore really did invent climate change out of nothing more than computer models, a fertile imagination and political necessity. People like Al Gore actually don't like America. They want to change it in fundamental ways to make it more to their liking and so that America serves their interests rather than the interests of the American people. Think back 20 years if you are old enough. Do you remember what people like Al Gore were pushing back then – before he invented "global warming"? For one thing, they were telling us we had to produce smaller cars and drive them. Before carbon dioxide was the menace that was going to destroy the planet, it was other auto emissions. Back then it was poisonous, toxic emissions that were the problem. And Al Gore used the coercive power of the state to force automakers to reduce those emissions. When no one could rationally argue that those emissions still posed a threat to the quality of life, a new argument to change lifestyles was needed. Leave it to Al Gore to come up with the notion that carbon dioxide and water vapor emissions now threatened to destroy the world. You see, it was never about cleaner air with Al Gore in the first place. It was never about health or the environment. It was always about attacking American industry, prosperity and the free-enterprise system. So he came up with a threat that could never be solved – a phony threat that could never even be measured. READ FULL STORY >

Eliminate those resource-sucking brats! ~ By Patrice Lewis

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: January 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 For some time now, I've been bookmarking "green" articles on overpopulation and how we need to reduce the number of children we bear in order to save the planet. Recently another opinion piece came to light that so revolted me that I knew it was time to address the issue. Diane Francis, editor-at-large of the National Post, wrote a column for the Financial Post in which she endorsed implementing China's one-child policy worldwide as a means of saving the planet. "The fix [for overpopulation] is simple," writes Ms. Francis. "It's dramatic. And yet the world's leaders don't even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies. None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. … China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. … The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures." I see. Are you volunteering, Ms. Francis? Because here's the clincher: You have two kids. For those who like the idea of a one-child policy, you'll be pleased to know that "China's population-control measures have resulted in 400 million fewer births, translating into 18 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year." This is reported by Zhao Baige, vice minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China. I'm sure he's right. But it's how those 400 million "fewer births" happened that things get ugly. Compliance with the one-child policy isn't always voluntary. Therefore many Chinese people must be coerced into limiting themselves to one child … and I mean "coerced" in the worse sense of the word. Is this really what Ms. Francis wants? READ FULL STORY >

What motivates enviro alarmists? ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: December 12, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I'm beginning to believe very few of the environmental alarmists actually believe what they say. I suspect their motivations are not "saving the planet," but something else entirely. This isn't true only of those in Copenhagen this week, claiming now we only have "weeks" to reverse cataclysmic climate change. It's true of all environmental chicken littles. Let's examine a much smaller example to put this in perspective. Way back in the 1970s, when no one had yet dreamed up the possibility of catastrophic, manmade "global warming," the big threat in environmental circles was PCBs or polychlorinated biphenyls. These chemicals were widely used for three decades in electrical equipment because of their insulating properties until Renate Kimbrough of the Centers for Disease Control decided to feed massive quantities of PCBs to lab rats and found they caused liver cancer. Not long afterward, in 1976, Congress banned the use of PCBs. Almost 25 years later, Kimbrough revisited the subject in a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and found no link between PCBs and human health problems. That study, by the way, focused on more than 7,000 people who worked from 1946 to 1977 in GE power plants on the Hudson River – plants that dumped massive amounts of PCBs into the river. Even though PCB levels in the Hudson were dropping every year as nature took its course, and despite the new study by Kimbrough, the Clinton administration decided to invest in a major dredging operation of the river. The Bush administration later green-lighted the project at an estimated cost of $460 million. All along the way, critics explained the worst possible thing you could do if the goal was to reduce PCB levels in the Hudson was to dredge. They said dredging would actually raise the levels of PCBs in the river. Scheduled to begin in 2003 or 2004, the project finally got under way last spring – with a new price tag of $780 million. Would you like to guess the results? READ FULL STORY>>

When 'consensus' doesn't count ~ By Joseph Farah

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Joseph Farah Posted: November 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 It's a funny thing about "consensus." Often we are told that because society has reached a "consensus" on a given topic, debate about it should be all but be extinguished. Those who are not part of the "consensus" are often ridiculed and marginalized. Those who are part of the "consensus" feel perfectly justified in imposing their view on the rest of the country – even the world. For example, next month there's a United Nations convention in Copenhagen at which the powers that be plan to reinvent the way the world is governed on the basis of a "consensus" that man-made catastrophic climate change is an imminent threat to the planet. Of course, first you have to ask yourself: "Is there really a consensus among the world's population that man's activity on the planet presents an imminent threat to survival?" The answer, of course, is no. Not only is there no consensus, I'm not even aware of any effort to conducting scientific surveys to determine if there is. The second question you have to ask is this: "Would it matter if there was such a consensus?" The answer, of course, is no. It wouldn't matter because the world is not and should not be governed on the basis of consensus. In fact, the world shouldn't be governed at all – unless or when God Himself descends from heaven with a shout and imposes His own righteous, all-knowing judgments upon it. Yet, next month, we're told, because of "consensus," decisions are going to be made at this U.N. convention that will affect the lives of every man, woman and child on the planet – and we will take some significant steps toward global governance. So be very wary when people cite "consensus" as a reason for doing anything. It's a trick. It's political sleight of hand. It's a con game – much like "man-made, catastrophic climate change." Neither one is real – and it wouldn't matter if they were. Both are merely excuses for actions that others want to impose on the rest of us. READ FULL STORY >

The Sky is Falling! ~ By Dave Johannes

Commentary from Uncommon Sense

By Dave Johannes October 26, 2009

“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom”. – Dwight D. Eisenhower

In 1943, as a comment on the war Walt Disney produced a cartoon version of the classic Chicken Little. In this version of the tale, Foxy Loxy is a cunning villain who uses a number of psychological tactics to drive a farm full of animals into a cave to be eaten. Slightly disturbing and quite political it was a not so subtle message about manipulation of the facts and emotions to gain compliance. The stimulus package, healthcare reform, climate change … The sky is falling and if we don’t take action right away… look familar? Watch the video – yeah it’s a cartoon but what a powerful message…

READ FULL STORY >

A hot, green fire ~ By Barbara Simpson

From WorldNetDaily

By Barbara Simpson Posted: September 07, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Thank God for small favors. At least there were no Santa Ana winds – the hot, tornado-like desert winds so common to California during fire season, were nowhere to be found during the largest brushfire to hit Los Angeles County in history. That was a blessing for the thousands of firefighters on the line of the Station Fire trying to get the flames under control but conditions were still awful: scorching heat, low humidity, light wind and land filled with an accumulation of brush that hadn't burned in decades. U.S. Forest Service incident commander Capt. Mike Dietrich told the Associated Press it was a "perfect storm of fuels, weather and topography … essentially the fire burned at will; it went where it wanted to, when it wanted to." It was a disaster waiting to happen – and it did. It's called the Station Fire, the largest fire in county history, and it continues to burn, tearing through the Angeles National Forest. "It ain't over till it's over." We've all heard that line, but in the case of California wildfires, it's true. Even after those blazes are "controlled and contained," they burn for weeks – sometimes months, until they're truly out. The Station Fire has already devastated more than 242 square miles of the Angeles National Forest and, as it swept across the hills and canyons, it took with it homes, property, history and lives. The investigation is now an arson homicide case. Two firefighters were killed as they attempted to evade the roaring flames. Their vehicle careened off a mountain road, tumbling down a canyon. Capt. Ted Hall of San Bernardino was 47 and firefighter Spc. Amaldo "Arnie" Quinones of Palmdale was 35. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a $100,000 reward for information leading to those responsible for the fire. The investigation at the fire's point of origin continues. [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]

Be sure to read the rest of the column. Barbara goes on to write:

The forests of the state are in dangerous condition because of activist environmentalists who have, via propaganda, lobbying and lawsuits, managed to virtually stop commercial logging and debris salvage in the woods.

They claim the land needs to be free of "human intervention." Fire roads, providing firefighter access to remote areas, have been reduced or removed. Following a fire, salvage of still viable trees for lumber is forbidden and underbrush and debris removal prohibited.

UN AGENDA 21: Cap and Trade Calls for Productive U.S. Farmland to be Converted to Forests

From Campaign For Liberty

UN AGENDA 21: Cap and Trade Calls for Productive U.S. Farmland to be Converted to Forests Posted by ckemp30312 on 08/19/09 2:56 PM Published on 08-19-2009 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-08-19-forest_N.htm Source: USA Today WASHINGTON - New forests would spread across the American landscape, replacing both pasture and farm fields, under a congressional plan to confront climate change, an Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows. About 18 million acres of new trees - roughly the size of West Virginia - would be planted by 2020, according to an EPA analysis of a climate bill passed by the House of Representatives in June. That's because the House bill gives financial incentives to farmers and ranchers to plant trees, which suck in large amounts of the key global-warming gas: carbon dioxide. The forestation effort would be even larger than one carried out by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, says the U.S. Forest Service's Ralph Alig. The CCC, which lasted from 1933 to 1942, planted 3 billion trees, says the Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy, an alumni group for workers and family members. The environmental benefits are clear. More trees would not only lower carbon dioxide levels, but they would improve water quality, because they need lower levels of pesticides and fertilizers, says agricultural economist Bruce McCarl of Texas A&M University, who contributed to the EPA analysis. The plan would, however, be hard on ranchers and farmers and potentially food prices, says American Farm Bureau chief economist Bob Young. In the Senate, which is likely to consider a similar bill this fall, there are some who worry the loss of farmland would lead to increases in food prices worse than those seen in mid-2007, when costs spiked 7% to 8% above 2006 levels. If those food prices seemed high, "wait till you start moving agricultural acres into climate-change areas," warns Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., Agriculture secretary for President George W. Bush. 

Now, check this out, from the same Campaign For Liberty post:

If you do not understand what UN Agenda 21 is read here first and use a legal dictionary to understand in plain language to see their real plan.. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment. In 1997, the General Assembly of the UN held a special session to appraise five years of progress on the implementation of Agenda 21 (Rio +5). The Assembly recognized progress as 'uneven' and identified key trends including increasing globalization, widening inequalities in income and a continued deterioration of the global environment. A new General Assembly Resolution (S-19/2) promised further action.

Again, here is the URL for this story:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=23947  

Here is the video that was embedded at this point:  

Again, here is the URL for this story: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=23947

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Cap-and-tax: Government vs. America ~ By David Limbaugh

By David Limbaugh Posted: July 10, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 There is still time to stop the legislative monstrosity known as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill before the Senate approves it. But for that to happen, Americans must learn how bad it is. Let's briefly review the basics: the bill is ostensibly designed to curb man-caused carbon emissions (presumably without outlawing breathing) to retard global warming. Even if we accept, for purposes of argument, the assumptions of radical, hysterical leftist environmentalists that man-caused global warming will destroy the planet if evil, rich capitalists don't radically curtail their own contributions to the catastrophe, Waxman-Markey would not prevent this Armageddon. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, of New Hope Environmental Services, calculates that the bill would only reduce Earth's temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Celsius by 2100. The Heritage Foundation's Ben Lieberman says he's found no "decent refutation of the assertion that the temperature impact would be inconsequential." Unfortunately, the bill's negative impact on the economy would not be inconsequential. Lieberman says the bill would cause estimated job losses averaging about 1.15 million from 2012-2030, and the cumulative projected loss in gross domestic product would be almost $10 trillion by 2035. The national debt from this bill alone, disregarding the multiple bailouts, stimulus packages and health care "reform," would increase by 2035 for a family of four by 26 percent, or $115,000. Heritage is not alone in making these claims. The far more liberal Brookings Institution estimates the bill would cost 1.8 percent of GDP in 2035 and 2.5 percent by 2050. Heritage's "Foundry" blog concludes, "Economists from liberal think tanks, conservative think tanks, and industry associations agree that Waxman-Markey will reduce income by hundreds of billions of dollars per year." [CONTINUE READING]

House Democrats refuse skeptic testimony: they don’t want Gore Humiliated

Capitol Hill Commies Protect Gore, Ban Scientist's Testimony

By Perry Peterson ~ Cave News Al Gore has never allowed anyone to publicly debate his position on global warming. He says it is man-made and that’s it. He refuses to debate. Washington Democrats in the House of Representatives have refused to allow debate during a global warming hearing today. They don’t want Gore humiliated. Washington Democrats in the House of Representatives have refused to allow debate during a global warming hearing today. They don’t want Gore humiliated. UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon. “The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.” [Continue reading]

digg story ~ Submitted by MightyRighty (rjwusa)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn Makes Al Gore Mad!

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) challenged Former Vice President Al Gore's contribution to environmental charities during an exchange at a subcommittee hearing on global climate change legislation. Al Gore seems to lose his cool. See the video below or click here to see it at youtube.com: digg story ~ Submitted by TRMarchesano

Is green losing its gold? - By Patrice Lewis

It's not that Patrice objects to green technology. Far from it. What she objects to is having green technology forced upon us at the point of a gun by government thugs who steal our money via taxes in order to fund it and thus gain more control over our lives. Green living should be an individual option, not a government-mandated requirement.

read more | digg story

Will the U.S. embrace global socialism? - By Henry Lamb

Reports from the recent World Economic Forum in Davos suggest that most of the world's leaders are convinced that the current crisis is the result of inherent flaws in capitalism, and are eager to impose new international rules to save the world. Australian P.M. Kevin Rudd is calling on Obama to join him in creating a new economic system.

read more | digg story

Is it cold, or is Gore crazy? - By Doug Powers

"Global warming" is an excuse to steal from you under the guise of it being for your own good. Maybe the thinking of pushing global warming legislation when a good portion of the country is being treated for hypothermia is this: Americans won't feel their back pockets being picked when their rear ends are numb.

read more | digg story

Hot enough for you? -- By Joseph Farah

The Environmental Protection Agency, a wholly unconstitutional government bureaucracy to begin with, is authorized by the Clean Air Act to regulate certain pollutants. It is not technically authorized to do anything about carbon dioxide because, well, CO2 is not a pollutant. But when Obama takes office, EPA will be declaring CO2 is a pollutant.

read more | digg story