Stop the Energy Tax!

The EPA is considering green house gas regulations that will cripple the economy and reduce the food supply. We have two choices.

  1. Fight the proposed regulations before they are passed into law.
  2. Rise up in rebellion; a second American Revolution.

Because I prefer the first choice, I visited the American Energy Alliance and sent an email to the EPA arguing against the Socialist idiocy.

EPA wants to increase the price of gasoline, electricity, and anything that uses oil, coal, or natural gas by regulating eighty-five percent of the energy we use in America. You only have until Friday to let EPA know that you think this plan should be stopped dead in its tracks—click here to send your message.

Here is the text of the stock message, which can be edited on the site.

I am writing in response to EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. EPA should not find that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. To quote EPA Administrator Johnson himself, the Clean Air Act “is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.”

EPA Should Not Find that Greenhouse Gas Endanger Human Health and Welfare

The ANPR seems to presume that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare. There is little evidence for this claim and historical data show the opposite. Over the past 100 years, as temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations have increased, global GDP has increased 18 fold, average life span has doubled, and per capita food supplies have increased even as global population has quadrupled. What is more, these increases in human welfare have been due to economic growth, which necessarily went hand in hand with greenhouse gas emissions. Had such emissions been capped in 1908, human health and welfare would certainly have suffered during the 20th century. EPA should examine actual historical data to put the model projections into their proper context.

EPA argues the Clean Air Act is precautionary in nature. This is true, but EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases without compelling information that they are causing harm to human health and welfare. This information does not exist today.

EPA should be very cautious about inflicting harm on the economy through increased regulation because, as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell argue in their 1999 paper, every additional $15 million in regulatory costs leads to an additional statistical death. This is because regulatory costs impose costs on society that reduce income and in turn reduce expenditures on health and safety.

The regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars, and as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell point out, lead to great harm to human health and welfare.

There is Profound Scientific Uncertainty Concerning the Impact of Increasing Greenhouse Gases on Human Health and Welfare

The science of climate change is far more unsettled than EPA explains in the ANPR. EPA should fully examine the state of climate change science. Here are a few examples of issues EPA needs to address and understand before it can accurately state that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare:

  • The leveling off of global temperature. Since 2001, there has not been a statistically significant increase in temperature, even as carbon dioxide levels increased by 4 percent during this period. This leveling-off of global temperatures was not predicted by the global climate models. It is true that the climate is a complex system with many cyclical variations, but each passing year with flat temperatures (in spite of rising greenhouse gas concentrations) renders the most alarming projections less and less credible.
  • Heat-related mortality. EPA argues that warmer temperatures will lead to greater heat-related mortality. While this makes intuitive sense, EPA should examine actual data on heat-related mortality. For example, in the United States heat-related morality has decreased even as temperatures increased from the 1970s through the 1990s. EPA fails to consider the countervailing economic and health-related improvements that have caused heat-related mortality to fall as temperatures have increased.
  • Worse air quality. EPA argues that “the IPCC projects with virtual certainty” that warming will lead to worse air quality. This is highly unlikely. Instead of relying on the IPCC’s projections on air quality, EPA needs to examine its own air trends website. The website states that, “National average air quality continues to improve as emissions decline through 2007.” These improvements have occurred in spite of increasing population growth, GDP, vehicle-miles traveled, temperature, and greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no reason to believe the air quality trends will reverse.
  • Sea level rise. There is nothing new about rising sea levels. Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years—since the end of the last ice age. The real question is whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Recent papers by Holgate, Berge-Nguyen et al., and Unnikrishnan et al. all show no increase in the rate of sea level rise. If increased greenhouse gas levels were driving sea level rise, we should see an increase in the rate of sea level rise, but that has not happened.
  • A national solution will not solve a global issue. The Clean Air Act is not an appropriate way to regulate greenhouse gases because greenhouse gases are a global issue, not just an issue for the United States. We could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero, but even this dramatic result would not have much of an impact on global temperatures in the long run. The vast majority of increases in greenhouse gas emissions come from the developing world, not the United States. National policies can give incentives for manufacturers to move their operations to unregulated regions, paradoxically leading to higher emissions to produce the goods in question.
  • EPA’s models should be open and transparent. EPA should not use closed-source models for critical projections and modeling. All the models EPA references should be available for public inspection and download. EPA should also detail all of the assumptions and documentation for the models. EPA should not hide key assumptions and projections from the public.
  • The ANPR has many legal problems. For example, EPA writes that it has the authority under the Clean Air Act to implement a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases. This claim is unlikely to pass muster with the courts. The DC Circuit, in the recent CAIR decision, ruled that EPA does not have the authority to implement cap-and-trade under the Clean Air Act.

Conclusion: These are just a few of the reasons EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, nor should it make a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Although many climate scientists endorse man’s role in rising temperatures, there is no comparable consensus among economists, medical doctors, and other experts on the impacts such warming may have on human health and welfare. Indeed, poorly designed regulations could cause harms (in lost economic output) that far outweigh the modest benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the footnotes: http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/PDF/EPA_footnotes.pdf

Time is short; please go immediately and tell them off!

Advertisements

Stop The EPA! Sign the Petition

Hat tip to Churchill’s Parrot

President-elect Barack Obama has proposed many ideas on how to fix our energy and environmental problems. With economic ruin looming in front of us, an auto industry ready to collapse, banks failing, and a falling stock market, the last thing we need is to put strict limits on our economic growth.

Obama’s plan asks for a reduction in greenhouse gasses by 80% by the year 2050. Asking the EPA to “implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The Heritage Foundation reports:

“This intrusive regulation will cost the American economy nearly $7 trillion dollars in lost GDP in just 20 years, and result in massive job losses. Heritage’s respected Center for Data Analysis estimates non-farm employment losses will exceed 800,000 in some years, and manufacturing jobs will plummet. Some industries would lose over half of their jobs. Government permits would be needed to expand small businesses and build homes, hospitals and schools. To add insult to injury, foreign competitors will not have to abide by these regulations, leaving American businesses at a disadvantage.”

Not only does the West and specifically the United States have to bear the brunt of this problem, but the greenhouse gas savings would do nothing to alleviate the problem since China and India produce more greenhouse gasses each day than we do in a month.

You can help. You can start by signing this petition. Stop the EPA! And get others to sign it too. Then get involved. Call or write your Representative or Senator. But don’t sit idly by.

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

American Physical Society Sponsors Debate On Validity Of Global Warming Science

Cross posted from Wake up America

The debate is back on with dueling experts as the Physics and Society Forum unit within the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 50,000 physicists, now proclaim that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.

The Physics and Society, one of 39 units of the American Physical Society will be sponsoring a public debate on the validity of global warming science. (Links to the first two papers below, one against the consensus and one for the consensus)

On the APS’ Physics and Society Forum, which is only 1 of 39 units of the APS itself, has an editors note declaring that “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

They go to say that because of the ramifications of any conclusions that are made will have “immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere” they will be presenting a debate within the pages of Physics and Society concerning the conclusion.

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an “expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and “extensive errors”

Although this unit of the APS is arguing against the stated position of the APS itself, the APS has not changed their official position since November 2007, which is that global warming is from human activities, and they make it very clear that the Physics and Society paper is at odds with their official position and the newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed and that the Physics and Society forum is only one of 39 units within their organization.

In an email that Lord Monckton, who was the science adviser to Britain’s Thatcher administration, sent to DailyTech, he says, “I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central ‘climate sensitivity’ question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method.”

What this goes to show is that even physicist experts within the APS group, that has held and still holds, the official stance which says evidence of global warming is “incontrovertible”, are still debating the issue despite that official stance.

What the Physics and Society Forum is doing is opening up the debate, publicly, that many have tried to declare as over.

The debate starts with Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley with the first article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion. In favor of the IPCC conclusion we have a jointly written article from David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz from from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

Scientists and experts from a variety of different fields are still arguing about this issue and with this new debate starting within the Physics and Society, the dueling experts are putting on their gloves, coming out of their corners and getting ready to rumble.

Obama’s Global Poverty Act – Here’s the Evil in S.2433

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

The issues are staggering, and while we might be compelled to believe that these things can never happen to America, read the following and see if you still feel, in today’s devious world political climate that these evils cannot surmount our freedoms.

Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act will undoubtedly cost the U.S. billions in new monies for foreign aid, but that’ not the most important issue.

All text in red and all bold text is Maggie’s emphasis.

Is Senator Obama’s Global Poverty Act (Senate Bill 2433) tied to the United Nations, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) or the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) in anyway?

Yes. S.2433, the language of the Bill says: “A bill to REQUIRE the President to develop and IMPLEMENT,” “the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal.Senator Obama’s S.2433 cannot be separated from the U.N. Millennium Development Goal.

Who implements S.2433 after the President “creates” a plan?
The Secretary of State, Condoleesa Rice, her appointees with Congressional oversight by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.

What do we know about the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)?
Follow the links and be prepared for sudden nausea.

Does the United Nations Accept the Rule of Law?

The UN’s Gravy Train to Iran

Ros-Lehtinen Statement on UNICEF Ties to Saudi Extremist-Linked Charity

Report Shows U.N. Development Program Violated U.N. Law, Routinely Passed on Millions to North Korean Regime

The UN Corrupting Itself – A Chavez Connection

Does S.2433 require a specific strategy (some believe that it does not)?
The Bill says that we [the U.S.] will IMPLEMENT the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal? Can it be any clearer?

Does The Global Poverty Act subjugate the United States to the will of the United Nations?
Yes, and it does so through the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal. It is important to remember that the MDG is a U.N. program.

The following is the proof that the MDG is a “tax on the world” levied by the United Nations. The text addresses only the requirements to be placed upon the U.S. and other countries, it leaves out most of the goal of eradicating poverty and disease, and focuses on how that eradication will be accomplished. Text taken directly from the U.N. General Assembly Millennium Forum.

The Forum (urges, advocates, calls upon or insists): The United Nations

To introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication.

Here’s a tax on international finances! Who are transnational companies?

To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty, to be drafted in effective consultation and partnership with people living in poverty themselves.

To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means, the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament to be discussed in a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.

Someone, I think Orwell, said War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil. The U.N. plans for globalism, with the U.N. at the head of the snake, to abolish war. They think they are God.

To respect national sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force, which are fundamental in the Charter of the United Nations. This principle must not be undermined. In the solution of conflicts, all peaceful methods in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Charter must be tried before measures of force are undertaken in accordance with Chapter 7. The General Assembly should set up a broad commission to analyse standards for forceful action in cases where crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide are committed.

1) The U.N.’s “prohibition” of force is not to be undermined.
2) How does a global principle protect anyone’s sovereignty?
3) “Peaceful method” means un-acted upon Resolutions – we have painful historical reminders. .

To expand the United Nations arms register in order to show the production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders.

Our Second Amendment rights monitored by the United Nations.

Together with nearly all Governments that participated in the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, Forum participants consider that unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defence by any country could have dangerously destabilizing effects and create pressures to permanently retain high levels of nuclear weapons or even to increase existing levels. The deployment of theatre missile defences in Asia or other regions could have serious regional destabilizing effects. Such plans should be relinquished in favour of a worldwide missile launch warning system and a conference to review methods of ending production of long-range surface-to-surface missiles and long-range bombers

To establish a commission at the United Nations to devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships. The Conference on Disarmament should also establish a working group on this subject.

The U.S. met their non-proliferation goals five years early, while the U.N. was enabling Iran to grow its nuclear program.

1) No long-range bombers for the U.S.
2) No surface-to-surface missiles for the U.S.
3) No missile defense for the U.S.
4) No new technological development
5) No more power to protect our nation

To initiate a worldwide freeze on armed forces and a 25 per cent cut in production and export of major weapons and small arms, and to that end to adopt an international code of conduct on arms exports, as the beginning of worldwide build-down of conventional forces.

That’s a “worldwide freeze” on armed forces – on our Marines, our Army, our Navy, our Reserves, our Coast Guard! AND an international “code of conduct” to implement a “build-down” of conventional forces.

To increase their efforts to promote and to comply with international humanitarian laws, limiting the methods and means of war and protecting non-combatants, civilian populations and humanitarian personnel.

The international community civil society, Governments and the United Nations has a responsibility to stop promptly any genocide, war crimes or any massive violations of human rights. All those involved should seek to avoid any confusion between humanitarian help and military intervention.

Internationalism governs. Sovereignty is abolished. The United Nations Security Council reigns. Islam is implemented throughout the world.

If you are not familiar with the U.N. Security Council, here are some informative links:

Arabs Seek to “Halt” UN Security Council Meetings

The UN Security Council Takes Action Against Terrorism

Iran’s 25-Year Atomic Program and the UN Failure to Launch

Rape in War: Will the United Nations Walk its Talk?

For everything you need on the U.N. Security Council go to:
Eye on the UN and UN Watch.

Globalization needs defining.…it is transforming our world into a global villageWe, of all ages, in particular our future generation the youth claim a space for that transnational civil society that even now is rising on the world scene with unprecedented ties, networking, exchanges and common action among peoples, groups, communities and organizations.

The youth of the world will “claim a space” for “that transnational civil society” in the world’s “global village…” Where might that “space” be? Do the people in that “space” have a say about the youth’s claims? Again, for emphasis: a transnational civil society

To develop a legally binding framework for regulating the actions of transnational corporations (TNCs), respecting the international labour, human rights, and sustainable environmental standards set by the United Nations and its relevant specialized agencies. The regulatory mechanism should include the active participation of workers and communities directly affected by TNC operations in order to prevent abuses and to subordinate TNCs to democratic civil authority and community-based modelling of socio-economic systems.

As I look around the web, I find no list of the evil-doing transnational corporations. If the U.N. plans to “subordinate” the transnationals to “civil authority” and “community-based modelling,” we need to know who the culprits are. Could Google be on the list? Nah. Halliburton? I think so. “Big Oil” – oh yeah, but only careful “subordination” here, because the world needs “Big Oil” tax money, as well as its investment in exploration and drilling. Oh…there’s always “nationalizing” the world’s oil fields. The Islamic countries know how to drill for oil. They rule the U.N. Very convenient – but this is only a guess.

To examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable.

What does this mean, and who is patenting the life of others?

To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.

The vision: The U.N. controlling a global economy – to serve the U.N.’s vision

How is a democracy defined within the hallowed halls of the U.N.? You and I don’t have a clue but we know such democracies will be “subordinated” to the U.N.’s “civil society”

To develop migration policies, both emigration and immigration, in conformity with human rights standards, particularly to respect the global principle of freedom of circulation for all.

This is terrifying, really. The goal is to remove the sovereignty of our borders. We need to get up each morning with the idea of the U.N.’s “global principle of freedom of circulation” vision, think about it again at noon, and let it be the last thing we think about before sleep, because surely we will offer up a prayer to the Almighty that our leaders will repel this disgusting organization.

To make serious commitments to restructure the global financial architecture based on principles of equity, transparency, accountability and democracy, and to balance, with the participation of civil society organizations, the monetary means to favour human endeavour and ecology, such as an alternative time-based currency.

Restructuring the global financial architecture? Alternative time-based currency?

Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax,…which could also help to reduce currency speculation, and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.

Here’s the tax on currency transfers and land. When has the MSM reported this. When has Barack Obama spoken of this?

Stop imposing economic sanctions, which deprive people of their basic economic, social and environmental rights and which make their struggle for survival, as well as for civil and political rights, more difficult.

We can make the case that sanctions are worthless, as it is the U.N. which strengthens them. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes immediately to mind, especially the Oil-for-Food Program. Then and now, there’s Iran. How does the U.N., always wanting diplomatic solutions to prevail, propose that we deal with tyranny ?

To fully incorporate women into leadership at every level and gender perspectives into all its operations; to hold Governments accountable for their obligations to promote and protect the human rights of women and girls; and to act as monitors of the implementation of commitments to end discrimination and violence against women and girls.

When it comes to Women’s Rights, (or human rights for that matter) the worst offenders are Muslim countries. It’s all is a matter of “degree,” isn’t it? I notice at the Millennium Development Goal monitoring sites, some Arab countries have shown some degree of improvement. What does that mean? How has it changed the life of women under the control of Islam and their Islamic male dominaters? The free world will finance achieving this goal? Think again.

To establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5 billion to $10 billion annually.

Here’s the tax on fossil fuels that is continually denied.

End of text from Millennium Forum.

A tax on fossil fuels, land, currencies, etc.? Investor’s Business Daily didn’t make it up, Lee Cary at American Thinker didn’t make it up.

You can “monitor” the Millennium goals by country beginning here, although you won’t learn much. Most of what we want and need to know falls into the “Insufficient Information” category.

I reject the U.N. and everything it stands for, because everything it stands for is against the best interests of Americans and freedom anywhere, and usually is intent on feathering the nests of a U.N. diplomat and a cozy relationship with the worst of the terrorizing scums on the face of the earth.

There are 21 co-sponsors of S.2433:

The usual RHINO’s support this traitorous Bill: Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Olympia Snowe. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is also a co-sponsor and I do not have much information on him. He’s from Oregon, so…

Related: Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433 – A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

Obama’s Global Poverty Act – Here’s the Evil in S.2433

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

The issues are staggering, and while we might be compelled to believe that these things can never happen to America, read the following and see if you still feel, in today’s devious world political climate that these evils cannot surmount our freedoms.

Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act will undoubtedly cost the U.S. billions in new monies for foreign aid, but that’ not the most important issue.

All text in red and all bold text is Maggie’s emphasis.

Is Senator Obama’s Global Poverty Act (Senate Bill 2433) tied to the United Nations, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) or the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) in anyway?

Yes. S.2433, the language of the Bill says: “A bill to REQUIRE the President to develop and IMPLEMENT,” “the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal.Senator Obama’s S.2433 cannot be separated from the U.N. Millennium Development Goal.

Who implements S.2433 after the President “creates” a plan?
The Secretary of State, Condoleesa Rice, her appointees with Congressional oversight by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Appropriations Committee.

What do we know about the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)?
Follow the links and be prepared for sudden nausea.

Does the United Nations Accept the Rule of Law?

The UN’s Gravy Train to Iran

Ros-Lehtinen Statement on UNICEF Ties to Saudi Extremist-Linked Charity

Report Shows U.N. Development Program Violated U.N. Law, Routinely Passed on Millions to North Korean Regime

The UN Corrupting Itself – A Chavez Connection

Does S.2433 require a specific strategy (some believe that it does not)?
The Bill says that we [the U.S.] will IMPLEMENT the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal? Can it be any clearer?

Does The Global Poverty Act subjugate the United States to the will of the United Nations?
Yes, and it does so through the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal. It is important to remember that the MDG is a U.N. program.

The following is the proof that the MDG is a “tax on the world” levied by the United Nations. The text addresses only the requirements to be placed upon the U.S. and other countries, it leaves out most of the goal of eradicating poverty and disease, and focuses on how that eradication will be accomplished. Text taken directly from the U.N. General Assembly Millennium Forum.

The Forum (urges, advocates, calls upon or insists): The United Nations

To introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication.

Here’s a tax on international finances! Who are transnational companies?

To explore the feasibility of a legally binding convention on overcoming poverty, to be drafted in effective consultation and partnership with people living in poverty themselves.

To carry out the objective of moving towards the abolition of war by practical means, the United Nations Secretariat and interested Governments, or a separate group of Governments, should develop a draft proposal for global disarmament to be discussed in a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament.

Someone, I think Orwell, said War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil. The U.N. plans for globalism, with the U.N. at the head of the snake, to abolish war. They think they are God.

To respect national sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force, which are fundamental in the Charter of the United Nations. This principle must not be undermined. In the solution of conflicts, all peaceful methods in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Charter must be tried before measures of force are undertaken in accordance with Chapter 7. The General Assembly should set up a broad commission to analyse standards for forceful action in cases where crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide are committed.

1) The U.N.’s “prohibition” of force is not to be undermined.
2) How does a global principle protect anyone’s sovereignty?
3) “Peaceful method” means un-acted upon Resolutions – we have painful historical reminders. .

To expand the United Nations arms register in order to show the production and sale of small arms and light weapons. It should include specific names of their producers and traders.

Our Second Amendment rights monitored by the United Nations.

Together with nearly all Governments that participated in the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, Forum participants consider that unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defence by any country could have dangerously destabilizing effects and create pressures to permanently retain high levels of nuclear weapons or even to increase existing levels. The deployment of theatre missile defences in Asia or other regions could have serious regional destabilizing effects. Such plans should be relinquished in favour of a worldwide missile launch warning system and a conference to review methods of ending production of long-range surface-to-surface missiles and long-range bombers

To establish a commission at the United Nations to devise ways of stopping the technological development of new and more advanced weapons that create new imbalances in global power relationships. The Conference on Disarmament should also establish a working group on this subject.

The U.S. met their non-proliferation goals five years early, while the U.N. was enabling Iran to grow its nuclear program.

1) No long-range bombers for the U.S.
2) No surface-to-surface missiles for the U.S.
3) No missile defense for the U.S.
4) No new technological development
5) No more power to protect our nation

To initiate a worldwide freeze on armed forces and a 25 per cent cut in production and export of major weapons and small arms, and to that end to adopt an international code of conduct on arms exports, as the beginning of worldwide build-down of conventional forces.

That’s a “worldwide freeze” on armed forces – on our Marines, our Army, our Navy, our Reserves, our Coast Guard! AND an international “code of conduct” to implement a “build-down” of conventional forces.

To increase their efforts to promote and to comply with international humanitarian laws, limiting the methods and means of war and protecting non-combatants, civilian populations and humanitarian personnel.

The international community civil society, Governments and the United Nations has a responsibility to stop promptly any genocide, war crimes or any massive violations of human rights. All those involved should seek to avoid any confusion between humanitarian help and military intervention.

Internationalism governs. Sovereignty is abolished. The United Nations Security Council reigns. Islam is implemented throughout the world.

If you are not familiar with the U.N. Security Council, here are some informative links:

Arabs Seek to “Halt” UN Security Council Meetings

The UN Security Council Takes Action Against Terrorism

Iran’s 25-Year Atomic Program and the UN Failure to Launch

Rape in War: Will the United Nations Walk its Talk?

For everything you need on the U.N. Security Council go to:
Eye on the UN and UN Watch.

Globalization needs defining.…it is transforming our world into a global villageWe, of all ages, in particular our future generation the youth claim a space for that transnational civil society that even now is rising on the world scene with unprecedented ties, networking, exchanges and common action among peoples, groups, communities and organizations.

The youth of the world will “claim a space” for “that transnational civil society” in the world’s “global village…” Where might that “space” be? Do the people in that “space” have a say about the youth’s claims? Again, for emphasis: a transnational civil society

To develop a legally binding framework for regulating the actions of transnational corporations (TNCs), respecting the international labour, human rights, and sustainable environmental standards set by the United Nations and its relevant specialized agencies. The regulatory mechanism should include the active participation of workers and communities directly affected by TNC operations in order to prevent abuses and to subordinate TNCs to democratic civil authority and community-based modelling of socio-economic systems.

As I look around the web, I find no list of the evil-doing transnational corporations. If the U.N. plans to “subordinate” the transnationals to “civil authority” and “community-based modelling,” we need to know who the culprits are. Could Google be on the list? Nah. Halliburton? I think so. “Big Oil” – oh yeah, but only careful “subordination” here, because the world needs “Big Oil” tax money, as well as its investment in exploration and drilling. Oh…there’s always “nationalizing” the world’s oil fields. The Islamic countries know how to drill for oil. They rule the U.N. Very convenient – but this is only a guess.

To examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable.

What does this mean, and who is patenting the life of others?

To move towards democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision.

The vision: The U.N. controlling a global economy – to serve the U.N.’s vision

How is a democracy defined within the hallowed halls of the U.N.? You and I don’t have a clue but we know such democracies will be “subordinated” to the U.N.’s “civil society”

To develop migration policies, both emigration and immigration, in conformity with human rights standards, particularly to respect the global principle of freedom of circulation for all.

This is terrifying, really. The goal is to remove the sovereignty of our borders. We need to get up each morning with the idea of the U.N.’s “global principle of freedom of circulation” vision, think about it again at noon, and let it be the last thing we think about before sleep, because surely we will offer up a prayer to the Almighty that our leaders will repel this disgusting organization.

To make serious commitments to restructure the global financial architecture based on principles of equity, transparency, accountability and democracy, and to balance, with the participation of civil society organizations, the monetary means to favour human endeavour and ecology, such as an alternative time-based currency.

Restructuring the global financial architecture? Alternative time-based currency?

Sustainable funds could be raised through a currency transfer tax,…which could also help to reduce currency speculation, and a tax on the rental value of land and natural resources.

Here’s the tax on currency transfers and land. When has the MSM reported this. When has Barack Obama spoken of this?

Stop imposing economic sanctions, which deprive people of their basic economic, social and environmental rights and which make their struggle for survival, as well as for civil and political rights, more difficult.

We can make the case that sanctions are worthless, as it is the U.N. which strengthens them. Iraq and Saddam Hussein comes immediately to mind, especially the Oil-for-Food Program. Then and now, there’s Iran. How does the U.N., always wanting diplomatic solutions to prevail, propose that we deal with tyranny ?

To fully incorporate women into leadership at every level and gender perspectives into all its operations; to hold Governments accountable for their obligations to promote and protect the human rights of women and girls; and to act as monitors of the implementation of commitments to end discrimination and violence against women and girls.

When it comes to Women’s Rights, (or human rights for that matter) the worst offenders are Muslim countries. It’s all is a matter of “degree,” isn’t it? I notice at the Millennium Development Goal monitoring sites, some Arab countries have shown some degree of improvement. What does that mean? How has it changed the life of women under the control of Islam and their Islamic male dominaters? The free world will finance achieving this goal? Think again.

To establish a global habitat conservation fund to purchase comprehensive protection of threatened, critical ecological habitat worldwide. The fund should accrue revenues from a nominal (0.5 -1.0 per cent) royalty on worldwide fossil energy production oil, natural gas, coal, collecting at least $5 billion to $10 billion annually.

Here’s the tax on fossil fuels that is continually denied.

End of text from Millennium Forum.

A tax on fossil fuels, land, currencies, etc.? Investor’s Business Daily didn’t make it up, Lee Cary at American Thinker didn’t make it up.

You can “monitor” the Millennium goals by country beginning here, although you won’t learn much. Most of what we want and need to know falls into the “Insufficient Information” category.

I reject the U.N. and everything it stands for, because everything it stands for is against the best interests of Americans and freedom anywhere, and usually is intent on feathering the nests of a U.N. diplomat and a cozy relationship with the worst of the terrorizing scums on the face of the earth.

There are 21 co-sponsors of S.2433:

The usual RHINO’s support this traitorous Bill: Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and Olympia Snowe. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is also a co-sponsor and I do not have much information on him. He’s from Oregon, so…

Related: Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433 – A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

Global Warming; Myth or….?

There may be some truth in the global warming issue, but is it caused by man and is there actual scientific proof to back this claim up?
Rather than go into a long winded article I submit the following links which explain it much better than I could.

“An Inconvenient Truth” is a Fraud, Says ABC News

April 22nd, 2008 by Matthew Vadum

Kudos to Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters for pointing out the discovery by ABC News that Al Gore’s pretended documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, contains fake footage from a work of fiction. Sheppard writes:

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster “The Day After Tomorrow.”

Read Sheppard’s full post here.

Al Gore The High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy

The Real “Inconvenient Truth”.

The Truth About Global Warming—Blame the Sun

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Lies

NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

By Noel Sheppard | November 14, 2007 – 13:23 ET

Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?

Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.”

To the Leftinistra, everything is always the fault of something or someone else. Incredible. The Leftinistra rhetoric of the Global Warming Myth wrought upon the world is creating devastation across the globe driving prices higher and higher as the Leftinistra try to out-socialist each other. And now, it has created food shortages right here in the United States. Who will they blame for this?”

This is the 5th paragraph in Snoopers post; “Vultural Jihad: American Politics BAU”. Follow the embedded links.

Global Warming; Myth or….?

There may be some truth in the global warming issue, but is it caused by man and is there actual scientific proof to back this claim up?
Rather than go into a long winded article I submit the following links which explain it much better than I could.

“An Inconvenient Truth” is a Fraud, Says ABC News

April 22nd, 2008 by Matthew Vadum

Kudos to Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters for pointing out the discovery by ABC News that Al Gore’s pretended documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, contains fake footage from a work of fiction. Sheppard writes:

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in order to generate global warming hysteria.

On Friday, it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster “The Day After Tomorrow.”

Read Sheppard’s full post here.

Al Gore The High Priest of Global Warming Hypocrisy

The Real “Inconvenient Truth”.

The Truth About Global Warming—Blame the Sun

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Lies

NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

By Noel Sheppard | November 14, 2007 – 13:23 ET

Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?

Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.”

To the Leftinistra, everything is always the fault of something or someone else. Incredible. The Leftinistra rhetoric of the Global Warming Myth wrought upon the world is creating devastation across the globe driving prices higher and higher as the Leftinistra try to out-socialist each other. And now, it has created food shortages right here in the United States. Who will they blame for this?”

This is the 5th paragraph in Snoopers post; “Vultural Jihad: American Politics BAU”. Follow the embedded links.