John Kerry just said Global Warming is a threat to National Security.

That what he just preached while they are sliding Clinton through to be Sec of State.

What a tool.

:smilielol5:

 

I suspect that the earliest scribblings on cave walls would translate roughly to "Oh noes, global warming, the glaciers are melting, we're all going to die!"

 

Here comes the push for the next bubble. Carbon Offset trading. The dems are now onboard.

 

Him and his buddies must of just invested in “green’ energy.

Now they need to dump government subsidies into them and reap profit.

 

oh you can bet that will be the tip of the iceberg..

Obama climate czar has socialist ties

 

Its nine degrees outside coldest in five years

 

We are going to see a massive push forward with this whole "Green" agenda under Obama. They are first going to push for a global carbon tax paid directly to the central bankers, and gradually work Agenda 21 into this. Their ultimate aim is to abolish private property and vehicle ownership... all in the name of "saving mother earth," as they would like us to believe.

Notice you rarely hear anything about global warming anymore. Now it's simply "climate change." Now we see more and more scientists coming forward saying that we're entering a COOLING PHASE.

And what happened to Al Gore? How come nobody has been hearing anything from him? I guess he's probably too embarrassed to come forward since he's been called out so many times, refusing to debate his BS with anyone that challenges him.

 

We don't hear from Gore anymore because it's out there, he's positioned to make huge winnings from the next bubble, in fact he already has.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008...money-from-his-global-warming-fear-mongering/

His friends just want to make their's.

 

I know I am colder this winter than ever before, and earlier. And I can't afford to turn my furnace on. You can bet Kerry and Gore aren't cold, or wearing three layers of clothing.

 

I'm all for protecting the environment, but not instilling blind fear like we did before the Iraqi War without cause. That only does one thing it's makes a handleful of people rich at the expense of others. We have or had before Bush's environmental laws, why don't we try enforcing them, as we did pre Nafta? And Clinton isn't pure either, what is his net worth?

 

The pollution on this planet alone is a national security travesty. Climate change is but a result of the plunderers of the earth.

 

This is quite a grand speculation..

So,Where did you come to this conclusion?

 

Where does the common man work into this equation? Is there profit to be reaped from his usage of power and energy? You betcha. Will your power bills go up, will gas prices go up... If the big guys in power can pull it off it sure will. Privatization, ask Californians about privatization, we remember Enron...that's the way to go....

 

Privatization will lower your prices and provide services superior to what you ever received with regulation ? I have a bridge I could sell you.

 

x2.

 

while that may be a bit of a stretch,especially in our lifetimes,it really isnt that hard to come to that conclusion as a eventuality if you look at agenda 21 and the united nations conference on human settlements in vancouver 1976 where in agenda 10 it was stated,

while agenda 10 of the conference and the subsequent updates of it since have not called for the out and out abolishment of private land ownership,the call for transfer of private land to public owned land and severe restrictions on private land ownership was spelled out in great detail.
more of the report can be found here.


there is so much more to this its mind boggling. thats just one tiny part of it.
if your truly interested in this i suggest this as a resource..

http://sovereignty.net/p/land/

 

You never hear much about the ice age cycle. This chart shows temperature the last 400,000 years. As you can see we're at the top of the cycle and should start cooling. The only problem is we've pumped the CO2 levels up to 385ppm now. I tend to lean toward a continuation of the warming which may cause Katrina like disasters world wide.

 

You guys are pulling pieces out of entire documents and warping them to your conspiracy theories.

I’m not a lawyer but it seems like this global U.N. proposal is targeted towards 3rd world countries that have rich natural recourses and NO environmental protection at all and it is trying to protect them from industry/ clearcut logging ect so they don't destroy their own living enviorment.Unless you are clear cutting a watershed or turning a wetland in to a oil dump I don’t think you have to worry.

A lot of these environmental acts are not to “take land from the public” they are to prevent it from being turned into a factory of a condo development. My backyard is a ‘Wetlands area” it is nice I enjoy watching the animals and knowing it won’t turn into a condo.

I think you guys are jumping to a massive speculative conclusion by taking an environmental proposed and coming to the conclusion that they will take all land and property away from people?

Did Alex Jones do this research?

Or did some big Texas landowner who lost some land to the wetlands act do the research?

 

there ya go again,trying to make it a conspiracy when its not. the documents speak for themselves.

i see that its just a matter of time before places like where i live will become public land. and not by choice .

the land use plan is clearly spelled out and if implemented much of rural america will become wildlands.

spend some time here
http://sovereignty.net/p/land/

really go through the site,you may change your opinion .this isnt a conspiracy,its a agenda and its happening.

 

This site is just a collection of copy paste stuff from various proposals for government/UN biology land studies and most of them are old 1972?.

Assessments, proposed plains, proposed studies, ect.

Not really sure how they tie it into taking away land ownership rights?
Some of the proposals (if they ever got funding) could turn some private land into public land some pieces of land that have biological significance, not the entire world and all land owners..

A lot of these proposals are just that proposals, you could sit down and write a proposal for any thing you want and send it off to the government and if you lay it out proper it will go though the cannels and be thrown in the garbage afterwards just like all the others.

A small percentage of environmental bills actually do get land like the National Park system, the National Forest, State Parks to name a few very successful ones.

I’m sure they bought out some people and took their land, which is in the realm of eminent domain but not complete abolishment of land ownership.

Are you trying to get to the subject of the UN actually having say in pieces of U.S. land?