Green: The New Colour of Communism

The current movement in this country to 'Go Green' is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people. The very notion of 'Man-Made Global Warming' is an outright lie, and has been disproved by literally thousands of scientists. Those leading the fight against 'man-made global warming' lie about facts, and either distort the truth or leave out substantial evidence to pull the wool over the American people into believing and paying for their 'cause.' When we look at it, however, we find that this 'fight' is nothing more than political warfare from far left Marxists and One-Worlders against Free Markets, Capitalism, the Sovereignty of the United States, as well as the war against technological development, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and proof to support this claim.

Carbon Dioxide is Not A Pollutant

First, we have to look at the idea of carbon dioxide being a pollutant. Those making this claim cite the US Supreme Court's ruling in April of 2007, ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. Right there, something should raise a red flag---the US Supreme Court, not a group of trained scientists, are ruling in a Court of Law that CO2 is a pollutant, and needs to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency? This raises a couple of questions:

First, is CO2 a greenhouse gas? The answer is yes. But a pollutant? Never. First of all, CO2 makes up a very small percentage of greenhouse gases---the CO2 level in March of 2009 was 387 Parts Per Million, which is 0.0387% of the atmosphere, and of course, man's contribution to this level is even smaller than that---the most dominating greenhouse gas is water vapor. Also, Carbon Dioxide is necessary to this planet's very survival. Without CO2, plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize. We, as a planet, need CO2. We exhale this gas every time we breathe! Does it make sense that such an important, yet minute gas would be labeled a pollutant in this Earth's atmosphere, especially when water vapor makes up over 90% of the greenhouse gases? Of course it does---if your main objective is to tax business and stifle production and economic growth. This leads us to the current bill in the US Congress, the 'Cap and Trade' bill---after all, you can't tax the sun or the oceans for water vapor.

The Cap and Trade Disaster (or: Your Taxes go Up)

Now that the government has labeled Carbon Dioxide a pollutant, the EPA now has the authority to regulate it. Even though all businesses use and emit carbon in order to function, Congress wants to punish businesses who 'use produce carbon than they're allotted.' The bill passed by the House sets a limit or a 'cap' as to how much carbon all businesses can emit---in other words, how much energy they can use. If they go over a certain amount, they'll be hit with fines. However, companies that 'go green' and find ways to not use energy (i.e. not produce or grow) will be able to 'trade' the amount of carbon 'credits' that they didn't use and in return, get government subsidies (that's code for “your money and my money”), and other businesses can buy credits to use more carbon than they're allotted.

Think about this: Who will get hurt the most? Small businesses, of course. Small businesses won't have enough money to invest in more expensive ways of producing energy, like solar or wind, which cost a lot more than using oil, gas, and nuclear power. They'll either have to pay huge fines if they produce too much, or they'll have to stop producing. You think GM will be strapped for more tax-payer cash to pay for fines for going over their carbon 'cap'? They're not even going to pay back their first bailout! You think WalMart and Target and CVS will have problems paying fines? Of course not---big businesses will thrive, while little businesses will be holding on for dear life. This will create monopolies that are in bed with the government, very much like General Electric---it will be the dawning of Economic Fascism in America. But it gets worse.

The bill also subsidizes farmers for growing corn for the sole purpose of ethanol. For those that don't know, a study in 2007 showed that Ethanol is just as much of a pollutant as gasoline, and is an equal or greater health risk than gasoline. Also, as an efficient source of fuel, it doesn't compare with gasoline---ethanol-only engines are inferior to gasoline-only engines.

And of course, the idiotic notion of BURNING FOOD FOR FUEL. Why are we destroying food for fuel, and not using the fuel that has virtually no other use than for fuel? Destroying more corn for fuel will cause food prices to skyrocket. Anything with 'high fructose corn syrup' and anything with corn in it will see its price increase because there will be less corn for food.

And then there's the problem of soaring energy costs. Obama said it himself, saying, “Under my plan of a Cap and Trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

As a matter of fact, all energy prices will rise. The Congressional Budget Office even admits this. And remember as businesses get hit with higher energy prices to PRODUCE, they pass that on to YOU in the form of higher prices, including all kinds of food.

As energy costs rise, so does the cost of transportation, meaning food, clothing, and other necessities. And as always, the Middle Class will get hurt the most, because the poor will continue to get government programs adopted to give them free handouts at the expense of the Middle Class. But don't worry it's all 'to save the environment.' All under the false premise that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that causes global warming. The bill will be the biggest tax increase in American history.

Higher taxes, less energy, less production, and higher prices as a result of this will all be done in the name of the environment to stop 'man-made global warming.' But when we look at the evidence, we find that global warming is 1)not man-made, 2)not caused by carbon dioxide because CO2 is not a pollutant, and 3)presently non-existent because the globe has been cooling for nearly the past decade. Let's look at the facts that back this up.

History Proves Man-Made Global Warming Wrong

First, some history. All you need to do is look at the climates of centuries before us, and you'll see that the climate on Earth was warmer than they are today. The years 800-1300AD, known as the “Medieval Warm Period” saw significantly higher temperatures than today, and so did the Holocene Maximum period mostly in the north (and, incidentally, polar bears did just fine adapting during reported increases of up to 9º Celsius), which was about 8000 years ago. However, this data has been skewed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a Globalist Organization established by two Globalist Organizations (the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme) that were, in turn, founded by Globalist Organization, the United Nations. As we'll see, the IPCC is just another corrupt Globalist Organization out to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and World-Wide Control.

If history teaches us anything, it's that even before there was man-made industry, the Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. After the aforementioned periods was what is known as the “Little Ice Age,” which incidentally, our Founding Fathers experienced here in the US, and each individual 'spurt' of cooling was broken up with little 'spurts' of warming. It's safe to say that global warming is not man made, but something that occurs naturally.

Secondly, the notion that CO2 from an industrialized society, and therefore cars and planes are the biggest 'culprit' is false as well. The year 1910 is the time where the temperature started to rise, and it continued to rise until approximately 1940. Massive production of airplanes didn't occur until 1939 (mainly due to WWII) and the car wasn't invented until 1920.

On top of that, the post WWII era was where huge new inventions were being produced (known as the Post War Economic Boom) which meant more energy being used. But temperatures dropped for a decade, rose a little bit, and then fell again. If industry and 'carbon emissions' were the culprit, then the Earth's temperature should have been rising since the 1920's, and not stopped. But instead, temperatures started rising before the inventions of these 'carbon culprits' and fell when massive production of them started taking place!

As a matter of fact, from 1880 to 1910, only thirty years, the global temperature dropped .5 degrees Celsius! And by then, looking at a time line of the Industrial Revolution, coal and steam were already being used, along with the evil, and soon-to-be-outlawed, incandescent lightbulb.

Third, our Earth is cooling, and has been since 1998, even though CO2 emissions have increased by 5.5%! This may be the reason that 31,478 American Scientists have signed the following petition:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

Fascism for the Environment

But all we hear about are the 2500 scientists who say that Global Warming is a done deal from Mr. Gore. This is because the Fascist wing of the Democrat Party (i.e. Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Gore) silence and stifle this kind of speech. One such incidence occurred this past April, when Lord Christopher Monckton, former Science Advisor to Margaret Thatcher, was invited to a hearing on man-made global warming at the Congress. Al Gore was the Democrat key-speaker, Christopher was the Republican key-speaker. As soon as Christopher got off the plane he was notified that Al Gore decided against the meeting, and it was canceled. Soon after, the Democrats said Al Gore would speak at a different hearing. When Republicans suggested they invite Christopher for this meeting, the Democrats refused to let him testify. Republicans fought, but to no avail. This is stifling Free Speech---Fascism---all in the name to 'save the environment.'

Not to mention the myriad of lies and misinformation which which Al Gore (who has no problem flying around in his own gas-guzzling jet to give presentations) has presented us in An Inconvenient Truth, many of which have been documented at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html.

So what is the source of Global Warming? Al Gore would like you to believe that CO2 is the cause of man-made global warming, but he's wrong. Looking at the direct link between temperature and CO2 in ice-core records, scientists see an 800 year lag in CO2 and temperature. In other words, there is an increased concentration in CO2 as a result of higher temperature, not as its cause. As temperature rises, CO2 concentration rises, lagging behind 800 years.

In fact, there are dozens of contributing factors to global warming. One example is sun spots---sun spots play a large role, according to thousands of leading climatologists. But according to Al Gore, Man-Made Global Warming is the cause of disappearing sunspots. And looking at history, and seeing how the climate has changed throughout the centuries without man-made devices and technologies, we just add to the already overwhelming evidence that disproves man-made global warming.

The True Agenda of the Green Movement (Control)

So what is the real reason that Green Peace, Earth First! the IPCC and the like are spreading lies and propaganda to push their world-wide One-World Government agenda? The overwhelming evidence of what is going on in this country and testimonials from those actually involved with these agencies along is more than enough to sum up the true intention in one word: Control. The goal is to take down the United States and destroy her sovereignty so movement towards a One-World Government becomes possible.

Before we get to the Green Peace, Earth First! and IPCC, let's first look at the control factor. Here are some the things that are happening in the name of 'fighting global warming.'

Simple things like toilets, light bulbs, and cars are being literally demonized and then controlled by extreme environmentalists. Take for example the incandescent light bulb. Our Congress, under President George W. Bush decided to pass a law in 2007 that will effectively ban ALL INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS by 2014, as they will need to be 25-30% more 'energy efficient,' and by 2020, 70% more efficient. These bulbs, which can be bought in packs of '3 for a dollar' will be replaced by MERCURY CONTAINED Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs--- or CFLs.

So dangerous are these bulbs, that the EPA has guidelines to follow if one is broken. Among these guidelines are: “Have people and pets leave the room and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out. Open a window and leave the room for fifteen minutes or more.” And this is just for pre-cleaning. It goes on to say that if any of the powder touches your clothes or bedding, it must be thrown away. And then, throwing the broken bulb out will be hard too, because some states don't allow them to be thrown away normally---they need to be taken to a center.

Higher costs and health risks---all to fight 'global warming.'

Toilets, too. Conserving energy means fighting global warming. So in 1992, Congress outlawed 3.5 gallon toilets, and replaced it with 1.6 gallon toilets, which cause people to flush more than once to fully dispose of waste, which is eventually can use more water.

There are even commercials in Brazil (and hitting America) that are urging kids and adults to urinate in the shower to save water, and therefore, save the rain forests from global warming!

And the truly crazy are advocating for dry toilets---you know, dirt pits.

Wasting energy with required multi-flushing, and unsanitary habits---all to 'save the environment.'

And then there's cars. We already tackled the falsehoods of CO2, but we also need to look at Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards put into effect in 1992 to restrict the amount of gasoline cars could use. In order to do so, the size (mass) of cars had to be reduced, resulting in cheaper and lighter parts being used. This, of course, results in cars that are less safe, which results ultimately in more fatalities in car accidents. Mark Levin points this out in his book Liberty and Tyranny. In 1989, Harvard University's Brookings Institution estimated between 2,000 and 3,900 lives were lost because of smaller, lighter cars. The Competitive Enterprise Institution examined car accidents in 1997 and concluded that between 2,600 and 4,500 people died because of the CAFE standards. And the kicker: USA Today analyzed a statistical link between CAFE standards and car deaths, and reported that 46,000 people have died in car accidents since 1975 that wouldn't have died in heavier cars.

Smaller cars, resulting in more deaths---all to 'fight global warming.'

So domestically, the 'fight against global warming' has been quite possibly the biggest disaster on taxpaying American citizens. In the name of saving the environment, our government has literally banned incandescent lightbulbs and replaced them with more hazardous CFLs, banned 3.5 gallon toilets and replaced them with less efficient toilets (never mind advocating shower-urination), imposed fuel-efficiency standards which literally cost thousands of lives, and on top of that, our current Administration wants to pass the largest tax in the history of the world, never mind America---higher costs for heating, electricity, clothing, food---literally everything. Less money, less safety, less convenience---less freedom. All to stop global warming.

Then there's the population control issue.

President Obama's “science czar” John Holdren has used “climate change” to institute a population control agenda. In a Congressional Hearing, Holdren was asked if he still believed that by 2020, 1 billion people would be killed due to Global Warming. His response was, “"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid.”

How to avoid that is where Holdren's true colors are displayed; Holdren, along with two other co-authors, wrote this in his textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” They go on saying, “An abortion is clearly preferable to adding one more child to an overburdened family OR AN OVERBURDENED SOCIETY where the chances that it will realize its potential are slight (emphasis added).”

Think this is stretching? The Washington Post recently reported the study at the London School of Economics. “Every new life is a guarantee of new greenhouse gases, spewed out over decades of driving and electricity use,” the article states.

It goes on, “The activist group that sponsored the report says birth control could be one of the world's best tools for fighting climate change. By preventing the creation of new polluters, the group says, contraceptives are a far cheaper solution than windmills and solar plants.”

And then there's the Associated Press, saying, “Giving contraceptives to people in developing countries could help fight climate change by slowing population growth...If those women had access to free condoms or other birth control methods, that could slow rates of population growth, possibly easing the pressure on the environment.”

It goes on: “"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change.”

Population Control to “save the environment.

The Marxist Component

The 'climate change' issue (the term used when global warming evidently becomes 'global cooling'), issue becomes the war on Capitalism. But don't just take my word for it---here's what some prominent figures in the fight on climate change have said:

President Obama's own former “green jobs czar” Van Jones is a self-avowed Communist and Black Nationalist. He had this to say as the man in charge of Green Jobs: “This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing. We're not gonna put a new battery in a broken system. We want a new system!”

He also had this to say:

“And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy? Guess what, solar industry? Guess what wind industry? They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”

This has wealth redistribution written all over it---under the guise of “climate change.” Van Jones retired voluntarily due to his radical past being exposed, but his views were never disavowed by the current administration. As a matter of fact, Obama's senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett said this when they recruited him: “Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We've been watching him, really, for — it's not that over — for as long as he has been active out in Oakland and all of the ways that he has — creative ideas that he has. And so now we have captured that and we have all of that energy and enthusiasm in the White House.” It's evident that this administration hired Mr. Jones because they were in agreement with his policies on Green Jobs, Global Warming, and the Marxist agenda behind it.

The president of Bolivia, in 2008, said this: Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world. It generates luxury, ostentation and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger in the world. In the hands of capitalism everything becomes a commodity: the water, the soil, the human genome, the ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death … and life itself.”

He failed to mention the millions of lives that have been saved from famine, hunger, and disease worldwide because of the generosity (monetarily speaking, of course) exhibited by the Capitalist United States. No, according to him, it's our fault that famine, hunger, and disease are there in the first place.

This past week, on the 22^nd of September, 2009 during the UN Summit on Climate Change, the President of Bolivia continued his attack on Capitalism, saying, “We must change the Capitalist lifestyle.”

Earth First! has said on its website that it “'does not accept a human-centered worldview of 'nature for people's sake.'” Instead, they believe that “life exists for its own sake, that INDUSTRIALIZED CIVILIZATION AND ITS PHILOSOPHY are anti-Earth, anti-woman, and anti-liberty. To put it simply, the Earth must come first (emphasis added).”

The founder of this rabid organization, Dave Forman, said, “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental.”

Our own administration, and organizations within our own country, including anti-capitalist regimes are using Global Warming as an excuse to assault Capitalism.

The One World Government Component

Green Peace co-founder Patrick Moore talks about why the shift to climate change became such a big issue. The first reason, he says, is because people started agreeing with the reasonable things that the environmental group was saying, and so the only way they could remain “anti-establishment” was to adopt more extreme positions. One of these extreme positions, he explains, was their attempt to ban chlorine worldwide. He left Green Peace during this move to ban an element found on the periodic table of elements.

The second reason, he states, is because World Communism failed, and “a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learn to use Green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-Capitalism and anti-Globalization than they do anything with actual ecology or science”

Think he's over-reaching? Just look at what our own country has done in the name of the environment. Anti-economic growth, anti-technological advances, higher taxes, regulations and fees that result in less money for taxpayers, and even more fatalities, and tell me that this isn't an assault on the Free Market and Capitalism.

And the truth that would completely DISCREDIT the Global Warming agenda has been censored by the UN's IPCC organization. Former president of America's National Academy of Sciences Frederic Seitz wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, mentioning that the IPCC's assessments of Global Warming. He said that the report was not the version that the scientists attributed with the report had approved, and that at least 15 sections had been deleted from the report, including this gem: “None of the studies cited above have shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

And how bout this one that was deleted: “No study to date has positively all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”

The IPCC responded acknowledging the deletions, but saying that changes were made in response to comments from governments, individual scientists and non-governmental organizations.”

And just who was the IPCC referencing when they mentioned “governments, individual scientists and non-governmental organizations”?

The answer is simple: Those who can make money in this 'global warming' sham, and those who see global warming as a way to push their anti-Capitalist agenda. Governments like Bolivia and Venezuela, who are extremely anti-Capitalist (and quite vocal about it). Politicians who have been given the most environmental special interest money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including, but not limited to, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama. Non-governmental organization like Green Peace and Earth First! The list goes on and on.

Former member of the IPCC and current member of the World Health Organization Paul Reiter, explains his experience with the IPCC. He says that when he resigned from this organization, he also requested his name be taken off the list of contributing scientists (the list to which Al Gore refers) due to the fact that they didn't listen or use anything he had contributed. They refused. He finally had to threaten with legal action, which caused them to give in.

According to Reiter, “Those people who are specialists who don't agree with the polemic who resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this '2,500 of the world's top scientists.'”

Even the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has said this about the IPCC: “The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

And the Science and Public Policy Institute said this: the IPCC is a single-interest organization whose charter directs it to assume that there is a human influence on climate, rather than to consider whether the influence may be negligible.”

The Heartland Institute said, “The IPCC's climate science assessment is a dominated by a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside the IPCC process.”

This Marxist philosophy has even been used in the classroom to indoctrinate children, rather than teach them about math and science. Books like “Santa Goes Green”, “What We Can Do: A Book About Global Warming”, “This is My Planet: A Book About Global Warming”, Why Are the Ice Caps Melting? The Dangers of Global Warming”, and films like “The Story of Stuff”. These pieces of 'literature' are filled with anti-technology, anti-economic growth, and anti-Capitalist.

Don't misunderstand me---this isn't a bash to the environment; far from it. True Conservatives and True Libertarians understand that the environment and industrialized society and work hand in hand and live harmoniously. Technology and industrialized society are what makes our lives better and more convenient.

As Mark Levin notes, “Running water and indoor plumbing enable fresh water to be brought into the home and dirty water to be removed through a system of aqueducts, wells, dams, and sewage treatment facilities; irrigating and fertilizing land creates more stable and plentiful food supplies; harnessing natural resources such as coal, oil, and gas makes possible the delivery of power to homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses and fuel for automobiles, trucks, and airplanes; networks of paved roads promote mobility, commerce, and assimilation; and the invention of medical devices and discovery of chemical substances extend and improve the quality of life.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is Capitalism. None of that would be possible if not for Capitalism.

And it's not that those on the right want to poison the Earth. We don't want to pollute. We want more efficient energy and less expensive energy. It's Capitalism---the Free Market---that allows for this. The Private Sector is always seeking a way to spend less money and to be more efficient. It's because of their profits that they'll have enough money to invest in cleaner, more environmentally sound energy, and therefore, create more jobs as a result! It's the Federal Government's job to get out of the way and provide a business-friendly environment for this to be possible. But what the Federal Government is doing now, in forms of taxes, wealth-redistribution, business regulations, and domestic and foreign economic policy, is contrary to our Capitalist way of life.

And that is exactly what those in the global warming alarmist groups want to end.