Green Fascism: The Truth Behind Climategate and the Summit at Copenhagen

The climate change summit in Copenhagen is not something that many people want to pay attention to. Perhaps a gathering of environmentalists and world leaders to discuss "climate change" doesn't seem like such a big deal. The agreements made at this summit will affect each and everyone of us, yet we brush it off as just another pointless environmental propaganda fest that will have nothing to do with our personal or economic well-being. Do the words "one-world government" worry anyone? If so, then this event is something that needs to be paid attention to. The globalists would prefer global warming skeptics to stay out of this debate, but we must not give into their desires. I can assure you that our freedom and prosperity will be further damaged once President Obama gets involved in this meeting of totalitarian dictators bent on forcing their ideology upon the masses.

What exactly are these people planning? They seem to be setting up some type of treaty or agreement setting up worldwide laws that, if broken, will result in catastrophic punishments to millions of innocent people. The agreements themselves are punishment alone - punishment for driving certain cars, eating certain foods, working certain jobs, and living certain lifestyles. If any nation dare refuse to abide by these worldwide rules on how many carbon emissions can be produced, all Hell will break loose, and the U.N. will see that the disobedient will pay for their refusal to submit to the power-hungry global overlords that seek to grab control of everything in sight.

Third-world countries are being hurt the most. Food prices are already skyrocketing. Millions will be forced to starve and die because these new worldwide regulations and global taxes are far too burdensome on agriculture, energy companies, the auto industry, and citizens themselves. The very air we breathe is now considered a pollutant by the EPA. No one is safe from the wrath of the totalitarian dictators that seek to control every aspect of our lives. They will be telling us what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of foods we can eat, what kind of jobs we can work, and how we are supposed to live our lives. Liberty is being traded for "global security," and, in doing so, we are giving up the very heart and soul of our existence to those who seek to deprive of us of everything we have so that they can be known to the citizens of the world as the "saviors of mankind."

In the climate change agreements that will be confirmed at Copenhagen, we see some pretty scary things. Lord Christopher Monckton, one of the very few prominent figures speaking out against the New World Order, has somehow obtained secretive papers from Copenhagen coordinators outlining the plans for devastating global regulations. Believe it or not, there is actually going to be a massive global tax imposed on the citizens of the world, the revenue going to the World Bank to pay for whatever programs the globalists wish to force upon the masses. Global regulations regarding the emission of carbon into the atmosphere will also be set in the form of - courtesy of Smiley-Faced Fascism Incorporated - "environmental agreements." I can assure you that prices will rise, wages will go down in many industries, and the unemployment rate will continue to skyrocket within the coming months. Leading us into a global depression is exactly what the globalists intend to do, even if some naïve members of Congress insist otherwise. Our dollar is on the path to full-blown destruction.

Fortunately, a recent scandal has awakened many people to the scientific hoax that we call "global warming." Hackers gained access to the databases of many university computers, discovering shocking emails that revealed scientists discussing distortion, exaggeration, and elimination of their own scientific data to make global warming look like a valid and catastrophic epidemic. In their own words, they were trying to "hide the decline." Have you noticed how cold it's been lately? Here in Wisconsin, our summer was chilly, our fall was cold, and our winter is freezing. You literally feel like an iceberg as soon as you step out of the door. Temperatures have been declining, and we are supposed to believe that "global warming" is still a valid theory. Despite what the Al Gore propagandists want you to believe, we have been experiencing environmental extremes since life on earth took its first breath. Sun cycles account for the majority of what we call climate change, and there isn't much we can do to change sun cycles.

In the fifties, Progressives were screaming about how polar bears would drown and cities would sink beneath the seas if we didn't do "something." By the seventies, the tune of the Progressives was changed to "global cooling," and we were going to see another Ice Age if we didn't change our lifestyles - and quick. By the turn of the millenium, "global warming" came back to haunt us, and prominent figures, including Al Gore himself, profited off of environmental alarmism. Due to recent declining temperatures, the phrase is now "climate change," and we are supposed to believe that the evils of humanity have caused every single environmental problem that we face today. Even if you have spent but a year on this earth, politicians and scientists point their fingers at you to say, "It's all your fault." They don't want to accept that perhaps the majority of the temperature changes we see today are caused naturally rather than by the so-called "evils" of humanity.

Don't get me wrong. There are many legitimate environmental issues that we face today - the biggest being pollution. However, excessive taxes and regulations aren't going to make our environmental problems any better, and, even if they did, we'd do so at the expense of our freedoms. Instead, we must find ways of solving our problems without resorting to deprivation of Constitutional liberties. For one thing, we need to respect property rights more than we do now. We need to eliminate the loopholes that allow various corporations and individuals the right to pollute on property that isn't theirs. We also need to attack massive budgets and burdensome regulations that lead to credit expansion and high inflation rates. If we don't attack the problem of monetary inflation, the motivation and innovation needed to discover new and cleaner technological advancements will only be stifled by costly expenses. Believe it or not, I am a great admirer of nature, and I personally believe that everything on this earth has a life, a spirit, and a name. The environment is definitely an important issue for me, but the whole environmental movement has been infiltrated by big government Progressives, activists expressing anti-business sentiment, pinko commies, and self-loathing econazis. I, for one, have a hard time associating with those people.

Unfortunately, those who speak out against the New World Order have politicians, scientists, professors, television personalities, prominent celebrities, and brainwashed simpletons to deal with. When Lord Christopher Monckton tried to speak to anti-globalists at the climate change summit in Copenhagen, many brownshirted activists stormed in to seize property, act in a violent manner, and trash the place entirely. Police have also been taking into custody those who would even dare speak out against global leaders attending the summit. Free speech is dying a horrible death, and we need to do everything we can to utilize what is left of it.

I urge each and everyone of you to protect the environment, but do so without demanding personal or economic liberties to be taken away from us. Speak out against those who would like to see our rights deprived of us for their own personal gain. Expose the globalist agenda for what it truly is, even if it means losing a few friends and colleagues in the process. If we lose our freedoms, we will have ourselves to blame. Don't let it slip away. I know that I have used this quote many times before, but, in the words of Patrick Henry:

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

Fight the establishment with all you've got. Follow your heart, and march to the drums of liberty and freedom. God bless you, my friends, and have a wonderful day.

The Leading Cause of Poverty Today? The Abandonment of Freedom!

We continuously hear over and over again that the leading cause of poverty in America today is a lack of regulations, inadequate taxation, underfunded budgets, "privatized" health care, and the free market system itself. Capitalism is blamed for the over-concentration of power and wealth into hands that belong to the richest of the rich. All of our troubles are claimed to have been caused by the system that brought us more freedom and prosperity than any other nation on earth. My friends, the leading cause of poverty in America today is not capitalism - it is our departure from that system and our inability to preserve the principles upon which our nation was founded.

At the root of the problem is the central banking system that we adopted in 1913 under President Theodore Roosevelt and then advanced further under President Woodrow Wilson. Both of these men were power-hungry globalists whose policies triggered a "need" for an elastic currency. When government bureaucrats propose budgets that are too expensive, taxes that are too high, or regulations that are too burdensome, the Federal Reserve is given the encouragement to expand credit and print money endlessly without a care in the world that the creation of the money itself is entirely artificial. It is created out of thin air.

Before the Federal Reserve, the government had to spend within its means. However, if we continue with a centralized monetary policy, the government will continue to spend and expand without limit. Poverty becomes a very difficult issue to deal with. Politicians, in turn, propose massive taxpayer-funded welfare programs that only drive up inflation, which is not only an increase in the money supply, but also a way of taxing the poor more than any legislative tax could do. When an inflationary policy is endlessly continued in infinite cycles, prices rise, wages go down, and it becomes more expensive for employers to hire people. The dollar is depreciated, and we get less bang for our buck. Poverty programs only make poverty worse.

Never has America been more riddled with useless wars and foreign entanglements than in the past several decades. If it wasn't for the Federal Reserve, the government would not be able to declare wars on other nations without a care in the world what it would do to our national debt and the economic well-being of our citizens. Recently, President Obama confirmed a troop surge of 30,000 men and women into Afghanistan. It's as if he is taking a page right out of the Bush playbook. This was the man who was supposed to be anti-war, the man who everyone thought believed in peace and nonaggression. His supporters continue to make excuses for him, but there is no excuse for sending tens of thousands of troops into a country that should have been left by Americans a long time ago. If you are anti-war, there is no excuse for the actions that were taken by President Obama, so stop making excuses for him. Does anyone else regret that we did not elect Congressman Ron Paul for president?

These wars pose a threat to our security, our economic well-being, and our civil liberties. It gives the totalitarian dictators in Washington the ability to take away our right to privacy and free speech in the name of what they determine is our "national security." When you give up liberty for security, you lose both. The real threat to our security today is the imperialistic power structure that consists of the U.S. government, the corporations preferred by bureaucrats, and the dictatorial Federal Reserve that controls almost every aspect of our economy. We are sinking deeper and deeper into the realms of fascism, and that is not something our Founding Fathers would have been proud of. We must do everything we can to fight for our lives and for our freedoms. We need to return to limited government, low budgets, low taxes, a noninterventionist foreign policy, and sound money.

The cause of all of our troubles, including poverty as we've never seen it before, is the inability to preserve the foundation upon which our great and prosperous nation was founded.

The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part II

In case you haven't read Part I, please click here to do so. Today, I'm going to continue my analysis of this ridiculous and idiotic organization that thinks it can save the media by destroying the economy in the process.

While media technology has advanced in the 42 years since public broadcasting was created, the need has only grown for noncommercial, not-for-profit media, available free to the public with a mission to inform, educate, inspire and engage.

I want my readers to take a very close look at the language this organization is using. As you can see, it has radically Progressive undertones. It is now evil to make a profit in order to sustain business. When did we get to the point where we started to hold disdain for the very mention of profit? Profits buy the things businesses need to thrive. Without them, you inevitably fail in the marketplace - unless the government steps in to turn your bankruptcy into bureaucracy. These people at FreePress.Net have no clue what kind of impact their actions will have on the economy if they get their way. On top of that, their plan for government-controlled media has a specific agenda; a Progressive agenda, might I say. The information, education, inspiration, and engagement received is far from unbiased: its purpose is to indoctrinate the masses with socialist propaganda in order to manipulate society into succumbing to Progressive ideals. After all, these taxpayer-funded outlets have a "mission," do they not?

Despite their value, public media are under constant threat. They are chronically underfunded and under assault by lawmakers who would silence critical voices and cripple alternatives to the commercial media.

The words in bold are clearly methods of making people believe that massive spending bills, high taxation, and big government is the answer to our problems. If you expand the government's role in the media, won't you just silence critical voices and cripple alternatives even more? After all, that's what the government does and will continue to do. Why give them more power to do so?

The headlines are bleak. Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in just the past few years. Major dailies throughout the country have been shuttered or gone bankrupt, and it seems only a matter of time before a major American city wakes up without a newspaper on anyone’s doorstep.

Maybe these outlets would be able to thrive if they were allowed to make a profit? Just a thought. I know, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

The erosion of American journalism hinders the public’s right to know: Without quality journalism that holds our government and corporate leaders accountable, our democracy suffers. But the state of journalism isn’t natural, inevitable or acceptable.

More Progressive nonsense! First of all, it isn't groups of people who have rights; it is individuals who have rights. To say that the public has a right is like saying that everyone is one in the same, something our Founders regarded as a complete fallacy when they wrote our Constitution. It is the individual who has the right to pursue knowledge by any means possible, but that doesn't mean he or she entitled to free TV, free radio, and free internet. Although that would be nice, the economic consequences are disastrous. We can't afford all of these entitlements anymore, even if taxation was at a one-hundred percent level across the board. Giving people things for free isn't really "free" if you're stealing from someone else. As for the talk of accountability, what these people are saying is that government should interrogate and silence people who do not meet the government's idea of what is acceptable and what is not. All these people want is more bureaucracy. Someone has to tell these people that we are a Constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Our media system was shaped by political and public policy decisions made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. Lawmakers and regulators at these agencies rubber-stamped the bad deals that led to the unchecked consolidation and crushing debt that now threaten the health of our press.

For once, I actually agree with these idiots, but I don't have the same solution in mind. More government is not the answer to our problems if big government was the problem in the first place. That's just common sense.

The search for solutions to the crisis in journalism calls for a national journalism strategy premised on the idea that newsgathering is a public service – not just another commodity.

Do you like socialized journalism the likes of the Soviet Union and China? If so, then you're in for a wonderful surprise. If not, enjoy the ride while it lasts. Thank you, and have a fabulous day! Leave your comments below.

The Idiots at FreePress.Net: Part I

I never thought I'd actually be calling people idiots for their political beliefs, but the folks at FreePress.Net are absolutely out of their minds. What I read literally made me want to throw up. I don't understand these people in the least. What they're calling for almost seems like a government takeover of the media for the sake of getting it out of the hands of the "greedy" corporations. I want to briefly present some of the idiotic remarks I found on the site - and trust me, they are idiotic - and then explain why their idea of a solution only perpetuates the problem they claim they want to prevent.

Media owners influence how women and people of color are portrayed in the media.

I know this may seem like a small statement the organization is making - and it is true - but it already shows you the scope these people are looking through. Notice that they choose to victimize two groups that are continuously victimized by the government: women and minorities. I am appalled at how women are exposed as objects on television, but this statement leaves out another problem in our media: the portrayal of men and white people. I'm sure there are many sincere, wonderful males out there who compare themselves to the males on television and don't see themselves as "manly" enough for the rest of society, even though it doesn't really matter how masculine or feminine you are. The organization is clearly trying to use "diversity" to push its agenda so that it can use women and minorities as pawns for their own gain.

But these massive conglomerates – like General Electric, Time Warner and News Corp. – only care about the bottom line, not serving the public interest. And allowing these few firms too much control over the flow of news and information is dangerous for our democracy.

Again, notice the language. The agenda seems reasonable on the surface, but if you look at the language closer, you will definitely notice some collectivist and Progressive rhetoric that has been used for years by politicians who are shredding our Constitution without an ounce of shame. The phrase "public interest" is often used to justify collectivist ideas, principles, and policies that define the interests of every individual despite the fact that individuals have a relative viewpoint on what is truly in their best interest.

High-speed Internet access is fast becoming a basic public necessity, just like water or electricity.

This was the idiotic rhetoric I was speaking of. Can anyone explain to me how high-speed internet is just as important as water? I guess if we don't drink enough internet, we'll suffer from dehydration. Uh-oh! Although I am using a high-speed internet connection at this moment, I can honestly tell you that I survived without high-speed internet for years, and I didn't even come close to dying. Really? Yeah, really! I'm serious. Nothing happened to me. In fact, I've even lived without the electricity that these collectivists claim is a "basic public necessity" for long periods of time through some of the most horrible blizzards we've experienced in years (so much for global warming). To claim the internet as a necessity is one thing, but to call it a basic public necessity is even worse. Anyone with half a brain knows that no one "needs" the internet.

We need to keep the Internet free, open and neutral. Network Neutrality is vital to ensuring that everyone can connect and share content freely, that we can access the information, visit the Web sites and say what we want online, free from discrimination or interference.

And that is why, supposedly, putting it in the hands of the government is an even better solution. In fact, the government already partially controls the internet through special interests, the Patriot Act, and the FCC for crying out loud! This solution would just give them more control.  If you honestly think that the government is going to be more fair and balanced, you have no idea who controls our government: bureaucrats, special interests, global corporations, and the Federal Reserve. The solution advocated by FreePress.Net would give the government the ability to silence and interrogate opposition, peek in on personal conversations and networking sites, and give the president the executive power to shut down the internet at will. We already have this so-called "network neutrality," but the solutions advocated by this organization, and by members of the Obama administration, would go far beyond that. In fact, Obama's FCC "Diversity" Czar has said that the widely unpopular Fairness Doctrine doesn't go far enough. Although repealed a few years back, elements of the Fairness Doctrine still exist today, and if we let the government have more control over the media, who knows what will happen? Oh, maybe I'm worrying too much. The government already has massive influence over the media. A complete takeover would just be a few steps away.

The way to stop the slide and improve broadband access, service and choice is to pass a comprehensive national broadband plan that is focused on putting our digital future back on track. A national broadband plan would protect Internet freedom and foster competition by bringing new providers into the marketplace, driving economic growth and innovation, and bringing universal, affordable broadband access to all Americans.

In a nutshell, that pretty much means socialized internet. Supposedly, the internet should be "free" for everyone by making all citizens pay into the system, regardless of how often they use the internet or whether or not they use it all. What these idiots don't realize is that setting up a "comprehensive national broadband plan" would require trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers, borrowing, and increased printing of money, leading to hyperinflation, bigger debts, and the very destruction of the U.S. dollar. That's not exactly "free," now is it?

Well that's all I really have time for today. This is just scratching the surface. I know you're in shock, but please leave your comments below. Thank you, God bless you, and have a fabulous day!