American Revolution in One to Three Years

Copenhagen’s Communist Connection


The man who predicted the 1987 stock market crash and the fall of the Soviet Union is now forecasting revolution in America, food riots and tax rebellions – all within four years, while cautioning that putting food on the table will be a more pressing concern than buying Christmas gifts by 2012.

Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, is renowned for his accuracy in predicting future world and economic events, which will send a chill down your spine considering what he told Fox News this week.

Celente says that by 2012 America will become an undeveloped nation, that there will be a revolution marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches, and that holidays will be more about obtaining food, not gifts.

“We’re going to see the end of the retail Christmas….we’re going to see a fundamental shift take place….putting food on the table is going to be more important that putting gifts under the Christmas tree,” said Celente, adding that the situation would be “worse than the great depression”.

America’s going to go through a transition the likes of which no one is prepared for,” said Celente, noting that people’s refusal to acknowledge that America was even in a recession highlights how big a problem denial is in being ready for the true scale of the crisis.

Celente, who successfully predicted the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, the subprime mortgage collapse and the massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar, told UPI in November last year that the following year would be known as “The Panic of 2008,” adding that “giants (would) tumble to their deaths,” which is exactly what we have witnessed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and others.

He also said that the dollar would eventually be devalued by as much as 90 per cent = 90%.

The consequence of what we have seen unfold this year would lead to a lowering in living standards, Celente predicted a year ago, which is also being borne out by plummeting retail sales figures.

The prospect of revolution was a concept echoed by a British Ministry of Defence report last year, which predicted that within 30 years, the growing gap between the super rich and the middle class, along with an urban underclass threatening social order would mean, “The world’s middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest,” and that,

“The middle classes could become a revolutionary class.”

There will be a revolution in this country,” he said. “It’s not going to come yet, but it’s going to come down the line and we’re going to see a third party and this was the catalyst for it: the takeover of Washington, D. C., in broad daylight and it will happen as conditions continue to worsen.”

“The first thing to do is organize with tax revolts. That’s going to be the big one because people can’t afford to pay more school tax, property tax, any kind of tax. You’re going to start seeing those kinds of protests start to develop.”

“It’s going to be very bleak. Very sad. And there is going to be a lot of homeless, the likes of which we have never seen before. Tent cities are already sprouting up around the country and we’re going to see many more.”

“We’re going to start seeing huge areas of vacant real estate and squatters living in them as well. It’s going to be a picture the likes of which Americans are not going to be used to. It’s going to come as a shock and with it, there’s going to be a lot of crime. And the crime is going to be a lot worse than it was before because in the last 1929 Depression, people’s minds weren’t wrecked on all these modern drugs – over-the-counter drugs, or crystal meth or whatever it might be. So, you have a huge underclass of very desperate people with their minds chemically blown beyond anybody’s comprehension.”

So there you have it – hardly a nutjob conspiracy theorist blowhard now is he? The price of not heeding his warnings will be far greater than the cost of preparing for the future now. Storable food and gold are two good places to make a start.

Next year America’s yearly National Debt will be 112% of the GDP and 97.5% now. Moody’s Investors Service said the top debt ratings on the U.S. and the U.K. may “test the AAA boundaries” because public finances are worsening in the wake of the global financial crisis. If we loose our AAA rating, the cost of selling debt could double overnight, making the 112% look good.

There are only two ways of reducing debt, make more money or spend less.  The best way is to do both.  For a government, raising taxes does not produce more money, but increasing the pie does.  When more is produced, the income for governments goes up.  But everything the governments of the United States are doing is slowing production to a halt.  Everything President BO has done in one year has reduced or will reduce production in America.  The two worst will be Health Care and Cape and Trade.

Cap and Trade – Copenhagen

The United States of America was born as an independent, sovereign, nation in July of 1776, when our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. The sovereign and independent status that America has cherished for over 200 years may come to an abrupt end in December, 2009, if Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

What is the Copenhagen Climate Treaty?  The Copenhagen Treaty has two stated goals:

Transfer wealth from Industrial Nations (The United States) to Developing Countries.

Dictate energy use and consumption to Industrial Nations (The United States)

Now, just so we are clear...Goal Number One is Global Socialism

Goal Number Two is a Global Dictatorship

The Copenhagen Climate Treaty audaciously states:  Industrialized countries have a dual obligation under the Treaty, representing their overall responsibility for keeping the world within the limits of the global carbon budget and ensuring that adaptation to the impacts of climate change is possible for the most vulnerable. This dual binding obligation takes the form of emissions reductions as well as the provision of support to developing countries.

Lord Christopher Monckton, the former advisor for science policy to former British Prime Minister, and former President Ronald Reagan ally, Lady Margaret Thatcher, believes that if the U.S. signs any climate treaty coming out of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December, it could subject the United States to a global dictatorship.

"This treaty of Copenhagen, which is going to be negotiated by the States' parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December, is going to...establish for the first time in human history a global government," he warns.

The devastating immediate economic impact of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty:

1. Limit manufacturing in the U.S. by cap and trade regulations = Loss of Jobs,

2. Limit personal consumption of energy by law and costs = Loss of Freedom, 

3. Hyper Energy cost Inflation, Goods - materials to be more expensive = Double Digit Inflation, 

4. Transportation more expensive = $10 per gallon, Halt the US Recovery = Depression,

5. Assure and accelerate the shift of economic growth and profitability from the U.S to emerging markets = Loss of Opportunity,

6.  Increase Imports for emerging countries who will not be subject to the same carbon emissions limits = Unfair Competition,

7.  Increased Trade Deficit, Cause the U.S. to become an even greater debtor while China becomes an even bigger creditor = More Red Debt

8.  Add momentum to the movement away from the U.S. Dollar toward an alternate single or composite world reserve currency = One World Currency

9. Increase the cost of Treasury borrowings = Ballooning Deficit

10. Drive up federal and state taxes = Suffocating Taxes

During a visit to Germany in the midst of the Presidential Campaign last year, Barack Hussein Obama declared, "I am a citizen of the world." In front of one million adoring Germans, Obama had
announced to the world that he indeed prioritized globalism over patriotism.

The U. S. Constitution mandates that treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate. This would normally be a tall order for any President, if said President valued the Constitution.

An Obama advisor once said that he [Obama] regarded the U.S. Constitution as merely a piece of paper...and he saw it as a barrier to the things that the Left around the world want to do - and,
therefore, they were going to find ways of circumventing
it.  (Proving that, OB placed the subject of global warming in the hands of IPA, the Invirmental Protection Agency, and thereby bypassing Congress.  He now can mandate the Copenhagen Treaty.)

Cap & Trade.

The Wall Street Journal called Cap & Trade "the biggest tax in American history" and The Washington Times reported that cap-and-trade legislation will levy a $3.6 trillion gas-tax
increase that will impact every American and important segments of our economy.

Cap & Trade will cause massive inflation, record unemployment and entire industrial sectors will flee the country in search of profits.

As dreadful as Cap & Trade would be for the United States economy, if the Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed and ratified, it will be far more dangerous to the economic and political future of this country.  The Copenhagen Climate Treaty will strip America of its Sovereignty, and
subject us to laws, rules and huge taxes levied by a one-world, leftist, elitist governing body that wants to steal America's wealth to punish us for our success as a nation. Worst of all, Americans will NOT have the power to vote these elitists out of office, impeach them, or hold them accountable in any way whatsoever.

THIS MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR LIFETIME. If we do not stand firm and united against this treasonous treaty, the greatest country in the world may be forever subservient to a One World Order and it will have happened on our watch.

What about those people (31% of Americans) who believe that we must do this no matter what or the world will end?  I do not even believe in CO2 being harmful, and wrote the proof of it, but nonetheless, just for the sake of appeasing these people, let us suppose:

1. we signed the Copenhagen Treaty

2. we passed the cape and trade bill.

What we accomplish?
We would reduce the warming in the atmosphere by 7/100 of 1degree after 30 years, that is .007 of One degree. We would not increase the production of alternative methods of energy at any greater rate than we do now.  We would not create new jobs.  But one industry will make a great deal of money, and I mean trillions of dollars, and that is the big banks. 

Gary Kreep, Executive Director, United States Justice Foundation, tells you why. 

Speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis that happened in 2008.

Cap and Trade is credit default swaps and the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.

The carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they've done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They're also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...

Who is Blythe Masters?

She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPMorgan's carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):

Masters oversees the New York bank's environmental businesses as the firm's global head of commodities... As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan's team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan's investment bank.

Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That's why financial types like me like it -- because there are financial opportunities”...

Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities...

The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.

“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”

By Aaron Klein


Who is promoting the Global Warming Hype and Why?


"The World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert", William Gray says the recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years."

Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."

Gray warns that the likely agreements coming out of Copenhagen, the cap-and-trade bill  before Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's decision announced this week to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant "represents a grave threat to the industrial world's continued economic development."

"We should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth," Gray said. "Any United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an infringement on our country's sovereignty."

"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide … induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.

"These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."

Gray said there still hasn't been an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, contending the present models presented by scientists are flawed.

He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities."

"The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said.

Gray launched the practice of seasonal hurricane forecasts. After the 2005 Atlantic season, he said he was stepping down from the primary authorship of the CSU report, turning over those duties to Philip J. Klotzbach.

He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago,

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

People like Al Gore and President BO know the truth, so why are they promoting this anyway.  They know that after 50 years Solar and Wind Power do not take care of 7% of our present electric needs, and in 50 years more it will not get to 12%.  They know that 150 new Nuclear Power plants, and Natural Gas cars and trucks will cut polution much faster but avoid the subject.  Why?

The only people to gain from this Copenhagen and Cape and Trade are Communists and Socialists, who want a One World Socialist Dictatorship. 

Lets look at the facts, the Communists who came out of the 'fall" of the soviet empire were highly educated criminals in the KGB now STB and Russian mafia with PhDs and MS Degrees. They set up international drug, gold  and sex slave rings which even make the Columbian and Italian Mafia fearful.  

Many came to Philadelphia thru Jewish American Fund in DC.  They said they were given money for apartments, cars and to live off of and they were not even Jewish but pretended to be so their children got free schooling in Hebrew private schools.  When asked if they were Jewish they all laughed and said they would bless themselves if they could have a deal like this from another church based fund in DC. The papers said something like 7000 came over to NE Philadelphia area in three months, as others went to New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.  

They never left their ideas of a world government and saw the environmental movement as a way to accomplish this.  Let us look at the people around President BO.  

Barak Obama gave a speech at  2002 anti-war rally which is said to have helped launch his political career. The rally, which drew some 2,000 participants, was planned by socialist and Marxist activists associated with Weatherman Underground founder William Ayers.

That event, meant to protest the impending invasion of Iraq, was coordinated on behalf of a small group, Chicagoans Against the War & Injustice, run by Marxist Carl Davidson and extremist activists Marilyn Katz and Bettylu Saltzman.

Davidson was a founder of the New Party, a controversial 1990s political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda and Obama was a member of this party.

Katz served on the finance committee of Obama's presidential campaign.

Saltzman first met Obama when he was in charge of Project VOTE's registration drive for the 1992 election.

They don’t care about global warming, they want a One World Government.

Communists groomed BO from birth
10/31/2008 - Tom Fife

The First Time I Heard of Barack

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.'s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

"You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven't you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn't do it."

The general response went something along the lines that you don't vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don't vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

"Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon."

The consensus we expressed was that we didn't think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

"What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?"

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, "Well, you will; and he will be a Communist."

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know."

"Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President."

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he'd be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. "Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet."

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn't understand what the point was and don't recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: "If I remember correctly, 'Barack' comes from the Arabic word for 'Blessing.' That seems to be an odd name for an American." She replied quickly, "Yes. It is 'African'", she insisted, "and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world."

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it's definitely anecdotal. It doesn't prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

How to Save America

Copenhagen will not pass this month but President BO will pledge American into the fraud, and use the EPA to bypass Congress.  The Health Care will pass one way or another.  More spending will continue and taxes will go sky high.  There is nothing we can do about that now, and we deserve it because we put these people in office. 

But in 2010 we can kick them all out of office and impeach the President.  We can try to do this in the two party systems and their primaries, but if anyone does not have our agenda, we will vote in a Tea Party candidate and take our changes in a three party race.  There will be massive voter fraud, so we will have to organize an equally massive Voter Watch like they did in the People’s revolution in the Philippines.  I know! I was there!  If we cannot stop the voter fraud, there will be a peaceful revolution of peaceful refusal to pay taxes and obey immoral laws.  They cannot put millions in jail and they won’t. 

If we are able to take Congress and 3/4th of the Senate, we can either Impeach BO or override any veto.  At that point we must repeal all the things they did in the last two years, remove every Federal Department, and action that are not constitutional or not absolutely needed.  

We must then get people back to work.  The best way to do this is to quickly get rid of all regulations that restrict the drilling of Gas and Oil, and open up at least 150 new Nuclear Power Plants. Build thousands of Natural Gas stations across the Nation and incentive Trucks and Cars to convert to Natural Gas. Open up all the federal land holding the world’s largest oil reserves.

We can quickly become the world’s biggest exporter of Oil, Natural Gas, Coal and Steel, and at the same time work towards having affordable electric cars for ourselves, by getting rid of all the regulations that make cars expansive.

Make it easier to bring in educated engineers and scientists from foreign countries. We will need to increase our work force by 150,000 a week to get out of this mess and bring down unemployment to 5% in three years.  If you do not believe we can become an exporter of oil and gas, read the following.


About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana ...... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5 trillion.

"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!  That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years
straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one
should - because it's from 2006!

Not only that but hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.  HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the
environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

India is using more oil. India's oil product sales rose 17.3% in October from a year earlier, the country's Oil Ministry said last week. India's oil demand is expected to rise 3.9% year-over-year going forward.

China's oil demand rose 10.3% in October, and is expected to rise 3.5% annually going forward.

Mexico's oil output may "decline sharply" next year as state-owned Pemex enters a sixth year of falling production. Mexico's output may drop 8.9% in 2010 from this year. Mexico was our #2 supplier of imported oil. Imagine if 12% of that supply disappears — which it will.

global oil consumption is likely to rise by 750,000 barrels per day.

Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. Additional deficit spending should total $1.5 trillion. So, we have to finance $3.5 trillion in total over the next year, about 30% of GDP. Who the heck is going to buy all that debt? I think the only way to finance it is to print money (much of it is "printed" electronically, but the principle is the same). And that should sink the dollar. Since oil is priced in dollars, as the dollar slumps, oil should go much higher.


Notes and further evidence:

1.  By Sarah Palin

“With the publication of damaging emails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicised scientific circle – the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

“The emails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

“This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicised science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the US Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

“Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits – not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate – far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

“But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen – which actually allow them to increase their emissions – President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

“In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax programme. Meanwhile, Australia's parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate email scandal continues to unfold.

“In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the US will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs – particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

“Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.”

This article was originally published on

2. Statements of Scientists

Where the Carbon Theorists now step in, is the presentation of an alarming trend over the last decade, namely an exponential increase in Carbon DiOxide emissions accompanied by a corresponding spike in temperatures – the last decade has been the warmest on record. However, there was an enormous increase in CO2 levels 240,000 years ago, 130,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago.

Milutin Milankovic (1879 – 1958) dedicated his scientific study to the effects of cosmic cycles, ocean currents and plate tectonics on climate change and his closer examination of the fact pointed towards the existence of changes in the cycle of the Earth’s tilt every 41,000 years, which enabled him to predict changes in temperature (and climate) with remarkable accuracy.

Other studies indicate a correlation between peaks in temperature and 11-year solar flare cycles and their corresponding knock-on effect on ocean currents and thermal flows; the effect of water vapour as being far more significant that CO2; the fact that the Arctic ice cap has melted before; the emissions of methane gases from animals being far more voluminous than human GEG.

So Carbon emissions by humans are not the sole cause of climate change, since such fluctuations have occurred cyclically for hundreds of thousands of years and because there are other candidates to which to attribute the blame.

Myron Ebell of the website, where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia were "shocking."

"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.

The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community."

"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."


3. Petition Project

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming." The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.  But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.

The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequences of assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.


4. Australians Lead

Australians are leading the charge of climate sceptics at the Copenhagen conference.

Family First Senator Steve Fielding will attend the summit next week - the same time as US President Barack Obama - to canvas his views that humans may not be affecting the climate.

It's not known if Senator Fielding will address the 15,000 delegates at the high-profile UN climate conference, which began on Monday.

The Victorian senator, who helped kill off the government's emissions trading scheme (ETS), will be at the summit as a representative of the US-based Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which seeks to cast doubt on climate change. And Senator Fielding is not the only Australian climate naysayer to play a role at the conference.

Two Australian scientists will speak at a rival conference in Copenhagen on Tuesday, which will call for any climate treaty to be rejected.

One speaker will be prominent Adelaide scientist and author Ian Plimer, who wrote the book, Heaven and Earth, which rejects human-induced climate change.

And University of Western Australia geologist Cliff Ollier will speak on glaciers and ice caps at the two-day CFACT conference, which is being held away from the official conference venue. A policy adviser to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher will also speak.

The leading role Australian climate sceptics are taking at Copenhagen comes as the opposition takes a more cautious line on global warming, ruling out support for an ETS.

Climate sceptics worldwide have been buoyed by the release of leaked emails from an English university which appear to show some climate data had been massaged to remove indications the world was not warming.

CFACT executive director Craig Rucker said the UN scientific process, which concluded climate change was real, was not fair or accurate.

"No climate treaty should be signed in Copenhagen this December," Mr Rucker said in a statement before the rival conference.

"It is important that delegates and the public get a chance to hear from these noted scientists and experts before they make a devastating mistake and ration energy, while having no effect on the climate."

Senator Fielding played a pivotal role in defeating the Rudd government's ETS because without his support, the government could not negotiate with the Senate crossbench to pass the scheme. The government then turned to the opposition, who voted down the scheme last month.

A total of 192 countries are attending the 11-day Copenhagen conference. At the summit's opening day on Monday, delegates from all over the world - including Australia - said they accepted the science of climate change and were ready to take action.

Environmental Truth and Consequences

One respected scientist who says there is no crisis is Dr. S.Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and director of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. We asked him for his comments, presented below.

Climate change is a major political issue with many conflicting claims of causes and possible solutions. We attempt to separate what is scientifically known from what is not, and what is economically practical from what is not.

Is the climate changing?

Yes! Climate is always changing. For the last 2 million years, nearly 20 ice-age periods have dominated the Earth’s climate, interrupted by warm periods lasting 10,000 years or so. During the current warm period the climate has been both warmer and cooler than today. For 3,000 years it was about 5 degrees F warmer.

Is global warming real?

Yes! But not in a way indicating carbon dioxide is the cause.  Thirty years of comprehensive satellite observations show a warming in the northern part of the globe, little warming in the tropics and the southern portion—and a distinct cooling of Antarctica. Global warming stopped a decade ago.

Are you saying there is no climate crisis?

Yes!  There is no scientific basis for concluding the climate is doing anything unprecedented or dangerous.

Isn’t there a security crisis from our dependence on foreign oil?

According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has more fossil fuels than any other nation. If energy security is a pressing issue, we should be developing our coal, oil and gas resources and clearing the regulatory minefield that prohibits nuclear power plants. Instead, we are going the other way.

Don’t we need new sources of energy to get us out of the economic crisis?

American prosperity was built on affordable, reliable energy, particularly electricity. Electricity will be even more important in the 21st century. No rational business would shut down productive assets before more productive ones are available, but that is what is being proposed. Shutting down coal, which produces almost 50 percent of our electricity, without equally productive sources in place makes no economic sense.

Why are national and international politicians demanding that carbon dioxide emissions be controlled?

Many well-meaning politicians are in the grips of a mania fed by political, not scientific, studies. These studies ignore past warming and cooling periods.  Science must never ignore physical evidence. Politicians believing these political documents believe they can control climate by controlling human activity. The strongest opposition comes from China and India, which realize such controls are fruitless and economically destructive.

Are any groups challenging the UN andEPA climate reports?

Several distinguished scientists formed the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) to study these reports. The 2008 NIPCC report concluded that the government reports and their models are biased, obsolete and wrong and that nature, not human activity, rules the climate (

6. Tax for Australia

Australians could be hit with a tax bill of up to $400 billion under a draft deal leaked from the Copenhagen summit, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.

Under the draft, Australia would be asked to lower its emissions by 25 per cent within a decade.

Rich countries would need to reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Mr Abbott said such a plan would have a significant impact on Australia under the Rudd government.

"Just to get a five per cent reduction in emissions Mr Rudd wants to whack a $120 billion tax on us," Mr Abbott told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday.

"To get a 15 per cent or 25 per cent reduction in emissions on Mr Rudd's logic, it's going to be an even bigger tax - perhaps a $300 or $400 billion dollar tax.

"So I think that the Australian people ought to be very concerned about anything that Mr Rudd might sign us up to in Copenhagen."

7. What is a Billion Dollars

A billion dollars ago was only 
8 hours and 20 minutes, 
At the rate our government
Is spending it. 

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D) 
Is presently asking
 Congress for 
To rebuild  New Orleans  . Interesting number...
What does it mean?
Well ... If you are one of the 484,674 residents of  New Orleans    
(every man, woman, and child) 
You each get $516,528.
Or... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in 
New Orleans  , your home gets $1,329,787. 
Or... If you are a family of four...
Your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington  , D. 

8.  Taxes

Building Permit Tax 
CDL License Tax 
Cigarette Tax 
Corporate Income Tax 
Dog License Tax 
Federal Income Tax (Fed)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA) 
Fishing License Tax 
Food License Tax 
Fuel Permit Tax 
Gasoline Tax 
Hunting License Tax 
Inheritance Tax 
Inventory Tax 
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax) 
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) 
Liquor Tax 
Luxury Tax 
Marriage License Tax 
Medicare Tax 
Property Tax 
Real Estate Tax 
Service charge taxes 
Social Security Tax 
Road Usage Tax (Truckers) 
Sales Taxes 
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax  
State Income Tax  
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) 
Telephone20Federal Excise Tax 
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax 
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax 
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax  
Telephone State and Local Tax 
Telephone Usage Charge
Utility Tax 
Vehicle License Registration T ax 
Vehicle Sales Tax 
Watercraft Registration Tax 
Well Permit Tax 
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.  We had absolutely no national debt... We had the largest middle class in the world... 
And Mom stayed home to raise the kids. 

more information