Global Warming

[Cap-Z-ro]

And here's one of the ways they go about it today,


" December 11, 2009

Common Purpose, a globalist NGO dedicated to teaching a new generation of one-world leaders and apparatchiks, has applied pressure to the ISP hosting Brian Gerrish’s website, resulting in the site being removed from the internet.

Brian Gerrish is a former naval officer and anti-submarine warfare expert who has conducted detailed research into the federalist agenda of the coming totalitarian socialist state in Europe, otherwise known as the European Union."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-ngo-has-opposition-website-taken-down.html


Regards...

[silverfish]

And here's one of the ways they go about it today,


" December 11, 2009

Common Purpose, a globalist NGO dedicated to teaching a new generation of one-world leaders and apparatchiks, has applied pressure to the ISP hosting Brian Gerrish’s website, resulting in the site being removed from the internet.

Brian Gerrish is a former naval officer and anti-submarine warfare expert who has conducted detailed research into the federalist agenda of the coming totalitarian socialist state in Europe, otherwise known as the European Union."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-ngo-has-opposition-website-taken-down.html


Regards...

A comment from Harry S. Truman:

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. --Harry S. Truman

[ATT]

Common Purpose, a globalist NGO...applied pressure to the ISP hosting Brian Gerrish’s website, resulting in the site being removed from the internet.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-ngo-has-opposition-website-taken-down

Never heard of him, however, if hostgator immediately 'caved' to the allegations made in the pdf:
http://dmca.hgfix.net/cpexposed.com/cpexposed.com.pdf ,
then they weren't much of an ISP to begin with...there's usually a 'cease and desist' demand followed by some sort of rebuttal and refusal before an ISP take-down.

If the documents listed in that pdf were actually copies of DMCA protected stuff then Gerrish didn't know what he was doing, either (then again, maybe he did...).

He could have easily gotten around it by quoting pertinent sections, giving proper attribution and providing links to the actual documents hosted on another server/s, which he could simply have described as his 'sources', disavowing any other connection to the documents.

If FOIA issues had resulted in the release of the documents then that could establish yet another point in rebuttal of the above take-down demand.

Then too, publicity resulting from the take-down could actually help bring attention to Gerrish's cause, maybe Alex Jones will end up giving him a blog on the prison-planet/infowars network if the response to this take-down is great enough.

No such thing as bad publicity...

Tony

[Cap-Z-ro]

silver quote...
" Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. --Harry S. Truman "

I believe JFK was the last of Harry's ilk...the rest were and are made.

I don't think what happened to Gerrish's web site would have happened in their US.

Regards...

[lwh]

Holy shit!  has anyone else read that treaty?  It is scary as shit.  talk about taxation without repersentation.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

That was the latest i could find.

I just finished reading all of that and don't really know what to say, and not just because I'm tired and probably shouldn't be trying to write at all. 

It reminds me of Mao's great-leap-forward or whatever it was, the one that resulted in the starvation of 20-40 million Chinese.  The level of bullshit involved is astounding.  I don't even think they can do what they say they're going to do, even if they get the money, (and yes they stated they wanted at least 80-90 billion USD per year).  My doubts about their ability is based in part on the vagaries of what they say they want to implement on the ground and their admitted lack of knowledge about how they might achieve it.  They seem more sure about the fact that there will be dire side-effects of their intended measures on the populations they'll be 'helping'.  Even if I was totally trusting of them, and I'm not, I'd have some real concerns with what they're proposing.  It really does reek of corruption.

If that's the best they can come up with, and their scare-mongering is based on the true facts of the matter, I'm going to have to put my faith in a higher order and just try to grin and bear it. 

It just looks like a power-grab, interference with humanity, and nature in general, on an unprecedented scale.  It even makes me suspicious about whether they're actually interested in mitigating climate change at all.  It just looks like they're trying to capitalize on the situation.  The situation that is, humanity having to face up to the fact that the weather changes, and we have to adapt to it.

Don't fight the weather, that's my advice.  Don't mess with it, like we've been led to do, and don't try to fix it in stone like we're being led now to do.  It changes, and it's bigger than us.

Reading their draft proposal or whatever you call it, does raise a question though.  Can the first world countries actually decrease their greenhouse gas emissions 95% by 2050?  That's one of their goals.  Is that actually possible, while at the same time being taxed 2% of GDP?

They want the developed countries to pay for the environmentally friendly great-leap-forward of the developing nations, while the developed nations themselves try to figure out how to stop polluting and attain their own environmentally friendly status.  Is that actually feasible?

Two recurring ideas in their document, which seem to be key to their (ill-defined?) plans, are those of 'economic diversification' and the implementation of technological solutions.  Are these strategies realistic?  Especially in that they seem to be mentioned more in relation to the changes developing countries can make, more so than the developed ones.  It reminds me of the old, 'Here, we'll pay you to plant this instead, using these expensive new-fangled technologies, and everything will be alright.  And don't worry, we'll make some changes to our excessive consumption, just to be fair.  Or at least, those under our new expanded powers of control will.  How 'bout it? Deal?'  Hard to say no when UN sanctions would probably be the result, and when you just want to get into the club yourself.

Too cynical?  I could go on at length.  There's a lot of stuff in that draft document to inspire such cynicism.  If it's so good, they should finalize it (but they never will, it's an open-ended process) and make it compulsory reading for every citizen of every country that's to be affected by it, and see how far it gets.  Just like they should have done with every other one of their shady schemes (the ones that got us here in the first place), but never did.   Imagine where we'd be if we'd actually been allowed to express our humanity like that, instead of being exploited as an expendable resource.

And before you zealots chime in with your pro and anti this and that, I'm not listening, I don't give a shit, I love ya and that's all there is to it.  That's all there is to anything.  You can see what you want to see and it isn't going to make any difference to what actually is.  And I just told ya what that is

Les.