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...

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

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.         

 

As regards Alzheimer's,

Check this out:

http://www.scpnet.com/on_pap_3.htm

If you do a search on 'aluminium neurotoxicity' there are quite a few links, including a book
on the subject on Amazon (though it is prohibitively expensive.) As regards absorption from the water supply, I understand this is greatly increased by the presence of flouride, and that also depends on the particular form the aluminium takes. It apparently interacts with other toxins and heavy metals interfering with various body functions.
       

Almost all mercury toxic individuals have high level of selenium in their pituitary glands. Does it mean selenium is neurotoxic?

The paper didn't comment on the neurotoxicity of aluminum. I believe you are trying to downplay the issue of mercury poisoning.

Like your government, you are trying to suggest that mercury poisoning is not a big deal. You are trying to ignore the findings by Univeristy of Calgary and other scientists, but you are no expert in toxicity at all. You are trying ignore the fact that air mercury come from emissions from the cars, coal fire plants, mining areas and other combusion facilities. And you are trying to be protective of the oil industry.

In my books on flouride there is additional material on aluminium, I'll have another look. Cheers

Have you ever treat people with Alzheimer's disease before?

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

To hear what Brian Gerrish has to say, check this out:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/05may/RIR-090526.php

I am a british citizen living in asia.  i believe it is the ch**ese government who wants to bankrupt the nation by suppressing the commodity prices. Emission cut will not lead to suppression of commodity prices.

The idea of economic globalization is to export inflation and import deflation. Under the ideology of economic globalization, the US exports inflation by increasing its money supply. And it imports deflation by suppressing the commodity prices, collapsing the gold prices and encourgage the third world to peg their currencies to the US dollars.

To suppress the commodity prices, they have to make sure the "slaves" from the emerging economies continue to produce as much as possible. This means they cannot accept any deal or treaty that would will end up with less cheap labors from the third world, less mining of gold, less drilling of oil fields, less cheap goods, etc, etc.

By telling the emerging economies to peg their currencies, the power-that-be can continue to increase the money supply  without any devaluation of the so-called almighty US dollars.

Many government officials from the emerging economies have privately invested their money in dollar-denominated assets, including subprime mortgages and the US treasury bonds. Any appreciation of their countries' currencies will hurt their investments. To protect their own wealth, they will have to suppress the commodity prices and make sure their nations continue to support the US dollars, even at the cost of the environment.

Interesting viewpoint! My question is, who is the real 'economic' power behind China, in your opinion? who is the real power behind America, Russia, who is the real power behind Europe? As a child I used to love Chinese wooden dolls. Inside the outer shell is another doll, and you can keep on unscrewing the dolls until you get to the 9th tiny creature inside.

Someone is clearly playing a game here, at our expense. Who is really behind it?

In a film called 'The Wizard Of Oz' There is a little old man behind a curtain pulling the strings. He is the real power, but no-one suspects.

What does this say about 'climate change' ?

It sure speaks volumes to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU&feature=player_embedded


Regards...

I missed this; notice in the article it was to be presented at the big Copenhagen shindig. Once they get their Cap and Trade Treaty signed this will be next:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14488619

I would venture to guess that China's One Child Policy will be the model to build on.