What Kind of Monster Are You, Mr Brown?

At a time when Britain’s economy is in a state of collapse through either your mismanagement or by deliberate design, in line with your Fabian philosophy of subversion from within, you are now pledging £6billion pounds to third world countries on the basis of your criminal deception over CO2 emissions.


Both you and Blair embrace the Fabian tactic of saying one thing while actually doing the opposite.

"We are at present working ... with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local states of the world. And all the time, we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."
Arnold Toynbee, well-known British historian, Fabian, and member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the British equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations).


During June, July and August this year you created another 230,000 public servants, the exact opposite of your pledge to reduce their numbers.


Both you and Blair pledged to end the scandal of forcing the elderly to sell their homes in order to pay for their care, 30,000 people a year are still being forced to sell their homes. Though you did give away £10+billio in foreign aid.


Both you and Blair removed our right of freedom of speech under the pretext of protecting the feelings of aliens settling here.

You have corrupted our children, attacked our history and traditions, and are currently brainwashing children and their parents into accepting the unproven and insane theory of anthropogenic global warming as being a scientific fact.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits . . . [Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
-- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998.


"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
Richard Benedict, Clinton State Department employee, working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation.


"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations


And sure enough, look what happened next:

UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development

By Jullyette Ukabiala


As aid from rich countries slides further, a UN independent panel on development financing recently proposed new ways of raising more funds to rescue millions of people from poverty -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1999, donor countries gave just $12 bn to the region as official development assistance (ODA), $6 bn less than they gave in 1995. Such aid, even at its peak, fell far short of the continent's needs.
The panel, chaired by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, was set up by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to identify innovative methods for raising the estimated $50 bn needed yearly to implement the UN's commitments to poverty reduction and sustainable growth in developing countries. Its recommendations will be considered by the UN conference on financing for development, to be held in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002.

Among the proposals are taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and on international currency transactions. The panel urges new ways to boost aid and investment flows to poor countries, and to assist countries raise funds from within their own economies through better political and economic management, including by improving their ability to collect domestic taxes. Such efforts would be supported by the establishment of an international tax organization and the holding of a summit that would address problems arising from globalization, the panel stated.
Members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age." And sub-Saharan Africa, they noted, should be a priority. "Nowhere is a global commitment to poverty reduction needed more than in this region. Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest proportion of people living on less than one dollar a day, and indeed, its people are almost as poor as they were 20 years ago."

A currency tax
Combating poverty, the panel argued, requires the provision of vital services which strengthen social and political stability, such as peacekeeping, healthcare facilities and programmes for environmental protection -- described collectively as "global public goods." To secure the enormous amount of money needed yearly for that, it said a global system of taxation is necessary, either through a currency transaction tax or a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels.
A currency transaction tax, also known as a "Tobin tax" -- named after Yale University economist James Tobin, who first proposed it -- would have individual countries collect a "small tax" of between 0.1 and 0.5 per cent on all foreign exchange transactions in their national currencies anywhere in the world. With the total value of such transactions currently put at $1,600 bn a day, up to $400 bn yearly would be raised at a minimum tax rate of 0.1 per cent. Each country would keep part of the revenue collected and release the remainder to international agencies funding global public goods.
The panel noted that such a tax could have a side benefit of helping to curb potentially damaging speculative buying and selling of currencies -- aimed at making profit later when prices change. Such "gambling" was in part blamed for the devastating capital outflows that plunged Southeast Asian countries into economic crisis in 1997-98.
The Tobin tax has been criticized on the grounds that it could be evaded, might not actually yield the expected benefits and could unwittingly hurt global economic growth by discouraging financial transactions of all kinds. However, several major industrial nations have voiced support for the tax, which is also backed by a growing coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The panel decided that "further rigorous technical study is needed" before any conclusions could be reached on its feasibility. Ms. Robin Round, policy analyst for the Halifax Initiative -- one of the NGOs promoting the tax -- told Africa Recovery that the call for further study "gives us an important opening to educate more people about the promises of a Tobin tax and to keep pushing for the consensus necessary to adopt it."


Taxing fuel consumption
The Zedillo panel also proposed a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels. Support for such a "carbon tax" has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide. The release of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, contributes to global warming and climate change.
The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide. The higher the carbon content, the higher the minimum tax rate. The tax would likely be collected by fuel vendors. Implementation would not be difficult since many countries already impose taxes on fossil fuels. An additional carbon tax, the panel hoped, should encourage consumers to shift to lower or non carbon-emitting sources of energy, such as hydro-power, solar energy and wind power.
The panel gave no estimates of how much a carbon tax could generate. Industrial countries would agree to release their carbon tax revenue to international organizations funding global public goods. Developing countries would invest their proceeds in their own economies, enabling them to increase public spending.

________________________________________

The panel members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age," with sub-Saharan Africa as a priority.

________________________________________

African states, like most other countries, are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for transport and industrial activities in both urban and rural areas. A carbon tax, which would make fuel more expensive for many families, would therefore also reduce the amount of money available for food and other basic necessities. Public demonstrations in countries like Nigeria and Zimbabwe following fuel price increases also indicate that a carbon tax could aggravate social discontent and political instability.
Would such a tax be good or bad for poor African countries? Good, says Ms. Emira Woods, programme manager for development policy issues at InterAction, a US-based coalition of over 165 NGOs, many of which are involved in development and humanitarian activities in Africa. Besides helping to clean up the environment, it would provide them with more development funding, she notes. Similarly, the deputy director of the regional bureau for Africa of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), Mr. Jacques Loup, told Africa Recovery that a carbon tax in rich countries would help "boost the international resource base for aid to Africa." However, Mr. Geoffrey Mwau, an economic and social policy adviser at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), cautions that the benefits would be lost if the tax collected from rich countries is treated as a "substitute" for ODA.

An international tax organization
With increasing cross-border movement of goods, services and capital in the world today, states are less able to collect taxes from multinational corporations, the panel observed, bringing substantial losses in potential revenue. Pointing out that taxes have become a potential source of conflicts among states, it noted that "the taxes that one country can impose are often constrained by the tax rates of others." The lack of precise and established regulations for taxing the income of multinational corporations makes it difficult to determine which country is entitled to which tax. All that exists are "complex and in some respects arbitrary conventions," the panel said.
Several international and governmental organizations already deal with international tax issues, including a UN group of experts on international cooperation in tax matters. The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad. Funds raised could be used to increase spending on public services.
The capacity of many African states to generate income on their own is often hindered by inefficient tax collection. Mr. Loup of UNDP believes the proposed international tax organization could help African governments reform their tax policies, but it should not interfere with their authority to design their own tax systems. The real problem with the tax policies of African states has more to do with corruption, Mr. Mwau of ECA believes. Most Africans are poor and the small number of the rich from whom substantial taxes could be collected "are able to avoid taxes through corruption." For as long as that remains the case, he argues, tax reforms alone would not help Africa.

Globalizing decision-making
Existing international bodies, "largely designed for the world of fifty years ago," are no longer equipped to address problems arising from the growing interdependence of nations, the panel stated. There are no satisfactory means of dealing with global economic "shocks" and no effective way to ensure that all voices are heard. "Global economic decision-making has become increasingly concentrated in a few countries."
The panel called for the creation of a global council to lead the international community "at the highest level" in managing today's global issues. The council would be more broadly based than the Group of Seven industrialized countries or international financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Its decisions would not be legally binding, but it should have the political clout to promote development, encourage major international economic organizations to improve their policies and build consensus for resolving global economic and social problems. The panel recommended that the UN convene after next year's Mexico conference, a "globalization summit" of heads of state to decide on the shape and status of such a global council.
African leaders and advocacy groups have been complaining about the continent's increasing marginalization and impoverishment as a result of globalization and are not sure how the proposed global council and summit could benefit them. They "would be worthwhile," Mr. Loup said, so long as they devote adequate attention to issues that seriously affect Africa -- crippling debt, aid flows, information and communication technology, market access and the environment. Mr. Lamin Manneh, UNDP's strategic and regional programme adviser for Africa, said more needs to be known about how a global council would help resolve "the problems we face today." A special forum or channel, he argued, should be created to enable African countries to express their concerns forcefully within the new institutions. The "big problem" is that the council would not have binding legal authority, says Ms. Woods, who nevertheless remains optimistic about the potential benefits of a global council to African states.
The ECA's Mr. Mwau notes that "attempts to deal with global issues through the existing mechanisms have failed not just because the institutional arrangements for dealing with them are inadequate, but more fundamentally because there is no political will." The creation of a new global council by itself would not help unless the international community commits to enforcing the council's decisions. African states, he argues, would benefit only if they are not excluded from making those decisions.

* * * * *

The faked science: the Hockey Stick Graph, Tree Ring Graph, and cherry picked weather station data, the refusal to reveal source data, is all part of a UN plot to impose a World Socialist Government upon us, by deceit and in the name of Wealth Re-distribution.


How rich that the richest men on Earth support this deception, though not through any concern over poor African countries, but because they stand to make quadrillions of dollars selling fresh air (Cap and Trade licences.)



But you, Mr Brown, are aware of the deception over CO2 emissions.

You know that it was the global temperatures that prevailed 800 – 2,000 years ago that produced the CO2 levels of today, just as global temperatures have done for the last 650,000 years.

You know this because your own scientists were forced to admit that this is so in Court.

Your pledge of £6 billion to third world countries to reduce their CO2 emissions is nothing less than subversion of the state.

You are prepared to sacrifice our troops by denying them equipment, deny our people life-saving drugs, steal the homes of the elderly all to further you own obscene political agenda.

What kind of monster are you, Mr Brown ?

How the UN Duped the World Over Global Warming

What the Opening Statement of the 1996 UN Climate Change Report said and The Two Statements They had Deleted.

The IPCC third scientific assessment (IPCC 2001) shows that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Since the IPCC’s 1995 Report confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased. For example, there is now a longer and more closely scrutinized temperature record. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years, as well as model estimates of natural climate variations, suggest that the observed warming over the past 100 years was unusual and is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. In addition, detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35-50 years. However, there are still many remaining gaps in information and understanding about climate change.

Deleted (1) None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

Deleted (2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

One of the independent scientific groups, Friends of Science, has published scientific reports, refuting man made global warming, in easy to understand and researchable format.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

It is an excellent place to find out what the real scientists are saying, which I would summarise as: We all now that the climate of the panel changes, it always has done and always will. However, there is no scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming, and that is why we need an open and honest debate.

I would ask the question; do we really want to bankrupt the economies of the democratic world on the basis of a half-baked theory built upon a foundation of lies and computer manipulation?

Make no mistake, if the global warming racketeers have their way and give themselves powers to control energy use, it will create the biggest single act of mass genocide, since other scientists fabricated evidence leading to the banning of DDT.

Al Gore and his billionaire buddies will make billions of dollars and the New World Order will gain complete control over every aspect of our lives.

Strike a blow for freedom and buy a coal or wood burning fire, and learn to love the gas Carbon Dioxide, which beneficial to all life-forms. Should these Copenhagen bankers, fraudsters, green fanatics and politicians get their way and eliminate all CO2 emissions then the results would be spectacular; the Earth would become barren, and animals and plants (including us) would become extinct.

Tonyb.

Is Bankrupting Britain, New Labour's True Goal.

Bearing in mind that in order to preserve its beaurocracy during the fall of communism in Russia, the government deliberately destabilised the economy.

The communist government of New Labour having subverted our democracy, stolen our freedom and country are now planning a mass increase in on-the-spot fines to be administered not by the police but by private companies and individuals.

Jack Straw, the contemptible maggot at the heart of New Labour's Police State, is as usual busily working at depriving us of our right to contest any on-the-spot-fine allegation made against us. This miserable piece of raw sewage is working on legislation that will allow us to contest an 0n-the-spot fine in court, but if we win we will be made to pay the court costs estimated at, £1500.

The aim is clear, he wishes to deny us our right to face our accusers before an independent tribunal, but because this right is enshrined in yer 'Uman Rights' legislation he cannot. But he can make it a very expensive business, fifteen-hundred-pounds will be the cost of doing so.

As we have experienced the people issuing these fines will be set targets and possibly paid an incentive on that amount of tickets they issue. This creates a motivation for corruption and must not be allowed to happen.

Meanwhile Gordon Brown is working flat out to decimate British Industry with fraudulent taxes on CO2 emmissions, fraudulent because like all the other government leaders clamouring for restrictions on energy use, they know full well that CO2 levels are governed by the global temperatures which prevailed between 800 years to 2, 000 years ago. The CO2 levels we are experiencing today are the result of the historically high temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period. The 65,000 year old ice cores prove this, Al Gore turned the science on its head, the reality is that it is global temperatures that govern CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Gordon Brown must be aware if this as it was his government's scientists that admitted so in court.

Yet still this thief, who having undermined our fiscal stability plans to throw billions of pounds of our taxes at third world countries, while claiming we can't afford meals-on-wheels- or cancer treatments for our elderly population.

He is an amoral communist thug, a Fabian, whose creed of subverting goverments from within, he and the traitor Blair, have followed so lavishly.

They plan to scrap our armed forces to plug a 36 million pound deficit, yet at the same time plan to give away £1.5 billion.

They will be telling us next that we do not need our own armed forces now that we're in the EU.

I would say we need them to defend us against the EU, and Brown, the traitor in No.10.

We should execute all government Fabians for treason and scatter their ashes over the heads of the EU assembly.

I want my country back!

Stop Worrying About CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions Do Not Cause Global Warming (It’s Official)

The UK Government was taken to court over its plans to show the film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, a wildly inaccurate and unscientific movie that claimed that man made emissions of CO2 had caused a sudden and unprecedented upward surge in global temperatures.

They even produced a graph showing a sudden upward surge in global temperature that resembled a hockey-stick lying flat with its blade pointing up. It became known as The Hockey Stick Graph, but it was faked. The sudden upward surge in temperatures was created by omitting the entire Medieval Warm Period, which occurred about a thousand years ago and which was much warmer than the temperatures of today.

The film claimed that unless we curb our use of energy immediately and reduced CO2 emissions, seven metre waves would flood the Earth and thousands of people would die and thousands more be made homeless.

It claimed that the 650,000 year-old ice cores show plainly that rising CO2 levels result in higher global temperatures.

However, in court the British Government’s own scientists conceded eleven scientific ‘errors’ that were contained in the film, including the fact that only four polar bears drowned - during a violent storm, that the Gulf Stream was highly unlikely to cease its function.

The Government scientists were forced to admit that the 650,000 year-old ice cores show the opposite to what Al Gore had claimed in his film. The ice-cores actually prove that CO2 levels were caused by the identical global temperatures that occurred 800 yrs. – 2,000 yrs. earlier.

In order to scare the public into believing in anthropogenic global warming, the Global Warming / Climate Change Industry have turned the science on its head. Hence the faked ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ and the later faked ‘Tree Ring Graph’.

Every time a British politician claims we have to reduce our CO2 emissions to save the planet, it’s a lie, and they are either criminally ignorant of the court ruling, against our own government, or outright liars and thieves.

THE ICE CORES PROVE THAT OVER THE LAST 650,000 years, C02 LEVELS ARE CREATED BY THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES which PREVAILED: 800 years – 2,000 years EARLIER.

This explains why, when CO2 levels continue to rise, global temperatures have continued to fall for over a decade; something that could not occur if rising CO2 was the cause of global; warming, as stated by the IPCC.

However, if we look at the Ice Core statement of scientific fact above it becomes apparent that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today must be, according to the ice-cores, the result of rising global temperatures 800 years – 2,000 years earlier, ‘The Medieval Warm Period’, which was so carefully removed from the Hockey Stick Graph.

Every Green Tax, Cap and Trade Transaction, Carbon Capture Scheme is a criminal racket, theft, which now appears to have become a global industry.

‘The panel members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age," with sub-Saharan Africa as a priority.’

Extract from: The UN Report, African Recovery, 2001

What has that to do with taxes on CO2?

It was during this conference that the UN decided not only upon a CO2 emissions tax, but also to form a global taxation body, which would focus upon ‘wealth re-distribution’, either by imposing a currency tax, or a tax on fossil fuel emissions. They opted for the latter and the Great Green Global Warming Con-trick was born.

Click on the following link to read the relevant section of the actual UN’s African Renewal report.

CO2 is good for all life forms, including the lowlife scum who stand to make quadrillions of dollars selling fresh air, and ensuring that energy prices will continue to rise.

Those Government's who are using the IPPC's quack science to promote fear in order to ensure compliance without question to their climate change lies, have no intention of allowing cheap renewable energy to develop, there’s no money or political advantage in it for them.

The very democracy of the West is being trampled underfoot by these socialist dogs and their unholy alliance with the pagans and green fanatics. They are men and women without concience whose green legislation will enslave us all. Millions of people will die because of energy use restrictions based on the lie of anthropogenic global warming, but the bankers and politicians will prosper and will, no doubt, supply the needless dead their coffins, as a token gesture of remorse.

"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes,"

It's from Copenhagen I fear.

Will no one jail these fraudsters?

The Angry Old Git

The EU has No Basis in Law

As the EU, an unlawful assembly, celebrates the ratification of the EU Treaty, it must be said that the Treaty is not worth the paper it is written on.

It has no basis in law; EU law that is, which reveals the entire charade as a communist inspired take over of the West.

Putting aside the betrayal of Britain, by the Fabians, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, every government minister and 300 fellow Fabian MPS; the fact remains that the EU Constitution had to be ratified by every member country or, quote: “Or it would be dead in the water. However, when three countries voted, NO, the EU unlawfully ordered them to vote again; it had no power to do so. Therefore the following enforced refrendum results are invalid.

The EU is now an illegal and fraudulent organisation.

In Britain we have been told we must contribute more to the EU, which would make us the second highest contributor to this unwanted and illegal organisation, which denied our nation a vote.

It is not going to happen.

I would, as a British Taxpayer, remind the British Chancellor that he has a duty of care towards our finances, and to withhold all payments to the EU until its accounts have been passed by the independent auditors. We do not pay taxes to have them stolen at will by the thieves of the (now unlawful assembly) the EU Parliament.

I would also remind the maggots, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw, that unless Britain is given a referendum on the EU Treaty, that the fraudulent signature of Gordon Brown is a worthless as his promises, invalid in British Law. “Consent obtained by deception is not true consent.

Until we have a referendum we are not members of the EU.