GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

I went to a conference last June on Global Governance. The speakers included Ambassador Bolton, the present President of the Czech Republic, the former Prime Minister of Australia, former Asst. Attorney General John Yoo and about a dozen more. The President of the Czech Republic, President Klaus had just been to the NATO meeting where he gave a speech against Global Governance. It wasn’t well received. He said pretty much all the countries at the meeting were on board with Global Governance. Are you?

Most of us have been hearing about Global Governance or One World Government or New World Order for some years now. If you are like me you thought, America would never agree to such a thing. Why would the richest, most powerful country in the world or any Western Country ever agree to give up their sovereignty and power to a central form of government. Why? Why would we give up the ability to govern ourselves? Why would we allow some central government decide how all of us should live? What “angels” would decide and what rule of law would it be? Would it be Communism or Sharia Law?

I still can’t wrap my head around the reason this country or any Western country would consider the “New World Order”. What I have come to understand, however, is that our leaders in America and the other Western countries are not only considering it, most are for it. George Bush mentioned the New World Order many times during his term as President. George Herbert Walker Bush signed the UN Agenda 21 which ultimately results in the UN being the governing body for the world. The Bushes, Clintons and Obamas are clearly on board with Agenda 21 and the New World Order. President Clinton formed the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” to roll out ICLEI (International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives) across the country to implement Agenda 21 on a local level. Unelected Regional Planning Commissions were formed whose plans override city plans. If cities want Federal money they have to go by those plans. And remarkably, the plans are all pretty much the same. Moving people into cities, into buildings along “transportation corridors” with commercial space on the first floor and apartments above. The Federal government is taking over vast amounts of land under the Wildlands Act. They are bringing in wolves and other carnivores to keep people out. Eventually, people will be living in “Human Habitats” and animals will roam free.

So where do American citizens figure in this? Basically, you don’t. Didn’t you think if anything this radical was being considered, we’d be part of the decision making? That it would be debated in the main stream media? That We the People would have to agree to it? Well, think again. We are being pushed into it. If the general public doesn’t become aware this is happening, we won’t be able to stop it. We asked Ambassador Bolton why it wasn’t being talked about on television and he said networks won’t allow it.

This is not a conspiracy theory. The Global Governance supporters would like us to believe it is a conspiracy theory, but it isn’t. One of the most effective ways they are pushing us into Global Governance is Global Warming. If they can convince enough of the world that man is destroying earth by using fossil fuels, they can pass treaties and world laws through the United Nations because, after all, this effects the entire world. The reality is that man is not causing global warming and there is no reason to restrict the use of fossil fuels……except to lower Western countries standard of living which is necessary in order to redistribute our wealth around the world…..and why would we agree to that unless we believed we were causing a global crisis? Understand it’s the IPCC who is telling us man is causing global warming. The IPCC is a United Nations panel, chosen by and funded by the United Nations.

We asked President Klaus if the citizens of his country were concerned about Global Warming. He said his citizens lived so long under Communism they aren’t likely to believe anything coming from a body like the United Nations. His country is not going to allow any Agenda 21 policies.

Recently, due to the growing public knowledge of Agenda 21 and the Republican Party having a plank in their platform that exposes and condemns Agenda 21, the United Nations has taken it off their website and the ICLEI website has removed it’s link to the United Nations. But it’s really too late. People have screen shots of it and the links and many downloaded it. I downloaded several chapters myself.

Tragically, the push toward Global Governance is all too real. Few have the courage to speak about it because those who support it will mock and marginalize them. God Bless those who do. We can’t stop it if we don’t know it’s real.

Advertisements

About madderthanhell

Retired casting director. Mother of two daughters. Grandmother of twin boys and two step grandsons. Lived in California all my life. Co-organizer of two Tea Parties. Past member of Republican Central Committee.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

  1. Al says:

    Agenda 21: Just the Facts

    Have you heard about Agenda 21 in the News? Not sure what to think? Here are some Myths and Facts:

    Myth: Agenda 21 seeks to promote “world government” through the creation of “a centralized planning agency [that] would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives.”

    Fact: This is a completely spurious charge. Agenda 21 encourages, rather than compels, UN Member States to take into consideration the environmental impacts of their land, resources, and transportation development policies. Adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, the document reflects a broad international consensus that worsening poverty and growing stresses on the environment require greater integration between environmental and development concerns. Such a comprehensive approach to development is necessary in order for countries to be able to continue to meet the basic needs of their citizens, improve living standards, and manage the planet’s natural resources in an efficient manner.

    Agenda 21 is not a treaty and is not legally binding. Rather, Agenda 21 sets out a general blueprint, or, in the words of Tariq Banuri, Director of the UN’s Division for Sustainable Development, “a common vision” for environmentally-sustainable growth. At the end of the day, implementation of any part of Agenda 21 is the prerogative of individual governments, not the UN itself. This is reflected in the document’s own preamble, which states that Agenda 21 “reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments.” The voluntary and non-binding nature of this agreement has also been confirmed by the Heritage Foundation, a staunch critic of Agenda 21. Indeed, a recent paper by three Heritage scholars argues that it is local, state, and federal initiatives to promote sustainable development, rather than Agenda 21 and other international efforts, that should be of greatest concern to opponents of sustainable development.

    Myth: Agenda 21 would supercede the domestic laws of the United States and other sovereign nations.

    Fact: As a non-binding agreement, Agenda 21 does not take supremacy over U.S. law. National governments are ultimately in charge of their own development, and neither the UN nor any other international organization has the right to encroach on the sovereignty of any country in the implementation of Agenda 21. This is once again confirmed by Tariq Banuri, who stated in an interview that “The basis of the international system is that all countries pursue whatever is in their national interest. A founding pillar of sustainable development is national sovereignty over natural resources.”

    Myth: Agenda 21 is an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism with strong anti-American and anti-capitalist overtones.

    Fact: Agenda 21 provides a blueprint for sustainable development—development that simultaneously promotes economic growth, improved quality of life, and environmental protection. Agenda 21 was adopted unanimously by all 178 countries that participated in the 1992 Rio Conference. U.S. President George H.W. Bush was among the 108 world leaders present at the conference when the document was adopted.

    Myth: The UN is bypassing national governments, using the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) “to make agreements directly with local governments” on implementing Agenda 21.

    Fact: It says nothing of the sort. Agenda 21 does not call for the confiscation or appropriation of land or property anywhere, in any country. It is fully consistent with personal freedoms and the right of citizens to own property, homes, cars and farms.

    Myth: Agenda 21 calls for the elimination of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, as well as family farms.

    Fact: Many municipalities and cities around the world have found that Agenda 21 is a very good guide for their own urban planning efforts and have joined an international group—ICLEI—to help implement some of its recommendations. ICLEI is not part of the UN. Many cities and towns throughout the U.S. belong to ICLEI, but their participation is not linked to any UN mandate.

    Media Contact

    Rebecca Einhorn
    Communications Director
    Better World Campaign
    reinhorn@unfoundation.org

    .

    Connect With Us

    .

    Sign Up for Updates

    Receive all the latest updates via email from the Better World Campaign.

    Sign Up!.

    Subscribe to UN Dispatch

    UN Dispatch provides coverage on the UN and UN-related issues

    Subscribe Today.

    Related News

    U.S. Election to UN Human Rights Council is a Win for All Americans

    November 12, 2012

    United Nations Foundation President Timothy E. Wirth Congratulates President Obama

    November 7, 2012

    OSCE Election Day Observation Remains Bipartisan Tradition

    October 24, 2012

    ..

    1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | 4th Floor
    Washington, DC 20036
    Work (202) 462-4900 | Fax (202) 462-2686

    © 2012 Better World Campaign, All Rights Reserved

    Privacy Policy
    Contact Us
    Our Key Issues
    What We Are Doing
    What You Can Do

    • Nice try. I’ve heard all this before.

      Yes, Agenda 21 is not a treaty and is not legally binding, however, it IS being implemented just the same. It wasn’t a treaty because it would have had to be ratified and they knew it wouldn’t be. It is being done piece by piece just as Progressives like to do. Clinton’s “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” created 12 Cabinet level positions to work with each Cabinet Department to implement Agenda 21 through regulations. Just as the EPA is implementing Cap and Trade through regulations.

      It is being implemented locally through ICLEI. I’ve been to the “SCAG” meetings. Unelected “regional” planning Commissions. I’ve seen their glossy video’s telling us all how much we’re going to love living in “walkable Communities”. You are correct when you say none of it is a mandate. That doesn’t mean it isn’t being pushed through by Progressive politicians in many ways.

      Agenda 21 is NOT consistent with “personal freedoms and the right of citizens to own property”. In order to have personal freedom and maintain private property we must have access to energy and energy is being rationed. We need cars and freedom to travel, which would be restricted as energy is being restricted. Maurice Strong the author of Agenda 21 said private property was the main source of wealth and injustice. Agenda 21 regulates people right off their private property. It’s happening now.

      In order for you Agenda 21 supporters to get it fully implemented you have to convince people that there is “nothing to see” and it is all harmless. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You and your Communist “Better World Campaign” can’t
      pretend Agenda 21 doesn’t seek to dictate how the entire world lives. There is too much evidence that proves you wrong.

      As my blog said, I’ve heard about it from people in a position to know. And they are people who believe in personal freedom. Clearly you don’t.

  2. Al says:

    I give this woman facts and she responds with people she deems as ghosts. (“nothing to see”) This is the same person who prayed really hard for President Obama not to win and then when he did, she blames all the people who voted for him. We the People voted for him and his therefore our president. He won in a Electoral College landslide and was the first incumbant to win over 50% of the votes since FDR. Let’s see how she responds to this or let’s see if she blocks it. I’ll let you know on my blog. People who make up their own facts need to be exposed. Madderthanhell is a grumpy old woman who makes up stuff and then calls them facts.

  3. I blame low information voters and fraud for Obama’s win. I also blame public employee unions and illegal immigration. We aren’t “We the People” anymore. Washington has allowed millions of low skilled, under educated people to come here illegally and they will vote for “free stuff”. I work with voter integrity and poll watch. I know what is happening first hand.

    I don’t make up facts, you do. I quoted people far more knowledgable than you. And you haven’t proven a single thing isn’t true. Agenda 21 is being implemented and has been being implemented for the last 20 years. It didn’t need to be ratified for it to become policy and you know it. It DOES strip our freedoms and property rights. Restricting our use of energy and water DOES restrict our freedom and choices.

    I’m not grumpy and although I am a grandmother, no one who knows me would call me old. I love my country. I love freedom and I will fight Communists like you from destroying this country and our freedom.

    • Al says:

      Okay, here are some documented facts on who are the “Low Information Voters” are: Could you please start a conversation and admit that the low information voters are those who believe the garbage on Fox News, are Tea Party Evangelicals who hide behind God whenever they are presented with irrfuteable facts and twist their opinions into their own facts. (By the way, God really hates stupid)

      Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term “LOW INFORMATION VOTER” is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters.[5]

      Thirty-year Republican House of Representatives and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren, in a 2011 article entitled “Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult”, characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science “religious cranks,” and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating Low Information Voters to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions.[6]

      People have tried everything imaginable to de-rail President Obama. Birth certificates, college transcripts, religious beliefs, fist bumping…heck, you name it. And true to his core, he rose above all of the clowns like Trump, Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Mitch McConnell etc. etc. It is easy to tell what a man’s true character is by watching how he treats his wife. Obama has more “class” in his left toe than the entire Tea Party combined. He replaced an idiot (GW Bush) who is the most reponsible for our current debt and our lazy economy…the guy who started with a huge budget surplus, started two wars and put a drug prescription program on a credit card he could not pay for. And then the extremists blame Obama? What is up with that?

      Happy New Year. Thank God, it’s going to be a great one!

      • I’m not lead by anyone. I do a LOT of research myself. My information doesn’t come from Fox. I take no one’s word for anything. My information has come directly from scientists and scholars and people working in the government.

        Actually, it’s Conservatives who DO believe in science. There is no “science” that proves man has any effect on climate or temperature. It has, in fact, been cooling the last 16 years. The IPCC claims are based on computer models and that isn’t “science”. Computer models aren’t even allowed in a court of law as evidence. Climategate showed that the men involved in the studies were manipulating the data. Al Gore said earth would be flooded by 2012 due to global warming. He got his data from the EXACT same “scientist” that said in 1979 that earth would freeze over by 2000. Wrong both times. Sorry, it’s Dems that don’t believe science, not Republicans.

        It’s Democrats and especially black Democrats that vote against their own best interest. They vote to keep themselves enslaved in welfare and social services. Unions vote in Dems that make them promises they can’t possibly keep. There will come a time those big pensions just won’t be there. Dems vote for socialism and it has been tried many times and NEVER worked. Look at Greece and Italy, and France, and…….etc. Republicans vote for smaller government, family values and fiscal responsibility. I don’t know how that is against their best interest.

        For your information, George Bush didn’t cause the financial meltdown. The Community Reinvestment Act did and it was originally a Carter policy implemented on steroids by Clinton. It’s not hard to understand that when you loan money to people who can’t afford to pay it back it will eventually bite you in the ass. But Clinton knew it would be AFTER he left office so he wouldn’t have to take any blame. Try reading “Reckless Endangerment” by a NY Times financial editor. Bush and the Republicans tried several times to stop or limit the Community Reinvestment Act, to strong Democrat opposition.

        Remember Bush’s last two years were under Democrat control. Reid and Pelosi controlled both houses and that is when the biggest deficits were incurred. I have to laugh when Democrats cite the Drug Entitlement as bad, bad, bad, when it was the Democrat controlled House and Senate that passed it and are only sad they didn’t credit for it. If Bush hadn’t done it, it would have been one of Obama’s babies. But as good little communists do, they BLAME it on Republicans because it’s good politics.

        As far as Obama being good to his wife? How do you know what goes on behind closed doors? And for that matter George and Laura are as close as two people can be. White House staff has said George and Laura were the best, kindest people to work for and Obama’s the worst. Michelle hates the secret service and is rude to them. So your opinion that Obama is a good man because he’s good to his wife should also apply in spades to Bush. Personally, IMO, it’s how you treat the help that shows the kind of person you are. It’s not hard to treat someone who loves you well.

        Sorry, but I don’t consider a man who has encouraged class and race warfare a “good man”. I don’t consider a man who demonized successful people and encourages the lazy to demand the fruits of other’s labor, a “good man”. Obama lies every time he opens his mouth. He’s lying about Fast and Furious, Benghazi and more. He gave amnesty to illegals when he has no Constitutional authority to do so and against the will of the people. He called the Republicans into his office and told them he won, they lost and he didn’t need their input. He passed the worst bill ever conceived against the will of the people and with not a single Republican vote. And he passed it using Chicago thug, threats, intimidation, etc. He gained office by getting sealed records unsealed and smeared his opponents, not by having better ideas. He supported a bill that denied medical treatment to babies that survived abortions. He isn’t a good man, he’s an evil man who is destroying our country.

        It has been my personal experience that Conservatives, especially Tea Party members are VERY well informed. Shockingly well informed. The majority of them are professional people. College graduates, business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc. Considering the majority of Democrat voters are union members, welfare recipients, blue collar workers, illegal aliens, etc. it’s clear who the “low information voters” are.

    • Al says:

      Happy New Year Michael. It’s been a pleasure reading your blogs and bantering with you this past year. I am actually on your side but I also want to challenge you on some of your stances on the things you believe and are led to believe by extremists on the right.
      I hope you and family have a wonderful 2013.

      • You’re on my side? HA!

        As I said, I’m lead by no one. If you think people who respect the Constitution, personal responsibility, self determination and fiscal responsibility are “extremists” you certainly aren’t on “my side”.

        I did, thank you have a wonderful New Years eve with my family and friends. I would wish you a happy 2013 but I doubt any of us will be happy in 2013.

  4. Al says:

    Here is some non-biased data about Global Warming. Are you a skeptic or are you simply a denier about Global Warming? I look forward to your response

    Q: How can I argue with a global warming skeptic? A:
    First, determine whether you’re talking to a skeptic, or a denier. A genuine skeptic is someone who can be convinced by evidence, and the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming. (If you’re dealing with a flat-earther, don’t waste your breath.)

    For detailed, point-by-point rebuttals to global warming naysayers, see Grist’s How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.
    http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CLes19HEzLQCFYpFMgod6goAlg
    You should also consult New Scientist’s Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed. It rounds up common climate myths and misperceptions.

    If these resources don’t answer your question, take a look at Real Climate, a blog by leading climate researchers that delves into climate science in great, and often technical, detail.

    • Have you read anything I’ve written? I have said I have spoken to actual scientists. For every “non-biased” link you can send me I can deluge you with links to non-biased data that says the opposite. I have been a skeptic from the beginning for good reason. I remember clearly being told that the world would freeze over by 2000. No rational person knowing we didn’t freeze over would believe we were now going to melt ESPECIALLY when the claim comes from the SAME man who predicted the freeze. I have done my own research and personally sought information from scientists actually involved in climate science.

      Is the Professor Emeritus in Physics at UCLA a good source? And he’s a Liberal. Do you actually think I haven’t turned up your “resources” in my research? Do you actually think I haven’t read what you posted before? The trouble is, YOU haven’t. You don’t know me or who I know and yet you assume you know more about this subject than I do. I assure you I have examined this subject from every perspective.

      Apparently you are not going to accept that my sources (actual scientists, heads of state and UN Ambassadors) are credible. I don’t have the time or inclination to argue with you. We go through warming and cooling periods caused by activity on the Sun and we always will. Man can do nothing about it.

      • Al says:

        Please re-read your entire blog. You did not give a name of one single “expert” with regards to climate change being caused by man. You keep saying you’ve talked to over 30,000 people who deny man-made climate change. Just give me a name or several names who are not associated with Fox or the Tea Party (both jokes) of some real scientists who deny man is causing global warming. If I am wrong, please point me in the correct direction. Thank you. (And how do I know President Obama is a good man and is good to his wife? I’ve been friends with him before he became a senator. They are a great couple and great people to be around. I am quite certain he would engage you in a very charming conversation if you had the chance to meet with him Michael.)

  5. Oh, yeah, you and Obama are buddies but you have nothing better to do than argue with me. LOL! And you ignore the fact that George (although I didn’t like him as POTUS, I admire him as a husband and friend) and Laura Bush are a very loving couple and beloved by White House Staff. Or that the Bushes have the good grace to ignore the lies being repeated and repeated by the Obamas. And you don’t have the good grace to admit your argument that the measure of a man is how he treats his wife should also apply to Bush. BTW, I wouldn’t engage Obama in conversation if he sent Air Force One to pick me up.

    Where did I “keep saying” I “talked” to 30,000 people? The only 30,000 I talked about were the 30,000 scientists who signed a petition saying man was NOT causing Global Warming, proving there is NO “consensus”. I didn’t speak to any of them personally and never said I did. I think YOU need to read more carefully. You want me to name some of the scientists I HAVE talked to? Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at UCLA, Francis Chen (specializes in Fusion). Ed Berry, atmospheric physicist. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, Prof. of Meteorology at Mass Institute of Tech. Matthew Malkan, Prof. of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA. Benny Peiser, one of the founders of the German Green Party (now against). Bjorn Lomborg, Danish Prof. of Environmental science (resigned from Greenpeace). And others.

    If you were really interested in knowing the truth it’s not hard to find. What I find amusing is that you assume that if I don’t believe man is causing Global Warming I haven’t investigated the claims of the IPCC, Al Gore and real scientists. The IPCC has been proven to have manipulated the data to show what they wanted…..so why do you keep believing them? Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” contained 9 inconvenient lies. The first one that jumped out at me were the two graphs that looked alike. One above the other. Usually when you compare two things you put them on the same graph in different colors so you can compare. He claimed when CO2 increased, temperature increase followed. If he HAD put temperature and CO2 on the same graph you would have seen that it’s the OPPOSITE. When the temperature increases, CO2 increases because higher the temperature the more water evaporation which releases CO2. Then, of course there were the sweet drowning polar bears, OH MY! Polar bears live half their life in the water and can swim 60 miles or more. They are in no danger of drowning. AND there are many more polar bears now than 30 years ago. If Global Warming were true why lie and manipulate data? And, of course, Al has shown his true colors this week. Not only does he use more energy in his single family home than most cities, fly around in his private plane, he sold Current TV to Al Jazeera. They paid with BIG Middle Eastern OIL money. Oh, yes, he really cares about GW.

    But since you are lazy here are a few things to ponder: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/busted-leaked-emails-snag-global-warming-alarmists/
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/
    http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/12198-big-green-exposed-journalist-blows-whistle-on-deception-destruction#.UBCpkTXZmc4.hotmail
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161379/This-meaningless-green-drive
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9966-breaking-eminent-scientist-may-be-jailed-for-faking-climate-emails
    http://t.co/8CpWHaq
    http://t.co/98ilX4h

  6. Please find another hobby. When you say ignorant, biased things like Fox and the Tea Party are jokes, you lose all credibility. Your comment shows how little you know about either and your lack of interest in the truth. Neither the Tea Party or Fox News are jokes. Nor are Liberals, CNN, MSNBC or the rest of the Liberal media, but when they don’t report on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, fraudulent Global Warming claims, etc. they render themselves irrelevant….and their ratings and drops in circulation reflect that.

    Please go play somewhere else. This has become tedious.

  7. Al says:

    Michael…this is not a “hobby” of mine. I think you make some good points for those who believe in voo doo. I am simply trying to have a conversation with you that either proves you or me wrong. I am seriously interested in your points of view on things such as man-made global warming.
    I just read all of the links you sent to me. All of them make good points but the answers to the morons who write these points all disprove what the author is trying to say.
    The global temperature is down 4 degrees in recent times and it is not a “cycle” as you put forward as a point. It may have been a “cycle” when you and I were born but now, science has proved that man-made global warming is a very serious phenomonen that can’t be ignored. We simply cannot ignore modern science. Google Greenland and see what is happening there. That is “proof” in my opinion.

    I promise not to be sarcastic with you henceforth. However, I think together, we can come to some common ground about the fact that man-made global warming is a fact.
    I also think that those who believe that those who believe in Fox News, Glenn Beck, Allen West , Michele Bachmann and other absolute moronic idiots are not worth my time. Anyone who believes these folks are the doomsdayers and have no college education are not worth your time or mine.

    • I have no interest in discussing this with you further. You have absolutely no credentials to persuade me that what real scientists have told me isn’t true. Or that if GW were true there is any reason to manipulate the data or lie about it. I have no idea what you mean about the answers to the information I sent you “disproved them”. What “disproves” scientists manipulated data and were fired? You didn’t “disprove” a single point that was made in the links I posted. Not a single point.I expected you to dismiss them all out of hand and you did. I know Allen West and Michele Bachmann personally and there are no finer people on the planet…..so by your comments, talking to me is not worth your time. You haven’t given a single example of anything on FOX that isn’t true while there is so much evidence that CNN, MSNBC, ETC, are not much more than propaganda. You are not going to change my mind and haven’t given a single piece of information that comes close to doing so. I have studied this issue for many years and I am far better informed than you are. No, I will not come to some sort of agreement with you that man is causing Global Warming. Funny that you just said there has been a 4 degreedrop (not warming, is it?). Climate WILL change and man can do nothing about it except adjust to it. Again, go away. I won’t post your comments on my blog anymore or respond to them.LEAVE ME ALONE!

      > Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:22:38 +0000 > To: mgreercasting@hotmail.com >

  8. Johna659 says:

    How significantly of an special post, keep on posting much better half adcdebaefkgg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s