What's New
Escaping the Cult
Current Trends
Bible Doctrines
Bible Explanations
Emergent church
Latter Rain
Word Faith
Popular Teachers
Pentecostal Issues
Trinity / Deity
World  Religions
New Age Movement
Book Reviews
Web Directory
Tracts for witnessing
Web Search
The Persecuted Church


For printing  our articles please copy the web page by highlighting  the text first - then click copy in the browser-  paste the article into a word  program on your computer. When the text is transferred into word, click to save or print.      







The Ghosts of planet earths past and future – “Global Warming”

Pt. 1 – General overview

By now, if you have not heard about global warming you must be from the ice age.

The politics of fear are changing our worldview by  the term “Global Warming.” While most will concede there is “Climate change” taking place, it depends on who you ask to understand exactly what kind of change is taking place.

"The earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun." (Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming)

The biblical view is that God made man of superior intelligence to care for the earth from which he was made from. The secular science view leaves God out of the equation and looks to nature as having the last say on what takes place for all her creatures. This leaves our focus on “mother earth” as the solution to any environmental problems and man is to submit to her greater intelligence.

The Environmental movement was once considered radical, fringe; it has now become mainstream. Now it is promoted by the government and politicians that fully believe in its message and it is being used to manipulate people into change, to a green economy and lifestyle. Fear is a good motivating principle to preserve life, when there is something to fear. But it can result in the opposite effect if there a made up fear. When fear is used to move masses of population toward a goal it becomes brainwashing.

Global warming has been a useful tool in the hands of globalists to reshape our world and its economy. It is now cleverly called "climate change” because of the obvious fluctuations of the weather but they still blame even the cold on global warming.

Is it the religion of Chicken little - “the sky is burning?” By the hysteria one would think so. Rep. Ed Markey, one of the sponsors of the American Clean Energy and Security Act states “The EPA concluded that our health and our planet are in danger. Now it is time for Congress to create a clean energy cure.”

We are constantly hearing reports like this one from the Pentagon, Reporting Global Warming has reached a threshold. Dire consequences elevate Global Warming to the greatest threat to U.S. national security - the greatest threat to all humanity - greater than terrorism!

We being convinced to change our entire business structure and way of life over global warming – which is a hoax. Of course some will react to this statement and repeat what they heard from the newly created philosophy and religion of Al Gore. Most have not heard from the “other scientists” in the media because they are being silenced. If you control the debate it is easier to shape public opinion. Not all scientists believe global warming is man made, but see the changes in sunlight reaching the surface deciding the temperature change.

Lord Christopher Monckthon, is the former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and is also Global warming’s most well known critic. He is well prepared to argue the other side. This is why he gets the doors shut on him. Rep. Joe Barton, Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee invited UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to go head to head with Gore and testify at the Global warming hearing at the Capitol on April 24, 2009. Monkthon’s plane landed in the US only to find Gore did not show up and he was blocked by House Democrats from allowing him to appear at the hearing in Washington. In an interview Monckton told Climate Depot “The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” “They are cowards.” Monckton has openly challenged Mr. Gore to a debate numerous times (most recently on Glenn Becks radio and TV program) and is lecturing everywhere he is allowed.

Remember, it was not too long ago we were told to use plastic because paper was killing too many trees and affecting the environment. Now they have reversed their position, we are told to not use plastic because of its toxicity. This is science by a yoyo. Consider the light bulb, which they have put in the center stage of green adjustments for the new era. Congress has outlawed incandescent bulbs by 2014, for the costlier replacing fluorescent light bulbs (Greenpeace campaigned against the incandescent light-bulb because it emits carbon dioxide). According to the British Government's own figures, more than half Britain's domestic light fittings cannot take them (light dimmers do not work with them).

What they neglected to tell everyone is that you can’t just throw them away, each bulb it contains about 5 milligrams highly toxic mercury and they cannot be disposed of as we would do for normal bulbs. The EPA recommends taking the bulbs to hazardous waste sites, but many of these facilities are not near where most live and won't accept them. They may need to be carried by the government to a toxic dumpsite. If the toxic mercury of these bulbs end up in landfills as they are supposed to, with enough time the chemical will leach into soil and water as poison. And what if a truck or plane that is transporting large amounts goes down, then what? There is no way to recover these toxic time bombs if leaked out in this manner. Also these bulbs need at least 15 minutes to be on, you cannot just turn a light on and off, if you need to leave the house right after you turn it on, you must leave it on otherwise it is possible to break; and if one of them breaks - call hazmat, because your green nightmare is just beginning.

That’s only one example of green progress for you – one step forward and two steps backward. Now we are hindered from drilling for oil or using natural gas because of the environmental concerns. We add ethanol made from corn (a main food source) to be used in our gas to diminish pollution the environment. (A tank of ethanol is equal to enough grain for one person in a year. It takes more oil to produce ethanol then it does to produce the same amount of gas). the price of gas continues to rise. So the best substitute is other alternative fuel sources, right? By going to ethanol, it does not reduce the amount of oil used by any significant amount.

Fossil fuel industries are involved to make money and for the most part the debate has been controlled and not fairly opened to the public to make a decision, in fact the deck has been rigged. This becomes the ultimate rendition for the “end justifies the means." With the take your medicine it’s good for you attitude, the facts are REMOVED to arrive at out “better destination” for the good of our planet.

Ethanol may be better for certain cars; gas is more corrosive, but we are being fed a lot of disinformation to intentionally change the balance of power. The facts do not matter when it come to the subject of “Global warming.” For some it is as close to a religious experience that they will ever come to.

Throughout the 1970s it was global cooling. 1974, Time magazine featured an article titled "Another Ice Age?" The mean temperature of the planet is reported to be about 54 degrees. Most are of the opinion that humans -- crops and animals depend on a temperature closer to 70.

President Obama’s UN speech Sept. 23 2009:

One of the four pillars is -Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we make take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied, and our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act – why we failed to pass on intact the environment that was our inheritance.

That is why. We the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050. We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency – and share new technologies – with countries around the world. And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the whole world.

President Obama's appointment of EPA Carol M. Browner gives weight to his words. Browner, is responsible for coordinating the administration's environmental and energy policies, was recently one of fourteen leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The Washingon Times explains, the commission "calls for global governance and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.” seeks "binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions

(Johnson, "Steven Chu: 'Coal Is My Worst Nightmare,"' online posting, December 11, 2008; Environmental Capital blog, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/1 I/steven-chu-coal-is-my-worst-nightmare/

Columnist Alston Chase, a reformed environmentalist, warns that “It may be only a matter of time before America becomes a complete theocracy — a place where, in the name of environmentalism, science and religion fuse with civil authority to rule the populace” (Alston Chase, Prophets for the temple of green,  The Washington Times, January 26, 1996, A 16.)

That was 12 years ago, and look at where we are now. Especially in the last few years as the media has sided with this environmental armegeddon.

The Green movement is an earth based spirituality that believes the whole of mankind and its various species are interdependent. It is offered to citizens of nearly every country as something everyone can be involved in and do their share to affect our planet - environmental spirituality. This neo paganism idea and many have no idea about its past history – it is religious. It is being presented as our responsibility to preserve mother earth, the animals, the ocean and air, because we (civilization) are the ones destroying it.

 In Thomas Berry’s influential book The Dream of the Earth, the first volume in the Sierra Club’s series on nature and philosophy, explains how “a new type of religious orientation…must emerge from our new story of the universe.”  (from Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth (San Francisco: Sierra Club)

“In the late twentieth century there is a growing awareness that we are doomed as a species and planet unless we have a radical change of consciousness. The reemergence of the Goddess is becoming the symbol and metaphor for this transformation...[and] has led to a new earth-based spirituality." (Elinor Gadon, The Once and Future Goddess)  

The religion of communism has been replaced by the religion of environmentalism. The "Reds" are now the "Greens."

The Earth Day Network is responsible for organizing and promoting Earth Day, an event it describes as “the largest environmental celebration on the planet, impacting practically every community in the Western World.” Earth Day celebrations teach to focus on "Mother Earth," and to convince school children that they are spiritually one with the Earth.

Earth Day is April 22, this date is significant - it is Lenin's birthday; who was anything but a environmentalist, he was a mass murdering Marxist. The green movement was birthed by radical environmentalists, feminists, Marxists, and peaceniks in the 60’s. Many saw Buddhism, Native American spirituality and Wicca as the alternative to Traditional religion’s i.e Christianity.

David Brower Born in Berkeley. In 1969 founded Friends of the Earth (FOE). Brower was the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club (1952- 1969) and spearheaded its efforts to shut down road construction and development in National Parks. In his later years Brower went on a pilgrimage to Nicaragua to praise and embrace its Fidel Castro - aligned Marxist Sandinista rulers.

Earth day has become a political holiday for environmentalists known as Watermelons – who are green on the outside but red on the inside. The Environmental movement has been the home of communists for some time now. Many commend Marxist dictatorships - capitalism is anathema to them. This is crucial to understand where this is actually heading.

Earth Day Network launched their Green Generation campaign, to engage students, churches, and communities - pressuring the world to adopt a new global climate treaty.

We need to take a deep breath and ask -Are we being manipulated to focus our attention on something that is not an emergency as the media claims.

It was Rham Emmanuel that said “You never want a serious crises to go to waste.” Globalist, David Rockefeller once stated, We are on the verge of a global transformation.  All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Spiritual socialism (environmentalism) is the goal for the change under the guise of global warming, convincing us to sacrifice our way of life to save the planet. I’m all for using less energy, or different energy but not if we are to sacrifice our standard of living and make the average citizen pay more for green energy, especially when we are doing this to save something that does not need saving. Global warming is man made – it is a man made hoax, driven by those who want to shift the population into being world citizens and be controlled by a world government. Don’t believe it- in this series of articles you will hear their own words and the facts that they have intentionally hidden from the public.

This is one crises that has a common adversary[s] to bring common motivation, to bring the divided nations together.

It is an enemy that we all can relate to and participate in to fight and win, or so we are told.

Are we being manipulated to focus our attention on something that is not an emergency as the media claims? All the evidence says yes.

The Club of Rome (an “elitist think tank”) wants to see a new social order established in the world that is working with the UN. In the book “The First Global Revolution:” “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 cause by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome, The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. (Alexander King/ Bertrand Schneider (founder/secretary-general of the Club of Rome), David Rockefeller, Gorbachev The First Global Revolution p. 115 1991).

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, 1998, and quoted by Terence Corcoran, “Global Warming: The Real Agenda,” Financial Post, 26 December 1998, from the Calgary Herald, December, 14, 1998.)

Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back up the greenhouse effect.” (Richard Benedick, Senior Advisor Joint Global Change Research Institute (from his report Who Needs Evidence?)

The “crises” is being used in several ways today. We are being told that we have a financial crises and a environmental crises. Both are exaggerated and manipulated to get an overwhelming response from us which gives certain people the ability to do things they would normally not be allowed to do by law. During anyissue-attention-cycle” in environmental campaigning, there is a phase in which the issue needs to be strategically exaggerated in order to establish it firmly on an agenda for action” (Robin Mearns (co-director of the Environment Group and Fellow of the U.K. based Institute of Development Studies).  (Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995), p.51   

"...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest" (Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989); 44. 

Quotes like these are abundant among those who have their lives invested in stopping this perceived crises.

As Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace stated, "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." Truth is relative and they can control what people believe by convincing them that something is the truth, even when it is not. Its advertising, and when the media is on your side you can accomplish just about anything, like a massive deception.

In an interview with Al Gore published in May of 2006 in Grist magazine (“a beacon in the smog An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore”) 

Q: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

A: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

This attitude certainly affects the credibility of the message and the scientific fact presented. “over-represent” the facts - in order to move public opinion toward his radical vision of the environmental future.

Sir John Houghton, the first chairman of IPCC "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."

Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research: “The data doesn’t matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

Richard Benedick Senior Advisor Joint Global Change Research Institute:

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to backup the greenhouse effect.”

There are far too many saying these same words.

Only a worldwide crises would persuade the masses to consent to such a "sacrificial transformation." Because of global warming, the future consequences are water shortages, famine and rising oceans are used to scare people into motivation to sacrifice all we can for our survival.

Creating a crises can move a mass of the population into believing it and that the government (financial) or they (environmental) can be part of the solution. This is called social engineering [the act of manipulating people into performing actions they normally would not do] convincing them by using cognitive dissonance; such as the “global warming hoax.”

As if their quotes are not enough, on Nov. 19 a hacker broke into computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit releasing 160 megabytes of confidential files onto the Internet – consisting of 1,079 emails and 72 documents. The e-mails leaked from this prominent climate change research center and proved the global warming campaign is fraudulent. The emails show a concerted effort by scientists (including IPCC), to manipulate data. Manipulation of evidence was in two ways, promotion and suppression. According to the Australian Investigate magazine, a file of documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit was hacked into, and revealed that scientists discussed a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures.

Author James Delingpole wrote in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have "manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate," said one e-mail.

Another e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

Phil Jones wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

After the leak Jones denied the emails provide evidence of collusion by climatologists to fix data.The response of Global warming promoters and enthusiasts from the leak is that it has much to do about nothing. It is inconsequential to their program and agenda.

What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious." (Wall Street Journal, Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' About those emails and 'peer review.' Nov.27, 2009)

The whole time they confronted the population about being in denial of the global warming crises, now we hear the truth from their own words among their colleagues. The heat is now on them, but are they feeling it?

To those who have walked on the environmental crises road, denial is a river in Egypt. But some are taking this more seriously; Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails.

More than likely those who control most of the media will turn this into a blip on the radar screen that in the end will not suffice in changing their direction, much less stop them from their goal. There is already too much money and clout invested in the hoax. Expect a massive blackout on this event.

What happened from the Whitehouse is equally astounding.
Obama told a press conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Obama boldly that the world has moved "one step closer" to a "strong operational agreement" on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit. Countries must "reach a strong operational agreement that will confront the threat of climate change while serving as a stepping-stone to a legally binding treaty."

Obama doesn't express outrage that the scientists and scientific data behind the climate change/green movement is all a Big Lie? Moreover, he displays his arrogance even more by redoubling his efforts to cram this climate change fascism down the throats of the American people. Efforts the anti-climate change scientists have shown will return our technology use to the year "1867!" (from the excellent article - Climate myth: 4 corners of deceit http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117323)

Can we cope with Copenhagen? The UN Climate Change Conference takes place in Copenhagen starting Dec. 7 where more than 190 countries agree to address global warming and sign a climate treaty. Emerging economies, such as China and India, which are among the biggest polluters, will not participate. Will Copenhagen turn into a drama with no real meaning, leaving the citizen spectators only to mock the liars! Will the liars for change get their way with little resistance because of the media blackout on the truth?

Recently one of global warming’s most outspoken critic, Lord Monckthan, told an audience of some 700 attendees at Bethel University in St. Paul. "Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, …. nobody won't sign it,"
"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. The third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."
if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution”

To see a YouTube video segment of Lord Monckton's address (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40)

Fox Business interview with Lord Monckton, in which he further expands his thoughts. (http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/27020954/british-lord-against-obama.htm#q=monckton)

This world government that is being created by the emphasis of an environmental crises will have greater powers than any one country involved, global taxes will be part of this tyranny on all of the energy created.

Facing Toward Copenhagen

England’s prime minister Brown told delegates to the Major Economies Forum talks in London that countries need to compromise with one another to reach a deal at December's conference to avoid "the catastrophe of unchecked climate change." As of Oct. 19 "There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next few decades," Brown said. "We cannot afford to fail. If we fail now, we will pay a heavy price. ... If we falter, the Earth will itself be at risk”

Those who are the alarmists seem to have the most invested in this matter and know the least about the climate. Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy…Hedegaard is adamant that Copenhagen will “seal the deal”.

“If the whole world comes to Copenhagen and leaves without making the needed political agreement, then I think it’s a failure that is not just about climate. Then it’s the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century. And that is and should not be a possibility. It’s not an option,” Connie Hedegaard tells cop15.dk in an interview.

“If we don’t deliver in Copenhagen, then I cannot see when again you can build up a similar pressure on all the governments of this world to deliver. So I think we should be very, very cautious not to miss the opportunity,” says Hedegaard, adding that “it would be irresponsible not to use the momentum now.” http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2257

Coca-Cola spearheads 1-world climate tax
100 companies push '16 days left to seal deal' on $10 trillion treaty November 17, 2009

Coca-Cola is spearheading a coalition of more than 100 companies pushing a United Nations climate treaty to bind the U.S. to cap-and-trade emissions regulation, commit the world's wealthiest nations to a potential $10 trillion in foreign aid and, possibly, form a proposed international "super-grid" for regulating and distributing electric power worldwide.

Together with the SAP and Siemens corporations, Coca-Cola launched a website called Hopenhagen, leading up to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which opens on Dec. 7. The website invites the citizens of the world to sign a petition demanding world leaders draft binding agreements on climate change and advertises, as of today, "16 days left to seal the deal."

Other "friends" of Hopenhagen include media outlets Newsweek, Discovery Channel, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Seventeen, The Wall Street Journal and Clear Channel, among others, Internet giants Yahoo, Google and AOL and dozens of other companies and organizations.”

Will Lord Christopher Monckton’s warning us of the real purpose of the U.N.'s meeting in Copenhagen to lay the foundation for a one-world government go unheeded? We all know what the bible says on these matters, one way or another it will transpire. The Copenhagen agreement would cede U.S. sovereignty, mandate a massive wealth transfer from the United States to pay reparations for "climate debt" to Third World countries and create a new "world government" to enforce the treaty's provisions. Since we have a president whose platform is social justice there is no reason to resist this policy, in fact he would insist on it.

Nov.5 The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved climate change legislation Thursday with no Republicans voting for the bill or even participating in the process. The Republicans boycotted the proceedings.”

European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around €100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming. The US will be transferring tens of billions of dollars a year (more like hundreds of billions). Economic justice means a redistribution of wealth- which means socialism.

But this is not any socialism; it is Spiritual socialism (environmentalism). This is the basis for the change under the guise of global warming and sacrificing our way of life to save the planet. I’m all for using less energy but not if we are to sacrifice our standard of living and make the average citizen pays more for green energy, to save something that does not need saving- global warming is a man made hoax, driven by those who want to shift the population into being world citizens and be controlled.

Yet there is another side to this. On Sept. 22, 2009 President Evo Morales of Bolivia said, “president Obama I expect like any other president that is part of the UN regardless of this debate of climate change, he has good observations but no solutions, we are convinced if we are to save humanity it is important to save the planet earth, what hurts this planet is capitalism

Free enterprise, business is the problem. Many see this as to be a return to a more simpler time, a time without technological advances; in other words, third world economics for all. New technology is good as long as it will not cost more than the old and put a burden on people’s lives, especially in a time of financial hardships. But the claims to reduce carbon will only reduce our lifestyle and limit or even take away the advances we have made.

“We must make this an insecure and uninhabitable place for capitalists and their projects. This is the best contribution we can make towards protecting the earth and struggling for a liberating society” (Ecotage, an offshoot of Earth First!)

The attack is on free enterprise - capitalism- many want social justice and have the rich distribute their wealth - they see the green movement as the perfect vehicle to reach their goals.

President Klaus of the Czech Republic is the author of the book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles. Klaus argues that radical environmentalism is masking socialism, communism, and even fascism. “I understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human freedom.

A religion? Absolutely. in its primitive stages of introduction it was a philosophy an ideology, but it is more. Those who are the leading promoters know exactly what this means.


Pt.2 A new religion is born or an old one


Copyright (c) 2011 No portion of this site is to be copied or used unless kept in its original format in the way it appears. Articles can be reproduced in portions for ones personal use, any other use is to have the permission of the author first. Thank You.

If you would like to Support


We would like to hear from you. Please send us an e- mail and let us know how we can be of  more help. Our time is valuable just as yours is. Please keep in mind, we only have time to answer sincere inquiries. We will use discretion in answering any letters. 

NOTE: we do not accept attachments,  please send the mail viewable in email.