cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> World NEWS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:31 pm    Post subject: The GREEN AGENDA  Reply with quote


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

The First Global Revolution

Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good honest decent citizen.
Everyone wants to 'out-green' each other.
The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions.
But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?

While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR),
a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.

The Club of Rome is not some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians.
They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations.
When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

YOU NEED TO READ THIS here on this link,
then read UN AGENDA 21 - CODEX


WATERMELONS - Green outside but RED inside  (commie)

              Posted   <*)))><   by  

ZionsCRY  NEWS with Prophetic Commentary

Last edited by CJ on Mon May 11, 2015 5:57 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW - there was a 1994 Steven Seagal movie, "On Deadly Ground", a very pro-environment movie. And very bad movie entertainment wise, however, Seagal gave a very effective speech at the end over the criminals who are intentionally destroying our environment in many ways for greed and power. And it did have alot of truth to it.

HOWEVER - there were numerous dangerous subliminal "let's work together for the common good-worship mother gaia-theosophy" messages in this very last 5 minute or so clip where Seagal made this speech.

5 minute clip of Seagal's speech in the movie

This is exactly what the Illuminati does - they have no problems glorying in their shame in terms of letting out all their little secrets. However - their INTENT is to get as many people on board with their New Age "let's all just get along" utopian agendas. Satan knows his time is short, so obviously, his goal is to drag as many people to Hell with him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32229

PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The green movement, environ mental cases, is part of Earth worship - Gaia - whom they call a goddess.
It is very corrupt.  Christians should completely avoid it.
Even the animal channel promotes this, airing whale wars.
This bunch of anarchists puts life of animals ABOVE HUMANS FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED.



Last edited by CJ on Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Host: Noah Hutchings
Guest: Grant Jeffrey

The worldwide effort to combat manmade global warming is history's most far-reaching scientific hoax. Grant Jeffrey documents the orchestrated campaign of political pressure, flawed science, deleted and falsified temperature data - all designed to promote an environmental lie and, thereby, bring the West to its knees.
Bible in the News: The Fool and Our Money by Noah Hutchings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The next global trade war
The U.S. is already up in arms over the EU plan to charge all airlines for carbon emissions

Friday, Aug 12, 2011  (* salon is not a good news source)
Not usually accused of being unilateralist and unwilling to negotiate, the EU has sparked what is shaping up to be the next big international trade dispute.

On Jan. 1, the EU will require airlines operating out of all airports in its 27 member states to financially offset their flights' carbon dioxide emissions.
The move brings aviation into the EU's existing "Emissions Trading Scheme" (ETS) that has been applied to many other industries since it was first implemented in 2005.
EU Environment Commissioner Connie Hedegaard says it's high time "the polluter-pays principle" applies in the skies too

"How can we ever hope to make ordinary citizens of the world play their part in tackling climate change," she writes on her website (in English and Chinese), "if the financier from Hong Kong or London or the business man from Guandong [sic] or Frankfurt is not asked for any contribution whatsoever in respect of the significant emissions that he incurs on an intercontinental flight?"

Other governments have blasted the EU's go-it-alone approach. Airlines have consistently resisted being included in the ETS as the system has evolved. Now that it's due for implementation, many non-EU governments have rejected the plan, most vocally the United States, China, India and Russia.

Their main complaints: The EU is asserting the right to assess these fees in the absence of a global agreement, or any reciprocal measures by other governments, to do so; it will be charging for the entire length of a flight, not just the portion in European airspace; and the earnings from the carbon dioxide charge will go directly into the coffers of EU governments, with no requirement that the money be spent to combat global warming, on research and development, new aviation technology or any other tool to protect the environment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

8/13/11 - Australia

A NEW Federal Government green scheme threatens to hit the market price of older homes.

The Government aims to introduce, by as soon as next year, mandatory energy star ratings for homes being sold or rented out.

Vendors and landlords would have to pay about $200 to have their property assessed, with a total cost to homeowners and property investors of $1.1 billion over 10 years.

Housing experts said older four-bedroom, two-bathroom homes - often referred to as McMansions - would score poorly. The ratings system would be similar to that used to identify the energy efficiency of whitegoods.

Mick Fabar, director of private energy-ratings firm Green Homes Australia, said: "Through our experience with our rating tool those two-storey McMansions out at Kellyville would not get over zero."

There are significant financial implications for owners of these homes - and most older dwellings which are also likely to rate lowly.

Homeowners would need to spend up on going green or face the prospect of a lower sale price.

A Federal Government study into a similar scheme operating in the ACT since 1999, which rates properties out of 10, found a one-star difference affected selling prices by 3 per cent.

If mirrored in Adelaide, a one-star variation on a $400,000 house would equal $12,000.

Star ratings have been criticised for failing to factor in actual consumption, leading to questions about whether the changes would reduce power use.

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the system would "allow buyers and renters to better compare different properties, making it easier to identify a property which uses less energy or water and thereby save money."

Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said it would create "enormous uncertainty". "It could push up the cost of rent for people when they are feeling cost-of-living pressures," he said.

"It's another cost imposed on people from the government."

NSW member for Hawkesbury, Liberal Ray Williams, said: "It's an absolute disgrace that the federal government could try to impose this to try to claim some green credibility.

"It shows how out of touch this government is."

Raine & Horne CEO Angus Raine suggested Sydneysiders were so consumed with getting on the property ladder that star ratings would be discounted by buyers.

"People look at the physical property first and then (a mandatory disclosure system) is going to be one of their second or third considerations in their purchasing matrix," Mr Raine said.

A July 2011 "consultation regulation impact statement" prepared for the federal and state governments forecast the system would affect about 416,000 NSW homes in its first year of operation - about 129,000 sales and 287,000 leases - at a cost of nearly $300 million.

Beaumont Hills resident Scott Silva said yesterday the government had no right to introduce a mandatory energy rating system.

"It's up to private industry to make sure their products are energy efficient and not the government. The idea is useless," he said.

While owners of McMansions are much maligned by greenies, many self-proclaimed environmentalists would not measure up against the Silvas, who have a range of energy-saving measures in their home.

Mr Silvan and his wife Francine purchased a 1.5kW solar system for their roof through company Easy Being Green in March.

They also have switched to energy-efficient bulbs. They encourage their children to turn off the lights. They reduce water and power bills by monitoring shower times. Installing a water tank is on the to-do list.

According to the Australian Energy Market Commission, the average annual NSW electricity bill will go from $1486 to $1810 in 2012-13.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions may tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report for Nasa

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 August 2011 19.04 BST

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact".

In their report, Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Beneficial encounters ranged from the mere detection of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), for example through the interception of alien broadcasts, to contact with cooperative organisms that help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.

Another beneficial outcome the authors entertain sees humanity triumph over a more powerful alien aggressor, or even being saved by a second group of ETs. "In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology," the authors write.

Other kinds of close encounter may be less rewarding and leave much of human society feeling indifferent towards alien life. The extraterrestrials may be too different from us to communicate with usefully. They might invite humanity to join the "Galactic Club" only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with. They could even become a nuisance, like the stranded, prawn-like creatures that are kept in a refugee camp in the 2009 South African movie, District 9, the report explains.

The most unappealing outcomes would arise if extraterrestrials caused harm to humanity, even if by accident. While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable.

To bolster humanity's chances of survival, the researchers call for caution in sending signals into space, and in particular warn against broadcasting information about our biological make-up, which could be used to manufacture weapons that target humans. Instead, any contact with ETs should be limited to mathematical discourse "until we have a better idea of the type of ETI we are dealing with."

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

Even if we never make contact with extraterrestrials, the report argues that considering the potential scenarios may help to plot the future path of human civilisation, avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Climate Change Might Be Replacing Gay Marriage As the Next Big Social Issue
By Lincoln Mitchell | 09/19/14 8:14am

Only ten years or so ago, the easiest way to drive up conservative turnout in most states was to place an initiative on the ballot seeking to either legalize or ban marriage equality. That initiative would draw conservatives to the polls to vote, one way or the other, against marriage equality, and while there, pull the lever or check the box for the rest of the Republican ticket. As recently as 2008, California a state that Barack Obama carried in that election by a margin of 24 percent, passed Proposition 8, an initiative that outlawed marriage between two men or two women by 52 percent  to 48 percent.

By 2014, things have changed, as marriage equality is disappearing from center stage of the political debate. It is not only no longer an issue that helps swing voters move Republican, but these days it is rarely used even to mobilize the conservative base. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll that was full of bad news for Democrats and President Obama, held good news for supporters of marriage equality. Fully 56 percent of respondents said they thought it should be legal for same sex couples to marry, while only 37 percent opposed the idea. Marriage equality may not be settled law, but it is close to settled opinion. Age replacement in the electorate over the next few years will expand support for marriage equality, as older voters oppose it more than younger voters do.

As marriage equality fades away as the signature issue of social conservatives, it is not yet clear what issue will replace it, but it is very possible that climate change will fill that role. Climate change is not, on its face, a social issue, but it is highly partisan and reinforces rifts between secular liberals and religious conservatives. It is in this context that both New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s refusal to have New Jersey participate in the Regional Gas Initiative, a cap and trade program in which nine states are participating, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s use of the term “science deniers” to describe the Obama administration this week should be seen. These possible 2012 candidates for the Republican nomination, particularly Mr. Christie, need to establish their conservative bona fides; and climate change provided the best way to do that. It is very likely that between now and November of 2016 other Republicans presidential candidates will do the same as Climate Change transitions from being a scientific and economic issue to being the next front in the culture wars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FYI - I read last week that the NWO establishment has shifted their "culture wars" focus from the sodomy agenda to this "climate change" nonsense...

Global marches draw attention to climate change

NEW YORK (AP) — Tens of thousands of activists walked through Manhattan on Sunday, warning that climate change is destroying the Earth — in stride with demonstrators around the world who urged policymakers to take quick action.

Starting along Central Park West, most came on foot, others with bicycles and walkers, and some even in wheelchairs. Many wore costumes and marched to drumbeats. One woman played the accordion.

But their message was not entertaining:

"We're going to lose our planet in the next generation if things continue this way," said Bert Garskof, 81, as a family member pushed his wheelchair through Times Square.

He had first heard about global warming in 1967, "when no one was paying much attention," said Garskof, a native New Yorker and professor of psychology at Connecticut's Quinnipiac University.

Organizers said more than 100,000 marched in New York, including actors Mark Ruffalo and Evangeline Lilly. They were joined in midtown Manhattan by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, former Vice President Al Gore and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

On Tuesday, more than 120 world leaders will convene for the United Nations Climate Summit aimed at galvanizing political will for a new global climate treaty by the end of 2015.

"My sense is the energy you see on the streets, the numbers that have amassed here and in other cities around the world, show that something bigger is going on, and this U.N. summit will be one of the ones where we look back and say it was a difference maker," de Blasio said.

The New York march was one of a series of events held around the world to raise awareness about climate change.

In London, organizers said 40,000 marchers participated, while a small gathering in Cairo featured a huge art piece representing wind and solar energy.

Celebrities in London including actress Emma Thompson and musician Peter Gabriel joined thousands of people crossing the capital's center, chanting: "What do we want? Clean energy. When do we want it? Now."

"This is important for every single person on the planet, which is why it has to be the greatest grass roots movement of all time," Thompson said. "This is the battle of our lives. We're fighting for our children."

In New York, a contingent came from Moore, Oklahoma, where a massive tornado killed 24 people last year, as did hundreds of people affected by Superstorm Sandy, which the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British meteorological office said was made more likely by climate change.

In Australia, the largest rally was in Melbourne, where an estimated 10,000 people took to the streets with banners and placards calling on their government to do more to combat global warming.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was a particular target of the protesters. Abbott's center-right coalition has removed a carbon tax and has restricted funding for climate change bodies since coming to power last year.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> World NEWS All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum