Archive for the ‘Finally Some Good News’Category

NJ Watchdog Sues State Over Carbom Auction “Secrets”

New Jersey Watchdog’s battle over the “secret” records of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s cap-and-trade auctions will be waged in a Trenton courtroom.

Investigative reporter Mark Lagerkvist filed suit against the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protectionin Mercer County Superior Court for “wrongfully and knowingly” denying access.  Under the state Open Public Records Act (OPRA), Lagerkvist is asking the court to order NJDEP to release documents showing who bought what at RGGI’s auctions of carbon dioxide emission allowances.

In its first eight auctions, RGGI sold $662 million in CO-2 allowances, including $72 million in New Jersey permits.  Those costs are eventually passed along to consumers in higher electric rates.

At the auctions, utilities competed with speculators and financial heavyweights like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lunch and JPMorgan Chase, as reported by New Jersey Watchdog last month in an investigative report – “The Secrets Ten States & Wall Street Don’t Want You to Know.” Authorities have refused to identify auction winners and how many permits each purchased.

New Jersey Watchdog initially sought the records from RGGI, but the New York-based regional non-profit cooperative contends it is not a public agency subject to OPRA.  The next request went to NJDEP, the agency that supervises New Jersey’s participation in RGGI.

NJDEP claims it does not have the requested records – despite regulations mandating the agency to approve auction results, issue permits to winning bidders and oversee the allowance tracking system.

http://watchdog.org/6434/nj-watchdog-sues-state-over-carbom-auction-secrets/

Secret History of the IRA (Part 1 of 5)

Irish protesters hurl bottles, eggs, shoes at Tony Blair during book signing

“That look of fear & uneasiness on rat face Blair will be the new “in” look for politicians in the fall season… fuckin’ rat…”

-Fred Face 9/6/10

By Agence France-Presse

More than 200 noisy demonstrators, many chanting slogans criticising Blair over the 2003 Iraq war, had gathered for the event and witnesses said plastic bottles and flip-flops were thrown at him as his motorcade arrived.

None of the objects — also reported to include eggs and shoes — landed near the former premier as protestors surged towards a security barrier separating them from him before being repelled by police.

One woman said she tried to make a citizen’s arrest on Blair once he was inside the bookshop where the event was taking place.

“After I went through airport-like security to get to Mr Blair, I told him I was there to make a citizen’s arrest on him for war crimes committed in Iraq,” said Kate O’Sullivan, an activist from the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

“Mr Blair looked down and I was immediately grabbed by five security men and dragged away.”

A police spokesman would not give a precise figure for the number of people who were arrested at the protest but said it was in single figures.

Blair was carrying out the signing to publicise “A Journey”, his account of his decade in Downing Street from 1997 to 2007, which was released earlier this week.

In the book, he said he “can’t regret” the decision to go to war in Iraq alongside thenUS president George W. Bush but acknowledged that he did not foresee the “nightmare” which was unleashed in the aftermath.

He will hold another book signing in London Wednesday which anti-war activists are also pledging to target.

In Dublin, the demonstrators waved placards with slogans such as “Blair lied, millions died” and “Lock him up for genocide” and chanted amid a heavy police presence.

Part of the city’s main thoroughfare, O’Connell Street, where the bookshop is located, was sealed off and access inside was being tightly controlled.

Several hundred people braved pouring rain to queue at a back entrance to the store in the hope of getting their book signed by Blair.

Killian Kiely, a 21-year-old from south Dublin, was among those who got to meet him.

“I wanted to see him, he is one of the most important leaders of his generation though there is a lot I would disagree with about his policies,” he said. “I just wanted to see him in the flesh.”

But many hoping to meet Blair were left disappointed when he left after about an hour-and-a-half of signing.

In his first live television interview promoting the book on Friday, Blair brushed off the opposition he still faces from anti-war campaigners, seven years after the Iraq invasion.

“One of the first things that you learn in politics is that those who shout most don’t deserve necessarily to be listened to most,” he told Irish state television RTE.

“Everyone should be listened to equally, irrespective of the volume of noise.”

In a fresh sign of continuing opposition, over 2,500 people have joined a group on social networking website Facebook calling for shoppers to move Blair’s book to the crime section in bookshops.

Blair, who reportedly received a 4.6 million pound (5.6 million euro, 7.2 million dollar) advance for the book, will donate all proceeds to the Royal British Legion, a charity helping war veterans.

Despite continuing controversy over the Iraq conflict, Blair is particularly hailed by many in Ireland for his key role in the Northern Ireland peace process.

This video of raw footage from the Irish protest of Tony Blair’s first book signing was published to YouTube by Russia Today on Saturday, Sept. 4, 2010.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/bottles-eggs-shoes-hurled-tony-blair-ireland-appearance/

{{{{{{{{{interlude}}}}}}}}}}}

Tony Blair pelted with eggs and shoes as anti-war protester attempts citizen’s arrest during publicity trail for controversial memoir

EU austerity policies risk civil war in Greece, warns top German economist Dr Sinn

“The proud patriotic people of Greece may start a world wide revolution… (a good thing).”

-F.F.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Cernobbio, Italy

“This tragedy does not have a solution,” said Hans-Werner Sinn, head of the prestigious IFO Institute in Munich.

“The policy of forced ‘internal devaluation’, deflation, and depression could risk driving Greece to the edge of a civil war. It is impossible to cut wages and prices by 30pc without major riots,” he said, speaking at the elite European House Ambrosetti forum at Lake Como.

“Greece would have been bankrupt without the rescue measures. All the alternatives are terrible but the least terrible is for the country to get out of the eurozone, even if this kills the Greek banks,” he said.

Dr Sinn said Greece is an entirely different case from Spain and Portugal, which still have manageable public debts and can bring their public finances back into line with higher taxes.

“Greece would have defaulted in the period between April 28 and May 7, had the money not been promised by the European Union,” he said, describing the failure of the EU’s bail-out strategy to include a haircut for the banks as an invitation to moral hazard.

“There should be a quasi-insolvency procedure for countries. Creditors have to accept a haircut before any money flows for rescue plans, otherwise we’ll never have debt discipline in the eurozone,” he said.

Greek society has so far held together well, despite a wave of strikes and street violence in the early months of the crisis. However, unemployment is rising fast and political fatigue with such austerity policies typically sets in the second year.

Under the rescue deal, the eurozone pledged €80bn of new loans at 5pc interest and the International Monetary Fund offered a further €30bn.

The joint bail-out was hoped to safeguard Greece against the pressure from global capital markets for two and half years, but the relief rally proved short. Spreads on longer-term Greek government debt have surged back to crisis levels of about 800 basis points, implying a high risk of default.

“We are in the second Greek crisis right now, today,” said Dr Sinn.

Greece is undergoing what amounts to an IMF austerity package but without the IMF cure of debt restructuring or devaluation that usual for a country with a spiralling public debt and a chronic loss of competitiveness.

The IMF says Greece’s debt will rise to 150pc by 2013-2014 even if Athens complies fully, a strategy viewed as self-defeating by several ex-IMF officials. There is a strong suspicion that the real objective is to bail-out North European banks with heavy exposure to Southern Europe, rather help Greece.

Dr Sinn said the Germany is now was super-competitive after clawing back 18pc in competitiveness during its long slump. “We’re in a new phase of history. The toggle switch has turned and we are going to see a mirror image of the last 15 years. This time it is Germany that will have an internal boom,” he said.

Germans will not recyle their savings in the Club Med region. They will invest at home.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7980291/EU-austerity-policies-risk-civil-war-in-Greece-warns-top-German-economist-Dr-Sinn.html

I AM C4L – Introduction

Press For Truth Covers The G20 Mass Court Appearances

C4L Rising

Ban TV to protect children’s health, top psychologist tells EU politicians

“Sounds about right.”

-F.F.

TV should be banned for toddlers and severely rationed for other youngsters to protect their health and family life, a leading psychologist will tell MEPs today.

Dr Aric Sigman claims that millions of children spending hours slumped in front of TVs and computers is ‘the greatest unacknowledged health scandal of our time’.

He says it is linked to ills ranging from obesity and heart disease to poor grades and lack of empathy.

Some British children spend as much as seven-and-a-half hours a day in front of a screen  -  the equivalent of a full year of 24-hour days by the age of seven.

Dr Sigman, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society, believes that the youngest children, whose brains are undergoing massive development, should not watch any TV at all.

From the ages of three to 12, boys and girls should be limited to an hour a day, rising to an hour and a half for teenagers.

The psychologist will tell an EU parliamentary working group on the ‘quality of childhood’ that TVs and computers should be kept out of bedrooms until a child is 15.

‘Governments throughout Europe regularly advise their citizens on the most intimate health matters: from daily grams of salt intake and units of alcohol to number of sexual partners,’ he will say.

‘Yet when it comes to children’s main waking activity, politicians are mysteriously lost for words.

‘Irrespective of what our children are watching or doing on the screen, a clear relationship is emerging between daily hours of screen time and negative medical, psychological, behavioural and educational consequences.

‘The more hours per day, the more likely the risk of these negative consequences and the greater their intensity.

‘Most of the damage linked to screen viewing seems to occur beyond exposure of one-and-a-half hours per day, irrespective of the quality of the content. Yet the average child is exposed to three to five times this amount.’

Dr Sigman’s work and studies by other researchers around the world link TV and computer time with problems including obesity, high cholesterol and blood pressure, inattentiveness, declines in maths and reading, sleep disorders and autism.

A recent US study found that many youngsters are so engrossed in surfing the internet, playing computer games and watching TV, that they don’t even notice when their father comes home from work.

France banned TV programmes aimed at under-threes two years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1307550/Ban-TV-protect-childs-health-psychologist-urges-European-politicians.html

Dear Southern Poverty Law Center and Department of Justice

Sally O’Boyle
Activist Post

Re: SPLC list of “Active Patriot Groups” and DOJ’s “Criminal Extremist List

I am wondering if you will start a Patriot Persons list to go along with your Patriot Groups list? If so, I’d like to apply. If your criteria* is the same for People as for Groups, I might be a pretty good fit!

I am definitely against any “New World Order” or “One World Government” scheme. The U.S. must remain a sovereign nation as outlined in our Constitution. (Besides, and I don’t mean to be catty here, but the idea doesn’t seem to be working out so bloody well for the EU.) Do you know if there is an active attempt by the U.S. government to join into a world government? If so, please let me know! I’d like to sign and circulate a petition against that.

I don’t engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing; all the conspiracies about which I theorize have grounds. Do you think you could make an exception? And which conspiracies are the groundless ones? A list somewhere on your site would be helpful.

Also, how do you define “extreme anti-government doctrines”, please? Can you give any examples? I am personally extremely pro-Constitutional governance, something which has been in short supply during the last few administrations, including the current one. I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?

I am glad to see Oath-Keepers made the list of Patriot Groups! I am a member of Oath-Keepers. They are educating military and law-enforcement personnel about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, encouraging them to keep their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank goodness! Since the Constitution is no longer adequately taught in our schools (having just educated two teenagers, I can attest to that fact), I am thrilled to see that someone has taken on this monumental task!

Could you let me know if I make the list? You can find me at Campaign for Liberty or at Liberty-Candidates.org.

I hope I’m not asking too much, but maybe you could give a plaque or something? Or how about a pin that we could wear all the time identifying us as Patriots who made your list? Then we could easily spot each other. That would be way cool. Thanks!

God bless,
Sally O’Boyle

P.S. Thanks for printing that list of Patriot Groups broken out by state. Now I can find friends no matter where I am. Kind of like an A.A. meeting list! Now, I’m thinking I should join a militia. Don’t mean to be greedy, but would I get extra points for that?

*Criteria: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.” (http://tinyurl.com/patriotgroups)

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/dear-southern-poverty-law-center-and.html


Finland Suspends Swine Flu Shots After Vaccine Linked With Neurological Disorder

“Wow a government toying with honestly… wish we had one…”

-F.F.

Minister of Health and Social Services Paula Risikko says it is essential to thoroughly examine suspicions that increased outbreaks of child narcolepsy might be linked to the H1N1 swine flu vaccine.

However, the Minister said the swine flu vaccination programme would continue. In her view, Risikko thought it wise to examine any connection between narcolepsy and swine flu vaccine in other European countries.

The National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) is to determine if vaccine for the H1N1 swine flu could be linked to an increase in cases of narcolepsy among children.

The condition causes excessive daytime sleepiness even after adequate nocturnal sleep.

Although the THL’s Vaccine Department Director Terhi Kilpi does not fear any connection between the H1N1 jab and narcolepsy, she says doubts must be examined.

Experts on both vaccines and narcolepsy met on Wednesday to discuss the issue.

Doubts arose when a Finnish child neurologist noticed an increased level in the number of narcolepsy cases this year. Similar observations have been noticed in Sweden, reports the tabloid Iltalehti.

Medical officials in Sweden are also examining a possible link between the Pandemrix vaccine and narcolepsy, according to the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. The Swedish news agency TT reports six cases with a possible link to the vaccine.

A patient suffering from narcolepsy may suddenly fall asleep, for example, while, speaking or eating without prior warning. Their muscles may also suddenly weaken, causing them to suddenly collapse. There is no known cure for the disease.

Several Times Normal Rate of Cases

About a dozen Finnish children fell ill with narcolepsy during or after last winter’s swine flu epidemic, far more than the average rate. The THL is trying to determine whether the cases may have been related to the H1N1 vaccine or to the flu itself.

The cases were diagnosed during the spring and early summer. Dr Markku Partinen, a docent in neurology at the University of Helsinki and former president of the World Association of Sleep Medicine, notes that the cases appear to have a chronological link to the H1N1 epidemic.

Doctors began to wonder when an unusually large number of cases of narcolepsy began to appear last spring.

“When it became clear that the symptoms began to appear in December, January and February, we began to consider a link to the swine flu epidemic,” says Partinen.

So far about 12-14 cases have been detected, all with symptoms that began between December and February, says Partinen. The patients are aged 5 to 15.

On average about three cases of the illness are diagnosed in Finland annually.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/08/minister_calls_for_thorough_examination_of_possible_link_between_h1n1_and_narcolepsy_1912099.html?print=true

The Left/Right Paradigm is Collapsing! Obamanoids are Waking Up

“She’s a little slow going but she’s on point.”

-F.F.

The Anti-Fed Revolution

By Anthony Gregory

End the Fed by Ron Paul
(New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 212 pages.

Through his 2008 presidential campaign, Ron Paul managed to make monetary policy a national political issue. For nearly a century it had been a relatively obscure topic, and throughout my lifetime respectable opinion considered it a fringe inclination even to be interested in it. Certainly, those who questioned the necessity of even having a central bank had long been relegated to the kooky periphery of political discourse.

This all changed with Paul’s campaign, which put restoring sound money at the top of the 21st-century populist libertarian agenda, second only, perhaps, to ending the U.S. military empire. The financial crisis has made Americans from all walks of life dare to question the central banker behind the curtain. Recent polls show that the Federal Reserve is now among the least-trusted federal agencies, with a vast majority of the public supporting a thorough and independent audit. Paul’s efforts to bring about such an audit garnered more than two-thirds support in the House of Representatives, and for the first time, the Fed’s partisans are on the defensive, publishing articles vindicating its expansionary credit during the Bush years, which an increasing segment of the population, including some in the mainstream press, now blame for causing the housing bubble and consequent financial collapse.

Capitalizing upon this rising public distrust of the once-sacred central bank, Ron Paul has written End the Fed, a direct attack on the moral, economic, and legal foundations of the Federal Reserve. Although much of what can be found in the book can be learned elsewhere, no other popular treatment — concise, sharp, accessible, principled, and insightful — fills the niche that End the Fed serves to fill.

Of Paul’s many accomplishments in popularizing the ideals of liberty, his successful advancement of the Austrian school of economics deserves special recognition. End the Fed provides an accessible introduction to the economic thinking of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and others of the Austrian tradition, whose focus on individual human action is arguably the most radical of all the economic disciplines, and the most compatible with principled libertarian political philosophy. They are not one and the same, for economics is a value-free, scientific study of cause and effect, and the use of resources by people pursuing their interests in a world of material scarcity, whereas libertarianism is a political philosophy centered on moral precepts of property rights, with a definitive normative focus.

But the two reinforce each other by employing methodological individualism — the study of human affairs in terms of individual choices and decisions — and together they show that we are not required to choose between a free society and a prosperous one. For helping to bring such a radical and yet intuitively comprehendible outlook to the general public, one that is not burdened by the mathematical esoterica and affinity to central planning that permeate mainstream economics, we owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude.
Fiat money

Of course, what makes Austrian economics so particularly compelling and important these days is its explanation of the boom-and-bust business cycle. Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, the latter of whom won the Nobel Prize in 1974 for his work on this topic, explained unsustainable and systemic economic booms in terms of artificially easy credit, which leads to malinvestment in economic projects, especially long-term ones that cannot be justified by current savings. In a free market, interest rates are determined by the willingness of people to forgo spending and instead save their money. When the rates are lowered by the Fed, it discourages saving while simultaneously encouraging borrowing and investing. This leads to a cascade of high wages, massive construction, rising prices, and everything else we associate with booms such as those seen in the 1920s, the Nasdaq bubble, and the skyrocketing housing prices of the Bush era. But eventually, as economic projects must yield a return, the savings are shown not to have been there to justify the investment. Whereas a free market in interest rates harmonizes production and consumption over time, central bank distortions lead to the boom and bust.

The Fed was sold to the public partly on the basis that it would end the business cycle and financial panics forever. But “the data show otherwise,” writes Paul.

Continue Article

Ron Paul: Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam

“Once again… the voice of reason.”

-F.F.

LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

“It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

“The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

“Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

“Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

“The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

“The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

“Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

“This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

“There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

“If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

“The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

“Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

“Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

“The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

“The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

“This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

“We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

“Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100820005843/en/Ron-Paul-Left-Demagogue-Mosque-Islam

Poll: ‘No’ to US wars at all time high

“Which means your government doesn’t listen (or) work for you… “The People.” But we already knew that.”

-F.F.

The CNN opinion poll found that 62 percent of the American people now think that the war in Afghanistan neither can be won, nor should it be fought at all, the Press TV correspondent in Washington reported on Thursday.

The poll also found that 69 percent of the Americans are now opposed to the US war in Iraq and favored the US President Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw 50,000 US troops from the country.

The poll, on the other hand, shows 30 percent of Americans support the wars.

About 50-thousand American soldiers will remain in the war-torn Iraq until the end of 2011 to help train Iraqi forces. The nearly seven and a half year war has claimed the lives of nearly 4500 American troops and cost more than $900 billion.

It is estimated that the US war in Afghanistan will cost nearly $105 billion in the 2010 fiscal year. The figure is expected to rise in 2011, as costs per service member in Afghanistan are almost twice as expensive as they are in Iraq.

The United States has about 87,000 troops involved in the Afghan war and with more deployments on the way, the number is expected to reach over 100,000 by next year.

The combined costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have surpassed one-trillion dollars.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139299.html

‘Fructose-Slurping’ Cancer Could Sour the Soda Business

“And they’ve know all along… sweet, sweet Eugenics. The elite globalist religion.”

-Fred Face 8/16/10

Story HERE

Ray Bradbury hates big government: ‘Our country is in need of a revolution’

by Susan King

Ray Bradbury is mad at President Obama, but it’s not about the economy, the war or the plan to a construct a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.

“He should be announcing that we should go back to the moon,” says the iconic author, whose 90th birthday on Aug. 22 will be marked in Los Angeles with more than week’s worth of Bradbury film and TV screenings, tributes and other events.  “We should never have left there. We should go to the moon and prepare a base to fire a rocket off to Mars and then go to Mars and colonize Mars. Then when wedo that, we will live forever.”

The man who wrote Fahrenheit 451,” Something Wicked This Way Comes,” The Martian Chronicles,Dandelion Wine“and “The Illustrated Man” has been called one of America’s great dreamers, but his imagination takes him to some dark places when it comes to contemporary politics.

“I think our country is in need of a revolution,” Bradbury said. “There is too much government today. We’ve  got to remember the government should be by the people, of the people and for the people.”

The native of Waukegan, Ill., has never been shy about expressing himself — he describedPresident Clinton with a word that rhymes with ”knithead” back in 2001– nor is he timid about correcting people when it comes to his own perceived legacy. Bradbury chafes, for instance, at the description of his work as science fiction – in the past he has pointed out that, to his mind, “Fahrenheit 451″is the only sci-fi book in his vast body of work — and despite his passion for more national space projects, he is not  technology obsessive by any means.

“We have too many cellphones. We’ve got too many Internets. We have got to get rid of those machines. We have too many machines now.”

Bradbury wrote darkly about bookburning in “Fahrenheit 451,” but he sounds ready to use a Kindlefor kindling. “I was approached three times during the last year by Internet companies wanting to put my books” on an electronic reading device, he said. “I said to Yahoo, ‘Prick up your ears and go to hell.’ ”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/08/ray-bradbury-is-sick-of-big-government-our-country-is-in-need-of-a-revolution-.html

HOMEGROWN REVOLUTION – Radical Change Taking Root

White House unloads anger over criticism from ‘professional left’

“It’s meltdown time. Just ask these two shaky & shady characters.”

-F.F.

By Sam Youngman

The White House is simmering with anger at criticism from liberals who say President Obama is more concerned with deal-making than ideological purity.

During an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

The White House, constantly under fire from expected enemies on the right, has been frustrated by nightly attacks on cable news shows catering to the left, where Obama and top lieutenants like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been excoriated for abandoning the public option in healthcare reform; for not moving faster to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay; and for failing, so far, to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Liberals have criticized Obama and his staff for moving to the middle and bargaining on healthcare reform, as well as the financial regulatory overhaul and even the $787 billion economic stimulus package, which some liberals said should have been larger.

Just last week, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow described Obama political adviser David Axelrod as a “human pretzel” for his explanation of the administration’s position on gay marriage. Axelrod had explained that Obama opposes same-sex marriage but favors equal benefits for partners in gay relationships.

Attacks from liberal political groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which raises money for liberal candidates and causes, are also frustrating to the White House.

Adam Green, one of PCCC’s founders, repeatedly blasted Obama for a “loser mentality” during the healthcare debate, criticizing the president and Emanuel for not trying harder to include the public option in the final healthcare legislation. The group even ran ads accusing Obama of ignoring the will of the millions who voted for him by courting the support of Republican Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe.

PCCC is now pressing Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren, a hero to the left, as the first head of the new consumer protection office created by the Wall Street reform bill.

While visibly frustrated, Gibbs did not specifically name any of the White Houses’s liberal detractors by name.

Green said in an e-mailed statement Monday afternoon, “When Republicans opposed the stimulus and when Joe Lieberman opposed the overwhelmingly popular public option, the president could have barnstormed across their states and demanded they support policies that their constituents wanted — but instead he caved without a fight,” Green said.

Gibbs’s tough comments reflect frustration and some bafflement from the White House, which believes it has done a lot for the left.

In just over 18 months in office, Obama has passed healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform and fair-pay legislation for women, among other bills near and dear to liberals.

Obama is also overseeing the end of the Iraq war, with the U.S. on schedule to end its combat operations by the end of this month.

He’s also added diversity to the Supreme Court by nominating two female justices, including the court’s first Hispanic. Yet some liberal groups have criticized his nominees for not being liberal enough.

“There’s 101 things we’ve done,” said Gibbs, who then mentioned both Iraq and healthcare.

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

Progressives, Gibbs said, are the liberals outside of Washington “in America,” and they are grateful for what Obama has accomplished in a shattered economy with uniform Republican opposition and a short amount of time.

Obama reached out to the left — including through a private lunch with Maddow and other liberal commentators — earlier this summer.

In late July, Obama made a surprise video appearance, with an assist from Maddow, at the NetRoots  Nation convention in Las Vegas, where the professional left had gathered to grouse about its disappointment in the president.

“I hope you take a moment to consider all we’ve accomplished so far,” Obama said, telling the impatient audience, “We’re not done.”

The lack of appreciation or recognition for what Obama has accomplished has left Gibbs and others in furious disbelief.

Larry Berman, an expert on the presidency and a political science professor at the University of California-Davis, said he has been surprised that liberals aren’t more cognizant of the pragmatism Obama has had to employ to pass landmark reforms.

“The irony, of course, is that Gibbs’s frustration reflects the fact that the conservative opposition has been so effective at undermining the president’s popular approval,” Berman said.

“And from Gibbs’s perspective, and the White House perspective, they ought to be able to catch a break from people who, in their view, should be grateful and appreciative.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left?sms_ss=facebook

Naked Body Scanners: Monumental Cover Up Exposed

Feds admit they lied over storing images, why trust them over safety, functionality and efficiency of radiation-firing machines?

The proof comes in the form of a letter (PDF), obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.

Full Story HERE

Prop C passes overwhelmingly

“Good. States know what’s better for them, than criminal federal government.”

-F.F.

BY TONY MESSENGER

ST. LOUIS • Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. “Citizens wanted their voices to be heard.”

About 30 Proposition C supporters whooped it up loudly at 9 p.m. when the returns flashed on the television showing the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote.

“It’s the vote heard ’round the world,” said Dwight Janson, 53, from Glendale, clad in an American flag-patterned shirt. Janson said he went to one of the first Tea Party gatherings last year and hopped on the Proposition C bandwagon because he wanted to make a difference.

“I was tired of sitting on the sidelines bouncing my gums,” he said.

Missouri was the first of four states to seek to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law that had been pushed by Obama. And while many legal scholars question whether the vote will be binding, the overwhelming approval gives the national GOP momentum as Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma hold similar votes during midterm elections in November.

“It’s a big number,” state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, said of the vote. “I expected a victory, but not of this magnitude. This is going to propel the issue and several other issues about the proper role of the federal government.”

From almost the moment the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the health care law — which aims to increase the number of Americans with health insurance — Republicans have vowed to try to repeal it. Their primary argument is that they believe the federal government should not be involved in mandating health care decisions at the local level.

While repeal might seem an unlikely strategy, the effort to send a message state by state that voters don’t approve of being told they have to buy insurance could gain momentum.

That’s what Republicans are counting on at least, hoping that the Missouri vote will give the national movement momentum.

“It’s like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall,” Cunningham said. “Missouri’s vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states.”

Proposition C faced little organized opposition, although the Missouri Hospital Association mounted a mailer campaign opposing the ballot issue in the last couple of weeks. The hospital association, which spent more than $300,000 in the losing effort, said that without the new federal law, those who don’t have insurance will cause health care providers and other taxpayers to have higher costs.

“The only way to get to the cost problem in health care is to expand the insurance pool,” said hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon. He said the hospital association didn’t plan to sue over the law, but he expected it would be challenged.

“I think there is going to be no shortage of people who want to use the courts to resolve this issue,” he said.

Democrats also generally opposed Proposition C, though they didn’t spend much time or money talking about it.

In the closing days of the campaign, many politicians ’sidled up” to Proposition C, Cunningham said, seeing the momentum the issue had gained.

Among them was U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, who won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate on Tuesday night. Late last week, Blunt announced his support of Proposition C.

On Monday, Blunt said he hoped Missouri voters would send a “ballot box message” to the Obama’s administration by overwhelmingly passing the measure.

The question now is whether the administration will respond by suing the state to block passage of the law, much as it did in Arizona recently over illegal immigration.

The issue in both is the same: When state laws conflict with federal laws, the courts have generally ruled in favor of the federal government, because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Reuben, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, said that if the federal government sues on the issue, it would likely win. Several other Missouri legal and political scholars agreed.

But Cunningham is undaunted. She’s got her own experts, and they’re ready to do battle in court.

“Constitutional experts disagree,” she said. “There is substantial legal status to this thing.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c-564c-5c70-8d90-dfd25ae6de56.html

Ron Paul Introduces SEC Transparency Act

Congressman Ron Paul yesterday introduced the SEC Transparency Act of 2010 (HR 5970), a bill designed to force greater transparency in the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bill is designed to repeal the amendments made by section 929I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Recent news reports have publicized the little-noticed provision in the recently-passed financial reform package that the Securities and Exchange Commission has used to deny requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Paul’s bill would repeal the provision in the newly-passed legislation the SEC has used to deny FOIA requests.

“It is unfortunate, yet not unexpected, that legislation touted as fixing problems with the banking system actually makes them worse and provides more cover and power for organizations that failed us like the SEC and the Fed,” Paul said in introducing the bill. “I expect in the coming weeks and months that many more harmful provisions like this will come to light and it will take quite a bit of work to undo the damage from this massive and misguided legislation.”

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-30/ron-paul-introduces-sec-transparency-act-of-2010/

Why Oath Keepers are Under Attack – Stewart Rhodes Oath Keepers

Woman 2, thugs 0 after home invasion

By Bob Unruh

One gun isn’t enough.

That was what Linda Smith (a pseudonym) was thinking after two thugs broke into herOklahoma apartment. One was holding a weapon (she initially thought it was a knife but it turned out to be a screwdriver) at her throat, and the other was pacing back and forth while holding her purse and demanding her money and valuables. She screamed, and was told if she screamed again, she’d be dead.

She was doing as police recommend in robberies – comply with a robber’s demands. But her Lady Smith & Wesson .38 special, which she carries by permit, was hidden in her purse – and the purse was being held by one of the attackers.

Then the situation, suddenly, got much, much worse: One of the robbers demanded that she take off her clothes.

“Come on, what are you waiting for,” he told her as he started to yank on her sweatpants, trying to take them off.

Smith pleaded for her safety and distracted the attackers by telling them she would get her money, which was “in my purse.”

The robbers inexplicably allowed her to drop to her knees and crawl across the floor to her purse, which the second attacker had dropped.

She reached inside, and the first shot was clear of the muzzle and into the torso of one of the attackers before she even pulled the weapon clear of the purse. Four more shots followed shortly and, in the end, one of the attackers was dead and the second was hospitalized facing a murder rap for having participated in a felony in which someone died.

Smith, in an exclusive interview with WND, explained she comes from a family that believes in self-reliance and courage.

“I choose to carry a concealed firearm, because even though I am immensely grateful for the protection from our police departments, I realize they’re not God, so they can’t be everywhere at once.

“Deadly situations can happen in the blink of an eye,” she said. “If you are not proactive … you are a vulnerable target.”

Smith, an Endowment member of the National Rifle Association, said she’s carried a gun for almost half a decade, but never dreamed she’d be in a situation where she’d have to use it to defend her life. But she’s glad the training she’s had over the years kicked in at a time when it saved her from injury, or possibly much worse.

“Ironically, I thought I was really prepared,” she told WND. “I remember that night and saw my life flash before my eyes. Darreon Carter, the man who was attempting to rape me, had me pinned down to my couch, with a knife at my throat. I knew I didn’t have access to my gun. I thought to myself, I really need to have a firearm for my home, and directly on my person.”

Rachel Parsons, an official for the NRA, said, while Smith’s case is among the more dramatic, there are similar scenarios that have been reported. But even more, there are many crimes that simply are not carried out because of the possibility that a “victim” is fully armed, she said.

“We see every day in newspapers across this country times when law-abiding people are able to protect themselves because they have concealed-carry permits,” she said.

“Numerous studies [show] having a concealed-carry permit, having a firearm and the ability to use one, has thwarted crime without the firearm ever having been fired,” she said.

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

All the gun laws, regulations, rules, restrictions, plans and advisories in the world are not going to change the fact that criminals have guns, she pointed out.

“By definition, criminals break the law. All of these regulations do absolutely nothing [to stop] criminals,” she said.

Jason Willingham, a public-information officer with the Tulsa Police Department,told WND that officers encourage people to cooperate with robbers if they find themselves in the situation of losing a wallet or cash.

“However, if it’s a situation where a rape is going to take place, or a kidnapping, we definitely encourage people to fight,” he said. “You do not want to go willing. Scream. Make people wonder what’s going on.”

“Obviously, in this situation she did exactly … the right thing,” he said.

While the prosecutor had not yet made a formal decision regarding her case, Willingham told WND that Oklahoma not only has a “make my day” law allowing residents to use deadly force inside their homes, but also a “stand your ground” law allowing force to be used against an attack outside the home.

He said the surviving attacker probably will face a murder charge under a state law allowing that charge when a person embarks on a felony and someone dies.

He said the two perpetrators are “well-known” to the Tulsa police “for criminal activities.”

He said he had reviewed the 911 tapes made of Smith’s call to police after the shooting.

“It’s amazing. She’s calm and collected. You always wonder what would happen in such asituation,” he said.

According to records, the attack happened early on the morning of July 15, and one of the intruders, Darreon Carter, 18, died hours later in a hospital in Tulsa. The other, Daniel Holman, 23, was facing charges while still in critical condition.

Capt. Travis Yates of the Tulsa Police Department told the Tulsa newspaper it seemed to be an “opportunity crime.”

“Somebody saw a woman walking up to an apartment, and they decided to commit a crime, and here we are,” he said.

The attack developed only about 24 hours after another home invasion was reported in the area – and that one left a resident dead. Willingham, however, told WND it was unrelated to the Smith ordeal.

On the Tulsa World forum page, Smith came in for virtually unchallenged praise:

  • “The scumbags got what they deserved and I hope it is a lesson for the rest of them out there.”
  • “God bless this shooter.”
  • “Pay attention to this one. This is what is going to have to start happening to let all these no good punks [know] that you won’t stand for it and are taking your freedom back. … You come to take whats [sic] mine ‘I will shoot you.’”
  • “KEEP SHOOTING!!!”
  • “Buy a gun. Learn how to use it. Kill intruders. Any questions?”
  • “A perfect example of why we need the concealed carry! this is my kind of woman! fight crime! shoot back!”
  • “Lock and load people, it’s a different world out there.”
  • “I love the great equalizer.”
  • “This story makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.”

Smith told WND she had come into her apartment after a late-night run for errands – she keeps unusual hours because of shift work at a hospital. She had one more item to fetch from outside but never got the chance because, within 20 seconds of her entering, the suspects followed.

She recalled with clarity the five shots, including those in which she picked out the attackers even though her boyfriend, black like the attackers, was struggling with them. He had been visiting and came in from the next room after the shots rang out.

He reported to Smith later that one of the attackers actually had a headlock on him when she fired, knocking the assailant off of him.

He had jumped into Smith’s defense as both attackers were beating Smith’s face and head, trying to knock her out to break her “death grip” on the weapon.

“We need to stand up and we don’t have to be victims,” Smith told WND. “We don’t have to passively stand by and allow criminals to overtake us.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=181341

Climate Realism: Not to Be Denied Any Longer

“2 Whores.”

-F.F.

James Delingpole

Last week’s meeting of 700+ scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens in Chicago to discuss the science and economics of global warming at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change was a huge success as measured by the intent of its sponsors: to establish once and for all that the climate realist position is increasingly the accepted conclusion among thinking people in the three categories noted above. That position is this: manmade global warming is not a crisis.

Yes, all parties at the conference pretty much agreed that there was a good deal of warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the trend stopped and reversed in the current decade. Global temperatures have been falling in recent years, even though the weather stations and other data chosen to represent the official temperature records are in fact skewed to show higher and more-rising temperatures than are actually occurring.

The predictions of a steady, horrifying increase in temperatures have proven false, which should have been a great embarrassment to the climate alarmists who made the claims and set them as the basis for their extravagant power grabs such as emissions limits and cap and trade.

Yet the embarrassment has not been forthcoming from those proven to be wrong, because they are shameless.

One speaker at the conference, whom I was privileged to see, was James Delingpole, a non-scientist and a writer (a novelist, even!), who wowed the crowd with great common sense and a powerful insight into what’s really been behind the global warming scare all along. As Delingpole wrote in the Spectator after conference:

[T]he Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is not about science and never was. As Climategate proved (but as some of us suspected long before), AGW is the invention of a cabal of activists, all working towards more or less the same ecofascist agenda: Mother Gaia is suffering; it’s mostly our fault; the only way to atone for our sins is to destroy Western industrial civilisation and shackle ourselves with a form of One World government run by ‘experts’ and bureaucrats over whom we have no democratic control. It is a battle against a tyranny every bit as great as we faced in the second world war or the Cold War. All what’s different about this enemy is that instead of jackboots it wears long hair, a warm, caring smile and drives a VW Combi with an ‘Atomkraft Nein Danke’ sticker.

That’s something we climate realists have known all along and had been trying in vain to convince people of for some years: that global warming never was about saving the planet but always just a pretext for progressive elitists to take ever-greater control over your life and mine.

In fact, Delingpole notes, even if global warming were to occur, it would be a good thing. Warm periods have tended to coincide with human thriving, and cold periods are associated with war, famine, and economic stagnation. And the sad fact is that we are far more likely to be heading toward uncomfortable cold than comfortable warmth, Delingpole notes:

[W]hile there has been no global warming since 1998, the general view among those who really know is that we could now be entering a lengthy period — 20 or 30 years (most of the rest of your and my life buggered) — of global cooling.

All the auguries are there. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which works in roughly 30-year cycles, has now begun its cooling phase (such as we last had in the chilly years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s). We’re about to enter a La Niña phase in the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, which means at the very least we’re due for a winter every bit as harsh as the most recent one. Worse still, low sunspot activity suggests we might be entering a solar minimum period, such as the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when those ice fairs were held on the Thames, or the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) which gave us both Napoleon’s frozen retreat from Moscow and the terrible ‘Year Without a Summer’ (1816). Periods of cooling such as this are much more greatly to be feared, of course, than periods of warming — which historically have coincided with abundance, relative peacefulness, economic growth and cultural flourishing.

Or, if you want to be really depressed, there’s always the possibility that we’re on the brink of another ice age. Warm ‘interglacial’ periods such as the one we’re in now last about 10,000 years. And we’re already past the 10,000th year.

And it isn’t hysterical alarmists saying this stuff. Climate realists don’t really do hysterical alarmism.

Delingpole is right: the attendees at the conference were remarkably good-natured and cheerful, and the discussion was strong on real science and economics and without any interesting infighting.

As was noted more than once at the conference, organizer James Taylor of The Heartland Institute invited countless well-known global warming alarmists to attend, and only two chose to do so. And none of the prominent ones deigned to step forward for a real discussion of the science and economic facts behind the matter.

That’s been the attitude of the alarmists from the start: to claim “the science is settled” and insist that we all pay no attention to the repulsively obese ex-vice president behind the curtain and move on to changing our lifestyles to suit their vile fancies regarding the limits that should be placed on the energy and other resource consumption of ordinary people—while alarmists such as Al Gore notoriously live in a manner King Midas would have been ashamed to contemplate.

The fact is, the big money—including the corporate money, despite hysterical claims to the contrary—is all on the alarmist side. Climate change realists are continually being pushed out of jobs and their scientific papers rejected simply because they dare to question the phony consensus of big-government elitists. As Delingpole notes:

It’s no wonder that the bit of my speech that got the biggest laugh was when I asked: ‘How many of you here are in the pay of Big Oil?’ No hands were raised. ‘And how many of you would like to be in the pay of Big Oil?’ Up shot 150 arms. ‘Guess we picked the wrong side of the debate to be on,’ I said, hardly needing to explain that companies like Shell and BP pump far, far more money into eco-nonsense like carbon trading and green posturing than they do into sceptical science.

That’s the problem with being an Evil Climate Change Denier. The tide is turning in our favour. History will vindicate us. But until then the only perks of the job are the joy of one another’s company and the smug satisfaction of knowing that one day we’ll be able to look at the wreckage of disasters like cap and trade, David Cameron’s wind farms and the IPCC’s junk science predictions and say: ‘I told you so.’

There is one thing and one thing only behind the global warming scare, and it is not science. It is greed for power. The truth is slowly coming out, however, and as Delingpole says, the alarmists will ultimately be pushed back.

In the meantime, however, we are in great danger of instituting a catastrophically enormous waste of money and human toil by enacting cap and trade and other such outrages. Being right would be meager solace under those circumstances.

http://stkarnick.com/culture/2010/05/27/climate-realism-not-to-be-denied-any-longer/

Departing U.N. official calls Ban’s leadership ‘deplorable’ in 50-page memo

Inga-Britt Ahlenius wrote a 50-page memo upon the end of her term as head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services. (2008 Photo By Mark Garten/associated Press)

By Colum Lynch

UNITED NATIONS — The outgoing chief of a U.N. office charged with combating corruption at the United Nations has issued a stinging rebuke of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, accusing him of undermining her efforts and leading the global institution into an era of decline, according to a confidential end-of-assignment report.

The memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor who stepped down Friday as undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, represents an extraordinary personal attack on Ban from a senior U.N. official. The memo also marks a challenge to Ban’s studiously cultivated image as a champion of accountability.

Shortly after taking office in 2007, Ban committed himself to restoring the United Nations’ reputation, which had been sullied by revelations of corruption in the agency’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

But Ahlenius says that, rather than being an advocate for accountability, Ban, along with his top advisers, has systematically sought to undercut the independence of her office, initially by trying to set up a competing investigations unit under his control and then by thwarting her efforts to hire her own staff.

“Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. . . . Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself,” Ahlenius wrote in the 50-page memo to Ban, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “I regret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay.”

Ban’s top advisers said that Ahlenius’s memo constituted a deeply unbalanced account of their differences and that her criticism of Ban’s stewardship of the United Nations was patently unfair.

“A look at his record shows that Secretary General Ban has provided genuine visionary leadership on important issues from climate change to development to women’s empowerment. He has promoted the cause of gender balance in general as well as within the organization. He has led from the front on important political issues from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan,” Ban’s chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, wrote in a response.

“It is regrettable to note,” Nambiar added, “that many pertinent facts were overlooked or misrepresented” in Ahlenius’s memo.

The departure of Ahlenius, 72, coincides with a period of crisis in the United Nations’ internal investigations division. During the past two years, the world body has shed some of its top investigators. It has also failed to fill dozens of vacancies, including that of the chief of the investigations division in the Office of Internal Oversight Services. That post has been vacant since 2006, leaving a void in the United Nations’ ability to police itself, diplomats say.

“We are disappointed with the recent performance of [the U.N.'s] investigations division,” said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. “The coming change in . . . leadership is an opportunity to bring about a significant improvement in its performance to increase oversight and transparency throughout the organization.”

The U.N. General Assembly established the Office of Internal Oversight Services in 1994 to conduct management audits of the United Nations’ principal departments and to conduct investigations into corruption and misconduct. The founding resolution granted the office “operational independence” but placed it under the authority of the secretary general and made it dependent on the U.N. departments it policed for much of its funding and administrative support.

The dispute between Ahlenius and Ban has underscored some of the resulting tensions and exposed a protracted and acrimonious struggle for power over the course of U.N. investigations.

While Ahlenius cited Ban’s move to set up a new investigations unit as a sign that he was seeking to undermine her independence, Nambiar said that it was intended to strengthen the United Nations’ ability to fight corruption.

Ahlenius also clashed with Ban over her efforts to hire a former federal prosecutor, Robert Appleton, who headed the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a temporary white-collar crime unit that carried out aggressive investigations into corruption in U.N. peacekeeping missions from 2006 to last year. The unit’s investigations led to an unprecedented number of misconduct findings by U.N. officials and prompted federal probes into corruption.

Ban’s advisers said they blocked Appleton’s appointment on the grounds that female candidates had not been properly considered and said that the final selection should have been made by Ban, not Ahlenius.

“The secretary general fully recognizes the operational independence of OIOS,” Nambiar said. But that, he said, “does not excuse her from applying the standard rules of recruitment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904734.html


Group Calls for Hearings Into Google’s Ties to CIA and NSA

Infowars.com
July 19, 2010

More information has emerged about Google’s relationship with the government and spook agencies (see PR Newswire below). The revelations should come as no surprise.

n 2006, Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with the CIA, told the Alex Jones Show that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its inception. “I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn’t fund what I call the open source world,” said Steele, citing “trusted individuals” as his sources.

Google is a key intelligence asset. It has supplied the core search technology forIntellipedia, a highly-secured online CIA system and has shared a close relationship with both the CIA, NSA, and government national security officials.

In February, it was reported that Google and the NSA have forged a partnership after Google purportedly suffered a cyberattack in December. “This is not the first time the NSA has been tapped to help a U.S. corporation with cyber security, but the purported partnership would certainly be unique since Google’s servers house such a vast collection of user data including search histories, email, and personal documents,” reports PC World.

“Google’s connection with the CIA and its venture capital firm extends to sharing at least one key member of personnel. In 2004, the Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, Rob Painter, moved from his old job directly serving the CIA to become ‘Senior Federal Manager’ at Google.,” writes Eric Sommer.

In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the CIA, also had a hand in creating the wildly popular social network Facebook. “The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel,” writesMatt Greenop.

Thus it should not be shocking that Google executives are holding meetings with U.S. national security officials for undisclosed reasons, according to the Washington Post, itself a prized CIA asset under the venerable Operation Mockingbird media asset program.

Google insists its vacuuming up of WiFi network data as it gathered images for its Streetview program was a mistake, even though information “published Jan. 28 shows that the data collection program was a very deliberate effort to assemble as much information as possible about U.S. residential and business WiFi networks,” according to the press release below.

SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citing new information about Google’s classified government contracts and the Internet giant’s admitted Wi-Spying activity, Consumer Watchdog today said it is more imperative than ever for the Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct hearings into possible privacy violations by Google.

In a letter to Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Joe Barton, the nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group’s John M. Simpson wrote:

“Based on today’s Washington Post, it appears that Google holds classified U.S. government contracts to supply search and geospatial information to the U.S. government. In addition, White House records show that Google executives have been holding meetings with U.S. national security officials for undisclosed reasons. Finally, it also appears that Google’s widely criticized efforts to collect wireless network data on American citizens were not inadvertent, contrary to the company’s claims.”

“As history has repeatedly shown, alliances between the U.S. intelligence community and giant corporations that collect data on American citizens can be a toxic combination where the U.S. Constitution is concerned,”  the letter said.

In a June 9 letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Google director for public policy Pablo Chavez asserted that Google “mistakenly included code in our software that collected samples of ‘payload data’” from private WiFi networks. But review of a patent application from Google covering the gathering of WiFi data published Jan. 28 shows that the data collection program was a very deliberate effort to assemble as much information as possible about U.S. residential and business WiFi networks.

The letter continued:

“…what the patent does show is that Google’s recent claims about how the Street View program was designed are not accurate, and that the company always intended to collect and store the ‘packets’ of wireless data that contain so-called payload information.

“The patent makes repeated reference to ‘capturing’ packets, including paragraph [0055], which states that the system will enable geolocations so long as the equipment being used ‘is able to capture and properly decode a packet…’

“This raises serious questions about whether Google has engaged in a reckless effort to amass private data without giving any thought to the possible misuse of that information, and whether it can be trusted to safeguard the information it collects from the prying eyes of the U.S. government.”

Read the patent here: http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/US20100020776.pdf

Read the letter here: http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/LtrWaxman071910.pdf

In addition, White House visitor logs show that Alan Davidson, Google’s Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, has had at least three meetings with officials of the National Security Council since the beginning of last year. One of the meetings was with White House senior director for Russian affairs Mike McFaul, while another was with Middle East advisor Daniel Shapiro.

It has also been widely reported that Google has been working in “partnership” with the National Security Agency, the very same government body that illegally intercepted the private communications of millions of Americans during the Bush administration.

Consumer Watchdog, formerly the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, DC and Santa Monica, Ca.  Consumer Watchdog’s website is www.consumerwatchdog.org. Visit our new Google Privacy and Accountability Project website: http://insidegoogle.com.

http://www.infowars.com/group-calls-for-hearings-into-googles-ties-to-cia-and-nsa/

“The Secret of Oz” trailer – How to Fix the 2010 Depression – directed by Bill Still

G20 Protest June 26 Toronto riot cop lap dance

G8 Police Protest Photos

EPA Scientists & Workers Call for an End to Water Fluoridation Because of Cancer Risk

“Your being assaulted people… speak up, toughen up. It’s called Eugenics, Soft Kill, Whatever the fuck you want to call it… it’s some bad shit & the Obama administration is a pretty serious example of a Scientific Dictatorship. Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, with his wonderful shining example of this from his 1977 book, “Ecoscience…..”

-Fred Face 6/13/10

Ecoscience

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.  The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?  Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food; • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

EPA UNIONS CALL FOR NATIONWIDE MORATORIUM ON FLUORIDATION, CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON ADVERSE EFFECTS, YOUTH CANCER COVER UP

WASHINGTON, DC, August 30, 2005 –/WORLD-WIRE/– Eleven EPA employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service have called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young boys.

The unions sent letters to key Congressional committees asking Congress to legislate a moratorium pending a review of all the science on the risks and benefits of fluoridation. The letters cited the weight of evidence supporting a classification of fluoride as a likely human carcinogen, which includes other epidemiology results similar to those in the Harvard study, animal studies, and biological reasons why fluoride can reasonably be expected to cause the bone cancer – osteosarcoma – seen in young boys and test animals.

The unions also pointed out recent work by Richard Maas of the Environmental Quality Institute, University of North Carolina that links increases in lead levels in drinking water systems to use of silicofluoride fluoridating agents with chloramines disinfectant.

The letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asked him to issue a public warning in the form of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking setting the health-based drinking water standard for fluoride at zero, as it is for all known or probable human carcinogens, pending a recommendation from a National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council committee. That committee’s work is not expected to be done before 2006.

The unions also asked Congress and EPA’s enforcement office, or the Department of Justice, to look into reasons why the Harvard study director, Chester Douglass, failed to report the seven-fold increased risk seen in the work he oversaw, and instead wrote to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the federal agency that funded the Harvard study, saying there was no link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Douglass sent the same negative report to the National Research Council committee studying possible changes in EPA’s drinking water standards for fluoride.

The unions who signed the letters represent EPA employees from across the nation, including laboratory scientists in Ohio, Oklahoma and Michigan, regulatory support scientists and other workers at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. and science and regulatory workers in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and San Francisco.

They are affiliated with the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Government Employees, Engineers and Scientists of California/International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the National Association of Government Employee/Service Employees International Union.

The unions’ letter is online at: http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. William Hirzy Vice-President, NTEU Chapter 280
Phone (cell) 202-285-0498 This is complete notice.

USA Citizens can easily back-up the 7,000 EPA ‘career employees.’ Consider, you and your family need CLEAN & SAFE Drinking Water, every day. This is your opportunity to back those 7000+ EPA union members that care about scientific integrity and exposing the truth about ‘corporate hazardous waste fluorosilicates’ being metered into our drinking waters. Their common sense demand for a ‘moratorium on fluoridation’ along with Congressional Investigation incl. ‘under oath’ hearings is critical!

We, the undersigned, join with members of eleven EPA unions in their call for an immediate Congressional act placing a national moratorium on water fluoridation pending a full Congressional investigation into this public policy, which affects – directly and indirectly – every resident of the United States.

Read & Sign Citizens PETITION at: http://petition.powalliance.org/index.html

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride090105.html

German Cabinet Agrees to Widen Short-Selling Ban

“Good for them. We need to follow suit… also with dumb ass derivative casino economy garbage that has torn the world economies down… (drum roll)… by design.”

-F.F.

By: Reuters

Germany’s government agreed to widen a ban on speculative trades on Wednesday, expanding restrictions on naked short-selling to include all shares.

The planned legislation, which must pass both houses of parliament, adds to regulations set up last month in a campaign by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to curtail financial speculation, which it blames for intensifying the euro zone debt crisis.

Naked short selling — which Germany had originally banned only for shares in its biggest banks, euro government bonds and related credit default swaps (CDS) — involves selling securities without owning or borrowing the underlying assets in the hope of buying them back at a lower price.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, speaking at a news conference, said he expected the new ban to pass through both houses of parliament by early-July.

“We are aiming to pass it at the sitting of the Bundesrat (upper house of parliament) on July 9,” Schaeuble said, adding that the previous narrower ban remained in place in the meantime.

Other proposed rules included in the bill were watered down at the last minute.

Earlier plans that had included an outright ban on euro currency derivatives were dropped, according to a copy of the bill obtained by Reuters.

The Finance Ministry will instead be authorized to ban euro currency derivatives by decree if it would serve to “avoid or dispel serious drawbacks to the stability of the financial markets, or faith in (their) operational capability.” Earlier versions of the bill which called for an outright ban came up against stiff resistance.

Critics had warned that it could have had damaging effects and be hard to implement.

Speeding Up Europe

Berlin’s unilateral move last month to impose an immediate but partial ban on naked short-selling sent shockwaves through financial markets and ruffled the feathers of some partners.

At the moment there is no consensus among European Union securities regulators for introducing German-style regulations, but Schaeuble downplayed this, saying other countries already had similar rules in place and that Germany’s new rules would help expedite the EU process.

“My view is that (European rules) will be introduced faster because of a German law than if there were no law,” he said, adding this would weaken resistance to a ban elsewhere.

“Several countries in Europe, like France for example, already have similar bans on naked short selling,” he said.

The German bill now heading to parliament also takes aim at the trading of CDS — essentially insurance against default of a particular asset.

It will distinguish between hedging and speculation with CDS linked to sovereign bonds, banning their purchase out of pure speculative interest but allowing it when the purchaser owns the underlying asset.

While several national regulators including France have signaled they will not follow suit, the head of its financial watchdog has called on the European Commission to come up with its own proposals in order to avoid member nations following diverging routes.

Jean-Pierre Jouyet, head of French financial markets regulator AMF, has also called for urgent Franco-German initiatives to combat short-selling.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37463309/German_Cabinet_Agrees_to_Widen_Short_Selling_Ban

The Uprising!

Soldiers Coming Home

“Ain’t no valid reason they left home in the first place…  We all should be demanding the heads of the oligarchy pigs and our politicians, (whom they sold their souls too), for continually putting good men & woman’s lives at risk and destroying families for unjustified, illegal wars. Not to mention the 1 million plus dead Iraqi’s & the 5 thousands plus dead American soldiers who can never have moments like this again.   Governments are the number one cause of genocide & mass murder in human history. And the media tells you people like Libertarians, who want less government, are terrorists… seems about right?”

-Fred Face 6/8/10

Rand Paul and the Constitution

“More support after the “set-up” civil rights smear campaign.”

-F.F.

Editorial of The New York Sun

The New York Sun wasn’t publishing in 1964, but we have no doubt that it would have supported the Civil Rights Act, as the editor who now conducts these columns did then and as the Sun does now. We revere the great figures of the civil rights movement. When their names — Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, Thurgood Marshall, to mark but three who are still in the news columns — come up at the dinner table, we speak to our children about their righteousness, courage, and heroism. We haven’t the slightest hesitation in supporting the authority of the federal government to outlaw racial discrimination in public or private businesses and myriad private transactions, such as, say, the sale of real estate. We favor aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws, even after the dismantling of Jim Crow.

If we were voting in Kentucky today, however, we’d vote for Rand Paul for senator. It’s not that we care to cavil about the fine points of the Civil Rights Act. It’s no mere artifact of a great struggle. On the contrary, we’re of the view that without it, the danger of a retreat would be a constant worry, even in the early 21st century. But the law itself is settled and secure. What does not seem settled and secure are other matters — property rights, say — on which Dr. Paul stands heads and shoulders above his opponent, Jack Conway, one of the most aggressive state attorneys general advanced by a Democratic party that has shown scant regard for the principles of federalism, for the constitutional contract that undergirds our republic, and for the negative way the constitution vouchsafes our rights.

By this we mean, Dr. Paul comprehends that the Bill of Rights is largely a prohibition on the government. When one listens to him talk, one gets the sense that he comprehends that the Founders of America feared that the biggest threat to our rights was from our own government. He has this streak of constitutional fundamentalism that one hears among the Tea Party enthusiasts, but among not only them. One hears it from the Libertarians, and from a growing number of neoconservatives who are taking a fresh look at the Constitution at a time when advocates of limited government are unlikely to find much encouragement from the Congress or the administration.

There are those who belittle this constitutionalist streak, including, to pick a recent example, the columnist Michael Gerson, who, Ira Stoll noted in a post at Futureofcapitalism.com, complained of what “might be called ‘constitutional conservatism.’” Mr. Gerson reckons such conservatism has “the virtue of being easily explainable — and the drawback of being impossible.” This prompted Mr. Stoll to point out that it did pretty well — not flawlessly, but pretty well — in the century-and-a-half before the New Deal. By our lights the blitheness with which so many are prepared to breeze past the plain language of the Constitution, and past such bedrock as the idea of enumerated powers, is breathtaking. That Rand Paul has the grit to challenge all this is, we’d like to think, connected to his popularity.

* * *

This is one of the traits of both of the Pauls, father and son. We have many times remarked that we part company with them, and other libertarians, on many aspects of foreign policy (though Ron Paul would not abandon the fight against Al Qaeda; we have already endorsed his plan to use against Osama Bin Laden Congress’s power to grant letters of marque and reprisal). But they are an outstanding pair when it comes to this idea of constitutional conservatism — or, our preference, plain language constitutionalism. A lot of things can happen between now and election day. But our guess is that if Rand Paul prevails, one of the reasons will be his attention to the theoretical underpinnings of our constitutional republic, a trait that he shares with the architects of the Civil Rights Act we amire so much.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/rand-paul-and-the-constitution/86970/

But Governor, You Can Create Money! Just Form Your Own Bank

Ellan Brown

“I understand that these cuts are very painful and they affect real lives. This is the harsh reality and the reality that we face. Sacramento is not Washington – we cannot print our own money. We can only spend what we have.”

- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quoted in Time, May 22, 2009

Christmas comes early, Governor. You can print your own money. Fiscally solvent North Dakota is doing it…and so can California. Now!

In a May 22 article in Time titled “Billions in the Red: Fiscal Reckoning in CA,” Juliet Williams reports that since California voters have now vetoed higher taxes and further state government borrowing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated that he intends to close the budget gap almost entirely through drastic spending cuts. The cutbacks could include laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, ending the state’s main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, slashing money for state parks, and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished. Schwarzenegger bemoaned the fact that the state could not print its own money but said it could only spend what it had.

But the state can create its own money. After all, banks do this every day. Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do: they can create “credit” with accounting entries on their books. As the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas explains on its website:

Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here’s how it works: Most of a bank’s loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does, the bank…holds a small percentage of that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else, repeating the money-creation process many times.

President Obama has also acknowledged that banks create money, through what he calls the “multiplier effect.” In a speech at Georgetown University on April 14, he said:

[A]lthough there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks — “where’s our bailout?” they ask — the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth.

Money in a government-owned bank could give us the best of both worlds. We could have all the credit-generating advantages of private banks, without the baggage cluttering up the books of the Wall Street giants, including bad derivatives bets, unmarketable collateralized debt obligations, mark to market accounting issues, oversized CEO salaries and bonuses, and shareholders expecting a sizeable cut of the profits. A state could deposit its vast revenues in its own state-owned bank and proceed to fan them into eight to 10 times their face value in loans. Not only would it have its own credit machine, but it would control the loan terms. The state could lend at ½% interest to itself and to municipal governments, rolling the loans over as needed until the revenues had been generated to pay them off. According to Professor Margrit Kennedy in her 1995 book Interest and Inflation-free Money, interest composes, on average, fully half the cost of every public project. Cutting costs by 50% could make currently-unsustainable projects such as low-cost housing, alternative energy development, and infrastructure construction not only sustainable but actually profitable for the government.

If all this seems too radical and unprecedented to venture into, consider that one state has had its own bank for 90 years; and it has not only escaped the credit crunch but is doing remarkably well…

The Innovative Bank of North Dakota

Only three of 50 states are now solvent, meaning they have the revenues to meet their state budgets; andone of them is North Dakota. It is an unlikely candidate for the distinction. It is a sparsely populated state of fewer than 700,000 people, largely located in isolated farming communities afflicted with cold weather. Yet since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. The state not only has no funding issues, but this year it actually has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion, the largest it has ever had.

North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation.
The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. The bank’s stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, which pays a competitive interest rate to the state treasurer. The state rather than the FDIC guarantees the bank’s deposits, which are plowed back into the state in the form of loans. The bank’s return on equity is about 25%, and it pays a hefty dividend to the state, which is expected to exceed $60 million this year. In the last decade, the BND has turned back a third of a trillion dollars to the state’s general fund, offsetting taxes. The former president of the BND is now the state’s governor.

The BND avoids rivalry with private banks by partnering with them. Most lending is originated by a local bank. The BND then comes in to participate in the loan, share risk, and buy down the interest rate. The BND provides a secondary market for real estate loans, which it buys from local banks. Its residential loan portfolio is now $500 billion to $600 billion. Guarantees are also provided for entrepreneurial startups, and the BND has ample money to lend to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans). It purchases municipal bonds from public institutions, and it backs loans made to new farmers at 1% interest. The BND also has a well-funded disaster loan program, which helps explain how Fargo, when struck by a disastrous flood recently, managed to avoid the devastation suffered by New Orleans in similar circumstances.

North Dakota has also managed to avoid the credit freeze, through the simple expedient of creating its own credit. It has led the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty. In California and other states, workers and factories are sitting idle because the private credit system has failed. An injection of new money from a system of publicly-owned banks on the model of the Bank of North Dakota could thaw the credit freeze and bring spring to the markets once again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/but-governor-you-can-crea_b_207806.html

Rand Paul Wins!! The Tide Is Turning Suckers!!!

“Lets Get On With The Revolution!!! Take a short break and pat yourselves on your back… and then lets get back on the job & turn this country around!!!”

-Fred Face 5/20/10

Rand Paul Savages Obama’s Catastrophic “Green Economy”

“Fuck ya! The tide be-a-changing!!!! (For the better). I’ll hold this guy & his Dad just as accountable as I would all the dumb Dem & Rep hacks that people blindingly follow because of their fake liberal rhetoric or their tired right rhetoric. This sets a big precedent! Libertarian Party ain’t fuckin’ around. He ran as a republican, like his Dad, but if you know anything about these guys… you know they don’t have much in common with your average Rep or Dem. Great news!!”

-Fred “The Big Take Over” Face 5/19/10

After trouncing his neo-con opponent comprehensively in the Kentucky Senate primary, Rand Paul savaged the man-made global warming scam for what it truly represents – an attack on the middle class and the industrialized world, as he warned President Obama and his sycophants, “we’ve come to take our government back”.

“I have a message, a message from the Tea Party – a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words – we’ve come to take our government back,” stated Paul to rapturous applause, adding that he would take on the special interests in Washington who treat the federal government as their own personal ATM.

“What you have done and what we can do can transform America,” said Paul, candidly warning that America’s greatness hinges on saving the country.

Paul added that America could be saved from its debt crisis “that is devouring our country and I think could lead to chaos.”

The victorious candidate then savaged President Obama for apologizing to Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales for the industrial revolution.

“These petty dictators say that to stop climate change it’s about ending capitalism, they are explicit, and the President by attending Copenhagen gives credibility and credence to these folks and he should not go,” said Paul.

After Paul had started attacking Obama’s “green” agenda, CNN quickly cut away from his victory speech and began to talk over him. Perhaps that’s because Paul is perhaps the first person to address the fundamental threat that the global warming scam poses to the free world during such a major victory speech. This marks a new watershed in how much the credibility of climate change alarmism has collapsed in the last six months alone.

Paul is right in citing Mugabe, Morales and Chavez as acolytes to the climate cause, but similar sentiments have been expressed far closer to home.

The agenda to use global warming fear mongering as a pretext to lower living standards in the west has openly been declared by top globalists over and over again – people like EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso, who has called for a “post-industrial revolution” in which CO2 emissions are capped.

At the 2005 Bilderberg meeting sources inside the group told reporters Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker, who have built up a credible reputation for accurately forecasting future events based on leaks from Bilderberg conferences, that the elite wanted to consolidate by bringing down the standard of living in the US and Europe, fearing that the middle class is out of control and has been granted too much credit which must be offset by a phase of consolidation.

Two years later we witnessed the beginning of the “credit crunch” which led to the massive economic turmoil of 2008 and 2009 which is now threatening to get even worse in 2010.

The move towards a “green economy” is integral to this agenda of a “post-industrial revolution” in which living standards in the west are drastically cut. Its impact is already being severely felt in Spain, where the unemployment rate is around 18 per cent as a result of 2.2 jobs being lost for every “green” job created.

A newly leaked internal document from Spain’s Zapatero administration outlines how Spain’s “green economy initiatives” have been a financial disaster. The report suggests that the real rate of job losses as a result of “green” policies is in actual fact worse than 2.2 jobs lost for every one gained.

“Today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy,” reports Christopher Horner.

“Despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.”

President Obama has made it a foundation of his economic and environmental policy that America moves towards a similar “green economy,” which would spell disaster for the fragile U.S. economy and potentially trigger a new great depression. The fact that Rand Paul has rightly highlighted this issue as a major concern, allied with the leaked Spanish report, should act as a crushing blow to efforts on behalf of internationalists to impose such tyranny on every western nation in the form of a carbon tax on the very substance humans exhale.

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-savages-obama’s-catastrophic-green-economy/