Remember Joseph Moshe? This is the upgrade - the weaponization - that we have long predicted would occur. This would explain why Obama declared a "National Emergency" here in the states Oct 29 - likely the very day or day before the low-flying planes aerosol-sprayed the viral plague into the mountains around Kiev.

4:07 PM

0 Comments

(Add Comment) |

1 Kudos

Translate

November 8, 2009 - Sunday

SENATE PUSHING CLIMATE BILL THROUGH PANEL; DITCH "CAP & TRADE" NAME
Category: News and Politics

SENATE PUSHING CLIMATE BILL THROUGH PANEL; DITCH "CAP & TRADE" NAME

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
November 8, 2009
© 2009 NewsWithViews.com

In spite of the growing opposition by the American people, US Senate Democrats rammed an unprecedented climate bill (S. 1733) through a Senate committee on Thursday.

California Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the powerfulSenate Environment and Public Works Committee, had postponed the bill's vote for several days due to her need to address Republican members' protests. The major disagreement is the cost of the bill and its impact on the US economy.

However, Senator Boxer decided to take advantage of the Fort Hood incident and the continuing health care debate to quietly pass the bill, according to one Washington insider. It also helped her to have the name of the bill changed from "Cap-and-Trade," since that term has caused widespread criticism by a majority of Americans.

"Senator Boxer used the tragic {shootings at Fort Hood] to cloak the partisan passage of a bill certain to hurt a majority of American citizens," said political strategist Mike Baker.

"Boxer wields a lot of power in the Senate and she's known as an abrasive, hard-nosed infighter," he added.

The bill passed through Boxer's committee with an 11-1 vote. The Democrats voted without any of the seven Republican Senators attending the session. The GOP Senators were angry over many aspects of the bill including a provision that would set mandatory limits on heat-trapping gases. Also the bill will increase gasoline prices.

Boxer said during a press conference that the Republican demand for more analysis was "duplicative and waste of taxpayer dollars."

Boxer introduced the bill along with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry last September. Only one of the Democrat Senators voted against the legislation. Senator Max Baucus of Montana voted against the bill claiming that he has serious concerns about the bill. He gave as an example the bill's call for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.

In order to get the legislation out of committee and onto the Senate floor without the Republicans present will prevent the Democrats from tinkering or fine tuning the bill's provisions.

The Senate's Kerry-Boxer climate bill is similar to the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last June.

While the Senate bill stipulates CO2 emissions reduction of 20 by 2020, The House of Representatives' bill mandates for a 17 percent reduction..

The Senate bill has a price cap (hence the term "cap-and-trade") containing a provision to increase efforts to prevent the price for carbon permits dropping below $11/ton or soaring above $28/ton. Business organization and economists warns that this will limit price volatility, which can make it trickier for companies to make investment decisions. Republicans in the House opposed the arbitrary method in which some industries would get free pollution allowances under the cap-and-trade system.

"This entire legislative disaster will increase the cost for electricity, gasoline, coal, oil, etc.," warns Baker.

"It is also a perfect example of a big-government power grab on top of the planned government takeover of health care, water, farms, and financial institutions. These politicians claim they do what they do on behalf of the American people, but it's the American people who will suffer," said Baker.

An Environmental Protection Agency study released by Senator Boxer claims that while there are differences between the Senate and House bills, they are so small that the economic costs "would be similar" in the case of either bill. It said the cost would add between $80 to $111 a year to households energy bills as a result of higher prices.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the household cost of the bill would be $175 a year per household.

However, some industry-cited studies have put the cost much higher, some claiming possible added costs of as much as $3,000 per year per household.

President Barack Obama and administration officials are on the record as backing the Senate bill especially its provision to to slash greenhouse gas emissions and boost investment in renewable energy.

Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, stated in his testimony before Senator Boxer's committee that a cap on carbon emissions will help drive investment decisions toward clean energy technologies.

"A cap on carbon will give the energy industry the long-term direction and the certainty it needs to make appropriate technology and capital investment decisions," Chu said in a press statement.

But opponents of this legislation have deep reservations about both the Senate and House bills. They have said -- and continue to say -- that caps on emissions will amount to a tax on struggling industries and the costs to corporations will be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Selected Earlier Stories

1 - Sarah Foster: Climate Bill Spells 'Skyrocketing' Energy Rates, Unemployment, Less Freedom. July 14, 2009
2 - Marc Morano: Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim. July 11, 2009
3 - Devvy Kidd: Cap-and-Trade Rape Passed ? What Must be Done Next. June 29, 2009
4 - William Hunt: Control and Loss of Freedom ? Ultimate Goal of the Global Warming Lobby. June 1, 2009
5 - Tom DeWeese: What If There is No Man-Made Global Warming? Mar. 2, 2009
6 - Devvy Kidd: Solution to Global Warming and Disappearing Polar Bears. June 5, 2008
7 - Michael Coffman: Scientists Disclaim Role of CO2 in Global Warming. Mar. 8, 2008
8 - Michael Coffman: Global Warming or Global Governance?Aug. 13, 2007
9 - William Hunt: What Environmentalists Don't Want You to Know. Mar. 14, 2007
10 - William Hunt: The Nonsense of Global Warming. Jan. 22, 2007

More Reading / Resources

1 - Sen. John Kerry: S. 1733: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009
2 - Rep. Henry Waxman: H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
3 - Heritage Foundation: Cap-and-Trade/Global Warming Bill Page
4 - Marc Morano’s website: ClimateDepot.com.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news170.htm

2:37 PM

0 Comments

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Translate

November 8, 2009 - Sunday

Robert Arthur Menard - Freeman on the Land

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcVFkY1QYqk

Robert Arthur Menard has been teaching humans The Illusion of the Person, what Words in Law mean, Consent, Acceptance, Honor & Dishonour, Bills of Exchange, and more! The only way to truly be free is to learn!

1:57 PM

0 Comments

(Add Comment) |

1 Kudos

Translate

November 5, 2009 - Thursday

URGENT Evidence of HOLDING BACK VACCINE TO CREATE PANIC It is my DUTY to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd9eXb-JGdk

Notice the laughter at the reaction of the masses to the psychology of false scarcity tactics, and then notice how they see themselves as "truth tellers" and the rest of us are crazy lunatics? PLEASE send this to everyone you know, because people need to understand how they are being manipulated for profit, no matter the risk to their own

5:14 PM

0 Comments

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Translate

November 4, 2009 - Wednesday

Swine Flu: Bad Science & Massive Cover-up

http://www.augustforecast.com/2009/11/03/swine-flu...

The H1N1 virus scare is promoted by government and big pharma while clear evidence to the contrary is ignored.

It is always important to keep in mind when you hear about this vaccine being safe...What else do they not know about this vaccine that they will discover months, years or even decades later. Once injected with the vaccine and you develop a complication there will be little that can be done to treat the life-long degenerative disorder it

4:22 PM

0 Comments

(Add Comment) |

1 Kudos

Translate

November 3, 2009 - Tuesday

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire”
Category: News and Politics

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire”

CO2 tax agenda front man lining his pockets on the back of global warming fearmongering

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote.

Gore’s defense against claims that he is peddling fearmongering about global warming to get filthy rich, and one dutifully supported by the NY Times’ whitewash report, is that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

However, Gore’s insistence that he is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, doesn’t seem to extend to his own private life in the context of energy conservation and CO2 emissions. While lecturing the world about reducing CO2 emissions and saving energy, Gore’s own mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average American home.

In February 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. These figures were not disputed by Gore.

“If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care,” said the Center’s 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. “But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”

The clips below, taken from Alex Jones’ new documentary Fall Of The Republic, expose how Al Gore serves as the front man for the global carbon tax cap and trade scheme, which is designed to bankrupt the United States and drastically lower the living standards of the American people, while introducing nightmare levels of regulation and bureaucracy into their everyday lives. Get the full DVD here.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.html

3:20 PM

5 Comments

(Add Comment) |

2 Kudos

Translate

November 3, 2009 - Tuesday

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty and The Bricker Amendment
Category: News and Politics

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty: Obama, nor any other president, cannot Supercede the Constitution with a Treaty! This piece is excellent and gives documentation we need to fight the upcoming rash of world socialist treaties that Obama intends to sign:

The Bricker Amendment

By Justin Raimondo

The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. The conservative movement of the early 1950's, which looked on the United Nations with extreme suspicion, was particularly sensitive to this threat -- and they hit upon a solution: the Bricker Amendment.

Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the "Bricker Amendment" to the Constitution read as follows:

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mobilizing to support Bricker, conservatives built a grand coalition which included all the major veterans groups, the Kiwanis Clubs, the American Association of Small Business, many women's groups, as well as the conservative activist organizations of the time, such as the Freedom Clubs and the Committee for Constitutional Government. The conservative press joined in the campaign; writing in Human Events, Frank Chodorov said that...

The proposed amendment arises from a rather odd situation. A nation is threatened by invasion, not by a foreign army, but by its own legal entanglements. Not soldiers, but theoreticians and visionaries attack its independence and aim to bring its people under the rule of an agglomeration of foreign governments. This is something new in history. There have been occasions when a weak nation sought security by placing itself under the yoke of a strong one. But, here we have the richest nation in the world, and apparently the strongest, flirting with the liquidation of its independence. Nothing like that has ever happened before.

The breach in our defenses, said Chodorov, is in Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that "... All Treaties ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding." At the time of the Founders, the division between foreign and domestic policy was clear enough; there was never any intention, as Jefferson wrote, to enable the President and the Senate to "do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."

But as the concept of limited government was eroded -- and under pressure from the endless stream of pacts, covenants, and executive agreements issuing forth from the United Nations and its American enthusiasts -- the chink in our constitutional armor widened. Just as the growth of administrative law had threatened to overthrow the old Republic during the darkest days of the New Deal, so under Truman and Eisenhower the burgeoning body of treaty law threatened to overthrow U.S. sovereignty. Executive agreements had created administrative law of a new type; treaties which sought to regulate domestic economic and social behavior to a degree never achieved by the Brain Trusters. If the New Deal had failed to completely socialize America, to conservatives it often seemed as if the United Nations seemed determined to finish the job. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, human beings were endowed with all sorts of "rights," including the right to a job and the right to "security." There were, however, certain significant omissions, chief among them the right to own and maintain private property.

Another equally glaring omission was the unqualified right to a free press, the regulation of which is left up to member nations. When three Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice, cited the UN Charter and the NATO treaty in support of their argument that Truman had the right to seize the steel mills, conservatives went into action -- and the fight for the Bricker Amendment began in earnest.

The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment. Leading the opposition was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. This was the same John Foster Dulles who had said, two years previous, that "The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse," and warned that "Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights." Hammered with this quote by Clarence Manion, Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, and a leading proponent of the Bricker Amendment, Dulles could only take refuge in the argument that thisPresident would never compromise U.S. sovereignty.

Although the Bricker Amendment started out with fifty-six co- sponsors, it eventually went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate, 42-50, with 4 not voting. (A watered-down version, the "George proposal," lost by a single vote.) The defection of Senators William Knowland and Alexander Wiley from conservative Republican ranks on this occasion was particularly significant, and marked the beginning not only of Wiley's chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but also the decline of the movement to put and keep America first.

As Frank E. Holman, president of the American Bar Association, and the sparkplug of the Bricker Amendment movement, wrote:

In the destiny of human affairs a great issue like a righteous cause does not die. It lives on and arises again and again until rightly won. However long the fight for an adequate Constitutional Amendment on treaties and other international agreements, it will and must be won. This will be the history of the Bricker Amendment as it has been the history of all other great issues and causes.

Holman's comments were published in 1954 as Story of the Bricker Amendment, (The First Phase) -- a title which one can only hope is prophetic.

http://www.antiwar.com/essays/bricker.html

2:15 PM

0 Comments

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Translate

November 1, 2009 - Sunday

Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural Rights and The Patriot Act part 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1P53wMbnsw

Judge Andrew Napolitano gives a speech from the heart about freedom and from where our rights come. The Judge explains the hard core truth about the Constitution and why we must fight to regain and retain our freedoms. Courtesy of www.CampaignForLiberty.com.

7:49 PM

1 Comments

(Add Comment) |

1 Kudos

Translate

October 29, 2009 - Thursday

Peter Schiff issues a Red Alert: "Get out of the US dollar"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjbgdg2_7XI

The writing is on the wall, my friends. If you havent invested in gold & silver yet, you may want to consider doing so. In Peter Shiffs own words, "Get out of the US dollar." Could this be related to the webbot prediction? Time will tell.