As we all ponder what may come at us in 2012, the ongoing volatility in almost every corner of every marketplace is certainly concerning, as it should be.  This record volatility has

Central Planning

enormous implications for any investor, but especially those in leveraged ETF’s.  Volatility is the anathema to these vehicles, as has been well discussed, but that does not diminish their targeted usefulness.

As a portfolio manager I use leveraged inverse ETF’s as hedges against the dramatic downside.  They have a very narrow window and only perform when the market more or less moves in a straight-line down – just as it did in early October 2008, May 2010 or July/August 2011.  Other than those sustained sell-offs, they are a drag on portfolio performance, a cost of doing business in this risk-on, risk-off “marketplace”.

I willingly pay that cost because I have no concrete idea when another fit of sustained selling will actually take place, but I have more than an inkling that it will.  Instead, this massive and growing volatility, even though it is costing me some short-term performance, is a good sign that there is actually progress being made.  What we are witnessing is a titanic battle between the world as it really is and the one central banks need you to believe it might be (if only you would set aside your own perceptions and self-interest).  The fact that volatility has risen is a clear indication that the central bank-inspired anesthesia is no longer as effective as it was in 2009, or even in the QE 2.0 inspired insanity of 2010.  Reality, and the free market, is being imposed – and that means there is a place for even narrowly-useful hedging vehicles.

The current market battle is nothing more than the extreme measures of the rational expectations theory and a form of the fallacy of composition, combined with the political aspirations of a century-old theoretical notion of how the economic system should be ordered.  Mainstream economic “science” has developed in a relatively straight line since the Great Depression, starting with the idea that the economy must be governed in emergencies.  Executive Order 6102 and the subsequent devaluation of the dollar solidified the place for the entire field of economic management, marking perhaps the last time it would be challenged by mainstream thought.

Without the guiding hand of the educated economist, capitalist, free market economies are believed to be wrought with the danger of total collapse, unable to escape from their own emotional whimsies.  At the most primal level of modern economics is a deathly fear of deflation, a fear that is best summed up by Fisher’s paradox.

In 1933, Irving Fisher published a paper in the Federal Reserve’s Econometrica circular that amounted to a point-by-point logical deduction of the string of events that led to the unusual collapse of the economic and banking systems.  The scale and pace of the disaster confounded “experts” of the era (it seems experts have trouble with inflections in every era), so his deduction offered a highly plausible, well-reasoned and “logical” explanation.

For Fisher, the combination of over-indebtedness and deflation was the toxic mix from which the calamity grew.  But within that mix lay a paradox that formed a trap by which no self-made recovery was possible:

“…if the over-indebtedness with which we started was great enough, the liquidations of debts cannot keep up with the fall of prices which it causes.  In that case, the liquidation defeats itself.  While it diminishes the number of dollars owed, it may not do so as fast as it increases the value of each dollar owed.  Then, the very effort of individuals to less their burden increases it, because the mass effect of the stampede to liquidate in swelling each dollar owed.  Then we have the great paradox which, I submit, is the chief secret of most, if not all, great depressions:  the more the debtors pay, the more they owe.  The more the economic boat tips, the more it tends to tip.  It is not tending to right itself, but is capsizing.”

The lessons of this paradox are interwoven into the fabric of modern/conventional economics, that whenever deflation might be present a recovery has to be forced since it cannot start on its own.  But it is extremely curious that only one half of the equation was chosen as an outcast:  deflation.  Over-indebtedness has, obviously, been warmly embraced in the decades since Fisher’s proposition.  The development of the mainstream of economics has led to the belief that intentional inflation can always defeat deflation, and therefore debt can assume a role, even a primary role, within the schematic of economic stewardship.

Fisher’s paradox survives in many forms, but among the most important was a logical derivation, namely the idea that economic participants can do what they believe is best for themselves, but in doing so harm themselves through systemic processes.  This is known as a fallacy of composition; that what is good for individuals is not necessarily best for the whole.  It overturned the traditional economic notion of an economy at its most basic level, from the time of Adam Smith describing individual self-fulfillment.  Sure, this idea had been around for awhile before Fisher’s paper, but the Great Depression “proved” that the fallacy was real and potentially cataclysmic.  Originally it was confined to the narrow interpretation of depression economics, and so the evolution of unquestioned economic management started from there.

The economics profession truly believes that there exists economic states where individual self-maximization no longer benefits the larger societal association of economic actions, so it “logically” follows that some process (or entity) has to step in and enforce conditions contrary to individual notions of self-maximization.  In other words, there are times when people must be forced to do what they perceive is against their own best interest.

In the context of depression avoidance this seems to be rather innocuous, but in the displacement of political thinking since the 1930’s, it was a slippery slope.  What Fisher’s paradox essentially required was a benevolent authority to administer and visit a kind of beneficial tyranny upon the economic population.  In the constant forward roll of history, though, the slippery slope of needed benevolence has been applied to a larger and larger cohort of economic circumstances – emergencies breed human desire for such authoritarianism.

It is important to remember that the Federal Reserve was a secondary institution for much of the post-Depression period.  After the monetary debacles of the Great Depression, especially the unnecessary reserve requirement hike in 1936 that initiated the depression-within-a-depression in 1937, the Fed was relegated to being simply a monetary check-writer.  The Treasury Dept. was the economic powerhouse, especially during a time in which the dollar was the primary tool of economic management.  The Fed was consigned to managing the money supply around treasury debt auctions to ensure the federal government’s uninterrupted ability to borrow (in some ways things never change).  When that borrowing exploded in 1965, the money supply went with it and the seeds of the Great Inflation were embedded.

Paul Volcker changed this with his “heroism” in defense of the dollar, a dramatic departure from the previous era of Treasury Dept. domination.  Conventional wisdom posits that it was Volcker’s Fed that vanquished the inflation dragon, in doing so he “created” another pillar of the fallacy of composition (high interest rates were not good for individuals, but seemed to be good for the larger system).  The chastened Fed of 1965 that allowed inflation to begin building was dropped for the activist Fed of 1980 that could apparently do no wrong (the monetary history of the 1970’s was completely and conveniently ignored).  The Fed’s reputation soared with the perceived economic success of the 1980’s, handing Alan Greenspan an amount of power unparalleled in human history.

But how much economic success in the 1980’s was earned?  Again, conventional wisdom sees the Great Inflation ending in 1982, giving way to the Golden Age of Economic kingship – the Great Moderation.  What I see is simply a transformation of inflation from consumer prices to asset prices.  Instead of overwrought money creation circulating within the real economy in the form of wages and higher consumer prices, new credit production capabilities allowed a secondary circulation of credit money into assets, indirectly feeding into the real economy – first as interest income, second as debt – as the notorious “wealth effect”.  The economy in this age would transform from one based on earned income to one based on paper movements of created money, with the irony of the “wealth effect” being its tendency to incrementally create economic activity without actually creating productive wealth.  The global economy was increasingly reliant solely on money creation, a transformation that cannot be understated and a prime cause for re-evaluating the whole of the Great Moderation.

We see this quite clearly in the consumerism of the period.  In 1975, household spending was still largely a function of wage income.  If we adjust Disposable Personal Income by subtracting asset income (interest and dividends), we see a modest deficit in spending sources of about 3.5%.  Households spent more than they brought in from wages, benefits, government transfers (net of taxes) and rental income. Consumer/household spending needed asset income to make up that small funding shortfall (and to go beyond to generate a positive savings rate).  By the midpoint of the Great “Moderation” in 1990, the spending deficit was a chasm, 19.3%.  Without the $898 billion (nominal dollars) in asset income there was no way that consumer spending would have grown so far so fast.

That interest/asset income was a leftover effect of the Great Inflation when monetary creation found its way into growing stockpiles of “safe” financial assets for the household sector.  By 1990, US households had accumulated $5.1 trillion in deposits and credit market assets (largely US treasury bonds) against only $3.6 trillion in debt (including mortgages).  But that was a huge “problem” for the growing acumen of an activist Federal Reserve.  As the 1980’s progressed, interest rates were declining with consumer inflation (and providing a helping hand to asset prices running wild with credit now focused in that direction).  The mainstream of economics took this as a sign of success, but it was really just a marked decrease in monetary efficiency since new money was now circulating heavily in asset prices (the junk bond bubble and the new, great bull market in equities).

Concurrently, economic management had evolved in the 1980’s with the innovation of the “rational expectations” theory.  It was hailed as a huge advancement in monetary thinking coming out of the Great Inflation.  In many ways it was an adjunct to the fallacy of composition.  The rational expectations theory holds that the economic children of modern society can be fooled into undertaking activity that might be against their own best interest if some benevolent authority simply makes it look like everything will be better in the not-too-distant future.  If the Fed screws with the price and cost of money (for debt accumulation), manipulates the price of gold (for inflation expectations), or “nudges” stock or real estate prices in the “right” direction (the notorious wealth effect), the population will act today on those conjured expectations of good times tomorrow.

By the end of the 1980’s, the S&L crisis (a stark warning that economic management might not have been all that it was advertised to be, a warning that has largely been ignored) threatened to plunge the world back into depression.  The Fed and Alan Greenspan feared the consequences of a banking crisis and any attendant deflation.  The Fed funds rate was pushed from around 8.25% in April 1990 to a ridiculous 3.25% by July 1992 – staying at that low level well into 1994.  Alan Greenspan was trying to save the entire banking system from the S&L crisis by reducing the cost of funds so dramatically (hoping to see an increase in bank profits, leading to higher retained earnings and therefore equity capital upon which to pyramid more debt).  The pressure on household spending because of the collapse in interest rates necessitated a marginal change in spending, but not back toward earned income.  Instead we got the wealth effect and the myth of Greenspan’s genius.

Despite a persistently weak recovery (just ask George HW Bush) from a relatively mild recession, the Fed’s management of the economy into a “soft landing” was hailed as a new form of a New World Order.  The business cycle could be smoothed (or even eliminated) by the marginal attraction to debt and the wealth effect.  If expectations were properly managed, the public would suppress their base emotional instincts and dance to the tune set by the monetary kingship.

It was hubris of the highest order, of course.  By the time the tech bubble finally burst (another warning of the dangers of an artificial economy) the Fed doubled down to save itself and its primacy.  The results have been disastrous as the marginal economy progressed further and further away from the fundamental foundation of wages and earned income.  The savings rate fell to zero by 2005.  Worse than that, US households added $10 TRILLION (+269%) in debt between 1990 and 2007, with $7 TRILLION coming after 2002 alone.  The household funding deficit reached a high of 24%!  Even worse than that, households had shifted preferences out of “safe” credit market assets or bank deposits and into much riskier price assets simply because the systemic cost of risk was intentionally held artificially low.

The economic foundation of the Great Moderation was an illusion, nothing more than asset prices and debt; wealth effect and rational expectations.  None of this describes a free market, capitalist economy.

Central banks and economists love to talk about economic potential, spending so much time trying to calculate it with their complex modeling capabilities and elegant mathematical equations.  But the hard truth of economic overlordship is rather simple.  The Federal Reserve, in cooperation with global central banks, Wall Street and the interbank wholesale money marketplace, simply substituted credit for earned income.  And the reason is also very simple, because debt accumulation is far more easily manipulated.  As long as households remained attached to earned income and “safe” savings assets, economic management was nearly impossible.  The rational expectations theory needs a system more attuned by asset prices and malleable debt levels.  And so marginal consumer spending shifted away from the solid foundation of jobs and wages right into the hands of the fallacy of composition and the rational expectations theory.

It is more than a little ironic that the Fed so willingly embraced indebtedness in light of their history with Fisher’s paradox.  But mathematical advances in modeling along with a growing commitment to steady inflation allowed the Fed to really believe it could stave off deflation.  So they made a deal with the debt devil to obtain the keys to the marginal economic castle and its grand artificial economy, and in the process dangerously surrendered to the over-indebted part of the Fisher’s paradox equation.  Thus the housing bubble to mediate the tech bubble since the tech bubble had some potentially deflationary consequences.  Even today, everything the Fed has done since 2007 can be seen in these terms:  the fallacy of composition, rational expectations and the preservation of the benevolent stewardship of the economic, academic masters.

Somewhere in all this transition from Fisher’s paradox to Greenspan’s genius to debt-slavery, the system ceased to function as a free-market, capitalist system.  The free market values the bottom-up dispersal and divergence of billions and billions of free opinions, freely associating together as unfettered price discovery.  A central bank devoted to the fallacy of composition and rational expectations is a top-down system committed to manipulating price discovery to achieve ends that seem to be, and very often are, contrary to the perceptions of the vast majority of doltish economic participants.  The monetarist system is forced upon the population, no matter how much they resist.

Indeed, the idea of an economic fallacy of composition is itself a logical fallacy.  I have no quarrel with the idea of a fallacy of composition or any logical fallacy for that matter, but logic holds no special place in social interactions.  There are no logical deductions from economics no matter how much math is applied.  It is, and will remain, a subjective interpretation of events.  Even the vaunted Fed and its accumulation of Ivy League PhD’s performs no leaps of logic.  Like anyone else with an opinion, whatever fallacy of composition it thinks it sees is still just subjective interpretation.

And that is the real danger.  Cloaked in the apparent objectivity of math, the economic elite have gained unlimited economic power.  When you stop and think about it, you can create a fallacy of composition pretty much anywhere (and write and enforce rules based on it) – from the steep tax on savers with five-plus years of zero interest rates to mandating everyone has to purchase health insurance even if they don’t have the need for it.

The volatility of today is nothing more than a fight between the active perceptions of participants trying to maximize self-interest within the classical, traditional concept of a free economy, and the opposing forces of overlordship of the landed economic elite, trying to get the uninitiated to simply follow orders.  The elite really believes that if everyone would gladly pile on even more debt and spend with reckless abandon, the Great Moderation would once again be within reach.  Consumers should only stop thinking for and of themselves since common sense is dangerous to the controlled economic system.  To get more debt “flowing” requires active price manipulation to make the world seem like it will be better in the near future so that people will start acting like it.

Economic potential to the Fed is the level of economic activity of 2006.  To them, this is a cyclical recovery from a cyclical interruption in their normal smoothing of the business cycle.  Sure it veered way off into panic, but that was just more confirmation that human emotion needs to be managed.  But if we view the economy from the historical perspective, the lack of a cyclical recovery is not at all surprising.  The Fed spent decades building up so much monetary inefficiency, so many artificial monetary channels for indirectly “stimulating” economic activity, that it will simply take an enormous amount of new money to get it all moving in the “right” direction again (Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman at least have that part right).

The fact that resistance is growing, that investors are not drinking the economic Kool-Aid as much as 2009 or late 2010 is a sign of growing discord.  The efforts in the realm of rational expectations are simply not working.  That is the ultimate danger because the entire central bank gameplan is based on only that.  Without willing adherents (useful idiots?) to the central authority of economic management, everything falls back to the true potential – earned income and boring cash flow of un-manipulated dollars or euros.  With such a massive chasm between marginal economic activity and earned income sources of spending, it is not likely to be a shallow or short transition (this explains most of the inability of the economy to create jobs – so many jobs in the central planning era were based on money creation and financial “innovation”).

That is both the opportunity and danger of a system reaching its logical end.  Put another way, there is a growing realization that while free markets are messy and somewhat unstable, central planning is not really a cure for those symptoms.  In fact, it has created more harm ($13 trillion in debt is only US households) than good, more illusion than solid results.  Volatility means that the free market is at least attempting to impose itself at the expense of central planning’s soft financial repression and control.  By no means is such a beneficial outcome assured; rather the other half of all this volatility (the risk-on days) is the status quo desperately trying to hang on through any and all means (even those less than legal, like bailing out Europe through cheapened dollar swaps).

So the cost of using leveraged ETF’s as insurance against the failure of soft central planning necessarily rises, but that just may mean their ultimate usefulness is closer to being realized.  Unless you know exactly when this transition might reach its conclusion, it is, in my opinion, a cost worth bearing.

  …Iran Nuke Arsenal Exposed

by  Editors Gordon Duff and Jim W. Dean,  with Mike Harris

The news has been filled with stories of plans by Israel or the US to bomb Iran.  There was recently a series of accusations made against Iran involving the assassination of Saudi and other diplomatic officials. 

These accusations were quickly discarded by most press organizations as “far fetched” but, for some reason drew responses from the US, France and others, responses that were “non linear” at best. 

Why would President Obama threaten Iran over accusations that all the networks said were nonsense?

Now, sources in Iran, at the highest levels, along with sources in the US and Britain, fearful of a “scam gone awry” tell of an extraordinary plot that is ready to unfold.

Secret contacts between Prime Minister Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khameni and counterparts in Israel, Russia and Turkey have been uncovered outlining a plan to stage an attack on Iran by Israel with full permission of the key groups within the leadership of the Iranian government and the clerics who oversee them. Members of opposition groups who have learned of this plan are livid.

The Sopranos Move to the Persian Gulf

The attack, scheduled for any day now, has one primary purpose.

It is meant to stabilize both the Iranian and Israeli governments, both of which have strong opposition at home and face charges of corruption and to correct major regional financial disaster each confront.

The “deal” between Israel and Iran is much closer to something out of the Sopranos than normal international relations.

This is pure “mob rule.”

THE OIL GLUT

Americans note that gasoline prices, recently at $4.50 per gallon, now approach $2.99 despite the continuation of artificial price supports due to illegal market speculation.

Gas price manipulation bankrupted the auto companies and has bled trillions of dollars out of the American economy that, not only destroyed our balance of trade but has lowered our standard of living.

This manipulation has been to prevent downward pressure on oil prices from three major market forces.

Will We Get the Old Gas Prices Back at This Critical EconomicTime – Or Will We Get Raped Instead?

1)  There has been an 8% decrease in demand for oil and other petrochemical products worldwide, causing massive downward pressure on oil prices.

Price platforms that had been over $150 per barrel (2008) with current futures trading up to $120 per barrel while actual sale prices according to Platts Marketscan are at $86.00 per barrel less discounts of up to $8.00.

Corrected prices based on actual supply and demand would have oil at or below $60 per barrel and gasoline on the American market at $1.79 per gallon and on most European markets at E .79 per litre including all applicable taxes and fees.

The truth about supply issues has been suppressed.  Not only is demand down but supply is skyrocketing.

2)  Recent discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean and West Africa/Cameroon place available reserves at nearly 40% higher than estimated 3 years ago.

Accurate reporting of these reserves would make oil futures virtually worthless, something that in a normal world would be of interest to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Now its “big oil’s” time for its own “pump and dump” in the futures market.  With this comes more powerful political backing for this crazed and apocalyptic scheme.

3)  New gas pipelines have broken Russia’s stranglehold on the market for natural gas and will push costs and profitability in that commodity through the floor.

Thousands of Highly Mobile Silkworms Line the Persian Gulf

THE WAR FIX

There is only one way to stabilize gasoline prices that are in “free fall,” closing the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow waterway serving Iraq, Kuwait and other Gulf States that is controlled militarily by Iran through its vast network of Silkworm missiles will do exactly that.

Such an act would hit just like a worldwide oil embargo and could be triggered in hours by any Israeli attack on Iran.

What had been seen, in the past, as a potential world disaster, is now just another way to make a quick buck, despite the fact that those involved are, at least according to stories in our press, “blood enemies.”

IRAN’S PROBLEM

To Save Themselves Financially – Would They Do Something Crazy?

Iran’s government is unstable, unpopular, considered extremely corrupt and is subject to pressure both internally and externally and we note from the continual talk of “sanctions.”

Post revolutionary Iran has a theocratic government, whose elected officials are subject to oversight by a religious authority.

However, it is the religious authority itself that is currently the subject of most accusations of corruption and reported to be behind this new deal with Israel.

Additionally, Iran had chosen to invest around the imagined stability of the Euro, both out of poor financial judgement and a belief it was a way of opposing the influence of the United States in the region.

However, as the Euro is currently in total collapse and the banks looked to for providing support for the Euro, banks Iran is heavily invested in, are insolvent due to hundreds of trillions of Euros of “toxic assets,” worthless securities they have used to underwrite their most profitable lending activities.

Thus, Iran’s financial picture isn’t very hopeful and much less so if oil markets are under threat.

A collapse of oil prices would lower Iran’s GNP (Gross National Product) significantly, causing additional social discord and the inability on behalf of the government to subsidize key constituencies.  Currently, veterans of the Iraq/Iran war are one of the key political constituencies in Iran and are very mobilized for political action.

They stand ready to act against the current government if financial policies threaten their interests, as does the military and the Revolutionary Guard.

NOT JUST IRAN

Just look at Nigeria.  With a population of nearly 200 million, any cut in revenue due to falling oil prices would threaten their already beleaguered situation, a nation facing, not only terrorism but revolution.

Venezuela faces the same as does Ghana, Sudan, Chad, Angola, Tunisia, Indonesia and a dozen other nations without the financial wherewithal to remain stable with significant changes in the oil market.

Though “flush with cash,” the big loser is Russia, not just a potential big loser but also a “big player” in the region.

THE PLAN DISCOVERED A YEAR AGO

On June 18th, 2010, I wrote the following in Veterans Today:

Israel’s Iran Strike Logistics Basing Area

A week ago, Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. The Saudi’s quickly denied this.

The effort on Israel’s part was a ruse to cover their real plans, to attack from the Republic of Georgia, close to Iran’s northern border.

However, the breakdown in relations with Turkey after miscalculating the response to their Flotilla raid on a Turkish ship in international waters may have ended this operation.

Israel, whose arms agreements with Turkey mounted to nearly $5 billion dollars over a period of years, had been training pilots in Turkey for bombing attacks on Iran. During these training missions, Israel was smuggling aircraft through Turkish airspace.

Turkey had allowed Israel to use their air space for training because their terrain closely resembled areas of Iran that Israel planned to attack. However, Turkey was unaware that planes involved in this effort were being relocated to forward staging areas in the Republic of Georgia, making Turkey, technically, fully complicit in this planned illegal attack.

Helping coordinate the attack are intelligence units forward stationed in Azerbaijan, under the guise of technicians, trainers and advisors under the broad armaments agreements with that small nation.

Supply operations, moving necessary ordnance, much of it supplied by the United States under ammunition storage agreements, is being moved through the Black Sea to the Georgian Port of Poti, a major site for exporting coal and manganese ore….

USS Graple

Cover for the supply operations is being performed by the Georgian Coast Guard, set up by Israel and manned with Israeli observers.

Their job is to keep Russian surveillance craft away from supply operations under the guise of a “Gaza type” naval blockade of Abkhazia, a separatist province supported by Russia….

US Naval forces began operating in the Black Sea in late May, with the USS Graple (T-ars 53), a service and salvage ship, visiting the Georgian port of Poti for joint military exercises which ended June 8th.

Prior to that, the last US Navy ship in the region was the USS John L. Hall (FFG-32), a Perry class guided missile frigate. A Russian spokesman said, “The US is trying to turn the Black Sea into an American lake.”

The US is also maintaining a training and observation command in Tiblisi, a unit from Ramstein AFB in Germany, that is coordinating air traffic and radar functions.

With regular visits by the US Navy scheduled and ramping up at the same convenient time Israel is building up its arms cache in Georgia for the upcoming attack on Iran, the current debacle with Turkey may have set things back or ended this gambit completely.

Turkish air controllers had to know something was afoot when the attack bombers failed to return to the agreed upon flight plans and return to Israel.

Russian made S-300 Air Defense Missiles

A critical issue, of course, is the S300 air defense system that Russia has agreed to withhold from Iran as part of the program of sanctions. The current Tor 1 system, though robust, can be defeated by a well planned low level attack.

As the use of Georgia may be seen as a provocation by Russia, even if the attacks never manifest as anything other than more “firing blanks” like Israel’s tussle with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Russia may reconsider the delivery of this vital defense technology.

Without the ability to use forward bases in either Georgia, Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, Israel would be unable to attack Iran at all except by flying a circuitous 4500 mile “each way” route or using the limited capabilities of its nuclear armed submarine off the coast of Iran. It is uncertain how Turkey will deal with the illegal use of their airspace by Israel as relations are already at a low ebb.

With a number of former Soviet airfields spread across Georgia and 4 of 5 fields in Azerbaijan available for operations and support, the region makes a perfect area for broad operations, not only against Iran but for movement of contraband of every variety.

WHAT HAS CHANGED – WHAT WE MISSED

Yes – America Has Been Talking to the Iranians

What we didn’t know but suspected, is that Iran and Israel had been doing more than talking in Dubai where both do more than occasional banking.

Back channel communications between the Iranian government and the US had been done through Indonesia with Robert Gates as initial intermediary.

Since that time, such talks have gone through many hands.  What we didn’t know is that “talks” included “plots.”

The current issue has an unusual flavor to it with money flowing freely into the hands of all involved.

Participation in such a plan, with the risk of nuclear war very real despite the careful mechanizations of the conspirators, could very well have ramifications leading to global war.

Wars have been started over less, as an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 taught all of us.

ISRAEL

Is Netanyahu Betting It All on a Grand Slam?

Israel gets to focus its internal problems on an external enemy and, in the process, get another “big win” like the one the US got when it killed the long dead Osama bin Laden.

Netanyahu’s belief is that his domestic opposition, more powerful than ever, will be silenced and his strained relations with the US will be repaired.

Added to “the deal” are provisions for generous financial windfalls for all involved.

Similarly, we have traced payments to Hamas made by Israel, stretching back many years.

We have also traced Israel’s control in a number of publications supposedly dedicated to the Palestinian cause, all carefully used by Israel to orchestrate tensions and derail any potential trust or cooperation.

The supposed “anti-zionist” Palestinian publications and select Islamic organizations, particularly in Lebanon, have been among Israel’s most valuable assets.

Now with the discovery of the covert relationship between Israel and Iran, this has become much more understandable, particularly in light of the new-found fear of political destabilization as Israel primary “assets” in the region, Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya have both fallen to what we hope will be democratic regimes.

THE WAR PLANS – NUCLEAR IRAN

Thermonuclear Warhead

We had been receiving information about nuclear weapons in Iran for several months.  Sources were given that had not checked out, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and even Israel.

However, one source did check out, the Ukraine.  We don’t have the exact date or number but we are told that the Ukraine sold Iran 6 thermonuclear warheads, probably in or around 2003.

Iran was fearful of US forces on both borders and nuclear weapons would have only been usable as a “last resort,” not against Israel but against American armies moving into Iran.

That the warheads are from an American ally, one being courted for NATO membership at the time, made this issue one of great sensitivity.

It was easier to continue talking about nuclear programs that didn’t exist than weapons that did.

For Iran, these weapons, back in 2003 at least, were going to be a great surprise to the neocons at PNAC (Project for a New American Century) that had planned their demise.  Things never got that far.

Now Iran is stuck with weapons they can never use, not against Israel, certainly not against American forces in Iraq who are currently in full scale withdrawal.  Each weapon has taken on the effect of being an albatross around Iran’s neck, far more of a security risk than asset.

WHAT WE ALSO KNOW

Discussions within the Iranian clergy, unknown to their new Israeli friends, indicate that these nuclear devices, each deliverable by ballistic missile, will be made operational as a “safety measure.”  What can they be thinking?

One must realize that this is the same religious organization that regularly has government officials charged with witchcraft.

This highly classified information is being published at great risk by many in America, Great Britain and Iran in hopes that that the “clear light of day” will bring about a period of reflection and a restoration of sanity.

IAEA Iran

You Will Die From The Nuclear Lie

The Fantasy of Nuclear Lies…the Who, What and Even Why

 by Gordon Duff,  Senior Editor

The “news,” such as it is anymore, tells us that “war is around the corner.”  According to “the news,” a deceptively reworded report from the IAEA says that Iran is “considering

Who Is Really Cooking Up a Batch of Dangerous Intel?

thinking about preparing for a program that may be used to develop nuclear weapons.” 

The report itself is hogwash, misrepresented, unsupported and influenced by the same pattern of bribery and influence that led the US to invade Iraq, a war crime that has led to an American president facing a possible death penalty at the hands of an international court.

Almost nothing said about nuclear power, nuclear weapons, depleted uranium or any related subject is true.  Some of it is classified but the best reason, to keep secrets “secret” is not so much the reason.  I have spoken with a ranking co-worker of the top security advisor for former President George “W” Bush.  This individual personally witnessed America’s top nuclear weapons secrets passed to an Israeli embassy “spook” at a cocktail party.

Witnessing this, among others, was the then Secretary of State and the head of the National Security Council.  A high ranking FBI informant, extremely high ranking, was present and it is very very likely that this exchange was recorded on audio and perhaps video.

An audio recording of such a thing might not be valuable if it weren’t for the fact of what was said:

“Here, take this stack of papers, it’s every really good nuclear secret America has.  Isn’t it funny how I can do such thing right here in the open and nobody cares?”

This isn’t exact, not exactly “word for word” but very close.  Later we found out why he said it.  He had the full knowledge and cooperation of the Attorney General who ordered the FBI crew, sitting outside in one of those vans, to bury 3 years of evidence.  We understand that Israel wasn’t the “end user” of the information but only an intermediary.

The end user was the government of China.

Some other poor fool was blamed.  Predictable.

This isn’t all of it, I am just setting the tone here, showing how little real respect and concern the American government has for its nuclear arsenal, its nuclear secrets and how trading weapons, trading prohibited technology and, as we have learned more and more of lately, using “black technologies” has been one of the biggest stories of our time, a story not told, no matter how much evidence is available.  Evidence…so much you could drown in it.

Were the only proof to be Richard Dolan’s presentation, riveting in itself, some could have doubts:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsJDsxmzMDw

– Veterans Today -

For there to be lies, there has to also be a “truth” than simply isn’t “true.”  Years ago, historians became “revisionists” when documents started being declassified that said the things in our news or what was taught in our schools was, not just false but outlandishly so.

Telling college professors  that the books they wrote and they classes they had taught for years had been totally wrong didn’t go far.  Politics wins out, lies win out.

Then, at least some of it, came down to TV.  Thousands of hours of shows tell us that their “secret history” is totally different than the old one.  Problem there is that, though often the shows are right, sometimes the “new history” is even crazier than the old one, simply made up.  So when the “Nude Archaeologist,” a former member of the Israeli army, shows you a box in a warehouse in Tel Aviv that he says has Christ’s bones in it, is it because it is true or because it is really his job to discredit Christianity or Islam?

Those stories telling us the early Christians were all liars and thieves or that every famous American was a “Nazi,” meaning Henry Ford, the Bush family, Edison, Lindbergh, the list can go on forever, believing them makes us all seem so clever but are the stories true?  One short line here to demonstrate my point:

Books have been written saying the Bush family financed Hitler.  Tons of proof is given, line after line of reference.  Look it up yourself.  Here’s the problem with that.  Prescott Bush, grandfather of our most recent Bush president, did work for a bank.  That bank did lend money to Germany.  What none of the books say, however, is that bank was a subsidiary of a bank owned by the Rothschild family, the most powerful Jewish banking consortium in history.

They leave that out by simply saying he worked for “Brown Brother, Harriman/City of London.”

Why the lie?  How can we hold our version of history together when we learn Jewish money put Hitler in office?  We can’t even begin to guess what the real truth is, perhaps if we did, we might find out why, in many countries, people who question history actually are sent to prison.

How does this apply to nuclear weapons?  What do we think we know?

• Atom bombs are almost impossible to build, they take science that requires years of experiments
• All nuclear weapons explode with huge mushroom clouds
• All nuclear weapons give off radiation that lasts for thousands of years
• There are no “lost” or “misplaced” nukes and the last time someone was killed by a nuclear explosion was at Nagasaki in 1945

Ouch!

The big issue today is the potential for war in the Middle East and two countries and their “nuclear arsenals,” Israel and Iran.

ISRAEL

Israel can’t “legally” have nuclear weapons.  If they did, they would have to be subject to UN sanctions and the US would be forced to invade and take them away.  So, the deal is, Israel says they don’t have them, then they “wink” and say they have hundreds of them and say they can blow up anyone they want.  Last week they “announced” that they were now capable of attacking the United States with nuclear weapons.

But you say they are our ally?  Certainly you have heard hundreds of politicians swear their dying loyalty to Israel.  Do they mean it?  Not a chance, they get thousands, even millions in bribe money from key “Israeli elements” and pass on billions in foreign aid to Israel.  The whole thing is actually bribery.  Congress doesn’t care about Israel, hell, they don’t even care about America.  Tell me I am wrong, please.  Anyone?

The key to proving Israel has nuclear weapons is a man name Modechai Vanunu.  Eileen Fleming of Veterans Today writes about Vanunu.

The other issue is our “friendship” with Israel.  At the G20 conference a few days ago, French President Sarkozy “let the cat out of the bag.”  France, America and “others” don’t like Israel all that much, not just the 107 nationsthat want Israel thrown out of the UN, but her “14″ friends.

We suspect, just “suspect,” mind you, that Israel might be a bit angry at President Obama.  There is some evidence that they are angry at him, first of all, he got rid of Gaddafi, their secret “best friend” next to Mubarak of Egypt, and has been saying nasty things about them behind their back, nasty to Israel things, things some of us consider “pro-American.”  For this we suspect an “incident” was staged.”  We have reason to believe that Israel has threatened to assassinate President Obama, good reason.

The trail of Israel’s illegal nukes and their desire to be the only one in the “neighborhood” with them has raised some questions.  President Kennedy demanded Israel dismantle its nuclear program in 1963 and died, rather conveniently, soon afterward.  Vanunu, as we know, spent nearly 2 decades in solidarity confinement for whistleblowing.

Another “fact” is that, though Israel claims and “unclaims” it has hundreds of nuclear weapons, the only possible source of the fissionable material would have required tons of weapons grade enriched uranium and plutonium to have been stolen from the United States and other nations.

This, having a nation whose possession of nuclear weapons is, not only very illegal reason for them to be subject to both sanctions and forcible seizure to demand an attack on Iran based on unfounded suspicions, just as Israel had manipulated with Iraq under Bush (the lesser) is insanity in its purest form.

IRAN

Until 2003, Iran had sought nuclear weapons.  Iran then dismantled its military program and opened for full inspection.  Numerous reports such as the recent National Intelligence Estimate from 2007 that stated, categorically, that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.  From Foreign Policy:

The U.S. intelligence community has completed and is circulating a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear weapons program that walks back the conclusion of the 2007 NIE, which stated that Iran had halted work on its covert nuclear weapons program.

Intelligence officials briefed executive branch policymakers on the revised NIE last week. The document is being shared with members of Congress and their staff this week, an administration official and several Capitol Hill sources told The Cable. This is in advance of an early March meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors, where there may be another resolution on Iran’s nuclear program, the official said.

The 2007 NIE was attacked in public due to its conclusion: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The new estimate might not directly contradict that judgment, Hill sources report, but could say that while the intelligence community has not determined that Iran has made the strategic decision to build a nuclear weapon, it is working on the components of such a device.

What is made clear is that there is pressure on the CIA and other agencies to falsify a report based on wishes of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, that will be used to blackmail President Obama into attacking Iran much as President Bush attacked Iraq, an action now generally accepted as a “war crime.”

In fact, there is increasing evidence that the 1991 attack on Iraq by the Senior President Bush was a war crime as well, as stated before congress by Representative Ron Paul. 

The real surprise came recently when Mike Harris broke the story of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons from the Ukraine in 2003, a real “game changer” in the balance of power in the Middle East, one that makes everything we have been told, not only false, but exposes secret protocols between Israel and Iran that make the news we are hearing little more than a fictional backdrop.

A follow-up from Veterans Today last week:

Two weeks ago, while investigating the secret protocols reportedly between Israel and Iran, we were told of Iran’s nuclear weapons.  This information came from dissidents in their own military who told us they bought weapons from the Ukraine.

SS19 – Being Transported

We then went to the Ukraine, top level intelligence officials, who were more than willing to blame the old government, who told us that the Ukraine sold Iran 6 nuclear weapons.

A week later we asked them more and they explained the weapons were part of an SS19, a Soviet ICBM with 6 thermonuclear weapons of 550 kiloton capacity but the missile was unserviced.

We then asked the CIA, or whatever idiot was tasked with lying to Veterans Today, they change that off on a biweekly basis, who confirmed the story about the SS19 missile.

We had confirmed from the Ukraine that the purchase was done in latter 2002 or early 2003. We were told, 2 days ago, that it was authorized by the Russian government, which is, in itself, a big secret.

LIES

So, where do the lies start and how do they apply?

If Iran has had nukes for a decade, bought, perhaps embarrassingly, instead of crated by “science,” the whole thing, as Mike Harris describes, is a charade.  I think this part is a “slam dunk.”

Another “whopper” is the “peek-a-boo” Israel/Nuke issue.  They have them, they are illegal, their aid should be stopped, the US should stop vetoing sanctions against Israel and the US should blow up the Dimona facility where we know for sure that illegal nuclear weapons are made and send in troops and seize the rest of them.  This is our legal obligation.

Then there is the trail that Dimitri Khalezov has led us on, the former Russian government nuclear security officer.  Here is an interview done on the Kevin Barrett show:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=brQqRLCxJew

– Veterans Today -

Khalezov is the only qualified official government source who can draw on briefings he received regarding, not only highest level intelligence, but treaties between the US and Russia over nuclear weapons.  Khalezov has “views” but they are very separate from issues he can testify to.  These are facts known to the Russian security services that are too classified for the American public to be allowed to know of, too classified or perhaps other reasons:

• Small nuclear weapons, some with almost no residual radiation, fusion type weapons built using 4th and 5th generation physics that don’t require a fission reaction are commonly used to simulate terrorist acts.  Articles on the development of such advances are listed in the appendix below, information much of which is frightening in nature and, though pubic, utterly contradicts all notions our government tries to make the public believe.
• The following “terrorist” acts involved nuclear weapons and were planned and executed by Israeli intelligence operatives who openly admitted their involvement:  Oklahoma City, the Marine barracks in Beirut (1984), the Bali bombing (2002) and many others.  Similarly, attacks within Russia (Soviet Union also) were “false flag” attacks involving nuclear devices.
• 9/11 involved the use of multiple 4th and 5th generation nuclear devices and was openly admitted to by Mossad Operations Chief Mike Harari on September 12, 2001, while he was trying to recruit me (Khalezov) as part of his team for the Bali nuclear operation.
• The United States has used specialized “low yield” nuclear weapons, most with “minimal residual radiation” (MRR) in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Israel and Mike Harari were responsible for the operational aspects of the Oklahoma City bombing but not necessarily were involved in planning.
• The 9/11 Pentagon attack involved the use of a specialized “hardened” naval type cruise missile.  Victor Bout, whose character was played by Nicholas Cage in the 2005 film, The Lords of War, was actually extradited from Thailand and recently convicted in the US, not for the offenses described but to silence him his believed involvement in supplying the missile for the Pentagon 9/11 attack.

LIES, STAGE TWO

“But mom, I saw the plane crash into the building, I really did, right there on TV”

We all saw things or thought we did.  Some heard explosions, some saw metal melt, months later there were still fires, supposedly started by a fuel truck of kerosene that would have burned out in 20 minutes, or, more truthfully, actually did burn out in 20 minutes.

Whad didn’t we ask mom?

“But mom, why did hundreds of thousands of tons of structural steel vaporize in that big explosion as each of the towers ‘pancaked?’”

It’s like the eternal questions, “How did that ship get into that bottle” or “How do you get four elephants into a Volkswagen?”  Jeff Prager explains it best:
Jeff Prager – 911 Dust (2011)

Prager’s job, one he does well, is to totally discard mom’s version of Santa and the Easter Bunny, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission Report.

Once we enter the world of Prager, one where enormous amounts of energy, thousands of times beyond any known plane crashes or burning office chairs, we get close to that “slippery slope” that says something we don’t know must exist.

Of course it does.  As of a year ago, 880,000 Americans had top secret security clearances.  Anyone working for the public who keeps secrets from the public or lies to the public betrays the public.  Anyone who believes we keep secrets for “national security” when nuclear plans are handed out at cocktail parties…

THE “IMPOSSIBLE” WAS POSSIBLE WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD, MAYBE BEFORE

A couple of years ago, when Wikipedia began being edited and re-edited daily, I began to depend less and less on it as a source of reliable information.  It was still a thousand times bigger than any encyclopedia, even any library we know of, but, on specific subjects, particularly where Israel was involved, editing lies into Wikipedia became official national policy for “that certain country” and hundreds were trained and assigned to that task.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LofScCiJT4c

– Veterans Today -

However, nuclear science is a very different story.  Scientists seem to be a pack of “blabbermouths” who enjoy explaining how everything works, even if they manage to put extremely sensitive material on the internet.

One recent news story told of how a Russian scientist, working in Iran, was helping them in the vast project of developing designs for primitive nuclear weapons.

The first nuclear weapon dropped on Japan, known as “Little Boy,” was a “gun type” nuke.  To make this you need uranium 235, a piece of pipe, some gun powder, a kitchen timer, a 9 volt battery and the ability to drop it from a plane or run

The “Basement Nuke”

away really fast.  No plutonium is needed, you don’t have to use “implosion” nor do you need any background in math or physics or engineering.  I can advise you of this:  don’t drop it.

For anyone who has a big chunk of uranium 235, the rest of the thing can be built in 2 hours and costs under $300.

What does this mean?  It means people who talk about primitive nuclear weapons, like the one from Hiroshima or the ones that Israel and South Africa built (referenced in the addendum twice) or like North Korea bought from Israel (a big secret, don’t tell anyone) as requiring special scientists are “full of it.”

We don’t use this type of nuke anymore because it is dangerous, it has no safety aspects.  “Nuclear artillery,” a holdover from the Cold War, still works like this and works quite well, thank you very much.

The technology to build this kind of thing existed, not in 1945, that was when we made enough uranium to make it work.

We knew how as early as 1915.

It was that, back then, we had already blown up prettymuch everything already and nuclear weapons weren’t needed.  However, even then the Germans had started a program to separate Uranium 235 at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, another big secret you aren’t allowed to tell anyone.

HIDING IN “PLANE” SITE

If you watched the Richard Dolan video, watched and believed it, you have reason to think the US government has spent huge amounts of money to make things that are, by the standards of accepted public knowledge, utterly impossible.

I am saying, you saw one of those things on 9/11 when hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete disappeared before your very eyes at the hands of two airplanes that couldn’t have destroyed a small trailer park.

To make nuclear “things” that aren’t huge bombs, but “things” that can make rockets go between planets or even stars involves serious science, not “Hiroshima” science.  It involves things like “antimatter” and “antihydrogen” and tiny burst of energy that might be tiny, very tiny or might be used to create things that explode.

There have been, for many years, types of nuclear weapons that are unimaginable in capability, size or performance.  Some can blow up huge areas, some put out massive radiation, enough to kill all life on earth, like in the movies, “On the Beach” and “Dr. Strangelove” or “neutron bombs” that only kill living things but leave everything clean and neat as though nothing, or almost nothing, happened.

This barely touches on it.

The information below is public, otherwise I would never include it.  I think it is dangerous but I also think lying is dangerous too, perhaps even worse.

What we used to call “nuclear weapons” were big things, powered by fission, old fashioned nuclear bombs that set off fusion reactions which could make really big bombs, almost without limit.

Then we found evidence that really tiny nuclear bombs, too small to make sense, were being used, bombs that had to use “fusion/fusion” technology, not “fission/fusion” technology.  We found them several places, New York, ground zero but it was in Iraq where we proved they were used, slam dunk:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MnIbcq7jnU

– Veterans Today -

When fully enriched, weapons grade uranium 235 was found in human samples from Iraq, in areas where “large conventional weapons” were supposedly used, we had proof that 4th and 5th generation “fusion/fusion” weapons weren’t just capable, they existed.

Moreover, we also proved that the US government was willing to use them on people and lie about their use.

If they used them in Iraq in 2003, then using them in New York in 2001 wasn’t just a conspiracy theory, it became a logical conclusion.  It wasn’t the only possible answer but it became the most likely answer.  We knew it wasn’t planes or hijackers with magic flying ability or special steel that turned to dust when someone snapped their fingers.

We had an answer because we had proof, we had history and all we had to do is “backtrack.”

What we can prove is true for 2003 we can reasonably assume is true for 2001.

It wasn’t just that you could hide a nuclear explosion with no mushroom cloud but that there was no limit to how small it could be.  Could nukes be used for removing tree stumps some day?

Then, as we followed the science, what people were willing to tell us, nuclear propulsion, bombs with almost no radiation, bombs that could be used to blow up a single house and we reasonably assume that there is much more we are not being told, so very much more, so much science fiction and conspiracy theory, not just “false flag” terrorism, but so many other things we won’t speak of here become so very possible.

———————————————————-

ADDENDUM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2011/iran-111116-rferl01.htm?_m=3n%2e002a%2e355%2ezm0ao011zi%2ebit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.1

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Alarm_Clock.2FSloika

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_catalyzed_nuclear_pulse_propulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAN-II

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/27/science/huge-production-of-antimatter-planned.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-10-04/news/17447495_1_antimatter-physicists-paul-dirac

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/angels-demons-antimatter-bombs-for-real/

http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/antim-BPP.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2797

http://cui.unige.ch/isi/sscr/phys/antim-Thee.html#P-1

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-955016-6.pdf

http://editinternational.com/read.php?id=47ddeffeeedc5

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0507/0507132v2.pdf

http://atomicrockets.posterous.com/harvesting-antimatter-for-propulsion-and-weap

THANK YOU U.N. YOU COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR!

I have seen this blogpost now go viral and have read many comments on it from various other blogsites. Many people are speaking about the dangers of leaving the system and also the benefits of having no Birth registration. I would, therefore, ask the reader to read very carefully what is being said because, in fact, there is no need to leave the system. There is no need for having no birth certificate and having no conferred benefits. There is only ONE need to be stated ON the birth certificate to “kill” the issue of the state and the legal UN articles which are corrupt and deceptive. That statement is provided as an addendum at the bottom. It is simple and entirely effective but ONLY when the human race understands what has occured. We live in this “democracy” (and to the US reader, democracy was NEVER what your founders intended) which deems that the majority rule. If the majority are ignorant and uneducated about what is written here and are unable to grasp the reality and logic of it, then we will never get the mass of people to demand the statement – and what it means – to be inserted.

However, there is one other point I wish to make: OWS need to understand this because this is at the heart of everything. If they do not understand this then they are throwing rocks at a machine and the machine will prevail.

I have been studying this issue for some time now and while I have to state I do not perceive myself as a “Freeman” simply because I do not align with any particular movement, I have, in the past few years, been compelled to look at what it is that gives an entirely corrupt government and judiciary (and it is I can assure you) the “power” to consider themselves the authority by which they can introduce any and all “law” that they wish which, many times, impinges upon personal freedoms from freedom of speech to smoking to how fast you drive your car to coercing you to pay taxes. Let me explain in a short couple of sentences why I took this path:

I went before a court which I then proved, a year or two later, never had jurisdiction in a case. According to THEIR own law, there were two conditions, either one of which which would allow their jurisdiction and neither one was satisfied by either party and the COURT AND LAWYERS knew this all along! They didn’t care but became incensed I found out and decided to coerce me at Supreme court level. I have all the proof of this and, at the time, I gave it to the British government (FCO). I received a letter from Meg Munn saying they would do nothing for me even though it was a direct assault on my human rights. This court was going to jail me (with no record and based upon “contempt because I exposed their corruption in court) for a second time unless I handed over my ENTIRE wealth to the other party. I had advised my lawyer to go into court and strike the whole proceedings and while he accepted that I was right, he refused to do so because it would embarrass HIM AND embarrass the COURT. He obviously had words with the opposition lawyer about my findings and with the court and it was, at that point, the coercion began. I was to “negotiate and do a deal” with the other party who had perjured themselves in court and in affidavits over and over again (seen and accepted by the court but ignored) otherwise I was going to jail again for not abiding with a court order which, I had proven, was based upon false evidence. The FCO, then, were going to allow another court to abuse my human rights when it is their stated principle to uphold the human rights of every UK citizen. Why were they willing to do this? The excuse was because they could not interfere in another sovereign nation’s legal system. I hope you realise what a joke this is! It all depends upon which country’s legal system they are being asked to interfere with. If it is Syria’s or Sudan’s (and THEY are sovereign nations) then it’s ok. If it is a country accepted by the west (which it was) then no, they won’t. The hypocrisy and corruption is so obvious to me now. It ended then, with me literally running for my life (I know it sounds dramatic but it is fact), jumping on a plane back to UK and finishing the whole thing off in the Royal Courts of Justice. Faced by a lawyer and barrister who laughed when I entered court saying I was representing myself. They were not laughing at the end of the day however when I explained the entire jurisdiction issue. The barrister had written to the court in England saying they had jurisdiction to hear the case because the two parties were domicile in England. When I pointed out to him that the other party was asking the court to uphold the other country’s court order which had been based upon jurisdiction being held in the other country based upon DOMICILITY there, the barrister realised he was whipped! Here is where it gets interesting: The result was that, in absolute fact, the other party to the case is now an unrecognised bigamist. That is what our “law” allows!

So, back to the issue:

It would seem strange that the U.N. itself could possibly confirm something as “bizarre” as a Freeman concept, I agree, but one only needs to read the following and, hopefully, if you have a logical mind, you will appreciate it quite clearly.

The U.N. states:

“Registration means proof of legal identity. It is vital for securing recognition before the law, protecting rights such as inheritance and making children less vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.”

“Under international law then, every child is entitled to registration of their birth, including children born to irregular migrants.”

20-22.pdf

Now, please consider carefully, the word “entitled” above. It would sound like an offer, a choice wouldn’t it? “You are entitled to such and such if you so choose to accept”. But the reality is that, in each state/country, you HAVE no choice. The State will punish ANY parent who, on your behalf as a baby, does not wish to CONTRACT with the state. The State’s propaganda machine, however, is great and the ignorant populace will be led to believe you are, somehow, abusing your child. They will say “we cannot confer benefits on this child because LEGALLY, it does not exist” Therefore, you as a parent will be demonized.

Again, directly from the U.N.

“The child who is not registered at birth is in danger of being shut out of society – denied the right to an official identity, a recognized name and a nationality. In 2000, an estimated 50 million babies – more than two fifths of those born – were unregistered. These children have no birth certificate, the ‘membership card’ for society that should open the door to the enjoyment of a whole range of other rights including education and health care, participation and protection.
This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist”.

UNCF Innocent Digest No.9 March 2002:  birthregistration_Digestenglish.pdf

So there you have it in the UN’s own PLAIN language: In LEGAL TERMS they don’t exist. IF then, in legal terms, they do not exist then, by definition, the legal world can have NO AUTHORITY over them. They are EXPLICITLY saying this. There is no room for misinterpretation. It is precise. The UN and legal world spell out the ADVANTAGES of having a birth certificate (all the benefits) but not the DISADVANTAGES which they trust you will not even begin to consider.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that people should not register their child’s birth. No, no no. What I am saying is that EVERYONE should understand, from this, that the existing corrupt system – top to bottom – which allows some to “break the law” (such as elites, wealthy, corporations – who are considered ‘legal persons’) is using the registration of your birth – WHICH IS ACTUALLY A TRUST SET UP BY YOU AND THE STATE WITH YOU AS SOLE BENEFICIARY, THEREFORE, YOU and ONLY YOU, dictate how that trust operates and what its “laws” are – uses it AGAINST YOU where and when it sees fit. And they will and DO use it corruptly particularly if you prove to be an “annoyance” to them.. You have to understand that statute law (the legal world) requires consent and they ASSUME you have given them consent to act ‘on your behalf’ because you have been REGISTERED with the state – just as you register your car and the state (DVLA) has been given authority by YOU to tow away your car – which then allows them to ACT upon your person in accordance with ANY and ALL statutes that they see fit. But this is in YOUR IGNORANCE of how this deception works.

By registration of your child, you have entered – and entered them – into a contract with the state which SUBBROGATES their inherent, god given, human rights which are UNALIENABLE – UNLESS you subbrogate them! This has been done deceptively, fraudulently because, as with ALL CONTRACTS, one must be afforded FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS. YOU WERE NOT GIVEN FULL DISCLOSURE OF WHAT THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS WERE BY REGISTERING THE BIRTH!

“Let he who allows himself to be deceived, be deceived”

So consider this because this is the result of the population’s ignorance regarding how the birth cerificate and REGISTRATION of your child is actually used against you. You give the state the power and authority to remove your child from you in precisely the same way you give the DVLA power and authority to remove your car:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmoOMNXCbAo

The bottom line is this: While it is right that all children should live in safety, be registered, be confered the benefits of society – education, the necessities to operate in the world etc. The states are using “carrots” of benefits (which, in fact, as we are seeing are a huge cost to each individual in society because, as you know, being part of that society and a taxpayer for instance, has you liable for the losses of the banks) to ensure you register your child and hand authority to the state which then allows the state to use the legal system against you. Before you transferred authority to the state, your child (and you) had unalienable rights bestowed only by God. You were a completely free human being only limited by the true law (no harm, injury or loss to another human being). Since contracting and registering for all those “benefits”, the LAW SOCIETY, on behalf of the State, has removed, deceptively, all power from you and DO NOT, in fact, bestow upon you, the man or woman, human rights because you already HAVE rights which can never been taken from you AS a man or woman. Neither does the state abuse your unalienable rights because you have effectively transfered the authority to them to act upon your LEGAL PERSON. You have created a LEGAL PERSON. A LEGAL FICTION with which you play in the “game of life” like the piece you use in monopoly. That piece is not YOU but you control the piece and if you did not have it you would not be able to play the game. That is PRECISELY how your Birth Certificate (Registration with the state) is being used. That is your game piece in the game of life and it is being deceptively used against you.

So what is the solution? Have no birth certificate?

No. The solution is that we put the State on notice that we now appreciate what they have been and are doing and we advise them, very clearly, that it is fraud and deception on their part and we are now taking control over our trusts. The registration of your birth created a trust (even though you nor your parents thought of this or considered it, you just did what everyone has done). The TRUSTEES of that trust are the public servants. Public servants serve the PUBLIC. YOU are the public and the Judge, Police, government are YOUR servants. GOD KNOWS they do not wish you to understand this but I think the above makes it quite clear.

They treat YOU as a trustee in YOUR ignorance. You are NOT the trustee, you are the BENEFICIARY of that trust and as such, only YOU can appoint the administrator of it. The Judge is acting as administrator in your ignorance. YOU need to advise him/her that he/she is WRONG.

The U.N. has given you absolute confirmation here that it is the birth certificate and ONLY the birth certificate which creates a legal personality which the legal world can recognise an act upon. If they cannot confer benefits on you because you are not recognised legally, then they cannot POSSIBLY argue that they can hold you to legal statute law. Common law yes – absolutely. No harm, injury or loss and there MUST be an injured party. But other than that, they have NO authority over you.

THIS IS WHERE FREEDOM AND TRUTH BEGINS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO BREAK THE COMMON LAW. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO CAUSE HARM, INJURY OR LOSS. THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING THE SUBBROGATION OF YOUR RIGHTS BY A CORRUPT SYSTEM WHICH IS ABUSING ITS POWER.

Now, here is another interesting comment in the UN digest document:

 ”Similarly, an unregistered child is unlikely to be able to obtain social protection from the state. In Israel, the fact that many Palestinian children born in camps are unregistered seriously jeopardizes their access to Israeli public health and welfare services”.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sick!

WHAT DOES YOUR ZIONIST/JEWISH VALUES SAY ABOUT THIS CAMERON? "It's ok the kid had no birth certificate so didn't exist"?

Consider this seriously for a moment: Is it possible that, due to the lack of legal recognition and, as the UN has stated, these children DO NOT LEGALLY EXIST, that to massacre such children AND adults is no crime at all legally?

DO NOT THINK THIS IS A FLIPPANT REMARK!

Think about this. HOW does a Palestinian child (or parent) or a person from a country or region (think native peoples – Papua New Guinea etc) bring a charge of murder or genocide or any charges into a court of law if they have no STANDING because they have no birth certificate therefore, no legal identity? How does a people then find justice? Answer: THEY DON’T. There IS no other mechanism.

So think of the massacre of native American Indians by those who stole their land. Those who stole the land were recognised in “law” as existing. They HAD birth certificates. The British system would, therefore, consider these “savages” as non-existent. If they did not exist in law then they both, could not be confered benefits NOR would anyone miss them or be able to act LEGALLY on their behalf. So, we massacred nobodies. In legal terms IT DID NOT HAPPEN! THINK about that!

But here’s another thing: While the UN and the state say you cannot be given any benefits – and let’s take health and medicine for a moment shall we? – if you do not have a birth certificate and therefore, do not exist. DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MOMENT THAT, IN PALESTINE AND ELSEWHERE, THESE CHILDREN AND ADULTS ARE EVER TURNED AWAY FROM HOSPITALS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF NATO or AMERICAN/BRITISH or ISRAELI BOMBS? DO YOU?

So then you tell me? WHO is the most humane? Those who would turn their backs on their people because they LEGALLY DO NOT EXIST such as that which the UN and western states subscribe to? Or those who see a human being suffering and the LAST thing they think about is “Do you have a birth certificate?” and “Do you have enough of these “bills of exchange” to pay to live? Quite literally then, the western idea is of having a Health service which acts as a “Highwayman” – “Your money or your life!”

To further point to the seriousness of that earlier remark think of slavery. Think of American Black slavery. They were not recognised as people with rights BUT, while all that changed and they were then conferred benefits of statehood, allowed passports, “given” rights through their registration, do you think for one moment that the same group of elitist psychopaths were going to make everyone equal?

No. They then used and abused the system of registration which they “wrap up in ribbons” with nationality and passports and driving licences, education, health etc while, quietly they are using it to tax you, to fine you and to suck the wealth from humanity deceptively.

They STILL have their slaves because they set the system up to ensure it.

So Morgan, if you ever stumble across this, give it some thought!

Morgan Freeman: The blacks achieved their freedom? No, they were just added to the "herd".

ADDENDUM 8th Nov 2011:

While I understand fully, people suggesting such as “bringing the system down” etc in their heartfelt anger about this massive con on the human race – and it is – I do not believe in bringing the system down because it would simply result in an unholy war and millions of deaths. For what?

The “system” has been built by us. The system is actually, basically fine. What is wrong is the corruption of that system by nothing more or less than the manipulation of law by those who hold the wealth which they have accumulated across centuries by ensuring the corruption of the system. It is necessary to expose and destroy (peacefully) these people’s grip on humanity by their having bought politicians and governments to install the legislation they have wanted for the purposes of societal control.

Specifically with regard to the birth registration issue. It is easily dealt with. The solution is:

“In signing this birth certificate as a RECORD of birth ONLY, I, as sole beneficiary of this trust, do not subrogate any and all god given rights of the child”

It was nice knowing you! You never quite managed Independence (even though you may have thought you did but then you know how immensely deceptive these people are now and have always been) but you were the closest thing to freedom – note I do not use that disgusting, deceptive term “democracy” – that the planet ever had. However, even all the way back to George Washington, you were never quite free. But that detail, perhaps, is for another time, another blog and will take a long, arduous explanation.

George Washington

How America was founded – the principles in a nutshell:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Jacob G. Hornberger, November 2001

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and radical in history.

Consider: With the tragic exception of slavery, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.

Where people could travel anywhere in the world without restriction (no passports) and trade with whomever they pleased without the permission of their government officials.

Where people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.

Where people were free to do whatever they wanted with their own money — save, spend, donate, invest, hoard, or even destroy it.

Where government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid.

With a few exceptions (e.g., 1850s Massachusetts), there were no compulsory public (i.e., government) school systems.

No wars on drugs, poverty, or wealth.

And open borders for the free immigration of people from anywhere in the world.

Like I say, regardless of how you might feel about the political and economic philosophy of the Founders of our country, no one can deny that the political and economic system that they brought into existence was the most unusual and radical in history.

Our Founders’ philosophy toward foreign affairs was also an unusual one. A primary responsibility of the U.S. government, they believed, was to protect the nation from invasion or attack and not involve itself in the affairs or conflicts of other nations.

The Founders clearly understood that horrible things would be seen all over the world, such as brutal tyrannies and cruel dictatorships — after all, they themselves had only recently been the victims of the brutality and cruelty of the British Empire.

But they believed that the best gift that America could give to the world would be a model for a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society — a beacon for the rest of the world to follow. And they believed that that goal would be not be served if their government had the imperial power to straighten out messes all over the world.

Here’s what George Washington counseled to all succeeding generations of Americans in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns…. Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

Celebrating American freedom on July 4, 1821, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives setting forth the vision of the American republic:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart…. She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence … the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world.

Thus, when our 18th- and 19th-century ancestors celebrated the Fourth of July each year, the concept of freedom that they were celebrating was totally different from the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth. The freedom they celebrated involved a way of life in which government had little power to take their money, regulate their peaceful activities, or take care of them. It was also a freedom arising out of their government’s noninterference in the conflicts of foreign nations.

No one can deny that somewhere along the way, America changed direction, both domestically and internationally. How about a national debate as to which vision — the vision of Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, or that of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon — should guide our nation into its third century of existence?

Meanwhile, let’s look at the reality behind what is termed an “Executive Order” by your President:

Executive Orders: The authority to use Executive Orders isn’t even provided for in the US Constitution! It’s clear that when a President is sworn in he is the Executive and has the power to ensure the law is faithfully/properly executed but the following is essentially all that refers to the Executive power of the President within your Constitution….

“The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

But that does not, in any way, suggest that he has any power to create laws and yet that is what all these EOs do!

Executive Orders

The Constitution clearly means that he ensures law (as created by the CONSTITUTION not him!) is executed properly! They have seriously gone way beyond their powers and remit!

Washington himself was the first to issue an Executive Order. Unfortunately, however – and rather ironically, it was he who created the precedent so early into this Republic governed by the rule of law NOT Executive Order!

President Rutherford Hayes once warned that although  American chief executives had to that point been conservative men wedded both to  precedent and to modesty in the exercise of presidential power, a future  president committed to concentrating power in his hands could make of the office  what he wished.

Attorney William J. Olson spoke to those gathered for Y2K and the Presidency, the May 8 conference sponsored by The Conservative Caucus, concerning the unconstitutional use of Executive Orders. Excerpts from his talk follow:

“President Washington issued the first Proclamation; it was…to declare a Day of National Thanksgiving. It was…pursuant to some Congressional action… certainly that’s a Proclamation that’s perfectly legitimate. …

“Even his Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation…was pursuant to a 1792 statute.”

“But then we get to the Neutrality Proclamation, which did not cite any Congressional or statutory authority. It sought to impose penalties on U.S. citizens who would deal with European powers at war. …it was viewed by others in government as an abuse of Executive authority.

“And, when prosecutions were begun under that statute, the
court said, ‘No, that does not have the force of law, Mr. President. That is your opinion. You do not have the Congress’s concurrence. …’ The Congress then passed the law, and the prosecutions continued. But in any event, it was very instructive time because people had then read the Constitution. …”

[Note this last proclamation forbade any dealings with European powers at war. A GOOD call actually considering the fact that the Bush patriarch and so many other so called "Americans" (actually all globalists no matter whether they hold an American passport) funded the Nazi war machine even after war was declared and so many of the Allied Powers troops were slaughtered by the "machine" - well oiled let's say - which these so called "patriots" funded. Why is America (and yes Britain too) so stupid an sleepy-headed to acknowledge the facts that our governments and their Corporate/Banking paymasters play both sides and kill our own?]

Before leaving George Washington however, it is immensely enlightening to read incredibly prophetic words from the man regarding the introduction of political parties – Republican and Democrat not existing until after Washington’s Presidency (although there had been Federalists and Anti Federalists there were no specific parties):

The Dangers of Political Parties

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.

Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination” of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Back to Executive Orders:

“Presidential executive orders are a particular type of presidential document that has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute. There is no law defining “executive order”, the meaning of the term has varied over the years. Prior to 1936, a document was an “executive order” because the president himself designated it as such. On February 18, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7298 prescribing a uniform manner of preparing executive orders”.

guide_prespapers.html

Isn’t it interesting to read how the University of Oregon puts this? “has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute”.

The reality is nothing of the kind. There is NO authority derived from the Constitution or a Federal Statute whatsoever as we saw earlier. They even indicate this when they say  “There is no law defining “executive order””. We have to then assume that American law students just accept this on face value! Not very prudent of them then and indicates a concerning lack of diligence on their part!

Can Executive Orders be Overridden or Withdrawn?

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, let’s be clear here: Executive Orders are NOT “Law” at all in ANY shape or form. They are purely the wishes of the incumbent President. Period! That is purely and simply a dictator’s dream!

Theodore Roosevelt did not merely extend executive prerogative here or  there; he put forth a full-fledged philosophy of the presidency that attempted  to justify his dramatic expansion of that office. He contended that the  president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a  unique claim to be the representative of the entire American people – a position  taken by Andrew Jackson during the 1830s and for which he was sharply rebuked by  John C. Calhoun. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the  president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do  all he could for the people.” He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs  of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under  this interpretation of executive power,” TR later reflected, “I did and caused  to be done many things not previously done. … I did not usurp power, but I did  greatly broaden the use of executive power.”

Since TR believed himself to be doing the people’s will,  and since he believed his own rhetoric that portrayed the president as the  people’s unique representative in American government, his need to fulfill this  special mission overrode concerns about the separation of powers. He remarked  privately that in the United States, “as in any nation which amounts to  anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work  of governing; and in so far as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body  it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands.”

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a  governing style among American presidents. Many Americans rightly howled during  the 1990s when Bill Clinton’s aide Paul Begala famously said of executive  orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once  called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising  a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the  century.

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in  American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by  the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield each  issued none. Arthur issued three, Grover Cleveland (first term) six, Benjamin  Harrison four, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued  1,006.

Now, it is true that TR served nearly two terms. But  that figure is so much higher than that of his predecessors that it reveals a  vastly different philosophy of the presidency from that held by those who  preceded him.

To take just one domestic example, TR intervened in the  United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ordering the mine owners to agree to  arbitration. Should they instead remain obstinate, he threatened to order the  Army to take over and operate the coalmines. When informed that no  constitutional authorization existed for such a brazen act of confiscation, he  replied, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Washington  Post that when the Bush administration entered office, it was determined to  reinvigorate the presidency and reverse the steady reduction in executive power  and prerogative that had persisted since Watergate. But what reduction could the  vice president have had in mind? “The vice president,” noted Sen. John E. Sununu  (R-N.H.), “may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has  somehow lost power over the last 30 years.”

Whether or not the vice president was correct in his  analysis of the state of the presidency in the year 2000, there can be no  question that since then George W. Bush has dramatically expanded the powers of  the president – primarily though not exclusively in matters pertaining to the  war on terror.

One of the most notorious examples involved the torture  of prisoners, a power the administration claimed in the face of law and  international agreements to the contrary. “The assertion in the various legal  memoranda that the President can order the torture of prisoners despite statutes  and treaties forbidding it was another reach for presidential hegemony,” wrote  Anthony Lewis in the New York Review of Books. “The basic premise of the  American constitutional system is that those who hold power are subject to the  law…Bush’s lawyers seem ready to substitute something like the divine right of  kings.”

The Limits of Presidential Power:  Domestic Surveillance

Arguably the greatest controversy of all was the  revelation at the end of 2005 that the Bush administration had engaged in  domestic surveillance without the necessary warrants. James Bamford, author of  two books on the National Security Agency, points out the pertinent aspects of  what would appear to be the relevant law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance  Act (FISA), passed in 1978. According to Bamford, then-Attorney General Griffin  Bell testified before the intelligence committee that FISA acknowledged no “inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance.”

As Bell himself put it, “This bill specifically states  that the procedures in the bill are the exclusive means by which electronic  surveillance may be conducted.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush administration  officials spoke again and again of the president’s inherent powers. But the  pertinent statute in this case disclaims any such powers and requires that the  president proceed according to the guidelines set out by Congress, which  involves securing warrants from a special court. As things stand, the president  is claiming a right to engage in surveillance of any American, unrestrained by  any institutional check, in the service of the war on terror – a war that by its  very nature must go on indefinitely and, indeed, that we can never really know  is truly over.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the  reason the administration did not seek to revise FISA to give the president the  clear and unambiguous power to order these wiretaps was that even a Republican  Congress would not have gone along. In a Dec. 19 press briefing, the attorney  general said, “We have had discussions with Congress in the past – certain  members of Congress – as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to  adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be  difficult, if not impossible.”

The administration’s claim, as set forth by the attorney  general, is that Congress implicitly agreed to such wiretaps when in the days  following Sept. 11 it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators and  their allies. Of course, if Congress really had authorized them, it is not clear  why it would be so difficult for the administration to persuade Congress to  amend FISA accordingly in light of this permission.

The Limits of  Presidential Power: The New  Deal

Gonzales’s argument calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s 1937 “Constitution for the New Deal,” a satirical rewrite of the U.S Constitution,  which says of the attorney general, “It shall be his duty to provide legal  opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the  President.”

As the controversy over the wiretapping developed, it  was only a matter of time before the “even Lincoln did it” argument would be  heard. GOP apologists did not disappoint, reminding Americans that Honest Abe  engaged in massive violations of civil liberties while president. But Tom  DiLorenzo raises the proper reply to such claims in the form of remarks by  Supreme Court Justice David Davis – a personal friend of Lincoln – in the 1866  case Ex Parte Milligan: “The constitution of the United States is a law for  rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its  protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No  doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit  of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great  exigencies of government.”

As DiLorenzo suggests, if the government were to be  given carte blanche during wartime, all that would be necessary to whittle away  the people’s liberties would be to concoct – or to provoke – an endless series  of crises.

This is all deeply disturbing, to be sure. But to hear  much of the Left tell it, the presidency of George W. Bush is a bizarre  aberration in the history of the presidency and more or less sui generis. I have  no objection to those who describe the Bush presidency as utterly disastrous,  and I do not mean to excuse the president by recalling that the ideological and  institutional roots of the imperial presidency extend back at least a century.  My point, rather, is that a bit of history can enrich our  understanding.

Now, with all that in mind, perhaps you would wish to read the following Executive Order (just one of MANY bad ones which has been formulated to destroy America) written by George H.W. Bush:

?pid=23625#axzz1cxzNkkB0

He put America on sale to the highest bidder. While REMEMBER, all of that infrastructure (and natural resources) was built by you, the American people and funded by your tax dollars! The important Executive Orders for the people truly in charge never get repealed and the ones that do not quite do the job, get amended.

And note:

NB: Portions of this blog have been taken from various sources including Wikipedia and The Daily Reckoning.

This article is excerpted from Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, chapter 8, “Rockefeller, Morgan, and War” (1984; 2011)

During the 1930s, the Rockefellers pushed hard for war against Japan, which they saw as competing with them vigorously for oil and rubber resources in Southeast Asia and as endangering

The EVIL FED!!

the Rockefellers’ cherished dreams of a mass “China market” for petroleum products. On the other hand, the Rockefellers took a noninterventionist position in Europe, where they had close financial ties with German firms such as I.G. Farben and Co., and very few close relations with Britain and France.

The Morgans, in contrast, as usual deeply committed to their financial ties with Britain and France, once again plumped early for war with Germany, while their interest in the Far East had become minimal. Indeed, US ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew, former Morgan partner, was one of the few officials in the Roosevelt administration genuinely interested in peace with Japan.

World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia. Such disgruntled Morgan men as Lewis W. Douglas and Dean G. Acheson (a protégé of Henry Stimson), who had left the early Roosevelt administration in disgust at its soft-money policies and economic nationalism, came happily roaring back into government service with the advent of World War II. Nelson A. Rockefeller, for his part, became head of Latin American activities during World War II, and thereby acquired his taste for government service.

After World War II, the united Rockefeller–Morgan–Kuhn, Loeb eastern Establishment was not allowed to enjoy its financial and political supremacy unchallenged for long. “Cowboy” Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men from Texas, Florida, and southern California began to challenge the eastern Establishment “Yankees” for political power. While both groups favor the Cold War, the Cowboys are more nationalistic, more hawkish, and less inclined to worry about what our European allies are thinking. They are also much less inclined to bail out the now Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank and other Wall Street banks that loaned recklessly to Third World and Communist countries and expect the US taxpayer – through outright taxes or the printing of US dollars – to pick up the tab.

Despite differences in nuance, it is clear that Ronald Reagan’s originally proclaimed challenge to Rockefeller-Morgan power in the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and to the Rockefeller-created Trilateral Commission has fizzled, and that the “permanent government” continues to rule regardless of the party nominally in power. As a result, the much-heralded “bipartisan-foreign-policy” consensus imposed by the Establishment since World War II seems to remain safely in place.It should be clear that the name of the political party in power is far less important than the particular regime’s financial and banking connections. The foreign-policy power for so long of Nelson Rockefeller’s personal foreign affairs adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, a discovery of the extraordinarily powerful Rockefeller–Chase Manhattan Bank elder statesman John J. McCloy, is testimony to the importance of financial power – as is the successful lobbying by Kissinger and Chase Manhattan’s head, David Rockefeller, to induce Jimmy Carter to allow the ailing shah of Iran into the US – thus precipitating the humiliating hostage crisis.

David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of his family’s Chase Manhattan Bank from 1970 until recently, established the Trilateral Commission in 1973, with the financial backing of the CFR and the Rockefeller Foundation. Joseph Kraft, syndicated Washington columnist who himself has the distinction of being both a CFR member and a Trilateralist, has accurately described the CFR as a “school for statesmen” that “comes close to being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite – a group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes.”

The idea of the Trilateral Commission was to internationalize policy formation, the commission consisting of a small group of multinational corporate leaders, politicians, and foreign-policy experts from the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, who meet to coordinate economic and foreign policy among their respective nations.

Before and during the war, McCloy, a disciple of Morgan lawyer Stimson, moved in the Morgan orbit; his brother-in-law, John S. Zinsser, was on the board of directors of J.P. Morgan & Co. during the 1940s. But, reflecting the postwar power shift from Morgan to Rockefeller, McCloy moved quickly into the Rockefeller ambit. He became a partner of the Wall Street corporate law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy, which had long served the Rockefeller family and the Chase Bank as legal counsel.Perhaps the most powerful single figure in foreign policy since World War II, a beloved adviser to all presidents, is the octogenarian John J. McCloy. During World War II, McCloy virtually ran the War Department as assistant to aging Secretary Stimson; it was McCloy who presided over the decision to round up all Japanese Americans and place them in concentration camps in World War II, and he is virtually the only American left who still justifies that action.

From there he moved to become chairman of the board of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and of Rockefeller Center, Inc., and finally, from 1953 until 1970, chairman of the board of the Council on Foreign Relations. During the Truman administration, McCloy served as president of the World Bank and then US high commissioner for Germany. He was also a special adviser to President John F. Kennedy on disarmament, and chairman of Kennedy’s Coordinating Committee on the Cuban Crisis. It was McCloy who “discovered” Professor Henry A. Kissinger for the Rockefeller forces. It is no wonder that John K. Galbraith and Richard Rovere have dubbed McCloy “Mr. Establishment.”

A glance at foreign-policy leaders since World War II will reveal the domination of the banker elite. Truman’s first secretary of defense was James V. Forrestal, former president of the investment banking firm of Dillon, Read & Co., closely allied to the Rockefeller financial group. Forrestal had also been a board member of the Chase Securities Corporation, an affiliate of the Chase National Bank.

Another Truman defense secretary was Robert A. Lovett, a partner of the powerful New York investment banking house of Brown Brothers Harriman. At the same time that he was secretary of defense, Lovert continued to be a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. Secretary of the Air Force Thomas K. Finletter was a top Wall Street corporate lawyer and member of the board of the CFR while serving in the cabinet. Ambassador to Soviet Russia, ambassador to Great Britain, and secretary of commerce in the Truman administration was the powerful multimillionaire W. Averell Harriman, an often-underrated but dominant force with the Democratic Party since the days of FDR. Harriman was a partner of Brown Brothers Harriman.

Also influential in helping the Truman administration organize the Cold War was director of the policy-planning staff of the State Department, Paul H. Nitze. Nitze, whose wife was a member of the Pratt family, associated with the Rockefeller family since the origins of Standard Oil, had been vice president of Dillon, Read & Co.Also ambassador to Great Britain under Truman was Lewis W. Douglas, brother-in-law of John J. McCloy, a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and a board member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Following Douglas as ambassador to the Court of St. James was Walter S. Gifford, chairman of the board of AT&T, and member of the board of trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation for almost two decades. Ambassador to NATO under Truman was William H. Draper Jr., vice president of Dillon, Read & Co.

When Truman entered the Korean War, he created an Office of Defense Mobilization to run the domestic economy during the war. The first director was Charles E. (“Electric Charlie”) Wilson, president of the Morgan-controlled General Electric Company, who also served as board member of the Morgans’ Guaranty Trust Company. His two most influential assistants were Sidney J. Weinberg, ubiquitous senior partner in the Wall Street investment-banking firm of Goldman Sachs & Co., and former general Lucius D. Clay, chairman of the board of Continental Can Co., and a director of the Lehman Corporation.

Succeeding McCloy as president of the World Bank, and continuing in that post throughout the two terms of Dwight Eisenhower, was Eugene Black. Black had served for 14 years as vice president of the Chase National Bank, and was persuaded to take the World Bank post by the bank’s chairman of the board, Winthrop W. Aldrich, brother-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

The Eisenhower administration proved to be a field day for the Rockefeller interests. While president of Columbia University, Eisenhower was invited to high-level dinners where he met and was groomed for president by top leaders from the Rockefeller and Morgan ambits, including the chairman of the board of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey, the presidents of six other big oil companies, including Standard of California and Socony-Vacuum, and the executive vice president of J.P. Morgan & Co.

Even earlier, during 1949, Eisenhower had been introduced through a special study group to key figures in the CFR. The study group devised a plan to create a new organization called the American Assembly – in essence an expanded CFR study group – whose main function was reputedly to build up Eisenhower’s prospects for the presidency. A leader of the “Citizens for Eisenhower” committee, who later became Ike’s ambassador to Great Britain, was the multimillionaire John Hay Whitney, scion of several wealthy families, whose granduncle, Oliver H. Payne, had been one of the associates of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. in founding the Standard Oil Company. Whitney was head of his own investment concern, J.H. Whitney & Co., and later became publisher of the New York Herald Tribune.One dinner was hosted by Clarence Dillon, the multimillionaire retired founder of Dillon, Read & Co., where the guests included Russell B. Leffingwell, chairman of the board of both J.P. Morgan & Co. and the CFR (before McCloy); John M. Schiff, a senior partner of the investment-banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; the financier Jeremiah Milbank, a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank; and John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Running foreign policy during the Eisenhower administration was the Dulles family, led by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who had also concluded the US peace treaty with Japan under Harry Truman. Dulles had for three decades been a senior partner of the top Wall Street corporate-law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, whose most important client was Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. Dulles had been for 15 years a member of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and before assuming the post of Secretary of State was chairman of the board of that institution.

Most important is the little-known fact that Dulles’s wife was Janet Pomeroy Avery, a first cousin of John D. Rockefeller Jr. Heading the supersecret Central Intelligence Agency during the Eisenhower years was Dulles’s brother, Allen Welsh Dulles, also a partner in Sullivan & Cromwell. Allen Dulles had long been a trustee of the CFR and had served as its president from 1947 to 1951. Their sister, Eleanor Lansing Dulles, was head of the Berlin desk of the State Department during that decade.

Undersecretary of State, and the man who succeeded John Foster Dulles in the spring 1959, was former Massachusetts governor Christian A. Herter. Herter’s wife, like Nitze’s, was a member of the Pratt family. Indeed, his wife’s uncle, Herbert L. Pratt, had been for many years president or chairman of the board of Standard Oil Company of New York. One of Mrs. Herter’s cousins, Richardson Pratt, had served as assistant treasurer of Standard Oil of New Jersey up to 1945. Furthermore, one of Herter’s own uncles, a physician, had been for many years treasurer of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

Perhaps to provide some balance for his banker-business coalition, Eisenhower appointed as secretary of defense three men in the Morgan rather than the Rockefeller ambit. Charles B. (“Engine Charlie”) Wilson was president of General Motors, member of the board of J.P. Morgan & Co. Wilson’s successor, Neil H. McElroy, was president of Proctor & Gamble Co. His board chairman, R.R. Deupree, was also a director of J.P. Morgan & Co.Herter was succeeded as Undersecretary of State by Eisenhower’s ambassador to France, C. Douglas Dillon, son of Clarence, and himself chairman of the Board of Dillon, Read & Co. Dillon was soon to become a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

The third secretary of defense, who had been undersecretary and secretary of the Navy under Eisenhower, was Thomas S. Gates Jr., who had been a partner of the Morgan-connected Philadelphia investment-banking firm of Drexel & Co. When Gates stepped down as defense secretary, he became president of the newly formed flagship commercial bank for the Morgan interests, the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.

Serving as Secretary of the Navy and then Deputy Secretary of Defense (and later secretary of the Treasury) under Eisenhower was Texas businessman Robert B. Anderson. After leaving the Defense Department, Anderson became a board member of the Rockefeller-controlled American Overseas Investing Co., and, before becoming Secretary of the Treasury, he borrowed $84,000 from Nelson A. Rockefeller to buy stock in Nelson’s International Basic Economy Corporation.

Head of the important Atomic Energy Commission during the Eisenhower years was Lewis L. Strauss. For two decades, Strauss had been a partner in the investment banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. In 1950, Strauss had become financial adviser to the Rockefeller family, soon also becoming a board member of Rockefeller Center, Inc.

A powerful force in deciding foreign policy was the National Security Council, which included on it the Dulles brothers, Strauss, and Wilson. Particularly important is the post of national-security adviser to the President. Eisenhower’s first national security adviser was Robert Cutler, president of the Old Colony Trust Co., the largest trust operation outside New York City. The Old Colony was a trust affiliate of the First National Bank of Boston.

After more than a year, Anderson resigned from his national security post and was replaced by William H. Jackson, a partner of the investment firm of J.H. Whitney & Co. Before assuming his powerful position, Dillon Anderson had been one of several men serving as special hush-hush consultants to the National Security Council. Another special adviser was Eugene Holman, president of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company of New Jersey.After two years in the top national-security post, Cutler returned to Boston to become chairman of the board of Old Colony Trust, returning after a while to the national-security slot for two more years. In between, Eisenhower had two successive national security advisers. The first was Dillon Anderson, a Houston corporate attorney, who did work for several oil companies. Particularly significant was Anderson’s position as chairman of the board of a small but fascinating Connecticut firm called Electro-Mechanical Research, Inc. Electro-Mechanical was closely associated with certain Rockefeller financiers; thus, one of its directors was Godfrey Rockefeller, a limited partner in the investment banking firm of Clark, Dodge & Co.

We may mention two important foreign-policy actions of the Eisenhower administration which seem to reflect the striking influence of personnel directly tied to bankers and financial interests. In 1951, the regime of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran decided to nationalize the British-owned oil holdings of the Anglo-Iranian Oil company. It took no time for the newly established Eisenhower administration to intervene heavily in this situation. CIA director and former Standard Oil lawyer Allen W. Dulles flew to Switzerland to organize the covert overthrow of the Mossadegh regime, the throwing of Mossadegh into prison, and the restoration of the Shah to the throne of Iran.

After lengthy behind-the-scenes negotiations, the oil industry was put back into action as purchasers and refiners of Iranian oil. But this time the picture was significantly different. Instead of the British getting all of the oil pie, their share was reduced to 40 percent of the new oil consortium, with five top US oil companies (Standard Oil of New Jersey, Socony-Vacuum – formerly Standard Oil of NY, and now Mobil – Standard Oil of California, Gulf, and Texaco) getting another 40 percent.

It was later disclosed that Secretary of State Dulles placed a sharp upper limit on any participation in the consortium by smaller independent oil companies in the United States. In addition to the rewards to the Rockefeller interests, the CIA’s man-on-the-spot directing the operation, Kermit Roosevelt, received his due by quickly becoming a vice president of Mellon’s Gulf Oil Corp.

Game Over.

The United States of America is being destroyed. It is an intentional and strategic plan designed to break the once most powerful nation on earth in order to bring in a World Socialist Government and one world currency. If you have any doubt about this fact, look at the CIA chart which shows the U.S. at the bottom of 191 nations with a negative $561 billion account balance. There is no way that this happens by accident, it is clearly a planned event.

The invisible government or the elite who control this world have decided to kill the dollar and kill the U.S. They planned this over 100 years ago and wrote about it openly. This did not happen overnight, it happened over decades. Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission and the international bankers behind the Federal Reserve deliberately moved manufacturing out of the U.S. and into Communist China. They planned for China to become the world’s number one economic super power in the next few years.

None of this was hidden from the American people! It was done out in the open. My question to you is, “How is it that the great evangelists and ministers were completely silent about it?” I can think of one Christian, that many of you idolize and who played golf with all of the Presidents. Yet, he never warned you or your family about what was coming. Why?

The ramifications about the numbers in the CIA chart are enormous. We have been infiltrated and taken over. However, there is much more to come, which I detail in my new 3 DVD Set “The Coming One World Government?” which is soon to be released.

The time has come for the Remnant Church to cry out to God and engage in spiritual warfare. Behind these economic figures is an intense spiritual battle that can be won in the heavenlies because all things are possible with God!

Perhaps you were not responsible for what happened in the past. But you are responsible for how you will deal with this crisis in relationship to the living God. Like it or not, this is what has been handed to us. But there is a way out! It is not an easy way, but God in His mercy has given us His supernatural and abundant resources to deal with the problem. This is our Goliath! This is our Red Sea! In the power of the Holy Spirit we must rise to the challenge and have absolute faith in God’s power to deliver.

We are moving forward to do just that in obedience to the Lord and we are calling on Watchman Prayer Warriors to engage with us in high-level spiritual warfare with overwhelming force. I will not play church, not now or ever! Nor will I surrender to stupidity and fanaticism. I have the call of God upon my life for this hour, and for this hour I was called before the foundation of the world.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. We need you to partner with us in prayer and in financial giving. We are responsible for what God has given us. If you are giving and serving in a church that is dining and dancing while the Titanic is sinking, than you have no right to complain as the ship sinks.

God is calling His people. He is calling you. We are going to have to make some radical changes. If you stay in your comfort zone, you and your loved ones are going to perish. Read the statistics in the CIA chart very carefully and make sure you understand its full implications.

However, there is hope and a promise for all those that respond to the call of God and obey Him when He gives instructions. The situation is not impossible. The time has come to grow up and own our time. A Third Great Awakening, an authentic and Biblical last day’s revival and a massive soul harvest are all on the table. But you are going to have to make some radical changes. If you are playing church and in fellowship with those that do, you are dancing before the Golden Calf and judgment begins in the house of the Lord. If you are listening to false prophets you must forsake them.

Now is the time, and in the power of the Holy Spirit we must seize it. We must rise to our destiny and take back what was stolen from us.

According to the CIA World Factbook, America sits at the bottom of 191 nations, with a listed account balance of an astonishing negative $561 billion.

As a side note, it’s interesting to note the massive disparity between Spain, who sits in 190th place, and the US, in 191st place. $66 billion compared to $561 Billion. That’s 8.5x as much!

Agenda 21

How does the UN, Monsanto, mining, and oil & gas companies get their hands into Bureau of Land Mangement (BLM) Resource Management Plans and Environmental Assessments to dictate the use of our public lands (and our future)?

Well, I found one way. I noticed that two companies, Tetra Tech and Environmental Management & Planning Solutions, Inc. (EMPSi), are preparing BLM (and Forest Service) Resource Management Plans (RMPs), Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental Assessments (EAs) and other reports. (So what do we pay BLM employees to do, just look pretty in their uniforms?)

Tetra Tech

It’s not some small environmental company. Tetra Tech has 13,000 employees in 330 offices around the world. Tetra Tech owns about 25 other companies and makes billions of dollars in annual revenues. They work with developers, nuclear power, energy, mining and minerals processing, etc. On the Tetra Tech website, it declares: “Our Mission: To be the premier worldwide consulting, engineering, and construction firm.”

Tetra Tech even bought PRO-Intelligent, an international security and intelligence consulting firm used by the US State Department. So they seem to have their hands in everything.

Tetra Tech RTW mining services provides Heap Leach Facility Design, Tailings Facility Design, Tailings Delivery Systems, and Mining Process Fluid Management. If they’re “providing” tailing delivery systems to mines, isn’t this “selling” this to mining companies? And unless they’re providing their services for free, their business depends on mining. Most businesses want to keep their customers happy and think of ways to make more money. The most troubling aspect about Tetra Tech preparing the plans for the BLM can be seen by looking at Tetra Tech’s Board of the Directors:

Hugh M. Grant is the Chairman, President and CEO of Monsanto.
(on Tetra Tech’s website, this fact was omitted in his bio). Why would Monsanto’s CEO be on the Board of an engineering and construction company?

J. Kenneth Johnson is a Director of Alaska Air Group, which owns Coeur D’ Alene Mines Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (oil and gas exploration). He’s President of Pacific Star Energy LLC, and managing director of Alaska Venture Capital Group (a private oil and gas exploration firm) He was also an ARCO (BP) executive. Albert Smith was an Exec V.P. at Lockheed Martin and worked for the CIA.

J. Christopher Lewis co-founded Riordan, Lewis & Haden and is on the Board of Secure Mission Solutions. Riordan, Lewis & Haden has investments in Tetra Tech and Secure Mission Solutions.

Patrick Haden was a partner in Riordan, Lewis & Haden and Director of TCW Strategies Income Fund and The TCW Funds. (And USC’s athletic director.)

Richard H. Truly is Director of Xcel Energy, Inc. and is on the Board of the Colorado School of Mines.

Dan L. Batrack, has a vague bio: Batrack “has served in numerous capacities over the last 30 years, including project scientist, project manager, operations manager, senior vice president and president of an operating unit. He has managed complex programs for many small and Fortune 500 clients, both in theUnited States and internationally.”

There seems to be possibilities for conflicts of interest. And also a possibility to exert some control over land, water and resources.

Tetra Tech has been contracted by the BLM to help the BLM Winnemucca, Nevada office with their RMP. Which is interesting, because within the Winnemucca BLM district is the Rochester Mine, owned by Couer d’Alene Mines, which Tetra Tech Board Member J. Kenneth Johnson may have an interest in, since he’s on the Board of Directors of the company that owns Couer d’Alene Mines.

In Tetra Tech’s SEC filings, it states that in regard to revenues, it received 21.9% from Department of Defense agencies, 11.3% from USAID and 11.8% from other U.S. federal government agencies.

It also claims that international business grew 195.0% in the third quarter of fiscal 2011, and that they expected international business to grow significantly in fiscal 2011 and continue strong demand for their services in the mining and energy markets worldwide.

In 2011, they also acquired a mining engineering company in Australia, which they expected to “enhance” their “technical expertise in the mining and minerals processing sector” and expand service in Australia and “serve as a gateway to new markets across Asia and Africa.”

Sounds like they’re in the mining business to me. Could they be creating “gateways” here in the USA to increase their business?

If Tetra Tech owns or has clients who own, energy and mining companies, and they are preparing or helping to prepare the RMPs, EISs and EAs, it seems like they might be tempted to cut themselves a good deal.

Tetra Tech has some interesting connections in the oil and gas industry. They bought Halliburton’s subsidiaries Brown & Root Environmental and Halliburton NUS (Nuclear Utilities Service Corp.) in 1997.

Tetra Tech EC designed and constructed more than 20 nuclear power facilities from 1960 through 1990. It’s a good thing Tetra Tech also does remediation. They could potentially clean up at both ends of the deal.

Environmental Management & Planning Solutions Inc. (EMPSi)

The BLM Battle Mountain District Office (Nevada) awarded a $1.6 million contract to Environmental Management Planning Solutions Inc. to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) “to guide development and conservation on 10.5 million acres of federal land within Lander County, Eureka County, Nye County, and Esmeralda County, Nevada.”

EMPSi was part of the “Outreach Core Team” to implement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to facilitate geothermal development on “federal” lands throughout the western US. It seems EMPSi was/is also doing geothermal permit development support for “confidential clients” in Nevada. So they’re preparing a Resource Management Plan for development and conservation (which may mean just saving assets for their clients) on the one hand, then on the other hand they’re helping confidential clients get their permits.

Who OWNS EMPSi? It’s a private company and it’s hard to find out much about it. It seems that key employees of EMPSi have also worked for Tetra Tech. That includes John E. King, the “Principal” of EMPSi, who has been at EMPSi since 2006. Before that, he was at Tetra Tech from 1982-2006, and was a Vice President. EMPSi lists Tetra Tech as a “Client.”

EMPSi was incorporated in Delaware in 2000, so it’s impressive that a company that is only about 10 years old (again, it’s hard to find the history of this company, even on its website) has clients including about 11 US government agencies (including the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture) states, cities, banks and major energy companies.

EMPSi even assisted Solyndra in getting a Department of Energy loan guarantee.

The UN Connection

If you look at the services on EMPSi’s website , you see terms like socioeconomic & environmental justice, visual resource management and sustainable development. These terms probably weren’t in US environmental assessments 30 years ago. Socioeconomic justice, also called “equity,” is communism.

If you look on the UN’s website, specifically about sustainable development in the USA (and note in the heading on the link that this is Agenda 21), be sure to take note of a sentence in the first paragraph “In the absence of a multi-sectoral consensus on how to achieve sustainable development in the United States, the PCSD was conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21.” (PCSD is the US President’s Council on Sustainable Development).

You’ll also see the subtitle “Integrated” Decision Making. UN’s Agenda 21 is what is being integrated and implemented in the USA, sidestepping Congress and the Constitution. Read Agenda 21: . There are chapters about “changing consumptive patterns” and “promoting sustainable human settlement development” (this means moving you out of rural areas and into stack and pack apartments in cities) and “integrating environment and development into decision-making.” (This includes decision-making like RMPs, EISs and EAs.)

Both Tetra Tech and EMPSi have US agencies as “clients.” U.S. agencies that are members of the UN’s IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the Rural Council.

On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…” Agenda 21 expert Cassandra Anderson of www.morphcity.com states that Agenda 21 is the United Nations’ ACTION PLAN.

Tetra Tech “participates” in IUCN’s DCMC (DC Marine Community). The World Bank is on the Advisory Board. Tetra Tech implemented a USAID funded a project, the Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program, led by Scott Hajost (Chief of Party). Hajost is a member of the IUCN-US Board, and has served on IUCN Commissions on law and ecosystems. Hajost was Senior Counsel to the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) for two years. (He was writing the UN laws to be integrated and implemented.)

Resource Mangement Plans

RMPs are a big deal because a lot of BLM plans for “multiple uses” are based on RMPs for 10 or 15 years. An RMP (as described on the BLM website), “will be to establish guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions for public lands” and addresses:

* Air Quality
* Cultural Resources
* Soil and Water Resources
* Vegetation
* Lands and Realty Management
* Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries Management
* Mineral and Mining Resources
* Recreation and OHV Use
* Visual Resource Management
* Special Management Designations
* Hazardous Materials
* Other Issues

I guess with the “other issues,” the RMP covers everything.

RMPs, EISs and EAs give the green light to certain “multiple uses” on our public lands (like expanding mining or a free-for-all on the oil and gas lease sales of our public lands for as little as $2 an acre) or take away things that were on our public lands, like removing our wild horses to make room for other uses.

Tetra Tech received a $55 million contract from the EPA for a Pollution Prevention Program and a $20 million contract from State Department USAID for a Climate Change Program. Looking at the larger picture, what really seems to be on the horizon in terms of “change” is the loss of our democracy, and the “prevention” of private land ownership.

Please visit the PPJ Gazette for sources to this article and more excellent research and reporting exposing tyranny in all its forms
.

Inga Beck via Twitter

ADAM MARTIN1,537 ViewsNOV 2, 2011

GE

Thursday that arrives as Congress faces rising demands for tax reform but seems unable or unwilling to act.

Pepco Holdings Inc, a Washington, D.C.-area power company, had the lowest effective tax rate, at negative 57.6 percent, among the 280 Fortune 500 companies studied.

The statutory U.S. corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world; but over the 2008-2010 period, very few of the companies studied paid it, said the report.

The average effective tax rate for the companies over the period was 18.5 percent, said Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, both think tanks.

Their report also listed General Electric Co, Paccar Inc, PG&E Corp, Computer Sciences Corp, Boeing Co and NiSource Inc as among the 30 that paid no taxes.

(For a related graphic, click on r.reuters.com/ryb84s).

Corporations will say rightly that the loopholes that let them slash their taxes were perfectly legal, the report said.

“But that does not mean that low-tax corporations bear no responsibility … The laws were not enacted in a vacuum; they were adopted in response to relentless corporate lobbying, threats and campaign support,” the report said.

Some of the 30 companies disputed the report’s findings.

A Pepco spokesman said it “pays all its required taxes.”

Boeing paid its taxes “between 2008-2010 … Our effective income tax rate was 26.5 percent, 22.9 percent, 33.6 percent in 2010, 2009, 2008,” said a spokesman for the aerospace group.

PRESSING FOR MORE

As Congress and the Obama administration struggle with a sluggish economy and high deficits, corporations are pressing Capitol Hill for more tax breaks and a lower corporate rate.

Taxes are on the agenda of the congressional “super committee” tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in additional budget savings by November 23, but it is so far deadlocked across a familiar divide — Republicans refusing any tax increases, Democrats defending social programs.

On Tuesday, a panel of budget experts warned super committee members they would fail the country if they did not meet their goal. Financial markets have been waiting for many months for signs that Washington can get its financial house in order, but few have been forthcoming.

The report referred back to the 1986 tax reform pushed through by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who approved the largest corporate tax increase in U.S. history, largely by ending tax breaks, while cutting individual tax rates.

“Reagan solved the problem by sweeping away corporate tax loopholes,” said the report, which was coauthored by Citizens for Tax Justice chief Robert McIntyre. His research 25 years ago played a key role in convincing Reagan reform was needed.

The industrial machinery business enjoyed the lowest effective tax rate during the study period, while the highest rate was paid by healthcare companies, the report said.

“Big Business is getting away with taxation murder,” said Frank Knapp, vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council, a progressive business coalition.

“They pay little or no taxes on massive U.S. profits and then have the gall to lobby for … a tax holiday to ‘repatriate’ profits they have stashed offshore.”

MANY TAX BREAKS

What are some of the tax breaks that corporations enjoy? One big one is accelerated depreciation that lets them write off equipment faster than it actually wears out. Deductions on executive stock options help. So do tax breaks for research and development and for making products in the United States instead of overseas. Offshore tax shelters play a role, too.

Power group Duke Energy Corp was one of the 30 companies listed as paying no income taxes in 2008-2010.

Chief Executive James Rogers told Reuters that Duke cut its taxes thanks to accelerated depreciation, which he said helped the company build new plants and hire construction workers.

Rogers is a frequent spokesman for a coalition of large multinationals seeking a tax break that would let them bring foreign profits into the United States at a reduced tax rate.

Others among the 30 companies included power producer American Electric Power Co Inc (AEP), chemicals company DuPont and toymaker Mattel Inc.

Like Duke, AEP said it benefited from accelerated depreciation. A Mattel spokesperson said the report’s claims were inconsistent with the company’s public financial filings.

“DuPont complies with all tax laws and regulations in every jurisdiction in which it operates,” said a DuPont spokeswoman.

The average effective corporate tax rate, as calculated by McIntyre’s group, was about 14 percent before the Reagan reforms; afterward it shot up to 26.5 percent in 1988.

As companies found their way around the reforms, the effective rate fell back to about 17 percent by 2002-2003.

Unlike in Reagan’s time, taming corporate tax breaks alone will not solve the deficit problem. Such breaks cost the government about $102 billion in lost revenues in 2011, a year when the federal deficit was an estimated $1.3 trillion.

Corporate loopholes are dwarfed by tax breaks that benefit individuals, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction — a middle class sacred cow, on its own worth $104 billion.

Still, said the report: “If we are going to get our nation’s fiscal house in order, increasing corporate income taxes should play an important role.”

(Additional reporting by Matt Daily, Ernest Scheyder, Dhanya Skariachan in New York; Kyle Peterson in Chicago, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)