Archive for January, 2010

Appenzell Switzerland comments on the world currency

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

News & Analysis

Incredible ‘Real’ Reason for Carbon Trading?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - by Staff Report

Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small. On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based. The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world. It is plainly evident that the world is laboring under a dying system of price-based economics as evidenced by the rapid decline of paper currencies. The era of fiat (irredeemable paper currency) was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s primary reserve asset, all other currencies eventually followed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increasingly undesired, unstable, unusable. The deathly economic state of today’s world is a direct reflection of the sum of its sick and dying currencies, but this could soon change. - The August Review (Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?)

Dominant Social Theme: Green is good.

Free-Market Analysis: We tend to analyze articles that appear in the mainstream press but regular readers know that the Bell will make an exception from time to time. And in this case, we have. The paper we have alluded to, (above, excerpted) seems to reveal details about the power elite’s REAL agenda as regards global warming and carbon trading. While some of the information alluded to in the article has come out already in serial reports, we think the way the August Review has pulled it together and synthesized the information may be seen as both original and important.

In fact, the mind-blowing report that the Review is presenting today on its website (for the first time anywhere) sounds credible to us, understanding as we think we do, the memes of the power elite and the reason for their promotion. Click here to read Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technology?

We are not surprised by the quality, generally, of the Review’s publications. The August Review is a “global elite research center.” The tone of its analysis is often scholarly and its articles - while frank - seem to place a priority on research over opinion. Here’s more on the August Review from the site itself:

The August Review is an exclusive Internet-based publication of the editor, Patrick M. Wood, and focuses on the Trilateral Commission, its members and activities. The research “juggernaut” that was created by Wood and Antony Sutton to study the Trilateral Commission has been enhanced using various professional sources now available on the Internet. This editor is committed to performing original and innovative research, as opposed to re-hashing second hand or opinionated writings of other news services or commentators. The August Review also monitors the press for news stories relating to members, policies and meetings of the Trilateral Commission.

The emphasis on making carbon an environmental bogeyman makes sense within a context of power elite promotions. The elite creates fear-based dominant social themes to frighten people into giving up wealth and power to authoritarian solutions that have also not-so-coincidentally been created by the elite. Regulate carbon and you basically have a way to monitor and control people’s entire lifestyles, or certainly the part that involves the use of oil, gas, etc. That water vapor is responsible for trapping the majority of greenhouse gases doesn’t enter into the equation - because the environmental movement in its later stages is not about reacting to environmental problems but about creating more power and wealth for the handful of families and individuals that create these promotions.

Here’s some more from the new August Review white paper:

The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becoming international law in 2005, the trading market is now predicted to reach $3 trillion by 2020 or earlier.

Graciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protocol, states that the carbon market “is therefore all about cash and trading - but it is also a way to a profitable and greener future.” (See Who Needs a Carbon Market?)

Who are the “traders” that provide the open door to all this profit? Currently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. …

Whoever controls the currency also controls the economy and the political structure that goes with it … Technocracy and energy-based accounting are not idle or theoretical issues. If the global elite intends for Carbon Currency to supplant national currencies, then the world economic and political systems will also be fundamentally changed forever.

Considering the sheer force of global banking giants behind carbon trading, it’s no wonder analysts are already predicting that the carbon market will soon dwarf all other commodities trading.

The August Review is a foremost authority on the Trilateral Commission. Here at the Bell we certainly believe that such private groups are damaging to free-enterprise because they inevitably seek to involve government power and to use the force of law for private ends. Such a system is called mercantilism and it is a true curse of modern Western societies.

It is the Bell’s contention that the mercantilist destruction wrought by the power elite’s dominant social themes has possibly met its match in the 21st century thanks to the Internet. It is the longtime contention of the editors of the Bell (for nearly a decade now in various publishing incarnations) that the Internet has been undermining the entire promotional program of the power elite and that the elite’s memes would meet increased resistance as the Internet’s influence grew. In fact, we believe this is taking place.

We have utilized the impact of the Gutenberg press on society as a historical reference point when making the case that the power elite will have to take “a step back” as it did before when confronted with the unique challenges of a major communications revolution. In fact, we are not impressed with arguments that because US military agency DARPA invented what became the Internet, the power elite expected and anticipated what the Internet has become. In fact, it was the invention of the floppy disc and personal computer that created the phenomenon of the Internet, and this was the result of private enterprise and could not have been easily anticipated.

The August Review’s presentation of “Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?” may be seen, from the above perspective, as a further example of how the Internet is causing headaches for the power elite and its banking and financial instrumentalities. Once a concept is understood and transmitted throughout the Internet, plenty of readers take advantage of the information and elaborate on it in their own way. This will happen, we are confident with the revelations contained in “Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?” (It could thus mark an “end” rather than a new beginning, or certainly slow the momentum.)

Power elite promotions rely on secrecy and a sense of inevitability. But in the case of global warming, the promotion has been greatly damaged. It was the Internet that made possible the exposure of the reprehensible emails that showed a conspiracy to defraud as regard the impacts (and even the existence) of global warming. It was the Internet that provided people with a way to organize against environmental fascism. And now it is the Internet, in our opinion, that is exposing the further scheming that lies at the HEART of the power elite’s promotional efforts as regards this horrid dominant social theme.

We are aware of the growing argument among certain observers of the alternative press that the exposure of power elite themes must be part of a larger plan. But if so, why didn’t the same phenomenon occur in the 20th century when power elite promotions were at their peak and most powerful? The answer of course is the Internet. Every power elite meme from the war on terror, to global warming and central banking is under powerful attack these days. We can’t imagine that this is a desirable outcome from the point of view of those involved with their implementation.

It may be that the power elite will begin “exposing” its own promotions in order to gain some advantage from Internet revelations. But we have difficulty believing that such an exercise will pay sufficient dividends to make up for the current destruction of its dominant social themes, which likely have to be rebuilt from the ground up - once the Internet is tamed (and when will that be?).

As a final aside, we are gratified that in this white paper, the August Review also deals with the fraud of peak oil. We are entirely unsurprised that Technocrat M. King Hubbert and his economically illiterate energy concepts manage to slither into the middle of the story that the August Review has to tell. The idea that the market itself would not (and somehow could not) respond to peak oil with new stores of energy is yet another power elite promotion. (Meme: Only government authorities, including the UN, can properly plan energy replacements!)

Conclusion: The August Review’s presentation of the apparent planning and purpose behind the carbon scam is yet a further proof of the power of the Internet in our opinion. Between the emails revealing the conspiracy and the more recent revelations of phony research and false numbers (and the Review’s seemingly accurate revelations as to where all this is really headed) we think the global warming meme is under extreme duress. Sure, it may stagger along - that’s one of the hallmarks of a power elite promotion (it won’t die no matter how many holes are shot into it) - but it’s very hard to promote a theme or meme that has been discredited. And boy is it being discredited.

Dear Independent Americans and Friends,

Monday, January 25th, 2010

The Clark County IAP Executive Committee invites you to the 2010 convention. It will be held at the Palace Station on Saturday, Feb. 6th as announced on the Clark IAP website http://www.independentamerican.org/2010/01/21/clark-county-iap-convention-update/ .

Please plan to attend, and arrive before 9:00 am to allow time for credentialing. The convention is scheduled to run from 9:00am - 3:30 pm.

I also urge all of you to run for office for the IAP. I think it is the only realistic way to possibly resist the New World Order. We have some real opportunities to win, like never before, because many incumbents are term-limited. Please don’t be afraid of doing this. I myself am a government employee, and I have run for the legislature twice before, and nothing has “happened” to me.

Anyway, thank you, and we hope to see you there!

Jon Kamerath
Stan Vaughan
Eileen Davis
Anthony Blanque

Passing along a few good Obama jokes:

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

American Socialists are asking us to give Obama time.
We agree, and think 25 to life would be appropriate.

America needs ObamaCare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

Q: Have you heard about McDonald’s new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers

Did you hear the one about a Republican winning a US Senate seat in Massachusetts?…

Now that last one was funny and I don’t care who are.

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Separation of Powers Act… SWEET! But with all the elected TRAITORS it will not pass.

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

HR 2655 IH

106th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2655
To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 30, 1999

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Separation of Powers Restoration Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) As a limit on governmental power, Constitutional framers vested Federal powers in three coequal branches of government, each with unique and limited powers and each with a coequal duty to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.
(2) A Supreme Court justice stated, `The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.’ Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
(3) James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stated in Federalist 47, `There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.’
(4) Article I of the Constitution provides, `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.’
(5) A congressional committee print has noted that, `[b]ecause the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President’s proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.’ 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).
(6) The Supreme Court has stated that, even if Presidents have, without congressional authority, taken actions only the Congress may take, `Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution `in the Government of the United States, or any Department of Officer thereof.’ (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).
(7) Treaties or Executive Agreements which purport to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are non-binding and cannot constitute law.
SEC. 3. SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORING RESCISSIONS.

(a) REPEAL OF WAR POWERS RESOLUTION- The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) TERMINATION OF STATES OF EMERGENCY-
(1) IN GENERAL- All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5) as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated 90 days after such date. Such termination shall not affect–
(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
(2) DEFINITION- For the purpose of this subsection, the term `national emergency’ means a general declaration of emergency made by the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.
(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO DECLARE EMERGENCY- To the extent that any Act of Congress in effect on the date of enactment of this Act grants to the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch the power to declare a national emergency, such power is hereby divested to the Congress alone.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.

(a) STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY- The President shall include with each Presidential order a statement of the specific statutory or constitutional provision which in fact grants the President the authority claimed for such action.
(b) INVALIDITY OF NONCONFORMING ORDERS- A Presidential order which does not include the statement required by subsection (a) is invalid, to the extent such Presidential order is issued under authority granted by a congressional enactment.
SEC. 5. EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS.

(a) LIMITED EFFECT OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS- A Presidential order neither constitutes nor has the force of law and is limited in its application and effect to the executive branch.
(b) EXCEPTIONS- Subsection (a) does not apply to–
(1) a reprieve or pardon for an offense against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;
(2) an order given to military personnel pursuant to duties specifically related to actions taken as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; or
(3) a Presidential order citing the specific congressional enactment relied upon for the authority exercised in such order and–
(A) issued pursuant to such authority;
(B) commensurate with the limit imposed by the plain language of such authority; and
(C) not issued pursuant to a ratified or unratified treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement which–
(i) violates the ninth or tenth amendments to the Constitution; or
(ii) makes a delegation of power to a foreign government or international body when no such delegating authority exists under the Constitution.
SEC. 6. STANDING TO CHALLENGE PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS WHICH IMPACT SEPARATION OF POWERS INTEGRITY.

The following persons may bring an action in an appropriate United States court to challenge the validity of any Presidential order which exceeds the power granted to the President by the relevant authorizing statute or the Constitution:
(1) CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS- The House of Representatives, the Senate, any Senator, and any Representative to the House of Representatives, if the challenged Presidential order–
(A) infringes on any power of Congress;
(B) exceeds any power granted by a congressional enactment; or
(C) violates section 4 because it does not state the statutory authority which in fact grants the President the power claimed for the action taken in such Presidential order.
(2) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS- The highest governmental official of any State, commonwealth, district, territory, or possession of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, or the designee of such person, if the challenged Presidential order infringes on the powers afforded to the States under the Constitution.
(3) AGGRIEVED PERSONS- Any person aggrieved in a liberty or property interest adversely affected directly by the challenged Presidential order.
SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.

In this Act, the term `Presidential order’ means–
(1) any Executive order, Presidential proclamation, or Presidential directive; and
(2) any other Presidential or Executive action by whatever name described purporting to have normative effect outside the executive branch which is issued under the authority of the President or any other officer or employee of the executive branch.
END

Obama is sending your info to INTERPOL

Saturday, January 23rd, 2010

Just Click here to see how

Two Officers Caught Beating Suspect

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

DEAR OPPONENTS OF AMNESTY — GREAT NEWS!

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

A group primarily of first-term Members of the House of Representatives — 10 Democrats and 12 Republicans — has just now introduced a House resolution that would commit the chamber to oppose any mass amnesty.

H. Res. 1026 The Chaffetz/Kratovil No-Amnesty Bill

Please go to your Action Board now to send a fax to your own U.S. Representative.

You will find a fax that either thanks your Representative for co-sponsoring the anti-amnesty resolution or that asks your Representative to sign on. (However, those of you with a Representative who has already co-sponsored a pro-amnesty bill won’t see a new fax.)

Until this resolution, voters have not been able to know which Members of Congress they can count on to oppose a mass legalization of some 12 million illegal aliens.

We have been able to know the hundred or so Members of Congress who aggressively are pushing an amnesty because they have co-sponsored amnesty bills.

But when a Member who hasn’t co-sponsored an amnesty says he/she is against an amnesty, we haven’t really known what that means.

NOW, THOUGH, WE CAN LOOK TO THIS ANTI-AMNESTY RESOLUTION (H. RES. 1026) TO FIND THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS WE CAN TRULY TRUST TO VOTE ‘NO’ ON ANY AMNESTY.

This is a great immediate followup to the election of a no-amnesty Senator from Massachusetts who is filling a seat that has promoted amnesties and foreign-worker increases for 45 years.

This effort is being led by two freshmen, Rep. Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Kratovil (D-Maryland).

Other Democrats who are original No-Amnesty co-sponsors are Reps. Nye (Va.), Kagen (Wis.), Murphy (Pa.), Barrow (Ga.), Bright (Ala.), Taylor (Miss.), McIntyre (N.C.), Shuler (N.C.) and Childers (Miss.)

Other Republicans signing are Reps. Hunter (Calif.), Jenkins (Kan.), Luetkemeyer (Mo.), Olson (Texas), Fleming (La.), Lummis (Wyoming), Coffman (Colo.), McClintock (Calif.), Posey (Fla.), Roe (Tenn.), Harper (Miss.).

The filing of this resolution means that no Member of Congress can stay on the fence on amnesty now. Either the Members sign on to this No-Amnesty bill, or they signal that they are keeping open the possibility that they will vote FOR an amnesty if one comes up.

BILL INCLUDES MANDATORY E-VERIFY AND BORDER SECURITY

The short bill has three parts that commit the House of Representatives to:

* Mandatory E-Verify for all employers for all employees to keep illegal aliens out of U.S. jobs.

* Infrastructure and manpower to effectively secure and control U.s. borders.

* NO Amnesty.

The precise language can be read in the story on our home page.

The language about amnesty is simply:

“. . . any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual.”

Here is the statement of Rep. Kratovil (D-Maryland):

As a former prosecutor, I am committed to the rule of law. I came to Congress to fight for a common sense approach on immigration reform: enforcing the rules already on the books, punishing those who knowingly choose to violate them, and opposing any plans that reward or incentivize illegal behavior at the expense of those who are trying to play by the rules. This bipartisan resolution recognizes the critical role that legal immigrants have played in our society and lays out the principles that should guide any discussion of immigration reform. I am pleased to join Representatives Chaffetz, Nye, and Hunter as a lead on this important measure.

Statement of Rep. Chaffetz (R-Utah) who got to Congress by defeating the pro-amnesty Republican leader Rep. Cannon in a primary election:

Our government has a duty and responsibility to make our first immigration priority the enforcement of existing laws by ensuring that illegal behavior is punished, not rewarded. Any discussion of comprehensive immigration reform must begin with a renewed commitment to enforce our immigration laws. We need to remove the incentives that encourage illegal behavior if we expect to get immigration under control.

OK, fellow Americans, let’s get your Representative signed onto this bill!

THANKS,
Roy Beck

Roy Beck, President NumbersUSA

Clark County IAP Convention UPDATE

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

County Chairman Jon Kamarath:

The Clark County IAP Convention will be held on Feb. 6th. It will be at the Palace Station on the 2nd floor Training Room. If you enter the main entrance, go a little past the Bell Desk to the main guest elevators on the left hand side. Exit the elevators on the 2nd floor and go left to the Training Room.

Registration will cost a nominal $5 per person, and will go from 8:00 - 8:30 am, with the convention starting at 9:00.

Beliefs of the Independent American Party
● Follow the Constitution: The Constitution is the foundation of the American Republic. It limits government, provides for the separation of powers, and guarantees our God-given rights. All laws should comply with the US & Nevada Constitutions.
● Protect Our Borders: “A nation without borders is no nation at all.” — Ronald Reagan Stop the invasion of illegal aliens. Stop all tax funded benefits going to illegals. Only Citizens should vote.
● Gun Rights: “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.” — Nevada Constitution Art.1 Sec 11
● Property Rights: “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” — John Adams We oppose seizure and confiscation of real and personal property without a jury trial and due process of law. 91% of Nevada should not be controlled by the federal government.
● Family Friendly: Keep marriage only between a man and a woman. Nevada Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 21 Protect the right to be born. Strengthen the traditional family without government interference or regulation.
● Defend America: Protect America’s independence as a sovereign nation and stop the North American Union. Get the U.S. out of undeclared foreign wars and occupations, including Iraq. Bring our troops home. Stop the flow of terrorists across our undefended borders.
● Freedom of Speech & Petition: These precious rights are under attack by government. “…no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech” and the “people shall have the right freely to assemble” and “to petition” the government. — Nevada Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 9 & 10
● Medical Freedom: Protect the people’s freedom of choice in health care. Oppose mandatory government medication of our children.
● Cut Unconstitutional Spending, Cut Taxes and End the IRS: Restore constitutional taxation and limited government. IRS abuses must stop. “When the people fear the government then tyranny has found victory.” — Thomas Jefferson
● Protect Privacy: Stop government spying on American citizens. (Repeal the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act.) Protect “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches…” — Nevada Constitution Art 1 Sec. 18
● No National ID: Stop any form of National ID cards including REAL ID and bio-metric identification for citizens and their property/animals. Stop the use and abuse of Social Security numbers in any identification such as used in the US Code Title 42, Sec. 666.
● Preserve the Freedom of Religion: A “perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured.” — Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution “liberty of conscience [is] hereby secured.” — Nevada Constitution Article 4
● Right to Trial by Jury: “The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever…” Nevada Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 3. Require jury trials in all cases involving government agencies. The right of jurors includes the right to judge the facts and the law.

Chad Christensen to run for US Senate?

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Leonard Foster wrote:
Christopher,

I got this from Muth:

“According to a Ralston Flash on Friday, Republican state Assemblyman Chad Christensen is actually thinking of jumping into the U.S. Senate race. You read that correctly. Not the STATE Senate race he’s said he was running for against incumbent RINO state Sen. Dennis Nolan. The U.S. Senate race - for the opportunity to take on Harry Reid next November.”

As you recall, Chad said he was NOT going to run for State Senate 9 and he was happy with the Assembly THEN announced running for Senate 9. Now he wants to run for US Senate?? Sounds like Chad is looking out for what’s best for Chad.

Leonard Foster
Candidate Nevada Assembly 13
www.leonardfoster.com