Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 29, 2009

Lord Monckton, who challenged Al Gore on man-made climate change and was rebuffed by a gaggle of peevish Democrats, wants the climate “scientists” caught red-handed fiddling with climate stats prosecuted.

“They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”

Alex Jones on the CRU emails and the globalist plan to use the climate change hoax to impose one-world government.

Monckton does not hold out much hope for that, however. “But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.”

The corporate media is doing its best to downplay the story. “Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill’s chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal,” reports Reuters. Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, said the release of the emails will be remembered mostly as “embarrassment” to the researchers. “But there’s no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I’ve seen.”

No smoking gun? The so-called researchers colluded to modify climate data in favor of their man-made climate change fairy tale.

“The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the ‘global warming’ fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures,” writes Monckton in a bog entry today. “One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.”

Russia Today reports on the CRU emails.

Instead of demanding researchers answer questions about inventing and fiddling with data, the University of East Anglia has asked the cops to investigate the hackers who revealed the bogus work of “our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit” that supposedly produces “research [that] is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”

In other words, fake data used to impose a one-world government and global serfdom is “fully peer-reviewed.”

“In addition to supporting the police in their enquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it,” states a CRU update posted earlier today.

“It’s definitely a crime to do that in the U.K., and we have reported it to the police,” said Simon Dunford, a spokesman at East Anglia, which is conducting an internal probe.

The University of East Anglia should be consulting lawyers. Antonio Regalado, writing for Science Magazine, notes that “university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law.”

Professor Phil Jones, for instance, apparently engaged in a criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence formally petitioned under a Freedom of Information request. “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise,” Jones emailed Michael E. Mann, a climatologist and statistician at Pennsylvania State University, on May 29, 2008.

As noted above, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine.

The “arrogant fraudsters,” Monckton continues, “have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up.”

Meanwhile, over at the Huffington Post, Katherine Goldstein and Craig Kanalley dismiss the CRU scandal out of hand. It provides ammo for the right-wing nuts who are — according to the ADL and the Department of Homeland Security — a threat to the nation.

“Despite the lack of evidence of some sort of conspiracy in the scientific community, this criminal activity has created fodder for right-wing groups and websites to promote their own agenda that global warming is not real. This comes at a time when international attention is more and more focused on the climate crisis in advance of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December,” they write.

Naturally, the climate change “progressives” — and the globalist foundations that support and nurture them — are worried about the CRU scandal because the United Nations conference on climate change is right around the corner. In December, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen to work on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

As Lord Monckton explained in October, a realized Copenhagen treaty will establish a “one world Marxist government.”

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of climate change.

“The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement,” Monckton warned. “They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.”

Replace “Marxist” with “bankster” and you get a better idea of what our rulers have up their sleeves. Moreover, wealth is never transferred to the third world. It is transferred to the global elite. Feel-good palliatives about feeding the poor are merely a parlor trick to steal your money and reduce you to indentured servitude.

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-prosecute-the-climate-change-criminals/

Copyright © 2009 Infowars. All rights reserved.

Written by Publius
Freedom Advocates
Monday, 17 March 2008 04:14

Sustainable Development is the most extensive and broad ranging social engineering project ever undertaken. With respect to state, county and local political bodies, many have contracted their powers away. They applied for loans and grants that required “concessions.” Many times the concessions included authority over renewable natural resources and development. Those terms and concessions handed the scepter of power and ultimate authority over to the financier in perpetuity.

Sustainable Development is the most extensive and broad ranging social engineering project ever undertaken. To give effect to this vague phrase and to its empiric objectives, significant changes in human behavior had to be promoted, influenced or induced.

The United Nations (UN) program for Sustainable Development has three primary components.

1. The initiating “program”

2. An “agenda” with objectives and,

3. “Projects” to implement the program and agenda on the ground.

Sustainable development has a long developmental history. It was reasonably well explained in “The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation” by Martin Holdgate. Mr. Holgate was Director-General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) between 1988 and 1994.

The UNESCO Man & Biosphere program was an experimental forerunner in the innovative development of the social engineering scheme. The IUCN was specifically named in the World Heritage Treaty. They assumed planning and management authority of those experimental areas as a treaty organization. Those areas are sometimes referred to as Biosphere Reserves and are managed under the Seville Strategy, numerous treaties and Agenda 21.

We know that Agenda 21, Earth’s Action Plan, was the overall social engineering agenda for “sustainable development” with specified “objectives.” Agenda 21 was written by the IUCN. At the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, Nicholas A. Robinson railroaded Agenda 21 through as the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development”. He used sleep deprivation techniques to get it through as he knew that rested, wide awake delegates would never agree to such a scheme. You need a copy of the IUCN’s annotated version of Agenda 21 to find that information. It was edited out of all other editions.

Here is a link to a recent essay by Nicholas Robinson entitled: “IUCN as Catalyst for a Law of the Biosphere: Acting Globally & Locally”. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IUCN+as+catalyst+for+a+law+of+the+biosphere:+acting+globally+and...-a0133052169

The economic component of the Sustainable Development system was finalized under the Second Amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1976. Public Law 94-564. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the Bretton Woods sisters, were to officiate over that component. Numerous joint venture agreements and integrated programs would appear when the rest of the sustainable development program components came into view and achieved the status of general policy.

At about the same time as the Bretton Woods Agreement came into effect, the UNESCO Man & Biosphere Program was started in the U.S. With the economic component under international control, it took just over a decade of experiments and innovations to come up with “Sustainable Development.” The Rio conference’s primary focus was directed at environmental treaties and agreements. One principle objective was to internationalize, or at least regionalize, all bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements under an “umbrella.” That would and did provide “sustainable development” with the natural resource component.

With the economic and natural resource components internationalized, that left only the “development” component to be acquired. Development of trade and commerce were internationalized under provisions in the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement. This agreement has approximately 150 environmental treaties attached. When a signatory party signed into the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, they:

• Relinquished parts of their domestic authority to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and,

• Consented to all of the attached economic and environmental treaties and agreements.

This is called “implied consent” in international law.

Other regional agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had economic, natural resource and environmental provisions. The NAFTA Commission on Environmental Cooperation is currently located in Canada.

http://www.cec.org/home/index.cfm?varlan=english

Now consider the term “equity.” Equity is used in the “Sustainable Development” scheme because there are no recognized or protectable “legal rights.” In short, others who are not title owners or do not have some titled easement now claim a superior equitable interest in the property of others and in its use and enjoyment.

EQUITY. In early law history, the sense affixed to this word was exceedingly vague and uncertain. In part, this was owing to the fact that chancellors in those days were either statesmen or ecclesiastics. Neither was reliably scrupulous in the exercise of power. It was then asserted that equity was bounded by no certain limits or rules and that it was alone controlled by conscience and natural justice. 3 Bl. Com. 43-3, 440, 441. 2.

In a moral sense, that is called equity which is founded, ex aequo et bono, in natural justice, in honesty, and in right. In an enlarged legal view, “equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it. In this, equity is made synonymous with justice; in that, to the true and sound interpretation of the rule.” 3 Bl. Com. 429.

This equity is justly said to be a supplement to the laws; but it must be directed by science. The Roman law will furnish him with sure guides, and safe rules. In that code will be found, fully developed, the first principles and the most important consequences of natural right. “From the moment when principles of decision came to be acted upon in chancery,” says Mr. Justice Story, “the Roman law furnished abundant materials to erect a superstructure, at once solid, convenient and lofty, adapted to human wants, and enriched by the aid of human wisdom, experience and learning.” Com. on Eq. Jur. §23 Digest, 54.3.

But equity has a more restrained and qualified meaning. The remedies for the redress of wrongs, and for the enforcement of rights, are distinguished into two classes:

• First, those which are administered in courts of common law;

• Secondly, those which are administered in courts of equity.

Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the former courts, are called legal rights and legal injuries. Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the latter courts only, are called equitable rights and equitable injuries.

The former are said to be rights and wrongs at common law, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies at common law. The latter are said to be rights and wrongs in equity, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies in equity.

Equity jurisprudence may, therefore, properly be said to be that portion of remedial justice which is exclusively administered by a court of equity, as contradistinguished from that remedial justice, which is exclusively administered by a court of law. Story, Eq. §25. Vide Chancery, and the authorities there cited; and 3 Chit. Bl. Com. 425 n. 1. Dane’s Ab. h.t.; Ayl. Pand. 37; Fonbl. Eq. b. 1, c. 1; Wooddes. Lect. 114 Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t. EQUITY, COURT OF.

A court of equity is one which administers justice, where THERE ARE NO LEGAL RIGHTS. However, courts of law do not afford a complete remedy and where the complainant has also an equitable right. “Vide Chancery.” See: Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1859.

As noted in the definition of equity, its origin is from Rome; it was exceedingly vague and uncertain and was administered by those who were not reliable or scrupulous. The transition from the common law to equity began in the late 1920s and 1930s and was spearheaded by the American Law Institute. In its modern day and innovative use, and as used for the purpose of “Sustainable Development”, it might be described as the “divine right of kings” exercised by aristocracies or oligarchies if you will. It was the arbitrary power of the Roman Emperors and their administrators who adopted that premise of absolute and centralized authority from the Babylonian Priest Kings. King John of England attempted to use those unfettered powers but his reign of despotism ended at Runnymead where he was forced to sign the Charter of Forest Principles and shortly thereafter the Magna Carta.

We are now seeing the resurrection of Roman concepts of privileges and limited interest in property and the demise of and refusal to recognize the “common law”, which Sir William Blackstone called the “fountain source” of rights and “the birthright” of the people.

Australia is more advanced in the systematic demise of the common law than the U.S. However, there are few who know or live by common law in the U.S. anymore either. “Collectivism” is now taking over people’s minds under Sustainable Development rhetoric and propaganda. This is particularly true in urban areas where people’s lives are subjugated and inundated with heavy regulations enforced by swarms of agencies and bureaucrats.

Few know that the titles to their real property are in equity. Banks, attorneys and real estate dealers many times put on the contracts or titles that the buyer paid “ten dollars and other considerations” for the property. Amendment VII to the U.S. Constitution has a minimum monetary requirement to get to a court of law, i.e., 20 dollars. As such, a common law remedy may not be available to those with only “ten dollars” in issue.

If a lender or bank was used in the transaction, the financial institution may be the real owner. The institution discharged the debt to the seller and the buyer is obligated to discharge that debt plus interest back to the lender. The buyer only has an “equitable interest” in the property.

So you see, like people in Australia, there are few left with the “birthright.” The protectable birthright had to be eliminated in order for “Sustainable Development” and the aristocratic social engineering scheme to be enforced.

With respect to state, county and local political bodies, many have contracted their powers away. They applied for loans and grants that required “concessions.” Many times the concessions included authority over renewable natural resources and development. Those terms and concessions handed the scepter of power and ultimate authority over to the financier in perpetuity.

In summary, treaties and international agreements are implemented under guise of centralized laws, regulations and policies by federal agencies who then pass them down to the States or Provinces, who in turn for a price, impose them upon local governments and ultimately upon the people. They impact local governments and the local people in an infinite number of ways by directing and controlling commerce, manipulating trade and the production of goods; they affect the cost of living and doing business, and impose costly conditions and unfunded mandates on how public and private lands and natural resources are managed and used. They appear to us in words and papers under numerous different names such as “global warming”, “endangered species”, “free trade”, “river basin management”, “precautionary principle”, “wetlands”, “protected areas”, “corridors”, “buffer zones”, “conservation easements”, etc. They are all thrown together under vague banners such as “sustainable development” that have no useful definition. It is the “top down approach” that dictates how most people live and act in their daily lives and how and where they will live and grow.

As stated, it is the most extensive centralized social engineering scheme ever devised. The common law being the “fountain source” of private rights and the “birthright” of the people stood in opposition to those global collective engineering plans and had to be removed by deception, contract, consent or coercion.

Please visit more articles on this subject at:www.freedomadvocates.orgg

U.S. Set to Take Coloradans Land Without Compensation

Ignored by the mass media, hundreds of farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado are facing loss of their property at the hands of the IRS.

By Fred Kelly Grant Tuesday, 28 October 2008

At this very hour, Colorado landowners are fighting to prevent the United States federal government from taking their land. Ignored by the mass media, hundreds of farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado are facing loss of their property at the hands of the IRS. They are victims of “conservation easements” promoted by federal and state governments, land trust companies, and conservation groups.

As landowners dedicated to preserving the open, agricultural use of their land, lured into the “easements” by both the U.S. and Colorado governments, they have been betrayed by those they trusted. A “conservation easement” is an easement in name only. It is an agreement by a landowner to give up the right to develop his or her land for residential, commercial or industrial use. He/she agrees to keep the land in agricultural use FOREVER, and in return is rewarded either with cash payment for the development value, or income tax relief to the amount of the appraised value of the development rights.

The federal government and the state of Colorado offered inducements for execution of the “easements” by which the landowners donated their land to various land trusts to be held for agricultural use IN PERPETUITY. They accepted the following offers of income tax relief, conditioned upon execution of the easements: federal income tax deductions, and tax credits from Colorado income tax, or the right to sell such tax credits to third parties or the State itself.

In reliance on commitments from the two governments, the landowners donated their land to various land trusts, mainly for two reasons: they wanted to preserve their land as agricultural land forever, and they faced cash flow problems which could be helped by the tax relief. So, they gave away the value of development rights in exchange for tax relief. In most cases, the development rights were far more valuable, money wise, than the assessed land value. But, the landowners placed their desire for continued agricultural use above the interest in a future much higher profit.

The landowners followed the rules. They engaged consultants to help them put together the donation package. They hired appraisers certified by the state of Colorado as honest, ethical, and competent. They had certified public accountants review the appraisals and their financial situations. They hired lawyers to make sure the law was followed in the transactions.They asked that all this professional help assure them that the Land Trust company, which would own the easement, was trustworthy.

But, after two to three years, one of the donee Land Trusts invited the IRS to review the easement appraisals. That invitation didn’t worry the landowners because they had obtained professional assistance and had been assured they were following the rules. But, suddenly the IRS announced disqualifications of “easements,” claiming that the appraisals of development rights were highly over stated. The State of Colorado called into question the licenses of several appraisers (all appraisers who have sought full reinstatement have been successful), and the mass media began to talk of a “scandal,” and “sham” appraisals, and cast the landowners as greedy people looking for windfalls. The media reached its libelous conclusions without reviewing the files and determining the facts. But, what’s new? As Will Rogers said, “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”

In one case, for example, the appraisal of the development rights was challenged by an IRS employee who claimed that the appraiser did not use any comparable realty values in the vicinity. The statement is either an outright lie, or the grossest negligence in history. Within a quarter-mile of the appraised land is a subdivision of high scale homes, and within a half mile is a subdivision of even a higher scale homes situated on a finely groomed golf course.

The appraised land is within two miles of the city limits and a regional hospital. The landowner has water rights that accompany the appraised land, and the land has available water access, which would serve residential parcels very efficiently. Whether the IRS conclusion is a lie may rest on the fact that the federal employee judging the appraised value is not an appraiser, and has been exposed to land appraisal training for a solid two hours.

The IRS has demanded payment of back taxes, plus penalties and interest. In some cases, the demand is higher than the value of the landowners’ property, now that the “easements” have devalued the property. The third parties who bought state tax credits have demanded return of their money. The state of Colorado has turned its back on the landowners, which it lured into the conservation easements. The Governor’s office turns back requests for assistance with the spurious claim that the matter is a “federal” issue. The Secretary of Agriculture, who lives among the troubled landowners, ignores the problem.

The landowners cannot borrow money to satisfy the “return” demands. The banks will not lend money because of the conservation easements, which devalue the land. The landowners cannot sell their land, or any portion of their land. Buyers are not willing to take on the restrictions and devaluation of the land resulting from the conservation easements. One of the ranchers had a sale in place for a portion of his property. The sale price would have allowed him to replace at least 75 percent of his imminent loss, but the buyer backed out because of the conservation easement.

As the federal and state governments pursue destruction of these landowners, they continue to promote conservation easements. Land Trust companies and conservation groups continue to promote conservation easements, and the Congress created tax incentives in the new Farm Bill that will lure other landowners into reliance on a government, which has proved unreliable. Colorado at this moment faces a huge federal take-over of private land, which will remove thousands of acres from the tax rolls of the counties. And, the problem in southeastern Colorado is only the tip of the iceberg.

There are over 1,800 of these conservation easements throughout Colorado. In the blink of an eye, Colorado can be victimized by massive federal takeovers. The problem facing Coloradans and Colorado is the beginning of what can be, and will be, a national crisis resulting from transfer of private ownership of land to the United States Government. Counties will suffer from loss of tax revenue; the landscape will suffer from negligent management by federal agencies; the species in the ecosystems will suffer from negligent management; and the law will suffer from a blatant disregard for the constitutional limits on federal government ownership and requirements that property is not taken without just compensation. All the horrible results from imposition of conservation easements, which private property organizations including Stewards of the Range and the American Land Foundation have emphasized, have come to fruition in southeastern Colorado. They lay ahead for unsuspecting landowners across the Nation.

What you can do to help?

As the governments and Land Trusts turn their backs on the landowners, all individuals in the nation can help. You can call, fax and email your Representatives and Senators who are seeking re-election. You can ask them what they are doing, or will do, to protect private landowners as they protected big business in the massive “bail out” of Wall Street. You can tell them that your vote depends on their willingness to help. You can demand of incumbents that there will be field hearings to determine the truth as to the inadequacy of the IRS reviews. You can demand that they hold field hearings to inquire into, and “fix”, the fraud that is evident on the part of the promoters of the conservation easements.

If you live in Colorado, you can call, fax and email the Secretary of Agriculture and the Governor, demanding that they “fix” the problem caused by fraud perpetrated on the landowners. And, you can write letters to the local and regional newspapers and television stations demanding that they determine the facts, rather than relying on press statements by leaders of the Land Trusts who are complicit in the threat to the landowners. The landowners are ready and willing to show the press the facts as they did to me.

Fred Kelly Grant serves as president of Stewards of the Range and has practiced law for over 50 years. He, along with Stewards of the Range and American Land Foundation are assisting landowners nationwide on property rights issues.

To post your comments go to http://stewards.wordpress.com

This article was distributed by Liberty Matters, Stewards of the Range and the American Land Foundation.

By Joan Stanley

On June 5, 2005, the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco met to present two documents - The “Green Cities Declaration” and the “Urban Environmental Accords”. Over 900 mayors who attended, including Bozeman’s former Mayor Kaaren Jacobson, signed the two documents, which are part of the United Nations Agenda 21, global political- economic program referred to as Sustainable Development. Most Americans have not yet heard of Agenda 21, or let alone understand its policy and philosophy. It is somewhat of a mystery that Mayor Jacobson knows the true objectives of Agenda 21; social engineering and behavior modification being implemented under the pretense of environmental responsibility. If in fact the Mayor is aware of Agenda 21’s plan, she along with any other elected official who implements this tyranny are not only committing a crime against the citizens of Montana, they are guilty of treason simply by undermining our Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution.

Striving to beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 7 percent, suggested by the Kyoto Protocol, the Bozeman City Commission in 2006 signed onto the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 12 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

To accomplish this preposterus goal, the city of Bozeman in 2007 hired a “Sustainability Coordinator” to implement the development of the Bozeman Climate Action Plan with the intention of identifying greenhouse gas emissions in the community.

As a result, the Bozeman Climate Protection Task Force was born. The Bozeman Climate Action Plan, (an 88 page document of shear nonsense can be downloaded here: http:// www.bozeman.net/bozeman/government/commission/task%20force/Climate%20Task%20Force/climateTaskForce.aspx)

According to the City of Bozeman, the document is the first part of a two-part plan that the city must (soft-law “sustainability-speak”) complete to fulfill the requirements of the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

The “Green Cities Declaration” calls for mayors of all cities in the U.S. and the world to implement Agenda 21. The “Urban Environmental Accords” explains how it will be implemented. The goal is for each city to adopt three “actions” each year from 2005 to June 5, 2012, the date of World Environment Day.

By doing so, the cities will receive twenty-one stars (Exciting stuff... reminds me of when I was in kindergarten) and at the same time, will create enormous debt as well as eliminate citizens’ rights and confiscation of their property all for the “greater good”. Of course the Bozeman officials won’t mention this, or perhaps they don’t fully understand the true ramifications of the Agenda 21 plan. I wish to believe the latter.

Under these “practical” actions, the City of Bozeman along with Helena and Missoula have unfortunately taken the bait, hook, line and sinker all in the name of political correctness, while Kaaren Jacobson is most likely euphoric at the idea of gaining the title of “Cool Mayor”.

There are other mayors however, who see this program for what it really is, a redistribution of wealth in the state, the confiscation of private land, a huge tax burden on citizens, more loss of jobs and more debt on Montanans.

By endorsing and implementing the U.N. Agenda 21 propaganda, the anti-human, anti- property rights programs known as Sustainable Development obtain assistance from non-governmental (NGO) organizations such as International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the Sierra Club and others.

Even Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer has fallen for this “global to local” propaganda program when in 2005, he appealed to the director of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) asking the director to establish a Climate Change Advisory Group that would examine agriculture, forestry, energy, government and other sectors of our state. The Governor also called on Montana citizens to identify ways in which collective greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced while at the same time save money conserving energy, and bolster the economy.

Governor Schweitzer also requested that by July 2007, he would like the group to produce a Climate Change Action Plan that includes recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Montana. I’m wondering if our public officials have yet read the U.S. Senate Minority Report where more than 650 International scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims - scientists continue to debunk “consensus” in 2008 (which can be downloaded here - http://www.freedomadvocates.org/research_center/), or, could they be in denial? One would have to question why they remain fixated on this junk science.

In 1993, former president Bill Clinton signed an executive order entitled “The President’s Council on Sustainable Development”. Since then, every cabinet agency of the executive branch of government has adopted its role in advancing Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development policy in the U.S. Strange how they are still pushing the Agenda 21 program even though the U.S. has not to this day signed on to the Kyoto Protocol.

The goal of this nefarious U.N. policy is to ultimately abolish private property, primarily through the implementation of the Wildlands Project and Smart Growth; education of youth to prepare them for global citizenship and for the control and ultimate reduction of human population.

In his article New World Order Rising (http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates63.html), Steven Yates charges ICLEI with using the same tactics as Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals in ICLEI’s publication of their Local Government Handbook, “a guide on how to infiltrate towns and communities, win the support of local politicians, local media, business leaders, organizations such as the local chamber of Commerce, other community leaders including ministers, and win as much support from ordinary citizens by virtue of the bandwagon effect.”

Yates states that using persuasion through the media, workshops, etc., will entice as many citizens as possible into cooperating willingly as possible in the transformation of their cities and communities to a socialist feudal order. And by using the Delphi Technique (http:www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html), they (hope) to eliminate opposition and instead achieve a “oneness of mind”.

Just for the record, here are a few warm and fuzzy quotes from the environmental frauds who want you to believe that “Sustainable Development” is something you should embrace because it sounds oh, so magnificent.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, Canadian billionaire; architect of the Kyoto Protocol; founder of the U.N. Environmental Programme; former senior advisor to the president of the World Bank; founded the Earth Council in 1992 after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and now hiding out in China.

Maurice Strong also stated these enlightening words at the Rio Earth Summit,“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning and suburban housing - are not sustainable”.

High meat intake?

And here are some words of wisom by professor Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University - “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

Oops...are you getting the picture nw?

And this is my favorite quote from the “horses mouth” itself, “All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution.

Yes, you read that right. Humanity is the real enemy according to the Globalists.

The Bozeman Municipal Action Plan document states “climate change is an issue which has the potential to have devastating effects on the Bozeman community if immediate and aggressive policies are not taken to begin mitigating for anthropogenic (man- made) greenhouse gas concentrations which are a major cause of global warming” (emphasis added). (Hmm...Sounds to me like the same kind of scary rhetoric Nancy Pelosi & Co. spurted when trying to convince the public of the urgent and desperate need for all those bailouts.)

Of course this statement is mostly alarmist and absolute fiction. It is crucial that politicians are factually accurate before they regurgitate political jargon and propaganda in order to frighten citizens so that they may promote their social or other agendas. The facts are that greenhouse gas concentrations are not man-made and there is no data that suggests global warming is occurring.

Here are some facts you should know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature change.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

Dr. Myles Allen, from Oxford University stated, “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”

As reported by Tom Harper in the London Telegraph (UK), Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. “Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor. Professor Ball appeared in a documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanation to be ignored. Environmental scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group with more than 150 published articles said this,

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...the present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It becomes an ideology, which is concerning.”

Bozeman officials and politicians should seriously re-think their position on climate change, global warming and above all, the “buzz” term Sustainable Development by investigating the facts and science, not by listening to the propaganda machine of Al Gore.

Here is my suggestion to Bozeman officials and Governor Schweitzer - Instead of pandering to U.N. propaganda, officials should focus and investigate Climate Control by the manipulation of the World’s climate through Washington’s New World Order weapons program. Never heard of this either? I am referring to HAARP, or High- frequency Active Aural Research Program, part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

According to world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. Dr. Bertell confirms that, “U.S. military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” (1)

However, HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research rather than part of an integrated weapons’ system, which according to Dr. Bertell has potentially devastating environmental consequences.

To learn more about HAARP visit: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212-environment/45492.html

NOTES

1. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

No Better Place to Hide Than China

Written by Michael Shaw
Tuesday, 29 November 2005 17:00

The Nature Conservancy is a beneficiary of a public/private partnership - the remake of the American economic system. As inside players in the Sustainable Development scam, the Nature Conservancy has harmed many lives. Public private partnerships scheme to implement the Wildlands Project in order to take global corporate control of land and resources.

Public/private partnerships invite insider corruption.

The financing shenanigans of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are well documented. The Washington Post ran a three day front page expose which has lead to an onging Senate investigation. Before the Post expose, Range Magazine ran a detailed and very thorough investigation of TNC operations. Former San Francisco Chronicle journalist, Tim Findley broke this story for Range with a superior piece of journalism. Findley has been interviewed on the Freedom 21 Santa Cruz Radio Show where he called TNC the “most sinister organization in America”.

The Nature Conservancy does not play fairly with ordinary people. They coordinate with government and others to gain massive land grabs.

The Nature Conservancy takes control, directly or by conservation easement, of the management and use of the lands and natural resources owned by private citizens. TNC is a collaborating partner with the American Wildlands Project. TNC acquires land interests from battered “willing sellers” while coordinating with other “partners” such as government regulatory agencies and various “Non-Governmental Organizations”. People become “willing sellers” as a result of legislative or regulatory entanglements, agency abuse, tax funded windfalls (bribes), or judicial threats.

The Nature Conservancy business model demonstrates the economic premise of Sustainable Development.

Beginning at least as early as the 80’s the ideology of Fabian socialist economics began its accelerating hold. Then it was called “privatization” or “third way”. Today the warm and fuzzy term for the economics of the Fabian inspired global Sustainable Development program is “public/private partnership”. The purpose of global to local public/private partnerships is to secure globally managed corporate socialism. By definition, an economy based on public/private partnership eliminates free enterprise and liberty itself. With this economic model comes an advancing police state.

Transforming America

From Texas, Maine, North Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, and all across America, TNC is routinely identified by rural residents as a major threat to their way of life. The pattern is very clear. TNC pretends to rescue the environment. In fact, TNC is an integral part of the Sustainable goal of centralized control over the world’s natural resources. TNC is participating in the creation of a global governance system that abandons Natural Law and Equal Justice.

At the new Pajaro Valley High School in Watsonville, California, students are being trained in “global citizenship”. Selected students have been identified and are being assigned field work in the Watsonville sloughs as ‘swamp restorationists’. Perhaps they are being prepared for an ultimate assignment to the Nature Conservancy under quickly evolving federal education policies that transform the nature of education. Children are no longer being given facts and information needed to a live life of their own.

Support for the TNC - and the web to which TNC belongs - is to sanction our own victimhood.

Fabian socialist ideologues - Sustainable Developers - have permeated American institutions and left the public confused and in the dark. Sustainable Developers are well funded and are in control of the national and international political/economic machinery. The political philosophy and the tactics of Sustainable Development pose mankind’s greatest threat ever. It is time to redirect American leadership.

Wolves in Our Backyard

By Mike Satren
Freedom Advocates
Wednesday, 30 May 2007 07:04

The deliberate “reintroduction” of aggressive gray wolves is causing conflict between environmentalists and multiple-use conservationists and changing how residents interact with their own surroundings.

In 1995 and early 1996, 35 Canadian gray wolves were released into central Idaho on the orders of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Clark.

They didn’t look back.

They did, however, multiply well beyond the director’s wildest dreams, fulfilling predictions -- and fears -- of many Idaho natives, including ranchers and hunters who had fought the intrusion of the federal government’s will into what many believed to be the state’s domain: the management of its fish and game.

On Sept. 3, 2002, ABC’s Peter Jennings, during his In Search of America Special, asked then-Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne why he was opposed to the reintroduction in the first place.

“This has been a very heavily financed program by the federal government to bring in the wolf,” Kempthorne said. “And because you said we’re coming in and we really don’t care what you say, if I did that to you, Mr. Jennings, you’d get your back up against a wall, too, and you wouldn’t like it.”

The justification for the move to import Canadian gray wolves came from the powers of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which gave the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service responsibility for its administration.

“What has always heretofore been a state matter was federalized by the Endangered Species Act,” said former USFWS wildlife biologist Jim Beers, now retired in Virginia.

The ESA was amended in 1982 to allow the “reintroduction” of experimental populations into their historic ranges, and this was the justification used for the USFWS’s actions in 1995 and 1996.

The ESA was given teeth, too, not unlike the wolf it seeks to protect. Violators of the Endangered Species Act are subjected to fines of up to $100,000 and one year’s imprisonment.

Currently, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the USFWS estimate more than 800 wolves descended from the original 35 Canadian imports in Idaho, but the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition believes that is a “low ball” figure -- that it’s at least 1,075 or more -- based on a study done at the University of Idaho by graduate student Jay Smith. Smith looked at population studies elsewhere that peg wolf increases from 34 percent to 36 percent annually.

“Wolf numbers are purposely and routinely underestimated to make association with growing depredations and game animal disappearances all but impossible,” Beers said.

Originally, the wolf was to be delisted -- meaning that its ESA status would be changed from “Endangered” to “Threatened” -- when the population grew to 10 breeding pairs or around 100 wolves in Idaho. Wolf advocates successfully delayed this process, giving the wolf population more time to expand and grow. On Jan. 29 this year, USFWS announced its proposal to delist gray wolves in Idaho and other areas in the northern Rockies. Special interest groups like Defenders of Wildlife (DoW), the Sierra Club and others responded with a howl.

By 2003, Jamie Clark had left the USFWS to become a senior vice president for conservation programs for the National Wildlife Federation, and from that position, she testifed on behalf of DoW, the Endangered Species Coalition, Fund for Animals, Humane Society of the United States, Military Toxics Project, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Public Interest Research Group, Natural Resources Defense Council and World Wildlife Fund to a U.S. Senate committee against allowing the Department of Defense to waive some EPA rules. In 2004, DoW hired Clark to be its executive vice president.

DoW, for one, has been beating the drum on their Web site, through mailings and media press releases that recommend to state agencies what their management plans should be.

“Until Wyoming and Idaho follow in Montana’s footsteps and commit to conservation-based management of wolves, the FWS should continue federal protections for wolves in this region,” said Suzanne Asha Stone of DoW in a press release dated April 19.

DoW does not like Idaho’s plan to reduce wolf populations to originally promised numbers -- 10 breeding pairs.

In several recent teleconferences hosted by DoW with specially invited guests, Stone stated that “scientific data show that wolves have a negligible effect on hunter harvest success rates.”

DoW as early as 1987 implemented a program to compensate ranchers for “confirmed” kills by predators. They put together a trust fund of $100,000, called The Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Trust, to take some of the load off private ranchers for losses from wolves due to predator advocates’ policies.

“My view is that people who support wolf recovery should help pay the costs,” said Northern Rockies DOF representative Hank Fischer in an article “Who Pays for Wolves.”

Others claim that it was a clever way for DoW to silence one of the more vocal anti-wolf groups, the Farm Bureau, who filed a lawsuit in 1994 against the USFWS’s wolf “reintroduction” program.

“In reality, the (compensation) program is nothing more than a publicity tool for Defenders,” stated Research Director T.R. Mader of the Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. “It is totally inadequate for addressing the problem of livestock losses to wolves.”

Reasons listed were:

• Carcass not found -- it’s totally eaten

• Scavengers and decay -- there’s nothing to confirm

• Terrain -- heavy vegetation like timber and undergrowth hide the carcass

Mader said animal damage control officers claim that confirmed kills can be 10 percent or less of actual kills, but are usually not more than 20 percent.

DoW also plans to discontinue the program once the wolf is delisted.

Recently, DoW wrote to a multi-generation sheep ranching family, Lawrence and Elaine Allestad, located near Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness -- just north of Yellowstone Park -- in Montana that they would no longer compensate their losses from grizzly bear predation because their ranch was located in the wrong place.

DoW representative Minette Johnson in a Bozeman Daily Chronicle article dated April 23, 2007 by Scott McMillion said, “she’s simply the last one holding out in that country,” implying that the Allestads were the last of a number of previous ranchers who had been forced to sell out because of predator losses.

The story of wolf expansion parallels the grizzly under ESA protections in the Northern Rockies.

As Fischer himself said, “The purpose of the program is to develop enough of a political and economic comfort level with the public so as to allow wolf recovery to proceed unimpeded.”

The wolf became the darling of the deep ecology movement that got its legs in the 1960s, partially because of the wolf’s mythical status as a top predator. The deep ecology philosophy formed a look-don’t-touch view of humankind’s rights concerning nature, and when Farley Mowatt published his book “Never Cry Wolf” in 1963 -- which many scientists disdained for its lack of evidence -- wolf mythology changed overnight to embrace a new vision of wolf as “ideal father,” “feisty mother,” and “dependable pup sitter,” according to Karen Jones in “Never Cry Wolf: Science, Sentiment, and the Literary Rehabilitation of Canis Lupus.”

Critics charged that Mowatt had only observed wolves for a total of 90 hours, “an indictment of his research credibility and scientific commitment,” Jones said. “Never Cry Wolf” was fiction, but its pretense as science undermined the credibility of biological research itself, she said.

Predicting that the book would influence many, reviewer A.S.F. Banfield concluded, “It is certain that not since Little Red Riding Hood has a story been written that will influence the attitude of so many toward these animals. I hope that the readers of ‘Never Cry Wolf’ will realize that both stories have about the same factual content.”

Anthropomorphism -- which ascribes human traits to non-human species -- was used heavily by Mowatt, but no more than others like Disney or Aesop. Scientists, however, contend that there is no place for anthropomorphism in science.

The ecology movement applied terms like “loyal,” “intelligent,” “fun-loving,” and “good parents” to wolf traits, implying they were superior to humans, Jones said. Canadian wildlife advocates adopted an “animal rights and human wrongs” view of nature, which emerged in the U.S. as Cleveland Amory’s Fund for Animals in 1967 along with others like Defenders of Wildlife.

Most of these groups try very hard to dispel what they claim to be centuries-old “misinformation” about wolves.

“The state governments of both Wyoming and Idaho have taken strong stances against wolves based on emotionally laden misinformation that wolves are threatening state livestock and hunting industries,” Stone said.

Nathan Varley, a wildlife biologist who took part in the DoW media teleconference, said, “Wolves will naturally go after the weak, vulnerable and sick animals first -- not the strong, healthy ones which are mostly invulnerable to wolf predation.”

That view is hokum, say others.

“Wolves are opportunists, meaning they kill whatever is convenient. This may be old or sick animals or a pregnant female, but most significantly they prey on the young,” Mader stated.

Wolves kill for food but they also kill for sport, said Nelson.

“Elk and deer populations are decreasing steadily, where the wolves are spreading,” Beers said.

The North Yellowstone elk herd stood at more than 19,000 before the time of the “reintroduction” in 1994. As of 2004, with not much else changed, except the addition of wolves, the herd was estimated at 8,335 animals. The winter count conducted on Dec. 30, 2006 was 6,738 elk.

Montana State University ecology professor Scott Creel launched a study in 2002 to delve into the decline. To their surprise they found that elk cow’s pregnancy rates had declined and that lower levels of progesterone were present.

Another side effect of the presence of wolves in elk country is that wariness levels go way up, making them much harder to find by hunters or others who just want a look, said Mike Stark of The Billings Gazette in an article dated Feb. 16, 2007.

Other alleged historical “misinformation” concerns the dangers of wolves to humans. Claiming that centuries-old European stories of wolves attacking humans is nothing more than fear-based mythology, deep ecology groups using the new mythology of Mowatt and others contend there is nothing to fear.

Will Graves, who has traveled extensively in Russia, is writing a book on the history of wolves in Russian literature in recent centuries. The great Canadian wildlife biologist Dr. Valerius Geist is editing the book for him.

“Russia has documented wolf attacks on humans better than any country in the world,” Graves said. “In the Ural Mountains, many old folks and children were killed by wolves during the Napoleonic Wars, during the Bolshevik revolution and during World War II.”

He claims that church documents back this up and that they’re one of the most reliable forms of documentation.

“Centuries-old reports (churches, archives, etc.) of high rates of human life lost to wolves in Europe, Asia, and North America are ignored, demeaned and rejected by bureaucrat biologists, and all their partners in universities and the media,” Beers said.

Graves’ research shows that wolves lose their fear of humans if not hunted.

“If prey is scarce, then sometimes the wolves move in close to towns and search for dogs, cats, garbage, etc.,” he said. “This is when there is danger.”

In a recent letter to The Press on the subject of land planning, Coeur d’Alene resident Unus Vocate challenged readers to envision “green belts crisscrossing the entire nation; nature preserves of the different types of environments ... a society living in harmony with nature: How wonderful.”

His plea is to drive the decision-making for land planning to much higher levels -- out of local hands.

Actually, there is a plan to do just that called the Wildlands Project, part of the U.N.’s Convention on Biological Diversity, which together with Agenda 21, a global plan for sustainable development, supersede the U.S. constitution and the property rights of its citizens.

The map of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, which is envisioned by these global planners can be viewed here. A map of the whole U.S. showing these plans was developed by Dr. Michael Coffman and was used to stop the ratification of the U.N. treaty by the U.S. Congress. Subsequently, the plan was essentially put in place by Executive Order 13158 of President Clinton and later President Bush did not revoke it.

So what does this have to do with wolves?

Finnish outdoorsman Magnus Hagelstam, who has studied the European Union’s efforts to “reintroduce” wolves in eastern Germany and other parts of Europe, said, if depopulating the West is on the agenda of wolf aficionados, wolves can be very helpful.

“They are truly the ideal bioweapon for transforming ranchland into wilderness.”

Mike Satren lives in Idaho and writes for the Hagadone News as their Outdoor News Editor. Email msatren@cdapress.com .

For additional information on the dangers of wolves, please see this informative website http://www.prosts.com

The Dark Side of Globalism

By Anton Chaitkin

ROCKEFELLER AND MASS MURDER

The Rockefeller Foundation is the prime sponsor of public relations for the United Nations’ drastic depopulation program. Evidence in the possession of a growing number of researchers in America, England, and Germany demonstrates that the Foundation and its corporate, medical, and political associates organized the racial mass murder program of Nazi Germany.

These globalists, who function as a conduit for British Empire geopolitics, were not stopped after World War II. This United Nations alliance of the old Nazi right, with the new left, poses an even graver danger to the world today than it did in 1941.

Oil monopolist John D. Rockefeller created the family-run Rockefeller Foundation in 1909. By 1929 he had placed $300 million worth of the family’s controlling interest in the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (now called ``Exxon’’) to the account of the Foundation.

The Foundation’s money created the medical specialty known as Psychiatric Genetics. For the new experimental field, the Foundation reorganized medical teaching in Germany, creating and thenceforth continuously directing the ``Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry’’ and the ``Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity.’’ The Rockefellers’ chief executive of these institutions was the fascist Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, assisted by his proteges Otmar Verschuer and Franz J. Kallmann.

In 1932, the British-led ``Eugenics’’ movement designated the Rockefellers’ Dr. Rudin as the president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The movement called for the killing or sterilization of people whose heredity made them a public burden.

- The Racial Laws -

A few months later, Hitler took over Germany and the Rockefeller-Rudin apparatus became a section of the Nazi state. The regime appointed Rudin head of the Racial

Hygiene Society. Rudin and his staff, as part of the Task Force of Heredity Experts chaired by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, drew up the sterilization law. Described as an American Model law, it was adopted in July 1933 and proudly printed in the September 1933 Eugenical News (USA) with Hitler’s signature. The Rockefeller group drew up other race laws, also based on existing Virginia statutes. Otmar Verschuer and his assistant Josef Mengele together wrote reports for special courts which enforced Rudin’s racial purity law against cohabitation of Aryans and non-Aryans.

The ``T4’’ unit of the Hitler Chancery, based on psychiatrists led by Rudin and his staff, cooperated in creating propaganda films to sell mercy killing (euthanasia) to German citizens. The public reacted antagonistically: Hitler had to withdraw a tear-jerker right-to- die film from the movie theaters. The proper groundwork had not yet been laid.

Under the Nazis, the German chemical company I.G. Farben and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey were effectively a single firm, merged in hundreds of cartel arrangements. I.G. Farben was led, up until 1937, by the Warburg family, Rockefeller’s partner in banking and in the design of Nazi German eugenics. Following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, Standard Oil pledged to keep the merger with I.G. Farben going even if the U.S. entered the war. This was exposed in 1942 by Sen. Harry Truman’s investigating committee, and President Roosevelt took hundreds of legal measures during the war to stop the Standard-I.G. Farben cartel from supplying the enemy war machine.

In 1940-41, I.G. Farben built a gigantic factory at Auschwitz in Poland, to utilize the Standard Oil/I.G. Farben patents with concentration camp slave labor to make gasoline from coal. The SS was assigned to guard the at Auschwitz.

In 1940, six months after the notorious Standard-I.G. meeting, European Rockefeller Foundation official Daniel O’Brian wrote to the Foundation’s chief medical officer Alan Gregg that ``it would be unfortunate if it was chosen to stop research which has no relation to war issues’’--so the Foundation continued financing Nazi ``psychiatric research’’ during the war.

In 1936, Rockefeller’s Dr. Franz Kallmann interrupted his study of hereditary degeneracy and emigrated to America because he was half-Jewish. Kallmann went to New York and established the Medical Genetics Department of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry published Kallman’s study of over 1,000 cases of schizophrenia, which tried to prove its hereditary basis. In the book, Kallmann thanked his long-time boss and mentor Rudin. Kallmann’s book, published in 1938 in the USA and Nazi Germany, was used by the T4 unit as a rationalization to begin in 1939 the murder of mental patients and various ``defective’’ people, perhaps most of them children. Gas and lethal injections were used to kill 250,000 under this program, in which the staffs for a broader murder program were desensitized and trained.

- Dr. Mengele... -

In 1943, Otmar Verschuer’s assistant Josef Mengele was made medical commandant of Auschwitz. As wartime director of Rockefeller’s Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity in Berlin, Verschuer secured funds for Mengele’s experiments at Auschwitz from the German Research Council. Verschuer wrote a progress report to the Council: ``My co-researcher in this research is my assistant the anthropologist and physician Mengele. He is serving as Hauptstuermfuehrer and camp doctor in the concentration camp Auschwitz.... With the permission of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, anthropological research is being undertaken on the various racial groups in the concentration camps and blood samples will be sent to my laboratory for investigation.’’

Mengele prowled the railroad lines leading into Auschwitz, looking for twins--a favorite subject of psychiatric geneticists. On arrival at Mengele’s experimental station, twins filled out ``a detailed questionnaire from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.’’

There were daily drawings of blood for Verschuer’s ``specific protein’’ research. Needles were injected into eyes for work on eye color. There were experimental blood transfusions and infections. Organs and limbs were removed, sometimes without anesthetics. Sex changes were attempted. Females were sterilized, males were castrated. Thousands were murdered and their organs, eyeballs, heads, and limbs were sent to Verschuer and the Rockefeller group at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. In 1946, Verschuer wrote to the Bureau of Human Heredity in London, asking for help in continuing his ``scientific research.’’

- Facelift -

In 1947, the Bureau of Human Heredity moved from London to Copenhagen. The new Danish building for this was built with Rockefeller money. The first International Congress in Human Genetics following World War II was held at this Danish institute in 1956. By that time, Verschuer was a member of the American Eugenics Society, then indistinguishable from Rockefeller’s Population Council.

Dr. Kallmann helped save Verschuer by testifying in his denazification proceedings. Dr. Kallmann created the American Society of Human Genetics, which organized the ``Human Genome Project’’--a current $3 billion physical multiculturalism effort. Kallmann was a director of the American Eugenics Society in 1952 and from 1954 to 1965.

In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name. The Rockefeller Foundation had long financed the eugenics movement in England, apparently repaying Britain for the fact that British capital and an Englishman-partner had started old John D. Rockefeller out in his Oil Trust. In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted what they called Crypto-eugenics, stating in their official reports that they would do eugenics through means and instruments not labeled as eugenics.

With support from the Rockefellers, the Eugenics Society (England) set up a sub-committee called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which for 12 years had no other address than the Eugenics Society. This, then, is the private, international apparatus which has set the world up for a global holocaust, under the UN flag.

[For more information about the Planned Parenthood and Rockefeller connection to AIDS and disinformation campaigns, read the book “Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident or Intentional?” by Dr. Leonard Horowitz (Tetrahedron, LLC Press, 1996).]

U.S. Senate Minority Report: (Inhofe)

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Minority Staff Report (Inhofe)
www.epw.senate.gov/minority

Released: December 11, 2008 (Update of the 2007 Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007”)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer- reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.” On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man- made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following:

Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions;

Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted. In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.

India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore.

Download the entire PDF file here: http://www.freedomadvocates.org/research_center/

21. Dec, 2009
By Michael Boldin

“The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government.”
–Thomas Jefferson

For the past few days, I’ve received loads of emails urging me to get active regarding the healthcare vote – most of which had a subject line similar to: “Last Chance to Stop National Healthcare!”

Well, if you believe the only way to protect your rights is by begging federal politicians to do what you want, then these emails are certainly right. The vote went as expected, and so will the next.

So if you think marching on D.C. or calling your Representatives, or threating to “throw the bums out” in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, is going to further the cause of the Constitution and your liberty – you might as well get your shackles on now. Your last chance has come and gone.

But, those of you who visit this site regularly already know that the Senate’s health care vote is far from the end of things – and you also know that even when it goes into effect (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for your freedom.

The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

20 States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks.

For example, 13 states are already defying federal marijuana prohibition, and the federal government is having such a hard time dealing with it that the Obama administration recently announced that they would no longer prioritize enforcement in states that have medical marijuana laws.

Better yet, in the last 2+ years more than 20 states have been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented. How did they do that? They passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with it. And today, it’s effectively null and void without ever being repealed by Congress or challenged in court.

While the Obama administration would like to revive it under a different name, the reality is still there – with massive state-level resistance, the federal government can be pushed back inside its constitutional box. Issue by issue, law by law, the best way to change the federal government is by resisting it on a state level.

That’s nullification at work. Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. The time is long overdue for people to start recognizing this fact, and bring that enforcement closer to home.

The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

Thomas Jefferson would be proud!

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2009 by
http://www.TenthAmendmentCenter.com

By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
January 4, 2010 © 2009 http://www.NewsWithViews.com

An amendment to an executive order secretly signed by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2009 gives police officers from foreign governments police powers in the United States. What is most disturbing to police chiefs and officers in the US is that the President has provided foreign officers and international agencies exemptions from laws and regulations to which US cops must comply.

F or more information please visit
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news181.htm

By Elias Alias

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasnt such a great idea after all.” Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

The above quotation was spoken by a Clinton Cabinet member last century. We’re now in “the next century” he foresaw. Is there a “single, global authority”? If so, that would mean that there is a one-world government, which would mean that there really is a New World Order.

There either is, or isn’t, a New World Order. We can no longer ignore the question.

If there is not a New World Order, we’ve merely got to solve the problems of reckless stupidity and criminality in our own government, which is simpler and far easier than having to worry about a secretive cabal of international financiers in Europe who have designs on America’s sovereignty, wealth and power. Given today’s grave political landscape, we really do need to resolve the question.

However, if there is a New World Order, America could be in serious trouble. If the conspiracy theorists are right, after all, we may have already lost our Republic.

If , for the sake of looking into this, we were to consider that there truly is a secretive criminal cabal of the wealthiest elites on earth which is power-grabbing for planetary control by manipulating international monetary systems/economies/currencies and gold, using Central Bank debt in leveraging the policy of nearly two hundred national governments’ respective sovereignties and all their assets and agencies of policy, empowering a world governing body through the United Nations and all its global tentacles, directing the mass media, employing national Intelligence communities, asserting humanist principles into the social infrastructures of sovereign nations to establish collectivism, socialism, and dictatorial fascism, reinterpreting science, transforming public education into a Fabianist program (of what I call “Feducation”), working outside the scope of Congress, the Courts, the Executive, working outside the scrutiny of the American people, working through overt and covert treaties and trade agreements – we might conclude that this cabal of globalizing socialist bankers are organized in their lust to control the world. I did say, “if”.

So we ask once again – is there, or is there not, a New World Order? It is important that we all come to see which answer, yes, or no, is true. Does the New World Order exist?

We hear a lot about it. Conspiracy theorists speak about it constantly. U.S. Presidents have spoken of it. The first U.S. President to announce the New World Order was not, as popularly thought, Bush-41, George Herbert Walker Bush. He spoke of it several times publicly, on the record. He was not in the least ambiguous. He was dead serious about it. He promised that it would succeed. One of several statements Bush-41 made on film about the New World Order is this gem of foresight –

“The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki….”

Statement by George Herbert Walker Bush, address to Congress, September 11, 1990. Full text is transcribed here: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm

Here is an earlier President saying it - “The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order.” Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967) EA note: Foreign Affairs is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an internationalist think-tank spawned by the Rhodes Round Table groups and today possessing massive political power and policy-making influence in Washington D.C. and London, England, and other world-level power centers. We have Senator Barry Goldwater’s word on that –

In his book With No Apologies (1979), Senator Barry Goldwater writes:

“The C.F.R. is the American branch of a society which originated in England. Internationalistic in viewpoint, the C.F.R., along with the Atlantic Union Movement, and the Atlantic Council of the U.S., believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established ... What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political government of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the world ... In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.” (With No Apologies, [1979], Senator Barry Goldwater pp. 128, 284).

There is a hierarchy of private-sector think-tanks which serve the mission of the New World Order. There are visible components such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and there are less-visible components such as the Bank for International Settlements, which sits higher up the pyramid of power than the IMF/World Bank.

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world.” ~ Professor Carroll Quigley [emphasis EA]

But who is Carroll Quigley? Can we believe him? Glenn Beck knows, but Beck won’t talk about him. I say that Beck knows because I’ve heard Beck mention both Quigley and Cleon Skousen on his national radio show more than several times. Skousen, author of the 5,000 Year Leap, also wrote The Naked Capitalist, which itself was a book-length review of Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope. The Naked Capitalist exposes the very conspiracy which Glenn Beck denies. And it’s done by one of Beck’s favorite authors. So let’s take a look at Carroll Quigley –

“Carroll Quigley was professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He formerly taught at Princeton and at Harvard. He has done research in the archives of France, Italy, and England, and is the author of the widely praised Evolution of Civilizations. He was a member of the editorial board of the monthly Current History. He was a frequent lecturer and consultant for public and semi-public agencies. He was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological and the American Economic Association, as well as various historical associations. He became a lecturer on Russian history at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in 1951, and on Africa at the Brookings Institution in 1961. He also lectured at the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department, and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia. In 1958 he was a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which set up the present national space agency. He was collaborator in history to the Smithsonian Institution after 1957, in connection with the establishment of its new Museum of History and Technology.” (From the dust cover on Tragedy And Hope)

Carroll Quigley helped arrange for future President Bill Clinton a Rhodes scholarship which sent Clinton to the heart of Fabian Socialism at Oxford in London long before he became President. And Carroll Quigley gave us another amazing revelatory book, The Anglo-American Establishment, in which we’re informed of the beginnings of the most recent conspiracy, the creation of a secret society by Cecil Rhodes. Let’s take a quick look at something from that book –

~Quoting Quigley~

“One Wintry Afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation and execution of British imperial and foreign policy.

The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire builder and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor of King Edward VII and King George V.

…. At present we need only point out that the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society and a list of original members. The plan for organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect,” and an outer circle, to be known as “The Association of Helpers.” Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a “Junta of Three.” The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead shortly after the meeting we have described.

“The goals which Rhodes and Milner sought and the methods by which they hoped to achieve them were so similar by 1902 that the two are almost indistinguishable. Both sought to unite the world, and above all the English-speaking world, in a federal structure around Britain. Both felt that this goal could best be achieved by a secret band of men united to one another by devotion to the common cause and by personal loyalty to one another. Both felt that this band should pursue its goal by secret political and economic influence behind the scenes and by the control of journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies...”

In Cecil Rhodes’ written wills, Rhodes suggested that his secret society should be structured on the order of “that of the Jesuits”.

The Rhodes Round Table group took over the Times of London in the early years of the 20th Century, and was behind the creation of the CFR in 1921. The history is complete as given us by Carroll Quigley and highlighted by Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist.

There are regional components. In matters of money for America, there is the Federal Reserve System, Inc. with its collection agency, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). Most Americans do not know that their Federal withholding income tax payment goes to this privately-owned, for-profit corporation. But as a surprised Ronald Reagan discovered upon becoming President, no money collected by the IRS goes to fund highways, schools, or other societal infrastructure – the Federal government borrows the money to build the roads and schools, and pays interest on those loans to the secret owners of the Federal Reserve. Your income tax payment goes to pay the interest on the U.S. debt to the Federal Reserve, which charges interest on issuing our currency and monetary policy and much of our government’s “national debt”. See President Reagan’s Grace Committee report to verify this.

Because the ring-leaders who carry forward the hidden agenda of the New World Order remain “behind the scenes” as it were, there is an air of subterfuge surrounding it. It is, in President Kennedy’s word, “covert”.

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control….For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

President Kennedy, April 27, 1961

Let us now see it in the New World Order’s own statements –

“The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for “the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” Harpers, July l958.

“If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands.” Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)

“... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)

“The depression was the calculated shearing of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.” Curtis Dall, FDRs son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law.

“Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite.” Senator William Jenner, 1954

“The case for government by elites is irrefutable.” Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

“At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt’s time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order.” Part of article in The New York Times (November 1975)

“If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great booming, buzzing confusion, to use William James famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974) EA note: “Foreign Affairs” is the CFR’s primary publication.

“Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

“We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms.” Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)

“...This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of “one world government....National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept...” Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and now a high-level adviser to President Obama.

“It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” President George Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N., February 1,1992.

“This gives us a large portion of the existing civilized world in which men’s minds may be readjusted to the idea that their existing governments are in the position of trustees for the greater government of the coming age. Throughout these communities it is conceivable that the structural lines of the world community may be materialized and established with only minor struggles, local boycotts, vigorous public controversies, normal legislative obstruction, social pressure, and overt political activities.”

- From The Open Conspiracy by H.G. Wells, page 89; Published in 1928 and re-published in 1933

Is there a concerted drive to establish a New World Order? Can it still be a question of “Is or Isn’t”? Shall we be involved in, as H.G. Wells coined it – “only minor struggles, local boycotts, vigorous public controversies, normal legislative obstruction, social pressure, and overt political activities.” – or shall we be involved in saving Montana and America? Shall we be Patriots or shall we stand idly by, placated by convenience, entertainment, creature comforts and constitutional concessions, huddled in fear of a government our forefathers created, and watch the destruction of America?

Think "Chess' NOT Checkers

By Trenton Hancock

There are those of us who recognize the real intent of the New World Order as global tyranny, absolute and permanent enslavement of the entire human race. We know these predators are in the final stages of destroying all ability for civilians to EVER launch an effective resistance. We know that we are in an “all or nothing” war for our own lives, as well as for the sovereignty and very existence of our future generations.

This knowledge leaves us with one burning question: “

How do we win?”

The answer: Strategy.

Think “Chess”, not “Checkers”.

The enemies of free humanity clearly understand this. They have employed a strategy of “engineered chaos.” And from this chaos comes order. THEIR order. It is through THEIR order that humanity’s natural order is subverted. Unfortunately, we see how successful their strategy has been (so far) simply by observing the condition of civilization today. We know who the enemy is. We know what their resources are. We know the tactics they employ. What should OUR strategic response be?

The Goal: Move through the political battlefield with unwavering focus geared towards attaining “checkmate” as quickly and cleanly as possible.

The Strategy: Work around pawns that have been placed in our way, conserving and optimizing our own resources in order to strike at the real source – the very heart - of the threat.

By striking at the heart of the New World Order, they will be forced to re-focus their energies on defending their core chess pieces, rather than allowing them to constantly be on the offense. The advantage we obtain by using an offensive, attacking, strategy will introduce the maximum chaos into THEIR OWN strategy. In an attempt to protect themselves, they must stop progression against their agenda. If they are forced to shift significant resources into defensive functions, they will no longer be able to employ the entirety of their resources on an offensive strategy.

OUR first offensive strategy is to remove the power structure upon which they absolutely depend. A power structure designed to protect themselves and their New World Order. Of all the pieces on this “chessboard,” the most powerful is the Queen. In this case, that function is taken by the private entity we know as The Federal Reserve Bank.

The ability to control the money supply of the United States and create money out of thin air (which is loaned to United States Treasury AT INTEREST) is their most powerful tool in the bid of the New World Order to seize control of the planet. It gives the Fed and their central banking cartel unlimited financial abilities. Not only is this unquestionably fraud (no different than the simplest con game or Ponzie scheme), it is also absolutely unconstitutional.

None of this is new to those in our Congress, Executive Branch, Wall Street or mainstream media. They are very well aware, and have been since 1913. The American people are the only ones who have been completely duped from the outset.

The Fed, in collusion with the banking cartel, deliberately use war tactics against the American taxpayer - their own people, who pay, through income tax, interest on the money they print - without letting us know we are under attack. By keeping their predatory practices a secret from us, they have managed to shield themselves against retaliation for over a century. As a result, they have systematically advanced their agenda. This shield of secrecy is now disintegrating.

For over 2,000 years, common war tactics have been used and documented, written in The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Military strategists throughout the world consider this book their bible, a must read for anyone wanting to understand warfare strategies.

The most effective strategy to engage the criminalized Fed and to neutralize this cartel is to inform and educate the American people – and all civilians globally for that matter - on the fundamental war tactics being used to manipulate, oppress and control populations. Civilians have the highest potency powers anywhere to be found within the current global scenario. Give them all the information they need to know about the issue at hand and Americans, as well as civilians around the world, will create their own solutions and implement them.

With a war-like strategy – information on both tactics and responses – available to the masses, the cartel’s only choice to counter is by defending its vital Queen. The Queen in this case being currency control and manipulation at any cost. Without The Federal Reserve – their queen - the battle plan becomes impossible to implement. They become just a bark with no bite.

To those with eyes willing to see, the enemy will reveal itself as a consequence of their own words, actions and associations – their “cveitch”. This removes the veil of secrecy, making even more of their strategies and resource specifics emerge into the bright light of day, rendering them vulnerable to our advance.

The banking cartel, by the way, would qualify as the King piece on the chessboard. Bypass or remove the power of his protective shield, especially the resources of its Queen, and the King’s vulnerabilities become obvious. When the American people become aware of exactly who the enemy is, the depth of this betrayal, and the recognition of the true evil intent of those formerly trusted, will emerge with clarity. Game over.

Over the next few weeks, we will contemplate the fundamental strategies of the war in which we find ourselves. We will go beyond the confines of war-like thinking and begin exploring the opportunities of peace within a civilization that consciously upholds the elements of human sovereignty for all peoples unto the last generation.

To learn more about us and what we are doing locally, go to

http://www.endthefedmovement.org.

By Ron Paul
12/03/2009

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (November 29th Washington Post) does not want us to know any of the details of the Fed’s secret operations. This position is not surprising and has been typical of all central bank chairmen.

Bernanke’s stated goal in his editorial is “To design a system of financial oversight...” that will “provide a robust framework for preventing future crises.”

During its 96 years of existence, the Federal Reserve has played havoc with our economy and brought great suffering to millions through unemployment and price escalation. In addition, it has achieved what only a central bank can: a steady depreciation of our currency. Today’s dollar is now worth four cents compared to the dollar entrusted to the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Ninety-six years should have been plenty of time for the Fed to come up with a plan for preventing economic crises. Since the Fed is the source of all economic downturns, it is impossible for any central banker to regulate in such a manner to prevent the problems that are predictable consequences of his own monetary mismanagement.

The Federal Reserve fixes interest rates at levels inevitably lower than those demanded by the market. This manipulation is a form of price control through credit expansion and is the ultimate cause of business cycles and so many of our economic problems, generating the malinvestment, excessive debt, stock, bond, commodity, and housing bubbles.

The Federal Reserve’s monetary inflation indeed does push the CPI upward, but concentrating on government reports on the CPI and the PPI is nothing more than a distraction from the other harm done by the Federal Reserve’s effort at central economic planning through secret monetary policy operations. Real inflation, the expansion of our money supply, is greatly undercounted by these indexes. In response to our latest financial crisis, the Federal Reserve turned on its printing press and literally doubled the monetary base. This staggering creation of dollars has yet to be reflected in many consumer prices, but it will ultimately hit the middle class and poor with a cruel devaluation of their savings and real earnings.

The Fed has clearly failed on its mandate to maintain full employment and price stability. It’s time to find out what’s going on. Instead of assuming responsibility for the Fed’s role in the crisis, Bernanke brags about “arresting” the crisis. I would suggest to Mr. Bernanke that it’s too early to brag.

Bernanke decries any effort to gain transparency of the Fed’s actions to find out just who gets bailed out and who is left to fail. Instead, he proposes giving even more power to the Fed to regulate the entire financial system. What he does not recognize, or does not want to admit, is that he is talking about symptoms and ignoring the source of the crisis -- the Federal Reserve itself.

More regulations will never compensate for all the distortion and excesses caused by monetary inflation and artificially low interest rates. Regulation distracts from the real cause while further interfering with market forces, thus guaranteeing that the recession will become much deeper and prolonged.

Chairman Bernanke’s argument for Fed secrecy is a red herring. It serves to distract so the special interests that benefit from Fed policy never become known to the public. Who can possibly buy the argument that this secrecy is required to protect the people from political influence?

The Campaign For Liberty promotes and defends the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

Visit us on the Web at www.CampaignForLiberty.com

By John C. Street

The United States of America has more “recoverable” oil reserves within its contiguous border (i.e., not counting known off-shore reserves) than all the other proven reserves worldwide. In just one of these known and recoverable reserves, the Bakken, that stretches from Montana to North Dakota and on up into Canada, there are an estimated 500+ billion barrels, enough crude oil, according to both government and industry estimates, to meet this nation’s fuel requirements for over 2,000 years. To read the U. S. Geological Service’s report on the Bakken formation as well as links to the Energy Information Administration assessment of this reserve, please go to - http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

How is it possible, then, that the United States of America still imports a vast majority of its oil from foreign countries, many of whom have made public declarations attesting to their hatred of us? The answer may surprise (and then shock and, hopefully, anger) every person who identifies oneself as a hunter and/or angler. A brief look at recent history will both explain our culpability and shed light on what we - hunters and anglers - will face in the future.

It’s hard to pinpoint the exact date that hunting and fishing began to change but historical evidence points to the late 1970s and early 1980s. Without being pejorative about this change, most would agree this is when hunting and fishing began to shed any semblance of their utilitarian “hunter-gatherer” traditions and tied their future to commercialization.

Today, according to a report (“Hunting and Fishing: Bright Stars of the American Economy” available at http://www.nssf.org ) prepared for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, hunting and fishing are “a $76 billion economic force” here in the United States. Furthermore, the report adds, through the purchases of licenses, related gear and travel, hunters and anglers “directly support 1.6 million jobs . And they generate $25 billion a year in federal, state and local taxes.”

Ironically, though, at about the same time hunting and fishing began evolving into a “$76 billion economic force,” a new environmental ethos was taking root here in the United States and, not surprisingly given their historically well documented conservation background, hunters and anglers embraced this nascent environmental awakening.

Today, according to information (found at The Green Tracking Library available at www.greentrackinglibrary.com ) researched and published by Ron Arnold at the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, this environmental movement has blossomed into a multi-billion dollar, tightly controlled consortium of both fringe and “mainstream environmental organizations” that is attempting to blur the line between traditional hunter/angler groups and the politically potent environmental movement.

Yet, while many in the hunting and fishing community advocate for partnerships between this new, politically potent environmental movement and traditional hunter/angler groups, there is mounting evidence that suggests this will have dangerous consequences for the future of hunting and fishing and may, by causal consequence, result in a socio/economic Armageddon the likes of which this nation has never seen.

Like any other “industry,” the hunting and fishing “economic force” is susceptible to and controlled by the market that purchases the “goods” it produces. So, while some might argue that the array of high-tech electronic and mechanical gadgets and gizmos being hauled - or hauling hunters and anglers - into the boondocks these days has nothing to do with the real acts of hunting and fishing, they are the manifestation of a free-market economy working as it should.

However, at the same time those “goods” are being manufactured by the individual companies and corporations that collectively make up the “$76 billion economic force,” their suppliers (the other companies and corporations that extract and harvest the raw materials from which all the gadgets and gizmos are made) are under attack by the very environmental movement that wants hunters and anglers to be their partners. And that, alas, is not worst of it.

Unbeknownst to - or, perhaps, unacknowledged by - most who advocate for a partnership between the environmental movement and the “$76 billion economic force,” there is a little known document called “Agenda 21” that spells out prescriptions and action plans for, among a long list of other frightening things, taking away your right to “keep and bear arms” and curtailing your access to public land.

“Agenda 21,” as described on the Wikipedia web site ( www.wikipedia.com ), “ is a program run by the United Nations related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which human’s impact on the environment.” The “major groups” referred to in this description are identified in the text of the Agenda 21 document as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or, in laymen’s terms, the environmental movement. Almost without exception, the individual organizations that make up this movement are independent, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) corporations.

While it might be appropriate at this point to list the names of the NGOs - the “main stream environmental groups” - who are complicit in aiding and abetting the UN’s effort to deny you your Second Amendment Rights and prevent you from accessing the “Public’s Land,” it will serve a much greater purpose if you would go back to the Green Tracking Library and learn this on your own. And when you have finished reviewing the incestuous relationships that have formed between the environmental movement and the national hunting and fishing organizations, please go to www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html for a thorough explanation of the “Wildlands Project.” Be forewarned, though, if you are not already somewhat aware of these relationships and have never heard of the “Wildlands Project,” you are in for a shock.

As you will discover by spending time at the Green Tracking Library, the “mainstream environmental groups” that hunters and anglers allied with in those early days of this nation’s environmental awakening have chosen a new course, a course more aligned with the “Sustainable Development” initiatives of the United Nations than with any concern for the future of hunting and fishing or the $76 billion dollar industry these pastimes have created.

Now, for all practical purposes, these environmental groups have co-opted many of our national hunting and fishing organizations, turning their memberships into their “Poster Children” and sacrificing a century of conservation credibility on the pantheistic alter of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.

Lured by the enormous foundation largess bestowed on those willing to proselytize for the new green Agenda (21), our national hunting and fishing organizations now seem unable to comprehend or, are unwilling to publicly acknowledge their support for, the socio/economic Armageddon that will ensue when their crusade to create a New World Order subjugates the sovereignty of the United States of America to the socialistic prescriptions of the United Nations. Ironically, though, as revealed in a book written by Ron Arnold titled, “Freezing in the dark,” many of these prescriptions were created and are being put in place by our own national hunting and fishing organizations.

Think for a moment what will happen when their plan to curtail the production and use of carbon based fuels succeeds. From just what they’ve done to date, we’re already seeing higher prices, and not just at the gas pump but when we pay our electric bill, buy a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread or send in our federal, state and local taxes.

And that’s not the worst of it.

These crusaders want to force us to use nothing but alternate energy like bio-fuels and wind and solar even though these sources currently make up just one percent of our total energy usage, five percent if you add in nuclear power, which they don’t like either. Please note, however, there’s nary a word in the literature of their crusade about how they intend to make up the shortfall until alternate power becomes commercially available and economically feasible.

So, can’t we grow corn and make our own fuel? Sure, and people in third world countries die of starvation by the thousands because the United States is the largest provider - by a whopping’ margin - of food-aid in the world and we won’t have an excess to spare. And ethanol in our gasoline mix lowers mpg’s meaning we burn more fuel to cover the same distance. And it would require a whole bunch of extra farm land which would require cutting down a whole lot of trees and displacing a whole bunch of wildlife and...

Well, how about windmills? They’re OK but it would, according to one spokesman for the energy industry, take a wind farm the size of New Jersey just to supply New York City alone. And, don’t forget their average run time is only about thirty-five percent meaning we’d either have to do without electricity for sixty-five percent of the time or have back-up, carbon fuel burning electric generating plants. And they kill an awful lot of birds. And people are in favor of them until they have to either look at or listen to them and...

How about photovoltaics? They’re all well and good, too, except none but the wealthiest could afford the equipment for personal use and the cost of trying to use it on a retail scale (residential, commercial and industrial) would make our current electric bills look like chump-change. And, currently, some of the critical components are manufactured overseas (where they don’t have our environmental laws) and...

So why are we doing all this, why are we inflicting this hardship on ourselves, and specifically and most drastically, why aren’t we - hunters and anglers - being told that we are inflicting these life or death hardships on those at the bottom of the economic ladder?

Why have we allowed our good name to be used to drive gas and oil prices and, by consequence, the price of everything else up so high that many of our fellow citizens are being forced to decide between their mortgage payment and their heating bill and losing their homes in the process?

And why are we allowing our good name to be used to cripple a nation that has more than enough raw fuel (coal, gas and oil) to be energy self-sufficient within a year, forcing us in the process to kowtow to despots and dictators who despise and would like to destroy us?

Because a cabal of not-for-profit environmental ideologues, unfortunately including many of our heretofore highly respected national hunters’ and anglers’ organizations, is on a crusade to subjugate the sovereignty of our nation, exclude us from the land that we helped set aside for both recreational use and its economic value (the concept is called “Multiple-Use” in the original, enabling legislation that created our National Forests) and extinguish our God given rights, not the least of which is our right to “keep and bear” the arms that we take afield as hunters.

Given the war chests many of our national hunters’ and anglers’ organizations have accumulated as a result of conscripting their membership to their environmental crusade, it’s highly unlikely a grass-roots reform movement by the membership would have much affect. Having learned how to make money by suing the federal government, for which they get paid handsomely whether they win or lose, and how to keep their snouts firmly stuck in the trough of the enabling foundations (again, please see the Green Tracking Library) and a myriad of federal agencies, the income derived from membership fees is of little consequence.

As a result, America’s hunters and anglers have been demoted to little more than window dressing, paraded out like a casting call for a B grade movie when a “consensus” needs to be confirmed but otherwise treated like mushrooms; kept in the dark and fed manure.

That House that House Built

By Stewart Rhodes

The focus in the “war on terror” since September 11, 2001 has been on Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist organizations and individuals. Thus, few people realize that the concept of applying the laws of war to terrorists did not originate with the Bush Administration, or only after 9-11 in response to that attack.

The actual origin of this idea of applying the laws of war to terrorists (and terrorist suspects) has its origin in a 1996 law review article called Justice for War Criminals of Invisible Armies: A New Legal and Military Approach To Terrorism.

- (1) That article was written by two lawyers, Spencer J. Crona and Neal A. Richardson, and was published in the Oklahoma City University Law Review in 1996.

Summary

– (2) Crona and Richardson proposed applying the laws of war to Timothy McVeigh and to the entire Militia Movement, in addition to Islamic terrorists, such as those involved in the first World Trade Center Bombing. Crona and Richardson asserted that the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City was an act of war, and that domestic militias were unlawful combatant paramilitary groups that were subject to the laws of war, and could be treated precisely the same as a foreign enemy in wartime, and thus had none of the rights under the Bill of Rights and could be tried by military tribunals, rather than in civilian criminal trials. According to Crona and Richardson:

It is legally and intellectually disingenuous to provide terrorists the same rights as persons accused of ordinary crimes against society. Our Bill of Rights was designed to protect individuals in society against the arbitrary exercise of government power. It is not meant to protect commando groups warring on society through arbitrary acts of mass violence. We recognize that our proposal may have an adverse impact on the Bill of Rights. Regrettable as this may be, the demonstrable risk of harm to innocent persons posed by terrorism ... comparatively outweighs the speculative risk of such an adverse impact.

This is precisely the same argument that has been used since 9-11, by the Bush Administration and its supporters. But Crona and Richardson were not talking about members of Al Qaida, or suspected members of Al Qaida, or other Middle Eastern or Muslim terrorist suspects. The “commando groups” they talk about in their law review article are the domestic, U.S. militia groups that formed throughout the United States, in nearly every state, during the 1990s in response to the excesses of the Ruby Ridge incident and the Waco Texas Branch Dividian Siege which ended in a fire that killed 76 people, including 21 children.

The militias stated again and again that their purpose was defensive, to defend against possible future federal government abuse of the people – against more Waco style incidents. Even the FBI came to the conclusion that the vast majority of militias were purely defensive, and thereforeunlikely to initiate any violent confrontation with the government.

And yet, to Crona and Richardson, the militias - all of them - and even individuals of like-mind, should be treated as enemy warriors, and subjected to military rules of engagement – an “in kind response” – and then tried by tribunal as war criminals merely for belonging to such organizations, because, according to Crona and Richardson, those involved in setting policy, as well as those involved in actual violence, are also unlawful combatants. And, just as with the current arguments of the Bush Administration, Crona and Richardson held that citizenship is irrelevant. saying:

Citizenship of the accused poses no obstacle. What we are dealing with in the case of modern terrorists, like the saboteurs in Ex parte Quirin, are belligerent agents of either foreign powers or domestic insurrectionist groups committing war crimes.

For Crona and Richardson, citizenship and national origin mean nothing. What really counts is the viewpoint, and the self-identity of a person as belonging to such a “militia” group or merely the act of holding a similar view. That is enough to warrant their being designated as internal enemies. Once so designated, they can be treated precisely the same as an enemy soldier on a battlefield.

And how is an enemy soldier treated? Crona and Richardson did not explain the full ramifications of this doctrine. Allow me.

An enemy combatant can simply be killed on sight. This is the case with any enemy in warfare. There is no requirement that a U.S. soldier attempt to apprehend an enemy soldier. If the U.S. soldier sees an enemy, he can simply shoot that enemy on sight, whether that enemy is an immediate threat to anyone or not. That is what is known as a military rule of engagement.

It is just such a shoot-on-sight rule of engagement that lead to the tragic deaths of Sammy and

Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge Stand-Off. After Sammy was shot in the back while running away, Vicki Weaver was shot by a sniper, at long range - a range at which the sniper was not in any danger from Vicki or any other member of her family. The sniper was operating under a rule of engagement that allowed him to fire on all apparently armed individuals in the Weaver party, even if they posed no immediate threat to any officer.

That use of military style rules of engagement was later determined to have been illegal. However, if Crona and Richardson had their way, such rules of engagement would be the norm, not the abhorrent exception. The same is true of the Waco Standoff, where military tactics, equipment, and rules of engagement were used. To many Americans, that was a disaster of government excesses. But under the New Military Order Crona and Richardson envision, such methods would be not only be appropriate, they would be the only way such situations would be handed - as all such actions, against all such people, would be “war,” not “law enforcement.”

And, as already noted, anyone “captured” and accused of being a domestic terrorist would be considered an unlawful combatant and would not get any process whatsoever in a civilian court . That person would have none of the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights– no right to a grand jury indictment, no right to know the charges against him, no constitutional right to a jury trial before a jury of his peers, no constitutional right to confront his accusers, no constitutional right to be secure from compelled self incrimination (including torture), and no constitutional right to appeal a conviction to a civilian court of appeals. A military tribunal, hand selected by the president, any president, would decide his fate. And if convicted, he could be executed by the military.

What if Clinton had listened to Crona and Richardson?

Thankfully for this nation, Crona and Richardson’s proposal to use the laws of war on the militia movement went nowhere back in 1996. As far as I can tell, it was not taken seriously in the legal or political community. There is scant mention of their law review article in the legal literature until after 9-11.

We can only imagine what would have happened if the Clinton Administration had actually attempted to implement this plan. If Clinton had begun declaring members of militias to be “unlawful enemy combatants” and subjected them to military trials and execution, as Crona and Richardson recommended, such an action would have been the worst fears of the militia and patriot movement come true. In such a situation, it is very likely that the militias would have seriously considered active resistance to such a military assault on them by the government.

The message from President Clinton would have been essentially this:

For you people, who oppose the federal government, who form citizen militias, the Bill of Rights is hereby forever suspended, and as “unlawful combatants” you are subject to being shot on sight wherever found, subject to indefinite military detention, under my orders, and subject to the laws of war as applied by a military commission established by me, under my authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States. If that military commission finds you guilty, you will be executed, and any possible appeal will only be to me, as the final decider of your guilt or innocence, pursuant to my independent and co-equal Article II powers as commander-in-chief.

No matter how limited the initial application of such a policy by the Clinton Administration, with the militia movement’s worst fears now confirmed they would have considered armed resistance appropriate and even necessary. Thus, even if it only began with one or two people held as unlawful combatants without trial, or one or two small groups, it is very possible that a cycle of action/reaction/action/reaction would have begun. A group resists. The government cracks down harder. More groups resist. The government cracks down harder. And on it would have gone.

But it did not happen because the extreme and dangerous proposal of Crona and Richardson received little attention. However, post 9-11, this idea suddenly came back into the limelight, and the concept of applying the laws of war to terrorists and terrorist suspects has now become official U.S. policy.

The Resurrection of the Plan Post 9-11

Within days of September 11, 2001, the article by Crona and Richardson was noticed by John Dean, former Attorney General and legal commentator on www.findlaw.com. On Friday, September 28, 2001, Dean published his article, Appropriate Justice for Terrorists: Using Military Tribunals Rather Than Criminal Courts. In that article, Dean praises Crona and Richardson’s proposal and cites heavily to their 1996 article, and then tells us this:

While I have drawn on Crona’s and Richardson’s scholarly analysis, and considered arguments in this column, I have not been able in this space to do it justice, and it is very much worth reading in its entirety. Indeed, I found the article so helpful that I also passed it on to a friend at the Department of Justice, requesting that he pass it on to those currently examining the potential of military tribunals.

That’s right. Dean sent an article making the case for applying military tribunals to McVeigh and the militia movement on to his friend at the Department of Justice, to give it to those considering the use of military tribunals against Islamic terrorists. Thus, whereas Crona and Richardson’s arguments were not taken seriously back in the 90s, they now have been taken very seriously. It is probably impossible to know if their article actually formed the basis for the Bush Administration strategy, but the actions of the Bush Administration have been entirely consistent with what Crona and Richardson recommended.” In the end, it does not matter whether the lawyers in the Bush Administration would have figured it out themselves (which is likely). What is important is that a very dangerous, and potentially explosive idea has now been given new life.

The legal, political, and military foundations for what Crona and Richardson only dreamed of in 1996 are now nearly completely in place. The very same Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, that Crona and Richardson relied on for their “new legal and military approach to terrorism,” has formed the basis for the Bush doctrine that does the same thing. And now, with the Supreme Court’s 2004 Hamdi decision, and with the Decision of the Fourth Circuit regarding the military detention of Jose Padilla (who was “captured” on U.S. soil), Ex Parte Quirin has been breathed new life, and has been applied to non-state actors, in an undeclared war on a tactic - terrorism - wherein anyone on the planet may be an “enemy.”

Thus, while it was a real leap for Crona and Richardson to argue from the application of the laws of war to eight German soldiers in Quirin (men in the armed forces of a nation with which we were in a declared war) to applying those laws to anyone accused of terrorism (to non-state actors, whether groups or individuals), that leap has now been made.

In the context of a “war on terror” against Al Qaida, the Bush Administration has applied the laws of war to non-state actors: suspected islamist terrorists, their allies, and supporters. As if following the roadmap laid out by Crona and Richardson, the Bush Administration has claimed extraordinary, inherit, commander-in-chief powers. The most extraordinary claim is that the President, pursuant to his powers under Article II of the Constitution, may designate any person on the planet he suspects of being a terrorist, including even U.S. citizens here at home, to be an “enemy combatant” (or “unlawful combatant”). Such a designation is not made pursuant to any law enforcement powers – the president’s duty to see that the laws are executed - but is instead claimed to flow exclusively from the constitutional Article II powers of the president as commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States – it is an entirely military power, not a civilian power.

Once so designated, so the argument goes, that person is deemed to be utterly without rights; with no procedural rights whatsoever under our Bill of Rights, under our laws, or under any law other than what procedural “rights” the President may grant, and devoid of any right to challenge that designation in a civilian court. Further, that person can be tried by a military tribunal hand picked by the President, and if found guilty, can be executed, with the only appeal being to the President himself. This has been the consistent claim of the Bush Administration, and the battle between its supporters and its opponents has been over the degree of this power, and also over whether any other branch of government can constrain this power.

The Administration’s lawyers have consistently claimed that this “war power” is essentially without limit, as it is a power stemming directly from Article II of the Constitution and therefore no other provision in the Constitution, not even the Bill of Rights, no other branch of government, and certainly no law, can impede this power. The claim is that in war, the enemy has always been subject to military jurisdiction and the laws of war. Military combatants - soldiers - are not dealt with by application of civilian courts or civilian laws, and do not have a right to all of the procedural protections that go with such courts. Instead, soldiers are under an entirely separate military system of justice. From this, the argument then asserts that in war, the president, as the commander in chief, the highest officer in the military, alone is the supreme commander of the troops, and he alone has the constitutional power to engage the enemy under the international laws of war, and not even Congress can impede the president’s use of his constitutional Article II powers (which are the powers to wage war successfully).

In fact, in its pure, undiluted form, the argument of the Bush Administration is that the president has an inherit and independent power to, all on his own, determine when we shall go to war, when we are at war, and thus, what is war. And, just as he has an independent power of determining when we are in a state of war, he can also determine who is the enemy.

And, so the argument goes, the attack on 9-11 was an act of war, and we are at war with terrorists and terrorism. And so, we can and must treat terrorists as a military enemy. From this, it is a short leap of logic to state that as terrorists are the enemy in wartime, they fall under military jurisdiction and are subject to the laws of war, as military enemies always have been throughout history. And so, a suspected member of Al Qaida is the same as a Japanese or German soldier during World War II.

That suspected Al Qaida member can be placed in military detention for the duration of the armed conflict (as long as the war on terror lasts) and can be tried by a military tribunal for any violations of the laws of war. Further, as the suspected member of Al Qaida does not follow the laws of war – does not wear a uniform with an insignia recognizable at a distance, is not in a chain of command under an officer responsible for his actions, does not carry arms openly, and does not comply with the laws of war. Thus, so the argument goes, such a person is always in violation of the laws of war.

When the War on Terrorism Turns Inward

What will happen, with all of the structure in place for Crona and Richardson’s plan, the next time there is a serious domestic terrorist incident, like the Oklahoma City bombing? Will a future president, say Hillary Clinton, be tempted to go all the way and apply the laws of war to suspected domestic terrorists, and to the militia movement? This is possible. In a poll taken in October of 2001, in affiliation with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, over 1,000 Americans were asked if they “Think a military tribunal should have been used to try Timothy McVeigh for bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City? 23% said yes, and 70% said no. So, five years after Oklahoma City, and right after 9-11, nearly one in four said “yes” to military tribunals for accused domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. And that was before the Bush Administration had applied the concept of enemy combatant status to U.S. citizens, and before the Supreme Court had ruled, in Hamdi, that such designations are constitutional (at least for citizens captured in Afghanistan), and this was before the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which defines an enemy combatant in extremely broad terms.

If another domestic incident like Oklahoma City occurs, it is very possible that a significant percentage of the population, when polled, will favor tribunals for the suspects. If that happens, and particularly if members of one of the militias are actually subjected to military detention and trial, we may see that cycle of violent reaction and government counter-action begin. If that happens, then God help us, because it may spiral out of control beyond what the government officials who decide such a course expect. Just as the resistance in Iraq was far stronger than anticipated, and has spiraled out of control, so too would a domestic application of the laws of war trigger a resistance that will grow, and become stronger and stronger as time goes on. And just as the Bush Administration has stubbornly refused to even acknowledge that any Iraqi resistance fighters have any legitimate reasons for resistance –and are always called “terrorists” – so too is it very possible that a future president Hillary will also stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that any militia or patriot group or activist has any legitimate reasons for resistance. She too is very likely to dismiss any and all who oppose her actions as “terrorists” or terrorist supporters, and she too is very likely to only fuel further resistance.

We must pull ourselves back from this idea of applying the laws of war to U.S. citizens (and to legal residents). If we don’t we risk not only a slow slide into a military style dictatorship or police state, as others have predicted, but a far faster slide into a civil war/domestic revolt sparked by an arrogant and foolish application of the Bush doctrine of enemy combatant status to domestic groups. This is a ticking time bomb, and if it goes off, it may be impossible to control the spiral out of control.

Stewart Rhodes,
November 15, 2007

Notes: Stewart Rhodes is the Founder and CEO of the national organization Oath Keepers, is a Yale Law School graduate and former Constitutional attorney working in Congressman Ron Paul’s office in Washington, D.C.

1 - http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/crona.pdf

2 - http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/crona_rich.html

Article with illustrations and active links online here:

http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2006/11/clinton-era-proposal-to-use-military.html