Leaked policy documents reveal that the United Nations plans to create a “green world order” by 2012 which will be enforced by a structure of global governance and funded by a gargantuan $45 trillion transfer of wealth from richer countries, as the globalists’ insidious plan to centralize power, crush sovereignty while devastating the economy is exposed once again.

As we warned at the time, the failure of Copenhagen in December did not spell the end of the global warming heist, but merely a roadblock in the UN’s agenda to create a world government funded by taxes paid by you on the very substance you exhale – carbon dioxide.

Using the justification of the vehemently debunked hoax that carbon dioxide is a deadly threat to the planet, the UN is already working to resurrect the failed Copenhagen agreement, with a series of new Copenhagen process negotiations set to take place in April, May and June.

Leaked planning documents (PDF) obtained by Fox News lift the lid on the UN’s plan to impose global governance by the time of their 2012 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio, which will mark the 20th anniversary since the notorious “Earth Summit” held in the same city.

“The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a “focused political document” presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order,” reports Fox News’ George Russell.

“Just exactly what that environmental order will look like, and the extent of the immense financial commitments needed to produce it, are under discussion this week at a special session in Bali, Indonesia, of the United Nations Environment Program’s 58-nation “Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmental Forum,” which oversees UNEP’s operations.”

The document outlines the globalist’s mission to enact a “radical transformation of the world economic and social order” by putting “a new treaty in place as the capstone of the Green World Order”.

This system will be managed by “an additional governing structure composed of exactly those insiders,” writes Russell.

The imposition of such “global governance structures” will be achieved with the help of “vast wealth transfers” from richer countries (in the form of carbon taxes levied on citizens) to poorer nations, amounting to no less than $45 trillion dollars. The paper also outlines the need to change the “consumption patterns” of people living in richer countries, which undoubtedly is a euphemism for lowering living standards.

The policy proposes that the old economic model be discarded in pursuit of a new global green economy focused around “green jobs”.

As we have previously highlighted, the promise that the creation of “green jobs” will offset the inevitable damage to the economy that a 50 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will cause is a complete fallacy.

The implementation of so-called “green jobs” in other countries has devastated economies and cost millions of jobs. As the Seattle Times reported back in June, Spain’s staggering unemployment rate of over 18 per cent was partly down to massive job losses as a result of attempts to replace existing industry with wind farms and other forms of alternative energy.

In a so-called “green economy,” “Each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital,” states the report.

As we have documented, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 50-80 per cent would inflict a new great depression in the United States, reducing GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

The UN’s mission to create a legally binding treaty on the reduction of CO2 emissions is running parallel with measures already being enforced at state level in the U.S. which bypass stuttering federal efforts to impose the cap and trade fraud.

The very foundation of the global warming argument has been completely eviscerated by the Climategate scandal, which proved that United Nations IPCC scientists forged and exaggerated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures while engaging in witch hunts to cull dissenting opinions from appearing in IPPC reports.

Despite this, control freaks intent on taxing the life-giving gas carbon dioxide have signaled that they no longer care about the truth behind man-made climate change and have resolved to slam through their totalitarian agenda anyway. EPA head Lisa Jackson told reporters this week that “The science regarding climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” even though she failed to refute the fact that there had been no global warming since 1995, as was admitted by CRU scientist Professor Phil Jones.

Popularity: 100% [?]

Microsoft has acted swiftly after the Web site Cryptome leaked its “Global Criminal Compliance Handbook.” The guide does exactly what it says: outlines the surveillance services the software company will perform for law enforcement agencies on its online platforms. These include its email services, such as Hotmail, MSN, Messenger, Office Live, Windows Live, and even Xbox Live. Gulp.

The 22-page guide has “Confidential For Law Enforcement Use Only” stamped all over it, but that didn’t stop the website from putting the PDF up over the weekend. Cryptome Editor John Young received an notice from the site’s host, Network Solutions yesterday, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Unless he removes the guide, they fingerwagged, Cryptome will be disabled tomorrow, February 25. (Update: the Cryptome.org website is already showing a “currently unavailable” message from Network Solutions.)

Young is most incensed by “its improper use of copyright to conceal from its customer violations of trust towards its customers,” he told the Geekosystem Web site. He added that Microsoft was “repugnant” in the way it was allowing the law enforcement agencies to grab its clients’ data. “This information would also be equally useful to customers to protect themselves when Microsoft cannot, due to its legal obligations under CALEA.” [CALEA is the wiretap bill that was passed in 1994.] Will he take down the guide? Like hell he will!

This is not the first time that Cryptome has been pursued using the DMCA. Last year it put up Yahoo’s surveillance guide, which included a price list. Yahoo shouted until it was even more purple in the face than it normally is, but to no avail: the guide is still online–although, one assumes, the prices have gone up.

Download your copy of Global Criminal Compliance Handbook while you still can.

Popularity: 46% [?]

AMPA — An 18-year-old Tampa man was jailed Tuesday afternoon, charged with wearing a clown mask on a public road.

Deputies say Matthew David Lopez, of 7003 Ponderosa Drive, was seen with two other people walking south on N 58th Street, just north of E Fowler Avenue. What caught a deputy’s attention was Lopez’s masked face with a bright red-and-orange wig, according to an arrest affidavit.

The deputy followed the group in an unmarked car as the group walked west through a slightly wooded path behind several business offices.

A marked Temple Terrace police cruiser showed up soon after, and the group ran away before deputies could question them.

They were found near N 58th Street and E 122nd Avenue.

Lopez was taken to the Hillsborough County Jail on charges of wearing a mask or hood on a public road after the age of 16 and resisting arrest without violence.

He was released on $750 bail.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Debbie Carter said any disguise in public is illegal. Even on Halloween, adults aren’t allowed to enter any businesses or stores with their faces covered.

Popularity: 37% [?]

bill recently introduced to the U.S. Senate, the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 (S. 3002), by Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan is possibly the most direct assault on natural health freedom we have seen for some time. If passed into law, this bill would require all dietary supplement manufacturers, distributors, and holders all the way down to the retail store level to be comprehensively registered. It would also allow for the arbitrary banning of nutritional supplements by the FDA and the introduction of deceitful reporting of adverse events related to them.

The legislation effectively gives the FDA carte blanche to do whatever it wishes in regards to natural supplements.

The cover for this legislation is that it is designed to prevent both intentional and unintentional steroid adulteration of dietary supplements. The trigger, according to McCain, was six NFL players who were accused of doping with supplements tainted with steroids. Even with this being the case, however, the FDA already has the authority to regulate synthetic anabolic steroids via the Anabolic Control Act of 2004 which permits them to do just that. Nevertheless, under the guise of the behavior of six NFL players, an entire market that has been proven not only very safe but very healthy will be essentially regulated out of business. (NHF)

The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 would require registration of any “business or operation engaged in manufacturing, packaging, holding, distributing, labeling, or licensing a dietary supplement for consumption in the United States,” definitions which could possibly include even retail stores that sell herbal and nutritional products. (DSSA p.2) Currently, under the Dietary Supplements and Non-Prescription Consumer Protection Act, small retailers are not required to register. This, however, will change with the passage of McCain-Dorgan’s bill. (NHF)

The switch from the current practices of Serious Adverse Event Reporting to that of simply Adverse Event Reporting is of concern as well. Existing law requires the reporting of serious adverse events related to the supplement in question to be reported for regulatory and recall purposes. The McCain-Dorgan bill, however, removes the language “Serious Adverse Event” and replaces it with the term “adverse event,” opening up the floodgates for the most ridiculous possible claims of adverse events such as bad taste or even dislike of packaging. This “report everything possible” stance is will vastly increase the numbers of complaints that will hence be used to add credence to the arguments for banning supplements in the future. Not only that, but more government bureaucracies will have to be created in order to organize and sort through all of the incoming “adverse event reports.” (NHF)

Yet the most frightening aspect of this bill is the immediate effects it would have on natural supplements. Currently, due to the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), all supplements on the market prior to October 15, 1994 can lawfully be sold in the United States. However, the legislation being proposed completely reverses this and defines a “new dietary supplement” as one that “is not included on the list of ‘Accepted Dietary Ingredients’, to be prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary” (DSSA p.5-6). This seemingly slight change in language actually removes the grandfathering in of supplements on the market prior to 1994. These new dietary supplements will also be considered “adulterated” unless “there is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement….” (DSSA p.5) The registrants are then required to create and maintain a “scientifically reasonable substantiation file” which is to be made available for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to inspect at his/her whim. These products are to be registered at least 75 days prior to market. (NSF)

As quoted above, the bill also mandates that an “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” list should be created by the Secretary of HHS which will replace the current guidelines. Such a list effectively gives the FDA carte blanche to do whatever it wishes in regards to natural supplements. The FDA is given absolute authority to determine what supplements are allowed on the “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” list, thereby granting it the authority to ban any supplement without due process, scientific merit, or even a hearing simply by refusing to place it on the ADI list. (NSF) The FDA will also be able to remove supplements from market even after it has allowed it to be included on its’ list. As the bill states,

“If the Secretary finds there is a reasonable probability that a dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement would cause serious, adverse, health consequences or death, or is adulterated or misbranded, the Secretary shall issue a cease distribution and notification order requiring the person named in the order to immediately – cease distribution of such dietary supplement or a product marketed or sold as a dietary supplement; notify distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers of the order; and instruct those distributors, importers, retailers, and consumers to cease distributing, importing, selling, and using the dietary supplement.”(DSSA p.9)

The cost of the recall, of course, will be absorbed by the retailer. (DSSA p.11)

While the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 is an egregious attack on Americans’ freedom of choice, it is also a symptom of an even larger problem. The McCain-Dorgan bill is not just another silly attempt by corrupt politicians to demonstrate that they still have some value to their constituents, but an attempt to implement Codex Alimentarius at the national level and move the United States away from our Common Law heritage. The European Union has already passed similar legislation in the European Union Food Supplements Directive which has decimated open access to natural dietary supplements. Canada has passed laws to the same effect in recent weeks as well.

Works Cited

“Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010.” February 2, 2010. http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=2fe2fa5d-636b-4705-97df-8318a24f718f

“Bullet Points on McCain’s Anti-Supplement Bill S.3002.” National Health Federation. http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_19_feb_2010.html

“McCain Anti-DSHEA Bill a Clear and Present Threat to Health Freedom.” http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=4608

Popularity: 55% [?]

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The mother of a 13-year-old Montgomery County middle school student is demanding an apology from a teacher who had school police escort the youngster from a classroom for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

The unidentified student was mocked by other children in her class and has been too traumatized to return to Roberto Clemente Middle School in Germantown, according to Ajmel Quereshi, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland who is representing the family.

A school spokesman said Tuesday that the teacher’s actions were a clear violation of the school’s regulations, which are based on state law. The teacher, who also has not been identified by either side, will have to apologize to the student, spokesman Dana Tofig said.

“The policy is very, very clearly stated,” Tofig said. “Our teachers are expected to know the students’ rights and responsibilities. . . . A mistake has been made, and it will be rectified.”

Quereshi said that as of Tuesday afternoon, no one from the school had contacted the girl or her family to resolve the issue. The teen’s mother tried to schedule a meeting with school officials but was told they would not meet with her if she wanted to bring a lawyer, Quereshi said.

The ACLU asked in a Feb. 5 letter that the teacher personally apologize to the student, promise to respect her rights in the future and discuss the incident with the class so it can become an educational opportunity.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that students cannot be forced to salute the flag. Maryland law explicitly allows any student or teacher to be excused from participating in the pledge, according to the ACLU.

The Montgomery school system’s student handbook contains a section about “Patriotic Exercises” that reads: “You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate.”

The incident began on a Wednesday in late January, when the girl did not stand for the pledge. Her teacher yelled at her, demanded that she stand and then sent her to the office for her defiance, Quereshi said. The school system confirmed the sequence of events.

The next morning, the girl again refused to stand for the pledge. This time, the teacher called two school police officers to the classroom to escort the girl to the office.

Source:  WashingtonPost.com

Popularity: 38% [?]

Justices overturn 1981 ‘Edwards rule,’ intended to prevent suspects from being badgered. If freed, the suspect can be questioned in 14 days, and any freely given statements can be used against him.

By David G. Savage

9:19 AM PST, February 24, 2010

Reporting from Washington

A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.

In a 9-0 decision in a Maryland child-abuse case, the high court overturned a strict rule set in 1981 that barred police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer. Known as the “Edwards rule,” it was intended to prevent investigators from “badgering” a suspect who was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.

Although that rule makes sense for suspects who are held in jail, it does not make sense for suspects who have gone free, the justices said Wednesday. In recent years, it has been understood to prevent police from ever re-questioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places.

“In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence” of the no-further-questioning rule “is disastrous,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

If there has been a “break in custody” and the suspect has gone free, Scalia said the police should be allowed to speak with him after some period of time. “It seems to us that period is 14 days,” he said. “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life (and) to consult with friends and counsel.”

Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.

The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a Maryland man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2 years after he had first been questioned by police. At that time, Michael Statzer refused to talk without first consulting a lawyer. Later, however, he had been sent to state prison on another, unrelated charge.

When a new investigator asked him about the original allegation, he agreed to speak and admitted abusing his son. However, he later won a ruling from the Maryland courts that said his statements could not be used against him because he had been questioned without his lawyer.

The high court overturned the Maryland court’s decision and ruled that Shatzer’s incriminatory statements could be used to convict him of child abuse.

Source: LaTimes.com

Popularity: 38% [?]

Scan me, strip me, pat me down, abuse my kids: it’s all okay, just keep me safe. That’s the mindset of today’s airline passenger. So that’s precisely what agents from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) do.

And the more compliant passengers become the more abusive government becomes.

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks the traveling public gladly handed over their 4th Amendment (that’s the one that is supposed to keep people “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”) rights to a government promising to keep them “safe.”

Hoping to remain safe we allowed airline security personnel to search through our luggage and carry-on bags as if we’re criminals and, if we “looked suspicious,” pat us down as well. Then the TSA was formed and in a matter of months thousands of new people were hired as screeners, and things got worse.

Now, according to press reports, this is what we get:

• Sippy cups taken from toddlers—A former Secret Service agent who left the service to raise her child was stopped by TSA because there was water in her 19-month-old son’s sippy cup. She asked if she could have it back if she drank or poured out the water but the “friendly” TSA agent refused. She asked for a supervisor. The supervisor told her she had to leave security, empty the cup and be re-screened. While being escorted out by TSA and a police officer she unscrewed the cap to drink the water and some spilled.  She was then made to get down on her hands and knees to clean up the spill while her son cried for his cup. Then she was ordered to apologize for the spill and was threatened with arrest. In all, three TSA agents and four police officers were brought in to detain and harass a mom trying to have on hand what she needed to keep her son happy on a flight. Of course, she missed her flight. (The Philadelphia Enquirer)

• Moms forced to drink breast milk—A mother with an infant brought bottles of breast milk in her carryon bag so she wouldn’t have to nurse her child on the plane. TSA agents made her drink it to prove it wasn’t harmful.

• Kids’ Play-doh confiscated—TSA agents found tubs of Play-doh in a parent’s bag and confiscated it in front a 3-year-old, saying it looked like plastic explosives. The parent brought it to occupy the child on the flight. Sorry kid, you could be a terrorist.

• White-haired grandmothers strip searched—Suspicious-looking white-haired grandmothers are often taken out of the screening line and taken to another room for extra screening. It makes perfect sense. They fit the profile after all.

• Diminutive business woman charged with assaulting TSA agents—A small 57-year-old business woman was for some reason singled out for extra screening and TSA agents began emptying her carry-on bags. She objected and asked for a private screening. TSA took her to a private room and examined everything in her bags, including sniffing lipstick and pulling out credit cards. TSA agents claim the woman demanded the bags be carefully repacked. Upon leaving the room, according to TSA, the woman hit TSA agents with her bag and threw sandals. She was arrested, spent 17 hours in jail and charged with 10 felonies. A judge threw out all the charges and expunged her record because TSA didn’t save the video tape of the alleged incident. (The Philadelphia Enquirer)

• TSA agents as jokesters—A TSA agent confronted a young woman who had just come through the metal detector. Holding up a bag of white powder he asked her, “What’s this?” The woman said she was dumbfounded and became very frightened because nothing like that should have been in her bag. After harassing her about it for a moment the TSA agent smiled and said, “Just joking.”

• Four-year-old forced to remove leg braces and walk himself through screening—A Camden, N.J., police officer, his wife and their 4-year-old son were traveling to Orlando for the child’s birthday. The child, who was born 16 weeks premature, is developmentally delayed and has malformed ankles, was forced to remove his leg braces and walk through the metal detector on his own—something that he was just learning to do. He managed to make it through. The father, understandably upset, confronted a supervisor who turned and walked away. A local police officer approached and told the father he should calm down and enjoy his vacation. When a reporter asked a TSA spokesperson how such a thing could happen the TSA representative said the boy should never have been made to remove his braces, he should have just been taken to a screening room and had his braces swabbed for explosives instead. (The Philadelphia Enquirer)

Incidents like these leave you scratching you head. But it’s not just foolishness on the part of some undertrained agent—although there is a lot that throughout the TSA—it’s a power play by people given a little authority that they begin to abuse. And it plays into the hands of government seeking more control.

And here’s an example of how they always want more control: On the heels of the Christmas Day underwear bomber incident, TSA said it was installing naked body scanners in all airports: a boon to some well-heeled government players, as we documented here.

Now it’s not enough for them to rifle through your bags, humiliate you or feel you up, they now want to see you and your kids naked—and expose you to harmful radiation to boot. We documented the health risks posed by naked body scanners here.

Of course, TSA promised that there is no way for the images taken by the scanners to be saved or transmitted. As implausible as that was, that was their story. Now we see that TSA was indeed lying when it said the machines could not store or transmit images.

In London, Indian film star Shahrukh Khan told a British television audience that after he went through security at Heathrow Airport female security agents had printouts of his image made by the scanners. He said “you could see everything.” He autographed them and returned them to the women.

As usual, the goal by government is not to keep you safe, as evidenced by the facts that have come out about the Christmas Day underwear bomber. The goal is to continue to peel back your resistance to their tyranny. Scare you, show you a government solution and sell it, all while enriching a few well-connected people. That’s the government way.

But most go along to get along, as long as a semblance of safety is promised.

Scan me, strip me, pat me down, abuse my kids; even take pictures of my kid’s naked body. I feel safer already.

Source:  PersonalLiberty.com

Popularity: 36% [?]

Witness: Suspect Mumbled, ‘I’m Fighting For Freedom’

LITTLETON, Colo. — Two students were shot Tuesday afternoon at Deer Creek Middle School, officials said.The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office said the suspected shooter has been arrested. A well-placed source told CALL7 Investigators the suspect is Bruco Eastwood, 32. It’s unclear if Eastwood has any affiliation with the school. He likely will face two counts of attempted murder.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Major League Baseball clubhouses are now designated “gun free” zones.

Major League Baseball has a new message for players and employees this spring training: Keep guns, long knives and explosives out of the clubhouse.

Signs have been placed in spring training locker rooms stating “individuals are prohibited from possessing deadly weapons while performing any services for MLB.” The rules apply to employees of the commissioner’s office, other central MLB businesses and to teams, including players.

Actually, that rule apparently went into effect last year, but the signs are new.  Perhaps St. Louis Cardinals closer Ryan Franklin–a member of the National League’s 2009 All-Star team–didn’t know of the rule until seeing the signs at Spring Training this month.  He is apparently not pleased.

“If you grew up around it, being in the outdoors and stuff, I was taught as a young kid how to respect firearms,” Franklin said following Saturday’s workout. “First of all, you don’t get stupid with it. Always treat a gun like it’s loaded. That’s what I taught my son and daughters. There’s a place for them.”

“There are a few guys that screwed it up for everybody,” Franklin said. “If it wasn’t for the NFL guy a couple years ago bringing a weapon into a nightclub … you’ve just got to be smart.”

Mr. Franklin’s reaction seems pretty rational, but the majority of St. Louis Post Dispatch readers who left comments are apparently disinclined to agree.  Here are a couple of the “highlights”:

Thank you Franklin for making it official. You are the epitome of the dumb redneck hick!

I challenge you to bring a “book” to work and show your teammates. Now that would be something controversial. How many dumb hicks are on this team?

. . .  And:

I wish Franklin were black—then we could all call him a ‘thug.’

Bummer.

So, if I understand the argument, players (and others) can’t have guns in the clubhouse, because they’re too irresponsible and prone to violent rages–and they don’t need guns in the clubhouse, because there will never be any need to defend oneself from violent, seething cauldrons of rage.

The bottom line is that the need to defend one’s life can come at any time, and in any place.  If we only needed guns where we expected lethal threats, we would presumably simply avoid such places altogether, and thus avoid the need for a gun, as well.

Update: Just noticed that National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea also wrote about this today–be sure to read: “Is Major League Baseball’s gun ban a ‘no-brainer’?”

Source: Examiner.com

Popularity: 39% [?]

TRACY, Calif. (CBS13) ― Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.

But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.

Or, there’s the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help.

“A $300 fee and you don’t even want to be thinking about that when somebody is in need of assistance,” said Tracy resident Greg Bidlack.

Residents will soon receive the form in the mail where they’ll be able to make their selection. No date has been set for when the charges will go into effect.

Source: http://cbs13.com/local/tracy.911.calls.2.1502690.html

Popularity: 36% [?]