Saturday, March 31, 2012

Friday Radio Chat with Silvio Canto Jr. from Dallas

Radio commentary on Republic Broadcasting Network
My Thursday's radio commentary on Republic Broadcasting Network on economy, dollar, and inflation. I come on during the second hour.

Anthropocene - Age of Man

If you have not seen this word, it is because it was invented by the global warming crowd, supported by United Nations Agenda 21’s goal of total global control through environmental protection policies that will fundamentally alter the way humans exist.

According to a National Geographic article published in March 2011, “Age of Man,” the word “anthropocene” was conceived ten years ago by the Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen who said, “we are no longer in the Holocene, we are in the Anthropocene.” The Holocene was the period between the last ice age, 11,500 years ago, and present time. Paul Crutzen received a Nobel Prize for the discovery of ozone-depleting compounds. (Elizabeth Kolbert)

Antonio Stoppani suggested “anthropozoic” term in 1870 but was derided as unscientific. There was no global warming crowd then with a population control agenda to give it credence. “Anthropocene” was welcome because it fit in with the Malthusian style theory of population growth overwhelming the planet and eventually causing its demise. According to E. O. Wilson, the seven billion people have increased the biomass “a hundred times larger than any other large animal species that has ever walked the Earth.” (Elizabeth Kolbert)

The April 1, 2012 issue of the journal “Earth and Planetary Science” will publish a study by a team from Syracuse University in New York which found that the “Medieval Warm Period’ of approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago extended to Antarctica. (Mail Online)

The lead geochemist Zunli Lu found reliable evidence to study past temperature changes and climate conditions in a rare mineral, “ikaite.” “Ikaite is an icy version of limestone, said Lu. Ikaite is stable in cold conditions and melts at room temperature.”

“Little Ice Age” (300 to 500 years ago) and “Medieval Warm Period” were climate events documented in Northern Europe via crystals found in earth’s layers. Lu and his team were able to ascertain that these two events reached Antarctica because they found and studied heavy oxygen isotopes in the ikaite crystals. “The water that holds the crystal structure together – called hydration water – traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed.” (Ted Thornhill)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is still arguing that the “Medieval Warm Period” was limited to Europe.

Common, with its motto “Building Progressive Community,” published an article on March 27, 2012, “On the Brink: Planet Near Irreversible Point of Global Warming.” It does not matter that global warming alarmists and scientists have been debunked. They have hidden or erased the scientific data that proved them wrong. They are marching on with their agenda. The “sky is falling” scientists at the “Planet under Pressure” conference in London said, “we may have already passed the tipping points on global warming.”

Martin Rees of the Royal Society said, “this century is the first when one species – ours – has the planet’s future in its hands.” Apparently, humans are so omnipotent now that we have God-like powers.

Reuter's Agency reports that “global warming is close to becoming irreversible,” world temperatures are going to rise 6 degrees by 2100. It is shocking that they predict with such accuracy and clarity what will happen 100 years from now when they cannot even predict weather accurately for tomorrow.

“Man’s catastrophic damage to the environment and disparities between rich and poor head the daunting challenges facing the Rio +20 Summit in June, experts say. The summit must sweep away a system that lets reckless growth destroy the planet’s health yet fails to help billions in need.” (Agency France Presse)

Therein lies the true intent of the global warming scam and the United Nations Agenda 21 – fleecing developed nations, spreading the wealth to developing nations, population control, energy control, economic control, education control, confiscation of private property, control of the seas, commerce, military, and de-growing the biggest “offender,” the United States, to a primitive lifestyle.

The educational propaganda is getting more intense. Planet under Pressure has commissioned a 3-minute film “from the start of the industrial revolution to the Rio +20 Summit,” the world’s first educational web portal on the Anthropocene. The film exaggerates the growth of humanity in the last 250 years into such a global force “on an equivalent scale to major geological processes.”

This film is deranged, yet it will become part of our children’s education in the classroom. Parents will have no idea that the movie will be shown to their children, just like the video, “The Story of Things,” which distorts capitalism and promotes socialism.

The facts that the planet has corrected itself and human/non-human intervention or occupation had no significant bearing, are ignored in the “logic” of environmentalists. Older and moneyed “greens” have brainwashed our children into Save the Planet activism through intense and expensive propaganda - evil humans are destroying Earth through careless existence and breathing. The planet has always been here and it will be here long after we are gone. We do not need to return to primitive lifestyles in order to please “greenies” and their tyrannical agendas.

Every school this week has encouraged students to turn off their lights for one hour in honor of Earth Day, an event that is insignificant in terms of energy saved or “carbon foot print reduction,” as recognized by environmentalists themselves. It is a symbolic attempt to brainwash students into believing that we are destroying the planet deliberately by using energy and by our mere existence.

Liberals do not seem to care that, if there is no coal, there is little electricity and no electric cars. If there is no oil, there is no energy, gasoline, cars, heat, air conditioning, travel, mobility, and other modern conveniences.

Secretary of Energy Chu wants us to pay $50 for a bulb. Edison’s incandescent and inexpensive bulb that has served humanity well for so long is passé. How many bulbs does the average household have, times $50? Can we afford such expensive bulbs or the mercury-emitting CFL variety, which also poison the immediate environment with mercury when broken? My answer is a resounding no. We must stand up to United Nations and to homegrown environmentalists’ quest to de-grow America, control our lives, and impose their “vision” of the world on the majority.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How Much is the U.S. Dollar Worth?

“Let the influx of money be ever so great, if there be no confidence, property will sink in value…The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.”
(James Madison, Speech, Virginia Convention, June 20, 1788)

According to data from the University of Illinois professors Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, the value of the dollar had depreciated so much by 2008 that it took $5.31 to buy what it cost $1 in 1971 when Nixon decided that the dollar would no longer be backed by gold. Until then, $35 could buy a troy ounce of gold every day. Our dollar today is worth less than 19 cents when compared to 1971 and the price of gold fluctuates between $1,500-1,700 per ounce.

Between February 2002 and December 2004, the value of the dollar dropped against the euro by 40 percent, a significant decline that was largely ignored by the media. (William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder)

The U.S. dollar has continued its decline in spite of the rosy economic picture presented by the MSM in the last four years.

Members of Congress cannot claim ignorance about the declining trend of the U.S. dollar because Craig K. Elwell, a specialist in Macroeconomic Policy, wrote a report on February 23, 2012 for the Congressional Research Service, “The Depreciating Dollar: Economic Effects and Policy Response.”

Any currency, including the dollar, is affected by demand from foreign governments, foreign nationals, or foreign corporations who wish to purchase goods, services, and assets from the country that issues the currency.

In order to buy our stocks, bonds, real estate, goods, and services, foreigners must first buy our currency, thus creating a demand for it.

The supply of dollars comes from the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) who prints money or issues electronic credit to its member banks. Transactions are made directly in cash or electronically in the form of debit and credit through the bank of the buyer and seller of currency.

If we have a large trade deficit with other nations, and we do because we usually import more goods than we do export, the value of the dollar decreases. The dollar decreases in value as a direct response to the “net increase in the supply of dollars on the foreign exchange markets.” (Craig K. Elwell)

A net increase in the demand for dollars on foreign exchange markets can increase the value of the dollar.

According to Craig K. Elwell, in 2007, “at the peak of the last economic expansion, the U.S. capital account recorded $1.5 trillion in purchases of foreign assets by U.S. residents (representing a capital outflow) and $2.1 trillion in purchases of U.S. assets by foreign residents (representing a capital inflow).”

Congress cannot affect exchange rates directly, but the value of the dollar “can be affected by decisions made on policy issues facing the 112th Congress, including decisions related to generating jobs, raising the debt limit, reducing the budget deficit, and stabilizing the growth of the federal government’s long-term debt.” (Craig K. Elwell)

In other words, stop regulating the remaining U.S. industry to death while destroying small businesses that create jobs. Stop the non-existent man-made global warming nonsense. Everyone knows that politicians want power; it is not about the environment. Stop catering to the United Nations third world dictatorships. Stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars on solar panel black holes, invest in natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and fossil fuel generated energy.  Stop the non-existent green job creation lie, the Tesla “brick,” and the GM Volt electric car that nobody wants to buy. We want mobility. Stop sending our jobs overseas. Stop building corporate headquarters and entire industrial cities in China or India with U.S. dollars. Stop spending money we do not have. Stop borrowing money from China in order to spend it on wars, welfare, policing the planet, and supporting third world dictatorships who wish us harm. We are not Don Quixote de la Mancha “tilting at windmills,” attacking an imaginary enemy. We want to build a successful future, not the pipe dream of progressives.

Investors look for countries with a stable government, a high rate of return, good economic growth, and low inflation rates to park their excess capital. During the period of 1994-2003, U.S. had an expected rate of return of 8.6 percent (International Monetary Fund).

Current low interest rates in the U.S., kept so by Fed policy, give the U.S. no interest rate advantage over other developed countries. It is thus in the better interest of investors to move their capital to emerging economies, putting a further strain on the U.S. dollar.

If the dollar was expected to depreciate further due to a weak economy and out-of-control government spending, dollar assets would not be attractive to investors, they would seek new ways to diversify. By doing so, the value of the dollar would be eroded even more. “Diversifying to other currencies would be troublesome for the $11 trillion in U.S. securities held by foreigners.” (Craig K. Elwell)

The dollar is currently holding on because U.S. has a high degree of liquidity (securities can be turned quickly into cash with a daily turnover of $588 billion) and a variety of assets such as the bond market ($32 trillion total, $11 trillion government bonds).

Although United States has been a safe bet in the past for foreign investors, as the largest debtor in the world, the federal government is now a default risk because of its lavish spending, which can downgrade Treasury securities and thus weaken the dollar.

Long-term assets are no longer seen as safe in the U.S. The dollar dropped 17 percent in value during 2009-2011. The European Union debt crisis in 2011-2012 with the potential default of Greece, its two bailouts, Italy’s bailout, Spain and Ireland, and the austerity measures demanded by Germany and France, gave the U.S. dollar a boost in value of 5 percent.

Central bank holdings are propping the U.S. dollar for the time being, in particular China with $3.2 trillion in exchange reserves, and Japan with $1.3 trillion.

The rising inflation rate in this country is depreciating the dollar as well. The purchasing power of the dollar is falling. All you have to do is take a trip to Italy. Prices are 44 percent higher not necessarily because of higher manufacturing costs, but simply because the exchange rate of the dollar against the euro is so weak.

A depreciated dollar will indirectly cause interest rates to go up. Current Federal Reserve policy is to keep interest rates low as a “monetary stimulus.” Despite low interest rates, demand for loans by small businesses and households is low because so many people are unemployed and businesses do not wish to expand in an economy burdened by expensive regulations and the specter of Obamacare liabilities. The Fed policy cannot successfully control both exchange rates and interest rates.

“The IMF study estimated that if the dollar had remained at its peak of early 2002, by the end of 2007, the price of gold would have been $250 per ounce lower, the price of a barrel of crude oil would have been $25 a barrel lower, and  nonfuel commodity prices would have been 12 percent lower.” (Craig K. Elwell)

When the President says that nothing that we do can affect the price of oil, even if we drill everywhere, is disingenuous. We can start by repealing the unfortunately named Affordable Healthcare Act that is bankrupting the country. We can drill on our own soil. We can implement logical and sane energy policies that restore the health of the U.S. economy and foreign investors’ trust in our government. The dollar is still the world’s “reserve currency.” China and Russia are trying to replace the dollar with another currency as trust in our government’s fiscal responsibility is waning.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

What Would the World be Like without Cash or with One Currency

A recent CBS World News article quoted Bjoen Ulvaeus, former member of the group ABBA, saying, “I can’t see why we should be printing bank notes at all anymore,” advocating that the world’s economy should run without cash.

Our ancestors did not need money. Early humans were self-sufficient, hunter-gatherers, who relied on their surroundings for shelter and clothing. There are still remote tribes that do not use money as a medium of exchange but barter with other tribes when they have excess food. We are still bartering services today in modern societies.

The most famous example of bartering is “Peter Minuit’s swap in 1626 of $24 in beads and trinkets for the island of Manhattan. Its property value in 1998 was assessed at $23.4 billion.” (Wall Street Journal editors)

Bartering is more difficult because it is based on an economic “coincidence of wants” which takes time, whereas currency enables consumers to postpone purchases. In modern society, bartering can be done through advertising, which is costly, or by word of mouth.

Commodity currency was used throughout history. Roman soldiers were paid with salt, salarium, a rare commodity at the time, hence the word salary. Pelts, tobacco, animal teeth, beads, stone wheel money on Yap Island, ivory, cigarettes, elephant hair, tusks, brick tea money in Siberia, soap, perfume, silk, chocolate have served as commodity money.

Species, a form of gold promissory note, was a guarantee that the carrier had a certain amount of gold in the safe keep of the village goldsmith.

Babylonians expressed the idea of money in bills and receipts dating back to 2500 B.C. Earliest notes can be traced to China. “In 1282, Kubla Khan issued paper notes made of mulberry bark bearing his seal and his treasurers’ signatures.” The Kuan, the oldest surviving paper money, was issued in China by the Ming dynasty between 1368 and 1399. Sweden was the first European country to issue paper money in 1661. The British offered promissory notes (IOUs) to soldiers in Massachusetts in 1690. (Kenneth M. Morris and Virginia B. Morris)

Twenty-six countries around the world call the dollar their currency. The dollar was a silver coin called Joachimsthaler from 1519, minted in St. Joachim valley in Bohemia, now the Czech Republic. Thaler is German for valley.

Prior to the National Banking Act of 1863 that established a uniform currency, we had locally issued paper money called scrip, gold and silver coins that could be compromised by shaving off the edges and selling the gold or silver dust (hence the ridges on our coins to prevent such shaving), and even wooden coins. Colonists cut up coins to make change and they called them four bits or two bits.

Coins were valuable, durable, and portable. They were made of silver, gold, copper, and electrum (an alloy of gold and silver). The current U.S. penny is worth more because the price of copper is relatively high. When money was based on silver and gold, it was called commodity currency. When it could no longer be redeemed for precious metals (since 1971), it became fiat currency. Fiat currency value is determined by faith in the government and the people’s desire to purchase assets and goods in the country of issuance of that currency.

Fiat money printed in excess of goods and services produced in a year causes inflation. During the American Revolution, $1 was worth 2 ½ cents. During the Weimar Republic, between 1918-1923, one German mark was inflated to 726,000,000 marks.

Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation is a more recent example of a grossly mismanaged monetary policy and economy. Inflation, initially caused by the civil war and the subsequent confiscation of white-owned farmland, snowballed into hyperinflation when food capacity fell by 45 percent, manufacturing fell drastically, and unemployment rose to 80 percent.

The recent U.S. QE1 and QE2 (quantitative easing) printed dollars to cover our budget deficit. The Federal Reserve System (Fed) calls this monetizing the deficit. Every time money is printed repeatedly in excess of goods and services produced by the economy in a year's time, inflation results. Keeping interest rates low reduces the speed with which inflation grows.

U.S. dollar is used to quote world oil prices (petrodollars) which further complicate its worth or lack thereof,  vis-à-vis the price of oil and its available, deliverable, or refinable supply. Add world instability, futures speculators, and bad energy policy into the mix and you have a Gordian knot.

The CBS World News article presents Sweden as being at the forefront of digital money vs. cash, advocating a cashless global economy. Globalists prefer a one-world currency. A small number of businesses in Sweden accept only credit cards, including some churches. Elderly people prefer cash, especially in rural areas.

Bjoen Ulvaeus believes that cash encourages theft, citing his own son who was the victim of armed robbery three times. Cheating and theft have declined in Sweden but cybercrimes are on the rise.

Privacy issues are important since electronic transactions leave a trail. There is no anonymity left to donors. Technology to use smart phones as digital payment is already in use. Opponents believe that the drive to a cashless world is driven by banks and their desire for higher profits.

There are many issues to ponder in the policy dilemma of no cash or a one-world currency, and the list is not exhaustive:

-         On the upside, there are savings deriving from a cashless society in terms of special paper, printing, ink, labor, and metal alloys

-         If an attack occurs on the Smart Grid and there is no power, there are no financial transactions possible without cash

-         If there is a national disaster, earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, tornado, or power interruptions, there will be no transactions of goods and services without cash

-         An EMP attack or intense solar flares would make cash or a one world currency worthless, we would have to resort to barter or theft

-         A cashless or one global currency could result in extraordinary powers given to banks, potentially, with no cap on interest rates

-         Cashless transactions would leave no option to be off the grid, everything would be traceable

-         One world currency would eliminate exchange rates, currency trading in futures, eliminating a substantial sector of the job market and thus revenues

-         There will be no black market involving cash or illegal activity, everyone would be forced to pay taxes

-         Children under 18 would be excluded from holding credit cards and thus excluded from financial transactions if cash disappeared.

-         Migrant and illegal workers would be paid electronically, forcing accountability in taxation and employment if society became cashless

-         Prostitution would have to be legalized, taxed, and clients’ names be public record

-         Muslims would no longer be able to use hawala transactions which are based on cash

-         Conducting monetary policy, money stock, interest rates, and inflation would be altered in a cashless society

-         In the case of one-world currency, who would conduct monetary policy, decide interest rates, the digital money stock, and taxation? Would it be the United Nations?

-         Would society alter dramatically because labor will be purchased with digital credit as opposed to cash? How would the one-world currency value be decided? Will it be tied to precious metals such as silver, gold, and platinum or will it be arbitrarily decided by the United Nations?

-         In a time of war, how would one country destabilize the economy of another by dropping off counter fit currency over another country’s territory if the entire world uses the same currency?

-         In the case of cyber attacks and hacking, how much would be affected if all banks, companies, and institution would be connected to a single grid of digital money

-         What would happen to third world nations that are not so electronically wired and depend heavily on cash or barter? Could they be required to make transactions in digital money?

-         Finally yet importantly, who would police the counter fitting of a one-world currency across the globe?

The idea of a digital money society or a one-world currency may capture sound bites on TV and the imagination of liberals and conservatives alike, especially when running for political office, but it opens a new Pandora’s box of ills that most countries are not yet equipped to resolve.

Ileana Johnson
Copyright 2012  All Rights Reserved

Saturday, March 24, 2012

First Snow

The temperature has dropped and the snow is finally sticking. Large flakes are slowly falling to the ground, blanketing the earth with a pristine coat of wonderland. A few birds are flying around disoriented by the sudden drop in temperature and the crystalline flakes covering their grasses. It will not be long before the deer make their five o’clock feeding rounds. The grasses at the edge of the forest are still green and inviting - the mild winter kept many from going dormant.

There is a strange glow coming from the soft snow shrouding darker areas and barren ground. The light is so unusual, that only a painter’s palette could realistically color it.

The majestic oaks are sporting a light dusting of snow. Branches are getting heavier with fluffy whiteness. Knarled and fallen trees appear as menacing figures hiding in the forest to frighten the unaware.

Canada geese and mallards are floating on the Potomac River, hiding beaks underneath their wings, a transitory protection from the onslaught of snow. The sea gulls are nowhere to be seen.

The marsh is beginning to freeze over – the beavers have done a fantastic job – you can actually cross the frozen damn to the other side of the inlet. The Potomac seldom freezes completely. The volume, the depth, and the speed of the rushing water prevent a hard freeze in most places.

Dry tall grasses are leaning under the weight of the snow like people carrying a heavy load. Powell's creek is still flowing from the ground, surrounded by white patches and icicles.

The ruins of the red chimney that belonged to the Lee family estate in the eighteen hundreds beacon in the snow like a lonely obelisk. A few deer tracks are covered by a light dusting of snow.

The dying light is casting ghostly shadows in the dormant forest. The eerie silence permeates the phantasmagorical landscape. Suddenly, an owl’s cry pierces the white calm.

My feet leave prints in the untouched white blanket. I experience the giddiness of childhood when we made angels in the snow. It is so quiet and remote; I can hear the falling snow making a barely audible sound as it hits the crunching dry leaves covering the ground in the woods. Green mosses are still visible here and there.

I spot a valley that would make a fantastic sledding slope if I only knew what was underneath. The sleigh my Grandpa had built for me 45 years ago would fly down this slope. Sledding gave me so much joy all day. Exterior clothes were frozen stiff on my body by the time I came in at night with rosy cheeks and a red nose. The warmth of a dry flannel pajama was the ultimate luxury.

The wind is picking up, chilling me to the bone and biting my cheeks. I contemplate the warmth of a cup of cocoa, sitting in my comfortable chair, dreaming and weaving stories in my mind. I regretfully leave this peaceful but cold paradise, retracing my steps in the snow very carefully.

Blogtalk Radio with Silvio Canto from Dallas

Friday, March 23, 2012
Topics: Obamacare, rallies across the country, oil prices, and DICED, the Constitution for the Globe

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities

A new Executive Order issued on March 15, 2012, establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities, received no attention from the mainstream media.

Why would MSM report the news that are so important to the American people when there are so many pointless reality shows to occupy the citizens’ time? The Romans had pane et circenses, bread and circuses, in the gladiatorial arenas. Americans have sports and reality TV to dull their senses and perception of the troublesome reality.

The new Executive Order establishes another bureaucracy to “lift communities out of distress,” and to “support comprehensive planning and regional collaboration.” Communities would not be in distress if the economy and the country were not purposefully destroyed through burdensome regulations, insane energy policy, directives, wasteful stimuli, resolutions, omnibus overspending bills, and executive orders.

The Council is a “pilot initiative” that partners with “cities and regions to augment their vision of stability and economic growth.” This partnership aims to drive communities toward “regional planning” that leads to “sustained economic growth.”

The end goal of the initiative is to persuade regions to accept federal resources more effectively and efficiently to develop and implement economic strategies to “become more competitive, sustainable, and inclusive.” There will be strings attached to these federal resources. The operating words are “sustainable,” and “regional” or “regionalism,” buzzwords for UN Agenda 21.

The Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities will operate within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, chaired by the Secretary of HUD and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.

Members include Secretaries of Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and various chairs, administrators, directors, and assistants – Council of Economic Advisors, EPA, Office of Management and Budget, Small Business Administration, General Services, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, National Endowment for the Arts, Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary, Assistant to the President for Economy Policy, Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and all the heads of other agencies and offices as the President may, from time to time, designate.

Sub-groups will be appointed to coordinate and implement the efforts and decisions of the Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2).

The mission and function of the Council will be to develop and implement various components of Strong Cities, Strong Communities, or in bureaucratic code, SC2, as determined by Co-Chairs: economic vision, strategies, and technical assistance to local governments.

The Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities must incorporate their efforts into the agency’s annual performance plans and the outcomes of annual performance results. Economic growth and local capacity of cities and local governments must be addressed.

The federal government will assist communities in “building local capacity to address economic issues, comprehensive planning, and advancing regional collaboration.”

The Council shall conduct “outreach to representatives of nonprofit organizations, businesses, labor organizations, State and local government agencies, school districts, elected officials, faith and other community based organizations, philanthropies, other institutions of local importance, and other interested persons with relevant expertise in the expansion and improvement of efforts to build local capacity to address economic issues in cities and communities.”

Annual meetings will be conducted with mayors and city employees to share “findings and progress, offer best practices, and promote strategies that have worked in communities participating in the initiative.”

Yearly reports will be required to “demonstrate more efficient and effective use of federal resources.” It is not clear what the federal resources will be, however, since so many departments are part of the Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2), it appears to be a massive expansion of federal government involvement into the operation of the states and local governments. Key operating words throughout the Executive Order are economic local capacity and regional collaboration.

I focused immediately on the phrase, “regional collaboration,” because it points to another tentacle of the UN Agenda 21 octopus. I recognized the language of HB 430 in Virginia, which established a “Regional Cooperation Incentive Fund,” to offer an increased amount of government grant money to planning commissions that consolidate or coordinate with other local planners, thus regionalize.

What is wrong with regionalization? It is a step toward globalization. It is another layer of unaccountable, unelectable, and parasitic government. Municipalities are shaped into borderless groups that develop comprehensive plans in many areas but especially land use. These plans supersede local laws and often disregard property rights. The unelected layer of “regional” government will then ask each community to bring their laws and zoning in line with those of the “region.”

Legislators should not use state tax money to implement regional comprehensive plans. Planning belongs at the local level by their elected officials. This new Executive Order forces regionalization in every state through initiatives, schemes, and visions, attached to federal grants in order to bribe citizens to “regionalize,” a step closer to total federal control of every aspect of our daily lives.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Radio commentary on Butler on Business, WAFS 1190 Atlanta
Monday, March 19, 2012 - Butler on Business, WAFS 1190 Atlanta
Topic of discussion: Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED)

DICED is UN's Environmental Constitution for the World

I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. The Draft Covenant is the “Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.”

The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).

The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations.  They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36) 

The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”

Article 2 describes in detail "respect for all life forms."

Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”

Article 5 refers to "equity and justice," code words for socialism/communism.
Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.

Article 19 deals with "Stratospheric Ozone." Rex communis is the customary international law regime applicable  to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high seas and outer space." (p. 72)

Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change. (Alex Jones)

Article 31, "Action to Eradicate Poverty," requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.

Article 32 requires recycling, "consumption and production patterns." 

Article 33, "Demographic policies," demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of humans can endanger the environment.
Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.

Article 37 discusses "Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how "Transboundary Natural Resources" will be conserved, "quantitatively and qualitatively." According to the document, "conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these systems are maintained."

Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.

“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.

“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”

"Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology" is a similar requirement to the Law of the Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that idea to the market.

Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.

Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an administrative court, i.e., the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a "world constitution for global governance,"(Alex Jones) an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.


Saturday, March 17, 2012

Tennessee Lawmakers and UN Agenda 21

Lawmakers in Tennessee passed a resolution on March 15, 2012 condemning United Nations Agenda 21 as a “destructive and insidious” environmental plan to advance communist agenda under the guise of community planning.

The state House of Representatives voted 72-23 in favor of House Joint Resolution 587, which denounces the non-binding UN Agenda 21 plan adopted by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

United Nations claims that sustainable development principles alleviate poverty and combat global warming. Resolution 587 describes sustainable development as a plan for “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth” through energy conservation policies, zoning restrictions, and forced abortions.

“It reads well. It has nice words like sustainability and helping the poor,” said state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin. “But what these people want to do is they want to cap the number of people this planet can have. … So ladies and gentlemen, if that doesn’t bother you, if those words don’t scare you, we’ve got to talk.” (The Tennessean)

The 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver declared that government control of land use was “indispensable.” The document recommended that governments mandate population redistribution to accommodate the needs of biodiversity. This is the objective of the Wildlands Project, protected areas required by the Convention on Biological Diversity. EPA adopted the Ecosystem Management Policy to do so.

The Tennessee House resolution is non-binding, but citizens and lawmakers are concerned that the 288-page document uses non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government entities such as the courts, the EPA, and zoning boards to carry out the plan.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch condemns the passage of Resolution 587 in Tennessee as a “new sign of antigovernment extremism creeping into the political mainstream.” Similar resolutions passed in New Jersey and North Carolina counties this year.

Demonizing Americans who want to stop UN Agenda 21, The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the effort a “big lie,” and criticizes the resolution passed by the Republican National Committee in January 2012 in which policymakers inform Americans of the destructive strategies of “sustainable development.”

If we are to believe the Southern Poverty Law Center, and we do not, the UN agreement is a “rather benign, non-binding plan calling for governments to develop plans to meet current needs for natural resources without threatening the survival of future generations.”

Agenda 21 is so “benign” that it was not debated or ratified by Congress. Presidents Clinton and Obama passed Executive Orders in order to force the implementation of UN Agenda 21 in the U.S. Parts of UN Agenda 21 have been included in legislation or have been implemented administratively.

Local governments are bribed with federal grants to de-develop counties and bring them into compliance with zoning rules devised by the “visioning” consensus plans of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the implementation arm of UN Agenda 21.

These “visioning” plans are sold to the community as the consensus. In reality, they are the wishes of a few informed individuals representing the interests of the United Nations. The local population has no knowledge or understanding of the ramifications of such plans.

Taxpayers are not given the opportunity to vote on the “fundamental transformation” of their counties: ordinances, zoning laws, bike paths, walkways, greenbelts, conservation areas, high-density areas, and urban boundary zones, all part of the sustainable development buzzwords and goals.

Once the new zoning has passed, the citizens cannot reverse the damaging effects of the decisions already made. Some local politicians are afraid to say no to visioning committees for fear that they may be seen as anti-environment. Others know exactly what they are doing.

Hatewatch maligns Tea Party groups for their effort to protect American private property rights, local zoning rights, and sovereignty. It compares Americans who want to protect their freedoms to Joe McCarthy “who saw a Communist plot behind every door.” Recently released documents have revealed that Joe McCarthy was right. Tom DeWeese, Phyllis Schlafly, and Oath Keepers are mentioned in the same publication as “antigovernment extremists” for contributing to the education of Americans about the true intent of UN Agenda 21 and for their patriotism.

This fight is not about putting a “smelting plant in a residential neighborhood.” Americans have become aware that this “benign, grandfatherly” environmental planning is a scheme to take away property rights. Too many people have lost the ability to develop their lands or use them at all because of onerous EPA regulations. United Nations states specifically in its 288-page document that private property must be abolished and land should be controlled by the government.

Americans have noticed the millions of “natural acres” set aside in many states and incorporated into land trusts to “protect areas that have scenic, historical, or cultural significance.” At some point, all this extreme preservation is writing humans out of the picture and excluding them from the habitat. The Wildlands Project map shows in vivid color the very small areas where humans will be allowed to exist and live under strict government control.

Agenders” are not conspiracy theorists – UN Agenda 21 does exist. Dozens of organizational tentacles and “programmes” have been imbedding into U.S. sovereignty for a long time, sucking the lifeblood of this economy in the name of “caring” environmentalism. We are losing our freedoms gradually to a foreign organization, financed by our own taxpayer dollars.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Energy Policy and Biking to the Grocery Store

“Nuclear power provides 20 percent of America’s energy needs via 104 reactors in 31 states, from California to Arizona, Texas to Michigan, and Florida to New York.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave permits last month to build two nuclear reactors, the first time since 1979 when the partial reactor meltdown occurred at Three Mile Island. The two reactors will begin operating at the Vogle Plant in Waynesboro, Georgia in 2016 and 2017. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko objected, citing potential meltdown of the reactors.

Our economy is starved for energy because this administration has blocked the development of domestic sources of energy in order to promote its expensive and bankrupt green energy in the name of environmental and social justice that the left is pushing so vehemently.

A barrage of unnecessary and costly regulations has driven up gas prices to more than double since Obama became President. The Keystone XL pipeline would have removed the uncertainty of future supplies that affect energy prices. Sadly, Canadian oil will not be flowing to the United States via the Keystone XL pipeline, but to the port of Vancouver, to be shipped via oil tankers to China.

Releasing energy from the strategic petroleum oil reserves is not a good idea since it would increase further market price volatility and uncertainty. Such reserves would only prop up supply for a short time, and it would not significantly reduce the price of gas to make a difference at the pump.

The Obama administration has hindered domestic energy production at every turn, starting with the oil-drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. Brazilians were allowed to drill and store oil in the deep ocean of the Gulf of Mexico but not so much for domestic producers.

With gas $6 per gallon in some parts of the country, Secretary of Energy Chu, who admittedly does not own a car, stated that the Department of Energy goal is to strengthen the economy and decrease our dependence on oil.  Yet in 2008, Secretary Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.” His solutions include green energy projects like Solyndra solar panel plant, harvesting algae as a replacement for oil, the electric Chevy Volt that nobody wants to buy in spite of the $10,000 subsidy, and the very expensive Tesla electric car that turns into a “brick” when the battery drains completely.

Candidate Obama promised that under his presidency gas prices will sky rocket and anyone who will build a coal-fired plant will go bankrupt. His supporters were too busy with “hope and change” to pay attention when he promised to “fundamentally transform” this nation.

As this administration states publicly that it is “boosting domestic production onshore,” new leasing on federal lands is down 44 percent, and the number of new oil wells drilled is down 39 percent. The President says that new offshore areas are opening, but his latest plan keeps 87 percent of these areas off limits. Claims that oil and gas activity in the Gulf of Mexico is back to normal are contradicted by a forecasted drop in production this year of nearly 21 percent from 2010 levels. (Speaker Boehner’s Office)

“House Republicans have passed several bills that would eliminate the Obama’s administration barriers to American energy production and move the Keystone XL pipeline forward,” but were defeated in the Senate.

All the anti-domestic energy policies of this administration are lovely music to the leftist environmental movement’s ears. However, they are never satisfied; their demands are more and more aggressive.

According to the Washington Post, drivers must be forced to bear the true economic cost of their choice to drive. It is not enough that we pay $4-6/gallon for gas that cost $1.79 when Obama took office. A federal carbon tax must be imposed on all of us who drive to the grocery store instead of biking, walking, or taking public transit.

“Perhaps fewer people would drive if we reattached costs to driving that are now being offset by non-drivers.” The author is incensed that people like him, who make sacrifices for the planet by biking to his favorite store, have to pay for our “free” parking via higher grocery prices.

Although Whole Foods encourages customers to “go green,” other “grocery chains like Stop and Shop, Giant, Safeway, Price Chopper make deals with gas stations that give customers per gallon discounts when they purchase a certain amount of groceries.”(Washington Post)

“Environmentalists and those who cannot afford to drive end up making it easier for other customers to shop by automobile.” It boils down again to social justice, the haves and have-nots. The author must not have or feed a family of four. How much groceries can one carry daily on a bicycle? Then again, logic is not the strong suit of progressives. Extreme environmentalism looks good on paper, not so much in practice.

Most Americans care for their environment and do not wish to destroy it. Regressing humanity and de-grow developed nations economically to primitive life styles in order to satisfy the goals of the Sierra Club crowd or other like-minded environmentalists is not the majority’s idea of living.

Last time I checked, most food is trucked by 18-wheelers that burn expensive Diesel fuel. Food is priced according to the delivery distance, the amount of fuel burned, production costs, and supply and demand.

Fuel and Diesel prices are driven up on purpose by our “environmentally appeasing” President, to the point that the rental price for the parking lot becomes an insignificant portion of the total operating cost of a grocery store vis-à-vis the inflationary cost of energy and food. Some grocery stores own the land and the costs of the parking lot are sunk over many years of operation.

The author is angry that his biking sacrifice for the planet is nullified by “Range Rover drivers” who do not care about their waistlines, wallets, and “ultimately for the Earth.” He laments, “Why should my bike subsidize your car?”

Liberal environmentalist know-it-alls are not subsidizing our cars. We pay road taxes and high gas prices, which include gas taxes. Should we tax bicyclists for using the paved roads freely while they are a nuisance to those who paid the road tax?

No matter what we do, the lack of a sane energy policy and constant class warfare from the left are going to bring about conflict between outlandish environmentalists and average Americans who wish to live in a free country with choices offered by the free market and not choices dictated by omnipotent few who want to control the entire population under the false premise of protecting the planet.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

UN is Fleecing US and the EU Carbon Tax

The EU charges a carbon emissions fee, an “extra terrestrial tax.” This is viewed by non-European governments as an attack on sovereignty. China’s airlines have refused to comply. “Some non-European airlines may have to choose whether to obey the law of their land or that of Europe.” Companies refusing to comply would be fined and denied the right to land in the 27 countries that are members of EU.

The European Court of Justice has already rejected the legal basis of a challenge raised in London by North American airlines. Carriers have until April 30 to calculate their damaging annual emissions and to buy polluting rights for 2012. Delta Airlines has already added a surcharge to passenger tickets. The scalping of the developing world continues. Each flight will cost us an additional $32 of a round-trip long-distance ticket. The financial gains are substantial for the bureaucrats since 655 million people flew to Europe last year.

The United Nations is pushing for a global deal through its International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It does not matter that global warming has been debunked, the EU and UN coffers must be replenished by hapless developed world citizens and the wealth must be spread to developing nations in the name of “social justice.”

The media did not report on the temperature rise in the U.S. during the time period when no airplanes flew after the 9/11 attack, proving that pollution from airplanes does not increase temperatures, on the contrary, it provides a level of cooling protection. (Lord Monckton)

Never mind that the United Nations no longer lives up to its charter of world peace and is indoctrinating children and the population into the green sustainability hoax. UN wants more than the $516.3 requested from the United States for its regular budget and more than the $2.182 billion requested for the peacekeeping budget.

In 2009, U.S. contribution to the UN octopus was $6.347 billion. US have provided aid to UN since 1945, currently giving 22 percent of UN’s operating budget and 27 percent of its peacekeeping budget. (OMB)

Aaron Cantor, USAF (retired) perfectly encapsulated the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations “Ready, Aim, Flee.”

The Congressional Research Service revealed that we are giving hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries while borrowing billions from them. More specifically, we gave $1.4 billion to 16 foreign countries that hold at least $10 billion in Treasury securities. China received $27.2 million, India $126.6 million, Brazil $25 million, and Russia $71.5 million.

Palestinians receive $400.4 million in economic aid, $100 million to support the Palestinian Authority police training, $61.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid after Israel’s “assault on Gaza,” an actual retaliation for all the rockets fired randomly from Gaza into Israel.

Fritz Vahrenhold and his geologist colleague, Sebastian Luning, work for the German utility company RWE. They published a book last month, “Die Kalte Sonne” (“The Cold Sun”) in which they claim that important research about climate change was hidden and “cries of an impending catastrophe are misleading.” “The world is not facing a climate catastrophe.” The authors are dismissing the “CO2 lie” – it is not greenhouse gases that cause problems, it is the sun that determines climate change.

The most relied upon source of information on the topic is the climate report produced by the United Nations, more specifically the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The report, produced by civil servants and not researchers, is full of misinformation and doubts. Yet countries around the world are basing their policies and fundamental changes of their citizens’ lives on a bogus report produced by bureaucrats.

Many climate researchers question the quality of computer models used to forecast climate change. “Knowledge of the effect of particle from industry, heating, and auto emissions as well as from oceans, volcanoes and from the soil is very low, according to the IPCC report. These particles serve as seeds for clouds, and some estimates suggest that an increase in the cloud cover by just one percent could offset a doubling of the CO2 in the air.”

Making matters worse, a trading scheme is now part of European Union laws. The EU is trading on emissions that would limit the release of “harmful greenhouse gases.” Prices for CO2 certificates have dropped constantly to about half, around $10.60 per metric ton, in spite of the closure of eight German nuclear power plants in 2011 and the increase in demand for coal power. The CO2 trading system is not working and is producing nothing but deceptive hot air because politicians decide the amount of CO2 that industries in the EU may emit way into the future.

Why are CO2 certificates so cheap? Other than the obvious that people understand it is a fleecing scheme, Germany for one spends billions on renewable energy. “With CO2 certificates so cheap, generating power from environmentally harmful fuels becomes even more than a good deal - which explains why brown coal consumption increased by nearly 4 percent in 2011, bucking the general trend.”  Emissions trading is not stopping climate change, but actually speeding it up. (Alexander Jung)

Politicians in America and the current administration are fleecing the American public with their Green Environmentalist Agenda 21 driven by the United Nations and its bureaucrats. Do we want to become subservient to the laws of the European Union and United Nations or follow the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution?