World Bank Biometric ID’s for Everyone…Solving the “Refugee” Crises

Below is an excerpt from a World Net Daily story regarding thousands of Islamic refugees that have disappeared from the refugee camps in Germany. The facial recognition global data base in the hands of the World Bank, IMF and Interpol along with every nation’s equivalent of the FBI is supposed to be fully global by 2030. This is to “help” make sure all are identified properly and issue the right amounts of “credits” to everyone globally. You can read the full story at the link in the title. I’ve not corrected the typos or put anything additional into the excerpt below. I just think it’s something people need to be aware of and understand that the “enhanced drivers licenses” are exactly this type of ID.

Here ya go:

U.N. Agenda 2030 calls for ‘universal ID’ for all people

This “universal ID,” which grabs the biometric data of refugees, is just a starting point for the United Nations. The goal is to eventually bring all people into the massive data bank. The proof is in the U.N.’s own documents.

The U.N. Agenda 2030 document adopted by 193 of the world’s heads of state, including President Obama, at the Sept. 25 U.N. conference on sustainability in New York, includes 17 goals and dozens of “targets.”

Target 16.9 under the goal of “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” reads as follows: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

The World Bank is also throwing its weight behind the United Nations biometric project being conducted by Accenture.

In a new report issued in collaboration with Accenture, the World Bank is calling on governments to “work together to implement standardized, cost-effective identity management solutions,” according to FindBiometrics.

A summary of the report states that about 1.8 billion adults around the world lack any kind of official identification. “That can exclude those individuals from access to essential services, and can also cause serious difficulties when it comes to trans-border identification,” according to FindBiometrics.

“That problem is one that Accenture has been tackling in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been issuing Accenture-developed biometric identity cards to populations of displaced persons in refugee camps in Thailand, South Sudan, and elsewhere. The ID cards are important for helping to ensure that refugees can have access to services, and for keeping track of refugee populations.”

Then comes the final admission by the World Bank that the new biometric IDs are not just for refugees.

“Moreover, the nature of the deployments has required an economically feasible solution, and has demonstrated that reliable, biometric ID cards can affordably be used on a large scale. It offers hope for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of getting legal ID into the hands of everyone in the world by the year 2030 with its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative.”

It is a serious problem for the authorities that many thousands of people are on their way on their own in the federal territory, Decker told Die Welt.

He said refugees might be registered multiple times as the registration is based on information given by the registrants, which almost always come without any papers.

“The same guy that is Muhammad Ali here in Eisenhüttenstadt can be Ali Mohammed a little bit later in Hamburg,” Decker exemplified. “The states must live with that for the time being, because a proper registration at the border is currently not in sight.”

One the U.N.’s biometric labeling of all humanity is in place, this will no longer be a problem.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/thousands-of-muslim-migrants-disappear-from-camps/#O0oTJHz8vVMIdGgH.99

EPA Fines Man $16 million For Making Pond on His Land

This issue first came to light well over a year ago. It’s insane that the EPA thinks it has the right to farm this man, while they give themselves a pass for dumping millions of gallons of waste -including arsenic and lead- in Colorado.

Let’s make no bones about it: The Environmental Protection Agency is an unconstitutional agency in the federal government, run by unelected people, whose underlying foundation is communism through environmental regulations, and those regulations are as unconstitutional as the agency itself. Now, the EPA is fining a Wyoming rancher for building a pond on his own property. The cost? $37,000 per day! That’s $16 million!

In 2012, the EPA ordered Andy Johnson to remove a small pond he built on his property. According to the agency, Johnson was in violation of the Clean Water Act.

However, Johnson claims that he followed the law.

Johnson told Watchdog.org, “We went through all the hoops that the state of Wyoming required, and I’m proud of what we built. The EPA ignored all that.”

The EPA then gave him 30 days to restore the property to the pre-pond condition, which Johnson said was “physically impossible.”

Watchdog.org reports:

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court on Thursday, lawyers representing Johnson argue the EPA overstepped its authority by fining the rancher.

“Threatening me with ruinous fines even though I’ve done nothing wrong is extortionate,” he said in a statement provided by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm representing Johnson. “This is a battle about more than my land, my livestock and my pond. The EPA is on a mission to expand its power.  They want to take over jurisdiction over private property throughout the United States.”

In a statement provided by an EPA spokesman, the agency said it and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been working with Johnson for “many months” to resolve the issue. The agency says the fines issued to Johnson were not final and were simply examples of the maximum penalties that could be issued.

“EPA has not made any determinations regarding penalties in this matter nor made any penalty demand of Mr. Johnson,” said Julia Valentine, spokeswoman for the EPA. “An order the agency sent to Mr. Johnson in January 2014 cites the maximum penalties for noncompliance established by Congress in the Clean Water Act.  References to these penalty provisions are included in all EPA enforcement orders to ensure that respondents are fully aware of the relevant provisions of environmental laws.”

However, the biggest problem the tyrants at the EPA face is that they have yet to explain how Johnson is in violation of the Clean Water Act. They did, however, provide a statement to AgFax.com, an agricultural journal.

The issue is whether Mr. Johnson qualified for the stock pond exemption. To qualify for this exemption, the pond must actually be used in farming or ranching operations, and it is only exempt to the size the farmer requires it to meet operational needs,” the EPA statement said, according to AgFax. “Ponds created for aesthetic or other non-farming-related purposes do not qualify for the exemption.”

Johnathan Wood, a staff attorney at PLF, told Watchdog.org, “Under the plain terms of the Clean Water Act, he was entirely within his rights and didn’t need federal bureaucrats’ permission.”

Both Wood and Johnson claim the pond actually improved the environment. They claim the pond created a wetland, where there had only existed a small creek, that it provided a habitat for Johnson’s animals and other wildlife in the area, including eagles and moose, and that the water in the pond is actually cleaner than the water flowing into it.

So, why the clamp down on this rancher? Seems to me, that he was looking to the future of this stock pond to be a means of providing food and water for his family. The feds just can’t have that as they do not believe in freedom and self-reliance, but on government tyranny and dependence.

America, we may have another Cliven Bundy situation on our hands in the near future at the Johnson ranch.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/09/obamas-epa-fines-rancher-16-million-for-what-he-did-on-his-own-property/#1MCdgSUyQQEoA5uZ.99

 

Agenda 21 Grows Up

As though Agenda 21 in it’s current form isn’t tyrannical enough, the architects of global government have plans to ramp it up and manage the herd even more thoroughly. Here’s an article by Michael Snyder with some very telling excerpts from the plan:

 

If you didn’t like “Agenda 21″, then you really are not going to like “The 2030 Agenda”. Next month, the United Nations is going to launch “The 2030 Agenda” at a major conference that will be held from September 25th to September 27th in New York City. The Pope is actually traveling to New York to deliver an address which will kick off this conference. Unlike
Agenda 21 which primarily focused on the environment, the 2030 Agenda is truly a template for governing the entire planet. In addition to addressing climate change, it also sets ambitious goals for areas such as economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality and a whole host of other issues. As you will see below, this global initiative is being billed as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. If you are anything like me, alarm bells are going off in your head right about now.

This new agenda is solidly rooted in a document known as “Agenda 21″ that was originally adopted by the United Nations back in 1992. The following comes from Wikipedia…

The full text of Agenda 21 was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference.

Since that time,
Agenda 21
has been modified and amended numerous times. Noteworthy changes occurred in 1997, 2002 and 2012.

But now the UN’s sustainable development program is being given an entirely new name, and the scope of this agenda is being broadened dramatically. The following is what the official United Nations website has to say about it…

The United Nations is now in the process of defining Sustainable Development Goals as part a new sustainable development agenda that must finish the job and leave no one behind. This agenda, to be launched at the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, is currently being discussed at the UN General Assembly, where Member States and civil society are making contributions to the agenda.

Just a few days ago, the core document for the 2030 Agenda was finalized. When what is in this document starts getting out, it is going to create a huge stir among Americans that are concerned about the ambitions of the globalists. The following comes from the preamble of this document…

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

As you can see, this is not just a plan to fight climate change.

This is literally a blueprint for transforming global society.

The core of the plan is a set of 17 specific goals…

Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Goal 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries

Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Many of those sound very good.

After all, who wouldn’t want to “end poverty” or “halt biodiversity loss”?

But as you read through that list, ask yourself what forms of human activity would be excluded from it.

Personally, I have a hard time coming up with much of anything.

As I discussed earlier this week, the globalists want to use “sustainable development” as an excuse to micromanage the lives of every man, woman and child on the entire globe.

We are told that individual liberty and freedom are “dangerous” because when everyone just runs around doing whatever they want it is “bad for the planet”.

For example, one of the goals of the sustainable development crowd is to push the human population into giant “megacities” and to allow nature to recapture much of what has already been settled by humanity.

The following map that comes from America 2050 is one example of what they want to do. A recent piece by Dave Hodges alerted me to this map, and it shows what the United States may look like in a few decades if the globalists have their way…America-2050

And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Eventually, the globalists want to fundamentally transform virtually everything about our society. This includes our economy, our government, our entertainment, our social interactions, our families and even our religious beliefs.

So don’t let all of the nice language fool you.

This “new universal Agenda” is far, far more dangerous than Agenda 21 ever was, and it is a giant step forward into a one world system governed by bureaucratic control freaks.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/september-2015-agenda-21-will-be-transformed-into-the-2030-agenda/#o8PtMVp6l2Fgixvx.99

Be an “I’m Pro Goat” Supporter

There’s a big battle over pygmy goats going on in Visalia, California. Due to the lovely Agenda 21 code enforcers for the International Property Maintenance Code, a family is facing $1000 per goat per day fines for two pygmy goats. Absolutely insane. Here is a quick overview of where things are in this right now:

Current Status – What’s Going On RIGHT NOW To Legalize Goats in Visalia

DSC_4779The Current Status of Legalizing Goats in Visalia, California

PAST ACTIONS –

April 25, 2015 – We started the change.org petition to present to the City Council.

April 26, 2015 – We began reaching out to media outlets and getting the story circulating in the community.

May 4, 2015 – We rallied for the miniature goats and presented the petition to the City Council.

May 6, 2015 – We started http://www.improgoat.com to share news and information all in one place.

May 6, 2015 – We opened a GoFundMe to raise funds to offset the costs of outreach and legal fees. (Click here to donate!)

May 11, 2015 – Pro Goat supporters gathered at the City Planner meeting at Visalia City Hall to speak out in favor of food freedom during public comments on the legalization of city chickens.

May 14, 2015 – City Officials met at the Freeman house to view the living conditions of the goats, and to dispel the “goats stink” myth. The next steps were then outlined in moving forward after the inspection.

May 14, 2015 – We submitted the Site Plan Review Application to the City to be discussed at the next City Planner meeting.

UPCOMING ACTIONS –

May 20, 2015 – Meeting with the City Planners to discuss details of the proposed ordinance change.

May 21, 2015 – Signature gathering at the downtown Visalia Farmers Market.

May 23, 2015 – Pro Goat supporters will join the March Against Monsanto in Fresno to stand in solidarity for food freedom!

June 1, 2015 – Pro Goat supporters will join with the Pro Chicken supporters at the Visalia City Council meeting to stand up for food freedom!

ONGOING – We need to raise $3598 in funds to cover the legal fees for the official zoning text amendment to be drawn up. (CLICK HERE to donate!)

TBD – Once funds are raised, we will submit the zoning text amendment to the City Council to be discussed at the next possible meeting.

TBD – The Visalia City Council must hold a public hearing and then vote on the issue. THIS IS THE MAIN EVENT!

What YOU Can Do Now!

SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA – Share links and news stories on your newsfeed, with the hashtag #progoat. The City of Visalia is active on social media so your voice WILL be heard, and you’ll help us raise awareness.

WRITE LETTERS TO CITY OFFICIALS – Let our city officials know that you are Pro Goat! You can contact our council members (the decision makers) at:

– Mayor Steven Nelsen; snelsen@ci.visalia.ca.us

– Vice Mayor E. Warren Gubler; wgubler@ci.visalia.ca.us

– Council Member Greg Collins; greg.collins@ci.visalia.ca.us

– Council Member Bob Link; blink@ci.visalia.ca.us

– Council Member Amy Shuklian; ashuklian@ci.visalia.ca.us

CALL THE CITY COUNCIL – You can also call the City Council and voice your concerns at 559-713-4512

SHARE WITH THE MEDIA – Never underestimate letters to the editor! Share the story with news outlets, even if they’ve already covered the story. Let them know that it’s a hot topic in Visalia!

DONATE TO HELP COVER LEGAL FEES – When we get to the next stage of legalizing miniature goats in Visalia, we WILL be facing some hefty legal fees (upwards of $2000). We cannot do this without the financial support of the community! CLICK HERE to donate and to help us make this ordinance change a reality!

VOLUNTEER – We are going to be gathering physical signatures in the community, holding street side rallies, manning information booths on campus, attending city council meetings to make our voices heard, and holding MASSIVE rallies at the decision making meetings in Visalia. Stay in touch by following us on Twitter or e-mail Gingi at gingifreeman@gmail.com for more information on getting involved!

Untitled-1

Victory on GMO’s?

On the heels of the World Health Organization saying that glyphosate appears to be causative in cancer, and several countries moving against Monsatan’s non-food products (I include the genetically modified things that are put into our food supply as non-food. We aren’t supposed to be eating it) the USDA is providing a certification process for those who want to label their products as non-gmo.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? The USDA has more than earned the moniker Uncle Sam Destroying Agriculture, so my personal jury is out on this move they have just taken. However, I think it is highly positive that there is finally some methodology being put into position to differentiate those things which are not food with those things which are likely to be food. At minimum, it shows that social pressure is finally eliciting some kind of action.

Here is an article about the USDA’s announcement on their GMO labeling decision:

USDA Announces First Government Approved Non-GMO Label

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Agriculture Department has developed the first government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients.

USDA’s move comes as some consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Certification would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a “USDA Process Verified” label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the department’s plan in a May 1 letter to employees, saying the certification was being done at the request of a “leading global company,” which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

Right now, there are no government labels that certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project.

Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department’s Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think “humanely raised” or “no antibiotics ever.” Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved they can market the foods with the USDA label.

“Recently, a leading global company asked AMS to help verify that the corn and soybeans it uses in its products are not genetically engineered so that the company could label the products as such,” Vilsack wrote in the letter. “AMS worked with the company to develop testing and verification processes to verify the non-GE claim.”

A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification “will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service.”

The USDA label is similar to what is proposed in a GOP House bill introduced earlier this year that is designed to block mandatory GMO labeling efforts around the country. The bill, introduced earlier this year by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., provides for USDA certification but would not make it mandatory. The bill also would override any state laws that require the labeling.

The food industry, which backs Pompeo’s bill, has strongly opposed individual state efforts to require labeling, saying labels would be misleading because GMOs are safe.

Vermont became the first state to require the labeling in 2014, and that law will go into effect next year if it survives a legal challenge from the food industry.

Genetically modified seeds are engineered in laboratories to have certain traits, like resistance to herbicides. The majority of the country’s corn and soybean crop is now genetically modified, with much of that going to animal feed. GMO corn and soybeans are also made into popular processed food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and soybean oil.

The FDA says GMOs on the market now are safe. Consumer advocates pushing for the labeling say shoppers still have a right to know what is in their food, arguing that not enough is known about the effects of the technology. They have supported several state efforts to require labeling, with the eventual goal of having a federal standard.

 

Need Another Reason to Hate Facebook?

As many of you who have known me for awhile know, I quit Facebook two years ago because of how flatly nefarious they are. The thing that threw me over the edge wasn’t really their sharing of data with the NSA, nor the algorithms they run to effectively become one with the Department of Precrime, but the fact that the extrapolation of “people of interest” in any “investigation” was extrapolated out to a factor of 6 between Facebook “friends”. So, say the Powers that Shouldn’t Be were looking at yours truly for thinking unregulated thoughts, they would include my “friends”, and their “friends, and the “friends” of those “friends, and the friends of the friends of the friend’s friends” all the way out to a factor of six friends away. Frankly, that just creeped me out. We are simply reaching entirely too much singularity and the burden of proof of innocence in any “crime”, be it real or imagined, has become one wherein you must prove your innocence against potentially digitally created guilt.

It’s enough to make one want to go Amish. But I don’t think I could blend…And there are other things, too. So that really isn’t an option. I could almost be a Luddite, too. But I’m not a technophobe, nor am I a technophile. I just believe that technology should serve us and that it can be used for greatly positive enhancements to the human experience. But if you take human dignity and accountability for preserving that dignity out of the equation, we become chattel to the entities controlling the pseudo reality in which we virtually live.

I digress. And no, it isn’t difficult to get me to digress when we are talking about such an invasive and pervasive thing as the issue of human privacy and dignity in the age of technocracy. So, without further adieu, here is the article I wanted to share with you:

Facebook DOES collect the text you decided against posting

Ever written out a status update or comment but decided against posting it? One techie has discovered Facebook collects this content, despite the company’s claims to the contrary

– See more at: http://www.information-age.com/technology/information-management/123459286/facebook-does-collect-text-you-decided-against-posting#sthash.puuUwkvB.dpuf

‘I realised that any text I put into the status update box was sent to Facebook’s servers, even if I did not click the post button’

 

Facebook collects all content that is typed into its website, even if it is not posted, a tech consultant has discovered.

In December 2013, it was reported that Facebook plants code in browsers that returns metadata every time somebody types out a status update or comment but deletes it before posting.

At the time, Facebook maintained that it only received information indicating whether somebody had deleted an update or comment before posting it, and not exactly what the text said.

>See also: War on the data beasts: don’t let Google, Facebook et al control your digital lives

However, Príomh Ó hÚigínn, a tech consultant based in Ireland, has claimed this is not the case after inspecting Facebook’s network traffic through a developer tool and screencasting software.

‘I realised that any text I put into the status update box was sent to Facebook’s servers, even if I did not click the post button,’ he wrote on his blog yesterday.

Referring to the GIF he created below, he found that a HTTP post request was sent to Facebook each time he wrote out a status, containing the exact text he entered.

‘This is outright Orwellian, and inconvenient,’ he said. ‘Since I am now aware of this, I am more cautious about what I enter into the text area.

‘However I can’t help but notice the adverse effect of my new found awareness ― am I experiencing the censorship of my own thoughts because of a faceless entity such as Facebook that doesn’t care about you? I very much believe that is the case.’

There is nothing in Facebook’s Data Policy that directly alludes to the fact that it collects content that is written but not posted.

However, the general ambiguity under the heading ‘What kinds of information do we collect?’ makes it unclear, such as: ‘We collect the content and other information you provide when you…create or share. This can include information in or about the content you provide.’

One thing is certain: most Facebook users do not expect the company to collect the text they decided against sharing.

>See also: Track record: how Facebook is normalising the privacy trade-off

The company faced a backlash in 2009 when it removed part of a clause that promised to expire the license it has to a user’s ‘name, likeness and image’, which it uses for external advertising, if they remove content from the site.

Following a protest campaign, it returned to the previous terms of use. However, it’s unclear what rights Facebook has over content that is not posted.

Information Age has contacted Facebook for comment.

– See more at: http://www.information-age.com/technology/information-management/123459286/facebook-does-collect-text-you-decided-against-posting#sthash.puuUwkvB.dpuf

Federal Reserve Official Says Bail-Ins Coming Soon

Just to be clear, I do not have a crystal ball, but I have previously published documents and articles that clearly indicate this is an option here in the US. Some are saying this is scheduled for Septemeber 2nd of this year. Please, if you are blessed enough to have any money in the banks, hedge against this and buy hard assets. This isn’t good, and there is precedent for it:

 

U.S. Preparing Bank Bail-Ins – Fed Vice Chair Fischer
Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer delivered his first speech on the U.S. and global economy in Stockholm, Sweden yesterday.

 

Fischer headed Israel’s central bank from 2005 through 2013 and is now number two at the Federal Reserve in the U.S. after Janet Yellen.

 

 

In a speech entitled, The Great Recession: Moving Ahead, given at an event sponsored by the Swedish Ministry of Finance, Fischer said that the economic recovery has been and remains “disappointing.”

 

“The recession that began in the United States in December 2007 ended in June 2009. But the Great Recession is a near-worldwide phenomenon, with the consequences of which many advanced economies–among them Sweden–continue to struggle. Its depth and breadth appear to have changed the economic environment in many ways and to have left the road ahead unclear.”

 

Speaking about the steps that have been taken internationally in order to “strengthen the financial system” and to reduce the “probability of future financial crisis,” Fischer said that the U.S. was preparing proposals for bank bail-ins for “systemically important banks.”

 

Additional steps have been taken in some countries. For example, in the United States, capital ratios and liquidity buffers at the largest banks are up considerably, and their reliance on short-term wholesale funding has declined considerably. Work on the use of the resolution mechanisms set out in the Dodd-Frank Act, based on the principle of a single point of entry–though less advanced than the work on capital and liquidity ratios–holds the promise of making it possible to resolve banks in difficulty at no direct cost to the taxpayer.

 

As part of this approach, the United States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize themselves in resolution without calling on government funding–this cushion is known as a “gone concern” buffer.”

 

Fischer’s comments that the U.S. is “preparing a proposal” for bail-ins is at odds with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Bank of England officials who have said that bail-in legislation could be used today.

 

The U.S. already has in place plans for bail-ins in the event of banks failing. Indeed, the U.S. has conducted simulation exercises with the U.K. in 2013 and again this year.

 

On October 12 2013, Art Murton, the FDIC official in charge of planning for resolutions, and the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor Paul Tucker, both confirmed that the U.S. system is ready to handle a big-bank collapse.

 

The Bank of England’s Tucker, who has worked with U.S. regulators on the cross-border hurdles to taking down an international bank said that “U.S. authorities could do it today — and I mean today.”

 

There is speculation that were Yellen to retire early Fischer would be anointed as the new Federal Reserve Chairman.

 

Fischer who previously was chief economist at the World Bank, also makes it clear that he expects ultra loose monetary policies to continue in the U.S. which will be bullish for gold and silver.

 

See our important guide to coming bail-ins here Protecting Your Savings in the Coming Bail-In Era

 

Startling? Not really…

The study that brings this “startling” information to proven status is likely the reason I dropped out of PoliSci. At any rate, it may be helpful knowledge for some, and with the stamp of academia upon the obvious, it can now be dealt with as factual. This is one of the myriad of reason why Missouri’s Amendment 1, “Right to Farm” is so horrific. We cannot affect the definitions and rule making processes very much at all. Hence the massive contraction of independent participation in actual agriculture markets and the death of the entrepreneur.

You Have Nearly Zero Impact on US Policy

 

 

A startling new political science study concludes that corporate interests and mega wealthy individuals control U.S. policy to such a degree that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

 

The startling study, titled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” is slated to appear in an upcoming issue of Perspectives on Politics and was authored by Princeton University Professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Professor Benjamin Page. An early draft can be found here.

 

Noted American University Historian Allan J. Lichtman, who highlighted the piece in a Tuesday article published in The Hill, calls Gilens and Page’s research “shattering” and says their scholarship “should be a loud wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who are bypassed by their government.”

 

The statistical research looked at public attitudes on nearly 1,800 policy issues and determined that government almost always ignores the opinions of average citizens and adopts the policy preferences of monied business interests when shaping the contours of U.S. laws.

 

The study’s findings align with recent trends, where corporate elites have aggressively pursued pro-amnesty policies despite the fact that, according to the most recent Reuters poll, 70% of Americans believe illegal immigrants “threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs,” and 63% believe “immigrants place a burden on the economy.”

 

The solution, say the scholars, is a reinvigorated and engaged electorate.

 

“If policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened,” conclude Gilens and Page.

 

Missouri Amendment 1- Vote NO!

From Michael Evans: http://www.americasvoicenow.org

 

And…. Why YOU Should Vote NO on Missouri’s Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1 – “Right To Farm”

 

On Monday, a meeting was held in a townhall style at the West Plains Civic Center so that folks could better understand the proposed Constitutional Amendment 1 aka “Right To Farm” Bill.  I attended this meeting and so I thought I would provide those who were unable to make it with a report on what transpired.  Feel free to forward to your “Circle of Influence” whether you agree with my observations or not.

 

First, let me state unequivocally that I support the unlimited protection of family farms, farmers and family ranchers.  But I firmly believe this bill will do no such thing.

 

The meeting was sponsored by supporters of the bill.  The people sitting at the ‘speaker’ table were Shawn Rhodes and a legislative employee from the Missouri Legislature.  They opened the meeting with a reading of the proposed constitutional amendment found here:

 

”That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vial sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.”

 

I asked the meeting why we didn’t word the amendment thus…

 

”That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vial sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of FAMILY farmers and FAMILY ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDsubject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.” 

 

This means infringed by anyone, for any reason, whether gov’t, political action committee, animal rights groups, or Missouri’s DNR (Department of Natural Resources).  I was told that language was ‘unacceptable’ to the legislature who couldn’t get it passed because of politics.  Translation? YOUR interests are not THEIR interests. What’s troubling is that this bill is primarily sponsored by Republicans.  (For the record, I and a large group of others spent a lot of time unsuccessfully in conference calls over the past 2 years trying to get them to use the right language because we smelled a rat going in.)

 

The primary argument from the speakers table was that this amendment was to thwart future efforts by HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) to stop the trend of injecting legislative limits on farmers similar to the Prop B ‘puppy mill’ legislation that they got approved in 2010 by appealing to the emotional side of non-farmers and non-ranchers. I would argue that livestock is already protected under state law and nobody, including the deluded HSUS can argue that your goat, cow or pig is a ‘family pet’.

 

I believe the HSUS is intent on damaging farming in Missouri. I also abhor the organization not only because they eat up the vast majority of donations in ‘administrative costs’ including fundraising, but they actively seek to undermine states’ rights, human rights and abuse laws giving corporations rights, and lastly, but most importantly, because they put animals before humans. Charity Navigator warns with their “Donor Advisory” rating, and charity watchdog Humanewatch.org gives them a D grade while others rank them equally dishonest and scurrilous.

 

However, the table argued that HSUS has raised and spent $375,000 to fight against this bill so therefore it was a good bill to vote for.  It did come out of the meeting, by attendees and not supporters) that the side supporting it (Republicans included), have spent over $1,000,000 in support of the bill.  When asked where that money came from, we were told PACs or Political Action Committees which naturally are shielded from having to reveal their donors were responsible. I might have been born at night… but it wasn’t last night!  As if they don’t know or weren’t involved in getting that financial support.

 

Since both sides are funding the passage or non-passage of this bill so heavily, and we all know money in politics points the finger of guilt to the parties that benefit the most, I would posit that both sides are using the ‘boogeyman’ fear factor of the other side to drive their members and/or constituents to vote for an Amendment which is not in the best interests of the actual family farmers and ranchers of Missouri.

 

To be sure, and I said this publicly in the meeting, everyone in the room was there for the right purpose, to protect Missouri’s agricultural heritage and industry and family farmers and ranchers, not corporations, CAFO’s and foreign gov’ts.  However, I believe that the political parties have hijacked this legislation to pass a nefarious and detrimental Constitutional Amendment that cannot later be altered or modified and will be the subject of staggering legal challenges that will leave this amendment in the hands of those who redefine words for a living; namely judges and lawyers, who definitively don’t have the best interests of the farmers and ranchers in question as their motivation. Further the Farmers/Ranchers will have to bear the legal financial burdens of fighting those battles and that’s untenable for the family farm or ranch which is barely subsisting hand to mouth. Fighting legal battles with gov’t agencies, NGO (non-governmental organizations such as HSUS), and being beaten by financial attrition, not by lack of merit, will hurt all of us in the state.

 

There was a constant refrain that, “this is the best we can get”, and “It’s a good start” towards protecting Missouri family farmers and ranchers.  I submit that there are two problems with this thinking.

 

  • First, if the best we can get from a majority legislature is a bill designed to protect Monsanto and leave future ‘interpretation’ to bureaucrats, judges and lawyers who will cost farmers/ranchers the ‘farm’ to fight for their God given rights in the first place, that shows us that neither party truly represents the interests of their ‘alleged’ constituents, and hasn’t for a very long time.
    • Passing such an amendment allows legislators to define under Missouri’s Constitution in Article VI what your rights actually are.  That section of the Constitution is hundreds of pages long and addresses everything under the sun.  In order to ‘loophole’ the new amendment for the benefit of some political supporter or crony (Can YOU say Monsanto?), the legislature can simply modify or redefine whatever they need to in Article VI to give them the dubious “Duly Authorized Power” to hijack your right to make a living while granting themselves even greater powers.
    • Ask yourself if the purpose of a Constitution is to limit gov’t or YOU?  How does giving you rights, subject to their “Duly Authorized Power” act to “bind the gov’t down with the chains of a Constitution” as per Thomas Jefferson?

 

  • Second, this is not “a good start” because you don’t modify the constitution with a law in motion. If we find later that it has poison in it, (and you can bet this was worded VERY carefully by the “elit-i-legalists” in the legislature) it cannot be simply modified.  It would require another Constitutional Amendment vote just to amend the bad amendment.
    • A Constitutional Amendment should be the final limitation of gov’t power, not a ‘starting point’ full of loopholes large enough to push Kansas City through sideways!

 

Finally, the arguments given by those in ‘official’ support was laden with the threats of the dark powers and money of the HSUS and their freedom destroying activities.  Let me be abundantly clear here… I absolutely despise anyone who sells me on waiving my rights based upon fear.  THAT IS terrorism defined, i.e. manipulation of the individuals through fear, intimidation, threat or coercion for a political end.  It makes no difference if it’s done by a guy in a suit or a uniform.

 

Frankly, I fear the Missouri DNR and the state legislature far more than an animal rights activist group who may, or may not, attempt to pass legislation or policy with the aid of the real danger here… our own legislature and the DNR.

 

When I asked why we are compromising ourselves by agreeing to a bad amendment simply because the legislature doesn’t have the brass to really honor who they should represent, (not the corporations or political bribers, …er donors), I was told again that “This is the best we could get” and “This is a good start”.  The simple truth is that our legislature has failed us over and over again. They seek to pass legislation that protects and benefits their donors and frankly that is nothing more than a polite way of saying Bribery.  I’m tired of endless promises of “more hard work to do” and “we’ll build on this” kind of talk. You don’t ‘build’ on a constitutional amendment.  That is where the final product goes, not the half-baked, loophole laden dream of a greedy self-serving political machine.

 

Again, suggested language would have done what the supporters claim this piece of misguided misdirection should actually do…..  Note the differences in RED.

 

”That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vial sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of FAMILY farmers and FAMILY ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.”  This change would have made it bulletproof to voters, and eliminated most of the expensive legal wrangling that we will see for years going forward.

 

We shouldn’t be making constitutional amendments just because our legislature wants to appease their cronies and corporate sponsors.  I was told the language proposed was right but, was ‘unacceptable’ to the legislature and couldn’t get passed.  So, ask yourself the following questions:

 

  • Did the legislature really had YOUR best interest at heart when they wrote it?
  • Should we pass a permanent modification to the Constitution because the legislature (which is supposed to have a ‘conservative’ majority) was more interested in giving you a false choice using fear as a coercion tactic?
  • If the purpose of a constitution is to ‘bind men down from mischief by the chains of a constitution’ (Thomas Jefferson), why is it that YOU are bound by this constitutional amendment?
  • Should we simply rise up, vote NO and then demand that they right the correct language and actually represent us next year in protecting Missouri Family Farmers and Family Ranchers?

 

In case you haven’t gathered already…. For the record, I’m voting NO.  This bill should be better known as the “Missouri Monsanto Protection Act”.

 

 

Michael Evans
Patriot & OathKeeper

 

Exploiting the Poor for Fascism- Monsanto Push on El Salvador

Back in the days of the cave man, when I was growing up, we were taught definitions of socialism and fascism as part of our education. Today, many people can’t distinguish fascism from communism, and communism from socialism. My guess is that it is intentional. What we are actually running under is international communism which has a huge helping of fascism evident as a helpful identifier.

Also, all of this aid tied to corporations that are in business with the federal government helps illustrate the overarching fascism. El Salvador versus Monsanto is an excellent example of this:

Monsanto and Foreign Aid: Forcing El Salvador’s Hand

 

 

U.S. foreign aid is expected to promote poverty alleviation and facilitate developmental growth in impoverished countries. Yet, corporations and special interest groups have permeated even the most well-intended of U.S. policies.

(Photo: sakhorn38 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

El Salvador is a recent example of corporate domination in U.S. foreign aid. The United States will withhold the Millennium Challenge Compact aid deal, approximately $277 million in aid, unlessEl Salvador purchases genetically-modified seeds from biotech giant, Monsanto.[1] The Millennium Challenge Corporation is “a U.S. foreign aid agency that was created by the U.S. Congress in January 2004,”[2] according to Sustainable Pulse, and serves as a conduit for foreign aid funds. MCC’s unethical aid conditions would force El Salvador to purchase controversial seeds from the American biotech corporation instead of purchasing non-GMO seeds from the country’s local farmers[3] – an action that would have negative effects on El Salvador’s agricultural industry in addition to presenting serious health and environmental risks.

The conditional foreign aid from MCC is an attempt to break into El Salvador’s non-GMO agricultural sector and exploit the food market. Because El Salvador has high food insecurity, it imports 85% of its food. This allows U.S. foreign aid organizations to take advantage of the dire need for their own monetary gain. The United States used similar aid policies in Haiti to force open Haiti’s agricultural market for U.S. food products – effectively destroying Haiti’s agricultural economy and creating an overreliance on food aid.[4]

However, at least one ranking individual is pushing back against predatory aid in El Salvador. Ricardo Navarro, President of the El Salvadoran Center for Appropriate Technologies, states, “I would like to tell the U.S. ambassador to stop pressuring the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds,” and hopes that the El Salvadoran government does not bend to U.S. pressure.[5]

El Salvador recently banned glyphosate and other chemicals in September 2013 – at the same time the MCC stopped the aid package process until “’specific’ economic and environmental reforms were made.”[6] Glyphosate herbicide is a fundamental chemical for Monsanto’s genetically-modified crops, but poses serious toxicity concerns.[7] As a result, El Salvador appears to be the most recent victim of U.S. ‘trade wars’ against countries that oppose Monsanto.[8] France – who was working to ban a Monsanto crop – was “requested to be ‘penalized’ by the United States for opposing Monsanto and genetically modified foods.”[9] Hungary and even the Vatican are also targeted by U.S. foreign policy for being anti-GMO, according to documents released by Wikileaks.[10] Despite Monsanto’s GMOcrops that pose serious health and environmental risks, U.S. officials continue to push Monsanto’s agenda in domestic and foreign policies.

Due to powerful lobbying by corporate giants like Monsanto, in addition to the shipping and agricultural industries, the U.S. government’s foreign aid program has become an encroaching business. Just when the U.S. foreign aid program couldn’t appear to be more corrupt, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, U.S. Congress, and Monsanto have raised the bar.

Notes

[1] “US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds,” RT, June 10, 2014, accessed June 11, 2014, http://rt.com/usa/165128-us-pressures-salvador-monsanto-gmo/.; “U.S. Government Ties El Salvador USD 277 M Aid Package to Monsanto’s GMO Seeds,” Sustainable Pulse, June 8, 2014, accessed June 11, 2014,http://sustainablepulse.com/2014/06/08/u-s-government-ties-el-salvador-usd-277-m-aid-package-monsantos-gmo-seeds/#.U5hCmRBCxGN.

[2] “U.S. Government Ties El Salvador USD 277 M Aid Package to Monsanto’s GMO Seeds.”

[3] Ibid; “US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds.”

[4] Haiti Grassroots Watch, “HAITI: Aid or Trade? The Nefarious Effects of U.S. Policies,” GlobalResearch, November 6, 2013, accessed June 11, 2014,http://www.globalresearch.ca/haiti-aid-or-trade-the-nefarious-effects-of-u-s-policies/5357204.

[5] “U.S. Government Ties El Salvador USD 277 M Aid Package to Monsanto’s GMO Seeds.”

[6] “US pressures El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds.”

[7] Ibid.

[8] Anthony Gucciardi, “Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO crops,” Natural Society, January 3, 2012, accessed June 11, 2014,http://naturalsociety.com/us-start-trade-wars-with-nations-opposed-to-monsanto-gmo-crops/.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Allison Crawford, “Monsanto Launches ‘Trade Wars’ on Opposing Nations,” Health Wire, September 12, 2012, accessed June 11, 2014,http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/food/77.

 

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries