Posts Tagged Governments
July 27, 2012
Source Links and video text for Today’s Items are located at:
Documentary – The Truth Behind The Energy Lie [Suppression Of Technological Evolution, The Evidence]
Technological suppression has been going on rampantly for quite some time – at least a few decades, if not longer. The Thrive documentary for instance, touches upon free energy quite well. And this is not the only documentary, that has ever spoken openly about this. The film below catalogs truths & lies behind the energy suppression/deception currently taking place in order for a select few to cling to power, control, & profits.
If a civilization truly wishes to consider itself civilized, it must embrace all technological and scientific advances. The suppression of any technological advance, can not be tolerated if we wish to be a ‘civil’ization. We must ask ourselves if we are working for the benefit of all mankind, or working for the benefit of governments and corporations. The fact that we are unnecessarily poisoning our planet, our home, when their are numerous solutions, raises several questions as to why these technologies are being suppressed. The root of the problem is almost entirely one thing, greed. We as a society can no longer focus our entire efforts into what is profitable, because what is profitable is not always right, and what is right is not always profitable.
On June 12, a leaked copy of the investment chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was made public. This copy was analyzed by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and has been verified as authentic. This agreement has been negotiated IN SECRET for 2-1/2 years and no information has ever been released until this leak. So why have the details of this negotiation been so secret? This agreement has been framed as a “free trade” agreement and yet out of 26 chapters only two have anything to do with trade. The other 24 chapters grant new corporate privileges and rights, while limiting governments and protective regulations.
If implemented, this agreement will hard code corporate dominance over sovereign governments into international law that will supercede any federal, state, or local laws of any member country. This TPP agreement alone should set alarm bells ringing, but if one steps back and looks at the larger picture, the future ramifications look even more ominous. After completing this reading, see what your conclusions are.
This video is a must see for anyone who wishes to more fully understand the implications of this secretly negotiated agreement. This article will also show how if this agreement is considered in the context of other recently passed legislation and developments, and the “dots are connected”, the results would be total corporate global governance with an accompanying police state. In this new system the role of elected governments would be to serve as subservient agents for the transnational corporations, while the armies, police, and courts would serve the interests of these transnational corporations. The status of the member states would be locked-in, similar to countries once they are inside the Eurozone.
The TPP is being negotiated by some of the same cast of characters that brought us NAFTA, CAFTA and other so called free trade agreements. Some of the provisions in this document include the establishment of a parallel system of justice to be administered by 3 attorneys with no conflict of interest limitations. This 3 attorney tribunal could order sovereign governments to use taxpayer money to pay these transnational corporations for any environmental or regulatory costs that these corporations expended to meet local standards. Many existing laws would need to be rewritten and no new regulatory laws could be passed.
Governments that tried to pass regulations such as limits on the financial industry using risky bets such as derivatives would have the burden of proof to defend such regulations in a court system controlled by the corporations. The taxpayers would pay should a corporation prevail in one of these “private courts”. In fact over $350 million of taxpayer money has already been paid out to corporations under the NAFTA style deals, because of zoning laws, toxic bans, timber rules and other regulations. This TPP agreement is like NAFTA on steroids. This corporate tribunal bears a resemblance to the private US Supreme Court approved binding arbitrationthat corporations use to severely limit an individual’s or a group’s right to sue for damages. With binding arbitration we essentially have a “ private corporate court system ” outside of any government judicial system where the corporations choose the arbitrators and pay for their services. This creates an apparent conflict of interest because the arbitrators know that if they do not rule favorably to the corporations in the majority of cases, they will not be hired back.
The kangaroo courts setup by this TPP agreement will have binding corporate guarantees with both trade and cash sanctions. These cash sanctions would effectively transfer taxpayer money to transnational corporate coffers. Can you imagine the excesses we will see in the financial industry as they challenge regulations within their own private court system forcing governments to pay or eliminate them?
The result of these corporate tribunals will be to setup a race to the bottom, where if one country chooses not to regulate something, then the corporations would be able to sue the other nations inside of the TPP to have taxpayers cover their losses for any such regulations. These other countries would be vulnerable to corporate led lawsuits to be decided in the corporate tribunals.
So how could such an extreme agreement that literally gives corporations everything they could possibly want have been negotiated with little or no resistance? The answer is that the ONLY way this agreement could ever pass is if everything is done in secret and the details never see the light of day. Lori Wallach , the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch recently said:
“These agreements are a little bit like Dracula. You drag them in the sunshine, and they do not fare well. But all of us, and also across all of the countries involved, there are citizen movements that are basically saying that this is not in our name. We don’t need global enforceable corporate rights. We need more democracy. We need more accountability.”
These talks have been so secret that Senator Ron Wyden, chairman of the Trade Committee in the Senate which has jurisdiction over trade agreements has been denied any access to information on the negotiations for over 2-1/2 years. This is a man who is on the Intelligence Committee and has access to nuclear secrets, yet he cannot see this TPP agreement? On the Democratic side, Senator Wyden has introduced legislation to force the Obama administration to make the details of these secret negotiations available to the Senate Committee.
On the Republican side, Representative Darryl Issa has also questioned the Obama administration’s extreme levels of secrecy on this agreement. This is not a liberal cause, this is not a conservative cause, this is a common cause. It is vital that the public be aware of this TPP agreement because BOTH of the 2012 presidential candidates are supporting this agreement. Since TPP was negotiated under the watch of the Obama administration, and Mitt Romney has indicated that he wants to quickly complete negotiations of this bill, the results of the next election will be irrelevant to the future status of this bill.
With the corporate takeover of sovereign governments, we see the very essence of a global fascist system. When most people think of fascism, they think of Hitler brown shirts marching through the streets, however, that is not the real definition of fascism. Fascism was defined by President Franklin Roosevelt:
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group”
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes
[NaturalNews] As we have warned often here at NaturalNews, the concept of personal privacy – that quaint, Fourth Amendment constitutional protection that supposedly guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” - is all but gone these days, thanks in large part to the Information and Technology Age.
Just last week, you may recall, Apple, Inc., committed the latest breach of privacy, despite its prior claims of being one of the toughest apps screening tech companies. The company, The New York Times reported, was caught “handing out people’s address books as if they were sausage samples on a toothpick at the supermarket.”
Since then, believe it or not, http://www.naturalnews.com, so they could track the online browsing habits and behavior of users.
Pattern of abuse
These latest examples came only after a pattern of similar privacy abuses that have increased in frequency – and, apparently, in acceptance in legal and policymaking circles – over the past few years.
Last May, we reported that Apple iPhones and Google’s Android smartphones were spying on its users. Programs used by the phones “regularly transmit their locations back to Apple and Google,” as part of the companies’ attempts to build huge databases that will enable them to pinpoint where you are. It was a revelation that Apple, at least, wound up admitting.
In September, http://www.naturalnews.com. The social media giant was caught by an Australian entrepreneur and writer, Nik Cubrilovic, tracking users’ online activity, even when they weren’t logged into Facebook.
There are scores of other examples as well, but you get the idea.
Without question, the technology companies – Google, Apple, Sony, Facebook – are in large part responsible for the diminishing strength of privacy protections. But, as The New York Times tech writer Nick Bilton says, some of the blame can also be laid at our feet.
“The argument that if consumers care about their privacy they shouldn’t use these technologies is a cop-out. This technology is now completely woven into every part of society and business. We didn’t tell people who wanted safer cars simply not to drive. We made safer cars,” he writes.
The same techniques could, and should, be applied now to technology. Lawmakers and policymakers should be well advised that privacy violations are only going to get worse; to fix the problem, new laws and policies aimed at protecting consumer privacy are likely to be needed, as a way to strengthen and reaffirm the Fourth Amendment.
Going the wrong way
With that said, the privacy pendulum seems to be swinging the wrong way. Just this week a federal appeals court ruled that police don’t need a search warrant to search a suspect’s cell phone. The court said any evidence that was contained on a cell phone could be deleted or erased so it was “vital” police be allowed to check phones immediately when they make an arrest – no warrant needed. Mind you, a suspect is just that, a suspect who has yet to be convicted of anything.
Christopher N. Olsen, assistant director in the division of privacy and identity protection at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), told The New York Times that with more privacy violations coming, lawmakers will be under increasing pressure to pass legislation protecting citizens.
“Industry should redouble its efforts to focus on privacy issues, or they may face additional pressure in form of legislation from Congress,” he said, though clearly industry is primarily the problem. Tech companies seem to be the biggest violators of privacy.
“Companies need to look at privacy issues in terms of consumer needs, baking in privacy by design when building apps, so you’re not trying to do it afterwards,” Patricia Poss, chief of the mobile technology unit at the FTC, told the Times, as a way to avoid government regulation that could stifle innovation as well.
“They should think about it every step of the way, and really consider privacy at every stage of product development,” she said.
We won’t hold our breath.
Word of the day is back! This is our special segment where Lauren breaks down a financial term or concept for our very smart viewer but maybe not the financial expert. Today, in light of LTRO 2.0 as we call it, the word is quite appropriately “Carry Trade.” Now, the Longer-term Refinancing Operation (LTRO) is what some call quantitate easy for the eurozone, but instead of the ECB monetizing sovereign debt outright, it is lending the money to banks so that they can do it over the yield curve.
Now, the official definition that we would like to use for Carry Trade is as follows: A transaction where someone borrows at a low interest rate and invests in an asset that yields a higher rate, making money on the spread. One commonly see’s carry trades in connection with currencies. For example, many remember the Yen carry trade, that began its last major reversal in the summer of 2007, with noticeable results for anyone who had taken out a loan in yen and invested in higher yielding assets denominated in some other currency (mortgage holders in eastern europe for example). In situations like that, where someone engages in a carry trade using one currency in exchange for another, there is a great amount of risk involved because if something causes rapid currency appreciation (in this scenario, if the yen were to start appreciating) then the borrower could quickly find himself underwater riding on a negative real interest spread.
However, in the case of LTRO 1 and now LTRO 2, the trade is slightly different. The borrower is still making a profit by playing a spread differential, otherwise known as arbitrage, but there is really not much risk involved, and of course, the borrowing happens in the same currency. Effectively, the ECB is allowing banks to borrow at 1% over a 3-year horizon (locking in a low rate for 3 years) and then take that money and invest it in assets yielding a higher rate. The banks can pledge collateral that, objectively, is worth less than the assets they plan to buy. This is a pure and simple subsidy for the banking sector, as the ECB is taking on risks as well as losses, so that the private sector banks don’t have to. It is also a great way to get insolvent banks the liquidity they need to turn-over their debts in a timely manner over the next three years. It’s a can kicking exercise.
In our example, the ECB prints 530 billion euros (which is what the recent LTRO auction turned out to be for), and then lends that to various banks in return for collateral. The bank in our hypothetical scenario borrows 10 billion euros from the ECB LTRO auction facility and then takes that new money and lends it to, say the Italian government at 4%. The interest rate differential between the cost of borrowing and the return on lending is 3%, and this is the rate arbitrage profit that the bank makes. In this case, it would be 300 million euros.
Now, just a reminder for our audience, the second round the longer-term refinancing operation (LTRO) had a total of 800 banks participating, with the ECB specifically allotting 529.53 billion euros in the three-year refinancing. This compares to the first LTRO in December of 2011, where the ECB loaned out 489 billion euros to 523 banks.
Wikileaks has started releasing over five million emails from a private intelligence-gathering firm based in Texas. The firm, Statfor, serves clients of all ranges, from corporations to government agencies. Wikileaks has reportedly obtained the emails from the hacktivist group Anonymous. Although no breaking news has been created, the documents show that several huge corporations are working with the intelligence firm. In fact, the emails reveal yet another layer of the massive and profitable military industrial complex. For more RT’s Liz Wahl is joined by Jason Bermas, radio host and filmmaker.
Today the Supreme Court took on a case that could decline whether or not corporations can be sued over torture. The case involves about a dozen Nigerian activists that say Shell Oil’s parent company helped the Nigerian government in violently cracking down on anti-oil protesters. But the multinational company argues – they are not liable because they are not “Natural persons.” In other words, since corporations are not people, they cannot be sued for human rights violations. Caroline Heldman of Occidental College has had her say on the matter.
Solicitation calls for camps to be ready for occupancy within 72 hours
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is looking for contractors to construct temporary emergency camps inside the United States which can be ready for occupancy within a 72 hour time period and used to house emergency responders as well as “displaced citizens”.
The National Responder Support Camp contract, posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website, calls on contractors to “provide all necessary supervision, professional staff, labor support, material, supplies and equipment as necessary to make a RSC within a disaster-impacted area anywhere within the CONUS (Continental United States) within 72 hours after notification.”
The camps are primarily designed to house emergency responders, but will also be utilized to shelter “displaced citizens,” who will be “given the first opportunities for employment within the camp,” according to the solicitation. The camps will be able to service up to 2,000 people at one time.
As well as natural disasters, the 72-hour camps are designed to deal with terrorist attacks, National Response Framework activities of federal agencies, National Special Security Events, “or any other situation where FEMA or an agency working through FEMA needs a RSC.”
The camps will be secured with fencing and barricades that will also serve to create areas that are “off limits” to certain occupants. Entry to the camp will be controlled through a photo ID system for all occupants and visitors.
Medical treatment facilities, dining facilities, mobile showers and “morale welfare and recreation” facilities are all required as part of the contract.
FEMA’s latest efforts to satisfy the demand for emergency camps represents a continuation of preparations on behalf of the federal government to prepare for civil emergencies and potential social disorder.
Last December, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.
In 2006, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.
Last year we received a leaked memofrom a state government employee detailing KBR’s efforts to hire subcontractors to provide services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States, indicating that many of the camps have now been constructed and are ready for use.
The construction of new detention camps inside the United States has provoked fears that the facilities could also be used to intern American citizens in the aftermath of a national emergency.
Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.
During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”
A provision within the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Obama on New Years Eve, hands the government power to have American citizens arrested and detained without trial.
February 25, 2012
Global Geoengineering Governance: Currently the U.S. Government, our military, NASA, NOAA (other U.S. agencies), any city, county, state, private indivduals, corporations, foreign governments, and foreign corporations, can initiate any type of geoengineering experiments without public knowledge, consent, government restrictions or public debate.