Sunday, December 19, 2010

Wikileaks' Assange's Lawyer has connections to Rothschilds | Wake Up From Your Slumber

Wikileaks' Assange's Lawyer has connections to Rothschilds

3.166665

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (6 votes)

It has emerged recently that Assange is in the UK since October which means that all those three successive and massive US documents "leaks" have been orchestrated by him from his secret residence in the UK.

So why is this done from the UK. The answer is because that is where he is the closest from his masters, the super powerful dynastic Rothschild banking and zionist family.

And now here comes the proof that this is indeed the case:

Assange's lawyer is the prominent Mark Stephens whose law firm Finers Stephens Innocent is legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust which is concerned with the "maintenance, improvement and payment of certain of the outgoings in respect of Waddesdon Manor (Rothschild's most prestigious property in the UK) in the Vale of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire."

The Wadesdon Trust's board of trustees is chaired by the Queen''s former Private Secretary Lord Fellowes and has three Rothschild family members as trustees, Lord (Jacob) Rothschild, Lady Rothschild (his wife) and Beth Matilda Rothschild. It is domiciled 14 St James's Place in London which is also the London address of Lord Jacob Rothschild and his high profile wealth management business St. James's Place Group (formerly J. Rothschild Assurance Group).

http://www.charityperformance.com/charity-details.php?id=17426

Besides that, and as a side note, Mark Stephens law firm Finers Stephens Innocent appears to have a strong focus in providing tax avoidance advisory services to mega-rich customers (see Michael Lewis and Simon Malkiel particularly) such as, I suspect, Sir Philip Green who advises the government on how to recover the mega money his and his peers avoid to pay in taxes thanks to the services of Finers Stephens Innocent's lawyers by squeezing public services, etc....

http://www.fsilaw.com/

In summary Assange's lawyer is a high profile establishment lawyer whose law firm works for the Rothschilds.

It seems to me that this is proof enough that Assange is a Rothschild puppet and that Wikileaks is a Rothschild operation.

Source: David Icke Forums, posted by secretagent

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Friday, December 17, 2010

California approves first US cap and trade scheme | Environment | guardian.co.uk

California approves first US cap and trade scheme

California regulators approve nation's first system that gives polluters financial incentives to emit fewer greenhouse gases

A plane ready to land in San Diego, California A plane ready to land in San Diego, California. California is aiming to create the second-largest carbon trading market in the field, after Europe. Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters

California regulators yesterday approved the first system in the United States to give polluting companies such as utilities and refineries financial incentives to emit fewer greenhouse gases.

The Air Resources Board voted 9-1 to pass the key piece of California's 2006 climate law – called AB32 – with the hope that other states will follow the lead of the world's eighth largest economy. State officials are also discussing plans to link the new system with similar schemes that are underway or being planned in Canada, Europe and Asia.

California is launching into a "historic adventure," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the state's air quality board.

"We're inventing this," she said. "There is still going to be quite a bit of action needed before it becomes operational."

California is trying to "fill the vacuum created by the failure of Congress to pass any kind of climate or energy legislation for many years now," said Nichols.

A standing-room only board chambers featured testimony from more than 170 witnesses. Outside the chambers, climate change sceptics held signs reading "Global Warming: Science by Homer Simpson."

Some businesses that would fall under the new rules say the system could dampen California's already flagging economy, complicate lawmakers' efforts to close a $28.1bn (£18bn) revenue shortfall and lead to an increase in the price of electricity.

The rate increases, however, would still need approval from the state.

The governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, told the board he is sensitive to the recession, but argued that many of the new jobs being created under the system are in the clean technology industry.

"The real jobs we're creating right now are green jobs. Since 2006 or so green jobs have been created 10 times faster than in any other sector, so it's also an economic plus," he said.

But he said reducing greenhouse gas pollution is not just about climate change, but about human health and national security.

"I despise the fact that we send $1bn a year to foreign places for our oil and to places that hate us. We send this money to people that hate us and that are organising terrorists and trying to blow up our country," he said.

Supporters say the system will help spur economic recovery and innovation, pushing business to invest in clean technologies.

They say the billions of dollars the state collects in the system could help fund clean air programmes and help offset any increases in utility rates. Details of the uses of these new funds is still uncertain.

California has already enacted the strictest climate-related regulations in the country involving renewable energy mandates for utilities, tighter fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and low-carbon fuel standards.

The state's landmark climate law had a 1 January 2011 deadline for devising and enacting the so-called cap-and-trade system.

In the US, New Mexico narrowly approved its own cap-and-trade programme last month and approved the state's participation in a regional market. There is another market proposed in the Midwest and in New England.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Tea Party: You're Not Going to Ban my Cul de Sac | dagblog

Tea Party: You're Not Going to Ban my Cul de Sac

After the 'ballots or bullets' midterm elections, Tea Party activists looked around and discovered that while they had been saving Americans from health care reform,  a global demon (second only to Soros) had infiltrated their local communities.

Specifically, it came to their attention that local planning agencies who promote Sustainable Development are actually under the control of the United Nations, and intend to abolish private property, free enterprise and individual liberty as laid out in the UN's Agenda 21.

Really.

OK, so what we have here is Sustainable Development, defined as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" and Agenda 21, the 1992 UN program that creates the programs, policies and strategies to implement the agenda necessary for a sustainable world. Thus a conspiracy theory is born,  bare bones Blowing Smoke style.

Here's how it shakes out down the slippery slope.  At the local level, cul de sacs are banned in favor of bike-sharing (remember Colorado's Republican wannabe governor, Dan Maes?).  Before you know it, golf courses, cars, and air-conditioning have gone down their final cul de sac and the citizens are living in their little 'hobbit homes'  in "human habitation zones" within the cities. Under Agenda 21's agenda for wealth distribution, which destroys free enterprise and individual liberty, it is only a small step to the abolition of private property and the Constitution, which will then "...bring socialism (communism) to the United States and the world through fake environmentalism. It is the backdoor plan the globalists are using to establish tyranny and it is making inroads into communities across America."

Because tea partiers aren't the types that spend their time at home, particularly time at home researching 'facts', they have started attending local public meetings armed with Power Points and handouts with imaginary facts on Agenda 21. I used to work for a consulting group that planned these local meetings, and I can just imagine the astonishment and incredulousness the planners must feel upon hearing proclamations of "smart growth communism" and "human habitation zones" when discussing public transit.

The worst of the worst cities are the ones that have joined ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives).  If you would like to check your city's status, click here for the 'City of Shame' list. Information on how to combat Agenda 21, whether your city is on the list or not, can be found here.  If your city is on the list, a Misprision of Treason letter warning your local officials that they have violated their oath by implementing foreign policies that are inconsistent with the Constitution, is ready to go after filling in a few blanks.

What motivates the tea drinkers to believe that Sustainable Development is a high speed route to tyranny and loss of liberty?  As Stephanie Mencimer notes in the Mother Jones article, tea partiers believe they are the Real Americans and real Americans live in the suburbs and rural areas.   Consider Sarah Palin's book tours. They take place in the small towns of Real America,  like Noblesville, Ind., Roanoke, Va., Washington, Pa., military bases at Fort Bragg and Fort Hood, and the Villages, a GOP-friendly retirement community outside Orlando, Fla.

The rest of America, the elites, according to the Tea Party, live in the cities.  As President of the Harvard Law Review, Barak Obama told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”

In article after article, the press has enumerated the problems attached to suburbs, prophesied the decline of suburbia and suggested that today's suburban McMansions will be tomorrow's McNightmares.  Then, after the glow of the midterm elections, the second largest newspaper in the country offers this analysis:  "Republicans do the best in areas that are typically not growing very fast and don't look like the present, or certainly the future, of the country."

"Conservatives who are committed to the notion that liberals represent the interests of an alien class of people who hate and oppress "real Americans" tend to be averse to any kind of political compromise. Distrusting the intentions of their opponents, they assume that liberal policies are not well-intentioned proposals to help the country but merely schemes to disenfranchise and persecute white Christian conservatives…"

[...]

 …[T]he growth of persecution politics has brought the fringe ideas to the mainstream and turned far-right crackpots into electable candidates." [Blowing Smoke, pp 260-261]

Photo: Empty cul-de-sacs fill an area south of Rotonda West in Charlotte County, Florida. Map, Street View. (© Google) #

 

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

The Big Brother app: New iPhone download that lets you tell tales on your neighbours | Mail Online

Informing on your neighbours? There's an app for that: Big Brother iPhone download encourages you to spy

By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 8:50 AM on 15th December 2010


Patriot App

Patriot App has been criticised for encouraging neighbours to report each other

It claims to be a handy way to make you a ‘better citizen’.

But a new app for the iPhone has been condemned by critics who claim it is turning mobile users into a network of government spies.

The PatriotApp links your phone to American security and law enforcement agencies via the Internet and allows you to report anything you want at the touch of a button.

By simply pressing the relevant icon, users can sound the alarm for terrorism, ‘suspicious activity’, a health pandemic or an environmental safety issue.

The $0.99 app, named after the controversial Patriot Act brought in by the U.S. government after 9/11, is designed to ‘encourage active citizen participation in the War on Terror and in protecting their families and surrounding communities’, its makers Citizen Concepts claim.

But critics say it is like putting Big Brother in the palm of your hand and could easily be open to abuse by those with questionable agendas.

The app works by making a direct link between your phone and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The software also links up to your Facebook and Twitter page meaning you can post alerts on there if needed.

There are options to report ‘government waste’ and a forum for employee whistleblowers whilst other features include a shortcut to the FBI’s Most Wanted Internet page, in case you think you see a suspect out and about.

Citizen Concepts claim that the app will allow citizens to record and reports issues of National Security, government waste, white collar crime, workplace harassment, discrimination, and public health concerns.

But since its announcement, technology bloggers and commentators have savaged the company’s motives.

Technology blog Infowars.com wrote that it was little more than the launch of the ‘iPhone snitch network’.

‘An app like this is meant to solidify the climate of fear in which our leaders want us to exist,’ they wrote.

On Mobilecrunch, Ashley commented: ‘It really does sound like big brother is watching you!’

And on InfoTech.com Erin Monda said: ‘While I suppose this level of connectivity would be helpful, I am deeply cautious about what a degree of overzealousness might lead to.

‘It’s not 1984 yet - thankfully - but there may still be cause for concern.’

Passed in October 2001 with little debate in Congress, the Patriot Act gave U.S. law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to monitor the the personal habits of not only those who have been identified as suspected terrorists, but anyone residing in the United States as well as United States citizens residing abroad.

The law for the first time forced third parties holding personal date to give it up to law enforcement officers without telling the individual concerned, and significantly expanded the use of wiretaps.

A storm of criticism followed, fuelled by a string of cases where federal investigators had invoked the act for purposes it was not intended such as targeting journalists and illegal file sharers who breached copyright law.

Citizen Concepts co-owner Dr Roy Swiger defended the PatriotApp.

‘PatriotApp is a real-world solution for real-world problems...the ever-present threat of terrorism, demonstrate the need for such an application,’ he said.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Police Arrested Twelve Year Old Boy for Refusing Vaccine at School | vactruth.com

Police Arrested Twelve Year Old Boy for Refusing Vaccine at School

A child of twelve was charged with ‘threatening behaviour’ at his school in Bowmanville, East of Toronto last week. The arrest happened when the boy (who cannot be named for legal reasons) threw a tantrum refusing the Hepatitis B vaccine. The National Post reported (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010…) that police were brought into Ross Tilley Public School because the boy had threatened to damage the school. Unfortunately, the report failed to give the reason why the child was refusing the vaccine or what made him so angry.

The National Post said:

“Officers consulted with the Crown attorney’s office and charged the boy with threatening, a criminal charge police said was justified: “due to the age of the child and concerns over public safety.”

This may or may not be true; however, at no time did there appear to be any concern for this child’s welfare. There may have been many reasons why the twelve year old did not want to be vaccinated. These range from being afraid of the needle to being worried about the possible side effects.  It could be that Hepatitis B is in fact a disease that is mainly transmitted through sexual intercourse or sharing dirty drug needles!

For the side effects for more information on the Hep B vaccine please read – Drugs.Com,  Side Effects of Hepatitis B vaccine – for the Consumer (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/…)


It appears from the report that it is perfectly OK to give this vaccine to the children at school but it is clearly not an option for any child to refuse to have it. Having the police brought into the school sends out the message to the other children that they must not refuse the vaccine. Clearly this child did not want to have the vaccine and was subsequently treated like a criminal/animal as a result.

But is it perfectly OK to force vaccinate a child if that child refuses the vaccine?

Hospitals and schools are supposed to use a law called the Gillick law to establish whether a child is competent enough to decide whether they want/do not want a medical procedure.

When a parent does not want their child to have a vaccine a child has the right to decide that they want the vaccine and overrule their parents wishes by using the Gillick law. A recent document entitled The Royal College of Nursing Signpost Guide: Nurse-led Immunisation of School Aged Children explains the Gillick law as follows:

“…even if a child is under 16, she or he might be able to give consent to medical treatment providing that they have sufficient understanding of the proposed procedure.” (http://www.rcn.org.uk/…)

However, a child may also refuse medical treatment even if the treatment is life-saving.

Although the Gillick law originally was approved for use in England it is now used worldwide.

The following article explains how this law has been applied  to cases in Canada (http://www.highbeam.com/doc…) or in full here (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal…):

When children refuse medical treatment: role of government and assessments; a standardized test to assess a child’s maturity and understanding would help judges in their Solomonic roles to render more uniform decisions.(Canada)

To determine the law in Canada they use the Medical Consent of Minors Act, R.S.N.B. 1976, c. M-6.I.

CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS, AND HEALTH CARE – Canadian law and Policy (http://library.athabascau.ca…) by Julie Gilmore explains the act in full. She says: “Treating without consent can give rise to tort, criminal and professional disciplinary liability.”

We have to consider at this point whether arresting the 12 year old was protecting him while respecting his wishes to refuse medical treatment.

Can a 12 year old be mature and competent enough to understand the consequences of not having a vaccine? If he is deemed competent and mature enough to be arrested then one would pressume that he was.

In the UK the Gillick law was used in the case of Hannah Jones. This was a young lady aged 13 who required a life saving heart transplant as a result of treament for leukemia. Hannah felt that she had had enough, she felt tired and wanted to go home and spend the rest of days there. She said: “I am not a normal 13 year old. I am a very deep thinker. I have had to be, with my illness. It’s hard to know I’m going to die, but I also know what is best for me.”

However, the hospital decided that Hannah was too young to make this decision.  Hannah’s parents wanted to honour Hannah’s wishes to stop the treatment and allow their daughter to return home. The hospital used the Gilliack law saying that the girl did not know her own mind and took the case case to court asking for police to be sent in to Hannah’s home and to temporarily remove Hannah from her parents so that the transplant could go ahead. The hospital accused her parents of being ‘bad parents’ for preventing Hannah’s treatment.

Fortunately the court decided to uphold the girls wishes. See the full story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail…)

The case in the National Post only gave the public a one sided version of the story. It seems neither the boy nor his parents were interviewed. Therefore, reading between the lines, one can only assume that this lad was being forcibly vaccinated. If this was the case, then we should ask ourselves, “Was the correct person arrested in this instance?” If the child was old enough and competent enough to be arrested, then according to the Medical Consent of Minors Act, R.S.N.B. 1976, c. M-6.I., he was well within his rights to refuse this vaccine.

It is stated here (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal) that a doctor may not agree with a patient’s decision to reject medical attention including vaccines, but as long as the child is capable of making that decision, the doctor must respect it. It is clear that the 12 year should have been tested to establish whether he was Gillick competent. If this did not happen then according to the Canadian Act it was the school who broke the law regardless to what this child did or did not threaten. Since when have schools become doctors?

In conclusion, it is clear that the 12 year should have been tested to establish whether he was Gillick competent. If this did not happen, then according to the Canadian Law it was the school officials that the police should have arrested because the school officials violated this young man’s freedom of choice.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Obama's new tax on...Rainwater!? | Americans for Prosperity

Obama's new tax on...Rainwater!?

Would President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency really force Americans to pay a tax on "rainwater runoff" from homes and small businesses?

You bet they would.  In fact, the EPA, under radical environmentalist Lisa Jackson, is proposing regulations to do just that. 

Take a look at the EPA's own Federal Register filing, where the EPA generally describes the initiative it's proposing:

...requirements, including design or performance standards, for stormwater discharges from, at minimum, newly developed and redeveloped sites. EPA intends to propose regulatory options that would revise the NPDES regulations and establish a comprehensive program to address stormwater discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites and to take final action no later than November 2012. (Source)

This is bureaucratic-speak for having the EPA force cities and counties to limit stormwater runoff to levels the EPA deems acceptable.  Limiting "rainwater runoff" will mean forcing homeowners and businesses to pay new taxes in order to rein in rainwater, and that's no pun intended. 

Think about just how big-government this is.  A Washington, D.C. bureaucracy plans on forcing your local county or city to slap new taxes on you and me because this big-government bureaucracy wants to micro-manage rainwater across the entire country.  Already, several counties and cities across the United States are moving to pass new taxes and fees in anticipation of the new EPA rules, including cities in states as disparate as Florida, Ohio and Kansas.  For more details CLICK HERE

But really, this new EPA outrage is part of the pattern of the Obama Administration.  Cap-and-trade is bogged down for now in the Senate (though they'll try to bring it back this year), so the liberals try to use an un-elected bureaucracy to pass their radical agenda.  First, they declared that greenhouse gases are a "threat" to the environment and to health, so they're pushing new regulations that will in effect pass cap-and-trade without Congress having to act.  Now, they're pushing this new "rainwater runoff" tax.

Just last month, Americans for Prosperity launched a national effort to stop this big government over-reach by the EPA.  We're calling it the Regulation Reality Tour™, and we launched it in Arkansas with events across the state.  Click HERE for photos. On April 19 we will begin the second leg of our tour in Colorado, with a third leg launching in Indiana and Ohio in early May.  I hope to see you on the road as we take on Obama's EPA!

Our goal is simple: educate Americans on the threat to their freedoms and our economy from the EPA's arrogant, nutty agenda.  The EPA's head, Lisa Jackson, attended the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen where she stated her intention to "transform" the way the American economy works using her bureaucracy.  I was there in the room and heard her say it. 

EPA is such a runaway bureaucracy at this point that only Congress can stop them.  Thankfully, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has a proposal to do just that.  Murkowski has a resolution of disapproval—which would stop EPA in its tracks—that has been gathering steam, but we need your help to put her over the top.  CLICK HERE to take action and tell your senators to support S.J.Res. 26.  Make sure they know you will hold them accountable if they don't help pass Murkowski's resolution.  Any lawmakers who won't stand up to stop the EPA are complicit in the onerous regulations they are trying to pass.

Spring is here.  All things begin anew.  And that includes renewing the fight for our freedoms.

PS:  I just finished a father/son trip with my 16-year-old twin boys.  It was great fun.  On the airplane especially, my sons talked about what they wanted to do in the years to come.  Hearing them talk about their futures, I was reminded of something Ronald Reagan said – freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.  As usual, President Reagan was right.  Let's make sure we keep doing our part to ensure that our generation passes on to our children and grandchildren the same freedoms we enjoyed.

Please click here to contact your senators and tell them to stop the EPA.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Cheat Sheet: Where the Fed's Trillions Went | TPM LiveWire

Cheat Sheet: Where the Fed's Trillions Went

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend send to a friend -->

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

More Topics

-->

by Marian Wang, ProPublica

A provision in the financial reform law forced the Federal Reserve to disclose the details of the trillions it lent out at the height of the recent financial crisis.

You can see the data from some of the Fed's emergency lending programs in our interactive. In all, there were 11 programs -- a mess of confusing acronyms like AMLF, TALF, PDCF, CPFF and so on -- but generally speaking, they were designed to stabilize the economy by enabling financial firms to keep many forms of lending going at a time when credit was hard to come by. Here's a rundown of what's come to light from this data so far.

The big U.S. banks

Following the failure of Lehman Brothers the biggest U.S. banks had tabs with the Fed that ran in the tens of billions on any given day during the worst parts of the financial crisis. Big banks typically got funds through more than one program because they were eligible for different types of loans.

As our interactive shows, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley topped the list, with more than 200 loans each, though Bank of America and Goldman Sachs weren't far behind. (The Wall Street Journal has helpfully graphed this out.)

In order to take out these cheap overnight loans, banks had to pledge collateral. More than $1 trillion of what they pledged, the New York Times reported, was junk-rated investments. The Fed has said, however, that it hasn't lost money on this program or on any of the others.

Foreign banks

Foreign banks were also big borrowers under several of the Fed's lending programs. UK bank Barclays, Bloomberg reported, took out the single biggest overnight loan -- $48 billion -- from a program for financial firms pre-approved to trade directly with the Federal Reserve. Under another program, Swiss bank UBS took out close to $75 billion overall -- more than any other bank in that program.

While the lending to foreign banks has been a point of criticism since the data's release, NPR's Adam Davidson explained that foreign central banks also lent to the overseas arms of U.S. banks and that the Fed felt that in order to stabilize the market, they needed to shore up foreign banks too:

This was two years ago, and over the course of the last two years, when the financial world was falling apart, the Fed had a whole lot of fears. One of the biggest fears was that a bank like, say, UBS, the huge Swiss multinational, they owned billions and billions of dollars in those U.S. subprime mortgage-backed securities, those toxic assets we heard so much about. And the Fed was terrified that if UBS couldn't borrow from the Fed, they would just sell tons of those at bargain-basement prices. Our mortgage crisis was already bad enough. If we added tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in new mortgage-backed securities just flooding the system, it would have been truly, truly disastrous.

Banks that ended up failing

Though most of these banks survived with the Fed's help, the Times also pointed out that 20 or so banks that received Fed assistance still failed. Washington Mutual -- the largest U.S. bank to fail -- received billions before it collapsed and was taken over by JPMorgan Chase. Others included smaller community banks, such as First National Bank of Nevada, First Federal Bank of California and La Jolla Bank. Despite those setbacks, the overall program didn't lose money.

Hedge funds and rich investors

One of the Fed's programs, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, was "designed to encourage very broad participation, as long as borrowers met specific eligibility criteria," a Fed spokesman told the Wall Street Journal. The program allowed hedge funds and investors to take out $71 billion in loans from the Fed to buy bonds backed by student, auto and small business loans -- moving these loans off the books of banks and encouraging continued lending based on the heightened investor demand.

As it turned out, the Fed ultimately financed some high-return investments for institutional investors, investors in hedge funds and some individual investors -- yielding returns as high as 48 percent in some cases and around 10 percent toward the end of the program, the Journal reported.

One of the borrowers in this program was the hedge fund Magnetar, which, as we reported earlier this year, had helped create more than $40 billion worth of CDOs during the run-up to the financial crisis as part of its strategy to bet against the housing market. As the Journal noted, Magnetar obtained about $1 billion in Fed loans to invest in securities, and most of that remains outstanding.

According to the Fed, 60 percent of the loans extended under this program were paid back early, and all the loans that have not yet been repaid are current.

Big corporations

The only Fed program that lent directly to nonfinancial companies was one called the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, which lent to companies who had a hard time getting short-term loans elsewhere.

As we've noted, General Electric received funding through this program, as did AIG, Chrysler, GM, GMAC, Verizon, McDonald's, Prudential, MetLife, Caterpillar, Harley-Davidson and other recognizable household names, the Journal and Reuters reported. According to the Fed, all these loans were repaid in full.

Posted via email from moneytalks's posterous