noworldsystem.com


Dingell: ObamaCare will “control the people”

John Dingell: It will take some time for ObamaCare to “control the people”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI

Alcee Hastings: “All This Talk About Rules… We Make ‘Em Up As We Go Along…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9prQt3SLYCQ

Biden: “We’re Going To Control The Insurance Companies”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVz-DCUyxtE

Pelosi: We must control every aspect of American life and subject it to an inventory

Democrats Admit Obama Care is a Scam

 



NY Bill Makes It Illegal For Restaurants to Use Salt

NANNY STATE USA

NY Bill Makes It Illegal For Restaurants to Use Salt “In Any Form In The Preparation Of Any Food”

Information Liberation
March 10, 2010

Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.

“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

“The consumer needs to make their own health choices. Just as doctors and the occasional visit to a hospital can’t truly control how a person chooses to maintain their health, neither can chefs nor the occasional visit to a restaurant,” said Jeff Nathan, the executive chef and co-owner of Abigael’s on Broadway. “Modifying trans fats and sodium intake needs to be home based for optimal health. Regulating restaurants will not solve this health issue.”

Nathan is part of the group My Food My Choice , which calls itself a coalition of chefs, restaurant owners, and consumers, called the proposed law “absurd” in a press release issued on its Facebook page.

Ortiz has said the salt ban would allow restaurant patrons to decide how salty they want their meals to be.

“In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles,” Ortiz said, according to a Nation’s Restaurant News report.

But many chefs and restaurant owners said they are tired of politicians dictating what they can serve and what people can eat. They have opposed the city’s anti-sodium and anti-transfat campaigns.

“Chefs would be handcuffed in their food preparation, and many are already in open rebellion over this legislation,” said Orit Sklar, of My Food My Choice. “Ortiz and fellow anti-salt zealot Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City seek to undermine the food and restaurant business in the entire state.”

The American Heart Association encourages Americans to reduce their sodium intake and has advocated the reduction of sodium used by food manufacturers and restaurants by 50 percent over a 10-year period.

 

Utah: To legally collect rainwater you must register with the state and buy a “standardized container”

Information Liberation
March 10, 2010

Apparently in Utah having a law passed requiring citizens to register with the state and buy a “standardized container” in order to collect rainwater is a major victory. The government for decades has “owned the water rights” and deemed collection of rainwater a criminal offense. “The bill requires would-be harvesters to register online with the state and supply information about how much is to be collected and the collection point.” reports Deseret News.

    Legislature OKs personal collection of rainwater

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – The Utah Legislature has passed a bill that would permit the personal collection of rainwater. The House unanimously approved the legislation on Wednesday. It has already cleared the Senate. If signed by the governor the measure would reverse a decades-old prohibition on rainwater harvesting in the state. Senate Bill 32 would permit the collection of no more than 2,500 gallons in a storage container. If it becomes law Utahns wouldn’t be able to just put out barrels in the backyard. The proposal requires registering with the state and buying a standardized container. Sen. Scott Jenkins, a Plain City Republican, is sponsoring the bill.

In 2000 there were riots and massive protests against the company Bechtel waging a hostile takeover of water rights in Bolivia, they too said rainwater collection was literally illegal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86N20IOigKE

It is unbelievable to me that in a third world country the people would riot and protest over their rights being trampled on yet here in America being granted the ability to apply for a license to collect rainwater is somehow a major victory.

 

Banned: Welcome to Nanny State Nation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlAkUjNIK-g

Missouri plots sting against raw milk sellers

$1,000 a-day fine for tall grass in Jupiter, Florida

California considers ban on big-screen TV’s

 



USDA Approves Injecting Beef with Ammonia

U.S. Government Approves Treating Beef With Ammonia

NoWorldSystem
January 3, 2010

The New York Times forgot to mention that in the past, the USDA and FDA approved of injecting meat with carbon monoxide to keep rotten meat looking fresh, treating meat with viruses and even Oked the use of Mad Cow diseased beef into the food market just as long as it was mixed with 1% healthy beef.

The plan to inject ammonia into meat is just another toxic substance added to our daily intake that the government seems not to mind. The eugenicist elite that control the U.S. government know that stuff like this is bad for us and are purposely increasing the toxins in our environment. These are softkill methods of eugenics to cut the human population down by a ‘reasonable’ number, they use methods like; radiating us at airports, leaving drugs in the city water supply and using human sewage as fertilizer on major U.S. crops.

It should be painfully obvious now that the government doesn’t give a damn about you, the eugenicist elitists want you dead sooner than later because they look at ‘humans’ as a threat to the ‘ruling class’ clique, they consider us monsters that are unworthy of life. This is the real threat against humanity, not some patsy/terrorist crotch bomber. A decade from now we’ll all be wondering why people are dying at age 50 or 60.

New York Times
December 30, 2009

Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.

The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil. The trimmings were particularly susceptible to contamination, but a study commissioned by the company showed that the ammonia process would kill E. coli as well as salmonella.

Officials at the United States Department of Agriculture endorsed the company’s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli “to an undetectable level.” They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products.

With the U.S.D.A.’s stamp of approval, the company’s processed beef has become a mainstay in America’s hamburgers. McDonald’s, Burger King and other fast-food giants use it as a component in ground beef, as do grocery chains. The federal school lunch program used an estimated 5.5 million pounds of the processed beef last year alone.

But government and industry records obtained by The New York Times show that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in Beef Products meat, challenging claims by the company and the U.S.D.A. about the effectiveness of the treatment. Since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays.

Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef “pink slime” in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

One of the toughest hurdles for Beef Products was the Agricultural Marketing Service, the U.S.D.A. division that buys food for school lunches. Officials cited complaints about the odor, and wrote in a 2002 memorandum that they had “to determine if the addition of ammonia to the product is in the best interest to A.M.S. from a quality standpoint.”

“It is our contention,” the memo added, “that product should be labeled accordingly.”

Represented by Dennis R. Johnson, a top lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry, Beef Products prevailed on the question of whether ammonia should be listed as an ingredient, arguing that the government had just decided against requiring another company to list a chemical used in treating poultry.

School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the treated meat because it shaved about 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.

Health Canada To Add Anti-Cancer Drugs To Junk Food

USDA serves pet food grade meat at public schools

FDA Is Urged to Ban Carbon-Monoxide-Treated Meat

FDA OKs bacteria-eating virus to treat meat

USDA Allows Mad Cow Diseased Beef to Market

 



Missouri plots sting against raw milk sellers

Missouri government plots undercover sting operations against families selling raw milk

Mike Adams
Natural News
December 7, 2009

Imagine being watched by two undercover cops as you engage in an illicit deal in a deserted parking lot. The buyer hesitantly hands you some cash. You flash a look over your shoulder, just to make sure the coast is clear, then you hand over the contraband. Neither of you says a word. You just nod, acknowledging the deal is done, then you head back to your car and buckle up for the drive home.

But before you can even put the car into drive, a screeching formation of police cars, surrounds you, sirens wailing. Armed officers leap from their vehicles, guns drawn and sunglasses glaring. “Come out with your hands up!” they shout.

You slowly open the driver’s door of your car and inch out of your seat with both hands raised in surrender, cowering behind the open door. “What did I do, officer? What’s my crime?”

Their answer comes back loud and intimidating: “SELLING RAW MILK!”

Springfield Missouri: Where farmers are branded criminals

The above description is a dramatization of real events that happened recently in Springfield, Missouri, where the state has decided to spend considerable taxpayer resources running a sting operating against a family that was caught dealing — gulp! — raw milk in a parking lot.

Yes, both the Missouri Dept. of Health and the state Attorney General (Chris Koster) have decided that prosecuting a farm family for illegally “trafficking” raw milk should be at the top of their list of priorities. The family being targeted by state officials is the Bechard family, of Armand and Teddi Bechard, and their children Joseph, Hananiah, Kazia and Katie.

Read Full Article Here

 



EPA to Regulate All Aspects of American Life

EPA to Regulate All Aspects of American Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtuuntl8Ylc

Krauthammer: EPA Move May Bring a ‘Revolution on the Administration’s Hands’

“Look, it’s blackmail, a way of saying to Congress: ‘either you do cap-and-trade or we’re gonna do cap, no trade. We’re gonna regulate every aspect of American life.’ This is – if the EPA now has in its power – perhaps it will when acted over time – to intrude into every aspect of American life.” -Charles Krauthammer

 

The EPA Steps In To Regulate Greenhouse Gases In Case Of Cap And Trade Failure

Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
December 8, 2009

Goldman’s tentacles are smart, and know all about contingency planning. With so much of the firm’s future strategy contingent on Cap And Trade derived profits, the firm is hedging for a downside case scenario. The attached presentation by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the fall back plan. UEA debate notwithstanding, the EPA, after “careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009″ has found that “six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Truly an opportune timing for the EPA to come up with this report, seeing how suddenly scientific evidence does not really mean as much as it used to…oh, one month ago. And not to mention that whole Goldman/Cap And Trade backlash of course.

Here are the “definitive” conclusions from the report:

CO2 is dangerous (p.8):

    Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare. Specifically, the Administrator is defining the “air pollution” referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse gases are referred to as “well-mixed greenhouse gases” in this document (with more precise meanings of “long lived” and “well mixed” provided in Section IV.A)

Read Full Article Here

Pelosi: Every Aspect Of Life Must Be Subjected To Inventory

EPA to Bypass Congress to Regulate CO2

 



EPA to Bypass Congress to Regulate CO2

EPA to Bypass Congress to Regulate CO2

NoWorldSystem.com
December 8, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5At6a3c4eVE

The EPA declares itself the regulator of CO2 emissions, allowing itself to cut CO2 emissions without the approval of Congress, bypassing legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate.

Obama’s administration formally declared that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant and will “endanger the public health and welfare of the American people” empowering the EPA to regulate across the country under the law of the Clean Air Act that seeks emissions cut by roughly 17 percent by 2020.

The ruling was welcomed at the opening day of the talk in the Danish capital; “This is very significant in the sense that if…the Senate fails to adopt legislation (on emissions), then the administration will have the authority to regulate,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told Reuters in Copenhagen.

But top congressional republican James Inhofe warned that EPA’s new “endangerment finding” will “lead to a wave of new regulations, new bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy and destroy millions of jobs and of course consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline”. Many republicans are calling for the EPA to rebuke its claims that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RaMybU1ug

Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator said the move to declare CO2 a toxic pollutant “relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data”. Jackson denied any manipulation was carried out by the ClimateGate scientists saying that there’s “nothing in the hacked emails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1goTq3-rk

President Barack Obama and Al Gore will be attending the Copenhagen conference late next week to further push the illusion that CO2 is a toxic gas. On the same day of the EPA’s announcement, Al Gore visited the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js8stuihg4M

The Copenhagen globalists including the EPA base their entire argument on the back of the UNIPCC’s CRU scientists which are involved in one of the greatest scandals in modern science, ClimateGate which consists of; Manipulation, Deception, Suppression of Evidence, including having AGW-skeptics fired and removed from the peer-reviewed process and of course breaking FOIA requests by deleting emails and urging other scientists to do so as well. [Source]

With that in mind, EPA’s decision to call CO2 a dangerous pollutant falls flat on its face. The entire Copenhagen summit is all about creating another bubble by the same crooks that gave us the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis; Enron and Goldman Sachs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA6FSy6EKrM

From a massive cap-and-trade derivatives scheme, to a global carbon tax, this is all about plummeting what’s left of the U.S. economy and shutting down life on the planet by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

WITHOUT CO2 THERE IS NO LIFE!

“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food,” notes John R. Christy, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama. “The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA

In fact, as S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia has noted, an increase in CO2 would raise GNP and therefore average income. “It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency,” writes Singer.

The EPA is may soon be tasked with regulating life in the United States at the behest of a coterie of globalists who are keen to limit economic and industrial activity and check the growth of the herd which they despise and want to scale back to 500 million, as they have proudly announced on the Georgia Guidestones. [Source]

 

Fox News Analysis: ClimateGate, EPA Ruling, Copenhagen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp9ABzPgC5g

 



Al Gore Set To Make Billions On Carbon Tax Scam

Al Gore Set To Make Billions On Carbon Tax Scam


Obama to help Gore’s pocketbook by signing the ‘global climate treaty’ in Copenhagen, Denmark on Dec.7-18

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 3, 2009

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

“Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in,” writes Broder.

Since he left office, Gore’s personal net worth has skyrocketed on the back of his advocacy for global warming issues and the financial dividends this has reaped. Gore’s assets totaled less than $2 million in 2001 and although he refuses to give a figure for his current net worth, a recent single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund, illustrates just how fast Gore has enriched himself from his climate change bandwagon.

The Times report notes how Gore “has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.” As we reported back in March, before he became President Barack Obama also helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to implement as law.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGN8_YvQdbM

 

ClimateGate: Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

IceAge Now
November 21, 2009

Excerpts from a post by Michael Shedlock – “It’s now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam. The global warming thesis was completely fabricated.

“Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.

“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.

“Phil Jones, the main criminal according to this correspondence, has personally confirmed that the website was hacked and that the documents are authentic. See Briefing Room.

 



Politicians share personality traits with serial killers

Politicians share personality traits with serial killers


Bush, Obama and Cheney

LA Times Blog
June 15, 2009

Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.

Kouri, who’s a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.

These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.

But — and here’s the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion — these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)

Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.

Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.

“This allCapitol Hill Domeows them to do what they want, whenever they want,” he wrote. “Ironically, these same traits

exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders.”

Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we’re paying their salaries and entrusting them to spend our national treasure in wise ways.

We don’t know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with his glib provocative pronouncements. On the other hand …

He adds:

While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.“- Andrew Malcolm

 



New law could mean Internet ban, fines or jail for file-sharing

New Global Internet Treaty — as bad as everyone’s been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.

BoingBoing.com
November 20, 2009

The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it’s perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the “three-strikes” rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).

So it’s bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).

But that’s just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he’s planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson’s successor in the next government would also have this power.

What isn’t in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain’s poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media — BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees — to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators.

Lobby organisation The Open Rights Group is urging people to contact their MP to oppose the plans.

“This plan won’t stop copyright infringement and with a simple accusation could see you and your family disconnected from the internet – unable to engage in everyday activities like shopping and socialising,” it said.

The government will also introduce age ratings on all boxed video games aimed at children aged 12 or over.

There is, however, little detail in the bill on how the government will stimulate broadband infrastructure.

Global treaty could ban file-sharers from Internet after ‘three strikes’

 



Geithner slammed by Congressman during hearing

Geithner slammed by Congressman during hearing on Capitol Hill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2i7cxUEOXc

 



Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

Nachi.org
November 19, 2009

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!

This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

* A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.

* In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
* To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
* Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
* Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
* If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202:

Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.

You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”

Sect. 204:

Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.

And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304:

Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

 



Vitamins and Herbs Becoming Illegal

Codex Alimentarius Update: Vitamins and Herbs Becoming Illegal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_09nT6Mqxw

Twenty reasons why vitamin D is better than a swine flu vaccine

The 55 Best Herbal Remedies

Eggplant Cures Skin Cancer

 



US public debt tops $12 trillion for first time ever

US public debt tops $12 trillion for first time ever

AFP
November 18, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGnQGaa1vEQ

The US public debt topped 12 trillion dollars for the first time in history, Treasury officials disclosed Tuesday, moving past a key barrier that raised hackles in Congress.

Treasury data showed Monday’s outstanding debt at 12.031 trillion dollars, up from 11.999 trillion on Friday.

The ballooning debt reflects the massive deficit spending by the government in an effort to revive an ailing economy over more than one year.

The public debt topped 10 trillion dollars in September 2008.

The debt is quickly approaching the statutory limit of 12.104 trillion dollars, meaning Congress would have to raise the ceiling to prevent a shutdown of government operations.

Read Full Article Here

Dems Looking To Raise Debt Ceiling To $13 Trillion

 



100 new militia groups since Obama elected

100 new militia groups since Obama elected; watchdog alarmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGc4LCTBDg

ATTENTION Government Workers, Soldiers and Officers: Keep Your Oath

Homeland Security Calls Militia Terrorists

 



Global treaty could ban file-sharers from Internet after ‘three strikes’

Global treaty could ban file-sharers from Internet after ‘three strikes’
File-sharers could be jailed under proposed ACTA provisions

Raw Story
November 4, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMIUwxEgVpY

Leaked details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated in secret by most of the world’s largest economies suggest Internet file-sharers could be blocked from accessing the Internet if they are repeatedly accused of sharing copyrighted material, say media and digital-rights watchdogs.

And the worst-case scenario could see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.

Internet law professor Michael Geist published details of “leaked” portions of the discussions on ACTA on his blog Tuesday, as a new round of ACTA negotiations began in Seoul, South Korea. The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries, are involved in the negotiations.

“The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you’re out system,” Geist blogged Wednesday, referring to a proposal from copyright holders to have Internet service providers cut off service to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.

DARPA Plans for Interplanetary Internet

 



Americans gave up liberty for homeland security

Americans gave up liberty for homeland security
This educational video made in 1948 should remind us all how America has lost so much freedom since 9/11 when the American people believed the government that Alqaeda hates our liberties and that we should let them wiretap without a warrant and violate your privacy for the good of the homeland and that we must wage expensive wars or the terrorists might hit us again. Benjamin Franklin once said “If you give up your liberty for a bit of security, then you deserve to lose both”. Watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY

 



Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early

Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early

Mail Online

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

She said: ‘When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a “little fighter”.

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, “They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him”.’

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby’s lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: ‘I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead.’

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: ‘I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

‘Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won’t survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?’

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: ‘When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.’

What the medical guidelines say…

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.

The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a ‘set of instructions’, but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor’s are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

 



Government Permission Will Be Required To Travel

Government Permission Will Be Required To Travel
You are NOT free to move about the country…

Rense
August 20, 2009

Starting this year, Americans will have to get government approval to travel by air. As Privacy Journal revealed last fall, henceforth “Permission Now Needed to Travel Within U.S.” Getting a reservation and checking-in for air travel will soon require Transportation Security Administration authorization. That permission is by no means assured: For example, if your name matches a “no-fly” list, even mistakenly, you can be denied the right to a reserve a seat on a flight. If your name is on a “selectee” list, you and your possessions will be searched more thoroughly before you can board. What is going on here?

Protecting air safety is essential, but professional screening at airports already provides for it. Giving the TSA as an official agency the additional authority to decide who gets to go where reaches beyond safety into overextended governmental power. This newly minted “Secure Flight” rule fundamentally imbalances long-standing citizens’ rights both to travel and to be left alone. If your name appears among hundreds of thousands on “watchlists,” you assert that the government should not require ID to fly, you don’t want to reveal your date of birth for concern about identity theft, or you don’t choose to declare your gender, you can stay home.

By combining the requirement for government photo IDs in order to fly with checking government watchlists including potentially every passenger, “Secure Flight” puts the federal government into the business of licensing travel. All travelers will need government OK in order to board a flight, or take a cruise. What the government can allow one day, it can forbid the next. All things considered, isn’t this a higher-tech and later-day version of South African domestic passports or eastern European checkpoints? In fact, because of the high technological capacity of the U.S. version, aren’t its implications for travel control of plane, train, bus and subway travel much more far reaching? It’s incredible that something like this is happening relatively unrecognized in America.

While some people consider the requirement to show ID or reveal a birth date a small trade-off for security, what is at stake here is the right to travel. That fundamental freedom of movement appears in the Articles of Confederation in the right to freely enter and leave all the states of the then small union. It was so fundamentally a part of American citizenship that the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution included it without explicitly mentioning it again for the more perfect union. With a large and expansive nation now ranging from Hawaii and Alaska to Washington DC, that right to travel nationally, and petition the distant government, is even more fundamental. Yet some courts maintain that if you can walk, you don’t need the right to fly. People have the right to walk around freely without carrying a national ID; why do they have to show one to travel? The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the scope of the right to travel but lower courts have tended to restrict it more narrowly than the Founding Fathers would approve.

Read Full Article Here

 



Officer shuts-down girl’s lemonade stand

NANNY STATE: California city shuts-down girl’s lemonade stand

McClatchy
August 6, 2009

Eight-year-old Daniela Earnest has made lemonade out of lemons in more ways than one this week.

Hoping to raise money for a family trip to Disneyland, the Tulare girl opened a lemonade stand Monday. But because Daniela didn’t have a business license, the city of Tulare shut it down the same day.

From that came a radio station’s offer of Disneyland tickets to Daniela’s family — in exchange for 30 cups of lemonade — and an appearance in front of the Tulare City Council on Tuesday night that will likely lead to a compromise allowing her lemonade stand and other pint-sized business ventures to operate legally.

The story began Monday morning when Daniela and her stepmother, Marisa Earnest, set up shop at Cartmill Avenue and Hillman Street in north Tulare. The lemonade was freshly squeezed and priced at $2 for a 32-ounce plastic cup.

Richard Garcia, a Tulare code enforcement officer, happened to be at the same intersection to remove illegal signs left behind by someone selling tetherball poles.

Garcia told Daniela and her stepmother that their lemonade stand — on the northwest corner of the busy intersection — was not safe, and also that they needed a business license to sell lemonade.