15
Apr 11

The Oil Is Still Gushing In The Gulf.

A COLOSSAL COVERUP

It is one of the biggest cover-ups in US history.

The oil is still gushing in the Gulf.

All available data indicates that the original wellhead was never
capped: the latitude and longitude of the camera through which we were
all watching the oil spew from the wellhead actually changed to a
wellhead 7 miles away, and that is the one they capped. No mention has
ever been made of the original wellhead since then. That’s right, they
plugged another well and showed a picture of that one.

So that is lie number one.

In addition, it is a known certainty that the seabed was fractured so
badly for miles around the original well that oil has continued to spew
uncontrollably from the sea floor, with no way to plug it.

This has been withheld from the public. Number two.

If oil is pouring from a well and cracks in the ocean floor, why the Hell can’t we see it?

The answer to this is two-fold.

First and foremost, someone is continuing to spray the Gulf with the
chemical “dispersant” called Corexit. Corexit breaks up the oil so that
it quickly sinks below the surface and is hidden from view. Once there,
it spreads the mutant concoction throughout the water creating a toxic
environment from which the marine life cannot escape. It eventually
sinks it to the bottom of the ocean where it continues to do long-term
damage to the entire marine eco system – but that’s not all.

The EPA has stated that Corexit ceased being used on July 19th, 2010.
But unmarked, military-type aircraft (C-130s and C123s) have been
flying sorties over the Gulf in the dead of night, spraying the poison
over the now-toxic ocean to conceal the fact that voluminous amounts of
oil are still spewing into the water. The amount of oil reaching the
surface has become so evident that they are now risking being
photographed spraying during daylight. Lie number 3.

The dispersant may hide the oil but it is doing massive damage to the
eco-system – massive. Moreover, Corexit has one other little problem –
it is carcinogenic.

In fact, this chemical is so toxic, that people handling it are
instructed by the manufacturer’s product handling information to wear
Haz Mat suits and full-blown respirators. Unfortunately for thousands
of cleanup workers, BP wouldn’t allow them to wear the suits because
they didn’t want it to look like there was any danger attached to the
cleanup – it might increase their liability.

Not only is the seafood from the Gulf now laced with this stuff (despite the government’s statement to the contrary – #4), the relentless spraying has initiated a massive human health crisis.

According to one study, a staggering 50% of the people in the Gulf
are experiencing the toxic effects of the Corexit-laden atmosphere.
Moreover, there is a report from one of the gulf oil cleanup workers
that, “Thousands of Gulf Oil Spill clean-up crew are dying.”

These workers are experiencing symptoms such as severe neurological
damage, kidney and liver failure, paralysis, internal bleeding, “flu”
symptoms that won’t go away, and death.

You can see the story of one woman who has documented her own case
and that of many others. (It’s not pretty. Don’t watch if you have a
weak stomach.)

http://current.com/news/93090046_thousands-of-gulf-oil-spill-clean-up-crew-are-dying-video-of-the-dying.htm

This isn’t just another health problem: this is an apocalyptic and immediate health crisis.

So, while we are now engaged in a third “war” against a dictator in
Libya for human rights abuses against his own people, BP, the EPA and
other government entities are engaged in a cover up of an ecological
disaster by secretly spraying a virulent poison into the Gulf that is
destroying the eco-system, the fishing industry and the lives of people
that live and work there.

A deadly hypocrisy.

A hypocrisy that is hidden in plain sight.

I said there were two reasons that you couldn’t see the oil. The
other “reason” is…you can see it. The oil is now coming up in such
massive amounts that it is overwhelming the ability of the Corexit to
hide it. And, as mentioned above, the C-130s are now taking the
extraordinary step of spraying in daylight.

Just a little odd when BP and the EPA say the well was capped on July
19th, 2010 and that there was no more evidence of oil. Per journalist
Harlan Kirgan, who attended a press conference held by Mike Utsler,
chief operating officer of BP’s Gulf Coast Restoration,
“Utsler said, ‘We are actually very encouraged. And, I say we
collectively as federal, state, local and trustees and landowners at the
progress that has been made in the state of readiness for the upcoming
tourism season.’
“Utsler said the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed science that has been published has shown there is no longer an oil plume.”
Lie #5.
Unfortunately for Big Mike’s credibility, 5 days later, the Grand Isle
and Fourchon beaches in Louisiana underwent a military-type takeover to
shut them down completely and prevent anyone from getting anywhere near
them, especially independent scientists who wanted to take samples of
the massive oil plume rolling in.

If you want to see current pictures of the oil in the Gulf, including
pictures of fishing boats fishing in the middle of masses of oil, go
here:

http://s291.photobucket.com/albums/ll297/creekkeeper_2008/BP%20Slick%20photos/Barataria%20Flight%2003_19_11/?action=view&current=_MG_0837.jpg#!oZZ29QQcurrentZZhttp%3A%2F%2Fs291.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll297%2Fcreekkeeper_2008%2FBP%2520Slick%2520photos%2FBarataria%2520Flight%252003_19_11%2F%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3D_MG_1018.jpg

So why am I telling you this shocking and tragic story?

Because something needs to be done about it and there is a solution.

I have done something here, which I don’t normally do. And that is, I am forwarding information from my wife’s work.

Those of you that are also on her email list know some of what I have
told you above. And some of you know Barb. But for those that don’t,
she is the International President of The Earth Organization http://www.TheEarthOrganization.org , an independent, international conservation and environmental organization.

So, here’s the deal: Barb and the US staff of The Earth Organization
have been working on this situation flat out for several months –night
and day, 24/7; New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas,
Florida. They came across a solution – a product that dramatically
speeds up Mother Nature’s natural processes of cleaning up the oil in a
non-toxic way. Whereas, nature would take over a century to clean up the
massive amounts of oil in this spill, this method would do it in a
matter of a few weeks – and with absolutely no adverse side effects.

The product has been used to clean up more than 16,000 oil spills planet-wide over the last two decades. I repeat, 16,000.

What is the reaction of British Petroleum and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency when informed about the toxic nature of Corexit (which
they already knew) and the eye-popping results of the natural product,
which they also were aware of? … …A product which has been used over 100
times by the US Navy to clean up oil spills just in San Diego Bay?…
They won’t let the product anywhere near the Gulf.

Huh?

“Impossible,” you say. “How could a government agency whose purpose
is to clean up the environment and protect the public’s health, permit
an oil company to poison the eco-system and thousands of Americans?”

You could just as easily ask how the FDA, an agency charged with
protecting the public’s health, can approve drugs that cause heart
attacks, suicidality and death, while stopping or curtailing non-toxic
health solutions that are nutritionally beneficial.

There are plenty of other examples. I’m sure you know of some. But my
purpose here is not to investigate all of the evil on the planet; my
purpose here is to let you know that a national tragedy is occurring
right under our noses and there is a solution available.

Barb and her team have investigated this catastrophe and its solution
relentlessly. She is working with world class scientists, professional
investigators, state and federal legislators, activists and
manufacturers of a product that can clean up the oil spill in a
beneficial and non-toxic way.

Neither she nor The Earth Organization have any financial interest in
the product; their sole intention is to halt the environmental
catastrophe still occurring in the Gulf, return the waters to even
better than their pre-blowout condition, and save the lives of millions
of people living and working there.

Last week, she took evidence of the situation to key members of the
United States Congress in an effort to get the EPA to cease allowing the
spraying of Corexit in the Gulf and permit natural solutions to be
implemented.

She had several meetings. They went extremely well. Key congressional
committee staff have asked for some additional information, which her
team is in the process of gathering. But they are up against one of the
biggest oil companies in the world with 96,000 employees and revenues of
$297 billion, and a rogue government agency that is supporting the
poisoning of the environment and citizenry in the Gulf on a colossal
scale.

Which actually makes it a pretty even fight; but it’s costly, folks.

The Earth Organization is a registered nonprofit. They rely on the
donations of members and supporters. This last cache of information
requested by congressional staff is available, but a number of
high-priced professionals are needed to scientifically document certain
aspects of this, and to bring the necessary pressure to bear to get this
situation turned around.

So I am writing to you to give her a hand.

We all devote a great deal of time, money and effort to make this a
better world. This project, brought to a successful conclusion, will not
only save an enormous area of environment, massive numbers of marine
life and wildlife, but countless human lives.

I don’t mean to be gruesome, but people poisoned by the Corexit there are suffering agonizing deaths.

What do you say, can you give Barb and The Earth Organization a hand
in bringing an ethical solution to the toxic holocaust now occurring in
the Gulf.

God will smile.

Click the link below to donate.

And thanks for your help!

http://www.earthorganization.com/Join2.aspx

Best,
Bruce

Bruce Wiseman
Bruce@BruceWiseman.net
www.BruceWiseman.net


04
Apr 11

The Fed gave 46 EMERGENCY loans to the Arab Banking Corp.

BENNIE AND THE FEDS

Ben Bernanke has all the emotion of a fried circuit board.

His dome is buffed, his beard is fastidiously trimmed, but I’ve never seen the guy smile.

Even if he weren’t Wall Street’s android, it’s not smiling time for
the B-man, because after months of fighting tooth and nail all the way
to the Supreme Court to stop it, Bennie and the Feds lost their effort
to keep the records of what they did during the financial crisis hidden
from the American public.

As a result, last Thursday, the Fed vomited 30,000 pages of previously confidential information into the public consciousness.

And what do we find buried in the 900 computer files of information
the Federal Reserve Bank was forced to cough up? We find that they
dished out $3.2 trillion to companies and banks around the planet like
some crack-smoking Santa Claus.

Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke

Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke

One of the beneficiaries of Ben’s largess was a bank with branches in
New York named the Arab Banking Corp. The Arab Banking Corp is 59%
owned by that Middle Eastern Messiah-in-his-own-mind, Colonel Murammar
Gaddafi’s Central Bank of Libya.

In fact, Benny and the Feds gave at least 46 “emergency” loans to the
Arab Banking Corp. during the Fall of 2008, some with an interest rate
as low as ¼ of 1 percent.

So while you were busting your hump to pay your 24% interest rate
credit card, Murammar had an extension of his central bank snatch a cool
$26 billion from Brother Ben at interest rates that could slide under a
snake’s belly.

We love you, Ben.

Well, you say, that was then, and this is now, and the Administration
has discovered that Gaddafi is actually a dictator scumbag and we’re
currently bombing him back to the Stone Age.

One little question though: if Gaddafi is now the bad guy, somebody
new to bomb, somebody new to strangle with economic sanctions, why is it
that baby-faced Timothy Geithner, has let the Arab Banking Corp. skirt
the economic sanctions against Libya initiated back on March 4th?

What’s the deal, Timmy?

This, of course, is no defense of Gaddafi, who is an evil bastard
with the IQ of fresh Mississippi road kill, but rather an expose of the
fiscally insane actions of the Fed, the debt-driven US financial system
and the treacherous clowns that run it.

Bankrupt America

Bankrupt America

The Federal Reserve Bank is a tumor on the body of the United States
of America. It should be removed. If there was ever an opportunity to do
just that, it is now.

The one Congressman who has spent his career in pursuit of this goal,
Ron Paul of Texas, is now the Chairman of the Financial Services
Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, the Committee
that oversees the Fed. This is Ben Bernanke’s worst nightmare and one of
the greatest opportunities this country has ever had to forward the
cause of economic freedom.

More revelations will come out about the Fed’s corruption. It is in
their DNA. When they do, write Congressman Paul and thank him, because
it was his legislation that forced the disclosure in the first place.
And support any new effort he initiates to eliminate or curb the power
of the Federal Reserve Bank.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

And you can follow my blog at www.johntrumanwolfe.com

And keep your powder dry.

JTW


20
Feb 10

Con #05 Global warming is an invention.

CARBON CREDITS

I know you are going to be shocked when I tell you that the banksters
have their teeth in the climate change agenda like a pit bull on
crystal meth.

You have heard the mantra “the planet is a space-borne oven that is
melting the polar ice caps, destroying the polar bears and turning Des
Moines into beachfront property.”

The solution? Pass laws that “disincentivize” the production of
carbon dioxide by taxing its use. Oh, and turn the tax into derivatives
so Goldman Sachs and friends can pig out. (See the chapter “The Goldman
Connection” in my e-book Crisis by Design at www.behindthewizardscurtain.com.)

The marketing folks have branded this scheme “carbon credits.”

Kyoto Protocol

The skyline of Kyoto, Japan, is dotted with many of the country’s
oldest Buddhist temples. One of these ancient shrines is built on a
lake. The water in the lake is so pristine that the best way to tell the
real temple from the reflection is to throw a rock in the water and see
which of the images ripples.

This, an introductory allegory, is to make the point that things are not always as they seem, even in the land of many Buddhas.

In 1997, an international agreement was signed in Kyoto seeking to
limit greenhouse gas emissions. It was named after the host city and
carries a handle better suited for a Robert Ludlum novel: The Kyoto
Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol and a subsequent agreement called the Marrakech
Accords set “caps” or quotas on the maximum amount of greenhouse gas a
country could emit. In turn, each country was to then assign carbon
emission “caps” or quotas to its own businesses and other organizations,
which are referred to as operators.

Thus, every business in every country that signed the Kyoto Protocol
is supposed to have an allowance of “carbon credits.” Businesses that
exceed their allowance must buy some carbon credits. These can be
purchased from “green” companies that have not used their allocation of
carbon, or they can be bought on a “carbon exchange.”

Let’s take, for example, a furniture factory. The factory is emitting
125 tons of carbon dioxide per year, but its allowance is 100 tons. The
factory must now cut its production to bring it into alignment with its
100-ton quota, or buy 25 credits from, say, a biofuel company that is
producing “carbon neutral” fuel—an entirely different view of the
biofuel craze.

As the population grows, as new companies are created and existing
ones expand their productivity, the use of energy (and thus carbon-based
fuels and emissions) will increase. The quotas for a country, however,
will actually be lowered.

Of course, as carbon quotas (or caps) are lowered, the value of carbon credits increases.

You get the picture: the rules of supply and demand will prevail and the cost of carbon credits has a built-in price increase.

Cap-and-Trade Legislation

Moreover, while the U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, and
Copenhagen turned out to be little more than a cacophonous blizzard of
press releases, President Obama has committed to a goal of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions to 17 percent below the 2005 levels this year
and reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

This is exactly what the “cap-and-trade” legislation that passed the
U.S. House of Representatives in June of last year mandates. That’s
right, the same circus act that brought you last year’s $1.5 trillion
budget deficit has passed a bill to force you to use less energy—because
CO2 is creating global warming.

Except, there is no global warming, temperatures have continued to
cool over the last decade, and even if they hadn’t, man-made carbon
dioxide has nothing to do with any kind of harmful climate change—nada,
zero, zip.

Can you imagine what this kind of legislation would do to American industry and commerce?

To get the full magnitude of where this insanity is going, consider
the British. The UK Secretary of State for the Environment has promised
legislation there that will set legally binding lower carbon emissions
of 60 percent by 2050. He has also conducted a feasibility study to
issue carbon “credit cards” to every citizen under a nationwide carbon
rationing system.

Under this plan everybody would get an annual allowance of carbon
they could spend on products such as food, energy and travel.
Individuals would have to swipe their carbon card every time they bought
gas, paid a utility bill or booked an airline flight.

Go ahead, read that again. The words won’t change.

The British Parliament, which appears to be a collective mental
disorder, has gone so far as to give local bureaucrats the power to
enter a person’s home without a warrant to, among other things, check
for refrigerators that do not carry eco-friendly energy ratings.

We have here a system literally going mad before our eyes.

Carbon emission limits, and the buying and selling of “credits” to
deal with them (called Cap and Trade), are a solution created to deal
with a catastrophic—though nonexistent—problem created by what is
arguably the most well-orchestrated PR campaign in history.

The solution not only establishes a system of planetary economic
control by setting carbon emission limits down to every business (and in
the UK down to every citizen) but will make its creators and their
allies rich beyond all imaginings.

On a tactical level, Cap and Trade does three things: it suppresses
productivity and thus increases unemployment; it drives a biofuel agenda
(for carbon credits) that is destroying the earth’s ecosystem, and, if
continued, will destroy the very air we breathe; and it creates a
massive new international Ponzi scheme that has the international banks
orgasmic with delight.

Five “climate exchanges” have already been set up that deal in the
buying and selling of carbon credits. The two larger exchanges are the
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which is the only U.S. firm that claims
to trade carbon credits, and Europe’s European Climate Exchange (ECX),
which is half owned by CCX.

There is the stock market, where stocks and bonds are traded, and a
commodities market where things like gold and silver and corn, wheat and
soybeans are traded. Now comet the carbon exchanges where carbon
credits in the form of derivatives will be bought and sold.

And derivatives sure did a nice job for us last year, didn’t they?

In short, derivatives are essentially contracts that package up some
kind of product into a financial instrument that can be traded—bought
and sold. A contract for 100 ounces of gold is a derivative, because the
contract isn’t the gold itself.

Banks and other entities will be buying carbon credits, packaging
them up, and selling them by the trillions. This is already well in
motion in Europe, where carbon offsets have been being traded since
2005.

The carbon market is projected to be in the trillions, and will be
turned lose in the U.S. the moment the Senate passes a cap-and-trade
bill. That bill will have to be reconciled with the House bill and sent
to President Obama, who has made this legislation a key policy
initiative second only to health care.

Everyone is set up and ready to go. The big banks have been investing
in carbon friendly enterprises—Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of
America and Citigroup are some of the players. Not to be outdone, the
World Bank has joined the CCX and now operates a Carbon Fund for Europe
that helps countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements.

Isn’t that special?

Major corporations, including the large oil companies, are strong
supporters of cap-and-trade legislation and are members of these carbon
exchanges as well. Why would an oil company be interested in this game?

As generators of lots of CO2, oil companies will have to
buy a lot of carbon credits. If the price of oil skyrockets, they make
handsome profits from the oil business. However, as the price of oil
rises, so, too, will the price of carbon credits. You see, as oil gets
expensive, people turn to less costly coal-fired energy. Coal generates
roughly twice the CO2 of oil—which means the demand for carbon credits will increase to offset the coal emissions.

So the oil company scores both ways. Profit on their oil and profit from the increase in value of their carbon credit portfolio.

You see, this is a market that is created only if governments (or
international bodies with the authority to do so) mandate emissions
standards. By doing so, they instantly create a carbon market because
many businesses will have to buy carbon offsets.

If governments impose a limit on carbon emissions, the market will come. If not, it won’t.

The carbon markets in Europe crashed after the Copenhagen conference
failed to establish legally binding emission caps for the major
industrialized nations.

You see how this works?

And remember, the emission standards do not increase with population
growth or increases in the number of plants or factories or their
output. They are capped and are then lowered. Therefore carbon credits
will continue to rise in price, as the supply will steadily decrease,
driving higher demand. Escalating profits are built in if governments
mandate the standards.

And standing on deck to become the first carbon billionaire is none other than . . .

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

It is not hard to imagine Al Gore in a minister’s collar.

After all, he went to Vanderbilt Divinity School when he was a young man—an act of “purification,” his wife would later say.

And he has called greenhouse gases “a moral issue . . . deeply
unethical,” which must be why he warns of environmental Armageddon with
such a religious zeal:

“. . . unless we act boldly and quickly to deal with the
underlying causes of global warming, our world will undergo a string of
terrible catastrophes, including more and stronger storms like Hurricane
Katrina. . . .

“Today, we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst
potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization: a global
climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous
than anything we have ever faced.”

What do we do, Brother Al? How do we solve “the worst potential catastrophe in the history of human civilization”?

“Cap and trade, my son, cap and trade.”

There’s just one little point that should be known about Brother Al’s
sermon: if governments mandate the cap-and-trade legislation he is
advocating, Al the Righteous, Al the Moral, Al the Ethical, stands to
make billions.

You see, while he is pushing governments around the world to cap
carbon emissions, which will force companies to buy carbon offset
credits, he is also the chairman and founder of a private equity firm
called Generation Investment Management (GIM), which invests in . . .
you guessed it . . . carbon dioxide offsets.

Matt Taibbi’s article in Rolling Stone lays out the structure beautifully.

“The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators
is that the `cap’ on carbon will be continually lowered by the
government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more
scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new
commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed
to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be
upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison’s sake, the
annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total
$320 billion.”

A World Bank Private Sector blog regularly gushes about Brother Al,
whose partners in GIM are those priests of Wall Street propriety, the
suspender-wearing bankers from Goldman Sachs. Co-founder of the company
is David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management; other
former Goldmanite big shots include Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris.
Assisting with the creation of Al’s ethical investment house was none
other than the godfather of the Wall Street derivatives that fueled the
global financial crisis and the star of the trillion-dollar bank bailout
of 2008, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hammering Hank Paulson.

Goldman has long sought cap-and-trade legislation, having spent $3.5
million lobbying climate issues in 2008. And the bank owns a 10 percent
interest in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), mentioned above. The CCX
is the only U.S. firm that claims to trade carbon credits, and, as
noted above, also has a 50 percent interest in its sister carbon
exchange in Europe, the European Climate Exchange (ECX).

Members of the Chicago Climate Exchange, besides GIM, include Ford
Motor Company, Amtrak, DuPont, Dow Corning, International Paper,
Motorola and other tier-one carbon emitters. This gives them a “home”
from which to buy their offset credits, but also the ability to invest
in credits for the purpose of speculation.

If cap-and-trade legislation passes, the CCX’s business and income will soar. Its members will profit gluttonously.

And the biggest shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange? That’s right, Brother Al’s Generation Investment Management.

Amen, Brother Al. Amen.

People know that it is greed that runs through the veins of Goldman
Sachs. They are in a class by themselves, plundering the financial
markets like pirates of old. But what about Al the Ethical?

Do you think there’s a conflict of interest in his incessant warnings
of the greatest catastrophe in human history if Congress does not
legalize carbon restrictions, when his investment company is the largest
shareholder in the only U.S. carbon exchange and that same company
invests only in carbon offset opportunities?

You think perhaps that Al has taken on the color of his predatory partners?

Another one of Gore’s partners in GIM (this one, silent) is Maurice
Strong, a man many credit with being the godfather of the environmental
movement. Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate
Exchange and is known to have—what shall we call them?—extreme
environmental views.

Strong once told a reporter the plot to a novel in which the rich
countries of the world refused to sign an agreement that reduced their
impact on the environment. In order to save the planet, a small group of
world leaders decide that the only hope for mankind is for the
industrialized civilizations to collapse.

Strong’s allegedly fictional plot is echoed in real life by
extremists of the environmental movement. Paul Ehrlich, Professor of
Population Studies at Stanford, said, “A massive campaign must be
launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing
our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the
world resource situation.”

And Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, said, “The only
hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.
We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of
industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World
countries right where they are.”

Fortunately, these are not the views of most environmentalists. Most
environmentalists are caring people who see our waterways turning toxic
with chemical poisons, our rain forests being annihilated, species going
extinct by the thousands, and are concerned enough to want to do
something about it.

The problem is that they have been fed deceitful and highly
misleading information and are seeking to implement solutions to a
problem that does not exist, solutions that are making things infinitely
worse.

There ARE critical environmental problems on this planet which, if
not reversed, can cause devastating consequences. But global warming is
not one of them and the solutions being pushed by vested interests are
not only bogus, they are causing the very problems real
environmentalists are concerned about.

This, then, is a brief summary of the key elements of the con job:

The Club of Rome’s theory of global warming and their deceptive call for “sustainable development” is based on junk science.

The global anxiety over depletion of the planet’s fossil fuels is
based on a lie. Oil scarcity is a myth. Oil is not a fossil fuel and it
is a renewable resource.

Global warming is an invention. The planet has been cooling for more
than a decade, has experienced much warmer temperatures long before
industrialization and man-made carbon existed—and carbon dioxide is what
plants use to create oxygen.

Biofuels are not a solution to the planet’s environmental problems, but rather are highly destructive of life on Earth.

Carbon credits are a vicious scam. Financial products made possible
only by political mandates, they are based on a nonexistent problem and
will destroy the economies of the world while making international
bankers and the global elite rich beyond imagining.

While real environmentalists do not hold the draconian views of
Michael Oppenheimer or Paul Ehrlich, if cap-and-trade laws are allowed
to pass, their visions of an industrial apocalypse are all too possible.

SOLUTIONS

1. All effort should be made to nullify carbon credits on an
immediate basis. This holds true whether on a local, national or
international basis. For example, there is a cap-and-trade bill in the
U.S. Senate that is high on the administration’s agenda.

Misinformed environmentalists or “environmentalists” that benefit
from the carbon credit agenda are pushing this legislation with a
passion born of ignorance or a blatant thirst for power and wealth.

“This system, which may sound market-friendly, is something only a
bureaucrat could dream up. The twist is that the carbon market exists
only because the government’s imposition of a cap creates an artificial
scarcity in the right to produce energy.”
—Deborah Corey Barnes, the PoliReport, Washington, D.C.

The damaging effect of such a law on the U.S. economy or the economy
of any nation that adopts similar legislation is blatantly obvious and
it should be derailed, or, if already passed, repealed. California, for
example, has already passed legislation that mandates a 25 percent cut
in emissions by 2020. No one has been corny enough to brand the
legislation the state’s “economic terminator,” so I’ll do it here.

2. Countries should opt out of the Kyoto Protocol and nullify it, along with any actual agreements that were made in Copenhagen.

This similarly applies to all underdeveloped countries, though from a
different perspective. The simplicity is that carbon credits
destroy—economies, environments, and life. But third-world countries
hold considerable leverage: if they opt out of the Kyoto Protocol and
forbid carbon credits, it does not matter what laws are passed in the
U.S. or EU, the carbon credits system will fall flat. It requires
developing and underdeveloped countries’ cooperation, as they have the
carbon offset resources (rain forests, etc).

It is important for them to understand that if they join the system
and go for the quick buck now, they will make some short-term money
selling credits; but as they gradually industrialize, they will have to
buy them back—and what will the cost be then? The African Union has the
capability to enforce this.

3. Biofuel production should be legislated against, as it is
meaningless as a viable energy resource and because it creates more
environmental destruction than all prior conventional causes.

4. Effective action is needed to actually protect the environment:
Reduce the use of harmful fertilizers and gradually replace them with
nonharmful products. (Eliminating the production of biofuel would cause
the most dramatic and immediate improvement.) This would rapidly improve
the condition of our rivers and oceans.

5. Deescalate deforestation by prohibiting biofuel production, which
would also bring about the most immediate environmental improvement and
species preservation.

It doesn’t take a great deal of insight to see the amount of control
any governmental body could exert over a planet, a national economy, a
business or a household by enforcing a system of carbon emission
standards. This is, as one observer noted above, nothing less than
complete control of the production of energy.

When Gorbachev, speaking for the Club of Rome, said, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘internal disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order,” carbon credits are exactly the kind of NWO he meant.

Because, in the final analysis, global warming is nothing more than a PR campaign for global government.

We must act quickly and decisively. The Club of Rome has a massive
head start and control of much of the media. But neglect of our
responsibilities here is not an option. Not if we value the power of
choice, the freedom to produce, and economic self-determinism.

Let’s put this joker back in the box and keep it there. Civilization doesn’t need him.

© 2010 by John Truman Wolfe. All rights reserved.


20
Feb 10

Con #04 Biofuel craze is destroying nature

BIOFUELS

A friend of mine drives around to restaurants late at night and
collects used vegetable oil. He uses it in his diesel Mercedes that will
qualify for Medicare next year. He has converted the Mercedes to burn
vegetable oil as fuel.

One of the solutions to the “carbon crisis” is biofuels.

Biofuels are essentially fuels produced from plants.

There are two basic types of biofuels. Ethanol, which can be used as
petrol and is made from corn, sugar cane, beets, wheat and other grains,
and biodiesel which is made from oil seeds, tree nuts or waste oil (à
la the Medicare Mercedes above).

Biofuels are supposed to be clean, convenient and carbon neutral. But
don’t look too closely because the environmental consequences of their
use are something out of a Stephen King novel.

DEFORESTATION

The planet’s tropical rain forests are being obliterated as if some
frenzied Jolly Green Giant were running an immense weed wacker through
the Amazon.

Biofuels are broadly promoted as a solution to the production of
carbon dioxide. But a closer examination reveals that they damage the
environment on two fronts: the first is massive planetary deforestation.

Tropical forests are the most powerful carbon reservoirs on the
planet. In other words, they sequester and store carbon dioxide more
effectively than any other resource.

Cutting forests down not only releases massive amounts of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, it eliminates them as both a carbon
reservoir and a generator of oxygen. (Again, for those of you that slept
through high school biology, or, like me, never had the guts to take
it, plants use carbon dioxide and sunlight to make oxygen.)

But government mandates and corporate greed are pushing the
cultivation of biofuels so intently that tropical forests are vanishing
from the planet at an appalling rate.

The European Union, for instance, has mandated a 20 percent reduction
in carbon emissions by 2020. This is to be partly achieved by mandating
that 10 percent of vehicles be powered by biofuel. Financial
incentives, which we examine in detail below, have driven global
investment in biofuels from $5 billion in 1995 to an estimated $100
billion in 2010. Everyone from George Soros to British Petroleum and
Shell Oil are players in this market.

As a result, vast amounts of the Amazon rain forest in Brazil have
been destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation. Brazil proudly
announced last year that deforestation was on track to double that year.

A report by Friends of the Earth revealed that between 1985 and 2000,
the development of palm oil plantations in Malaysia was responsible for
the deforestation of 87 percent of the country’s forests. Eighty-seven
percent! In fact, palm oil is now referred to as “deforestation diesel.”

In Sumatra and Borneo, 4 million hectares of forest were lost to palm
oil farms (9.8 million acres—almost twice the size of the state of New
Hampshire).

As an added sucker punch to Mother Nature, biofuel-driven
deforestation has also led to Holocaust-like species extinction. The
forests in Malaysia and Indonesia are home to the orangutan, Sumatran
rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of
other species, many of which are under serious threat of extinction from
habitat loss.

And then there is this troubling little fact: while biofuels generate
less carbon emissions than oil, they are doing so by replacing
vegetation and soil that suck up even more carbon. In other words, the
carbon absorption lost by razing the wilderness to cultivate biofuels is
dramatically more than the gains achieved by using the cleaner- burning
fuels.

The “inconvenient truth” is that the biofuel craze is destroying
nature, and, incidentally, adding to the carbon dioxide on the planet,
not decreasing it.

OCEAN POLLUTION AND DEAD ZONES

If you have ever walked by a body of water and noticed an acrid
smell, felt your eyes burning or saw that it was blanketed by a thick
red, blue or green plant covering, you’ve probably had an unfortunate
run-in with an HAB, Harmful Algal Bloom.

In almost all cases, the production of biofuels is accompanied by the
use of nitrogen, phosphorous, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides,
etc.

Nitrogen, along with other toxic materials, filters downward to the
water table and finds its way to rivers, streams and eventually the
ocean. There, the nitrogen and, to a lesser degree, the pesticides
generate massive, abnormal and very toxic “algal blooms,” which rapidly
decay into huge areas of oxygen-sucking dead algae. This is highly
destructive of marine life.

Corn cultivation utilizes the greatest application of fertilizers and
pesticides. No surprise, then, that the heaviest concentration of these
toxins occurs in the U.S. corn belt. The result? Nitrogen and other
toxins in the Mississippi River system have mercilessly poured into the
Gulf of Mexico creating a dead zone of 22,000 square kilometers (8,492
square miles, an area about the size of New Jersey). It’s not just the
Gulf of Mexico. The number of oceanic dead zones has spread around the
planet like an environmental cancer.

Since the onset of the biofuel craze in the 1980s, the number of dead zones has increased 450 percent.

But that’s not all.

Species Extinction

There are currently about 405 dead zones on the planet, the largest,
70,000 square kilometers (27,020 square miles—larger than the state of
West Virginia), in the Baltic Sea. Species extinction is a direct effect
of these zones. In the last ten years, 14,000 dead seals and dolphins
have washed up on California’s coast and 650 gray whales have been found
beached. In Florida, hundreds of manatees have been killed and 80
percent of the coral reef in the Caribbean has been smothered.
Seventy-five percent of California’s fish-rich kelp forest has been
ruined and the problem is beginning to affect the availability of
seafood for human consumption.

About 1.7 million plant and animal species have been identified on
the planet. According to some reports, species extinction is now
occurring at the rate of about 20,000 to 30,000 annually. Whatever the
number, the endangered species list increased 150 percent last year
alone. The single largest reason for this is habitat destruction and
pollution, most of which is a result of biofuel production.

Makes you feel warm all over, doesn’t it?

Oxygen Depletion

I don’t know about you, but I’ve grown rather partial to breathing. It brings a certain awareness to life.

So the fact that biofuel production is depleting the planet’s oxygen is more than a little troubling.

Sounds alarmist, doesn’t it? Perhaps even a bit conspiratorial. How
could one of the most prolific solutions to global warming be destroying
the planet’s supply of oxygen?

The oceans are the planet’s largest carbon sink. (The rain forests
are the most effective carbon sinks; oceans are the largest.) It is the
algae in the oceans that absorb the bulk of the earth’s CO2. That’s right; the earth’s primary CO2 sponge is the algae in the oceans.

The algae then convert sunlight and the CO2 in the ocean into oxygen.

Seventy to eighty percent (70%–80%) of this planet’s oxygen is
produced by the algae in the oceans. Yet the nitrogen, phosphates and
other chemicals pouring into the oceans around the world as a result of
biofuel production are destroying the very element that produces the
bulk of that oxygen—the algae in the oceans.

This is Con #4: Biofuels don’t reduce carbon; they destroy the rain
forests and are depleting the very air we breathe. Which begs the
question, have these people forgotten to pay their brain bills, are they
just plain evil or . . . is there something else at play here?

And that brings us to the last piece of the puzzle and the final con.

© 2010 by John Truman Wolfe. All rights reserved.


20
Feb 10

Con #03 Global warming is a vast, strategic PR campaign.

GLOBAL WARMING—CLIMATE CHANGE

The heart-wrenching icon of a lone polar bear hovering in solitude
somewhere in the rapidly disappearing Arctic has become the
environmental movement’s most poignant pitchman.

The pitch, however, is bogus. The bears are booming.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Nearly everyone
agrees that there are more polar bears now than when scientists first
started counting: Estimates put the population between 20,000 and
25,000, up from several thousand 50 years ago. In Canada, where
two-thirds of the world’s bears live, most populations have grown during
the past two or three decades. Arctic residents say they are now
bumping into bears wherever they turn.”

The polar bear “debate” cuts to the heart of the foundation on which the environmental movement rests: global warming.

While the Club of Rome’s clarion call for “sustainable development” in The Limits to Growth
turned out to be more than a little thin on scientific credibility, and
the theory that oil is a scarce and rapidly depleting fossil fuel is
untrue, the holy grail of the environmental movement is Global Warming
or, as they have renamed it due to the last eleven years of
embarrassingly cooler temperatures, Climate Change.

It is the creed upon which the movement is built.

The scripture is as follows: The burning of fossil fuels produces
carbon dioxide. This and other “greenhouse” gases create global warming,
which will destroy the planet.

To wit, the production of these gases must be “capped.”

Legislation to suppress their use is a first step. Population
control, a reduction of the planet’s population, is the real answer
because man makes these gases. Fewer people mean less greenhouse gas.
Less greenhouse gas means less global warming. Less warming means the
earth is saved.

Amen.

Greenhouse gases, by the way, are any of the atmospheric gases, such
as water vapor and carbon dioxide, that are said to contribute to the
greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is a name for the phenomenon outlined above
whereby the earth’s atmosphere traps solar radiation and thereby
overheats the planet. According to the theory, these gases in the
atmosphere allow sunlight to pass through to the earth, but then absorb
the heat radiated back from the planet’s surface.

Shazam! Global warming.

Sounds good. Cut CO2 and you save the world.

A clearly identified evil with an action plan to handle it.

Kind of like the Inquisition—fry the heretics, purify the faith.

Today, global warming heretics are burned in the media not at the
stake, but the dogma is no less strident, no less authoritarian, and no
less despotic.

SCIENCE SETTLED

Al Gore is the Moses of global warming. He, along with the high
priests of the movement, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), has pronounced that the science regarding
man-made global warming is “settled.” There’s nothing further to
discuss: global warming is real; man-made CO2 is the cause; carbon production must be capped. Done deal.

Al and the IPCC are simpatico on this—which is cool. Harmony in the ranks.

THE OREGON PETITION

But here’s the deal: 31,486 scientists have signed a document called
the Oregon Petition lambasting the shoddy research behind global
warming, stating quite simply that “. . . any human contribution to
climate change has not been demonstrated.”

This is not a gang of political hacks, or George Soros–funded
“activists.” No, the signatories include 3,667 atmospheric,
environmental and Earth scientists; 4,796 chemists; 2,924 biologists and
agricultural scientists; 903 math and computer scientists; and 9,992 in
engineering and general science.

Of these, 9,029 have PhDs.

The petition states that there is no convincing scientific evidence
that the human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will cause global warming.

It goes on to say that there is substantial scientific evidence
demonstrating that atmospheric carbon dioxide produces countless
beneficial effects on the plant and animal populations of Earth. (In one
of Mother Nature’s most spectacular touches of environmental magic,
plants convert carbon dioxide and sunlight into oxygen—you know, the
stuff we breathe.)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

In March of 2009 the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
posted a report of more than 700 international scientists dissenting on
the theory of man-made global warming. Several of those joining in on
this report were current or former IPCC members.

Several other groups of scientists have issued statements blasting
the lack of credible science behind the theory that man-made carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contribute to
global warming. Examples include the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists
on Greenhouse Warming, the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate
Change, and the Heidelberg Appeal.

THE IPCC COOKS THE BOOKS

You will notice, if you read articles about the environment, that
“facts” regarding global warming invariably cite the IPCC as their
source

In short, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the
planet’s opinion leader on the subject of man-made climate change.

Or at least they were.

On November 19, 2009, one of the largest scientific scandals in
history exploded across the international media when thousands of
internal e-mails were leaked exposing the organization’s blatant
manipulation of climate data. The e-mails revealed that the IPCC had
skewed bucketloads of climate information to promote the idea that
global warming was a result of an increase in man-made carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases.

This wasn’t a bunch of stoners in a frat house passing the filched
answers to the Geology 101 midterm around. These guys were recognized as
the world’s leading “authorities” on climate change, caught red-handed
in an intentional plot to mislead environmental groups, governments and
the public at large about the current and future state of the planet’s
temperature.

This brief excerpt from Canada’s National Post rather tells the story.

“The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of
climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem
dangerously warm.

“The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history
as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm
Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

“The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the
enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the
world—Wikipedia—in the wholesale rewriting of this history.”

THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD

Like a cheap Las Vegas lounge act, the pernicious cult of climate
change ideologues at the IPCC desperately tried to hide the Medieval
Warm Period (MWP)—ditch it, make it disappear. This was the warmest
period in modern recorded history and is very well known by
climatologists.

Trying a page from Houdini’s playbook, the IPCC created a phony graph
of historical temperatures that made the MWP—presto!—vanish.

Cute.

You see, during the MWP temperatures were much warmer than they are
today. Agriculture flourished and the Norsemen, taking advantage of the
ice-free seas, settled Greenland. There is no evidence of a rise in sea
level at that time. None. And ice sheets around Greenland were largely
absent. Greenland, get it?

Temperatures soared, but where was the man-made carbon dioxide? Oil
had yet to be discovered, factories had not been constructed, and the
first Model T was centuries into the future.

There followed a mini ice age, and by 1500 the settlements in Greenland were gone and the Thames froze all the way to London.

There was no “man-made” factor in any of this. These ebbs and flows
of the earth’s temperatures were all a product of naturally occurring
phenomena, which is discussed in detail below.

But as to the IPCC,

“Research data on climate change do not show that human use of
hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
—The Oregon Petition

FEARMONGERS

In fact, the same mindset that is now promoting the catastrophic
consequences of global warming were using the same arguments, almost
word for word, to promote the dire consequences of global cooling just a
few decades ago.

In 1975, Reid Bryson wrote in Global Ecology:

“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord
with the increase in global air pollution associated with
industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding
population.”

Yeah, baby! CO2 is causing global cooling.

Or consider Kenneth Watt, writing on Earth Day in 1970:

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000. . . . This is about twice what it would take to
put us into an ice age.”

Good call, Ken.

There are more, but you get the idea.

These people, then and now, are fearmongers. They get some kind of
perverse joy out of frightening people—in this case, frightening them
into acceptance of the greatest con job of all time.

Listen to the climate chaos merchants reviewing a book by a global
warming jihadist named James Hansen, who subtitles his book “The truth
about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save
humanity.”

“Dr. James Hansen is Paul Revere to the foreboding tyranny of climate chaos.” —Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“With urgency and authority, Hansen urges readers to speak
out—taking to the streets if necessary—to protect the Earth from
calamity for the sake of their children and grandchildren.”
Kirkus Reviews

Calamity, chaos and catastrophe: the cocaine of the global warming media extremists.

STATS

The crisis and catastrophe crowd don’t like to talk about the fact
that water vapor (not carbon dioxide) accounts for 95% of all greenhouse
gases. This is naturally occurring water vapor—99.99% of “greenhouse
gas” water vapor is natural. Only .01% (one-hundredth of one percent) of greenhouse water vapor is man-made.

But carbon dioxide is the anointed villain of the piece. It must really pack a punch, because CO2
only makes up 3.6% of greenhouse gases. And here’s the kicker, only 3%
of the carbon dioxide—3% of the 3.6%—is man-made. This means .1%
(one-tenth of one percent) is man-made CO2.

This, according to the harbingers of climate doom, is what is driving
“climate catastrophe.” International conferences are called,
governments allocate billions, and corporate PR departments gush over
environmental agendas in a universal tsunami of green.

It’s as if someone had turned a programmed cult of global warming
druids lose on the planet to shriek the horrors of carbon dioxide to a
populace that doesn’t know or can’t confront the blatant lunacy of what
they are saying.

In turn, the lapdog media regurgitates the chaos and calamity to
millions. Their sole aspiration is to shovel as much death, destruction,
filth and depravity into the public’s mind in the shortest possible
time. Except somewhere in their collective soul they know . . . and they
are sick with shame.

“We allow the most atrocious lies uttered by political and moral
prostitutes to go unchallenged. These lies are endlessly recycled in the
commercial media until they become ingrained in the public conscience
as truth.”
—Charles Sullivan, author and philosopher

Can I get an “Amen”?

THE SOLAR CONNECTION

I’m a California boy. I love the sun. During spring break in college,
some friends of mine and I would body surf our way down the west coast
of Mexico, turning coffee brown in the process, and return to campus as
sun-baked bronze gods. The co-eds would swoon. . . . Okay, maybe not
swoon, but getting dates was definitely easier.

It never occurred to me in those halcyon days that the sun might play
a leading role in an article I would later write about global warming.
But it does.

The fact is that Earth has experienced natural warming and cooling
cycles all throughout recorded history—cycles that have driven
temperatures much higher than anything we are experiencing today.

And what is the source of these fluctuations in the earth’s
temperature? Water vapor? No. Carbon dioxide? Eh . . . sorry. Hair
spray? You’re joking.

What causes temperature changes on the earth is . . . the sun.

Scientists have discovered that the sun has regular cycles of sunspot
activity. Sunspots are regions on the sun’s surface of intense magnetic
activity; the more sunspots, the more “active” the sun is.

Sunspots and solar radiation activity virtually parallel temperature
changes on Earth. That’s right; it is the sun that is the source of
global warming and cooling cycles—not mankind’s “carbon footprint.”

If greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming, how is it that
from 1940 to 1975, when there was a dramatic increase in the production
and release of CO2, the earth experienced a significant cooling period?

Warming periods on Earth are a direct result of an increase in solar
radiation, which prevents cloud formation. Cloud formation has a cooling
effect on the planet. This is further borne out by the fact that other
planets in our solar system all appear to heat up at the same time. But
they’re not driving Chevys on Pluto or burning coal on Mars.

This, then, is Con #3: Global warming is a vast, strategic PR
campaign, nothing more. It is not a planetary temperature phenomenon.
Sorry, Al.

“Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have
come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in
fact, was false.” —
Bertrand Russell

So, what gives? Why all the misleading information and climate change hysteria?

Let me introduce you to Con #4. . . .

© 2010 by John Truman Wolfe. All rights reserved.


20
Feb 10

Con #01 Anatomy of a Con job

ANATOMY OF A CON JOB

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell

If you look with your understanding, the crimes against hu

manity are written across the rotting visages of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Like a couple of aging prostitutes, these leading architects of
twentieth-century evil still sell their wares to those with an
insatiable lust for the power of the crown.

THE CLUB OF ROME

Birth Mother of the Environmental Movement

The moldy twosome have something else in common. Both have been
active members of an international think tank from the dark side of the
force called the Club of Rome. Founded at the Rockefeller’s estate in
Bellagio, Italy, in 1968, some of the other fraternity brothers and
sisters include Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the
Netherlands, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

And there is no one better to give you the short version of the Club’s agenda than Gorby himself:

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘internal disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

Who let this guy out of Lubyanka?

Their more precisely stated goal is population control. The solution?
Create an environmental catastrophe like, oh, say, “global warming” and
blame it on the planet’s most heinous villain—man himself.

But I should let them tell it:

“In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the
idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. . . . But in designating them as
the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned,
namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and
behaviors that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity
itself.”

Sounds like a good plan . . . if you’re Darth Vader.

In 1972, the Club took the world stage with the publication of a book
they had commissioned to be written by a group of MIT scientists. It
was called The Limits to Growth. Examining the planet’s
population growth in relation to available resources, the report
concluded that the planet would run out of resources sometime in the
next 100 years, resulting in a catastrophic decline in population and
industrial production.

As one reviewer put it, the authors examine

“. . . the impact of humanity on the world ecology and of steps
taken toward remediating the accelerating approach to a train wreck that
is mankind’s ill-managed and uncontrolled ‘footprint’ on this planet’s
environment.”

Still, these trends and their consequences could be altered, it
argued; we had to be less, do less and have less. The brand for this
Orwellian path to planetary salvation was sustainable development.

Heavily promoted, the book reached opinion leaders in political,
scientific and economic circles as it exploded around the planet like
the Harry Potter of environmentalism. It sold 12 million copies in
thirty languages despite the fact that the research had all the
scientific rigor of a plagiarized term paper for a freshman biology
class.

“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” —Mohandas Gandhi

Assailed by top scientists, the research was shoddy in the extreme. Population expert and author Professor Julian Simon said, “The Limits to Growth has been blasted as foolishness or fraud by almost every economist who has read it closely or reviewed it in print.

Yale economist Henry Wallich reviewed the book saying, “. . . the
quantitative content of the model comes from the authors’ imagination,
although they never reveal the equations that they used
.”

But it is a PR world and with the publication of this book, the
modern environmental movement was born. Midwifed to life in a blanket of
deceit, it was yet hailed as the savior, not of mankind, but of the
planet it claimed was being fried to a crisp by humanity’s toxic binge
of carbon dioxide.

The scientific fraud is its own malice, but few were able to see the
underlying strategy—that the book would serve as the foundation of a
global public relations campaign that would mesmerize legislators,
educators, and countless organizations of goodwill and would eventually
set the stage for the biggest rip-off in human history. But I am getting
ahead of myself.

This then was Con #1: The scientific basis of the book that launched
the environmental movement calling for “sustainable development” and a
reduction of man’s leper-like carbon footprint on the planet was, and
is, a scam, a hoax, a falsehood—environmental snake oil.

“Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

Which leads us to the second piece of the puzzle, Con #2. Who’d have thought that . . .

© 2010 by John Truman Wolfe. All rights reserved.


20
Feb 10

Con #02 OIL Is Not a Fossil Fuel, and it is “renewable.”

OIL

Is Not a Fossil Fuel

The immigration officer at Sheremetyevo took my passport and studied
it for some time. He didn’t say anything; he just thumbed through the
passport and then looked at a computer screen for a couple of lifetimes before stamping it and grunting me on to customs.

The KGB was still manning the borders the first time I went to Moscow
shortly after the fall of Communism. Letting Americans walk freely into
Mother Russia without official surveillance was driving the man crazy
but he had to keep a lid on it.

In fact, Communism had been officially dead for only a few months
when the shock troops of capitalism started storming the gates of
opportunity in the former Soviet Union. The ghosts of Marx, Lenin and
Stalin stalked the halls of the Politburo in horror as entrepreneurs
from the United States, Japan and Western Europe tried to cut deals for
every asset in Mother Russia that wasn’t nailed down. Banking,
hospitality, timber and precious metals came under assault by peculiar
partnerships of western capitalists and thugs from the once mighty KGB.
During those early years, when Yeltsin (God love him) and his vodka were
in office, it was a free-for-all.

The Oklahoma land rush of the 1890s had nothing on Moscow in 1992.

But even then, the oil industry stayed under control of the
state—directly or indirectly. In fact, as recently as 2003, the
bare-chested former KGB colonel and current premier—soon to be president
of Russia . . . again—Vladimir Putin squashed a buyout deal between
Russia’s Yukos and Exxon, the largest company in the world.

To understand the reason for this, we return momentarily to the early
days of the Cold War when an isolated Soviet Union tasked their top
scientists to identify the actual source of oil. Not a weekend homework
assignment. After considerable research, in 1956, Russian scientist
Professor Vladimir Porfir’yev announced that “crude oil and natural
petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter
originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial
[originating with the earth’s formation] materials which have been
erupted from great depths.”

If your eyeballs didn’t fall out when you read that, you might want to read it again.

He said oil doesn’t come from anything biologic, not, as conventional
wisdom dictates, from the fossilized remains of dinosaurs and/or
ancient plant matter. It comes from very deep in the earth and is
created by a biochemical reaction that subjected hydrocarbons (elements
having carbon and hydrogen) to extreme heat and intense pressure during
the earth’s formation.

Russians referred to this oil (any oil, really) as “abiotic oil”
because it is not created from the decomposition of biological life
forms, but rather from the chemical process continually occurring inside
the earth.

I know, easy for Porfir’yev to say. But it turns out it was more than just a theory.

Because shortly after the Russians discovered this, they started
drilling ultra-deep wells and finding oil at 30,000 and 40,000 feet
below the earth’s surface. These are staggering depths, and far below
the depth at which organic matter can be found, which is 18,000 feet.

Interesting, eh?

The Russians applied their theory of abiotic deep-drilling technology
to the Dnieper-Donets Basin, an area understood for the previous half a
century to be barren of oil. Of sixty wells drilled there using abiotic
technology, thirty-seven became commercially productive—a 62 percent
success rate compared with the roughly 10 percent success rate of a U.S.
wildcat driller. The oil found in the basin rivaled Alaska’s North
Slope.

Let’s say they had a good hair day.

But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. Since their earlier
discoveries, the major Russian oil companies have quietly drilled more
than 310 ultra-deep wells and put them into production.

Result? Russia recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the planet’s largest oil producer.

Maybe they are onto something.

Though there were papers written on this early on, almost all were in
Russian and few made it to the West. And those that did were laughed
at.

No more. With Russia’s rejection of the Exxon-Yukos deal (Putin did
not want this technology and their abiotic oil experts exported to the
West) and the access to information now available on the Internet, the
word has begun to spread rapidly to the West. Still, it hasn’t taken
hold yet.

Why not? This is huge. Oil is not a fossil fuel! And it’s renewable! Wow!

There are a couple of factors at play here.

Big oil has a vested interest in pushing the idea that oil is scarce,
hard to find, and thus costly to produce—all of which, of course, means
increased revenues and profits. This is a story in itself, but not the
primary focus here.

More relevant to our story is the fact that a cornerstone of the
environmental movement is this: oil is a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel that
is scarce, and is in limited and ever decreasing supply. Moreover, its
production creates carbon dioxide. Therefore its use, for virtually all
productive purposes—agricultural production, real estate construction,
auto, truck, train and air transportation, utilities, heating, cooling,
communication, ad infinitum (all of them)—must be curtailed.

According to the thirty-year update of the book The Limits to Growth,

“A prime example of a nonrenewable resource is fossil fuels, whose
limits should be obvious, although many people, including distinguished
economists, are in denial over the elementary fact. More than 80 percent
of year 2000 commercial energy use comes from nonrenewable fossil
fuels—oil, natural gas, and coal. The underground stocks of fossil fuels
are going continuously and inexorably down. . . .

“Peak gas production will certainly occur in the next 50 years, the
peak for oil production will occur much sooner, probably within the
decade.”

Scary stuff. Frightening. But as false as a hooker’s smile.

Oil is not a fossil fuel.

And it is “renewable.”

While I have never been a fan of Putin the Macho, the Russians have
demonstrated the accuracy of their theory in the only place it
counts—the oil field. Oil is not only abiotic, it continues to populate
fields that were understood to be as dry of petroleum as a desert wind.
In fact, some scientists believe it is the centrifugal force of the
planet’s rotation that forces abiotic oil toward the planet’s surface on
a continuous basis.

“There are some things the general public does not need to
know, and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government
can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can
decide whether to print what it knows.”
—the late Katherine
Graham, owner of the Washington Post

So Con #2 is that oil is a fossil fuel (which it isn’t), that it is
scarce and being depleted (which it isn’t), that it is nonrenewable
(which it isn’t), and that, as a result, catastrophe looms (which it
doesn’t) unless we drastically curtail our use of petroleum.

Lies one and all, which lead us to the granddaddy of con—Con #3:

© 2010 by John Truman Wolfe. All rights reserved.


13
Jan 10

#3 Money Market Accounts

MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS

Last year, a group of international bankers called The Group of
Thirty, met and issued some recommendations about money market accounts.

On the surface, The Group of Thirty is just an “informal” group of
very senior finance people who make recommendations about global banking
and finance. But a close look finds it made up of the usual suspects –
predators from the Bank for International Settlements, The U.S. Federal
Reserve Bank, Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund and others
of like kind.

One of their recommendations was that money market accounts should be
changed so that there are “…no explicit or implicit assurances to
investors that funds can be withdrawn on demand.”

This means that if the institution considers that withdrawals are
occurring at an unsafe rate, the money market fund could deny you access
to your funds.

It is no surprise at all then that the Security and Exchange
Commission recently proposed a rule change that would allow money market
funds to suspend redemptions if the board of directors deemed it
advisable. The “advisable” is a litany of banker speak, but the bottom
line is that not only are money market accounts not federally insured
(which has been the case) but now there are conditions under which your
deposits are no longer liquid.

Money market accounts are currently paying about .61% of 1% interest.
They aren’t insured and, should the rule pass, carry no guarantee
instant liquidity.

Move the money to a savings about (under $250,000 and in a well rated bank).

And if your mutual fund has your liquid cash in a money market fund, have them move it to a well rated insured institution.

RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS

About a year and a half ago, I wrote an article entitled, Protecting Your Assets.

The point of that article was,

Which brings us to the point of this article, which is that when the government finishes their spending
binge, and wakes up to their eye-watering fiscal hangover, they will
turn inward with a vengeance, seeking to filch money from every nook and
cranny of the U.S. population.

The article also said in part:

Testimony before the House Committee on Education a few months ago
suggested that personal retirement accounts (IRAs and 401Ks) should be
converted into government-controlled accounts called Guaranteed
Retirement Accounts (GRAs). They would be managed by that bastion of
fiscal propriety the Social Security Administration.

California Democrat George Miller’s House Committee on Education
and Labor heard a proposal from Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the
Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for
Social Research in New York, to eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and
similar retirement accounts such as IRAs and convert them into
Guaranteed Retirement Accounts managed by the Social Security
Administration.

Why should we not be surprised then at the January 8, 2010 article in Business Week which reveals the plan by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Department of Labor to protect you by converting your 401Ks and IRA into annuities that have a steady payment stream?

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public
comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)
accounts and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other
steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis
C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are
spearheading the effort.

These people are snorting Karl Marx.

My article also quotes the Casey Report from a year ago:

Your government considers you a national resource to be
exploited. If you don’t get your money out of the country before the
government gets your money out of you, you’re an idiot, and you’re going
to get what you deserve.

The Casey Report, January 2009

This regulation hasn’t passed yet, but I hope you can see that there
is serious intent to make it so. I strongly recommend that you get with
your CPA and or tax advisor and at least run the numbers on what would
it mean for you to liquidate those retirement accounts.

I am NOT recommending that you just up and do that. There are
significant tax consequences to such moves. But I also want you to be
aware that Uncle is looking at gaining control over these assets, and
you should undertake an informed analysis of your options before such
regulations go into place (should they carry through on their plan).

There is more to this chapter as well as some additional options in
the article which is now part of an e-book I have just published. And
while it is self serving commercial, I do recommend you buy it and read
it.

The book, Crisis by Design has entire
chapter of recommendations on how to protect yourself and your assets in
these extremely challenging times in the worlds of finance and
investment. The book is available at www.behindthewizardscurtain.com.

SOLUTIONS SUMMARY

1- Check out your bank’s safety at www.bankrate.com. If you want a professional analysis of your bank or recommendations for an alternative, contact me at this email address – Bruce@brucewiseman.net

2- Transfer money market assets to bank savings accounts.

3- Consult with your CPA on the advantages and disadvantages of
liquidating your retirement account/s should the government move to
convert your retirement assets to some kind of “steady payment” annuity.

4-Go to www.behindthewizardscurtain.com and get a copy of CRISIS BY DESIGN.
Yes, it’s a commercial, but I wouldn’t have written the book and
wouldn’t urge you to read it, if I didn’t think it was important and
that it would help you to flourish and prosper.

Have an OUTRAGEOUS 2010.

Bruce

Bruce@brucewiseman.net

www.BruceWiseman.net


13
Jan 10

#2 BANKING

BANKING

An AP wire story issued last month said, “Regulators on Friday shut
down two big California banks as well as banks in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Michigan and Illinois, bring to 140 the number of U.S. banks
brought down this year by the weak economy and mounting loan defaults.”

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out folks: in
2005, 0 banks failed; in 2006, 0 banks failed; in 2007, 3 banks failed;
in 2008, 25 banks failed and 140 failed in 2009.

Let me be kind, that is an ugly graph and it says something about the
banking system. The FDIC is broke – they are going to have to get their
“insurance” money from uncle.

Yes, there is coverage for up to $250,000 per account (and sometimes
more depending on who’s on the account with you), but if you are in a
business where immediate access to your cash flow is critical to your
operations, you need to be in a healthy bank. (And if you are carrying
balances in excess of $250,000 in one account, shift some of that money
elsewhere so that you are covered.

Please check the health of your bank. You can do that at www.bankrate.com.
Go to the section on the first page that says “Safe and Sound Ratings.”
They have a service there that ranks banks with 1 to 5 stars. If your
bank has 4 or 5 stars, you should be fine; if it has 1 or 2 stars, you
should move banks. If it has 3 stars, you are in somewhat of a grey zone
frankly. You shouldn’t be immediate danger, but keep an eye on the
ratings or move.

That’s one way to get an initial overview of the bank’s health. That
said, the ratings at bankrate.com just take a snapshot of how the bank
looks right now. What it doesn’t do, which is a huge omission, is it
doesn’t look at the trend.
Is this bank getting better or worse? What condition are they in
compared to last year and the year before? Are their delinquent loans
growing or getting smaller?

Growing loan delinquencies are important considerations these days
and unfortunately the bankrate analysis doesn’t take these factors into
consideration. If your bank is a 4 or 5 star bank, it’s probably not a
concern, but a 3 star bank with a deteriorating trend is reason to
consider moving your money.

If you have a 3 star bank and want a professional look at your bank’s
balance sheet (or just want an experienced eye), I do this as a
service. As many of you know, I have been a senior credit officer for
two banks in California and can take an educated look for you. I charge
for this service: $175 per bank and $225 if you also want me to find and
recommend an alternative.

I know, it would be nice if I could do it for free, but it takes
considerable time for me to do these reviews and then send you my
findings.

NEXTPREVIOUSPRESENT

#1 Recommendations on how to protect yourself and your assets

#2 Banking

#3 Money Market Accounts


13
Jan 10

#1 Recommendations on how to protect yourself and your assets

I was sitting in a restaurant in Toluca Lake, California
munching on a field of greens salad with gorganzola cheese, candied
pecans and a raspberry vinaigrette dressing. My Kobe burger had just been
served when my cell phone did its thing.

Author & Writer John Truman Wolfe

Author & Writer John Truman Wolfe

I tried not to glance at the phone because the Kobe burger beckoned.
But I did. The incoming number was from the San Francisco Bay
area,  where my oldest daughter lives, and while it wasn’t her
number, I answered the call in case she was trying to reach me.

The call was from James Dines. I was floored. I left Mr. Kobe at the
table and walked outside the restaurant so that I could hear better.

….

Last year I wrote a series of articles on the financial crisis. By
way of friend, Michael Baybak, one of the articles found its way into
the hands of Jim Dines, who is one of the world’s preeminent investment
strategists.

Mr. Dines had some very kind things to say about the article. We
subsequently exchanged some further communication but haven’t spoken for
some months. Yesterday, I received a copy of Dine’s new book GOLDBUG! Which details his investment strategies and predictions covering more than three decades. Preorder GOLDBUG here!

Mr. James Dines

Mr. James Dines

Over the years, James Dines has been branded as “The Original Gold
Bug” and while I would in no way compare myself, as Dines has devoted
his entire professional life to studying these markets, modesty aside, I
could easily be labeled a “Silver Bug” as I have been a promoter of
investing in silver for almost as long as Dines has promoted gold
(though Dines is a strong silver advocate as well).

The simple truth is that both markets have done handsomely. A quick
look back at the last decade shows generous appreciation in both.

On January 10th of 2000, the price of an ounce of gold was $281.70
per ounce. As I write this, it is trading at $1153.40 per ounce.

OneOunceGold04

On January 10th of 2000. Silver was trading at $5.15 an ounce. It is currently trading at $18.75 an ounce.

OneOunceSilver03

Do I expect precious metals prices to continue to rise? I do. How
high? I don’t know. But the bull market in precious metals is still in
play, though I expect silver to experience the most gains.

Having said that, please note the following: I have no crystal ball,
and these predictions and $3.55 will get you a Grande decafe latte at
Starbucks. Markets change, and sooner or later, this one will too. For
now, the future looks bright for precious metals. That’s my opinion. But
no guarantees.

While the metals markets have been kind, and I think will continue to
be so for some time, there are real concerns with the banking sector as
well as with a government truly drunk with the power of the purse.

Let’s take the banking sector first.

NEXT – PREVIOUS – PRESENT


#1 Recommendations on how to protect yourself and your assets

#2 Banking

#3 Money Market Accounts