New York Times
November 2, 2007
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today his support for a national carbon tax. In what his aides called one of the most significant policy addresses of his second and final term, the mayor argued that directly taxing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change will slow global warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation — even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term.
Mr. Bloomberg presented his carbon tax proposal in a speech this afternoon at a two-day climate protection summit in Seattle organized by the United States Conference of Mayors. (A copy of the speech was provided to The New York Times by aides to the mayor; the full text is below.) The summit’s other keynote speaker, former President Bill Clinton, on Thursday announced an effort by his private foundation and the mayors’ conference to help 1,100 American cities buy energy-efficient products as groups and qualify for volume discounts.
In calling for a carbon tax, Mr. Bloomberg was again speaking out on national issues, as he has on gun control and public health matters like smoking and obesity. The mayor, who was elected in 2001, left the Republican Party in June of this year and declared himself a political independent, fueling speculation that he might run for president. While the presidential talk has simmered down lately, today’s environmental address could revive it.
At the least, the tone and scope of Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal suggested that he is eager to maintain a national profile on major issues and determined not to be seen as a lame duck for the remaining two years of his term. (He is barred by term limits from seeking re-election in 2009.) Mr. Bloomberg’s speech accused the federal government of failing to develop a meaningful response to global warming and asserts that both major political parties have dodged the issue.
In 1993, President Clinton persuaded the House to adopt a B.T.U. tax (a tax on the heat content of fuels), but the effort died in the Senate. Many American politicians have considered endorsing a carbon tax politically suicidal; among the few who publicly support the concept are Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and presidential candidate who has called for a corporate carbon tax, and former Vice President Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work on climate change.
The idea of a carbon tax has slowly been gaining support, not only among scholars and environmentalists, but also in an unlikely quarter: business groups and even the companies that emit carbon dioxide and would be the most directly affected. Earlier this year, several businessmen formed the Carbon Tax Center to argue for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Under that proposal, the revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce the deficit or to finance cuts in income taxes or the alternative minimum tax.
Most economists consider a carbon tax a more effective instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the other major policy alternative, a cap-and-trade system that would require plant-by-plant emission measurements and could prompt companies to cheat. Mr. Bloomberg’s staff cited research by Gilbert E. Metcalf, a Tufts University economist who is on leave to work with the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in support of that argument.
Mr. Bloomberg’s speech called on political leaders to make necessary if unpopular choices — citing, as an example, his call for a congestion pricing plan that would tax vehicular traffic in Manhattan during the busiest weekday periods. Despite the support of the Bush administration, which has offered to help finance the effort as a model for traffic mitigation, the plan has been controversial, and it is being studied by a commission made up of state and city lawmakers.
In today’s speech, Mr. Bloomberg called for four key measures on climate change: a vast increase in energy-related research and development; an end to certain agricultural subsidies, especially that of corn-based ethanol; an increase in federal fuel efficiency standards for vehicles; and laws to make pollution more expensive for companies. He acknowledged that a cap-and-trade system is politically more feasible, but argued that it obscures costs and is less effective than a carbon tax. Based on his decades in Wall Street and as head of his financial services company, Bloomberg L.P., Mr. Bloomberg argued that “the certainty of a pollution fee — coupled with a tax cut for all Americans — is a much better deal.”
The full text of Mr. Bloomberg’s prepared speech follows. The mayor delivered the speech at 12:30 p.m. in Seattle (3:30 p.m. in New York).
I’ve had the pleasure of working with Mayor Palmer, Mayor Nickels, Mayor Diaz — and many others in this room — through our coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which now includes more than 240 mayors from all around the country — Republicans, Democrats, and independents. If you haven’t joined yet, we’d love to have you — and I think illegal guns and climate change are two of the best examples of cities leading where Washington has not. On both issues, those in Washington prefer talk to action. On illegal guns, they extol the virtues of the Second Amendment, which is all well and good, but let’s get serious: protecting the Second Amendment does not stop you from keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s just a political duck-and-cover that allows legislators to escape responsibility for fixing a serious problem. And innocent people — and police officers — are dying as a result.
On climate change, the duck-and-cover usually involves pointing the finger at others. It’s China-this and India-that. But wait a second. This is the United States of America! When there’s a major challenge, we don’t wait for others to act. We lead! And we lead by example. That’s what all of us here are doing.
This conference has highlighted just how much local leadership there is on the issue of climate change and how many innovative new projects are going on in cities around the country: Seattle’s incentives for greening existing buildings, Los Angeles’s million tree initiative, Miami’s bus rapid transit program — and the list goes on. When we developed our long-term sustainability plan in New York, which we call PlaNYC, we made no apologies for stealing the very best ideas — and we came up with some of our own, including converting our 13,000 taxis to hybrids or high-efficiency vehicles. This will not only help clean our air and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, it will save each driver about $4,500 a year in gas costs.
Cities and states are both taking action, but the fact is, no matter how far we push the boundaries of the possible, there will be no substitute for federal leadership. Leadership is not waiting for others to act, or bowing to special interests, or making policy by polling or political calculus. And it’s not hoping that technology will rescue us down the road or forcing our children to foot the bill. Leadership is about facing facts, making hard decisions and having the independence and courage to do the right thing, even when it’s not easy or popular. We’ve all heard people say, “It’s a great idea, but for the politics.” And let me give you just one example from New York.
Last spring, as part of our PlaNYC initiative, we proposed a system of congestion pricing based on successful programs in London, Stockholm and Singapore. The plan would charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., which would help us reduce the congestion that is choking our economy, the pollution that has helped produce asthma rates that are twice the national average, and the carbon dioxide that is fueling global warming.
Now, the question is not whether we want to pay, but how do we want to pay. With an increased asthma rate? With more greenhouse gases? Wasted time? Lost business? Higher prices? Or do we charge a modest fee to encourage more people to take mass transit and use that money to expand mass transit service? When you look at it that way, the idea makes a lot of sense, but for the politics, because no one likes the idea of paying more. But being up front and honest about the costs and benefits, we’ve been able to build a coalition of supporters that includes conservatives and liberals, labor unions and businesses, and community leaders throughout the city.
There is no problem that can’t be solved if we have the courage to confront it head-on — and put progress above politics. Mayors around the country are doing it — and those in Washington can, too. I believe it’s time for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to come together around a national strategy on climate change and to lead the way on an international strategy. And I believe that until they do, it’s our job as mayors to point the way forward. That’s why right after this conference, several of us will be testifying before a House committee that is holding a hearing on climate change here in Seattle. It’s why I’m pleased to announce that New York City has recently joined a new campaign being launched by The Climate Group called “Together.” It will unite businesses, think tanks, advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, and cities — and I urge all of the cities in this room to join, and to invite your neighbors. It will be a national effort to help all Americans make a difference in the fight against climate change. And it’s why next month, I will go to the U.N. climate change summit in Bali, in the South Pacific, as a guest participant, and to support our delegation.
It’s time for America to re-establish its leadership on all issues of international importance, including climate change. Because if we are going to remain the world’s moral compass — a role that we played throughout the 20th century, not always perfectly, but pretty darn well — we need to regain our footing on the world stage. That means ending the “go-it-alone” approach to foreign affairs that has never served America well. It didn’t work in the 1920s, when we tried to isolate ourself from the world, and it hasn’t work in recent years, when we’ve tried to stand above it, pretending that vital international treaties can simply be ignored. The fight against global warming is a test of America’s leadership — and not just on the environment.
Climate change presents a national security imperative for us, because our dependence on foreign oil has entangled our interests with tyrants and increased our exposure to terrorism. It’s also an economic imperative, because clean energy is going to fuel the future. Jobs are on the line here — good jobs of every kind: Farm jobs. Factory jobs. Engineering jobs. Sales jobs. Management jobs. If we don’t capture these jobs, they’ll just move overseas. Green energy is going to be the oil gusher of the 21st century, and if we’re going to remain the world’s economic superpower, we’ve got to be the pioneers — just as America always has been.
How do we do it? I think we need a strategy that embraces four basic principles, and I’d like to briefly outline them today. First, we need to increase investment in energy R & D. Right now, we’re spending just one-third of what we were in the 1970s. If we really want to be able to manufacture competitively priced biofuel and solar power, if we really want to sequester the carbon dioxide released from coal, we have to be willing to make the commitments that will drive private capital to these projects — and right now, we’re just not doing that.
Second, we have to stop setting tariffs and subsidies based on pork barrel politics. For instance, Congress is currently subsidizing corn-based ethanol at 50 cents a gallon — and you can argue that’s good agricultural policy, but you can’t argue that it’s good for consumers or the environment. Because it isn’t. Consumers pay more for food, and producing corn-based ethanol results in much more carbon dioxide than producing sugar-based ethanol. But are we subsidizing sugar-based ethanol? No! We’re putting a 50-cent tariff on it. Ending that tariff makes all the sense in the world, but for the politics. Everyone knows that politically driven policies are costing taxpayers billions while providing only marginal carbon reductions — but we need leaders who will do something about it!
Third, we have to get serious about energy efficiency — and the best place to start is with our cars and trucks. In 1975, Congress passed a law requiring fuel efficiency standards to double over 10 years, from 12 miles a gallon to 24, with incremental targets that auto manufacturers were required to meet. But since 1985, Washington has been paralyzed by special interests. If the same incremental gains had been adopted for the last two decades, think of where we would be now! We’d all be saving money at the pump, we’d be producing less air pollution and greenhouse gas, Detroit would be in a stronger competitive position and the “Big Three” may not have lost so many more jobs. (Just yesterday, Chrysler announced another 12,000 job cuts.)
Those job losses hurt hard-working Americans, and we have to ask ourselves: Do we want even more middle-class factory workers to be handed pink slips and left to look for service jobs at half the wages? Because that’s the direction we’re heading in if we continue to fall further and further behind other countries in producing fuel-efficient vehicles. The current Senate energy bill would raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards from 27.5 to 35 miles per hour by 2020. That’s nowhere near the leap we made from 1975 to 1985, and many foreign cars are already getting 35 miles to the gallon. Even so, U.S. automakers are trying to water down the Senate bill — and if Congress caves, you can bet the loudest cheers will be heard in Japan. Raising fuel efficiency standards is the best thing we could do for U.S. automakers — and it would’ve been done years ago, but for the politics.
Fourth and finally, we have to stop ignoring the laws of economics. As long as greenhouse gas pollution is free, it will be abundant. If we want to reduce it, there has to be a cost for producing it. The voluntary targets suggested by President Bush would be like voluntary speed limits — doomed to fail. If we’re serious about putting the brakes on global warming, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it. This is where the debate is moving, and I’d like to briefly touch on the pros and cons of the two approaches that are most often discussed: creating a cap-and-trade system, and a putting a price on carbon.
Both of these ideas share the same goal: raising the cost of producing greenhouse gas pollution. If you want less of something, every economist will tell you to do the same thing: make it more expensive. Of course, none of us wants to pay more for electricity or gas or anything else. Rising energy costs, rising health costs, rising college tuition — the middle class is getting squeezed left and right. But raising the cost of pollution can actually save taxpayers money in the long run — and I’ll explain how in a minute. But first, you might be thinking: “Wait a second. Five years ago, oil was selling at $30 a gallon. Now it’s selling at more than $90, and we’re not buying any less of it. So why would raising the cost of carbon make any difference?” The answer is: It would and it wouldn’t. People are going to keep buying gas whether it costs $1 a gallon or $2.75 a gallon — or even more — because the demand for gas is inelastic. But the demand for coal is far more elastic than oil, and so if its price goes up, many power plants would likely switch to natural gas, which is much cleaner, and the 100 coal plants that are now on the drawing boards would likely convert to natural gas as well. Raising the cost of carbon would also make alternative energy sources more cost-competitive, which would lead more consumers and property owners to make the switch.
To raise the cost of carbon, we can take either an indirect approach — creating a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits — or a direct approach: charging a fee for greenhouse gas pollutants. The question is: Which approach would be more effective? I’ve talked to a number of economists on this issue, people like Gilbert Metcalf at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and every one of them says the same thing: A direct fee is the better approach — but for the politics. There’s that phrase again: “But for the politics!”
Cap-and-trade is an easier political sell because the costs are hidden — but they’re still there. And the payoff is more uncertain. Because even though cap-and-trade is intended to incentivize investments that reduce pollution, the price volatility for carbon credits can discourage investment, since an investment that might make sense if carbon credits are trading at $50 a ton may not make sense at $30 a ton. This price volatility can also lead to real economic pain. For instance, if 100 companies release higher emissions than they had planned for, they all have to buy more credits, which can create a very expensive bidding war. That’s exactly what’s happening in parts of Europe right now, and it’s going to cost companies there billions of dollars.
There are also logistical issues with cap-and-trade. The market for trading carbon credits will be much more complex and difficult to police than the market for the sulfur dioxide credits that eliminated acid rain. And there are political issues — because the system is subject to manipulation by elected officials who want to hand out exemptions to special interests. A cap-and-trade system will only work if all the credits are distributed from the start — and all industries are covered. But this begs the question: If all industries are going to be affected, and the worst polluters are going to pay more, why not simplify matters for companies by charging a direct pollution fee? It’s like making one right turn instead of three left turns. You end up going in the same direction, but without going around in a circle first.
A direct charge would eliminate the uncertainty that companies would face in a cap-and-trade system. It would be easier to implement and enforce, it would prevent special interests from opening up loopholes and it would create an opportunity to cut taxes.
I was in England a month ago talking to the Conservative Party, which has proposed a series of revenue-neutral “green taxes” that would be offset by reductions in other taxes. I believe that approach merits consideration — and the most promising idea I’ve heard is to use the revenue from pollution pricing to cut the payroll tax. After all: Employment is good, pollution is bad. Why shouldn’t we lower the cost of the good and raise the cost of the bad? Studies show that a pollution fee of $15 for every ton of greenhouse gas would allow us to return about $500 a year to the average taxpayer. And a charge on pollution would be less regressive than the payroll tax, because the more energy you consume, the more you would pay. That would give us all of us an incentive to reduce our energy use — whether that’s buying a more fuel efficient appliance, or making the switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, as we’ve done in New York’s City Hall – and as I’ve done in my own home. Under this approach, even though energy costs would rise, the savings from tax cuts and energy efficiencies could, over the long run, leave consumers with more money in their pockets.
Creating a direct charge for greenhouse gas pollution would also incentivize the kinds of innovation that a cap-and-trade system is designed to encourage — without creating market uncertainty. To do this, a portion of the revenue from the pollution charge would be used to create an innovation fund, which would finance tax credits for companies that reduce their greenhouse gas pollution. As a result, companies would have two big incentives to reduce their pollution: minimizing the charges they would have to pay and maximizing their tax savings. And unlike a cap-and-trade system, the certainty of tax credits would be more likely to lead companies to make the long-term investments in clean technology that will allow us to substantially reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
Both cap-and-trade and pollution pricing present their own challenges — but there is an important difference between the two. The primary flaw of cap-and-trade is economic — price uncertainty. While the primary flaw of a pollution fee is political, the difficulty of getting it through Congress. But I’ve never been one to let short-term politics get in the way of long-term success. The job of an elected official is to lead – not to stick a finger in the wind. It’s to stand up and say what we believe — no matter what the polls say is popular or what the pundits say is political suicide.
From where I sit, having spent 15 years on Wall Street and 20 years running my own company, the certainty of a pollution fee — coupled with a tax cut for all Americans — is a much better deal. It would be better for the economy, better for taxpayers and — given the experiences so far in Europe — it would be better for the environment. I think it’s time we stopped listening to the skeptics who say, “But for the politics” and start being honest about costs and benefits. Politicians tend to prefer cap-and-trade because it obscures the costs. Some even pretend that it will lower costs in the short run. That’s nonsense. The costs will be the same under either plan — and if anything, they will be higher under cap-and-trade, because middlemen will be making money off the trades. (I happen to love middlemen. They use Bloomberg terminals and support my daughters. But what’s right is right!)
For the money, a direct fee will generate more long-term savings for consumers, and greater carbon reductions for the environment. And I don’t know about you, but when the economists say one thing and the politicians say another, I’ll go with the economists.
Of course, I also understand that you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Whether it’s a direct fee or cap-and-trade, we can’t be afraid to try something — to do something — to act. As mayors, we’re all familiar with those who respond to every problem by saying, “Do another study,” or by scaring voters with doom-and-gloom predictions. That approach is why we have health care costs that have spiraled out of control, it’s why we have public school systems that were allowed to collapse, and it’s why we’re still fighting poverty with the same old programs that haven’t worked.
But remember, this is America! We can’t be afraid to lead, to innovate, to experiment. Cities aren’t afraid. We’re showing that we can do better, we can make progress, and we can do it in a way that is good for the environment and the economy. It’s time for Washington to do the same and to show the world that America is ready to be a leader. When our representatives run for re-election or higher office, they talk about “a chicken in every pot.” But why not tell us who’s going to pay, how it’s going to work, when it’s going to be implemented, and if it doesn’t work, what’s Plan B? We need our leaders to have the courage to talk about and implement real climate change solutions, not just because it’s good for the world, but because it’s good for America, our environment, our national security and our economy. Make no mistake: Real jobs are on the line here — because cleaner energy sources are going to be a cornerstone of the 21st-century economy.
If we’re going to remain the world’s economic superpower, we have to create predictable incentives that will drive technological innovations and allow us to lead the world in developing clean, reliable and affordable energy. We can do it! If we stop saying: But for the politics!
In the weeks and months ahead, our job is not just to continue innovating — but to demand that those in Washington join us. Tell them that it’s O.K. to stand up and be honest about the costs and benefits of real solutions. We’ve done it — and we’ve not only lived to tell the tale, we’ve won support and respect from our constituents. They can, too. And we’ve got to hold them accountable for doing it. So let’s get to work.
Alex Jones' Battle For The Republic exposes how the elite are using illegal immigration and pushing amnesty as a means of pulverizing the American middle class and ensuring that U.S. citizens, black, white and hispanic alike, are forced to sacrifice their freedom and sovereignty as America is sunk into a third world cesspool.
The mini-documentary lifts the lid on how the backlash against rampant illegal immigration in America is a major concern for the Bilderberg Group, posing a threat to their plans to lower the living standards of U.S. citizens of all colors and creeds into second or even third world status.
What is the real agenda behind last year's massive pro-illegal immigration demonstrations and who is really behind them? Battle For the Republic traces the legacy of the movement back to the Plan of San Diego, a shocking blueprint for race-based genocide directed against blacks and whites in America.
The goal is to divide America by bankrolling the Aztlan movement, an extremist separatist plan on behalf of Mexican Ku Klux Klan style groups like Mecha and La Raza to "reclaim" the southern and western U.S. states, in order to eventually merge America, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.
Malthusian rulers' obsession with eugenics and population control to render humanity obsolete, say leading scientific pioneers
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The development of successful life-extension technologies will be a reality within 30 years, but the application of such stunning advances will be tightly restricted by a ruling elite, and eventually may be used as a justification to completely wipe out humanity, according to some of the scientific community's leading pioneers.
A recent article carried by the Methuselah Foundation, an organization that advocates the development of life extension and nanomachinery technology, concludes that life-extension technology and "(greatly) augmenting our biology with nanomachinery" will have arrived by the 2030s, but that "The new bio- and nanotechnologies of the 2040s will be massive overkill for the "simple" task of repairing the damage of aging."
The report concludes that the greatest obstacle in the field is not the development but the application of such technology, suggesting that living for hundreds of years is inevitable only for the wealthy elite.
Pressure groups pushing for more widespread funding of life-extension technology research seem to be constantly frustrated by the fact that major global scientific institutions seek to contain progress within very selective parameters and are very reticent to encourage more open access to the field.
Those who advocate the necessity to mainstream life-extension technology research are keen to tackle the red herring of overpopulation, which is often cited as a reason to restrict the availability of such advances.
As the Fight Aging organization is keen to stress, the specter of overpopulation is a con game used by the elite to keep their subservient and enslaved population in poverty.
The fact is that population growth naturally declines and reverses with increasing wealth, industrialization and the creation of a strong middle class.
So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).
The planet would be perfectly able to sustain many more billions than currently occupy the earth if third world nations were allowed to industrialize and raise their living standards, but the elite, keen to protect a policy that exploits the third world and plunders their resources, are loathe to accept this and thus have to resort to scaremongering about the population bomb in order to maintain the status quo.
But there's another reason why the architects of the eugenics movement and the global warming bandwagon need to promulgate the hoax of the population bomb - to restrict access to life extension technologies, and pave the way for the "overkill" that their use will be directed towards during the second stage of their development.
Once a monopoly on the development of these new technologies is guaranteed, the stage will be set for the elite to render humanity all but obsolete and begin their long desired final solution - the elimination of the vast majority if not all of the human population.
As Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy outlines in his essay, Why The Future Doesn't Need Us, once every aspect of human society is automated and operated solely by machines and robots - a foregone conclusion according to most futurists - and control of the machines is concentrated within a tiny elite, the rest of us will be superfluous and subject to elimination.
Since those without access to the life-extension technologies will be considered luddites and nothing more than a burden on the utopian technocracy that the elite have crafted, our fate is sealed.
The only other plausible scenario is that a small number of humans who are permitted to survive will be biologically or psychologically engineered by the same automated system the elite have created, meaning our roles will hold little more significance than domesticated animals.
These are not the ravings of paranoid conspiracy theorists scared to face the future, they form the modern-day cutting edge of futurist debate in the scientific fields of nanotechnology and trans-humanism.
Next time, we will investigate how the rise of the robots ties into trans-humanism and what it means for those of us who choose to become the "luddites" by rejecting synthetic body augmentation.
Friday, 5 October 2007
BBC One controller Peter Fincham has resigned after an investigation into footage that misrepresented the Queen.
A documentary trailer was edited out of sequence, and Mr Fincham wrongly told the press it showed the monarch walking out of a photo session "in a huff."
A report into the incident has blamed "misjudgements, poor practice and ineffective systems."
The programme was made by production company RDF Media, whose chief creative officer Stephen Lambert has also quit.
Mr Fincham said he resigned because: "From the outset it was clear as controller of the channel I took responsibility for what had happened.
"I thought that was the right thing to do, the honourable thing to do."
He insisted the BBC had "acted in good faith" and admitted leaving after only two-and-a-half years was "probably shorter than I would have liked."
He added: "Blame is spread in many different directions. Errors were made at different levels by different people at different times."
Former BBC executive Will Wyatt wrote the report into A Year with the Queen. He said he did not think "anyone consciously set out to defame or misrepresent the Queen in the tape."
But the report said a "fuse was inexcusably lit when RDF edited the footage of the Queen in a cavalier fashion."
It added that whoever had handled the issue had been "slow to appreciate the magnitude and import of the mistake."
Mr Fincham knew the trailer misrepresented the Queen at 7pm on the evening of the press screening, it said - but a correcting statement was not put out until the following day.
By that time, the news of the Queen "storming out" had already become a big story. The delay in admitting the error was "mistake made by the BBC," Mr Wyatt said.
'Misleading information'
Responding to the report, BBC director general Mark Thompson said: "Serious mistakes were made, which put misleading information about the Queen into the public domain.
"That is why we are determined to take all necessary steps to address the shortcomings set out in this report."
BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons said the report revealed that "serious errors of judgement were made and that proper controls were not applied."
An independent review will also be carried out, he said, while the BBC has compiled a series of new measures in an attempt to tighten editorial standards.
In his resignation letter, Mr Fincham said it was "with great regret" that he had quit.
"Whilst I leave the channel with great sadness, I am tremendously proud of what I and my team have achieved," he said.
BBC Two controller Roly Keating will take over as acting controller of BBC One.
In Mr Lambert's resignation statement, he said he was "taking responsibility for RDF's involvement in the BBC's so-called 'Queengate' affair."
"It was clear to me several weeks ago that, regardless of the inquiry's conclusions, it would be in the best interests of RDF that I should resign once the report was published," he said.
In the trailer, photographer Annie Leibovitz was seen telling the Queen she would look better without her tiara because "the Garter robe is so..."
Before she could say anything else, the Queen replied, pointing to what she was wearing: "Less dressy. What do you think this is?"
The clip then cut to the Queen walking through Buckingham Palace, saying to her lady-in-waiting "I'm not changing anything. I've had enough dressing like this, thank you very much," implying she had stormed off from the portrait session.
But in fact, that clip was filmed before the exchange over the tiara.
The footage, which was revealed at the press launch for BBC One's autumn schedule in July, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error, the BBC said.
At that time, Mr Fincham insisted he was not planning to resign.
Web Posted: 09/25/2007 11:31 PM CDT
AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry is asking the state's multibillion-dollar state pension funds to give him a plan within 30 days for divesting of any holdings in companies that do direct business with Iran.
"The examples we set in Texas can have international ramifications," Perry said in a letter he disclosed at a Tuesday appearance in Dallas to announce the establishment of the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce.
Perry — who said in July, fresh from a trip to Israel, that he wanted the divestment — also sent a letter to governors of states that haven't taken similar action, urging them to join his call for change.
Most U.S. companies are forbidden to do business in Iran under federal law, but the pension fund investments in companies based in other countries could be affected.
Perry wants the Texas pension funds to identify direct investments in companies that do business with Iran, find equivalent alternative investments, encourage "offending companies" to change their ways and divest holdings in companies that don't respond as desired.
Reaction from state lawmakers ranged from supportive to skeptical to concerned.
Perry said in his letter, "I know there will be critics of my directive from those who will contend that Texas' investment portfolios will not perform as well. I refuse to accept the premise, however, that the only way to make money is by investing in terrorism."
The Legislature this year approved, and Perry signed, a measure directing the $112.5 billion Teacher Retirement System and $24.7 billion Employees Retirement System to get rid of holdings in companies doing business in Sudan because of atrocities in Darfur.
Gov. Perry: TRS, ERS Should Divest Funds from Companies with Ties to Iran
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/
Sep. 25, 2007
DALLAS - Today at an event announcing the establishment of the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Rick Perry said he is asking the Employees Retirement System (ERS) and Teachers Retirement System (TRS) to divest all investments from companies doing business with Iran.
"The example we set in Texas can have international ramifications. Today I am asking the Employees Retirement System and the Teacher Retirement System, as the keepers of the state's multibillion dollar investment funds, to divest their respective interests from all companies doing business with Iran," Perry said. "While Texas cannot set its own foreign policy, we can send a strong message that Texans will not condone Iran's continued support of those seeking to do harm to our men and women in uniform."
Approximately 400 internationally-traded companies have ties to Iran.
In addition to Iran's role in terrorist activities, Gov. Perry expressed concerns about that nation's aggressive posture toward Israel. The Governor has long supported an American foreign policy that recognizes the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East, one that consistently advocates for the protection and preservation of democratic states in that part of the world, including Israel.
During a recent visit to Israel, the Governor and First Lady met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former Prime Minister and President Shimon Peres, an event that set in motion the establishment of the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce.
"I want Texas to become the preferred location for Israeli companies doing business in the U.S.," Perry said. "Like Texas, Israel has a long history of growing new technology companies through partnerships that include universities, government and private investors and entrepreneurs. Strengthening relationships between these two 'Lone Star States' will benefit our respective economies and increase understanding."
Texas is Israel's third largest American trading partner. Israel's dedication to fostering new technology has made it second only to the U.S. in the number of start-up companies worldwide.
The commercial relationship between Texas and Israel began with agriculture and natural resources and has in recent years grown to include virtually all other major business sectors, including information technology, medical technologies, aerospace and defense, homeland security and energy.
The Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce serves to bring companies and industries together and to bridge the geographic and cultural barriers to benefit businesses in Texas and Israel. Through the chamber, Texas-based member companies will gain access to not only the Israeli market, but also indirectly to other international markets such as European Union countries through trade with Israel.
Terrorism and the Illuminati: A Three Thousand Year History
by David Livingstone
There exists a sinister relationship between Islamic terrorism and occult secret societies, dating back centuries. The highest order of Western occultism, Scottish Rite Freemasonry, traces its descent to the heretical of the Ismaili Muslims of Egypt, known as the Assassins. During the Crusades, European knights derived from them an ancient occult tradition with its roots in Babylon of the sixth century BC, known as Kabbalah. With Napoleon's conquest of Egypt, the Freemasons reconnected with their brethren in Egypt, sparking a relationship that was pivotal to the development of the Occult Revival of the late nineteenth century. It produced the Salafi reform movement of Islam, since promoted by Saudi Arabia, and the Nazis of Europe, who collaborated to found the Muslim Brotherhood, that collective of Islamic terrorists who have been serving the New World Order plot ever since.
President Bush, left, along with, from second from left, first lady Laura Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, stand with White House staff and members of Congress as they take part in a moment of silence, marking the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington.
related:
Satan Displays Bush 'Hook 'em' Hand Gesture; Is The Devil a UT Fan Too?
Infowars.net
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.
The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."
The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.
"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance.
The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.
In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes.
UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.
"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot."
If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.
The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything.
A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."
Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented.
Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes.
When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.”
Remember that these studies encompass two year old figures and naturally do not even take into account newly proposed "carbon taxes" which would see a sky rocketing in costs sought by the Treasury.
In recent months we have seen proposals in the UK and the US to impose steep new taxes that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal even at a time when the cost of energy is already through the roof.
Such calls for a carbon tax on energy have been echoed by globalist groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group whose members are coincidentally made up of many big energy company heads and CEOs who stand to gain from long term hikes in prices to offset an initial drop in demand that a new tax would bring.
We have previously pointed out that while many green activists aim their criticisms at the energy companies and big government, it is the elite structures within and surrounding those very areas that are pushing global warming fears, in addition to their tax proposals.
Global warming also acts as a convenient veil for the real environmental crimes that will continue on behalf of the mega corporations and scientific establishment that are in bed with the very government imposing draconian measures on us in the name of the environment. GM contamination, toxic waste dumping, bizarre cloning mad science, and the destruction of the rain forests will continue apace while we are still being lectured about light bulbs and beer bottles.
There is also actual discussion of imposing a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe!
Meanwhile less than half of all published scientists endorse the theory that human activity constitutes a significant contribution to climate change, hardly a "consensus" as the UN appointed panel on climate change calls it.
The climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of man-made global warming.
If the cause is not even agreed upon how is it that the solution is?
Because governments throughout the world love convincing people that they are in danger and that they can only be saved by letting them take control. Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government, more corporate monopoly, less sovereignty and less free market economy.
The global warming tax scam has kicked in. There's no time left for a debate they tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and there's peasants to flog.
Eco-fanatics and power-hungry elitists have taken total control of the global warming bandwagon. Before they choke the life out of modern industrialized civilization by eliminating the source of 80% of the planet's energy, and in the face of fierce silencing techniques, it is vital to further understand why scientific evidence is not on the side of the theory of human-caused warming.
Texas Governor Perry's speech to the Texas Republican Straw Poll on September 1, 2007 contradicts reality as Perry claims that Texas does not have a presidential candidate in the 2008 race.
Texas does have a candidate in the race, and it is Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
Ron Paul places 3rd in Texas straw poll
By ROBERT JABLON, Associated Press
Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:20 PM ET
PASADENA, Calif. - Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists and engineers sued NASA and the California Institute of Technology on Thursday, challenging extensive new background checks that the space exploration center and other federal agencies began requiring in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The lawsuit says NASA is violating the Constitution by calling on employees — everyone from janitors to visiting professors — to permit investigators to delve into medical, financial and past employment records, and to question friends and acquaintances about everything from their finances to sex lives. Those who refuse could lose their jobs, the suit says.
"They don't tell you what they're looking for, they don't tell you when they're looking for it, they won't tell us what they're doing with the data," said plaintiff Susan Foster, a technical writer and editor at JPL for nearly 40 years.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by 28 plaintiffs. Many have worked on such projects as the Mars rovers, the Galileo probe to Jupiter and the Cassini mission to Saturn, but none are involved in classified work, according to the suit. It seeks class-action status to represent similar JPL employees.
JPL employees have until Sept. 28 to fill out forms authorizing the background checks. Those who don't will be barred from JPL and be "voluntarily terminated" as of Oct. 27. A request for a preliminary injunction blocking the requirements is to be heard in court Sept. 24.
Caltech was sued because it manages JPL for NASA and employs its staff. The suit also named the Department of Commerce, which is involved in promulgating federal identification standards.
"It's our policy not to comment on matters in litigation," said JPL spokeswoman Veronica McGregor.
In June, JPL workers who consider the background checks unnecessary and intrusive aired their complaints before NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.
Griffin said that it was a "privilege to work within the federal system, not a right" and that he would carry out the order unless it was overturned in court, according to a video of the meeting obtained by The Associated Press.
The lawsuit was announced at a press conference at the Pasadena offices of their lawyers. A group of the plaintiffs who attended described their situation as having to choose between leaving jobs they love and giving up their constitutional rights.
Attorney Dan Stormer said the employees were being forced to "voluntarily" sign forms opening up every detail of their personal lives to federal scrutiny for two years whether or not they keep their jobs.
A 2004 Homeland Security presidential directive mandated new security badges for millions of federal workers and contractors.
The suit claims NASA and the Commerce Department went well beyond the directive, which it said was concerned "exclusively with the establishment of a common identification standard" and "contemplates no additional background investigation or suitability determination beyond that already required by law."
Foster said she will resign before the badges are required, and that there were members of the clerical staff who were too frightened about losing their jobs to come forward.
The suit claims violations of the Constitution's 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, 14th Amendment protection against invasion of right to privacy, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, and rights under the California Constitution.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include senior research scientist Robert Nelson, a 27-year veteran who leads NASA's New Millennium Program, which tests or validates new technology NASA will use in space; William Bruce Banerdt, project scientist for the Mars Exploration Rovers; and Julia Bell, a senior engineer who has served on the navigation team for the Mars Odyssey and rover missions, among others.
Dennis Byrnes, a flight dynamics engineer who has worked on trajectory designs for Galileo and the Apollo moon landings, said he fears the requirements will prompt people to flee government service.
The plan is a "flawed promise of security at the expense of freedom," he said.
Data collected from NASA missions and instruments by those plaintiffs who are researchers is in the public domain and shared with the scientific community, the suit said.
"Indeed, many of the plaintiffs have elected to work only on non-classified work expressly so their research can be subject to peer review, (and) they can collaborate with the best scientists worldwide and publish their results," it said.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive/Hspd-12
Austin, Texas: Rebuilding America's Senses, a two-day conference aimed at exposing state-sponsored terrorism and its application in staged false-flag operations. By understanding these two fundamental concepts, one can better comprehend how governments have historically used fear and even terrorism as a means to control their populations.
A Project for a New American Citizen Conference:
Rebuilding America's Senses 4/14/2007-4/15/2007
Documentary set up bias straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, afforded debunkers overwhelming majority of time - so-called "experts" Popular Mechanics are on the same corporate payroll as the History Channel itself, which is owned by Disney, GE and Hearst Publishing
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Initial reaction to last night's two hour History Channel Special on the 9/11 truth movement was vehement and conclusive - the show was nothing more than another biased hit piece that manufactured straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, and afforded debunkers to talk at length while ridiculing any other viewpoints.
According to viewers who were unfortunate to have to sit through 120 minutes of yellow journalism, the program was very similar to a previous BBC hit piece - an outright smear attempt that abandoned any pretense of neutrality early on and sought to vigorously attack so-called conspiracy theories.
Though producers of the show promised Alex Jones directly that the documentary was not going to be a hit piece, according to viewers it was replete with distortion and deception, all delivered in the kind of condescending tone we have become used to from the establishment media.
According to 9/11 researcher James Gourley, the debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.
- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.
- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.
- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.
- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.
- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.
- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.
- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off."
According to another blogger, the whole tone of the program was crafted to be antagonistic towards those questioning the official version.
"Conspiracy theorists were derided throughout the program as being ignorant, mean and kooky with no personal lives. On the other hand, the Popular Mechanics editors were given the last word on each and every subject along with the undeserving title of 'expert.' To the best of my knowledge, not one of the pencil pushing staff members have any credentials that are relevant to any aspect of 9/11 truth. Of course it was the conspiracy theorists that were accused of not having any of the valid expertise necessary for stating their assertions logically. They do this by completely ignoring the very existence and works of groups like Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Also just as expected, the History Channel failed to disclose the Chertoff connection and other major conflicts of interests that have clearly drastically compromised the research and conclusions of their so-called 'experts.' It was disingenuous and deceptive from the very start. It only got worse."
As we reported previously, the makers of the hit piece first advertised the show as a response to "outrageous" theories about 9/11, but then immediately back-pedaled and altered the program description on their website after we highlighted the blatant biased agenda of the piece and its multiple corporate conflicts of interest.
Hearst Publishing's Popular Mechanics, the premiere name in yellow journalism, were featured on the show as the most prominent debunkers, shilling for their corporate bosses in a brazen display of cronyism.
The History Channel is part of the A&E Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).
The owners of Popular Mechanics are also the joint owners of the History Channel!
Once again it is not a good starting point for a neutral investigation when the people you choose to represent one side of a factual debate are actually on the payroll.
It makes Fox News appear fair and balanced in comparison!
Furthermore, the other joint owner of The History Channel, NBC Universal, is run by General Electric, the world's second largest corporation and one of the major players within the military industrial complex.
GE is a major supplier of arms and the “war on terrorism” has seen GE’s government and military contracts rise substantially to over $2.2 billion.
In short, GE really has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from probing into questions concerning the possibility of 9/11 being a military intelligence operation to seed the "war on terror" and to justify a huge increase in military activity around the globe.
Despite the fact that this charade was seemingly another crude smear job, we should thank the History Channel for attacking us because it only ensures that more people will check out the evidence for themselves and discover what was deliberately buried by the debunkers.
As we head towards the sixth anniversary of 9/11, our numbers are larger than ever and our credibility is growing, while lying corporate media whores like the History Channel lose respectability at a rate rivaled only by their hemoraging of viewers.
Paul & Phillip D. Collins
Aug. 12th, 2007
Like it or not, radical Islam is on the rise. And the group spearheading this rise is Muslim Brotherhood. Wherever political Islam is gaining ground, one is almost guaranteed to find the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Take the Gaza Strip, for instance. Most people know that in June of 2007 Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. What many people do not know is that Hamas is an offshoot of Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (El Ahl, no pagination). Gaza is the most publicized of the Brotherhood's successes. However, the group has experienced other victories the media has said little about. In 2005, the Brotherhood made significant political gains in Egypt, increasing its number of independent parliamentarians from 15 to 88 (no pagination). In Jordan, the Brotherhood's political wing, known as the Islamic Action Front, has become part of Jordan's political establishment, possessing 17 out of 110 parliamentarians (no pagination). Without a doubt, the Brotherhood's influence is starting to be felt.
To say the least, the Muslim Brotherhood's political ascent is impressive. However, without the aid of some powerful forces, the Brotherhood may have never been more than a group of marginalized religious fanatics. The hidden hands of these powerful forces can be seen at work before World War Two with the British travel writer Freya Stark. Stark was not just a writer. She was also an agent of British intelligence. Stark was used by British intelligence to foster an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood (Dorril 622). Brotherhood collaboration with Western intelligence continued with an alliance between the Brotherhood and the CIA that began around 1955. According to former CIA agent Miles Copeland, it was around this time that America began looking for the Muslim equivalent of Billy Graham, hoping to use such a charismatic individual to influence the Arab world. When this failed, the Agency began forging ties with the CIA (Aburish 60-61). What was the motive for this marriage between Western intelligence and the Muslim Brotherhood? This alliance would help the Western power elite neutralize the challenge to their hegemony coming from the secular Arab nationalist movement. Said Aburish elaborates:
"In the 1950s and later, the West opposed the secular Arab nationalist movement for two reasons: it challenged its regional hegemony and threatened the survival of its clients' leaders and countries. Specifically, there was nothing to stop a secular movement from cooperating with the USSR; in fact, most of them were mildly socialist. Furthermore, most secular movements advocated various schemes of Arab unity, a union or a unified policy, which threatened and undermined the pro-West traditional regimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other client states. The West saw it as a challenge that had to be met." (60)
Was the alliance between the CIA and the Brotherhood merely a continuation of the alliance between British intelligence and the Brotherhood? According to the authors of Dope, Inc., the OSS, which was the forerunner of the CIA, was merely a subsidiary of British intelligence (540). When the Office of Strategic Services was being organized, William Stephenson, Britain's Special Operations Executive representative in the United States, was brought in for "technical assistance" (418). Stephenson's involvement would lead to the creation of "a British SOE fifth column embedded deeply into the American official intelligence community" (454). When it came to religious engineering to promote fanaticism within the Arab world, it could be that the British power elite passed the mantle to the American power elite.
The power elite officially endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood in May of 1979 at the Bilderberg meeting held in Austria (Engdahl 171). At this meeting, British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis suggested that endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood would allow the Western elite "to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines" (171). This balkanization process would result in the rise of various autonomous groups and the spreading of chaos in the Near East (171). In what Lewis termed an "Arc of crisis," the chaos would eventually spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union (171). This would help the Western elites counter Soviet moves to become the world's sole hegemon, thus preserving the Cold War dialectical rivalry that had been so advantageous to the Western oligarchs.
The power elite's support of the Muslim Brotherhood had begun one year earlier, when Carter appointed Bilderberg attendee George Ball to head a White House Iran task force that fell under the authority of National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (171). Ball recommended pulling support for Iran's leader at the time, the Shah of Iran (171). He also suggested supporting the Shah's opposition, the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini (171). The Muslim Brotherhood was the movement behind Khomeini (171). Again, Western intelligence groups lent the Brotherhood an assist. CIA case officer Robert Bowie ran covert operations against the Shah that allowed the coup to be successful (171). The CIA-led coup used economic pressures placed on Iran by London to create the pretext for religious discontent against the Shah (172). London refused Iranian Oil production, "taking only 3 million or so barrels a day on an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day" (172). This move imposed revenue pressures on Iran, and agitators trained by U.S. intelligence went about blaming the Shah's regime (172).
According to William Engdahl, the destabilization of the Shah's regime was also aided by American's working within Iran's security establishment:
"As Iran's economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of even more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter Administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah." (172)
The action taken against the Shah was successful and the deposed Iranian leader fled the country in January of 1979 (172). Writing about his downfall, the Shah later stated:
"I did not know it then - perhaps I did not want to know - but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted… What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?... Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country." (172)
Khomeini's rise to power in Iran was a major victory for the Muslim Brotherhood that stood behind him, and Western intelligence had made no small contribution to that victory. Make no mistake, Western intelligence helped make the Muslim Brotherhood what it is today. When looking for someone to blame for the rise of radical Islam, the accusatory finger must be pointed at those in whom Americans have placed their trust.
Sources Cited:
* Aburish, Said. A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2001.
* Dorril, Stephen. MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service. New York: Free Press, 2000.
* Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Dope Inc. Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992.
* El Ahl, Amira, et. al. " Dancing With the Devil: Charting the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood." Spiegel Online 03 July 2007
* Engdahl, F. William. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004.
Cities and private contractors cash in on red light camera ticketing systems in the name of "public safety."
Citizine | April 25, 2007
Thom White
Austin, Texas - A new boom is taking place across Texas that may improve public safety at busy intersections but is certain to make governments and private contractors loads of money: the "red-light camera." Red light cameras mark the first step toward "photo-enforcement" of traffic laws in the state, and may lead to "speed cameras" and the eventual issuance of fines for various other traffic violations caught on camera.
The Daily Texan reported (April 10, 2007) that Austin’s Department of Public Works will be doing a “red light camera” pilot program for a couple months at two intersections (the corner of Riverside and Pleasant Valley being one of them). They will test the cameras to make sure the technology works according to plan and identifies vehicles correctly so that each fine can be mailed to the appropriate address.
City of Austin employee David Gerard said, “The whole intent behind a red light photo enforcement system is to reduce red light violations to improve the safety of our intersections,” and said the cameras reduce the number of front-to-side crashes that can occur when someone runs a red light.
Sgt. Jim Beck, president of the Austin Police Association, says red light cameras are important for increasing the safety of Austin intersections: “Whatever we can do to improve public safety is worth a try.”
Round Rock is expected to install several red-light cameras soon as well. Round Rock City Council approved their red-light camera revenue program on March 8. According to the Austin American-Statesman (March 22, 2007): “City officials say that they have not heard from any residents opposed to the program.”
David Bartels, Round Rock public works administrator, said, “The camera system uses technology that is already in place at intersections to monitor traffic flow, usually a camera on top of the traffic signal or an electromagnetic loop in the street that senses metal from the car … If either of the two detects that a car is in the intersection after the light has turned red, a photo is taken. A second photo captures where the vehicle is moments later. The photos are time-stamped.”
“The last fatality caused by someone running a red light in Round Rock was six years ago,” said police department spokesman Eric Poteet.
Round Rock Mayor Nyle Maxwell says, “the program will pay for itself,” and other cities’ experiences provide proof. For example, Plano police Lt. Jeff Wise says in the year since the camera system was installed, the city of Plano has collected $600,000 in fines while the private contractors who run the system have earned $225,000 of that total paid by drivers.
Enforcement of red light violations with these cameras is getting even more stringent in some places. The Dallas Morning News reported that starting this April, even police and firefighters in Dallas will have to pay a fine if they run a red light at a photo-enforced intersection, and can’t prove it was a justifiable emergency measure. Many police officers are understandably miffed about the policy, but apparently private companies who manage the red light camera billing system have felt short-changed by Dallas emergency personnel’s freewheeling ways.
The Morning News reported: “Any Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city’s cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75.00 fine if the incident doesn’t comply with state law. Firefighters who run red lights will have to pay if they’re not on an emergency run … Since last year [2006], 39 cameras have been placed at intersections, city officials said. Sixty cameras are scheduled to be up and running by May 22 … Since mid-January, the cameras have recorded at least 355 emergency vehicles running red lights.”
Innocent people are also getting caught in the net of this widening camera-ticketing revenue scheme. According to the Galveston County Daily News (April 15, 2007), Richard Gregory says he has been falsely accused of running a red light by the city of Dallas. He received a ticket in the mail with photos of a black Acura 32T running a red light nine days before, and according to the ticket, the license plate of the car in the photo matched that of Mr. Gregory. However, Richard Gregory says he has never owned an Acura, doesn’t currently have a black car, and was at home in League City (hundreds of miles away from Dallas) at 7:15 a.m. the morning when the violation occurred.
The Daily News reports, “In Gregory’s case, the ticket was issued to him because his license plates seemed to match the photo, even though the black Acura clearly didn’t match the white Chrysler the plates were registered to.” Mr. Gregory has pointed out that the officer who signed off on the photo-enforced ticket mistook an “N” for an “M” on the license plate and said, “... customer service representatives told him he has to come to Dallas to prove it wasn’t his car.”
Smaller cities are also embracing photo-enforcement of traffic. Red light camera ticketing was introduced in El Paso in October 2006, while Longview installed surveillance cameras this April and Lufkin is planning to set up cameras in late May.
The town of Kerrville is seriously considering installing red-light camera technology along the highway that passes through. “I think you could pay all the bills of Kerrville if you could do that [set up photo enforcement technology] on Texas 173,” said Kerrville Mayor Gene Smith. Kerrville police chief John Young said the city is still gathering data from vendors and that cameras might be installed at two to three intersections later in the year.
The Kerrville Daily Times (April 11, 2007) reported: “Today in Kerrville, cameras are mounted on traffic signals along state highways, but those cameras monitor traffic and are not the same technology used for issuing citations for running red lights … [red-light camera] devices capture both digital pictures and video of the intersections. The vendors own the equipment and are responsible for issuing citations, training officers, and camera maintenance … The cost to the city would be either a percentage of each citation or a per site cost … The traffic signal cameras also may record speed and can be used in other investigations, Young said …”
Suburbs of Austin such as Georgetown, Cedar Park, and Leander are also in the “early stages” looking into red-light camera installation. One report indicated that, unlike other towns, Hutto has decided they don’t have enough red light violations to justify the installation costs.
In Tyler, police chief Gary Swindle told KLTN that his city is waiting to find out what state legislation passes because if a new law is not passed, the existing traffic code may make these camera-issued fines illegal.
DOES PHOTO ENFORCEMENT IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY?
Aaron Quinn of the National Motorist Association questions the “public safety” benefits of the red light camera system, noting “a Virginia DOT study … found accidents increased in camera-monitored intersections because drivers were more likely to slam on their brakes and get rear-ended.”
According to the Kerrville Daily Times (April 12, 2007), a 2006 study regarding red-light cameras in Winnipeg, Canada, and the 2005 study by the Virginia Department of Transportation mentioned by Mr. Quinn showed a 58% increase in wrecks at intersections with the cameras in the two years after installation. “Both studies found a decrease in the number of people running red lights and wrecks caused by running red lights, but more incidents of rear-end collisions resulting from people slamming on breaks to avoid running the light.”
If the cameras do not keep people safer at intersections, why are so many being installed across the state? Kerrville doctor Randy Moody said the “cameras do little to improve public safety … but are very profitable for the companies that provide them.”
The Winnipeg study which dealt with the public safety benefits of red-light cameras showed the cameras had generated $15 million in revenue for the city and private vendors who manage the system, and this may be the real reason for the push to install the cameras.
KEYE-TV in Austin voiced the concerns of a rising number of drivers about the sudden lurch toward draconian “photo-enforcement” of traffic laws, reporting on April 3, 2007 that, “cities insist they need the high-tech tool to control dangerous intersections and protect public safety,” but that, “local leaders might also try to use the photo traffic cops as an electronic speed trap to fill up the city’s bank accounts.”
Mr. Quinn says the red-light camera revenue programs are often farmed out to private companies to make money off giving tickets. “This is taking enforcement of laws out of the hands of real people … If you put it in the hands of private companies that have an incentive to send out more tickets, you’re twisting things around.”
Attorney Michael Kubosh said, “It’s a money grab. It’s not about public safety. It’s about revenue.” Mr. Kubosh filed a lawsuit in February against the city of Houston after purposely running red lights at camera-controlled intersections so he could challenge the use of the new revenue machines. He said his Houston ticket was mailed from Arizona and has a payment address in Ohio, indicating out-of-state private interests are profiting from the supposed “increased public safety” at Texas intersections.
State Rep. Carl Isett of Lubbock has filed a bill this session that would ban the use of red light cameras, and many say there is wide support for this bill. State Sen. Mike Jackson (R-La Porte) also argues that cities “do not have the legal authority to use the cameras and that they should be banned.”
Two years ago, there was a chance the legislature would ban camera-issued red light tickets outright. On Feb. 28, 2005, the Texas House voted 113-23 to block all city governments in the state from using cameras to fine red-light runners. The bill, HB 259, sponsored by Rep. Gary Elkins (R-Houston) would have eliminated the civil citation loophole that had been around for two years. However, the Senate did not pass the bill so the ban did not become law.
RED LIGHT CAMERAS IN THE LEGISLATURE
The Texas Senate has passed two bills in 2007 granting specific permission to cities to mail out tickets using traffic-enforcement cameras to the owner of any vehicle involved in a recorded violation and setting the maximum fine at $75.00 for the first red light violation captured by a camera.
In exchange for state legalization of the red light camera technology, municipalities will have to give up half of the spoils from the tickets to the state government. Senate Bills 1119 and 125 (both authored by Sen. John Carona of Dallas) give the state government a new stake in turning money-making photo-enforcement of traffic into a way of life.
Sen. Carona said, “We have to decide whether we put a lasso around them [traffic cameras] to make sure they are responsibly used, or whether we don’t want to have them at all … the genie is out of the bottle” and he said it is time to regulate (legalize) the use of photo-enforced traffic tickets.
According to the Statesman, “Under Texas law, running a red light is a Class C misdemeanor that can be regulated only by the state … In 2003 legislators rejected a bill giving cities authority to issue criminal citations to red-light runners caught on camera. But they approved a change to the transportation code that year allowing civil tickets.”
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving) inserted the provision to allow municipalities to issue civil citations using cameras to regulate traffic. Shortly after the passage of the new regulation in 2003, Garland, a suburb of Dallas, became the first Texas city to set up a red-light camera revenue program.
LEGAL CHALLENGES TO PHOTO-ENFORCED TRAFFIC TICKETS
There have been a series of legal decisions across the U.S. ruling that tickets issued to vehicle owners with computerized camera systems are illegal according to state motor vehicle codes.
Many have ruled these camera-issued red light tickets illegal because they automatically attribute the violation to the vehicle's owner, and not to the driver who committed the moving violation, and because it sets a double standard where camera-issued tickets are civil citations (fines) while a police-issued ticket is a misdemeanor, and thus has more serious repercussions.
On April 5, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that tickets issued using traffic cameras in Minneapolis are against the state constitution. "The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: owner liability for red-light violations when the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation." Traffic violations in Minnesota only apply to the driver who committed the violation, not to the owner of the vehicle.
In early 2007, Michigan attorney general Mike Cox "declared the use of red light cameras or speed cameras within the state to be illegal … Cox found that state law established red light running as a criminal violation, so that any local ordinance declaring such a violation a civil matter would be 'in conflict' with the law."
Iowa judge Gary McKenrick has also ruled that camera systems in Davenport, Iowa, are illegal because drivers should be given a criminal citation for the violation, not a civil citation, according to Iowa's motor vehicle laws. Since August 2004, over 10,000 red-light tickets and 20,000 speeding fines have been issued in Davenport using photo-enforcement cameras.
