Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for .mp3 download of this analysis.)

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21?

(This is a video version of the following analysis.)

Under the guise of fighting man made climate change and reducing carbon emissions, the United Nations Agenda 21 program of sustainable development seeks to lower the standard of living of Americans.  These sustainable development policies have been, and are being, slowly enacted across the United States, including in the state of Connecticut, as documented by previous reports.  While the continuous march of this Agenda 21 program seemed to have no slow down in sight, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States may prove to be the ultimate hurdle for the success of Agenda 21.

Trump has been a big critic of the idea of man-made climate change saying he is not a "big believer", even calling it a "hoax" on multiple occasions.  This is huge as the whole Agenda 21 program revolves around the idea that the planet's climate is being severely affected by everyday human activity like driving cars or eating meat.

To further show that Trump is serious about putting a stop to the climate change hysteria, he reportedly appointed Myron Ebell to run the EPA transition team.  Ebell is a well known skeptic of the theory of man made climate change.  He has spoke in favor of Congress prohibiting any funding for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and once labeled the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an "organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response."

Even better than that, Trump has shown signs of shunning the UN altogether.  At a campaign speech at an AIPAC conference in 2016, Trump criticized the UN for its "weakness", "incompetenece", even saying that the UN is "not a friend of freedom".

While all of this seems promising, we can't start counting our chickens just yet.  Trump has a history of flip-flopping.  On the global warming issue, Trump and three of his children put their name to an advertisement in the New York Times in 2009 urging President Obama and Congress to take action on climate change.  Furthermore, contrary to his recent remarks about the United Nations, Trump testified in front of Congress in 2005 and said that he is a "big fan of the United Nations and what it stands for", though he then goes on to rebuke the United Nations for its incompetence.

Some would brush off Trump's past public positions as nothing more than a business man saying and doing what he has to in order to play the game.  While others would say that Trump is an opportunist with no real principles.  We are going to have to wait and see.

Ten Documentaries about the Occult, Anarchy, Government Propaganda, Corruption, the New World Order, and more

This is a random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one.  To prevent the documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries.  This is page 7.

The Boer War (1899-1902) - A Documentary Film (added 04/03/14)

This film is a quick 26-minute documentary about The Boer War in South Africa.  This documentary can give someone a quick overview of the history of The Boers, the people who began leaving the English coastal settlements of Africa, and moving inland.  Once gold was discovered in their new settlement area, the Boer area began booming, which caused Britain to look to become involved.  Eventually the Boers and the British began fighting.  The British put the Boers into concentration camps, and burned Boer houses, and farms, and destroyed cattle.  The average person, unless highly interested in English history, will not find this documentary to be very entertaining.

Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut

According to many "experts", such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world's population will be living in cities, by 2050.  Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities.  What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community?  Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.

What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world's top "leaders", and leading organizations.  By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city.  This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21.  Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled.  If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.

In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like "livable communities", "complete streets", and "resilient cities", and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations.

Terminology

Important to understand is that the specific terms used in Agenda 21 like "human settlement", and "Local Agenda 21 (LA21)", are usually not used by organizations pushing Agenda 21 in your local communities.  This change in terminology is because of the negative publicity the plan has received since its conception.  We know the promoters of Agenda 21 have had to use different terminology, from what J. Gary Lawrence has written.  J. Gary Lawrence has served as an adviser, under President Bill Clinton, on the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), as well as being a Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle.  Lawrence gave a presentation in London, England, June 29, 1998, titled, "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", where he explained how the terminology of Agenda 21 must be changed, when attempting to influence local legislation, to prevent conspiracy theories about a UN takeover, or a one-world government, from arising:

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

Now that we understand that the people implementing Agenda 21 do not necessarily use the same terminology as the actual document when looking to push their Agenda in your local community, we can more easily begin making connections to things occurring in our local community, with Agenda 21, and the organizations behind it.

Politicians in Connecticut Want To Save You From Loud Movies

The state's politicians slithered their way back into the state capitol building, in Hartford, last month, convening the regular legislative session for 2014.  Every working day, these politicians are proposing dozens of new laws, all with the potential of directly effecting our lives, and most of us will never hear about it, until we are required to obey the new regulation/law.  That is why I encourage everyone to go to cga.ct.gov, the official website of the Connecticut General Assembly, and take a look at the daily "list of bills", presented by the House and Senate.  You will come across all types of legislation, from the tyrannically frightening, to the ignorantly absurd.  While I view the vast majority of government action to be, at best, useless, and, at worst, extremely detrimental, I find that there are certain pieces of legislation, such as Raised Bill Number 287, "AN ACT CONCERNING THE MAXIMUM DECIBEL LEVEL AT MOVIE THEATRES", that really help show the idea of how absurd government really is.

The proposed bill states:

(a) No person holding a license under the provisions of section 29-117 of the general statutes shall exhibit or show any moving picture film or preview film that exceeds eighty-five decibels. The Commissioner of Administrative Services shall establish the procedure for checking maximum decibel levels to determine compliance with this section.

The information to this bill does not show exactly which member of the Public Safety and Security Committee actually presented this bill, but somewhere in Connecticut, there is a politician that thinks it is a good idea to use the force of the state to make movie theater owners comply with what he feels is a safe movie watching experience.

To understand the absurdity of this potential law, place yourself in the shoes of a movie theater owner.  As the owner, you want as many people as possible to come watch a movie at your place of business, be satisfied with the experience, and eventually return.  To ensure this happens, you do everything in your power to eliminate any aspect of the movie watching experience, that may be detrimental to the viewer, such as the sound level of the movies being too loud, or too low.  If your movie theater begins to develop a reputation for showing movies at a displeasing sound level, then people will stop going to your movie theater.  Therefore, the person who cares most about running a safe, enjoyable, business operation, is the business owner.  Now that we understand this, we must ask; why would a politician involve himself in this process?  The politician is either completely ignorant to how economics works, and truly thinks that problems are best solved by government force, or is corrupt at some level.

Political corruption, a willingness to be dishonest in return for money or personal gain, takes many forms.  Most often, a politician is forced to hide his insincerity, and present a reasonable sounding excuse for using the force of the state to increase the power of government, increase his own power, and/or take a person's money.

In this case of the movie theater decibels, the details are not given, but surely the state will create some sort-of "decibel-rating certification" process, that will, of course, require movie theater owners to pay a "state certified inspector" to verify that the sound level is safe in their theater.  It can be expected that the cost of obtaining this certificate will increase over time, forcing the owner to pass on this extra cost of running a movie theater, onto the customers, in the form of increased ticket prices.  The customers will notice, and may get upset at, the rising prices, but most people will never make the connection that it was their local politician that caused this increase in the price of their movie ticket.

A rising cost in the price of a movie ticket is only one problem of this type of government intervention.  With new laws, come more bureaucracy, and more government created positions to ensure the fulfillment of the new mandates.  As government grows, so do taxes, and government fees, causing many tax-payers to become angry, frustrated, and in want of government to become smaller.  Politicians then tell you how difficult it is to cut government expenses, because they don't want anyone to lose their job, or cut the budget of any "important programs".  The people are told that cutting government services would effect important societal functions, like schools (think of the children!), and road construction.  Of course never mentioned by the politicians, is the various, newly-created, programs, and positions, such as the "decibel-rating" bureaucracy, that appear to be minor in cost now, but will slowly grow, and become more expensive over time.

How does a politician come up with a law like this anyway?  Maybe he/she was sitting in a movie theater, when it got to loud, in their opinion, and they thought to themselves "there should be a law against this!".  That is possible, but much legislation gets proposed by influences other than the politician himself.  Let's take a look at a list of possible people who may want to see legislation like this:

• Concerned citizens
• Sound "experts"
• Big movie theater owners
• Tyrannical government 

A Book Every Teacher Must Read: "The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Prison of Modern Schooling"

School had always felt wrong to me.  From my first day of kindergarten, where the confusion, and abandonment, of my mother leaving me alone with strangers, for hours, caused water to fill my eyes, to my last years in high school, this place that was supposed to be good for me, school, never felt right.  I would wake up in the morning and quietly wonder how people who claimed they loved their children, parents, could send them to such a destructive, chaotic place.  The typical problems of school didn't effect me, I never had trouble with bullying, and my grades were above average, but there was something much deeper that I couldn't quite put my finger on at the time, that made the whole process seem toxic.

After graduating high school, I began looking for any information that offered an explanation as to how children began going through this process, and why.  After reading various books, and listening to different theories, a foggy picture began to emerge of a history clouded with dubious characters, carrying out a complex plan, misleading parents into offering up their children to a new social experiment, compulsory schooling.  This is the direction that the arrows seemed to be pointing, but I had not come across any serious study of the issue, therefore my conclusions could not be anywhere near concrete.  This was all until I came across the book The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Prison of Modern Schooling by John Taylor Gatto.

John Taylor Gatto is not some outsider, with no real knowledge, who just wants to bash the school system.  This man was a teacher, and by all accounts, a pretty good one!  Gatto had won awards; The New York City Teacher of Year, as well The New York State Teacher of Year.  He even had various mainstream news organizations report on his effectiveness as a teacher.  After 30 years of teaching, Gatto abruptly resigned, and wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled "I Quit, I Think", where he explains how he came to the conclusion that school is actually causing more harm to children, than good.

The Underground History... is decades worth of Gatto's research, and reflections, on the history of the public school system, and in my opinion, is a must read for anyone in, or anyone thinking about going into, the teaching profession, as well as all parents.  The reality that Gatto shows through this work is that compulsory schooling, in America, was created, and devised, by elite men, who had their own vision of what America should become, and set about using the school system to help create this vision.  These men did not view the teachings of liberty, and freedom, for the individual, as a necessity for their system, in fact, quite the opposite, the goal appears to have been to train children that being part of the group, and obeying authority, is what is important.

There are hundreds of books, articles, and documents referenced in "The Underground History of...", and only a small fraction of those, I have actually read myself.  There are a few interpretations of Gatto's that I somewhat disagree with, though my amateur understanding in this matter does not leave me the capability of providing a professional critique of Gatto's work.  I do plan on reviewing many of these references, and hope to occasionally return to read "The Underground History of...", to gain an even greater understanding of the message Gatto is attempting to relay through this book.

Related Posts:

• The Citizens of Nazi Germany "Thought They Were Free": A Brief Review and Analysis of Milton Mayer's Classic Book - December 17, 2013 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 1, 2013 (link)

Ten Documentaries about African History, Assassinations, Communist China, Medicated Children, Saddam Hussein, Royalty, and more

A random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one.  To prevent my documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries.  This is page 4.

Mao Zedong and China's Cultural Revolution (added 12/10/13)

This film briefly chronicles the rise of Mao Zedong as the leader of Communist China from 1949-1976, including the alliance, and eventual denouncement, of the Soviet Union, as well as the denouncement, and eventual alliance, with the United States, during the Nixon administration, through Henry Kissinger. Chairman Mao Zedong encouraged the collectivization of privately held land, and incredible footage shows Chinese peasants beating, and yelling at, former land owners, denouncing them as "capitalist exploiters."  This 45-minute documentary is not the most entertaining film, but gives an interesting short glimpse into this period of Chinese history.

Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights"

The United Nations wants to give your children "rights".  You may think your child already has "rights", but the kind of "rights" that the UN wants to legally provide children are the kind that would bring a government agent to your house if you decide to home school your children, bring them to a religious function, or even punish them.  This agent would decide if your actions are, or were, appropriate, and in line with the child's "rights".

The plan to give all of the children of the world the same "rights", is known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, or CRC).  It is important to understand that this plan is actually part of a much larger United Nations plan called "Agenda 21."  I have previously written on Agenda 21, and found the document to be a plan by the United Nations to gain more decision making power, or sovereignty, from countries, and create a world in which every resource, water, animals, food, etc., even human resources, and population size, is tracked, and controlled, by a group of non-elected bureaucrats at the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).  In Article 25, Section 14 of Agenda 21, governments are required to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In this analysis, I will detail a brief history of "child rights", explore the actual text of this document, the effect this convention has had on countries that have ratified it, and trace its attempted ratification in the United States, down to our own Connecticut state legislature.

History of the CRC

Decades before the UN held a convention on the rights of the child, there were various declarations made, in regards to giving children special rights, even dating back as far as 1924, adopted by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations.  In 1989, The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature.  It came into force in 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations.

In the United States, under the administration of Bill Clinton, the CRC was signed, but the treaty was never submitted for Senate approval, due to opposition from some members of the Senate.  More recently, in 2009, the Obama administration revived efforts to have the United States sign onto the CRC, according to former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.  The following year, thirty-one Republican senators cosponsored a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The United States is only one of a few countries yet to ratify the treaty.

Important to note, potential future Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty.

In Their Own Words

Let us examine the actual text of the treaty.  This "Convention on the Rights of the Child" treaty is 15 pages, consisting of 54 Articles, detailing the assertion that children have special rights, and the ways to implement the bureaucracy that is needed to insure that governments are "protecting" these children's rights.

When dealing with the United Nations, as with any government organization, it is important to critically examine the grammar used, see past the happy, positive sounding rhetoric, and be able to understand the actual details of a plan.  The CRC opens with a preamble that emphasizes the importance of "the protection and harmonious development of the child".  Again, this sounds nice, but we must remember, this could mean anything, and is coming from an organization that calls their violent military army, "peace keeping" troops.

Ten Documentaries about Undercover Police, the Rockefellers, 9/11 Truth, the United Nations, Scientology, Money, and more

A random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one.  To prevent my documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries.  This is page 3.

9/11 - Press for Truth  (added 10/20/13)

It is always a good idea to, every once in a while, watch one, of the many, documentaries that examine the events of September 11, 2001.  There are many inconsistencies with the official story, and "9/11 - Press for Truth" exposes more of them.  This film follows six women who had their loves ones killed in the attacks, and the fight they have lead to try to get the complete truth of what really happened on that day.  "9/11 - Press for Truth" is a well put together documentary, with news clips, and source material to corroborate the information discussed.  Recommended.

(Backup Link 1) (Backup Link 2)

Connecticut Politicians Try To Get Around Freedom of Information Act, with Secret Meetings

This year in the Connecticut General Assembly, a still anonymous CT law maker submitted a piece of legislation that would enable certain law makers to meet in private to discuss public affairs, without notifying the public, keep no notes, and even bar the public from attending.  No individual representative sponsored this bill, nor did any representative speak in favor of it, at the March 25th Government Administration & Elections Committee public hearing (video link). (Testimony on the bill begins at 3 hours and 56 minutes into the hearing.)

The actual bill, Senate Bill 1148, titled "An Act Redefining "Meeting" For Purposes of the Freedom of Information Act", changes the definition of "meeting", in regards to the Freedom of Information Act.

The stated purpose of the bill is to "exempt certain negotiations between the leaders of political parties from being considered a meeting for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act."

The bill immediately received opposition from groups in Connecticut, that advocate on the behalf of transparency in government.  James Smith, President of the CT Council on Freedom of Information, testified in opposition to this bill, saying it "flies in the face of well established law on what constitutes a meeting of a public agency", and it is "fundamentally contrary to the precepts of the government transparency laws."

Colleen M. Murphy, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Freedom of Information Commission, also testified in opposition to Senate Bill 1148, saying "If passed, this bill would be a huge blow to open government in Connecticut".

Despite the negative testimonies, the bill was voted on, and passed through the committee with a 10-4 vote.

Now, according to writer Angel Carella, of the Stamford Advocate, who has been following SB 1148, the bill has mysteriously died, after several media inquiries concerning the legislation were made to lawmakers in Hartford.  Carella made several phone calls, to different legislators, to find out more information on the bill, including who sponsored the bill, but did not receive any useful response.

Carella did eventually get a response from Senator Anthony Musto, who said Senate leaders decided not to go forward with the bill.

Senator Musto cited testimony against the bill by James Smith, and Colleen Murphy, as part of the reason for not going through with the legislation, however Musto, and nine other legislators, heard the testimony against the bill, before voting, and still voted in favor of it.

Interesting to note, in what town officials called a rare instance of involving themselves in the discussion of state legislation, the Wallingford Town Council passed a resolution opposing Senate Bill 1148.  The resolution was sent to the state legislature. It states that the bill “has the potential to make local government less accountable to the citizens.”  State Rep. Mary M. Mushinsky of Wallingford said that politicians in Wallingford might not have to worry about the proposed bill, because according to a reliable source in the legislature, Mushinsky said, the bill is close to dead.

This issue should still cause worry, due to the fact that there are legislatures who thought this would be a good idea, currently serving in the legislature, who decided to remain anonymous, when sponsoring this bill.  

Here is a list of the Representatives/Senators that voted in favor of the bill:

• Senator Anthony Musto*, Democrat representing Bridgeport, Monroe & Trumbull
• Senator Edward Meyer*, Democrat representing Branford, Durham, Guilford, Killingworth, Madison & North Branford
• Representative Ed Jutila*, Democrat representing East Lyme & Salem
• Representative Mathew Lesser, Democrat representing Middletown
• Representative Theresa Conroy, Democrat representing Derby, Seymour, & Beacon Falls
• Representative Mike D'Agostino*, Democrat representing Hamden
• Representative Roland Lemar, Democrat representing New Haven & East Haven
• Representative Patricia Billie Miller, Democrat representing Stamford
• Representative Mike Molgano, Republican representing Stamford
• Representative Brian Sear, Democrat representing Hampton, Chaplin, Scotland, Canterbury, Franklin and Sprague, and parts of Lebanon, Lisbon and Norwich.

The names with a '*' next to it, indicate those legislators that are also LAWYERS.

Wake UP! Photos - May 2013

Connecticut DCF Commissioner Makes $274,134 a Year and Parks Sports Car In State Parking Lot For The Winter

Joette Katz, Connecticut DCF commissioner

Joette Katz, commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Children and Families, was using a state-owned parking lot, to store her BMW Z4 convertible for the winter.  Parked next to her convertible, was the Ford Escape SUV, state vehicle, that was assigned to her, which she drives an estimated 1,800 miles a month, though she admittedly hasn't been keeping proper mileage logs.  Katz makes $153,831 a year as a DCF commissioner, and $120,303 a year as a retired Supreme Court justice.  Apparently tax-payers funding this woman for $274,134 a year, and providing her a vehicle with a parking spot, isn't good enough for her, Katz also needs a spot to park her luxury vehicle.

The whistle-blower who exposed this abuse of power was the human resources director of the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), Antoinette Alphonse, who has to deal with parking issues as part of her job.  Alphonse noticed the BMW being stored at a state parking garage this past winter, and she eventually figured out that the German sports car belonged to Katz.  Alphonse then wrote a memo concerning the issue, and included Joette Katz in the list of recipients.  Alphonse says that her memo evoked a reaction, and believes her boss, DECD Commissioner Catherine Smith, may have suggested that Alphonse look for a new job, shortly after the memo was sent.

Katz removed the BMW in mid-March, about a week after the March 11 written complaint by Antionette Alphonse, and has since revealed some resentment towards Alphonse.  In an interview, last week, the DCF Commissioner had this to say:

"I can tell you that if this were my HR director – you know, it's not that she shouldn't be able to do what she does, etc. – but, personally I would be thinking, like, 'Don't you have better things to do?'"

Katz went on to say, "I would not be not a happy camper if my HR director went outside" normal channels with actions and statements, adding that her secretary told her Alphonse had called a TV station and the NAACP about the situation. Katz said that DCF's "HR people" have shown they can handle serious issues with appropriate action, while keeping her informed – and "they don't just go run amok."

Katz response, in my opinion, shows her hubris, and sense of entitlement, that many high-level public "officials" seem to convey.  She seems upset that someone would expose her abuses to the public, and not do it through the proper channels, which would allow it to be silenced, and never reach the public.  I believe everyone should be involved with exposing abuses of public power.  I make a regular habit of documenting the abuse of power by public "officials", and believe everyone should do the same.  It's our money, after all.

As an example, here is a recent video that I recorded of the low level tyranny that takes place everyday in a city like Waterbury, Connecticut, and continues to grow, and will get worse, until it is checked.  City "officials" using parking spaces, that us regular folk aren't allowed to use.

In my opinion, this is just another example of the royalty class that has been created in the American system of government.  Public SERVANTS, who now call themselves "officials", feeding off of the working class, exempting themselves from laws, and abusing their power.  Big, out-of-control, government will continue to grow, and suck the life out of it's host (the working class), until there is nothing to take from the people anymore, and the system destroys itself.  We must stop this growth as soon as possible.

As far as the state having the power, through child service programs like CPS and DCF, to take your children out of your home, I am not supportive.  I understand there are unique cases that may, in some peoples minds, justify a Department of Children and Families, however, cases of abuse are already criminal offenses, and could be handled through the regular justice system, with a jury, and trial.  To give some bureaucrats the power to take children out of a home, with no trial, or jury, is too much of a impediment on liberty, to be tolerated.  Not to mention the ridiculous cases involving the CPS/DCF taking children out of their parents' home, for things as small as marijuana possession.

Some important things to note about the Foster care system:

• Much higher chance of sexual abuse.  One study by Johns Hopkins University found that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster-care system is more than four times as high as in the general population
• Children are drugged.  Studies have revealed that youth in foster care are force medicated with psychotropic medicine at a rate three times higher than of children not in foster care.  
• Bloated bureaucracy.  In Connecticut, the DCF has an annual budget of nearly $1 billion and some 4,300 children in its custody on any given day.

Related Stories:

• Potential Conflict of Interest: 33% of Connecticut State Senators are Lawyers - April 12, 2013 (link)
• Connecticut Politicians Do Not Like Being Exposed As Corrupt - April 03, 2013 (link)
• CT State Senator Steve Cassano Wants Traffic Enforcement "Photographers" Taking Pictures Of You In Your Car - March 06, 2013 (link)
• CT State Representative Stripped of Title After Lewd Comment To 17-Year-Old Girl, During Committee Meeting - March 02, 2013 (link)
• Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)
• Connecticut: New Controversial Bill Proposing Mandatory Periodic Inspections for Cars Over 100,000 miles - February 22, 2013 (link)

Potential Conflict of Interest: 33% of Connecticut State Senators are Lawyers

There are over two hundred million working adults in America, less than one percent of which are lawyers.

33% of Connecticut state senators are lawyers.

If elected-government officials really represent the general population, you would think that legislators would come from employment-backgrounds that are reflective of the general population.  In my opinion, a House, or Senate, filled with people of various occupations, like, maybe a grocery store manager, a barber, a construction worker, an optician, a couple reps from the health care field, an engineer, a pizza shop owner, a mechanic, etc., and other people from everyday working-class jobs, would be a proper representation of the people in my community.  One lawyer thrown into the bunch, if there are one hundred representatives, would be a generous representation of the number of lawyers, compared to the number of working adults in America.  So if in the Connecticut legislature, where there is a much higher ratio, one out of every three legislators in the state senate are lawyers (12 out of 36), are the people of Connecticut being properly represented?

Also, is it a conflict of interest when people who make their living directly off of the laws passed in the legislature, work in that legislature?  I believe so.

Lawyers, working within the legislature, have an incentive to keep the laws complicated, and complex, so that citizens will continue to need more and more "legal representation", as hundreds of new laws get presented every year in the state, and federal, government, making it harder for the average citizen to know the laws, and properly protect, and defend, himself against them, thus needing a lawyer.

If, for instance, a simple change in the drug laws were made, where marijuana would be legalized, or decriminalized, as the majority of Americans believe it should be, it may free many people from the unjust bondage of the state, but it would also lead to many lawyers being out of, or lacking, work.  As one professor of law, Ilya Somin, stated, "The War on Drugs is, among other things, a full-employment program for criminal lawyers."

Of course not only criminal lawyers benefit from changes in the law, as Ilya Somin explains,

"In civil law, we have a massive tort law suit system and hundreds of state and federal regulatory agencies that issue mindbogglingly complex regulations that require interpretation by experts if you want to avoid costly liability. And of course we also have an extremely complex tax system that requires many people to hire tax lawyers if they want to keep the IRS off their backs."

The potential personal financial return that a lawyer may directly receive from changes to the law, in my opinion, has become too much a conflict of interest to be tolerated.

There are too many laws, and too many lawyers.

Connecticut Politicians Do Not Like Being Exposed As Corrupt

Former candidate for Governor of Connecticut, Tom Foley, went to the capital last week to testify in support of a bill that he helped write, with State Senator Joe Markley, the goal of which was to reduce conflicts of interest between public officials, state employees, lobbyists, and unions.

The intent of the bill, according to Foley, is to "prohibit a legislator from receiving more than $1,000  from any organization that benefits from state spending - for example, state contractors, lobbying firms, and public employee unions."  The language of the bill, Senate Bill 727, was criticized as confusing, and, in my opinion, it is, however, more confusing was the bi-partisan backlash that Tom Foley received from the Committee on Government Administration and Elections Committee, for even suggesting that there may be some corruption taking place in the Connecticut legislature.

The Push For Red-Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers

There are three bills proposed this year in the Connecticut legislator, that deal with installing red-light cameras throughout the state.  The three bills are as follows:

•  House Bill 6056 - AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF MUNICIPAL AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS --Introduced by Rep. Angel Arce
• House Bill 5554 - AN ACT ENABLING CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS-- proposed by Rep. Roland J. Lemar, Rep. Juan R. Candelaria, Rep. Patricia A. Dillon, Rep. Toni E. Walker, Rep. Gary A. Holder-Winfield, Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp, Sen. Martin M. Looney
• Senate Bill 634 -  AN ACT ALLOWING MUNICIPALITIES TO OPERATE AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT INTERSECTIONS --Introduced by Sen. Gary Lebeau

These three bills were discussed at a Transportation Committee Public Hearing this week.  Using information that I gathered from watching hours of testimony regarding red light cameras in the state, as well as other resources, I will show that this is just another tactic being used by government, to take more money from tax-payers, to make it more difficult to operate a vehicle, to lower the standard of living, and other effects, designed to make more people dependent on the state.

Connecticut: New Controversial Bill Proposing Mandatory Periodic Inspections for Cars Over 100,000 miles

CT Rep. Thomas Vicino, D-35th

A new bill proposed in the Connecticut legislature would require mandatory inspections of motor vehicles that have over 100,000 miles.  The bill was introduced by first-term lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Vicino, D-35th District, and would require drivers to bring their vehicle to the DMV ,"to periodically inspect registered vehicles with an odometer mileage reading of more than 100,000...the list of four items that should be checked: seat belts, wipers, headlights and directional signals."

The state's Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner said Wednesday she opposes the mandatory inspections of vehicles with more than 100,000 miles.  Commissioner Melody Currey told the General Assembly's Transportation Committee that two new vehicle inspections proposed by legislators - one for vehicles with more than 100,000 miles and another requiring annual safety checks for all cars and truck ( introduced by Rep. DebraLee Hovey, R-112th Dist) - are both unnecessary and potentially costly for the agency.

The comments section in many of the online reports of this story are filled with criticism, by CT residents, directed toward Rep. Thomas Vicino, accusing the representative, who is also the owner-operator of Superior Auto in Westbrook, of attempting to use the law to make himself richer.

At CTTalking.com, a person with the username "Mike", gave his quick analysis:

Another user at the same website, with the name "Ed Wood", weighed in on the issue, and raised many of the issues that immediately came to my mind, when hearing about this new proposal:

Many users at TheDay.com, were also critical of the proposed legislation, as one user with the name "caregiver" writes:

Rep. Vicino seems to be more involved in the automotive repair business field of Connecticut, than just being an owner of a small auto shop.  According to his profile at HouseDems.ct.gov, Vicino "is a former member of the Connecticut Auto Body Board of Directors and was State Chairman of I-Car, responsible for certifying insurance adjusters and repair technicians in Connecticut. Tom Vicino is also a member of the Middlesex Automotive Council."

I could not find much more information on these automotive councils, and boards, that Rep. Vicino seems to be associated with, however, judging by their names, one would assume these to be organizations compromised of individuals that would be affected by legislation having to do with automobiles.  Whether, or not, Tom Vicino is being immorally influenced by his connections in the auto industry, has yet to be determined.  However, there is an already, obvious conflict of interest involved with this piece of legislation, and it should terminated immediately.

Other pieces of legislation proposed this year by Rep. Tom Vicino include AN ACT BANNING SMOKING ON BEACHES, and AN ACT CONCERNING THE TAXATION OF GENERIC CIGARETTES, which would "ensure that generic cigarettes are being taxed as cigarettes and not as small cigars."  It is obvious that Representative Vicino is not a friend of liberty.  The majority of his bills are about sticking the American people for more money, with higher taxes, and a stronger police state.  I encourage any readers from the Clinton, Killingworth, and Westbrook area, to inform your community of the destructive philosophical poison that Democrat Rep. Vicino is bringing to the state legislature.

On a related note, this week I wrote an article titled "United Nations Agenda 21 In Connecticut; New Britain-Hartford Busway, CTFastrack", in which I discuss the ongoing war against drivers, waged by governments at all levels, in attempt to force drivers out of their personal forms of transportation, and onto public transportation, to get more control of the population.  It is still unclear whether this recent piece of legislation proposed by Representative Vicino, and the other by DebraLee Hovey, can be directly tied into United Nations Agenda 21, but the extra burden that it will add onto drivers will undoubtedly further the UN's plans to take cars off the road, lowering your standard of living, and making you more dependent on government.

After Writing ObamaCare Legislation, Elizabeth Fowler Goes To Work For Largest Pharmaceutical Company In The World

Elizabeth Fowler

Big corporations have given Capitalism a bad name.  While the idea of looking for new ways to generate profit, and cut expenses, is noble to most small business owners, big business has been taking this goal of bigger profits to a different, immoral, and often illegal, level.  Governments are often used by big business to help pass rules and regulations that are favorable to one group, and harmful to others.  Instead of an actual free-market capitalist system, where everyone is on equal ground competing with each other, we have a system of pay-offs, lobbyists, and revolving doors, often referred to as crony-Capitalism.

The best modern-day case of crony-Capitalism is probably the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), or as it is commonly referred to as, ObamaCare, a bill that penalizes people who choose not to buy insurance from a private provider.  This act essentially creates millions of new customers for the insurance companies.  On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional right to mandate that people must buy health insurance from a private company. However, it does have the right to tax those that don't, according to the Supreme Court. Therefore, it upheld the Act.

The poster child for this immoral merger of big business and government would have to be the "architect" of ObamaCare, Elizabeth Fowler.  In 2001, Fowler was working as chief health policy counsel under Montana Sentator Max Baucus, until 2006, when she departed for a two-year stint at health insurance company WellPoint, only to return to the Senate in 2008, again working on health policy for Senator Baucus, where she would end up being a main player in the Senate health care negotiations that would eventually bring us Obamacare.  Senator Baucus had even singled out Fowler as the person who layed the "foundation" and the "blueprint" of what eventually became ObamaCare.

(Sidenote: WellPoint, Inc. is the largest managed health care, for-profit company in the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, a federation of 38 separate health insurance organizations and companies in the United States. Combined, they directly or indirectly provide health insurance to over 99 million Americans.)

Former NYPD Officer Secretly Records Supervisors Angrily Telling Officers That They Need More Arrests, Revealing Quota System

Adrian Schoolcraft, an eight year veteran formerly of the NYPD, secretly recorded NYPD supervisors giving orders that tickets must be written and arrests must be made or top brass at the NYPD would make it "real difficult" for the officer. He goes on to say that orders were given to harass people so vigorously that they will not even want to step foot outside in fear of being arrested or ticketed.

In the video above, Schoolcraft says he was reprimanded by his bosses because "I wasn't meeting their undocumented quota...the non-quota quota."  He claims people are referred to as "bodies", as the higher ups routinely asks, "how many bodies do I have in the cells".

Schoolcraft was threatened by his supervisors  "They can make it real difficult for you. Ship you off somewhere.",  meaning he will be reassigned for not meeting the quota.  The supervisor continues, "Just keep the hound off, a parker, a 250, you can stop someone walking down the street. You know what, I stopped an asshole once.  I gave him a 250, what's the big deal."

The phrase "gave him a 250" means the supervisor performed the controversial and unconstitutional tactic, stop and frisk (UF-250), on some unassuming "asshole", American citizen.  Stop and frisk violates our fourth amendment natural right, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.  All police officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but few take this oath seriously.

Also, Schoolcraft claims the NYPD even placed him in a psych-ward, in an attempt to discredit him, because he went to internal affairs about corruption he was witnessing within the department, including the downgrading of felonies to misdemeanors.

Adrian Schoolcraft

It gets worse!  In another audio clip secretly recorded, a supervisor is telling the officers, "I want 250's and C summonses.  I want a ghost town. I want to hear an echo from one end of the street to another.  You understand?  That's what I want in a perfect world.  So that's your mission.  You guys need collars, you need activity.  There you go, they got to be removed"

The perfect world for this New York City police supervisor is empty, people-less streets.  Keep in mind that this is not some rookie cop, this is a supervisor, meaning he was at one-time promoted, by someone who agrees with his line of thinking.

The YouTube Channel "NYC Resistance" is constantly capturing video of these NYPD corrupt and unconstitutional practices.  I documented two cases, one where a cop was seemingly excepting bribes, and another where a man got a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk.

We all have to be aware of the police state that is forming.  You have to know that you have "natural rights", and assert them every chance you get.

Connecticut State Trooper Steals Money And Jewelry From Dead Victim Of Motorcycle Accident

John Scalesse, owner of the JAS Masonry, LLC in Milford

John Scalesse (above), a 49-year-old Orange resident, died from injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident on the Merritt Parkway in Fairfield around midnight on Saturday morning, Sept. 22, 2012.  Scalesse, the owner of the JAS Masonry, LLC in Milford suffered fatal injuries after his motorcycle crashed into a construction company truck in the northbound lanes of Exit 44 on the Merritt in Fairfield. Scalesse's motorcycle, a 2001 Honda FLSTF, skidded into the rear of the truck about a half mile before the exit, police said.  When family of the accident victim noticed that some of his possessions were missing, they called the state police.  The Scalesse’s family determined that jewelry, clothing and cash were missing — including $3,000 in cash and a gold chain from the victim’s body. Upon investigation, it was determined that no jewelry was logged into evidence. Investigators found Scalesse's clothing at the hospital -- but the other items were missing.   Upon further investigation, a large amount of cash was found in the police cruiser of State Trooper Aaron Huntsman (picture below), who apparently swiped the items as Scalesse lay dying in the ambulance. 

Aaron Huntsman, CT State Trooper

Aaron Huntsman, who has since been suspended, was a vice president of the state police union for more than two years.  At the time of the accident, Huntsman was assigned to Troop G barracks in Bridgeport and he earned $111,967 in 2011, state records show, including often working overtime assignment at the front door of the Golden Hill Street courthouse in Bridgeport.

Huntsman was processed and released upon posting a $5,000 bond.  In comparison, when I, Goodman, was arrested for a non-violent, victim-less "crime" of drug possession, marijuana, my bail was set at $75,000.

If Huntsman is convicted and terminated from his state trooper position, he still could apply for his state pension when he is 65. Just how much he would receive is based on a number of factors including his average salary or his highest three years of pay.

He will be arraigned in Bridgeport Superior Court on Dec. 10.

Aaron Huntsman