Forced Recycling Is A Scam

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

I wanted to make this report on the problems of the bottle deposit program but I first must make this fact clear:  In Connecticut, and many other places that have this program, you do not earn five cents for returning a can, bottle, or glass, you REDEEM five cents.  This means that you, or whoever bought the drink, had to pay an extra five cents for each bottle at the register, at the time of purchase, and only when you bring back your bottle do you get that five cents back.  It seems as if this is something that shouldn't have to be explained but you would be surprised at how many people still do not understand how this works.

Moving on, earlier this year there were reports that the state of Connecticut wanted to raise the bottle deposit up from five cents to ten cents.  Also this year in relation to the bottle deposit, a bill was introduced in the state legislature that would drop the deposit of five cents and replace it with a non redeemable tax of four cents, as well as a bill that would require beverage distributors to pay a higher handling fee to bottle redemption centers.  Instead of going over the intricacies of these proposals, I think it would be much better to simply explain how the bottle deposit program is just another revenue generating scam by the state.

First it needs to be understood that empty cans, plastic, and glass bottles don't really have any value.  If it was cheaper to create new bottles out of recycled bottles than it was to create them from scratch, bottle manufacturers would be paying you for the empty bottles.  In other words, if you could actually make something of value out of your used bottles, at a profit, the state wouldn't need to force you to recycle, there would be a market for them, people would be offering you money for your empty bottles.  As an example of this, the state doesn't need to force people to recycle copper, or other forms of scrap metal because the cost of recycling these things is currently cheaper than the cost of manufacturing them from scratch.  Because of this people will come and take the metal from a garbage pile on your sidewalk for free, or go into your house uninvited to steal your copper pipes.

The time and money that it takes to collect recycled bottles, truck them to a location, sort them, clean them, and actually begin the recycling process is highly inefficient and cannot be done at a cost that would make this process profitable.  A representative from the Coca Cola Company testifying against one of the proposed bottle bills briefly describes the problem his company faces:

"Though our industry sells tens of millions of dollars in bottle bill scrap from Connecticut, the revenue does not come close to balancing the inherent expense our industry faces in fuel, energy and handling fees … nor does it compensate for the sub-optimization of our delivery routes and warehouse space, as a lot of time and space is required to handle containers for processing."

Of course this is all done under the guise of protecting the environment but when you factor in the fossil fuel used to move these recyclables around, the energy used at these recycle facilities, the water used to clean the empty bottles, and other aspects of the process, it could leave a person questioning whether this is really helping the environment at all.  And while many environmentalists support these forced recycling projects and any project that has the stated goal to conserve resources, they seem to neglect the most important resource of all, the one that we can't make more of; time.  Every moment of the process, from you bringing your bottles to the redemption center to the recycled plastic being turned into something is time lost that could have been used to do something more productive or preferential.

Who Wants Toll Roads In Connecticut? Answer: The Rockefellers

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

For those out here that are unaware, the state of Connecticut is contemplating creating a system of congestion pricing, a newer version of toll roads, on some of the states roads.  If you are a Connecticut resident you might be thinking 'Who in their right mind would support an increase in taxes in a state that already taxes its residents at exorbitant rates and has a problem managing their already enormous budget?'  The short answer: The Rockefellers.

Before explaining what I mean by that, let us take a look at all of the testimony submitted for one of the proposed bills 'H.B. No. 6058 AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC TOLLS'.  There are over two hundred people that have submitted testimony for this bill, and the vast, vast majority are in opposition to it.  Randomly clicking on any of the names of the people that submitted testimony will very likely lead to a testimony submitted AGAINST the bill like CT resident Pat Belote who said "enough already, how much more can you squeeze out of the citizens of CT?" or Steve MacDonald who said in all caps "SAY NO TO TOLLS!!!!!!!"

But I knew that if I kept on looking I would find testimony submitted in favor of the bill coming from one or more of the many tax-free foundations that are constantly lobbying the state to lower our standard of living under the guise of fighting climate change.  I was right.

I have written multiple times in the past on the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), which is a "non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing car dependency in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut" that brags on their website about using their influence to do things like "halting highway widenings".  In the past the TSTC has lobbied for red light cameras to be installed on intersections across the state, tolls roads to be installed, as well as other tactics that would create a heavier financial burden on operators of motor vehicles.

So it was no surprise when I came across the testimony of Joseph Cutrufo, a director at the TSTC.  Cutrufo is speaking on behalf of the TSTC in his testimony in support of toll roads in the state, explaining how this policy can be used to get people out of their cars and onto public transportation.

Another tax free organization that I have written about in the past, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, also submitted testimony in favor of electronic toll roads, using the same justification as the TSTC, that tolls will lower the amount of cars on the roads, therefore reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Now let us get to how the Rockefellers fit into all of this.  Regular viewers of this channel are already aware of the nefarious influence that tax free foundations are playing in society today.  I often recommend the book "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser which discusses the 1950's congressional investigations into tax free foundations.  Before high level forces in government began to sabotage the committee's research and findings, the investigations were uncovering a subversive network of highly powerful and influential tax free foundations.  The Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund were two foundations mentioned in the book and the Rockefeller family subversive influence through foundations continues to this day.

The previously mentioned Tri-State Transporation Campaign which constantly lobbies the state to implement anti-car policies shows a list of supporting foundations that give grant money to their organization on their website.  Many of the organizations can be traced back to Rockefeller money.  For example, they receive money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a fund started by the five Rockefeller brothers.  Another foundation listed as a supporter, the Energy Foundation, also gets money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was actually formed by the Rockefeller Foundation.  The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation is also listed, and the letter "R" in Geraldine R. Dodge, stands for Rockefeller.  I can continue with the Rockefeller-TSTC connections, but you get the point.

Now looking at the other organization mentioned that gave testimony in favor of tolls, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, we see similar connections.  The Connecticut Fund for the Environment has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the One Region Fund, which has gotten it's money in part from the Rockefeller Foundation.

In their testimony in support of tolls in Connecticut, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment cites studies from organizations that are themselves connected to Rockefeller money.  When declaring that greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the state as a result of increased vehicle use, the Acadia Center is used as a source.  The Acadia Center gets grant money from the Energy Foundation, which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, as previously mentioned.  In another instance a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council is quoted lauding the benefits of tolls.  The Natural Resources Defense Council has received money from both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.

You can see what is happening here.  The average person is not a supporter of toll roads.  These policies are not happening from a grassroots level as we are made to think.  The well funded foundations are behind the push for these anti-car policies like toll roads.  The same foundations are all funding and citing reports from each other.    Watch my related videos to understand more about the influence of foundations, and more specifically the Rockefeller influence on global politics.

Related Stories:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)
• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)

The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• 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)

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.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

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

In the first part of this series we discussed the question of whether man-made global warming was as factual as many of us are led to believe, and concluded that this was not the case.  In this second part, we are going to take a look at the different admissions made in the Connecticut climate change papers, as to the inaccuracies in their reporting and predictions.

Throughout the hundreds of pages of Connecticut climate change policy papers, the writers are forced to vaguely admit that the "scientific" information that they are presenting is not entirely accurate, and is subject to change.  In 2003, the state attempted to determine the level of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) produced in Connecticut from 1990-2000, and added the caveat to their findings that the process was "time and labor-intensive" and, as a result, "it was prohibitively difficult for states to produce inventories for more than one or two years."  In the same report it is stated that "[m]ethodologies for estimating GHG emissions are constantly evolving, and key conversion factors...change periodically in response to current scientific guidance."

Three years later, in 2006, they still did not have an accurate way to measure GHG levels, as they were forced to admit:

"The third barrier [to meeting 2010 GHG Reduction Goals] relates to the very tools and analytical methods used to assess current and future GHG emissions reductions. Some methods now in use are either not appropriate or very accurate when used to measure GHG emission reductions. This is due in part because the tools and methods developed to assess direct GHG emissions reductions either do not adequately account for indirect reductions (especially those for energy efficiency) or the assumptions used to verify the reductions are not as precise." [emphasis added]

Gathering accurate data continued to be a problem as exhibited in the 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health", put out by the Governor‘s Steering Committee (GSC) on Climate Change .  The GSC created an Adaptation Subcommittee, consisting of four working groups, to evaluate "the projected impact of Climate Change in the state."  The working groups stated that they could not make any specific conclusions using the data provided:

"All of the recommendations from the Adaptation Subcommittee workgroups centered on the need for additional research and monitoring programs to determine more precise risk, including the true financial risk of climate change. Many of the workgroups also found it difficult to completely account for all of the features in their assigned universe, prompting the need for further definition"

After making several specific predictions and scenarios of what may occur in the agricultural sector, as a result of climate change in the state, the report is forced to concede that "...it is difficult to accurately predict the many changes that will affect agricultural productivity in the next few decades."

Some of the statistics and predictions are presented in such a way that they can't be wrong regardless of the true income.  For example, they say that global warming will increase rainfall, but they also say that it will increase the frequency of droughts.

"Precipitation may increase by 5 to 10% by the end of the century. ...Droughts may increase in frequency, duration and intensity."

Therefore, whether there is massive rainfall, or a drought, these planners can refer back to their "predictions" and claim they were right, and that the change in weather is a result of global warming.

Finally, in the ultimate hedge on their predictions, the adaptation subcommittee essentially says that their reporting and predictions could be way off, and in the future, change dramatically:

"Change is the most certain element of our future climate. The climate impacts used in this report are based on the best available information at this time, but these projections will certainly change, and possibly very dramatically, as we gain a better understanding of uncertainties in the climate system (e.g., timing of melting ice sheets, tipping points, feedback loops). Therefore adaptation strategies must continuously evolve and flexibility will be critical."

So far in this series we have determined that not only is man-made global warming not a fact, but the way governments are measuring its supposed impact is not accurate.  In the next part in this series we will take a look at one of the changes that the state of Connecticut would like to focus on in its efforts to fight "carbon", and that is to force people out of their private motor vehicles, and onto public transportation.

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)

A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action

To some people, Agenda 21 is an evil plan for the further creation, and control, of a world government, by the non-elected bureaucrats at the United Nations. To other people, Agenda 21 is a just well-meaning, harmless, non-binding set of recommendations, created by a group of men, and women, at the United Nations, that care about the preservation of the world's environment.

Before debating the true intentions, or effects, of Agenda 21, we must first understand the details of this document.

In can be difficult, and confusing, for the average person who hears about Agenda 21, to really understand it, through a simple search.  The program is hundreds of pages, and not too many people will take the time to read all of it.  An internet search of UN Agenda 21 will lead to a lot of information, but much of it is without reference to the actual document, thus seemingly just an opinion.  I have took the time to read the document myself, and will chronicle my findings, and thoughts, here.

(It should be noted that I am not going into this examination completely ignorant of Agenda 21.  I have, in the past, written critically about events taking place in my local community, that are connected to United Nations Agenda 21.)

The full document is 351 pages, however Agenda 21 is much more complex than just what is written in this action plan, due to the fact that there are numerous other resolutions referenced, and recommended, for further implementation, such as the Healthy Cities Programme of WHO, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and many more.  I have yet to read all of these other resolutions, conventions, and programs, but as I do, I will document, and update, my research, at TheGoodmanChronicle.com.  For now, I will just examine the text of this specific document, which can be viewed, in full, online here.

Let us start with the front cover of the hard copy version of Agenda 21 (picture below), which reads:

"EARTH SUMMIT - AGENDA 21 - THE UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME OF ACTION FROM RIO".  

Agenda 21, Front Cover

By using the words "programme of action", the creators of this document are informing the reader that this is a plan, or program, that they intend to have performed, or put into action, and not just some ideas that they hope for people to consider.

Agenda 21 is broken up into forty chapters, divided into three sections, and nearly every part of this document revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development." (Chapter 1, Section 1).  Though the adjective "sustainable" is used numerous times, and in conjunction with various other pleasant sounding nouns, to create ideas like "sustainable livelihood" (Ch. 3, Sec. 4-a), and "sustainable city networks" (Ch. 7, Sec. 20-d), throughout Agenda 21, what is meant by "sustainable" is never really made clear, or specifically defined.

The opening preamble of Agenda 21 alludes to the idea that the term "sustainable development" means an "integration of environment and development concerns", which, according to the United Nations, will lead to "the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future." (Ch. 1, Sec. 1)  This sounds nice, but again, is not specific, and could mean anything.

As the reader progresses through the document, a more sinister, controlling, agenda seems to emerge, that is ingrained in this plan, but it is masked with nice sounding phrases, and friendly language.  The United Nations claims to want to create a sort-of utopia, where the environment is clean, nobody is hungry, everyone has a home, etc., but to do this, they need to have the power to create laws, or recommendations, that effect changes in your local community.

The Ed Snowden Psy-Op Is Working; Americans Are Changing Their Online Habits Out of Fear

(Photo courtesy of MSBusiness.com)

Now that the mainstream media has finally begun discussing wide-spread government spying, with the Snowden/NSA revelations, The Associated Press is reporting that internet users are shifting their online habits, out of fear.

The article claims that people are "scaling back on Facebook posts and considering unfriending old acquaintances" because they are "worried an innocuous joke or long-lost associate" might lead to a
"government probe."  Also discussed in the article is how some people are encrypting chats and e-mails, rethinking the data products they use to ensure privacy, ditching cellphones, and using cash over credit cards.

Many readers of The Goodman Chronicle are aware that the purpose of the mainstream media is not to inform its viewers of truth, but instead to distract, divide, and confuse, the people.  With that said, the fact that the media so feverishly covered government spying, should have arose suspicion.  When the Snowden case first appeared, I speculated that the purpose of the big "man-hunt", and all of the coverage, was to do exactly what the AP is now reporting is happening, put fear into the general public, as well as anyone who is thinking about becoming a "whistle blower".

Government spying on every American is not news to people who have been paying attention.  Performing a simple Google search of 'NSA spying', custom ranging the search before the Snowden leaks, will reveal numerous articles detailing information on already known NSA illegal spying, from various whistleblower's revelations, to admissions by government officials during Congressional hearings, and even reports by major newspapers across the country.

Whether Ed Snowden is a collaborator, or a patsy, is still unclear, but it is obvious that this situation is being used to push ulterior motives, and hidden agendas.

Related Articles:

• Orwellian Talking Surveillance Cameras Become Reality In Mount Vernon, NY - May 28, 2013 (link)
• The Push For Red-Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 1, 2013 (link)

Global Warming Propaganda in Disney-Owned Cartoon Series "Marvel Super Hero Squad"

The Disney-owned cartoon series "Marvel Super Hero Squad" is helping to indoctrinate your children into the belief that the earth is warming to dangerous levels, and human beings, and their carbon output, are the reason for this potential catastrophic rise in temperature.

In Season 1, episode 22, titled "The Ice Melt Cometh" (video clip above), a character named Flat man, portrayed as a monotone idiot, is hosting a "conference on global warming".  Flat man has an assistant, Reptil, who is condescendingly introduced by Flat man as not being a "super genius, like me".  After showing a ridiculous looking graphic of the sun getting hotter, consequently heating up the earth, Flat man gets interrupted by his assistant Reptil, "Wait, Flat man.  Global warming is about greenhouse gasses, you know pollution that comes from our cars and factories."  Flat man responds, "your entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong."

Later on in the episode (4:40 into the video clip), Flat man is submerged in water, and says "OK Global warming is bad, but won't get any worse."  Finally, at the end of the episode, according to one viewer (I have not been able to find, and view, the FULL episode), Flat Man is dripping wet from the polar ice caps melting and he says, "global warming doesn't exist, did I also mention the earth is flat?"

The overall message of the cartoon seems to be confusing, probably purposefully, but the propaganda is obviously there.

Interesting to note, according to Wikipedia, Flatman is gay.

The reference to the earth being flat, in relation to global warming, is another thought-provoking connection.  Last month, President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech at Georgetown University, saying he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”

“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”

Ironically, Salon.com has reported that there really is a flat-earth society, and they actually are with the President in his belief in man-made global warming!

Comic Book Propaganda

Marvel comics has a long history of using their brand to push political propaganda.  Recently, in issue #583 of The Amazing Spider-Man, released in 2008, Spider-Man teamed up with President Obama to stop the Chameleon.

Also, in 1971, Marvel Comics then editor-in-chief, Stan Lee, wrote a three-part Spider-Man story portraying drug use as dangerous, and unglamorous, after getting approached by the United States government, asking him to do so.

A quick Google search of something like "comic book propaganda", will lead you to some interesting pictures, and give you an insight to just how long propaganda has been pushed through these channels.

Raising Connecticut's Minimum Wage Will Not Help The Economy

The Connecticut Senate approved a hike to the minimum wage, last week. The Senate voted 21-to-15 on Thursday to increase the current wage of $8.25 an hour to $8.70 on Jan. 1, 2014. It would increase to $9 on Jan. 1, 2015.

I believe it is important to point out that raising the minimum wage, or even having a minimum wage, does not help the lower class.  If minimum wage laws actually worked the way these politicians pretend they do, then why wouldn't government just raise the minimum wage to $100/hour?  If every employer was forced to pay their employee $100/hour, then, by this logic, we could help the lower class come out of poverty.  But, of course, this logic is wrong.

It tends to be Democrats that push for the minimum wage, but you won't see the Republicans point out the absurdity of politicians trying to manipulate economics, because they benefit from having control of the economy, when they're in power.  

Wake UP! Photos - May 2013

Inside Edition: Barack Obama Was Once An Indonesian Muslim Named Barry Soetoro

For those that don't know, President Barack Obama used to go by the name "Barry Soetoro", while living in Indonesia, and he even registered for school as a INDONESIAN MUSLIM student. Did he renounce his citizenship? When did he change his name back? When did he change his religion? Your being lied to about everything. If there was a movie made about the true story of Barack Obama's origin, we wouldn't believe it. This man is a fraud, a phony, an ACTOR, a CIA asset, and much more, but your FRIEND, he is not!

Ohio Judge Calls Red-Light Camera Operation A "Scam That Motorists Can't Win"

A judge in Hamilton, Ohio, called the red-light-camera operation being run in the village of Elmwood Place a "scam that motorists can't win", comparing the system to a "high-tech game of 3-card Monty."

In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman decided that the operation failed to provide due process.  The judge also exposed the many corrupt practices involved with the red light camera operation, being run by the for-profit company Optotraffic, in the village of Elmwood Place.  Judge Ruehlman noted that the cameras are calibrated only once per year, as well as criticizing the administrative hearing process involved with the operation, when a person wants to challenge the allegation made by the camera.  "If the owner of the vehicle wants to contest the liability, he or she must pay $25.00 to the Village of Elmwood and request a hearing before a hearing officer and there is no assurance that the fee will be returned if the appeal is successful.  However, the hearing is nothing more than a sham!", says Judge Robert Ruehlman.

Also discussed in the judge's decision was the effect that the red-light-cameras had on the community. "Businesses have lost customers who now refuse to drive through Elmwood.  Churches have lost members who are frightened to come to Elmwood and individuals who have received notices were harmed because they were unable to defend themselves against the charges brought against them."

Optotraffic, like most of these red-light-camera operators, has come under heavy criticism for their role in this highly profitable scheme.  In the case of Elmwood Place, which is capable of collecting over 2 million dollars, in a period of six months, Optotraffic receives 40 percent of that revenue.  In the state of Maryland, there have been reports that Optotraffic cameras have shown to be inaccurate, as well as a class action lawsuit involving Optotraffic and the town of River Park, challenging the town to refund citations bearing the forged signature of a police officer.  Also in Maryland, a representative of AAA, Lon Anderson, said he believes that the red-light-camera operation being run is "not being used primarily for safety" but instead is "about making money for the city and camera producer Optotraffic."

There are legislators in the state of Connecticut that are attempting to change the law to allow red-light-cameras to go up, throughout the state.  I have written about this push for red-light cameras in Connecticut involving corruption, United Nations Agenda 21, and the Rockefellers Brothers Fund, and I will continue to document, and expose, this scam, and do my best to prevent it from taking hold in Connecticut.

Related Stories:

• Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)

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.

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.)

Was The Photo of an NYPD Officer Helping A Homeless Man A Publicity Stunt?

This photo has gone viral, and has made front page news all over the country.  We are told this is a photo of an NYPD police officer who had just given a shoe-less, homeless man a new pair of boots.  We are also told that this photo was taken by a tourist from Arizona, visiting Times Square, who just happened to capture the apparent act of generosity on camera, and then sent the picture to the NYPD, who posted the picture on their Facebook page.

While watching the various news video interviews of Officer Larry Deprimo, the police officer in the picture, I noticed a few interesting things about this whole story.  First, in the different interviews conducted, Officer Deprimo always has a new part of the story, that makes this story seem more and more "movie-like".  In one interview Deprimo claims he heard people laughing at the homeless man with no shoes, and that prompted him to go into a shoe store and tell the clerk, "I don't care about the price, gimmie whatever it is, that you have the best of!"  In another interview Officer Deprimo talks about how he had two pairs of socks on, combat boots, and his feet were still freezing, which made him feel more sympathy for the shoe-less, homeless man.  Deprimo also claims to have, afterward, offered the homeless man to come and "grab a cup coffee" or get "something to eat", to which the homeless man supposedly declined, and replied with "I love the police."  Also, the lady who took the picture, claims that the officer didn't see her taking the picture, and she just snapped the flick and left.  She says she didn't say anything to the officer, but still managed to get the picture to the NYPD.  If you were writing a script, it couldn't come out much better than this. 

Now let's examine the facts.