Gulf of Mexico Intended to be an Algae Farm? Startling Indeed

Algae. "Bio-fuel." After your latest prayer for God's solution to the Gulf catastrophe, please get comfortable in your chair and peruse this.

You may wish to read this more than once and to read the linked documentation. And lest you think JoAnne and her friends are nutty, I have spoken with her and, for example, asked her if she believes the Deepwater Horzon gusher was started intentionally. And what did she say? "I don't know." Do you?

I.O. does not suggest that the grand plan is to make one vast algae farm of the Gulf of Mexico, but mega-manipulators, mega-racketeers, and mega-exploiters must be watched, as the dead zone gets ever bigger in the Gulf.

From JoAnnMor, some emphasis and formatting by I.O.:

Startling Revelations. More going on in The Gulf Of Mexico Than An Oil Spill!

~~~The team is at it again!~~~

In the course of our investigation into the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, we have uncovered some startling information.

What I am about to tell you will knock you out of your seats.

There is a lot more going on in the Gulf of Mexico than the oils spill.

This administration and many other entities like BP, Citi, Nalco, GM, GE, Goldman Sachs, University of Chicago, holding companies along with Dept. of Defense, billionaires and politicians are all vested in biofuels.

What is going on in the Gulf is directly related to this new industry.

There is an algae these companies are interested in.

From the mouth of the Mississippi river, all along the Gulf coast and spreading down to the Everglades is prime area for growing this algae. Crist is aware of this. He's funding it. There [are] a couple of other prime spots too. Chesapeake is one area and the Great Lakes is another. (Funny, we already had a Great Lakes Czar and a Chesapeake Czar. Now we have a Gulf Czar too!)

As you know, the oil continues to flow in the Gulf.

It looks incompetent when assessing the response to the crisis. It is not incompetence. It is intentional and willfull destruction.

They are spraying dispersants that are toxic to sea life. The dispersants hold the oil below the surface. Ask yourselves why you would want that. Wouldn't it be easier to vacuum the oil if it were floating?

They are not letting foreign tankers in to help. Even the few barges Jindal got his hands on were stalled, citing they need to be inspected to see if they carried enough life vests. They did.

They even pass the buck as to who is in charge. BP says they were in charge. O says he's in charge. The Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen says he's in charge. They run us in circles to divert the real questions.

If you have noticed, most of their news conferences have very little to do with action response, instead focusing on claims processing.

This is not incompetence. It is an intentional strategy. They don't want to clean it up or even try to contain it.

What they are doing is in three steps.

First get rid of oil industry in Gulf.

Then turn Gulf into a dead zone. A dead zone is free of life or ability to sustain it. The oil, dispersants and fertilizers deplete oxygen. It kills animals and fish, also turning their remains into fertilizer.

Finally, use Gulf as a giant algae farm. Algae grows on water surface, getting oxygen from air, not water. Fertilizers like urea supply much needed nitrogen. The Mississippi and the other rivers that empty into Gulf also pick up fertilizers from the many farms along the way. This feeds the Algae at the mouths of these rivers.

The oil in the water won't hurt the algae. It will only promote it's growth and burn factor.

Algae costs about $2.00 a barrel to refine. This is potentially very profitable.

The down side is , there isn't enough algae to sustain the demand. It takes a lot of algae to produce a single barrel. That means they need a huge place to grow and multiply the supply of this algae. Right now they don't have this enormous algae farm location. They have the desire, the technology, the investments and companies all set up. They have even taken the steps to map out the plan.

That plan involves projects in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico.

This oil spill, whether sabotage, negligence, accident or design is the perfect way to eliminate fossil fuels such as oil and to advance his biofuel agenda.

They will sacrifice the Gulf and all who live in or around it for this multi-trillion dollar industry.

This also ties in with carbon capture and exchange. You all know about the Chicago Carbon Exchange, Cap & Trade, and even O's support of Kyoto, so I won't bore you with history.

For those who don't know details on those bills and international climate agreements, please refer to back posts of mine, or those of others who have researched and posted.

There is a proposal to store carbon that has been captured by industries, in the Gulf. The Carbon will enhance the algae growth while making a fortune for companies like O's Chicago Carbon Exchange.

All the usual players as well as a few new ones are involved. There is everything from lies, deceit, government stealth, to insider trading, and intentional destruction going on.

My friend and research teammate has compiled a short summary. Please read this, then I will pick it up from there.

Via "Spongedocks":

Step by Step Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico

The lawsuit lists potential damage claims of about $2.5 billion to the Gulf fishing industry; $3 billion to tourism; $700 million in remediation efforts so far; $6 million a day in continuing costs and "incalculable damages to BP's reputation."

We have all heard it said, carbon is a bad thing for our environment. Where did all begin? Junk Science, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Barack Obama, Joel Rogers, Van Jones. Bill Clinton, John Podesta, Vivek Kundra, Carl Pope, need we go on?

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=821
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange
http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/news-channels/usa/obama%e2%80%99s-involvement-in-chicago-climate-exchange-the-rest-of-the-story-5581.htm

So what is the motivation of eliminating Carbon? MONEY!! Consider for a moment how wealthy these people and countless others are getting by promoting this carbon offset science and forcing alternative biomass science and technology. Frankly, determining the wealth of these people is an angry task. Yet, how do these people profit from this forced change from oil to bio-fuels? Stimulus money, see 'Bombshell Expose', insider trading, government legislation, corporate shakedowns.

Let's examine some events and people:

Okay lets chat a moment about what happened. What the well explosion due to human error, was it on purpose by a human, was it the work of military for hire groups like Xe, Blackwater, DynCorp or Triple Canopy? We will never really know. Since SAIC has full control, they know the answer, but in the end, does it matter? The well exploded. Now the question is why? Destroy big oil and American business and jobs. What will take it place? Ah hah, glad you asked, algae. Who is behind this? Crime, Inc. which by the way is much bigger than Beck is able to report and for that matter than we can report, but we are gonna try.

British Petroleum, one of the world's largest oil producers. BP has had the most safety violations but why is that? Enter MMS, Minerals Management Service.
http://www.mms.gov/

MMS is an Agency of the Department of the Interior. MMS gave many waivers to BP for this DeepWater Horizon rig, not to mention a safety award. Why did MMS give waivers to BP?
http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures-ownership/8541318-1.html

Enter SAIC.
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Applications_International_Corporation

Ok, who was head of SAIC while this agenda was being drafted and put into action? Robert Gates, you know they guy that is now the Secretary of Defense. But what qualifies Gates for this job? Hummm, good question. but why is he really on the payroll? Gates has a resume that includes: Head of SAIC,Council of Foreign Relations and he served of the Board of Parker Drilling, an American offshore rig owner with HQ in Houston. Now Parker Drilling has 75 international land rigs, 15 deep gas land rigs, 34 barge rigs, 7 platform rigs, 7 offshore jack-up rigs. Parker is also a specialist in deep well, arctic and geo-thermal drilling. Gates too was the Deputy director of the CIA. Who are members of SAIC?
http://www.saic.com/about/companies/

Is there corruption at SAIC?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203415.html

Thanks for asking! Here are some other attached facts:

* MMS gave a $5.5 million contract to SAIC to conduct a 5 year study of the Gulf Loop Current.
* SAIC awarded a $21.0 million blanket purchase agreement for Biomass Engineering coming from the Department of Energy and Golden Field Office. This was done to support the Office of Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energies Biomass program.
* SAIC handles all technology for BP and that includes security logs and surveillance data. Ever wonder about video via closed circuit on offshore rigs?
* SAIC has had contracts with BP going back as far as 2002 to include a $750 million contract for Global IT services. SAIC is an employee owned company with $6.1 Billion in revenue and has offices in 150 cities around the globe. The revenue comes from
* National Security
* Homeland Defense
* Energy
* Environment
* Telecommunications
* Healthcare
* Transportation

So if not oil then what do we put into our gas tanks? Algae!!
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/06/17/nr.holmes.algea.fuel.cnn

Even more Federal action on this. Obama has awarded $80.0 in research grants for algae and bio-mass fuels. The Pentagon has mandated that the Air Force be 50/50 in use of fossil fuels and bio-fuel by 2012.

If Cap and Trade or any new name they attached to this 'junk' legislation and life altering bill does not pass, understand, it really doesn't matter except it would be cheaper for taxpayers in the end to pass this bill. What??? You Ask? Well, understand, Obama is having to look like a fool spending TARP and Stimulus money to back-door the bio-fuel, algae, urea agenda. He would look better if he did not have to spend this money but rather force Cap and Trade to generate tax revenue. Either way, taxpayers and just violated and scammed in the end.

Contract With BP Has Clause To Limit Anadarko Liability-Source
By Isabel Ordonez, Of Dow Jones Newswires

HOUSTON -(Dow Jones)- BP PLC's (BP) contract to operate the leaking Macondo well contains a clause that could limit the liability of minority partner Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC), a person familiar with the agreement said.

The contract, the person said, is similar to others used in offshore drilling in which the operator assumes the cost of mistakes in case of gross negligence, the person said.

Anadarko, which owns 25% of the well, has seen its shares hit hard in recent weeks as investors brace for the possibility that the Houston-based company could be on the hook for a proportional share of the costs resulting from the leak--an amount that could reach tens of billions of dollars. The confirmation that the joint operating agreement with BP contains a gross negligence clause could substantially reduce the company's potential liability and that of fellow minority partner Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (8031.TO).

BP could be liable for 100% of damages if gross negligence is proven, said Jacqueline Weaver, who teaches energy law at the University of Houston Law Center. U.S. lawmakers said this week that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blow-out at the well to save the company time or expense. BP didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The uncertainty about Anadarko's liability underscores the unprecedented nature of the crisis that began in April, when a Transocean Ltd. (RIG) drilling for BP in the U.S. Gulf exploded and sank, unleashing the largest offshore spill the country has ever seen. BP so far has spent more than $1.6 billion dollars in cleaning up the spill, and its ultimate liability could be much higher. On Wednesday, the company agreed to establish a $20 billion escrow account to pay for damages.

Anadarko said Wednesday it had been invoiced by BP for its share of clean-up costs, although it didn't disclose the amount.

Analysts with investment bank UBS estimate that the total cost of the operation could reach between $20 billion and $50 billion, a figure based on what Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) paid for the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. But the analysts said that if Anadarko ends up paying a quarter of that cost, it could survive.

If Anadarko's liability comes in at the low end of the range, or $5 billion, the company could "easily" afford it, UBS analyst William Featherston said. Anadarko currently has $3.7 billion in cash and an unused credit capacity of $ 1.3 billion.

Additionally, it has assets that are not producing cash in the onshore U.S. and offshore Africa with an estimated value of $14 billion.If the price tag is larger than that, Anadarko would have to issue equity and sell a large percentage of its international and U.S. Gulf of Mexico nonproducing discoveries. But even if it had to pay $12.5 billion, the company will be able to bear the financial burden, Featherston said.

Investors have been bracing for a worse outcome than what analysts have imagined. Anadarko's shares have tumbled 40% since April 20, the day the rig exploded. The decline sharpened last week--Anadarko was down 19% on Wednesday alone--in a move that Barclays Capital analysts said was "disproportionate" to the highest amount of money Anadarko could be liable for. The stock was trading Wednesday afternoon at $42.70, down 4.5% from the previous session.

BP has said it won't be limited by the $75 million cap on oil spill economic damages established under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and that it won't seek reimbursement from a federal trust fund. But Anadarko has refrained from openly joining BP in that stance: Spokesman John Christiansen said in an emailed statement that the company will do what is "right" and that questions regarding its liability will be answered "at the appropriate time."

Now lets visit some of Obama's Czars.

Vivek Kundra, is he a phony?
http://ragingdebate.com/politics/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony

Steve Chu, this is the guy who wants all homes to have white roofs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html

How about John Holdren who wants to fertilize the oceans?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-holdren

OK what else?

DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency They testing for production of refined algae into jet fuel. DARPA expects to produce 50 million gallons by 2011. So who tells and pays DARPA? Yep you guessed it, SAIC and General Atomics.

Lets go back to the Gulf of Mexico. MMS is responsible for the offshore drilling leases in ALL Federal waters. Under that 2009 contract to SAIC to study the loop current, it seems knowledge is only good to 3000'. Beyond 3000' there are highly significant larger stresses put on drilling platforms, anchoring systems and risers. Below 10,000' the pipe must be flexible because of variations in the strength and direction of the currents and the pipes are quite likely to break. Because engineers topside cannot see or predict currents but they often feel them, they must shut down the rigs until conditions become safer. Technology yet has not reached the depths and associated currents to measure the whole risk. Currently, all conditions are measured by SAIC through satellite remote sensing but only to 3000'.

Now lets look at Bill Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative:
http://www51.honeywell.com/sustainable-opportunity/our-values-our-commitments.html

Also check this link:
http://cleantech.com/news/4010/US-military-funds-35M-research-algae-jet-fuel

Let us NOT forget, this is all capitalism at it's best when it comes to corporations providing goods and services and jobs especially to the Federal govt.

@spongedocks

~~~

Now I will add to it. Please bear with me on all the links. I will outline each to save time. Links are to source and reference so you can all see where we got the info.

"Capitalism at it's best?" That would depend on what the writer meant by "best," I guess.

And as they add to it, millions more barrels of oil (and of Corexit) are added to "the Gulfstream waa-aa-ters," as Woody Guthrie would sing.

After reading this, let's pick out just one of the players mentioned, for a mental test: mild-mannered Bush/Obama Department of Defense Secretary, Robert Gates. Have you really known him, or did you merely assume he was a nice American guy? What are you thinking, now? "I don't know," is not a bad answer at all... for the moment. - AW

Can we be Certain they Can't Stop the Gusher?

Can we really be sure?

Is it really that they are afraid the oil will burst up, outside the casing, if they cap it? They haven't stated that, have they?

They sure seemed to find it easy to fiddle around with their non-capping cap, yesterday. How can they not figure out by now, how to stop the flow?

Can we be sure they really want to? - AW

Video clips at Ustream
Granted, it would be a tough conspiracy to keep silent. But, there is a lot of money that has been stolen from the American economy. Money could help with that -- money and very careful job placement.

Who are "they," actually? Have we seen them on TV? Who is in charge of the R&D and who is calling the shots, in this highly technical matter?

...after all, contrary to some really strange conspiracy theory,
we truly did put men on the Moon, starting in 1969...

Republicans Plan to Hire Dozens of Investigators to Target Obama - Western Jounalism

Also, for the record...

Republicans Plan to Hire Dozens of Investigators to Target Obama
Posted by Caleb on June 18, 2010 · Comments (48) [I.O. Ed: comments at W.J.]

Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall.

if the Republicans win the majority Rep. Issa is going after Obama’s corruption

The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.

Issa has told Republican leadership that if he becomes chairman, he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80. And he is not subtle about what that means for President Barack Obama.

At a recent speech to Pennsylvania Republicans here, he boasted about what would happen if the GOP wins 39 seats, and he gets the power to subpoena.

“That will make all the difference in the world,” he told 400 applauding party members during a dinner at the chocolate-themed Hershey Lodge. “I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear that we’re going to subpoena everything. I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.”

Read More: By JAMES HOHMANN & JAKE SHERMAN, Politico

...and I encourage you to see this and other matters of policy and politics, also perhaps to scan the comments, at Western Journalism.

h/t: CJ

Senators Challenge Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty - NumbersUSA

Their entire entry is presented...

Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Executive Order Amnesty

Monday, June 21, 2010, 4:58 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.
DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano

(Send this FREE FAX to Pres. Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order)

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible.

Send this FREE FAX to Pres. Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order

Download a PDF version of the letter

Subscribe to our News Feed

...for the record.

h/t: CJ

Sovereignty, Parental Rights at Risk: Supreme Court Cites Unsigned Treaty, International Law

by Carmen Reynolds, e-zine: Boogai!

Decades of national security secrecy, protecting the extent of our nuclear military power, evaporated in one statement: five thousand one hundred thirteen.

That’s the number of nuclear warheads Obama announced we possess in our arsenal – to encourage other countries such as Iran to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Shouldn’t our presidents be looking out for America’s best interests?

Obama signed April 8 in Prague the New START bilateral arms control agreement which allows Russia to build new and modern weapons to reach New START limits, while we must reduce our current number.

Attorney, conservative political analyst and author Phyllis Schlafly says Russia will have new and tested weapons, but we’ll be stuck with out-of-date, untested warheads. Further, New START foregoes the verification, on-site inspections and monitoring of production – previous treaty requirements, eliminating “Trust, but verify.”

Russia now has veto power over all U.S. defenses against incoming missiles. “Article V contains a binding clause that we ‘shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and (submarine-launched ballistic missile) launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein,’ ” wrote Schlafly in “Obama STARTS to Disarm America” for the Jacksonville Observer. She implores our Senate: “Our Constitution can save us from New START if 34 senators will stand up for America.”

Robert Morrison, in his “5,113” American Thinker article, stated Bill Clinton spent an entire week at the apartment of Bedric and Irina Kopold, members of the Czech Communist Party Central Committee. Obama’s parents met in a University of Hawaii Russian class, and his mentor was avowed Communist Franklin Marshall Davis. Neither of these presidents could ever be granted a high-level security clearance. What’s wrong with this picture?

“Obama plans to use his presidential power to get the Democratic-majority Senate to ratify a series of treaties that would take us a long way toward global rule over our money, our laws, our military, our courts, our customs, our trade, and even our use of energy,” Schlafly wrote in her “Obama’s Plan to Rejoin the World Community” article.

Here are the other treaties Obama wants passed. The United Nations Law of the Sea, Global Warming, U.N. Treaty on Women, U.N. Small Arms, and the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child.

LOST has created the International Seabed Authority in Jamaica and given it total regulatory jurisdiction over all the world’s oceans and its riches. Corrupt foreign dictators dominate LOST’s global bureaucracy. The treaty gives the ISA the power to levy international taxes, compelling the U.S.to spend billions of private-enterprise dollars to mine the ocean floor and allow transfer of our wealth to socialist, anti-American nations. Worse is that the “yes men” at the Department of the Navy are fully supportive, despite LOST’s sovereignty-robbing intent.

Fortunately, the December treaty signing at the Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference was derailed when Lord Christopher Monckton outed the surreptitious global taxation agenda. That didn’t stop Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from making a joint commitment of $100 billion annually to help poorer countries mitigate the effects of climate change, however.

The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is a tool to deny any distinctions between men and women. The CEDAW committee in its 2000 review of Belarus, complained that “Mothers’ Day” and the “Mothers’ Award” encouraged women’s traditional roles. It undercuts the proper role of parents in child rearing, affirming that in family matters “the interests of the children shall be paramount.” Elimination of stereotypes requires revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaptation of teaching methods. Abortion upon demand could then be considered a right.

With Ambassador Pablo Macedo of Mexico chairing the June 14-18 Fourth Biennial Meeting of States in New York, Paul Valone writes in the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner that movement on the U.N. Small Arms Treaty affecting Second Amendment rights may be looming. He notes that Mexican President Felipe Calderon recently called for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban when addressing Congress.

Presently, treaty ratification requires two-thirds of the Senate. But Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media reports that the administration is trying to obviate that requirement by rewording the term treaty to “statute,” and the Beverly LaHaye Institute reports some treaties on human rights may be implemented by executive order.

One of the most controversial treaties on the list is the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child for those who believe that the “village” (i.e., the government or U.N. “experts”) should raise children rather than biological parents.

This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views “freely in all matters. It orders our schools to teach respect for “the Charter of the United Nations.” Ensure your congressman is a co-sponsor of House Res. 42, the Parental Rights Amendment to ensure the integrity of the family unit in America.

The gravity of this treaty came May 17 when the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote on Graham v Florida, cited it and other international law to justify its constitutional interpretation: that it is now unconstitutional for the U.S. to sentence juvenile offenders to life in prison without parole in non-homicide cases.

“It is bad enough for the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism. It is far worse when the justices employ international law in support of their far-reaching edicts,” said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. “We have not ratified the UN child’s rights treaty—its provisions should not be finding their way into Supreme Court decisions.”

Farris is also the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches Constitutional Law.
He wrote the in the case on behalf of 16 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A copy of the decision and further explanation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty can be found at www.parentalrights.org, along with a petition against ratification of the treaty.

Farris was the author of a brief in Graham v. Florida on behalf of sixteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The majority opinion twice references Farris’s brief in its discussion of international law. Farris is also the Chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches Constitutional Law.

Immediately Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced Sen. Res. 519, urging President Obama to refrain from sending the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty to the Senate for ratification.

“S. Res. 519 seeks to put the Senate of the United States on record that American law and only American law should govern our families and our juvenile courts,” Farris said. “I hope that every American who believes that we should remain a self-governing nation will call their senators today and urge them to become a co-sponsor of S. Res. 519.”

Carmen Reynolds is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel with a B.S. in Criminology and Law Enforcement, M.A. in Business Personnel Administration and B.A. in Journalism. She is the Editor-in-Chief of boogai.net. Contact her at journalist@bellsouth.net.

Border Security for Amnesty, the Prequel

...and the Chicago way

For the sensory pleasure of those who enjoyed the video short, "No Border Security without Amnesty - Obama to Sen. Jon Kyl" -- we now present you this! -- thanks to Naked Emperor News:


6/22/2010 video: "HOLY KYL In 2004 Obama Advocated "Trading" Border Security for Amnesty"
What is grossly corrupt for a Senator in 2004 is impeachable, for the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of our Republic.

And what of this cession of huge tracts of Arizona land, to Mexican criminals?

And of course, this civil action against Arizona, for their enforcement our Citizenship protection law which you so determinedly fail to enforce, Mr. PINO (president in name only)?

And what of these rumors of an executive order to grant amnesty to the entire set of criminal residents, so they can vote for your corrupt cronies?

The President of And

'Operation Gulf Grease' - Much of the Case for Deepwater Horizon Conspiracy

Mr. Weeks' article, "Operation Gulf Grease" is also posted at News and Views, where he contributes regularly. I suggest it is worth consideration, in the effort to connect the dots, to understand those who seek power over us, and to even think "the unthinkable." With people such as George Soros, Maurice Strong, Barack Obama, and their accomplices involved, and considering the historic ways of those who lust for universal power and wealth, one must examine extraordinary potentials. I.O. trusts our readers to evaluate information with us (and though this is an excellent compilation, there is more).

By Darren Weeks

In the days prior to the Gulf drilling operation and ensuing environmental catastrophe, I remember thinking just how odd and out of character it was that Barack Obama had announced his approval for more offshore drilling. On April 1^st, The Washington Post quoted Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as saying the administration had broached “a new direction” in energy policy. ^[1]

Had Obama lost his mind? Had he had some sort of religious experience? This was a president who campaigned against traditional energy sources in favor of so-called “sustainable” alternatives such as wind, solar, etc. This was a president who banned offshore drilling as one of his first acts in executive office. ^[2] This was a president who admitted in a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle in January of 2008 that it was his plan to use a Cap and Trade system to cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket” in order to force people to transition to “green” technologies. “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama stated as documented in a YouTube video. ^[3]

Hence, the shock at the sudden “turnabout” in energy policy. True, the vast majority of Americans do support drilling for oil as a counterweight against increasing dependence upon the perpetually troubled Middle East and its OPEC cartel. But since when has any president in recent history paid attention to the opines of their electorate?

Now, as the days turn into weeks, and weeks into months -- and the oil continues to gush in the Gulf with no sign of ever letting up -- Obama has used the crisis as an excuse to not only ban offshore drilling, ^[4] but also to clamor for passage of his “cap and trade” energy bill. ^[5] Politico has cited opinion polls that suggest public support for drilling may be eroding. ^[6]

Was this the Hegelian plan all along? To foment a crisis in the Gulf to condition the masses that the world must adopt Agenda 21 “sustainable development” as its model for energy or pay the environmental consequences? Before you dismiss this notion as insanity, there are many troubling questions that demand answers. Questions that imply foreknowledge and planning. Questions of “coincidence”.

For example, is it “coincidental” the numerous incredible financial and business transactions that took place in the days, weeks, and months prior to the rig explosion?

We know the ties between British Petroleum and Goldman Sachs run deep. Peter Sutherland, the chairman of Goldman Sachs International also served as chairman of BP right up until last year, according to a 2009 bio on the site of the Trilateral Commission. It says,

“Peter Sutherland is chairman of BP plc (1997 - current). He is also chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995 - current). He was appointed chairman of the London School of Economics in 2008. He is currently UN special representative for migration and development. Before these appointments, he was the founding director-general of the World Trade Organisation. He had previously served as director general of GATT since July 1993 and was instrumental in concluding the Uruguay GATT Round Negotiations.” ^[7]

On April 30^th, The Huffington Post published a satire piece about Goldman Sachs, who was embroiled in a Congressional probe over the present and pending financial meltdown just days before the Gulf disaster stole the headlines. The spoof article titled, Goldman Sachs Reveals It Shorted Gulf of Mexico, was actually mistaken by some as a legitimate news story. Written by a comedian, the satirical article said,

“In what is looming as another public relations predicament for Goldman Sachs, the banking giant admitted today that it made 'a substantial financial bet against the Gulf of Mexico’ one day before the sinking of an oil rig in that body of water.” ^[8]

After this gag piece was published, various independent researchers began checking into the financial transactions of Goldman. What they found turned out to be a case of art imitating life.

Sterling Allan reported in The Examiner on May 5^th,

“It turns out that Goldman Sachs really did place shorts on TransOcean stock days before the explosions rocked the rig in the Gulf of Mexico sending stocks plunging while GS profits soared -- benefitting [sic] once again from a huge disaster, having done the same with airline stocks prior to 911 then again with the housing bubble.” ^[9]

It’s important to note the cozy relationship between Goldman Sachs and the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, while Goldman Sachs was under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission, and their lawyers were in negotiations with the regulatory agency, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was a repeated visitor to the White House. He attended events with Obama and met with Larry Summers, Obama’s top economic advisor. Obama’s 2008 campaign benefited from $994,795 worth of campaign donations from Goldman employees and their relatives. ^[10] The Gulf disaster, coming on the heels of the Congressional hearing and SEC “investigation,” served to distract attention from the ongoing financial fraud and economic meltdown caused by Goldman and others.

We now know from John Byrne at Raw Story that prior to the Gulf oil mess, not only did Goldman Sachs short shares of TransOcean, the owner of the failed Deepwater Horizon rig, they also ditched 4,680,822 shares of BP stock, worth $250 million and representing 44% of their holdings. “Goldman’s sales were the largest of any firm during that time,” writes Byrne. “Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP’s stock during the quarter.” ^[11]

Byrne also noted other financial institutions that also dumped BP holdings.

“Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter -- but their sales were a fraction of Goldman’s. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.” ^[12]

If that weren’t enough of a “coincidence,” we also had The Telegraph out of London reporting that the chief executive of BP, Tony Hayward, also sold 223,288 shares, worth £1.4 million of stock in his own company (over $2 million) on March 17^th -- only weeks before the BP Gulf mess. The paper noted that by doing so he “avoided losing more than £423,000 ($614,449) when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.” ^[13] He took the money and paid off the mortgage on his family mansion in Kent.

At this point, a question should be coming to mind: What did these people know that the rest of us didn’t? How is it that stock in BP and Transocean suddenly seemed so unattractive to those closest to the disaster? Ah, the coincidences! But it gets even better.

On April 10^th, The Houston Chronicle reported that Halliburton -- the company of which former Vice-President Dick Cheney was CEO -- was in the process of acquiring Boots & Coots. Reuters reported that the deal was announced on Friday, April 9^th -- just eleven days prior to the explosion. ^[14] The Chronicle noted that “Boots & Coots has become well known for putting out some of the world’s largest oil and gas fires.” ^[15] The company’s website lists services they provide, including “deepwater application and well inspections, as well as blowout prevention and control counsel or assistance...” ^[16] According to the Orlando Sentinel, their expertise is already being put to use in the Gulf, as they are “one of two primary companies designing relief-well strategies for the BP blowout.” ^[17]

So when the acquisition deal is formerly approved by the government, Halliburton -- the company famous for profiting from no-bid government contracts in war zones -- will have collected for themselves yet another “slick” profit.

This is especially intriguing in light of the fact that, according to NPR, Halliburton’s cementing work -- completed only hours prior to the explosion -- has become a “central focus” of the Congressional investigation. ^[18] The Wall Street Journal quotes unnamed “experts” as saying the timing of the cementing in relation to the blast “points to it as a possible culprit.” ^[19]

But Halliburton isn’t the only company that stands to make a killing off the crisis. The Times Online out of the UK reported that TransOcean itself took out a $560 million insurance policy on the Deepwater Horizon rig. The dollar amount was well above the rig’s value. According to the paper, insurance payouts amounted to a $270 million profit from the disaster.

“The windfall, revealed in a conference call with analysts, will more than cover the $200m that Transocean expects to pay to survivors and their families and for higher insurance costs.” ^[20]

A number of people have questioned why Corexit -- a chemical banned in the UK ^[21] and is much more toxic than the oil itself -- was used as a dispersant in the Gulf. Assuming for the moment that chemical dispersants had to be used, the New York Times reported on May 13^th:

“Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.” ^[22]

Yet, despite the EPA data ranking it “far above dispersants made by competitors” for toxicity, BP chose to dump more than 400,000 gallons of Corexit into the Gulf, order 805,000 more gallons with plans of hundreds of thousands of additional gallons should the spewing continue. Why?

The answer may lie in the fact that not only has Corexit production benefited BP and Exxon Chemical Company, it also has ties to the very same banking company that somehow knew to sell nearly half its holdings in BP stock just prior to the disaster -- Goldman Sachs. Cassandra Anderson of Morph City connects the dots to the economic ties between the oil industry and the bankers.

“Corexit is produced by NALCO, originally named the National Aluminate Corporation, which formed a limited partnership with Exxon Chemical Company in 1994. Ondeo Nalco was purchased by Goldman Sachs, Apollo and Blackstone in 2003 and is currently a publicly traded company. Given NALCO's business ties, it seems that safe and natural cleanup methods were avoided in the Gulf to pursue an economic agenda. The use of Corexit in Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez disaster, resulted in toxicity to humans that included respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.” ^[23]

They say that history repeats itself. We know from wire reports that all 125 fishing boats had to be recalled from Gulf cleanup efforts after workers aboard began “experiencing nausea, dizziness, headaches and chest pains”. ^[24]

What’s going on here? Is the Gulf being poisoned on purpose to enhance corporate profits? Or has this crisis been orchestrated by the illuminists in order to force the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would cede control of the oceans -- over 70 percent of the planet’s surface -- to the United Nations?

One must always keep in mind that Agenda 21 is the game plan for all that happens in the world today. The Hegelian dialectic is the means by which that game plan is implemented -- creation of a crisis to condition the minds of the people that an undesired change is necessary, creation of their own controlled opposition to the crisis, finally the introduction of their pre-determined solution.

Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 deals with “Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas, Including Enclosed & Semi-enclosed Seas, & Coastal Areas & the Protection, Rational Use & Development of their Living Resources”. Who will determine what constitutes “rational use” of the oceans and their resources? If the LOST is ratified, it will be the United Nations.

In July 2009, State Department official Margaret Hayes told the New York Times that the Obama administration was in the process of working to “craft a plan to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

“President Obama is strongly in favor of the United States becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention,” Hayes was quoted as saying. “There is discussion going on as to the exact timing of when they might have a hearing and when they might proceed to have the full Senate consider accession.” ^[25]

The Times goes on to report that the administration is continuing a multi-year mapping of the sea floor in the Arctic in preparation to stake a claim under the LOST. ^[26]

Furthermore, the World Ocean Council, an alliance of multi-national businesses that are dedicated to ocean “sustainability,” is having its “Corporate Ocean Responsibility” meeting this month -- conveniently on the heels of a major maritime disaster. The Sustainable Ocean Summit is described as “the first international, cross-sectoral ocean sustainability conference for the private sector - [that] will catalyze the growing interest among ocean businesses for more effective leadership and collaboration in addressing ocean environmental challenges.” ^[27] It just so happens that two of the founding members of the World Ocean Council are ExxonMobil and TransOcean. ^[28]

That the crisis in the Gulf may have been planned and executed with the intention of profiting from it while pushing an environmental control agenda, might explain the pathetic federal response after the disaster.

Three days after learning of the Gulf gusher, the Interior Department Chief of Staff Tom Strickland left for the Grand Canyon with his wife and went white water rafting. ^[29] The Department of the Interior is charged with the task of coordinating federal response to a major oil spill. Yet, Strickland’s priorities were elsewhere.

The “In-Situ Burn” plan was developed by the federal government in 1994 to deal with oil spill disasters in the Gulf, and calls for the immediate use of fire booms. Had the plan been followed, it might have prevented oil from reaching the shoreline. A single fire boom can burn up to 1,800 barrels or 75,000 gallons an hour. Yet, despite the plan, not one fire boom was available anywhere in the Gulf at the time of the incident. ^{[30] [31]}

On May 11^th, ABC News reported that the U.S. Coast Guard conducted operations in the Gulf, simulating a major oil spill and practicing federal response to it a mere three weeks prior to the real disaster. ^[32] What was the purpose of the simulation? Obviously, it wasn’t to improve federal response.

In 2002, there was a similar practice operation which ABC describes as “eerily similar” to the current disaster. Lack of experience, poor communications, conflicting roles, and a need for new technology were cited. None of the recommendations were ever put into place. ^[33]

Wire reports from the Associated Press have said that workers aboard the rig were forced to sign statements that they hadn’t witnessed the explosion. They were told they couldn’t go home, nor could they make phone calls and talk to their friends and family until they signed the statements indicating they had no “first hand or personal knowledge” of the incident. ^[34]

We now have private military contractors deployed from Wackenhut -- the military contractor infamous for its employees’ drunken brawls and vodka shots taken out of each other’s backside -- guarding the perimeter of the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command.

Respected attorney Ellen Brown has written about empty Wackenhut buses with prison bars on the windows being driven around for no apparent reason in Arizona. Your writer has personally talked to other people who have seen these buses. Ellen wrote last year:

“The new Wackenhut operation is shrouded in mystery. It has been running its fleet of empty prison buses night and day, apparently logging miles on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contract. Multiple buses can be seen driving all over town and even on remote desert back roads. Oddly, except for the driver and one escort guard seated in front, these buses appear to be empty.” ^[35]

Network news media have been complaining of being harassed and threatened by the security contractors for shooting video of the coast, ^{[36] [37]} which we’re told may soon become uninhabitable. Will Wackenhut buses be utilized to relocate mass numbers of people out of the coastal states?

It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.

---

^[1] President Obama opens new areas to offshore drilling, Washington Post, April 1, 2010

^[2] Obama blocks offshore drilling, Washington Times, February 11, 2009

^[3] Barack Obama meeting with San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008. Video from YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 accessed June 13, 2010

^[4] Obama block on Gulf of Mexico drilling meets with anger, The Guardian, June 9, 2010

^[5] After oil spill, Obama vows to find votes for energy bill, AFP, June 2, 2010

^[6] Poll: Drilling support eroding, Politico, May 28, 2010

^[7] Trilateral Commission website at http://www.trilateral.org/membship/bios/ps.htm accessed June 13, 2010

^[8] Goldman Sachs Reveals it Shorted Gulf of Mexico, Andy Borowitz, Huffington Post, April 30, 2010

^[9] No joke: Goldman Sachs shorted Gulf of Mexico, Sterling Allan, The Examiner, May 5, 2010

^[10] Goldman's White House connections raise eyebrows, McClatchy, April 21, 2010

^[11] Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill, John Byrne, Raw Story, June 2, 2010

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] BP chief Tony Hayward sold shares weeks before oil spill, Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett, The Telegraph, June 5, 2010

^[14] Halliburton agrees to buy Boots & Coots, Reuters, April 9, 2010

^[15] Halliburton planning to buy Boots & Coots, Houston Chronicle, April 10, 2010

^[16] Boots & Coots website www.boots-coots.com, accessed June 10, 2010

^[17] 'Relief wells' are last resort for stopping BP's oil spill, Orlando Sentinel, May 21, 2010

^[18] Cementing Becomes One Focus In Gulf Oil Probe, Elizabeth Shogren, National Public Radio, May 5, 2010

^[19] Drilling Process Attracts Scrutiny in Rig Explosion, Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2010

^[20] Rig firm’s $270m profit from deadly spill, Times Online, May 9, 2010

^[21] Oil Spill Treatment Products Approved for Use in the United Kingdom (pdf), Marine Management Organisation of the United Kingdom, May 18, 2010

^[22] Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup, New York Times, May 13, 2010

^[23] Oily Politics Grease the Wheels of Control, Cassandra Anderson, MorphCity.com, June 4, 2010

^[24] US oil spill clean-up boats recalled after crews fall ill, AFP, May 27, 2010

^[25] U.S. Pushes for Law of the Sea Ratification as New Arctic Mapping Project Begins, New York Times, July 29, 2009

^[26] Ibid.

^[27] World Ocean Council “Sustainable Ocean Summit” Set for June 2010, OceanUnited.net, accessed June 14, 2010

^[28] World Ocean Council Founding Members, World Ocean Council website, accessed June, 13, 2010

^[29] While Oil Slick Spread, Interior Department Chief of Staff Rafted with Wife on "Work-Focused" Trip in Grand Canyon, ABC News, May 5, 2010

^[30] Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill, Alabama Live, May 3, 2010

^[31] US had burn-off plan for oil spills but the equipment wasn’t there, Times Online, May 4, 2010

^[32] Training Exercises Revealed Gaps in Preparedness for Major Oil Spill, ABC News, May 11, 2010

^[33] Ibid.

^[34] Rig Workers Made to Sign Statements after Blast, Associated Press, May 11, 2010

^[35] Mystery Prison Buses in the Desert, Ellen Brown, January 22, 2009

^[36] Heavy Sludge Oozes into Marshes of Louisiana, CBS News, May 18, 2010

^[37] The Conversation: Press Hassled on Gulf Coast?, ABC News, June 10, 2010