State plan fines feds $2,000 over gun rules

2 years in jail also possible for agent enforcing U.S. regulations on firearm

---

Posted: March 13, 2010
12:20 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Wyoming has joined a growing list of states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation of weapons made, bought and used inside state borders – but lawmakers in the Cowboy State have taken the issue one step further, adopting significant penalties for federal agents attempting to enforce Washington’s rules.

According to a law signed into effect yesterday by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal, any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm” in Wyoming faces a felony conviction and a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to $2,000 in fines.

WND reported just days ago when Utah became the third state, joining Montana and Tennessee, to adopt an exemption from federal regulations for weapons built, sold and kept within state borders.

A lawsuit is pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

But Wyoming’s law goes further, stating, “Any official, agent or employee

of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both.”

Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of “godfather” to the national campaign.

He said the issue is not only about guns but about states’ rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

He said South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Idaho also appear to be close to adopting similar legislation, and several dozen more states have proposals in the works.

Tenth Amendment Center map showing 4 states adopting gun exemptions (in red)

According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything.

In the Montana lawsuit, the federal government’s brief argues it can regulate intrastate commerce because of the Commerce Clause.

But the analysis said what the states are doing is simply a nullification.

“Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are ‘unauthoritative, void, and of no force’ from the outset,” Boldin wrote.

“When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens,” he continued.

“By signing HB95, Gov. Freudenthal places Wyoming in a position of proper authority while pressing the issue of state supremacy back into the public sphere,” he continued.

On a blog, one commentator noted, “This is a healthy sign. Legislators in several states working to take back sovereignty and restore constitutional government. The next step that has to be taken is to replace representatives and senators who don’t support states rights. Then, the House needs to introduce impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court justices who exhibit bad behavior. Contrary to popular belief, Supreme Court justices do not serve lifetime appointments. They serve for periods of GOOD BEHAVIOR. I contend that erroneous decisions constitute bad behavior.”

Learn what you can do about your nation. Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

According to the Casper, Wyo., Star-Tribune, the law takes effect in July and consumers could purchase guns immediately under the exemption from the state’s sole firearms manufacturer, Freedom Arms, which makes revolvers in the $2,000 price range.

The newspaper reported authorities already have discussed the possible scenario of a local Wyoming sheriff arresting a U.S. marshal.

“That’s a question we’ve sort of asked ourselves,” John Powell, a spokesman with the U.S. attorney’s office in Cheyenne, told the paper. “We’re not exactly sure how this is going to play out.”

State Rep. Alan Jaggi, R-Lyman, told the newspaper there could be confrontations.

“I think it could be a possibility if we had some overzealous – do I want to say bureaucrat? – that would just say, ‘Hey, we’re going to show these states we have all the authority,'” Jaggi said. “States’ rights – I’m willing to say that’s important enough to us to do it.”

In signing Utah’s law, Gov. Gary Herbert said it was time to act.

“There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,” said Herbert in a statement.

The Montana lawsuit was filed by state officials against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management of its own firearms within state borders.

In a subsequent filing, the federal government demanded dismissal of the action, explaining it can regulate in-state commerce under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

The government’s filing in the case demands its dismissal, citing a lacking of “standing” for the plaintiffs and the court’s lack of “jurisdiction,” as well as the Constitution’s Commerce clause. The government filing argues, “The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly held that even purely intrastate activities, such as those the MFFA purports to exempt from federal law, do affect interstate commerce and thus are within Congress’ power to regulate. As a result, even if plaintiffs had standing and jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.”

The Commerce Clause, however, can be interpreted to have been amended by the 10th Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, adopted subsequent to the U.S. Constitution, Marbut explains.

His organization said, “The Commerce Clause was amended – by the 10th Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of jurisprudence that for any conflict between provisions of a co-equal body of law, the most recently enacted must be given deference as the most recent expression of the enacting authority. This principle is ancient. Without this principle, laws could not be amended or repealed.”

For example, U.S. courts repeatedly affirmed slavery before it ultimately was rejected.

There’s no question that the components of the Bill of Rights have authority: Just look at the First Amendment, Marbut explained.

The federal government had written gun dealers in Montana as well as in Tennessee when it adopted its own version of the same law that warned against following the state laws.

The letters were distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In the Tennessee case, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the adopted Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act “purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations.”

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

---

Greece rocked by riots as up to 60,000 people take to streets…

By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 5:15 PM on 11th March 2010

Street clashes broke out between rioting youths and police in central Athens today as tens of thousands demonstrated during a nationwide strike against the cash-strapped government.

Hundreds of masked and hooded youths punched and kicked motorcycle police, knocking several off their bikes, as police responded with volleys of tear gas and stun grenades.

The violence spread after the end of the march to a nearby square, where police faced off with stone-throwing anarchists and suffocating clouds of tear gas sent patrons scurrying from open-air cafes.

Police say 16 suspected rioters were detained and two officers were injured.

Stand off: Greek police dodge petrol bombs hurled by rioters on the streets of Athens as protests against new measures to boost the economy turn violent

Up close: A flaming bottle flies towards a has-masked police officer who steps back to avoid being hit

Rioters used sledge hammers to smash the glass fronts of more than a dozen shops, banks, jewelers and a cinema.

Youths also set fire to rubbish bins and a car, smashed bus stops, and chopped blocks off marble balustrades and building facades to use as projectiles.

Organisers said some 60,000 people took part in the protest. But an unofficial police estimate set the crowd at around 20,000 – including those that took part in a separate, peaceful march earlier Thursday.

Police do not issue official crowd estimates for demonstrations.

Thursday’s strike – the second in a week – brought the country to a virtual standstill, grounding all flights and bringing public transport to a halt.

Chaos: A demonstrator kicks a tear gas canister as the 24 hour general strike turns ugly

Blockade: Strikers estimate up to 60,000 people had taken to the streets

State hospitals were left with emergency staff only and all news broadcasts were suspended as workers walked off the job for 24 hours to protest spending cuts and tax hikes designed to tackle the country’s debt crisis.

Riot police made heavy use of tear gas during the start-and-stop clashes throughout the demonstration, including outside Parliament.

Strikers and protesters banged drums and chanted slogans such as ‘no sacrifice for plutocracy,’ and ‘real jobs, higher pay.’

People draped banners from apartment buildings reading: ‘No more sacrifices, war against war.

The demonstrators included hundreds of black-clad anarchists in crash helmets and ski masks, who repeatedly taunted and attacked riot police with stones and petrol bombs, at one point spraying officers with brown paint.

Extreme measures: Masked rioters set fire to a car during the demonstration

Force: Hundreds of police were deployed during the protests

Shopkeepers along the demonstration route hastily rolled down their shutters, while a few blocks away, people sat at outdoor restaurants, nonchalantly continuing their meals.

Tear gas wafted through the city center’s streets, sending businessmen in suits scurrying for cover, their eyes streaming.

Minor clashes also broke out in the northern city of Thessaloniki, where about 14,000 people marched through the center.

Fears of a Greek default have undermined the euro for all 16 countries that share it, putting the Greek government under intense European Union pressure to quickly show fiscal improvement.

It has announced a raft of savings through public sector salary cuts, hiring and pension freezes and consumer tax hikes to deal with its ballooning deficit, but the measures have led to a new wave of labor discontent.

The cutbacks, added to a previous austerity plan, seek to reduce the country’s budget deficit from 12.7 percent of annual output to 8.7 percent this year. The long-term target is to bring overspending below the EU ceiling of 3 percent of GDP in 2012.

The new plan sparked a wave of strikes and protests from labour unions whose reaction to the initial austerity measures had been muted.

Violence: Baton-wielding riot police clash with demonstrators in Athens

Target: A rioter sets fire to entrance of a hoteis

Thursday’s strike shut down all public services and schools, leaving ferries tied up at port and suspending all news broadcasts for the day.

However, some private bank branches were open despite calls from the bank employees’ union to participate in the strike.

While their colleagues clashed with groups of protesters, some police joined the demonstration.

About 200 uniformed police, coast guard and fire brigade officers, who cannot go on strike but can hold protests, gathered at a square in the center of the city shortly before the marches got under way.

‘The police and other security forces have been particularly hard hit by the new measures because our salaries are very low,’ said Yiannis Fanariotis, general secretary of one police association.

Joining the protest ‘doesn’t feel strange, because we are working people like everybody else and we are all shouting out for our rights,’ he said.

The government says the tough cuts are its only way to dig Greece out of a crisis that has hammered the common European currency and alarmed international markets – inflating the loan-dependent country’s borrowing costs.

But unions say ordinary Greeks are being called to pay a disproportionate price for past fiscal mismanagement.

‘They are trying to make workers pay the price for this crisis,’ said Yiannis Panagopoulos, leader of Greece’s largest union, the GSEE.

‘These measures will not be effective and will throw the economy into deep freeze.’

A general strike last Friday was marred by violence during a large protest march. Riot police used tear gas and baton charges against rock-throwing protesters, who smashed banks and storefronts, while left-wing protesters roughed up Panagopoulos as he was addressing a rally.

The labour unrest could spark fears that the government will have trouble in implementing its new measures.

Greece insists it doesn’t need a bailout, and its European partners are reluctant to fund one.

But it has called for European and international support for its program, saying that unless it receives that support and the cost for it to borrow on the market falls, it might have to appeal to the International Monetary Fund for help.

On Wednesday night, Deputy Prime Minister Theodore Pangalos said Greece could bypass the costly process of borrowing from edgy markets by urging international institutions to buy its bonds at a set interest rate.

‘We want, if there is an unjustified speculative attack against Greek bonds, to know that one of these institutions that have the substantial means to absorb such market products will come and say “look here,

I am buying Greek bonds at this price, with this interest rate,”‘ Pangalos told private Mega TV.

He did not say which institutions he was referring to, or elaborate on the interest rate.

Markets think some kind of rescue would be organised if default looms. Speculation has focused on possible guarantees for Greek bonds or help from state-owned banks in other eurozone countries.

——–

Glenn has repeatedly told us that what is happening in Greece is going to happen here in America. Our annual deficit increase, percentage-wise, is about the same as Greece, and we have unions, which, while they are not as prevalent and powerful as those in Greece, they are growing fast, thanks government spending. That said, it doesn’t take that many people to shut things down and make it unsafe to go to the store and get things, to drive around town for any reason.

Hopefully we have more than months; I hope we have years to prepare for such things, and perhaps to even avoid it. But considering what has happened in one year, doesn’t it make sense to prepare? Remember how before the beginning of the Obama administration, Glenn Beck said that a year from now, we wouldn’t recognize our country?

Well, do you recognize it? The paradigm has already shifted, and will continue to do so; and it isn’t about to stop. I pray we still have enough time, but we never know what tomorrow brings.

Please, start buying extra food which stores well, like canned soup, vegetables, fruits, meat (like chicken breast and/or roast beef), etc. Just buy a little more than you need, if you can’t afford much, and start storing it like our grandparents and great-grandparents did in their cellars during the Great Depression. Don’t forget to rotate your cans (open the oldest cans first) so you don’t waste any of it. And try to stock up on things you like, so you know you’ll eat it.

If you can afford a little bit more, please consider the company Glenn recommends, which I personally chose for my family’s beyond-the-pantry food storage (it’s better than any other we’ve tried):

Also don’t forget to store up on clothes you’ll need if things break down, whether it’s because the Dollar is taken down, or worse. If you have children, buy the next size they’ll need in shoes, pants, shirts, etc. Just use common sense. If you can do a bit more, please do it. If not, try to prepare so that ASAP, you will be able to. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

It never hurts to start “buying ahead.” If you can afford to buy the next FEW sizes, then it might be a good idea. We never know when the dollar will be taken down, just as George Soros & co. began to do to the Euro the end of last month.

Just remember, that if you can’t afford blocks of gold or several gold coins (over $1,100/oz. recently), the things you’ll NEED to buy anyway MAY BE the best place to put your cash. The spending our government is engaging in is absolutely unsustainable. Someday in the not-too-distant future, we may have need of those things which we normally go to the store for, because either they’ll be too expensive, or the shelves will be bare.

Are you ready for that?

Doesn’t it make sense to prepare, now, when it’s relatively painless?

“If Ye Are Prepared, Ye Shall Not Fear.”

——–

Now back to Greece: just remember that while we have much to be hopeful, and it looks like we might have enough time to avoid this sort of thing, we MUST STOP OBAMACARE! Remember, 2/3 of ObamaCare passed in Stimulus Package, so NO LEGISLATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PASS THAT IS LONGER THAN THE CONSTITUTION! THEY CAN HIDE THE REST IN ANY BILL!

If you haven’t yet called and/or shown up at the closest office(s) of your Representative & Senators, now is the time! Here is their contact information:

111TH CONGRESS (UNITED STATES SENATE)

111TH CONGRESS (U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES)

Senators Resist Obama Over Projects in Health Bill. Thanks Longknife

Saturday, 13 Mar 2010 09:02 AM

President Barack Obama says he wants projects helping specific states yanked from the health care bill Congress is writing. Democratic senators, being senators, beg to differ.

The Senate-approved health measure lawmakers hope to send to Obama soon would steer $600 million over the next decade to Vermont in added federal payments for Medicaid and nearly as much to Massachusetts.

Connecticut would get $100 million to build a hospital. About 800,000 Florida seniors could keep certain Medicare benefits. Asbestos-disease victims in tiny Libby, Mont., and some coal miners with black lung disease or their widows would get help, and there are prizes for Louisiana, the Dakotas and more states.

“We’re going to do what we have to do to get a bill out of the House and Senate,” said James Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. As for Obama’s wish list of deletions: “We’ll certainly keep it in mind as we pull together a final bill.”

That tepid salute underscores the prickliness with which many senators have greeted what they consider Obama’s meddling in their business and raises questions about how successful the president will be in erasing the special projects from final legislation.

It also highlights a spat between a White House and Senate, dominated by the same party, that the president has ignited just as he needs to garner support to finally push his No. 1 legislative goal to passage over monolithic Republican opposition and nervous Democrats.

Obama’s proposal to eliminate state-specific items comes with polls finding heightened public opposition to backroom political deals. Republicans have been happy to fan that discontent. Many Democrats, particularly House moderates facing tight re-election battles this fall, are eager to dissociate themselves from such spending.

The president wants votes from House Democrats “who were deeply offended by those provisions in the Senate bill,” said Sheryl Skolnick, who analyzes federal health legislation for CRT Capital Group of Stamford, Conn. “Clearly the math was, ‘I gain more in the House by taking out those provisions than I lose in the Senate.'”

Obama has railed against the “ugly process” of cutting special deals, but the president and his top advisers were prime players in negotiations on the agreements to win votes and push the legislation forward.

Republicans say Obama’s push to remove deals for states won’t help. Because every Democratic senator voted for that chamber’s bill and all its special provisions, even voting later to remove them leaves those Democrats in a pickle, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Friday.

“They will have then voted for them before they voted against them,” McConnell said of the bill’s projects, an echo of the line that 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry uttered that proved politically damaging.

Obama came out with a summary last month of the nearly $1 trillion health overhaul legislation he wants. It specifically eliminates $100 million in extra Medicaid money the Senate bill provided solely to Nebraska to help win support from that state’s Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson. The so-called Cornhusker Kickback drew such widespread scorn that even Nelson favors repealing it.

Obama also proposed changes in the Senate bill that, without mentioning it, deleted extra Medicaid money for Massachusetts and Vermont, the Florida Medicare exemption and some money for Michigan, according to White House officials.

Days later, at Obama’s nationally televised meeting with bipartisan leaders on health care, his 2008 presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticized the Senate bill for exempting 800,000 Florida seniors from cuts in the privately run Medicare Advantage program. Obama surprised him by agreeing, and that tone has carried over as the White House and top congressional Democrats labor to complete a compromise health package.

“We’ve made it clear to the Senate that the president’s position in the final legislation should not contain provisions that favor a single state or a single district differently than others,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this week.

There are exceptions. The White House says $300 million for Louisiana, which helped win support from moderate Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., should survive because of that state’s struggle to rebound from its 2005 pummeling by Hurricane Katrina.

Even so, Obama’s targeting of state projects is going over poorly in the Senate.

Take Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who helped win extra Medicaid money for his state in the Senate health bill.

Vermont is one of several states that have already boosted the benefits they provide to many poor people. All states would get added federal financing for a nationwide Medicaid expansion under the Senate bill. But states such as Vermont — already providing more generous benefits — say they’re being shortchanged and don’t want Obama taking that money away.

“What I told Harry Reid is that Vermont does the right thing, and I don’t want Vermont to be penalized for doing the right thing,” Leahy said.

The White House asked lawmakers to delete $100 million to build a public hospital in Connecticut inserted by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. But the money will remain in the final bill, according to people familiar with Democratic negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose the unannounced decision. Less certain is the fate of other money the White House wants eliminated for Montana.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., put a provision in the Senate health bill allowing many of the 2,900 residents of Libby to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now shuttered mine.

“It simply doesn’t make sense to ignore this obligation, or victims of these disasters,” Baucus said.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., won a Senate provision making it easier for longtime coal miners or miners’ widows to get compensation for black lung disease.

The Senate bill also has extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

——

Associated Press writers Erica Werner and Charles Babington contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Maurice Strong and the Collapse of Industrialized Civilizations. Thanks tpgow

All  American Blogger

Posted by Duane Lester on Apr 30th, 2008

In 1990, a small, round faced Canadian described a scenario to a reporter. He envisioned a small group of world leaders concluding that the rich countries were the “principle risk to the Earth.” This group then created a plan to get the rich countries to “sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment.” When the rich countries refused, the group decided “the only hope for the planet” was for the industrialized civilizations to collapse. He pondered, “Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Two years later, he helped lay the foundation for the Kyoto Protocol at the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. His name is Maurice Strong, and he would love to see America collapse.

Who is Maurice Strong?

Billionaire Canadian Maurice Strong is a man of profound influence. He’s been called the “Michelangelo of networking,” “an international traveling salesman with buts [sic] of paper in his pocket” and described as “a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli.”

He is known as the “Godfather of the international environmental movement” and the “architect of the Kyoto Protocol.” Both of those are ironic titles for a man who started out in the oil business.

Strong traveled Africa in the 1950s, creating a network of service stations for Dome Petroleum and recruiting locals to man them. In the 60s, he took Ajax Petroleum, renamed it Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Co. and turned it from almost busted into an oil giant. In 1975, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau started a state-owned gas company. Strong accepted the position as president of Petro-Canada.

While his private sector resume is impressive, it is his public sector experience that is shaping environmental policy today. While he was dabbling in oil, he was also starting his political career. In 1966, Strong led the Canadian International Development Agency. After four years of that, he went to the United Nations. In 1972, Strong was the secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. Later, he was executive director of the UN Environmental Program.

He has had other positions of influence at the United Nations, including “commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983″ and senior adviser to secretary-general Kofi Annan.

Journalist Elaine Dewar interviewed Strong and wrote about him in her book Cloak of Green. She writes, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” Also:

“He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn’t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.”

That “unfettered power” led to his role in creating the Kyoto Protocol.

“An agreement reducing their impact on the environment”

In 1990, Maurice Strong gave an interview to WEST magazine, where he described how he envisioned the Earth being saved:

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.

“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

“The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Two years after making that statement, Strong laid the foundation, and helped in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol. According to Wikipedia, “The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the international Framework Convention on Climate Change with the objective of reducing greenhouse gases that cause climate change.” Another way of saying that is “an agreement reducing their impact on the environment.” What has been the result of the agreement? “The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change.”

Japan, Italy and Spain face payments of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.

…

Spain faces a $7.8 billion cost, and Italy and Japan each may owe about $13 billion, based on estimates by their governments and the current price for permits.

It seems the rich countries are up to their necks in fines, while the developing countries don’t have to worry about caps on emissions. Sound familiar?

If the United States were to sign the treaty, it is expected to have disastrous results:

…according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, [ratifying Kyoto] could cost the economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility rates by 86 per cent, hike the cost of heating oil by 76 per cent, and impose a permanent “Kyoto gasoline tax” of 66 cents per gallon. In total, each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy. WEFA, an economic information and consulting firm, reports that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and manufacturing wages cut by 2.1 per cent.

Kyoto is actually destroying Europe’s economy. Strong, however, is not concerned with the success of the world’s economy. In fact, it seems that is part of the plan. When an economy grows, greenhouse gases tend to grow with it. Strong knows this and says, “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease.”

Unless we are talking about Strong’s economic growth. He’s used environmentalism to make a lot of money.

“A socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.”

In the 1990s, Al Gore heaped praise on a company called Molten Metal Technology, Inc. This company, a hazardous waste management firm, claimed to have a new technology, “a promising adaptation of steelmaking chemistry to create a closed-loop system for turning industrial wastes into chemical feedstocks.”

Gore’s hype helped the company’s stock jump to $35 a share. After receiving over $25 million dollars in federal grant money from the Department of Energy, the DoE figured out that the techonology was a bust. It simply didn’t work.

Maurice Strong ran Molten Metals, and when the federal government decided to stop handing out grants, he and the other corporate officers sold off $15.3 million in personal shares of stock. The stock dropped to $5 soon afterward, but Strong had already made his money.

Today, Strong is on the Chicago Climate Exchange board of directors. The CCX “is North America’s only and the world’s first global marketplace for integrating voluntary legally binding emissions reductions with emissions trading and offsets for all six greenhouse gases.”

The more global warming gets hyped, once again by Al Gore, the more green technology is worth. So while Strong may be “a socialist in ideology,” he is definitely a “capitalist in methodology.”

The architect of Kyoto has made millions off of environmentalism, but still finds himself unable to pull America into the snare. But he has a plan for that also. In 2006, he described what he thought was necessary to keep the green movement alive…fear:

Speaking of the environmental movement post-2012, the year Kyoto expires, Strong laid out a vision for what he thinks it will take to keep the green movement alive in the hearts of world governments. “What we really need are massive incentives for the right kind of behaviour,” Strong explained at one seminar to an audience of roughly 400. “Economic incentives, but also moral incentives, ethical incentives, psychological incentives . . . fear.”

…

“Political leaders cannot go far beyond what their constituents are prepared to accept, nor can those who are negative be more negative than what their constituents are willing to support,” notes Strong, acknowledging that democratic solutions have their limits. “So, politics really responds to public movements. If you look at the great movements in history, the abolishment of the slave trade and all that, they didn’t start with individual policies from governments. They were forced on them by people’s movements. And that’s the same with the environmental movement.” Later, he adds: “And remember: the communist revolution was a people’s revolution.”

Maurice Strong would not shed a tear at the collapse of the American economy or our way of life. He has stated before that “current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” In other words, the demise of the American way of life is necessary for the survival of the Earth. This perspective poses little threat from a normal environmentalist. In the hands of the “Michelangelo of networking,” “an international traveling salesman with buts [sic] of paper in his pocket” and “a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli,” it is an all too real threat to America.