The greatest site in all the land!

Archive for February, 2013

Violence in Santa Cruz, California in 2013

Editor:         February 28, 2013

The recent spate of violence in Santa Cruz lately can only point to ONE thing:
Our lovely federal government is carrying out these atrocious acts so as to JUSTIFY the addition of
more police on our streets and to turn our community into a soviet style communist police state dictatorship.
This going to be a HOT TAKEOVER of the American Republic…

Remember, 9/11 was an “inside job”.
BOTH the underwear and shoe bombers were covert operations carried out by our lovely alphabet soup
intelligence agencies to JUSTIFY the 4th Amendment violating ‘nazi gestapo’ intrusions we now
witness with the TSA at our airports, bus and train stations.

The Department of Homeland Security and the jewish rothschild fascists who run this institution
are hell bent on taking away the freedoms and liberties that our people fought and died for since 1776.
Their latest move is to forcibly take away our guns and nullify the 2nd amendment-
which precisely protects us against a full fledged tyranny.

Here is what happens when guns are taken away from the people (its called “genocide”)

Hawthorn purity
Santa Cruz, California
United States


KSCO Santa Cruz: Right Wing Hate Radio

Mayor of Santa Cruz
hillary bryant

Dear Ma’am:

KSCO is owned and run by a bunch of radical right wing extremeists.

This city needs to revoke their broadcast license immediately.  Their programs are spreading hatred, division, violence and
a brand of right wing police state extremism that has NO PLACE in liberal, left wing, progressive Santa Cruz.

These people and their listeners HATE our town and everything that makes Santa Cruz unique.  We need to clean this
place up.  I therefore call upon the city, the county, our congressional representatives and our president to send in SWAT
teams to arrest, prosecute, incarcerate and deport these right wing terrorist extremists away from our beautiful city.

Its time to SHUT DOWN this extreme right wing propaganda radio station.


Kaye Zimmler
Santa Cruz

The Future of Santa Cruz, California USA


Feb 28, 2013


It should be more than obvious to anyone by now that Santa Cruz has gotten overcrowded.

By generally recognized econometrics, we have overshot the environmental “carrying capacity” of this area by at least 3 fold.  That is, there are 3 times as many people here than should be.

I don’t know where the money came from to construct a new million dollar basketball court complex near downtown, but those funds SHOULD have been spent constructing a new city environmental center complete with showers (for bike commuters), free computer terminals, free printing and a healthy level of research and library materials to help transit our city into an ecologically sustainable  green community for the 21st century.

The city of Santa Cruz SHOULD be hiring local global climate change activists, NOT wasting funds to hire more police officers, who are turning our wonderful community into a lawless, fascist police state.

A city environmental center can help coordinate a local hemp industry to develop and sell textiles, pull together the knowledge, resources and local workforce to plant and maintain THOUSANDS of fruit and nut trees all throughout the city as future free food for the community,  and work to mitigate the threat that global climate change will have upon the people, wildlife and vegetation that is unique to our bio-region.

We need REAL natural food stores in our community, NOT right wing, corporate, mafia run “false green” businesses (such as Whole Foods, New Leaf and Staff of Life) who are selling us overpriced, unhealthy, organic “GMO” food and pushing an over-consumptive meat-based diet down our throats.

We need an Earth Day Festival that does NOT permit meat-cooking and meat consumption at what is traditionally a vegan/vegetarian event.  I urge the entire community to BOYCOTT this Festival in April and demand that the City of Santa Cruz FIRE the coordinators of this Festival for willfully and maliciously making a hypocritical mockery of what Earth Day is traditionally all about.  An over-consumptive, gluttonous, right wing sponsored meat-eating and SUV gas-guzzling Earth Day orgy has absolutely NO PLACE in liberal/left wing Santa Cruz.

If we don’t “correct” these types of breaches and instead continue to allow our society to devolve into a regressive “dog eat dog” fascist police state, then we’re ALL looking forward to ALOT of needless pain and suffering in the years ahead.

The city of Santa Cruz needs to go ‘Big Time’  REAL GREEN.  That means BANNING all gas-guzzling SUV’s, and removing the illegal police state spy and camera surveillance control grid that has been built up around us since 9/11.  It also means requiring both mainstream and natural food stores to STOP promoting an over-consumptive meat-based diet.   A REAL GREEN municipality will wean itself off the corporate energy grid by REQUIRING all homes and businesses to install rooftop solar PV panels.   Becoming locally food self-sufficient (community gardens, local food industries and community plant and tree food production) and introducing non-polluting electric vehicles to replace all internal combustion engines within the city limits should also be mandated.

This will ALL require a draw down of the number of people allowed to live in this area.  2 out of every 3 people living here in Santa Cruz are going to have to relocated  (sorry new folks, there’s no other way to do this).

The American economy today is now teetering on the brink of complete and utter collapse.   Things are going to change radically here in the very near future.  All the petty pursuits and far-flung interests most of you are involved with, will be swept away forever when the Safeway’s and gas stations close. 

I urge ALL Santa Cruz residents to work together NOW to help BUILD a green, sustainable, ecologically independent community SEPARATE from the failing, dysfunctional, over-consumptive, Earth threatening lifestyle and value-system of our currently imploding and collapsing society.  Already, we’re looking at $5.00/gallon slated for gas this summer.  Willingly or per force, you’re getting OUT of your gas-guzzling SUV’s, Santa Cruzans.

If Santa Cruz and Santa Cruzans are to survive the tumultous times ahead, we need to envision, fund, develop, implement and institute  an independent, sustainable and healthy (vegetarian) community as soon as humanly possible.

So, GET OUT of your cars folks and learn to bicycle.  Plant gardens, help start community gardens, organize to plant fruit and nut trees everywhere, lobby for a city environmental center, install solar and wind, get rid of your gas-guzzling trucks and SUV’s  and learn to power down to a vegan/vegetarian diet.  And DO NOT have more than 1 child per family, the world is already overpopulated.  Its time for a New World!


May Boeve

Center for Integral Living

Santa Cruz, California

NSA Warrantless Spying on Americans

See Url:





Wednesday, February 27, 2013 Full Show

ACLU Blasts Supreme Court Rejection of Challenge to Warrantless Spying Without Proof of Surveillance

In what’s being described as a Kafkaesque decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a group of human rights organizations and journalists cannot challenge the government’s warrantless domestic surveillance program because they can’t prove they are targets of it. The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of human rights groups and journalists filed the lawsuit in 2008 hours after President Bush signed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave the National Security Agency almost unchecked power to monitor international phone calls and emails of Americans. We’re joined by the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. [includes rush transcript]


Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a fellow at the Open Society Foundations. He argued the warrantless wiretapping case on behalf of the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court.


Editor’s Picks

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate >


NERMEEN SHAIKH: A legal effort to block the government’s warrantless domestic surveillance program has failed after the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a group of journalists, lawyers and human rights groups cannot challenge the law. In what’s been described as a Kafkaesque decision, the five-four conservative majority agreed with the Obama administration by concluding the plaintiffs lacked, quote, “standing” or jurisdiction to proceed, since they could not prove they had been targets of the secretive surveillance program. The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of human rights groups and journalists filed the lawsuit in 2008 hours after President Bush signed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave the National Security Agency almost unchecked power to monitor international phone calls and emails of Americans.

AMY GOODMAN: Other plaintiffs in the case included the Amnesty international, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, the journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges, and several defense attorneys. All the plaintiffs said they could be targets of the surveillance program since their work requires them to communicate with dissidents located outside the United States. In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the challengers’ argument was based on a, quote, “highly speculative fear” that the government could target their communications.

Well, to talk more about the significance of the ruling, we’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, fellow at the Open Society Foundations. He argued the warrantless wiretapping case on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.

Welcome to Democracy Now!


AMY GOODMAN: Well, you lost five to four. Talk about your response to the decision, Jameel.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure. Well, you know, obviously it’s a very disappointing decision. And in some ways, the fact that it was five to four makes it even more disappointing. It was a challenge to, as you said, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and specifically to the amendments that were made in 2008. And those amendments essentially allow the National Security Agency to engage in dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications, so it’s a very broad surveillance statute.

AMY GOODMAN: National Security Agency is agency—

JAMEEL JAFFER: Engages in—

AMY GOODMAN: Larger than the CIA.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Larger than the CIA, and it engages in signals intelligence gathering by monitoring phone calls, monitoring emails, monitoring other electronic communications. It’s a massive agency that has incredibly sophisticated surveillance authority now. And that agency uses this particular statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to, among other things, gather Americans’ international communications, communications between people here in the United States and people outside the United States. So, it’s a very broad surveillance statute, arguably broader than any surveillance statute that Congress has sanctioned in the past. And we brought a challenge to it right after it was passed.

This was actually built on an earlier challenge to the warrantless wiretapping program, which is the program that President Bush inaugurated right after 9/11. So, right after 9/11, the National Security Agency was told, “You no longer have to seek warrants from federal judges in order to engage in surveillance of Americans’ international communications. You can do this on your own, without the involvement of federal judges.” That was against the law. It was against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as it was written at the time, and it was against the Fourth Amendment of the—to the Constitution. And we had challenged that. We had challenged it in a case called ACLU v. NSA. The Center for Constitutional Rights had also challenged it in a separate case.

Those cases wound their way through the system, and eventually the government retired the warrantless wiretapping program, went back to Congress and said, “You need to change the law to make it legal to do everything that we have previously been doing illegally.” And some of us naively thought that Congress would reject that proposal. Some of us even naively thought that there would be serious investigations into what was criminal behavior: the violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead, what Congress did in 2008 is pass this broad law, the Amendments Act, which not only codified the power that President Bush had previously been exercising, but expanded the power of the National Security Agency to engage in this kind of surveillance. And again, now the surveillance is not individualized; it’s not targeted at people who are thought to be engaged in terrorism. It’s dragnet surveillance. That’s what the new law allows, surveillance of hundreds or thousands or even, theoretically, millions of people, who might not be suspected at all of having done anything wrong. So that’s the law we challenged in 2008. And the decision yesterday was effectively a decision holding that we don’t have the right to challenge the law.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So could you explain, Jameel Jaffer, the grounds on which the decision was taken yesterday, the basis, standing grounds, and what it means for a likely future judicial review of the amendment?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure, right, right. I mean, so, when we brought the case, our claims were constitutional claims. We argued that the statute violated the First Amendment because it imposed a burden on expressive and associational activity without sufficient reason. We argued that it violated the Fourth Amendment, which generally requires warrants before the government engages in this kind of surveillance. And those were the arguments we made in the district court.

But the government came back and said the courts shouldn’t reach those arguments at all, the courts shouldn’t consider whether the law is constitutional or not, because the ACLU’s plaintiffs can’t show that they, themselves, have been monitored under this law. And, of course, nobody can show that they’ve been monitored under the law, because the government doesn’t disclose who its targets are.

AMY GOODMAN: Which is sort of why you’re challenging it.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right. I mean, that’s part of the challenge. And the government is sort of creating this hurdle that is insuperable, this barrier to judicial review, which will ensure that nobody can ever challenge this kind of statute in court. And they were successful at the district court. We then appealed to the 2nd Circuit in New York, and we prevailed in the 2nd Circuit; it was a three-zero decision in our favor. The government then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and yesterday’s five-four decision against us is the result.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney. He spent nearly 40 years at the NSA but retired about a month after September 11, 2001, due to concerns over unchecked domestic surveillance. He appeared on Democracy Now! last year.

WILLIAM BINNEY: After 9/11, all the wraps came off for NSA, and they decided to—between the White House and NSA and CIA, they decided to eliminate the protections on U.S. citizens and collect on domestically. So they started collecting from a commercial—the one commercial company that I know of that participated provided over 300—probably, on the average, about 320 million records of communication of a U.S. citizen to a U.S. citizen inside this country.

AMY GOODMAN: What company?

WILLIAM BINNEY: AT&T. It was long-distance communications. So they were providing billing data. At that point, I knew I could not stay, because it was a direct violation of the constitutional rights of everybody in the country. Plus it violated the pen register law and Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, the intelligence acts of 1947 and 1978. I mean, it was just this whole series of—plus all the laws covering federal communications governing telecoms. I mean, all those laws were being violated, including the Constitution. And that was a decision made that wasn’t going to be reversed, so I could not stay there. I had to leave.

AMY GOODMAN: We also interviewed Thomas Drake, another National Security Agency whistleblower, on Democracy Now!

THOMAS DRAKE: The critical thing that I discovered was not just the massive fraud, waste and abuse, but also the fact that NSA had chosen to ignore a 23-year legal regime, which had been established in 1978, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and which, at NSA, during the time that I was not only at NSA but also in the military flying on RC-135s overseas during the latter part of the Cold War, it was a contract, the one thing you did not do. It was the prime directive of NSA. It was the—the—First Amendment at NSA, which is, you do not spy on Americans—

AMY GOODMAN: And what did you find?

THOMAS DRAKE: —without a warrant. I found, much to my horror, that they had tossed out that legal regime, that it was the excuse of 9/11, which I was told was: exigent conditions now prevailed, we essentially can do anything. We opened up Pandora’s box. We’re going to turn the United States of America into the equivalent of a foreign nation for the purpose of a—of dragnet, blanket electronic surveillance.

AMY GOODMAN: NSA former employee, Thomas Drake, was prosecuted. He was a whistleblower. And before that, William Binney. Jameel Jaffer, your response? And also, can you talk about President Obama himself, who, as senator in 2008, voted for the measure and has recently signed legislation in December extending the FISA amendment another five years?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right. Well, when we filed this case, we filed it in 2008 under the Bush administration, and so the arguments we were facing in the district court were arguments developed by Bush administration attorneys. But the case, you know, has been in the courts now for five years, and over the course of that time, obviously, the Bush administration has been replaced by the Obama administration, but the arguments have remained the same. The Obama administration lawyers have adopted all of the arguments that the Bush administration made to try to shield this statute from judicial review.

And I think it’s important to recognize the limited proposition we were making. The case before the Supreme Court was not about whether this statute is constitutional or not. We hadn’t reached that stage. The only question before the Supreme Court is—or was: Should the courts actually evaluate whether this statute is constitutional or not? And this five-to-four decision yesterday was a decision that the court should not evaluate that decision. And that’s really a disturbing thing, that, you know, maybe there’s room for reasonable disagreement about whether a statute like this is necessary or lawful or constitutional, but those arguments should be heard in a court. The courts have a role to play in deciding whether this kind of surveillance is constitutional or not, and it’s very troubling that the courts are refusing to play that role.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But you’ve also suggested that Justice Alito’s opinion seems to be based on the idea that a FISA court may at some point subject this law to constitutional review. What is a FISA court?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right. So there is a—there’s a passage in Justice Alito’s opinion for the court that suggests that the result of yesterday’s decision isn’t that the law will be altogether immunized from judicial review. And he points to this FISA court system, this secret court system in which judges selected by the chief justice of the Supreme Court hear government proposals for surveillance. So there is this secret court system that most Americans don’t know about.

AMY GOODMAN: Where is it? Where are these courts?

JAMEEL JAFFER: It’s in Washington, D.C. They meet—they used to meet in the Justice Department building. My understanding is they have their own building now. It’s 11—

AMY GOODMAN: Secret building?

JAMEEL JAFFER: —eleven judges. They meet. They meet in secret. Only the government appears before them. They don’t customarily publish their decisions. And so, for Justice Alito to suggest that this is a sufficient check against the possibility of abuse or a sufficient system to ensure that our laws, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are actually constitutional, you know, obviously I think that that is beyond wrong. It’s—the idea that the Fourth Amendment will be protected in secret with secret opinions and only the government appearing before the court, I think is an idea completely foreign to the Constitution. And obviously, you know, four justices at least agreed with that.

AMY GOODMAN: Can I just ask very quickly what it was like to argue this before the Supreme Court? And also talk about those in the minority.


AMY GOODMAN: Interestingly, Elena Kagan, who was President Obama’s attorney, right, solicitor general—


AMY GOODMAN: —who argued on behalf of the administration before the Supreme Court.

JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. So, Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg joined it, so four justices in dissent. I think it’s a very powerful dissent, but unfortunately it is a dissent.

You know, as to your other question about what it was like to argue it, you know, honestly, the argument itself was encouraging. There were statements made by Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts of the argument that suggested that they were at least to some extent sympathetic with the position of the plaintiffs. And it’s a little bit hard to explain how you can get from some of those statements made at argument to the decision that Justice Alito wrote and issued yesterday. Justice Kennedy, for example, said at oral argument that he thought it would be malpractice for lawyers not to take measures to protect against the possibility of surveillance by the NSA. It’s hard to understand how you can believe that but also sign onto an opinion that says that lawyers who take those measures are being paranoid or inflicting this cost on themselves. But, you know, that’s the nature of oral argument: It’s always very difficult to predict.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, one of the plaintiffs in the case, author and journalist Chris Hedges, wrote about the decision that it’s a very depressing one, “but one that has become routine in a court system that when faced with what the government insists are matters of national security writes lengthy opinions about why the courts cannot defend the rule of law.” Can you talk about how this decision fits into a wider range of decisions made recently?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, I think that Chris Hedges is right, that there is a broader pattern here in which the courts are abdicating their role under our constitutional system. They are supposed to be ensuring that the government’s national security policies are consistent with the Constitution. Instead what’s happening is many of these challenges are being thrown out at the threshold. Different—there are different reasons. Sometimes it’s standing. Sometimes it’s state secrets. Sometimes it’s immunity. But the common thread is that all of these cases are being thrown out even before the courts reach the merits. And that is a disturbing thing that ought to be of concern to everybody.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, we’re going to go to break, but when we come back, I want to ask you about drones, because it looks like Brennan—the vote for him to be the director of Central Intelligence will be tomorrow, but Rand Paul, the tea-party senator, is threatening to filibuster. Jameel Jaffer argued the case before the Supreme Court about a group—on behalf of a group of human rights organizations and journalists that led to the Supreme Court decision saying that this group cannot challenge the government’s warrantless wiretap decision. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with him in a minute.

Prominent American Scientists Call For Eco-Dictatorship Under UN Rule

Prominent American Scientists Call For Eco-Dictatorship Under UN Rule


Jurriaan Maessen
February 19, 2013

Upcoming Scientific Publication: “(…) governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation.”

In a peer-reviewed paper by the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” (available ahead of print), to be published in the march 2013 edition of the Institute’s yearly journal BioScience, a group of well-known scientists calls on government and scientists to start with the planned social engineering of “norms” and “values” in regards to environmental policies. In addition, they propose putting into effect all sorts of environmental fines and regulations in the spirit of Agenda 21 to hasten the social acceptance of increased governmental control. Also, they propose that the scientific community as a whole should align itself with government “through a concerted effort to change personal and social norms”.

The group of scientists involved in the upcoming publication include two Nobel Prize winners, economist Kenneth Arrow and political scientist Elinor Ostrom, as well as behavioral scientists, mathematicians, biologists- not to mention population scientists, the most well-known of whom are Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily- whose professional relationship dates back to the Ecoscience days. The authors start out by stating:

“Some have argued that progress on these (global environmental) problems can be made only through a concerted effort to change personal and social norms. They contend that we must, through education and persuasion, ensure that certain behaviors (…) become ingrained as a matter of personal ethics.” Stating that education and persuasion are insufficient to accomplish behavioral changes, they note:

“Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems. Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient. Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant behavior modification.”

Proposing that “effective policies (…) are ones that induce both short-term changes in behavior and longer-term changes in social norms”, the collection of prominent scientists assert that “government is uniquely obligated to locate the common good and formulate its policies accordingly.”

The upcoming report however stresses that scientists are given the tools to have a hand in
“government policies intended to alter choices and behaviors” such as “active norm management, changing the conditions influencing behaviors, financial interventions, and regulatory measures.”

Each of these policy instruments potentially influences personal and social norms in different ways and through different mechanisms. Each also carries the danger of backfiring, which is often called a boomerang effect in the literature—eroding compliance and reducing the prevalence of the desired behaviors and the social norms that support those behaviors”.

“Eroding compliance”, it is called. Anticipating that an increase in regulatory interventions by government are sure to create resistance among the target population, the scientists express confidence that their recommendations “can be carried out in a way that abides by the principles of representative democracy, including transparency, fairness, and accountability.”

Despite these on-the-surface soothing words, the authors stress that government (and the scientific community) should ultimately “move beyond” public consent when it comes to top-down regulations imposed on the American people:

“Some have argued that regulations are inherently coercive and cannot or should not exceed implied levels of public permission for such regulations. An alternative viewpoint is that governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation”.

By admitting they are willing to “move beyond existent levels of public permission” to push ahead with draconian environmental policies, these prominent scientists (among whom we find two Nobel laureates and one Paul Ehrlich) have proven their willingness to deceive the American population for their “environmental” control model. As Aaron Dykes put it while interviewing Lord Christopher Monckton,, the environmental “cause” is nothing more than “an absolute valued pretext for their absolute control model”.

The engineering of public “norms” serves not so much any environmental cause, but another one, namely that environmental policies, even draconian ones, will finally be perceived by the US population as being consistent with their own personal norms.

The way in which government may go about it shifting norms, the scientists argue, is by on the one hand “managing norms” through “such things as advertising campaigns, information blitzes, or appeals from respected figures”. The other aspect involved is the use of financial incentives and disincentives with the aim of conditioning the public to accept an increasing governmental control over personal behavior. The paper continues by saying that the best way to alter existing behaviors is through persuasive government regulations “such as penalties, regulations, and incentives” in order to “achieve significant behavior modification.”

“Fines can (…) be an effective way to alter behavior, in part because they (like social norm management) signal the seriousness with which society treats the issue.”

By extension, the authors express hope that behaviors and values will “coevolve” alongside increased government control in the form of state regulations and “fines”:

“A carbon tax might (…) prove effective even in the face of near-term opposition. What needs to be assessed is the possibility that behaviors and values would coevolve in such a way that a carbon tax—or other policy instrument that raises prices, such as a cap-and-trade system—ultimately comes to be seen as worthy, which would therefore allow for its long-term effectiveness”

In the context of this idea that shifting norms will “coevolve” alongside increased government regulations, the authors state:

“Each of the government interventions can influence both personal and social norms, although they do so through different mechanisms. Only social norm management directly targets norms. Choice architecture, financial instruments, and regulations can all alter social norms by causing people to first change their behaviors and then shift their beliefs to conform to those behaviors.”

In other words: the scientists propose arousing the concept of cognitive dissonance in the minds of people in order to guide the herd towards “proenvironmental” citizenship.

“When it comes to environmental issues”, the scientists write, “two different types of social norms are at play in these dynamics: social norms of conformity or cooperation and proenvironment social norms. Only the first type need be present to induce proenvironment behaviors (although proenvironment personal norms may emerge from this through, e.g., cognitive dissonance, experience, or associating the positive feeling from social approval for an act with the act itself).”

In the upcoming publication the concepts of peer-pressure and cognitive dissonance are being brought into the equation as effective norm-determining factors:

“(…) norms of conformity and cooperation are far more universal than are proenvironment norms and are therefore far more powerful in inducing proenvironment behaviors that do not conflict with preexisting values or preferences. In other words, proenvironment values are not a necessary prerequisite to proenvironment behaviors.”

While the authors express their hope that government expands control through all kinds of environmental regulations, they argue that scientists (especially life scientists) should align with big government, join forces in an unrelenting campaign to gradually create changes in behavior so environmental policies will be more easily accepted over the course of some time.

“Life scientists could make fundamental contributions to this agenda through targeted research on the emergence of social norms”, the group asserts.

“(…) many of the empirical studies cited in this article originate in law, psychology, economics, behavioral economics, anthropology, political science, and sociology. We know, for example, that the effective management of any commons requires sensitivity to local conditions, sound monitoring, graduated sanctions, and conflict-resolution mechanisms.”

Who better to guide the sheep towards “good environmental citizenship” than those scientists specialized in social engineering:

“Life scientists have a role to play in this by extending their existing theoretical analyses. To be effective, scholars of all stripes will have to extend their capacity to collaborate with decision- and policymakers in order to ensure realism and relevance.”

The scientists would, in such an environmental dictatorship, also have a monitoring capacity:

“Scientists could (…) effectively examine how combinations of different policy interventions and of the relative timing of deployment play out.”

The paper is concluded with three distinct recommendations to both scientists and governmental agencies:

“(1) the greater inclusion of social and behavioral scientists in periodic environmental policy assessments; (2) the establishment of teams of scholars and policymakers that can assess, on policy-relevant timescales, the short- and long-term efficiency of policy interventions; and (3) the alteration of academic norms to allow more progress on these issues.”
This entire publication is a clear and unmistakable sign that a scientific dictatorship is emerging under the pretext of environmentalism. More government control through regulations and fines combined with a proactive scientific community, brainwashing people into accepting this increasing governmental control where they would otherwise reject it. And guess who should be the coordinating body of this scientific dictatorship, according to the report:

“Teams might be supported by permanent entities that maintain communication with policymakers; these will differ among nations but could be attached to the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies in the international context. One potential model is a national commitment of scientific talent in the service of United Nations agencies.”

The United Nations. Of course!

“These teams could also be charged with anticipating crises and evaluating potential policy responses in advance, since detailed evaluation in the midst of a crisis may be problematic; such emergency preparedness would probably focus on the immediate effects of policies on behaviors rather than on changing social norms, because this is likely to be of greatest relevance in a crisis.”

All this talk of putting the UN behind the steering wheel of American government and the American scientific community points to the coming of age of the dreaded scientific dictatorship, against which many observers have warned us.

Montana Votes 20-0 in Favor of Anti-NDAA Bill

Montana Votes 20-0 in Favor of Anti-NDAA Bill

Activist Post 
February 23, 2013

The anti-NDAA movement continues to gain traction.

There is still much more work to be done as part of Operation Homeland Liberty, but People’s Blog for The Constitution highlights the latest development we can add to the victory column in Montana’s step toward resisting federal intrusion.

By a vote of 20-0, a bill that bans cooperation with federal agents over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has just passed the Montana House Judiciary Committee.

Known as HB 522, the bill would also require the state’s attorney general to report any attempts by federal officials who try to enforce the NDAA. HB 522 is now one step closer to becoming law.

Additional details below with contact information for Montana legislators..

Introduced by freshman Republican state Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer, the bill has gathered over 20 Democratic and Republican cosponsors in the House, including the Speaker Pro Tempore Austin Knudsen and the chair of the Judiciary committee, Krayton Kerns.

Speaking at a committee hearing on Wednesday, Schwaderer articulated why he opposes the NDAA and indefinite detention:

“There’s a lot of us on both sides of the aisle that feels that this flies in the face of habeas corpus and a free society and the better part of a millennium of human progress.”

View previous reports on how Montana and communities all across the nation are working to stop the NDAA and restore due process. You can find contact information for Montana legislators online.

Address letters to:
Senator XXXX
Montana Senate
PO Box 200500
Helena, MT 59620-0500


Montana House of Representatives
PO Box 200400
Helena, MT 59620-0400

By Fax

During sessions:
House 406-444-4825
Senate 406-444-4875

Please visit and lend your support for this and other NDAA activist initiatives.

Civil War Coming To America

See Url:





Tag Cloud