"Shoot To Kill" Martial Law FEMA Roundup Coming Soon

[Mrs. Sharon B. Hodge]

Lets not forget NWO mouthpiece Amy Goodman also invited one of the Rothschilds to explain how Americans will have NO RIGHTS when martial law is declared, and business elites will be granted by FBI SHOOT TO KILL any citizen if needed - that's USA for you - Video plugged below


Now 2012 is starting to make sense eh? FEMA roundup at the collapse of economies - everyone will be sorted out by the blue red list, useless dissents will be exterminated while ones who hone skills will get tagged with RFID chips (VISA corp is cancelling credit cards and wants cashless microchipped control grid by 2012, look it up)

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: [AMERICAN WOMAN] (**READY**)
Date: Aug 11, 2008 2:15 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: juan
Date: Aug 11, 2008 1:48 PM


WORLD WAR 3 RUSSIA GEORGIA at WAR MARTIAL LAW SOON

·ï¡÷¡ï·Mårïå·ï¡÷¡ï·


----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Eddie NWO Censored







MTV Martial Law warning for dumbed down American teens - nobody's listening anyway


EPA - American lives are worththe holes dug from the ground



The Georgia Guidestones










Endless coffins stacked in Georgia ready for tennants


Google the GLOBAL 2000 REPORT - Jimmy Carter signed the global secret treaty to DEPOPULATE THE PLANET

*****************************
How Much Are You Worth?
*****************************

The AP gets the scoop on the EPA’s decision to devalue a “statistical life”

By Curtis Brainard
Fri 11 Jul 2008

http://www. cjr. org/the_observatory/how_much_are_you_worth. php

Last month, I wrote a column about the challenges journalists face in covering the ethical decisions that affect humanity’s response to global climate change Well here’s a doozie: What is a human life worth — not in any abstract, existential sense, but in cold, hard dollars?

That was the subject of a keenly important article by The Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein yesterday, who discovered that the U.
S Environmental Protection Agency has discounted the “value of statistical life” by almost $1 million over the last five years The practice of monetizing life at all sounds nefarious, but, according a Forbes article from last January, it “makes sense” in a world in which we expect government to protect its citizens from things like global warming:

Although some may consider it immoral to even raise the question of the dollar value of life, risk regulation agencies can’t avoid doing so.
We would soon exhaust all of our resources if we tried to do everything that would make our lives safer A zero pollution, risk-free society is unattainable
Borenstein’s piece for the AP reflects this same rationale:

The EPA figure is not based on people’s earning capacity, or their potential contributions to society, or how much they are loved and needed by their friends and family — some of the factors used in insurance claims and wrongful-death lawsuits


Instead, economists calculate the value based on what people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and on how much extra employers pay their workers to take on additional risks.
Most of the data is drawn from payroll statistics; some comes from opinion surveys According to the EPA, people shouldn’t think of the number as a price tag on a life


When it comes to the agency’s latest changes to the value of a statistical life, however, Borenstein adds an extremely important caveat:

Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences


When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths.
At $7,8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs But at $6,9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted


A specific regulation would be something like a cap-and-trade scheme for reducing greenhouse gas emissions In my column about covering the ethics of such legislation, I quoted a long feature from the May issue of Scientific American that explained how the difference between economic projections that say the costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action and those that say the opposite comes down to a set of moral decisions Among these considerations, the author wrote, is the fact that:

Many people, some living, others yet to be born, will die from the effects of climate change Is each death equally bad? How bad are those deaths collectively? Many people will die before they bear children, so climate change will prevent the existence of children who would otherwise have been born Is their nonexistence a bad thing? By emitting greenhouse gases, are the rich perpetrating an injustice on the world’s poor? How should we respond to the small but real chance that climate change could lead to worldwide catastrophe?

Obviously, if the EPA says that a life is worth $1 million less than it used to be, it becomes less economically “practical” to enact something like cap-and-trade and energy efficiency standards.
Unfortunately, the press generally covers environmental regulations in only the broadest sense, without delving into the important details, as Borenstein did, that shape arguments about their practicality and viability Journalists should be more attentive As the Forbes article quoted above noted:

The Environmental Protection Agency created a political firestorm back in 2003 with an analysis that calculated that the lives of those over age 70 were worth 37% less than the lives of younger people Citizen groups for the elderly were outraged at this “senior death discount” and ultimately the EPA withdrew the report Discussion of age distinctions are off the table now…
Borenstein actually broke that story back in 2002 when he was with the now defunct Knight Ridder news agency, a number of months before other major news outlets caught on. But there has certainly been no such “firestorm” surrounding the agency’s more recent and generalized devaluation of individuals.
As Borenstein observed in yesterday’s piece, “EPA traditionally has put the highest value on life of any government agency and still does, despite efforts by administrations to bring uniformity to that figure among all departments” But whereas the EPA has been “trimming” its figure, the Department of Transportation has twice increased its own

Whatever the rate may be, these are the kinds of inconspicuous, but eminently consequential, details that reporters must begin paying attention to.
It should come as no surprise that Borenstein (a self-professed “data geek” who likes to find stories in numbers) unearthed this particular tale, however He had been tracking the EPA statistical-life figures ever since the “senior death discount” affair in 2002

CJR


**************************************************
AP IMPACT: An American life worth less today
**************************************************

Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Jul 10, 2008

http://ap. google. com/article/ALeqM5i40Z1lLWhFws4xIKaXbYZ96a8y6QD9...

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's not just the American dollar that's losing value A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be

The "value of a statistical life" is $6,9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago

The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years

Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences

When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7,8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs.
But at $69 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted

Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules — a charge the EPA denies

"It appears that they're cooking the books in regards to the value of life," said S.
William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators "Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death"

Dan Esty, a senior EPA policy official in the administration of the first President Bush and now director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said: "It's hard to imagine that it has other than a political motivation"

Agency officials say they were just following what the science told them

The EPA figure is not based on people's earning capacity, or their potential contributions to society, or how much they are loved and needed by their friends and family — some of the factors used in insurance claims and wrongful-death lawsuits

Instead, economists calculate the value based on what people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and on how much extra employers pay their workers to take on additional risks.
Most of the data is drawn from payroll statistics; some comes from opinion surveys According to the EPA, people shouldn't think of the number as a price tag on a life

The EPA made the changes in two steps. First, in 2004, the agency cut the estimated value of a life by 8 percent.
Then, in a rule governing train and boat air pollution this May, the agency took away the normal adjustment for one year's inflation Between the two changes, the value of a life fell 11 percent, based on today's dollar

EPA officials say the adjustment was not significant and was based on better economic studies The reduction reflects consumer preferences, said Al McGartland, director of EPA's office of policy, economics and innovation

"It's our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to reduce similar risks to their own lives," McGartland said

But EPA's cut "doesn't make sense," said Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi. EPA partly based its reduction on his work. "As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go up as well.
It has to" Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans are less willing to pay to reduce risks

At the same time that EPA was trimming the value of life, the Department of Transportation twice raised its life value figure But its number is still lower than the EPA's

EPA traditionally has put the highest value on life of any government agency and still does, despite efforts by administrations to bring uniformity to that figure among all departments

Not all of EPA uses the reduced value The agency's water division never adopted the change and in 2006 used $8,7 million in current dollars

From 1996 to 2003, EPA kept the value of a statistical life generally around $7,8 million to $7,96 million in current dollars, according to reports analyzed by The AP In 2004, for a major air pollution rule, the agency lowered the value to $7,15 million in current dollars

Just how the EPA came up with that figure is complicated and involves two dueling analyses

Viscusi wrote one of those big studies, coming up with a value of $8,8 million in current dollars.
The other study put the number between $2 million and $3,3 million The co-author of that study, Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole

EPA took portions of each study and essentially split the difference — a decision two of the agency's advisory boards faulted or questioned

"This sort of number-crunching is basically numerology," said Granger Morgan, chairman of EPA's Science Advisory Board and an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University "This is not a scientific issue"

Other, similar calculations by the Bush administration have proved politically explosive In 2002, the EPA decided the value of elderly people was 38 percent less than that of people under 70, After the move became public, the agency reversed itself




For 2 months at Camp Pendleton there have been military operations on an increasing scale and the local news have provided sanitized versions of these ops, With an upcoming attack on Iran and who knows what other nations, A crumbling economy heading for massive inflation, political unrest, police state measures, etc, It's only a matter of time before that tyranny becomes full blown


Jerome Corsi on CSPAN - National Security Presidential Directive 51 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) gives dictator BUSH the unlimited power to destroy the CONSTITUTION and impose all out MARTIAL LAW

************************************************
THE KAKISTOCRACY EXPOSES ITS HAND
************************************************

PART 1 of 2

Dr Edwin Vieira, Jr, PhD, JD
May 28, 2007
NewsWithViews. com

The publication of National Security Presidential Directive 51 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20) on 9 May 2007, now available on the White House’s web site, represents another major stage in the devolution of the United States from a constitutional republic to a Caesaristic police state. Inadvertently, though, it exposes the primary danger to the continuation of its own power that the Establishment now fears.
As well, it emphasizes the impossibility of any succor for the American people from the present “two” major political parties And thus it should actually energize We the People into doing what is necessary to salvage freedom and prosperity in this country, before things get entirely out of hand

(1) The unconstitutionality of NSPD-51 is blatant

NSPD-51 “establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations * * * provides continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency” (paragraph (1))

To be sure, “executive departments and agencies” are parts of the Executive Branch of the General Government, in principle subject to the President. But other than the Treasury, which the Constitution itself requires (see Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), all “executive departments and agencies” are originally creatures of Congress, not the President. Therefore, their very existences, purposes, powers, personnel, and “continuity requirements” must be the products of statutes (“Laws,” as the Constitution generally terms them), not Presidential “directives” (for which the Constitution makes no provision whatsoever).
Indeed, other than “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, [and] Judges of the supreme Court,” the President may not constitutionally even “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate * * * appoint” any “Officers of the United States” except those “which shall be established by Law,” or appoint any “inferior Officers” except those whose “Appointment” “Congress may by Law vest * * * in the President alone” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) That is, other than the President himself, the composition, structure, and operations of the Executive Branch are completely subject to the legislative supremacy of Congress

As for maintaining appropriate “continuity” with respect to these matters, Congress enjoys ample—and exclusive—constitutional power to do whatever is needed. In general, “[a]ll legislative Powers” the Constitution “grant[s] shall be vested in * * * Congress”, not to any degree or for any purpose in the President (Article I, Section 1). And in particular, Congress alone is entitled “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” not only its own powers, but also “all other Powers vested by th[e] Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”, including the powers of the President (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). In this process, the President’s only forms of participation are: (i) to “recommend to [Congress’s] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article I, Section 3); and (ii) either to “approve” “Bill[s] which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” or to “return [such] Bill[s], with his Objections” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2).
The President cannot himself enact “Laws” Instead, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3)

Even if Congress has been remiss in not providing for the necessary and proper “continuity requirements” for “executive departments and agencies,” the President cannot on that account take unilateral action on his own initiative. America is not subject to “government by default.” In the absence of appropriate action by the constitutionally authorized Branch of government, the country does not find itself at the mercy of the self-appointed “leadership” of some other, unauthorized Branch of government.
Any such “leadership” is not an act of “government” at all, but instead is usurpation at best, and a crime at worst (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241 and 242) If the President honestly believes that this country needs “a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations,” he should present to Congress what he considers to be the “necessary and expedient” legislation for Congress to enact, and await Congress’s agreement with his assessment (Article II, Section 3)

Moreover, while the United States remains a federal republic and a free country, who is the President to provide “guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations,” as NSPD-51 claims to do? Precisely where does the Constitution mandate to the President the role of universal teacher? Nowhere—because such an idea is positively un-American. For the most recent and ominous parallel, one must look to Mao Tse-tung, “The Great Helmsman” of Red China, whose “Mao Tse-tung Thought” appeared in the little red book countless millions of politically zombified Chinese Communists waved during mass demonstrations. Admittedly, the trip from America, even as corrupted as she is today, to something like Red China in the heyday of Mao Tse-tung is, no doubt, still a long one.
But, as the Chinese aphorism has it, “a journey of a thousand li begins with a single step” So, in humility and prudence, any President would do well to learn before he claims to teach, and therefore first to seek guidance from, rather than purport to impart it to, his fellow countrymen

Not surprisingly, as the supposed source of its authority NSPD-51 employs an open-ended invocation of “emergency” conditions: “[c]atastrophic emergency means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S.
population, environment, economy, or government functions” (paragraph 2(a)) (One should notice how, as the break-up crisis approaches, the appeal to “emergency” alone no longer suffices, and politicians come to employ increasingly hysterical adjectives—today, “[c]atastrophic emergency;” tomorrow, perhaps, “apocalyptic emergency”—as if the degree of power to be seized depended only upon the draftsman’s facility with the dictionary, rather than upon his knowledge of the Constitution)

As I have explained in previous commentaries, “emergency powers” are bunkum. The new twist in NSPD-51 is that some “[c]atastrophic emergency” supposedly could occur outside the United States, in some other country entirely. Or it could involve the failure of foreign banks, which “severely affect[ed] the U.S. * * * economy.” Or it could be a claimed consequence of supposed “global warming” or some other natural condition that might “severely affect[ ] the U.
S * * * environment”

In virtue of these cataclysmic threats, NSPD-51 then asserts a breathtakingly unprecedented Presidential power: “[e]nduring constitutional government * * * means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency” (paragraph 2(e))

Needless to emphasize, NSPD-51 does not identify where and how the Constitution licenses the President to “coordinate[ ]” “cooperative effort[s] among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But the very claim to do so exposes the substance—or, perhaps more descriptively, the absence—of his “proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.” For, if the President will himself “coordinate[ ]” these “cooperative effort[s],” presumably Congress and the Judiciary must accept, accede to, or acquiesce in his “coordinat[ion].” Certainly all three Branches cannot “coordinate[ ],” each in its own idiosyncratic manner.
Neither can each of the three Branches go it own way and still “coordinate[ ]” with the others One must lead, and the others follow

NSPD-51 states that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions” (paragraph 3).
Yet it also provides that “[c]ontinuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies” only (paragraph 4) Of course, the verbal limitation to “executive departments and agencies” is necessitated by its being a Presidential “directive” which, even if constitutional, cannot apply to any other Branch of the General Government But how, then, is “the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs” to be achieved for Congress and the Judiciary? And how is “the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions” to be achieved without them? Or, in the minds of those who drafted NSPD-51, does only the Executive Branch count any more? What purpose will be served by preserving the “continuity” of the Executive Branch alone, while discontinuity or chaos grips the Legislative and Judicial Branches—except, perhaps, the purpose of creating the condition precedent for an overarching executive Decidership operating under some species of “martial law?”

Indeed, one need not be suffering from terminal paranoia to deduce exactly this intent from the assertion in NSPD-51 that “[t]he President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government” (paragraph 6).
Not just “the activities of the Executive Branch,” but “the activities of the Federal Government” as a whole! Thus, “the separation of powers,” Congress’s power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper”, and the President’s own duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” are submerged in das Fuhrer Prinzip (the Leader Principle) And every historically literate person knows where that has led in the past

Most of the rest of NSPD-51 consists of a table of bureaucratic organization and duties that might form the kernel of a reasonable plan for maintaining the “continuity” of the Executive Branch—if submitted to Congress for incorporation into a “necessary and proper” law.
Mandated directly by the President, however, it is usurpation And if allowed to stand by Congress, it will mark a giant step in the systematic destruction of constitutional government in this country and its replacement by a brownshirted Caesarism

(2) Caesarism of any color, though, is certainly not the primary fear of the people who drafted NSPD-51 The document lists a number of concerns:

The following [National Essential Functions] are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities * * * and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation’s economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States (paragraph 5)
But surely no one can believe that the present Administration is interested, in the slightest degree,

in “[e]nsuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution” —or it would not be promoting the North American Union;

in “[d]efending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—or it would not be harboring Neo-Conzis and other dangerous subversives in public office;

in “bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people”—or it would not be demonizing patriots who justifiably find the official explanation of 9/11 as unsatisfactory as the official fable that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President Kennedy; or

in “maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people”—or it would not be persisting in policies that have caused George W Bush to be widely condemned as the worst President in American history (so far)

Similarly, no one can believe that the present Administration is interested, in the slightest degree, in “[m]aintaining and fostering effective relations with foreign nations”, when almost its every initiative in foreign policy is directed at denouncing, threatening, subverting, attacking, or occupying any nation that refuses to toe the globalistic line emanating from the Disgrace of Columbia

So, too, can anyone expect a “rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident” from the bureaucratic apparatus that orchestrated the fiasco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Read The Rest HERE