Quick Update: Bird Flu - Iraq Style

Bird Flu has been found in Iraq.

The Real Effect
I am concerned that the flu will 'spread' to U.S. soldiers and contractors and supposedly find it's way back home to the United States. Perhaps I will post later about how the flu has been found to be similar to the much dreaded pandemic 1918 Spanish flu.

Oil Price Increase Coming?

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the Racine, WI area have been about $2.39 for a decent amount of time here, so now is a great time to reevaluate my predictions for gasoline prices in 2006.

June 15, 2005: With the premier of my blog, I stated -

"This (article from Drudge) combined with the information released from this years Bilderberger meeting stating from multiple sources (Henry Kissinger being one) that crude would at least double perhaps triple over the next year."

At the time I started writing, the price of crude was weighing in at $55 a barrel and has recently hit $69 again. This is slightly lower than the $71 price in wake if hurricane Katrina, but represents an increase of 25% with the most aggressive price increases yet to come.

Now, it is hardly a noble feat to predict a continued increase cost in a bullish market, but I must remind the reader that at the time I predicted this many so-called "experts" were stating that oil prices would either hold or decrease. In addition to that, I was not merely predicting that prices would continue upwards, but would double.

The Real Effect
The upcoming war with Iran seems poised to trigger yet another summer push in crude prices like we have seen for the last several years. In order to achieve the stated goal of doubling crude prices, a drastic push will be needed early. I believe that is coming very soon and that we have already seen the precursors to that push. Look for gas prices to rise to roughly $2.70-$2.85 over the next few months to set the pace for $4 gasoline this summer.

Edited for appearance and labels on 4/23/2010.

Bin Laden Surfaces

Well, well. We have a new tape from Osama bin Laden and just in time to prompt a response for the situation in Iran.

The Real Effect
I totally do not buy this tape as the timing is way too convenient. Condi Rice comes out stating that the United States is through negotiating with Iran and suddenly bin Laden shows up asking for a truce?

Hmmmm...how to view this tape? I think the following is a very real possibility:

1. The so-called conservative talking heads will claim that because bin Laden wants a truce, the 'Global War on Terror' and the initiative on Iraq is working in spades.
2. Because the 'war' is a success, we must push further.
3. This will provoke a response from the CIA asset bin Laden in which he will claim responsibility for another attack on American soil.
4. This will provide the pretext to extend the war on terror into Iran.

Edited for appearance and labels on 3/23/2010.

Iran Watch - Analyzing the Rhetoric

Upon reading the news this morning, I came across the following article -

Rice: No Point in More Iran Negotiations

Lately I have not been reading the articles surrounding the Iranian standoff because quite frankly they were all saying the same thing. But this is an important article.

Here the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is signaling that the war effort has reached the next step. So I thought it would be important to analyze some of the key phrases and ideas behind the upcoming war with Iran. But before we even begin to understand the situation properly we must first understand the nuances and beliefs behind those making the decisions.

First, in order to conserve space and time we will start with the assumption that the world is being guided into a global(socialist/communist/totalitarian) government by individuals that lead the nations. There is abundant evidence to reinforce this assumption, however that is a separate argument.

Second, these individuals goal is furthered by empowering the vehicles of this One World Order: the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency and International Criminal Court.

Lastly, in order to achieve global rule the idea of individualism or sovereignty must be abolished. This will has started with supposed 'rogue' (what are they rogue from?) nations and is now carrying on to other non-rogue states. In regards to Iran, their supposed 'right' to possess nuclear technology is in question.

Our article starts...

"France, with the support of the United States, rejected Iran's request for more negotiations on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying Wednesday "there's not much to talk about" after Iran resumed atomic activities.""

...regarding an upcoming meeting of the IAEA....

"French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said European nations were seeking the "greatest possible consensus" on dealing with Iran, and the upcoming meeting was a "very important moment."

"Rice said Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons capability or "to pursue activities that might to a nuclear weapons capability."" "Later, during a speech at Georgetown University, Rice said the international community was united in its belief that Iran "stepped over a line when it broke the seals" at its main uranium enrichment facility and resumed reprocessing nuclear fuel."

"The Iranians want to make this about their rights. It's not about their rights," Rice said. "It's about the ability of the international system to trust them with the capabilities and technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon."

The Real Effect
Unfortunately Condi, this is about Iran's right to possess nuclear technology. Either a nation possesses this right and is sovereign or it does not. What the globalists are doing is controlling the discussion. By limiting discussion to Iran's compliance to "the international community" they bypass the discussion on the validity of their argument.

Let us suppose that a neighbor of mine was a raging alcoholic that was attempting to purchase a firearm. The neighbor can use the firearm for multiple purposes and his alcoholism has little to do with his right to purchase a firearm. He has committed no crime and it is largely possible that he intends to defend himself with the weapon from a rash of robbers plaguing the neighborhood.

Now, in my quest to deny my neighbor his firearm, I solicit the help of other neighbors and we invoke the mantra of 'safe communities' to justify our desire to deny our neighbor his weapon. Does the presence of more people of like mind justify our position? Do our supposed collective rights and desire for our idealistic 'safe communities' supersede his rights to defend himself? I believe the answer to this is a definitive no.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran signed, there is no prohibition against nuclear research. Yet, just because Iran might wage war does not justify other countries in their opinion to preempt Iran's sovereign right to engage in peaceful research. Remember, might does not make right. And just as a refresher, let us recall the United States record of so called 'Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. (Read Devvy Kidd's article Iran, Bush & Communist China)

Consider if you will Bush's call for Global Democracy. He is not speaking of freedom nearly as much as he is speaking of his perception that the majority be able to inflict their will on the minority. Yet in most cases majority is determined not by sheer numbers, but by possession of technology and weapons.

Notice how each successive World War and conflict has increasingly relied on the perceived 'international will'. Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, the list goes on and on.That my friends is de-facto global government.

In the following months, let us pay attention for an official declaration of war by Congress, I'm assuming that we will not see one but instead will see an informal and unconstitutional (illegal) military action to support the whims of the United Nations.

The Upcoming 'Tagging' Trend

There is disturbing trend in society developing on the back burners of the press and teen 'hip-ness' that should bother all liberty minded individuals. Tagging, chipping, RFID, whatever you might call it, it all boils down to the same basic concept and it communicates to the unwary consumer that 'You are not safe unless you are connected to the system.'

Let's look at just a small section of the compartmentalized programs that are being used to popularize what some could consider 'the mark of the beast' :

• Freemasonry child CHIP program (200,000 ID'd according to MyChip.org)
• U.S. pets including the semi-mandatory Pet Travel Scheme (PETS)
• News from Oakland, CA that in order to own a dog, you are required to have a microchip implanted in your animal. Don't think it's a good idea? "those who donÂ’t comply could be hit with a fine of $100 for a second offense and $1,000 for subsequent infractions."
• Former U.S Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson gets chipped and then joins the Board of Directors
• Tags for Tots
• Sean Hannity stating that he was pro-chipping
• The Mexican Attorney General and 18 of his workers
• US Visit Program
• Hip U.S. trend... (One person's website documenting his chipping)
• Seaworld, Disneyworld, Great America
• Clubs in Baja, Spain

The Real Effect
Does society really want to start tagging people? Are people an asset to manage or do we ...have something to hide (from)? One has only to look at the neighborhood cameras being installed all over in order to realize that for humans it is not a matter of if, but when.

With convenience comes the centralization of power, and with that comes the potential abuse of power. Why do we allow the concentration of so much power into one small resource?
I believe that we are a tad ahead of the curve on this one here and it is difficult to speculate exactly how this will work out, but it would seem that we are about 1 1/2 - 2 years away from a major public relations push to begin to chip EVERYTHING. That would put the push at about late 2007 to 2008. Only time will tell on this one.

Edited for spelling, appearance and labels on 3/23/2010.