Archive for August, 2014

My comments on the following article are very simple. No way, no how. Not now, not later, NOT going to comply! If any of the population deems this acceptable, they should just go check in to the nearest prison and stop the charade of being “free”. Your thoughts, as always, are welcome and encouraged.

DOT Proposes Mandating Cars Broadcast Location, Direction and Speed

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, published last week an “advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” on “vehicle-to-vehicle communications.”

What NHTSA is proposing could begin a transformation in the American transportation system that makes our lives better and freer — or gives government more power over where we go and when.

In announcing its proposed rulemaking, NHTSA is stressing its intention to protect the “privacy” of American drivers.

“This document initiates rulemaking that would propose to create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS No. 150, to require vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability for light vehicles,” says NHTSA’s dryly-worded notice.

What do vehicle-to-vehicle communications entail?

NHTSA has crafted a nice phrase to describe the information cars would broadcast. It is the “Basic Safety Message.”

“An integrated V2V system is connected to proprietary data busses and can provide highly accurate information using in-vehicle information to generate the Basic Safety Message,” says NHTSA’s technical report on “Readiness of V2V for Application.”

“The integrated system both broadcasts and receives BSMs,” says the report. “In addition, it can process the content of received messages to provide advisories and/or warnings to the driver of the vehicle in which it is installed.”

The “Basic Safety Message” will be broadcast by the vehicle’s dedicated short-range communications system. According to NHTSA, this system will need to transmit certain specific information.

“For example,” says the technical report, “when a DSRC unit sends out a BSM, the BSM needs to: Contain the relevant elements and describe them accurately (e.g., vehicle speed; GPS position; vehicle heading; DSRC message ID, etc.).”

What NHTSA envisions mandating will not control people’s cars but create a uniform communication system built into all vehicles that will give automobile manufacturers the opportunity to equip their products with warning systems that alert drivers to potential accidents — such as one that might be caused by cross traffic at a blind intersection.

“NHTSA currently does not plan to propose to require specific V2V-based safety applications,” says the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. “Rather, we plan to propose to require that new vehicles be equipped with DSRC devices, which will enable a variety of applications that may provide various safety-critical warnings to drivers.”

But NHTSA does not envision that the use of this type of technology will stop there.

The agency has published a “Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles.” This statement describes V2V as part of a “continuum” leading to fully automated vehicles.

“Accordingly, three distinct but related streams of technological change and development are occurring simultaneously: (1) in-vehicle crash avoidance systems that provide warnings and/or limited automated control of safety functions; (2) V2V communications that support various crash avoidance applications; and (3) self-driving vehicles,” said NHTSA’s statement of policy.

“NHTSA finds that it is helpful to think of these emerging technologies as part of a continuum of vehicle control automation,” said the policy statement. “The continuum, discussed below, runs from vehicles with no active control systems all the way to full automation and self-driving.

“While the agency is conducting research along the entire automation continuum, our emphasis initially is on determining whether those crash avoidance and mitigation technologies that are currently available (or soon to be available) are not only safe, but effective,” said the statement. “However, because these same technologies are the building blocks for what may one day lead to a driverless vehicle, we have also begun research focused on safety principles that may apply to even higher levels of automation, such as driver behavior in the context of highly automated vehicle safety systems.”

In its technical report on V2V, published last week, NHTSA said: “At the outset, readers should understand some very important points about the V2V system as currently contemplated by NHTSA. The system will not collect or store any data identifying individuals or individual vehicles, nor will it enable the government to do so.”

“There is no data in the safety messages exchanged by vehicles or collected by the V2V system that could be used by law enforcement or private entities to personally identify a speeding or erratic driver,” the report said. “The system — operated by private entities — will not enable tracking through space and time of vehicles linked to specific owners or drivers.”

“Our research to date suggests that drivers may be concerned about the possibility that the government or a private entity could use V2V communications to track their daily activities and whereabouts,” said the report. “However, as designed, NHTSA is confident that the V2V system both achieves the agency’s safety goals and protects consumer privacy appropriately.”

Like any other instrument, the new automobile technology the federal government is now planning to mandate can be used for good or ill. Certainly, automated automobile warning systems based on accurate data broadcast by other people’s cars and roadway infrastructure can save lives.

But as vehicles become fully automated, as they surely will, and the people in them no longer have absolute control over the vehicle’s movements, a key question will be: Who does?

In typical executive branch fashion, it looks like we will be signed on to something that our elected officials don’t actually agree to on “our behalf”.

Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

“There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.”

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.

“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.

The strategy comes as scientists warn that the earth is already experiencing the first signs of human-caused global warming — more severe drought and stronger wildfires, rising sea levels and more devastating storms — and the United Nations heads toward what many say is the body’s last chance to avert more catastrophic results in the coming century.

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month, delegates will gather at a sideline meeting on climate change to try to make progress toward the deal next year in Paris. A December meeting is planned in Lima, Peru, to draft the agreement.

In seeking to go around Congress to push his international climate change agenda, Mr. Obama is echoing his domestic climate strategy. In June, he bypassed Congress and used his executive authority to order a far-reaching regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to curb their carbon emissions. That regulation, which would not be not final until next year, already faces legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed on behalf of a dozen states.

But unilateral action by the world’s largest economy will not be enough to curb the rise of carbon pollution across the globe. That will be possible only if the world’s largest economies, including India and China, agree to enact similar cuts.

The Obama administration’s international climate strategy is likely to infuriate Republican lawmakers who already say the president is abusing his executive authority by pushing through major policies without congressional approval.

“Unfortunately, this would be just another of many examples of the Obama administration’s tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like — and to ignore the elected representatives of the people when they don’t agree,” Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, said in a statement.

A deal that would not need to be ratified by the United States or any other nation is also drawing fire from the world’s poorest countries. In African and low-lying island nations — places that scientists say are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change — officials fear that any agreement made outside the structure of a traditional United Nations treaty will not bind rich countries to spend billions of dollars to help developing nations deal with the forces of climate change.

Poor countries look to rich countries to help build dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas levels, or to provide food aid during pervasive droughts.

“Without an international agreement that binds us, it’s impossible for us to address the threats of climate change,” said Richard Muyungi, a climate negotiator for Tanzania. “We are not as capable as the U.S. of facing this problem, and historically we don’t have as much responsibility. What we need is just one thing: Let the U.S. ratify the agreement. If they ratify the agreement, it will trigger action across the world.”

Observers of United Nations climate negotiations, which have gone on for more than two decades without achieving a global deal to legally bind the world’s biggest polluters to carbon cuts, say that if written carefully such an agreement could be a creative and pragmatic way to at least level off the world’s rapidly rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

About a dozen countries are responsible for nearly 70 percent of the world’s carbon pollution, chiefly from cars and coal-fired power plants.

At a 2009 climate meeting in Copenhagen, world leaders tried but failed to forge a new legally binding treaty to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Instead, they agreed only to a series of voluntary pledges to cut carbon emissions through 2020.

The Obama administration’s climate change negotiators are desperate to avoid repeating the failure of Kyoto, the United Nations’ first effort at a legally binding global climate change treaty. Nations around the world signed on to the deal, which would have required the world’s richest economies to cut their carbon emissions, but the Senate refused to ratify the treaty, ensuring that the world’s largest historic carbon polluter was not bound by the agreement.

Seventeen years later, the Senate obstacle remains. Even though Democrats currently control the chamber, the Senate has been unable to reach agreement to ratify relatively noncontroversial United Nations treaties. In 2012, for example, Republican senators blocked ratification of a United Nations treaty on equal rights for the disabled, even though the treaty was modeled after an American law and had been negotiated by a Republican president, George W. Bush.

This fall, Senate Republicans are poised to pick up more seats, and possibly to retake control of the chamber. Mr. McConnell, who has been one of the fiercest opponents of Mr. Obama’s climate change policy, comes from a coal-heavy state that could be an economic loser in any climate-change protocol that targets coal-fired power plants, the world’s largest source of carbon pollution.


Commonsense Property Rights Coalition to Meet


The Common Sense Property Rights Coalition will meet Monday September 1  at 6 pm at Fred’s Fish House in Mammoth Springs. The primary speaker of the evening will be Eric King, Oregon County Director of Emergency Management. King is also Chief Deputy of the Oregon County Sheriff’s Department, and will update members on emergency management plans during disasters, according to Co-Chair of the Commonsense PRC, Kevin Jotz. This is the first meeting at the new meeting place, Fred’s Fish House.


Co-Chair Kevin Jotz. said  “This is an organization concerned with protection of private property rights. The group believes that without protections of private property rights nothing else is secure. The right to own and reasonably use private property is a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution, differentiating our country from others around the world. As John Adams, one of our nation’s Founding Fathers and our second president, said: ‘The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.’”


Jotz added, “We welcome all area residents interested in private property rights, food freedom and protection of constitutional rights to attend, or to call us for more information at 417-264-2435 or 417-270-1724.”




Public School Idiocy – Student Arrested For Killing Fictional Dinosaur – 

Since that fateful April day in 1999 when a couple of psychos unleashed hell on Columbine High School, public school officials across the country have abandoned common sense when it comes to watching out for the next big threat. This has led to a frightening array of ridiculous stories where innocent kids are scolded, suspended, and even arrested for offenses that not even the dumbest liberal would consider noteworthy.


The latest example comes out of Summerville High School in South Carolina. Tuesday morning, a 16-year-old named Alex Stone was arrested by Summerville police when he wrote a fictional story about killing a dinosaur with a gun. Stone crossed the line when completing an assignment that required a short story and a “status” appropriate for Facebook. Ignoring for a moment the question of whether students really need school-sponsored Facebook practice, the absurdity here is that Stone’s “status” was considered dangerous enough to warrant a call to the police.


“I killed my neighbor’s pet dinosaur, and, then, in the next status I said I bought the gun to take care of the business,” Stone told reporters. For his humorous tale, the teenager was arrested, charged with disorderly conduct, and suspended from school.

The story thus goes into the history books alongside some of the 21st century’s most ludicrous over-reactions to the spooky specter of guns and violence. There it will join stories like the one about the 6-year-old who was suspended for bringing to school a toy gun about the size of a quarter and the little girl in Philadelphia who was scolded for having a piece of paper that (vaguely) resembled the shape of a handgun.


These idiotic stories encapsulate the government perfectly, ignoring the real problems in favor of addressing the ones that don’t exist. Whenever one of your liberal friends starts mumbling about the need for more public education money, bring up the sad tale of Alex Stone and his fictional dinosaur murder. Would this have happened in a private school, unrestricted by federal indoctrination and liberal gobbledygook? Perhaps – no school is perfect, after all – but at least we could rest assured that our tax dollars weren’t flowing into a corrupt and unfixable institution.


The broader problem is that we’ve seemingly lost all common sense in this country. We can no longer evaluate an incident on a case-by-case basis, and we put people in charge who are utterly incapable of making decisions in the moment. Here, it appears that no one at Summerville High School or the police department had the sense to say, “Well, you know, it’s a stupid story about killing a pet dinosaur. Maybe we shouldn’t arrest him.” One can only hope that charges are dismissed when the town’s residents react with intelligent outrage.


But one’s not holding one’s breath.

– See more at:

There is precence for this, and the documents are in order for banks to do this. If you are blessed enough to have money in the banks, please put a hedge of protection around yourself and get physical wealth as much as you are able:


U.S. Preparing Bank Bail-Ins – Fed Vice Chair Fischer
Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer delivered his first speech on the U.S. and global economy in Stockholm, Sweden yesterday.


Fischer headed Israel’s central bank from 2005 through 2013 and is now number two at the Federal Reserve in the U.S. after Janet Yellen.



In a speech entitled, The Great Recession: Moving Ahead, given at an event sponsored by the Swedish Ministry of Finance, Fischer said that the economic recovery has been and remains “disappointing.”


“The recession that began in the United States in December 2007 ended in June 2009. But the Great Recession is a near-worldwide phenomenon, with the consequences of which many advanced economies–among them Sweden–continue to struggle. Its depth and breadth appear to have changed the economic environment in many ways and to have left the road ahead unclear.”


Speaking about the steps that have been taken internationally in order to “strengthen the financial system” and to reduce the “probability of future financial crisis,” Fischer said that the U.S. was preparing proposals for bank bail-ins for “systemically important banks.”


Additional steps have been taken in some countries. For example, in the United States, capital ratios and liquidity buffers at the largest banks are up considerably, and their reliance on short-term wholesale funding has declined considerably. Work on the use of the resolution mechanisms set out in the Dodd-Frank Act, based on the principle of a single point of entry–though less advanced than the work on capital and liquidity ratios–holds the promise of making it possible to resolve banks in difficulty at no direct cost to the taxpayer.


As part of this approach, the United States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize themselves in resolution without calling on government funding–this cushion is known as a “gone concern” buffer.”


Fischer’s comments that the U.S. is “preparing a proposal” for bail-ins is at odds with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Bank of England officials who have said that bail-in legislation could be used today.


The U.S. already has in place plans for bail-ins in the event of banks failing. Indeed, the U.S. has conducted simulation exercises with the U.K. in 2013 and again this year.


On October 12 2013, Art Murton, the FDIC official in charge of planning for resolutions, and the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor Paul Tucker, both confirmed that the U.S. system is ready to handle a big-bank collapse.


The Bank of England’s Tucker, who has worked with U.S. regulators on the cross-border hurdles to taking down an international bank said that “U.S. authorities could do it today — and I mean today.”


There is speculation that were Yellen to retire early Fischer would be anointed as the new Federal Reserve Chairman.


Fischer who previously was chief economist at the World Bank, also makes it clear that he expects ultra loose monetary policies to continue in the U.S. which will be bullish for gold and silver.


See our important guide to coming bail-ins here Protecting Your Savings in the Coming Bail-In Era


The following is from Mike and Mary Lind. They ask your support at their upcoming court date.

On October 8, 2013 Linda T. McKinney, Special Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Ozark, State of Missouri, filed class C felony charges against Mike and Mary Lind for tampering with a judicial officer. 

 The Linds’ had filed two seperate civil lawsuits against Thomas W. Cline, Prosecuting Attorney of Ozark County, for his engaging in false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and abuse of process and slander of title.  A prosecuting attorney has absolute immunity when acting in his official capacity, but when they are outside of their official capacity, they are not immune from accountability. The Linds’ say that  when Cline engaged himself in a civil land dispute that the Linds’ were involved in with a 160 acre farm at Thornfield that they’d had lawful possession of for nearly 10 years, he clearly stepped outside his official capacity as prosecuting attorney. 

  According to the Linds’ on April 7, 2008 at 11:30 pm. Thomas W. Cline told the Ozark County Sheriff Deputies per telephone conversation that the Linds’ did not own the property that was in dispute, with Mike Lind having previously filed a Quiet Title lawsuit which was an ongoing case in the court, to arrest the Linds’ for trespass and burglary and remove them from their property while there was no court order to do so.  

 With a Quiet Title suit filed with the court it is then up to a trial judge to determine who has possession and clear title, not a prosecuting attorney.  Thomas W. Cline lost his absolute immunity when he decided to bypass the court and make himself the determiner of who has title.  This is clearly not an official function of a prosecuting attorney.  

 As a result of Clines’ unofficial activity the Linds’ were falsely arrested, charged with trespass and dispossessed of their property and all their livestock with no court order.  The trespass charges were dismissed against the Linds’ because the state never produced a statement of probable cause.  The Linds’ had a preliminary hearing with Judge Bock and the class C felony charges of tampering with a judicial officer were dismissed due to no probable cause because it is not a crime for a citizen to file a lawsuit against a public official when they step outside their official duties.  It is our constitutional right to file a lawsuit.

Shortly after the criminal charges were dismissed against the Linds’, Mike filed to run for State Rep. on March 18. Two days latter the identical, word for word, class C felony charges were filed against the Linds’ again.  This is clearly malicious prosecution and harassment by Thomas W. Cline. 

 The Linds’ must again defend against these charges on September 8, 2014 at 10:00 am in the Ozark County Court House at Gainesville, Missouri.  The Linds’ need lot’s of people to come to this hearing to show support and let our public officials know that they are accountable to the law just as we are and we have a constitutional right to bring suit against them when they step outside their office and violate the law.

Howell County C4L Meeting

Posted: August 20, 2014 in Meetings


You are invited to meet with the Howell County Campaign for Liberty Group Thursday, August 21. At 7:00p Shawn Rhodes, our State Representative, will speak. We meet at Chen’s Garden, 1705 Gibson, in West Plains. Come at 6:00p to eat and visit.


This month’s agenda:


  • 7:00 – report on meetings of interest around the state
    • 7:30 – Shawn Rhodes will speak


Shawn Rhodes, our state rep. will discuss this year’s legislative session and answer questions.


I have Mike Cunningham, our state senator scheduled to speak at our September meeting.


We will have reports to bring us up to date in the following areas:


– New water control plans (see and search for “ Missouri DNR to Run New Blueway Style Watershed Management Plan“)

  • COS update
  • Candidates for offices – County Committee meeting
  • Mike Slack Preppers Conference
  • Other –


I have copies of the General Assembly Roster 2013 which has contact information for our state and federal elected officials. Copies will be available at this meeting. I also have copies of the current Missouri Roster. It has contact info for county officials around the state. Copies of the US and MO constitutions and Howell County Campaign for Liberty Group business cards will be available as well. Copies of the 5000 year leap and Agenda 21 material will also be available.


See you Thursday.