Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

NewTimes Survey


GAS MANIPULATION AND GULL ISLAND OIL

How can we be running out of gasoline?
June 2008

I was in the United States in 1973 and witnessed the media-sensationalised campaign promoting an 'oil crisis' that was about to befall that land in the not so distant future. Terrible shortages of oil with resulting chaos and doom and gloom was the prediction of the wailing media-prophets in the United States - and flowing on to the world (of course). "We are running out of gasoline! Oh! woe is us. Sackcloth and ashes are the order of the day for us" they bewailed. But those in the oil-industry-know presented a very different scenario.
One oil man I knew at the time Howe B. Bryan, involved at the coal-face of oil production since 1932, along with his Rocky Mountain colleagues, was aghast at this doom and gloom hype the US government was fermenting in the background behind the media-hype. He insisted "We are pumping on quotas. Not only that, we can't get anyone who is in the know to talk about the huge shale oil reserves America has." At the time Howe B. Bryan owned a very large fleet of fuel-tank trucks. He said it was well known within the industry that the shale oil reserves alone were bigger than the whole petroleum industry in the United Statesr. Therefore the following article referring to Lindsay Williams' expos of the "The Energy Non-Crisis" is so timely.
For further up-to-date reading the work by Michael C. Clark "The Petrodollar Warfare" is most enlightening. Price: $36.00 posted.
- -
Patrick O'Shea

We are being 'set up' --- again !
Joel Skousen:
World Affairs Brief, 18/5/08:

It's well and good that Congress voted to stop filling the US Strategic Oil reserve because the US already has billions of barrels in the ground in Alaska--entire oil fields capped and drilled, but kept off the market. The filling of the Strategic Petroleum reserve is merely one more attempt to keep fuel in short supply. I will be blunt. There is a conspiracy to raise fuel prices and it is pernicious. No one is targeting the collusion we see daily between the oil companies.

Fred Cederholm in a Baltimore Blog noted these careful observations during the latest and suspicious run up in gas prices--too rapid and too well co-ordinated to be a result of natural market demands. "It must have been some pricing strategy by all of the fuel retailers because the spike [of 13 cents a gallon] occurred everywhere, regardless of the company or the brand, at almost the same moment [within 2 hours]... I had already been on-line checking world-wide news and developments when a friend and neighbour stopped at the house to tell me I had better fill up immediately because a price jump was coming. I logged off and topped off my gas supplies for all of my fuel thirsty vehicles and gizmos. I then went back on-line to find out why the spike occurred. I found not one single development, catastrophe, or explanation. I found nothing to justify the jump!" Later, the media will always be fed some event used to justify the increase, just like their servile explanations that "the stock market rose today due to some company performing better than expected." Nonsense.

Public needs to demand opening of Gull Island Oil Field:
I have long maintained that the US government is purposely keeping US oil discoveries off the market in order to allow insider oil companies to drive up prices and save US supplies for the next war. Evidence continues to confirm that charge. A massive oil/natural gas field exists under Gull Island, located in the waters of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, according to Lindsay Williams. Williams was an Alaska oil field Chaplain who was so successful at boosting moral during the building of the Alaskan pipeline that he was given special access to many high level meetings at the Atlantic Richfield company. At one of those meetings, he witnessed, first hand, discussions confirming a successful find of a massive new oil field near Prudoe Bay in Alaska--at Gull Island the day before the meeting.

A few days later, the chief operating officer of Atlantic Richfield for Alaska, Ken Fromm, who had invited Williams to the meeting, called him and told him he must never mention this new discovery--that the US government had classified it and was ordering it capped. It is still being held off the market and is not part of the environmental lock-down of oil in the Arctic National Wilderness. Williams was given a British Petroleum memoranda [probably by Fromm] which related the statements of upper echelon oil officials from Arco which said that Gull Island would be kept under wraps, limiting domestic supplies so Americans would someday see prices hit up to $10 a gallon at the pump. Lindsey Williams decided to violate that informal ban and publish a book, "The Energy Non-Crisis," about the scandal. Ken Fromm was finally fired by Atlantic Richfield for allowing Williams in on the meeting and for helping correct technical details in Williams' book. He told Williams that the Powers That Be were making sure his book would be suppressed and would not get any establishment media coverage.

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 17 of "The Energy Non-Crisis"
"Gull Island just proved what the oil companies have believed for some time. It authenticated the seismographic findings. Seismographic testing has indicated that there is as much crude oil on the North Slope of Alaska as in Saudi Arabia. Since the Gull Island find proved to be seismographically correct, then the other testings are correct also. There are many hundreds of square miles of oil under the North Slope of Alaska. "To clarify what I am about to say, let me first re-emphasize that the government permitted the oil companies to drill and prove many sites (subsequently making them cap the wells and keep the proof of the finds secret), but they do not allow them to produce from the wells. This is why I have referred (below) to a number of wells having been drilled (after I left the North Slope). The only production permitted is from the small area of the North Slope.

"Gull Island is located five miles off shore from Prudhoe Bay. It is in the Beaufort Sea. The chemical structure of the oil at Gull Island is different from that of the oil in the Prudhoe Bay field and the pressure of the field is different, proving that it is a totally different pool of oil from that at Prudhoe Bay... Three wells have been drilled, proven, and capped at Gull Island. The East Dock well also hit the Gull Island oil pool (you can tell by the chemical structure). For forty miles to the east of Gull Island, there has not been a single dry hole drilled, although many wells have been drilled. This shows the immensity of the size of the field.
"Only recently, just west of Gull Island, the Kuparuk oil field has been drilled. Again, this is a totally separate pool of oil from either the Prudhoe Bay field or the Gull Island field. The chemical make up of the field and the pressure of the field is different from the others, proving it to be a totally separate pool of oil. In an entirely different area of the North Slope than the 100-square-mile area of the Prudhoe Bay field, the Kuparuk field is approximately 60 miles long by 30 miles wide and contains approximately the same amount of oil as the Prudhoe Bay field.

"From 1973 through 1980 we were being told continually that America was in the midst of a major energy crisis, yet no oil production was allowed from the Kuparuk field. It wasn't until 1981 that permission was finally granted for production. Why the delay--if there really was a crisis? The reason Mr. X made the statement that there is as much crude oil on the North Slope of Alaska as in all of Saudi Arabia is because the oil companies have drilled all over the North Slope and have proven there is that much oil there, but still they are only allowed to produce from the small area." "Americans will also be shocked to know that almost all Alaskan crude is shipped overseas (most to Japan) while America has to import most of its oil.

"Possibly you have heard it stated that the Alaskan crude oil has such a high sulphur content that it cannot be refined by most oil refineries in the U.S. We are being told that this is the reason why the Alaskan oil is not helping to solve America's energy crisis. This is also the excuse that is being used for shipping Alaskan crude oil to other countries. It has also been reported that major power companies are even telling this to their customers, using it to justify their need for rate increases....[However] An August 11, 1980, analysis of the Prudhoe Bay crude oil, which is flowing in the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, reads as follows: Sulphur content - 0.9% The sulphur content of the Prudhoe Bay Alaskan oil is low in comparison to oil from other sources in the U.S., as well as many foreign oils."

Source: Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief https://www.worldaffairsbrief.com


Sustainable development: not all its cracked up to be !

Author and architect says it's "one of the most pernicious ideologies of our times"
Here is another brave fellow to challenge the politically correct view of our present world system. This time it is Mr. Austin Williams a British author and architect who will shortly deliver a speech at a State Government-sponsored forum in Melbourne. Jason Dowling and Cameron Houston on behalf of The Age 7/6/08 report Mr. Williams is sure to receive a cool reception when he delivers his Alfred Deakin paper.


Austin Williams will claim:
"The millions of dollars spent to make Melbourne more sustainable have all been a waste of money. Home owners changing shower heads, installing power-saving light globes and solar panels are wasting their time. Worse, they have inhibited creativity and the potential attractiveness and comfort of their homes and offices."

Williams insists "sustainability is one of the most pernicious ideologies of our times". Williams will argue at the lecture, titled "Planning Cities of the Future", that sustainability is a dirty word, anathema to architecture and vibrant cities. In fact, he sees that sustainability is the first thing "to get rid of before we can clearly have a vision of what the future could possibly be." "In the guise of looking to the future with ambition it kills ambition it's giving us a low-inspirational, miserable-ist, anti-human kind of response. Prioritising nature means de-prioritising humanity," he says.

Williams is director of the Future Cities Project, a think tank that promotes a "human-centred approach to nature" and is the author of The Enemies of Progress, a book that discusses at length the danger of wide acceptance of the concept of sustainability on critical debate. Williams argues that if communities are to seriously consider how they want their cities to look and feel they need to remove the shackles from planners and architects - the No. 1 burden being sustainability.

His ideas will of course be controversial: "The underlying idea behind ecological architecture, behind environmentalism, behind sustainability, is that we shouldn't do things today that may be detrimental to the future. It gives a very risk-averse, precautionary, safe, fairly sanctimonious attitude to creativity," he says. "It is," he says, "bad architecture. Once you buy into sustainability and the notion we must do everything to cut carbon emissions, we must do everything to reduce our impact on the planet, it goes against the grain of what I was always taught as an architect, that an architect's job is to maximise his impact on the planet - to really make your mark on land rather than be careful about what your footprint looks like," Williams says.

As expected, The Age reports: "Williams will have to contend with those who disagree with him when he arrives in Melbourne. Victoria's Building Commissioner, Tony Arnel, will be one of them. "The city of the future will in fact be carbon neutral and it could be sooner than we think. The way I describe that is that all houses and buildings will be net generators of electricity and will be water neutral by harvesting rainwater and using gray and black water recycling," Arnel says.

Another person who will challenge Austin Williams is: Paul James UN director of the Global Compact Cities Program. RMIT professor of globalisation and cultural diversity Paul James, says federal and state governments have been slow to respond to climate change, peak oil and food security issues. He argues that sustainability must become the primary focus of governments and urban planners or Melbourne will continue to sprawl and the social divide between the inner city and suburbia will widen. "We already have this elitism, where people on the city's fringes have the impression they have low-cost housing, but that ignores the huge cost of maintaining two cars. As the peak oil crisis worsens, many of these people will have no transport options, while inner-city residents will be largely unaffected because they have vastly better access to public transport. The social cost of this will be enormous,"

James warns.
James, who is the United Nations director of the Global Compact Cities Program, supports the embattled Melbourne 2030 planning policy, but says the State Government has made too many concessions to developers, who continue to exploit the crisis in housing affordability to justify new development on the fringes.
He brands the Brumby Government's decision to fast-track more than 90,000 residential blocks earlier this year a "huge mistake" that will place further stress on transport infrastructure and social services, particularly in Melbourne's west. "We need to adopt a similar model to Oslo, where geographical boundaries have been established around the city, and then concentrate on developing a series of satellite towns linked by a fast-train network."

"Sustainability": co-opted and subverted by Melbourne's urban elite.
Dr Esther Charlesworth, from RMIT's architecture and design department, says the term "sustainability" has been co-opted and subverted by Melbourne's urban elite. "It's been used and abused by various players in the corporate, public and government sectors to justify whatever it is they happen to be doing," she says.
"These groups are far less outspoken when it comes to life on the periphery." Charlesworth says sustainability should be about connecting the city with the suburbs, which has been Melbourne's major planning failure over the past two decades.
"Melbourne is a bit like a doughnut, with everybody trying to get the jam in the centre, while all the houses on the edge are largely ignored in terms of planning."

But while suburbia has been ignored, Charlesworth says the revival of the CBD provided a stunning example of how to retrofit a city. "The Postcode 3000 campaign increased the population from 3000 to about 15,000 over a decade and breathed vibrancy into the city. I'm in Brisbane at the moment and was in Sydney last week and I'm amazed how dead their CBDs are," she says.

While not expecting to be surrounded by like-minded supporters at the forum his final comment rings a bell for some: "I think I will have some fight on my hands with the usual eco crap," he says.
For more information on the Deakin Lectures go to www.deakinlectures.net

 

Agenda 21 or Freedom 21 : Connecting the Dots to Tyranny

by Tom DeWeese
The following article from America has some good ideas for Australians to consider as we also battle for our freedoms. Which do you choose? A way of life where you are the master of your destiny, or one where virtually all decisions are made for you by one ruling body or another? It's the classic struggle facing every human on earth.

Freedom or control.
Truth be known, there are many who actually choose control. It makes for a well-ordered society with few surprises. In a controlled society, one doesn't have to make complicated career choices, health care is provided. Community planners decide where housing will be placed. Committees decide what industries are to be allowed and how they will operate.
Self-appointed watchdogs decide the foods that you shall be permitted to eat, to protect our health, of course. Family planners decide the number of children allowed and how they will be raised. Those children, of course, will be well taken care of every day in public education centres that not only provide a centrally planned curriculum, but also provide for all physical and mental health needs.
Crime can be eliminated in the coming Utopia because there will be no real possessions or personal property to steal and no personally owned weapons to threaten the authority of the State.
Economic security is promised in a better world as everyone equally sacrifices their earned wealth to the State so all may live in harmony, free of greed and the stress of daily living.
Everything is well organized, peaceful and controlled. Everyone is secure in the knowledge that tomorrow will be just like today.

On the other hand, there is the chaos of what some call freedom. In such a society, people are fully responsible for their own actions. Untethered individuals throw a monkey wrench into a well-ordered society by inventing new gadgets that make life easier and more productive, but threaten old ways.
"Selfish" people pursue their own dreams and ideals without ever worrying about how they fit into the order created by the State. They want to benefit from the fruits of their labour, own property and raise families without controls established from the wisdom of the community.

Imagine such a society in which parents get to decide how best to educate their children. And think of the irresponsibility of individuals actually being able to choose if and how they want to invest their money to prepare for retirement. In the so-called free society, people eat what they want without benefit of government approval. Children are part of the family that bore them, not overseen by the State. People start enterprises without asking permission.
Nothing stays the same, except that individuals are secure in their homes and have the ability to live their lives as they choose. Control today has a name. "Agenda 21."

This is the name of a policy document first unveiled at the United Nations' Earth Summit in 1992.
Implementation of the treaty is through a policy called Sustainable Development. This program is now the official policy of the United States and is being systematically imposed in every single state of the Union and in every city and town. There are very few exceptions.
Sustainable Development is no less than a ruling principle through which decisions for all aspects of our lives are determined through public/private partnerships between government (at all levels) and private institutions in our communities.
They provide guidelines to determine business decisions; property use; medical care; education curriculum; foreign policy; economics; taxes; labour policy; career decisions; housing; building material; farming policy; and much more.

Agenda 21 is based on the principle that government is the maker of rights.
If you choose freedom, then there is a counter to Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development program. It's called Freedom 21, and it's quickly growing into a "freedom movement."

Freedom 21 is not an organization. It is a loose coalition of groups and individuals who believe that our nation's Founding Fathers had it right when they established this nation as one with tightly controlled reins on government.
The Founding Fathers believed that all individuals were born with their rights of individual liberty, and that government's job is to protect those rights as individuals pursue their own dreams and goals. That's the basis for the Freedom 21 agenda.

Freedom 21 was organized nine years ago by Henry Lamb (Environmental Conservation Organization), Tom DeWeese (American Policy Center), Craig Rucker and David Rothbard (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow), and representatives of Eagle Forum. Today, this group is joined by The Chicago-based Heartland Institute, Edwatch of Minnesota, Freedom Advocates from Santa Cruz, California, Sovereignty International, Stewards of the Range, OKSAFE of Oklahoma, and the American land Foundation, based in Texas.

The unique fact about Freedom 21 is that it is truly a grassroots coalition. It has no central infrastructure; no official leader; no budget; no overhead; and no bureaucracy. The co-sponsors are independent organizations which do not give up their individual identity or autonomy to participate in Freedom 21 activities. It succeeds precisely because members are open to the activities of others and are happy to lend their support.
The coalition operates under a set of principles of freedom (www.freedom21.org/principles/resolution.html), first adopted by activists in conference in July of 2000.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THREAT

In its first eight years, the Freedom 21 Campaign has served as a mechanism for reaching out to the freedom movement to share ideas and unite grassroots activists. Through Freedom 21 projects and conferences, the movement has been able to introduce leaders in other movements to the principles of freedom and the threat of policies like Sustainable Development.
Even more important, one-issue activists are beginning to learn that they share common goals and adversaries with other grassroots movements.

Freedom 21 has been instrumental in uniting Second Amendment defenders; property rights activists; free market advocates; tax opponents; personal privacy protectors; family autonomy champions; back-to-basics education activists, and many more. These single-issue activists have come to understand that they all share a common foe in Sustainable Development.

Today, Freedom 21 is providing invaluable tools to help fight back against the threat of the UN's Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. Four years ago, Freedom 21 leaders developed a six-hour DVD presentation entitled, "Americas' Choice: Liberty or Sustainable Development," designed to help educate activists and elected officials. That DVD is still the most comprehensive presentation on the subject. The DVD was followed with production of a booklet for elected officials entitled, "Understanding Sustainable Development: A Guide for Public Officials."

In 2005, Freedom 21 turned its efforts toward creating new sources to help fund a cash-starved freedom movement. In 2007, the Freedom21 Credit Union opened its doors, offering a unique opportunity for depositors, through the credit union, to help fund the organizations of their choice. Freedom21 has also created its own travel agency to help members and supporters receive discounted travel to conferences and other personal destinations.
Also in 2005, Freedom21.com (www.freedom21.com/) was opened as a unique international news outlet, featuring news, commentary and action alerts for issues both domestic and international, focusing on property rights, privacy rights, sovereignty and much more.

THE UN AGENDA AND POLICY OF 'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT'

The most important project each year is the Freedom 21 national conference (www.freedom21.org/conf/2008/24.html), this year scheduled for July 24 to 26 in Dallas, Texas.

This year's conference will "connect the dots" to show how the UN's Agenda 21 and its policy of Sustainable Development - are directly connected to front page issues like global warming, education, gun control, animal rights, monetary policy, religion, national ID cards, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the Trans-Texas Corridor, and judicial tyranny.

It will surprise many to learn that Sustainable Development is really at the root of so many of the problems that threaten our liberty. Collectivism, and its false promise of security, may be the accepted policy of the day, but the freedom movement is learning how to fight back.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159