Glenn Beck: Meet Maurice Strong

Great job on shining the FOX flashlight on man-behind-the-curtain Maurice Strong last night.

“I just heard Glenn Beck say on his radio show he believes Fannie Mae is the bank for Crime Inc.”

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/40154/

Assembling the Team

During 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, a progressive trust with assets near $1 billion, known for funding groups like Center for American Progress and Tides Foundation, provided grants to CCX totaling $1.1 million. State Senator Obama served on the foundation’s board of directors during that time and was instrumental in awarding the grants.

Shortly after the first grant was approved, the president of The Joyce Foundation, Paula DiPerna, left to join the executive team of CCX. Other notables with familiar names soon followed.

• Former Vice-President Al Gore became part-owner of CCX when his company, Generation Investment Management, made a sizeable investment. Gore brought with him his senior partner at GIM, David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, along with a company chalk full of former Goldman Sachs’ executives

• Goldman Sachs itself soon joined the team buying a ten percent interest in CCX

• Maurice Strong, once linked to Tongsun Park, the central figure in the United Nation’s oil-for-food scandal in 2005 and one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol, joined the CCX board of directors

• Carlton Bartels was one of the first, and perhaps most important, additions to the CCX roster. As CEO of a company called CO2e, Bartels developed and delivered the actual guts of the exchange — a system for facilitating and managing the actual carbon trades

Strange Bedfellows

Just three weeks after filing for a patent for his carbon trade system, Bartels was killed during the attacks of 9/11. Bartels’ death opened the door for a new partner to join CCX, easily the oddest fit of them all: Fannie Mae. In a move still unexplained, the quasi-governmental mortgage agency, led by CEO Franklin Raines, purchased the rights to the system from Bartel’s widow. A patent on the invention was granted to Raines and Fannie Mae on November 7, 2006, ironically, the day after the Democrats regained control of Congress. According to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, the patent covers both the “cap” and “trade” parts of Obama’s top domestic energy initiative and gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over the automated trading system used by Sandor’s CCX.

When asked about the patent recently Fannie Mae communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner, “Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent. We can’t conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation.” A source close to Fannie Mae, however, says a plan is in place to funnel future earnings from the patent to a non-profit housing organization called Enterprise Community Partners. Ironically, Raines, who left Fannie Mae in 2004 amidst allegations that he inflated earnings reports in order to collect higher bonuses ($52 million in bonuses over 5-years; $90 million in total compensation), serves on the board of trustees at Enterprise. In a continuation of theme, Goldman Sachs also has a representative on the board in the person of Alicia Glen.

We mustn’t leave the “liars-for-science” and “liars-for-Jesus” (like the “Reverend” Sir John Houghton) out of the mix. Maurice Strong, John Houghton, et.al., have been in on this scam (attempt at “world governance” ) together for a long time.

Excerpt:

30 Apr 2008 ... Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the ... Maurice Strong and his UN committees’ objectives, especially the ...

How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, April 30, 2008

In previous related articles (Environmental Extremism and Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate. and How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change) we examined how environmentalism and particularly climate was hijacked to achieve the political goals of Maurice Strong, primarily to cause the demise of industrialized nations. We saw how he established the political vehicle the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the scientific vehicle, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for his purpose. He brought them together at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. The fruits of his efforts and the policies they engendered are now emerging and are hurting the poor and middle-income people of all countries, with rising food and energy costs. They’re hurting the people they were ostensibly designed to help, but more on that later.

Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three Reports, signaled the objectives were political and not scientific. He said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” The IPCC has done this with ruthless efficiency while pretending what they are doing is science not politics. Houghton gave an example of a disastrous statement when he announced “...the impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass destruction”, which is followed by the claim that it kills more people than terrorism. Trouble is more people die of cold each year than heat. Also, notice the word “impact” because that, not science, dominates the work of the IPCC. Two thirds of the people involved in the IPCC (1900 of 2500) are not climate experts and study what might happen, not will happen. So the entire process was established to achieve the goal of announcing (potential) disasters.

Bert Bolin, who Al Gore credits with creating the IPCC, was Houghton’s co-chair. Bolin had a history of involvement in the politics of the environment. Both he and Houghton signed the 1992 warning to humanity essentially blaming the developed nations. It was more of the Club of Rome approach with no clear measures or evidence, simply a list of possible disasters if we didn’t do things their way. (link)

Science creates theories based on assumptions that are then tested by other scientists performing as skeptics. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction to this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. Maurice Strong and his UN committees’ objectives, especially the IPCC made sure the focus was on human caused change and CO2 as the particular culprit. They’d already biased the research by using a very narrow definition of climate change in article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty produced at that infamous “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1992. Climate Change was defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods. This makes the human impact the primary purpose of the research. The problem is you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.

Properly, a scientific definition would put natural climate variability first, but at no point does the UN mandate require an advance of climate science. The definition used by UNFCCC predetermined how the research and results would be political and pre-determined the result. It made discovering a clear ‘human signal’ mandatory, but meaningless. As noted it thwarted the scientific method.

Other parts of their mandate illustrate the political nature of the entire exercise. Its own principles require the IPCC “shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (From Principles Governing IPCC work, approved at the 14th Session, Vienna 1-3 October 1998 and amended at the 21st Session, Vienna 6-7 November, 2003.) The role is also to “...assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy…” The process has been anything but “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” as we will see later. However, the cynicism of the last sentence was exposed when they made the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) the most important part of IPCC reports and these have been anything but ‘neutral’ as we will see.

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

The manipulation and politics didn’t stop there. The Technical Reports of the three Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the SPM. A few scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by governments and a second draft is produced. Then a final report is hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual government representatives. It is claimed the scientists set the final summary content, but in reality governments set the form. The SPM is then released at least three months before the science report. Most of the scientists involved in the technical or science report see the Summary for the first time when it is released to the public. The time between its release to the public and the release of the Technical Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having employees write a report that agrees with the summary.

When you accept an hypothesis before it is proven you step on the treadmill of maintaining the hypothesis. This leads to selective and even biased research and publications. As evidence appears to show problems with the hypothesis the natural tendency is to become more virulent in defending the increasingly indefensible. This tendency is underlined by John Maynard Keynes sardonic question; “If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir.” The IPCC and those who were chosen or chose to participate were locked in to a conclusion by the rules, regulations and procedures carefully crafted by Maurice Strong. These predetermined the outcome - a situation in complete contradiction to the objectives and methods of science.

As evidence grew that the hypothesis was scientifically unsupportable adherents began defending rather than accepting and adjusting. The trail they made is marked by the search for a clear human signal, identified in modern parlance as ‘smoking guns.’ They also became trapped in what Russian writer and philosopher Leo Tolstoi identified many years ago, namely, “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” Next we will examine how the political system that Strong and the UN set up allowed perpetuation of incorrect science and falsely identified smoking guns.

Global Warming Series:

Part 1: Environmental Extremism
Part 2: Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.
Part 3: How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change
Part 4: How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
Part 5: Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies
Part 6: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
Part 7: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming
Part 8: UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance
Part 9: Carbon Taxes: Hand over your money! “We are saving you from yourself”
Part 10: Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science
Part 11: Maurice Strong Politics 101

More on John Houghton and Maurice Strong:

15 Apr 2010 ... Maurice Strong knew what he was doing when he bypassed politics to ... It is no surprise John Houghton was the first Co-Chairman of the IPCC ...

Total government control is a far more important agenda than any individual political career
Climate Bureaucracies Are The Choice Because They Perpetuate Problems

By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, April 15, 2010
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22015

The power behind Obama doesn’t care if he is a one term President. He would prefer it otherwise and an interesting battle looms as the Democratic Party rejects the incumbent African American President. Total government control is a far more important agenda than any individual political career. Many think it’s good that Obama is showing his left wing agenda too quickly and too openly. They argue it will arouse reaction and this will cause a dramatic shift to the right in the November elections and beyond. It will, but it doesn’t matter. While the pundits are distracted by political battles, Obama and the gang are bypassing elected officials and thereby the people by putting all the power in bureaucracies. They will guarantee the agenda and prevent any future politicians rescinding or reversing the major pattern.

CO2 was the vehicle chosen to destroy the industrialized nations by ‘proving’ this byproduct was causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. Cap and Trade has evolved as the ideal legislation because it controls energy and industry while creating revenue. It has survived exposure of the corrupt science, however, it isn’t necessary because it likely won’t get Senate approval. It doesn’t matter because of the administrative power given to the EPA by the Supreme Court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant. This gives them complete control of energy and industry. Growth of bureaucracies is a hallmark of totalitarianism and the death of freedom. As Mary McCarthy said, “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”

Bureaucratic Frankenstein’s

A politician explained that he opposed projects he defined as “Frankenstein”. An example explains the difference between these and other projects. He would consider funding to write a book because it was finite, ending when the book was published. He would reject money to start a monthly journal – because once started the funding requirements don’t end. Attempts to stop funding trigger charges of ending a “tradition’. You have to keep feeding the monster. This is part of the pattern in which today’s privilege becomes tomorrow’s right and entitlements never end.

Once you assign a problem to a bureaucracy, either by creating a new one or giving it to an existing one, you are guaranteeing the problem will not be resolved. Worse, the bureaucracy will expand and costs will grow. Much of the increased cost will go to preparing arguments for perpetuating the bureaucracy. This is done by claiming the problem has expanded and was far worse than previously understood. They are paid to confirm what is already established, not determine the truth.

Turf Wars

There are very few examples of bureaucracies being shut down. Often they’re absorbed by another agency but this is not usually to improve resolution of the problem. It occurs because part of self-perpetuation of a bureaucracy involves not impinging on other bureaucracies. Turf wars are a constant part of bureaucracies. They don’t prove anything, inhibit resolution of problems, and create further problems. A classic example was the problems and failures of turf conflicts identified after the 9/11 air attacks.

Maurice Strong knew what he was doing when he bypassed politics to achieve his goal of causing the collapse of the industrialized nations. He knew bureaucracies were the answer because they remain as politicians’ come and go. Within the bureaucracies of the United Nations he had the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that gave direct access to the climate bureaucracies of every nation. It was these people who controlled the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supporting and promoting those scientists such as the ones from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who provided the science required for the objective.

It is no surprise John Houghton was the first Co-Chairman of the IPCC from 1988 to 2002. This overlapped with his bureaucratic role as Director General of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) from 1983 to 1991. However, as Phil Jones notes in a May 5, 2005 email to Kevin Trenberth, “IPCC has a lot of clout – much more than GCOS (Global Climate Observing System) and/or WMO.” He makes this argument to suggest IPCC should push for more weather stations and better determination of global temperature. A good idea but doing so would undermine the certainty of IPCC claims. Steve McIntyre reports on this ironic event because it involved another influential bureaucrat, Susan Solomon, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) representative on the IPCC. Solomon, as Co-chair of Working Group I of the Science Report, illogically opposed Jones’ proposal.

Meaningless Codes Of Ethics

How do you control bureaucrats? It’s an issue of concern as attempts at legislation attest, but they are all vague and apparently unenforceable. For example, the US has the Hatch Act, which relates to political activity of Federal Employees. But is that different from a code of ethics? NASA has ethical rules that involve misuse of position – but neither has inhibited the activities of NASA GISS Director James Hansen.

Apparently there are no codes or guidelines for IPCC members. The UN has general guidelines as follows; “Conflict of interest includes circumstances in which international civil servants, directly or indirectly, would appear to benefit improperly, or allow a third party to benefit improperly, from their association in the management or the holding of a financial interest in an enterprise that engages in any business or transaction with the organization.” Do they apply to IPCC? Does this mean they are guilty because they allowed Al Gore and others to benefit from carbon credits? It’s unlikely because individual governments pay for the IPCC.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) code of ethics likely don’t apply either. They say in part, b) Refrain from acting in the course of their duties with respect to a matter in which they or someone with whom they have a close relationship, or from whom they are seeking employment or other benefit or favour, has a special interest”. Who then determines the appropriateness of the behavior and ethics of James Hansen, Phil Jones or Rajendra Pauchari? The answer is nobody and that is the advantage of bureaucracies. They are not accountable to anyone and if they get in trouble it’s easy to set up whitewash investigations. Individuals, including Obama, will come and go but the totally unaccountable bureaucracy will persist. They will mindlessly pursue and expand the agenda they were ostensibly established to resolve: they are the cancer of the body politic.

“Judi McLeod has done massive research on this guy and we should be thankful!” ~ Albertafriend

Yes. bttt

And so has Tim Ball:

“Global Warming worse than Terrorism”:
Maurice Strong Politics 101
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, June 23, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3618

At a 2004 conference of the Russian National Academy of Sciences Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Tony Blair’s government made the startling statement that, “Global warming is worse than terrorism.” He was right, but not as he intended. The false premise promoted by the IPCC that human CO2 was causing global warming was being used to terrorize and undermine developed nations in pursuit of Maurice Strong’s goal of getting rid of them.

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, was the only world leader to openly understand the science and what Strong and his instrument the IPCC were about. He was also immediately aware of communism and recognized what is happening. In a 2008 article for The Australian he wrote,

“I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science.” (The Australian)

Rather than summarize how Maurice Strong used the United Nations and specifically the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to achieve his goal of getting rid of the industrialized nations this final article examines the devastation it has already brought. Reports of the IPCC, falsely presented as based on science, were used to scare the world, initially about global warming and then climate change. Politicians caught up with the need to appear green grasped at the output of the IPCC. They were thus vulnerable and easily fooled because they didn’t understand and the entire objective of the IPCC was to mislead, misdirect and distort.

Instead of helping poor countries and poor people the machinations of Strong, Gore and the IPCC are reaping the rewards of their activities while the people pay the price. The people are paying in other ways as governments use IPCC reports to justify carbon taxes and other restrictive, punitive and expensive regulations. A huge industry has erupted as the UK newspaper the Telegraph reported. “Investing in climate change is proving to be profitable for governments, corporations, and investors from many sectors. Governments recent subsidies towards energy-efficient programs is bringing in newfound wealth for investors. In addition, the rising price of oil have been influential in pushing investments towards alternative energy sources. CEO’s are taking charge in ways that were unforeseen.” So, the very people and industries the environmentalists and socialists despise are doing what they do best - make money.

In 1976 Strong told the Canadian magazine Maclean’s I am “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology” therefore we shouldn’t be surprised he is making a great deal of money from exploiting the false doctrine of human induced climate change. The fact the ideology precludes the methodology doesn’t bother a master manipulator like Strong. Ronald Bailey provides the following quote in his article about Strong. “He’s dangerous because he’s a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system],” comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. “I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left.” Gore is different in that his motive was initially personally political; As H L Mencken said “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” Al Gore used or rather misused the misleading information of the IPCC Reports evidenced by them sharing the Nobel Prize. However, as his political ambitions receded he also began making a great deal of money through his involvement with carbon credit trading. Scientists of the IPCC may be involved in carbon trading, but they also benefit through a high profile, easier access to funding and easier promotion. All the relationships between Gore, Strong, and carbon credit trading are well documented here; (Capital Research—pdf)

There is nothing wrong with making money, however, promoting a demand through false information raises serious questions about ethics, morality and possibly even fraud. The problem is the IPCC and the few scientists who have controlled that agency provide him with some scientific justification for his position. It is clear neither Gore nor Strong understand the science, but that doesn’t bother them and that is a major problem.

All the problems evolve from the false claim that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change. All of the malaise we now face evolves from foolish, ignorant attempts to resolve the non-existent problem. Everything was directed at reducing our use of fossil fuels particularly oil, natural gas and coal while promoting alternative fuels.

Global warming provided the perfect vehicle for environmentalists to spread their claim of human destruction of the planet. Previously they could only point at local or regional problems, but now they had a genuine “the sky is falling” cause that encompassed the entire globe. Now the demand was for global policies and Strong provided this at the Rio Conference in 1992 in the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). This agency was to create the Kyoto Protocol that became the battleground. Interestingly, it encompassed what is wrong with the entire argument that CO2 is the problem. Only the industrialized countries Strong sought to “get rid of” were required to reduce CO2 emissions. Developing nations were excluded and were to receive the payments as penance from the sinful industrialized nations. It was the transfer of capitalist wealth the socialist Strong foresaw. Futility of the exercise was that if all nations participated and met their original targets no measurable difference in atmospheric CO2 would occur; yet that was the purported objective. Several nations saw the problems implementing Kyoto would create. The US Senate voted 95 - 0 against ratification even though Al Gore was Vice President at the time. It reached a critical point when a failure of Russia to sign meant the Protocol would not be implemented.

The Protocol is now dead and there is no apparent successor, however, this is not because of the false science. It is because the countries excluded from the Protocol, particularly India and China, have become the dreaded industrialized nations Strong opposes. Despite attempts by the few scientists who control the IPCC to push an alarmist Summary, China was a major opponent and forced a softening of the final document so that even mainstream media noticed (see Part 8). The naïveté and political tunnel - vision of Strong ignored the fact that every country in the world wanted to industrialize and emulate the Untied States. Or did he? In 2005 the Pittsburgh Tribune reported, “Recently, Strong was looking for an apartment in Beijing, where his Canadian interests are already enmeshed with the Chinese Red Army.” Then in 2006 reports said he had formed a company with George Soros to import cheap Chinese made cars into the North American market. As the Tribune summarized, “Maurice Strong is the fox that was invited into the henhouse—and given the tools to redesign it for his own interests.”

Actually, he invited himself in and his redesign through the UN and the IPCC did not stop global warming or climate change, but has brought serious global problems. IPCC identification of CO2 as the major culprit of environmental damage has;

•
Allowed an unfounded and unwarranted attack on fossil fuels and exploitation of the false idea we are running out, especially of oil.

•
Caused governments to promote alternate fuels as if they are the replacement solution when most are not viable alternatives.

•
Caused governments to provide massive direct or indirect subsidies that distort the value of these alternatives so that accurate cost benefit analysis is essentially impossible.

•
Caused governments to provide subsidies for biofuels so world food production is seriously impeded and people are starving.

•
Caused governments to identify CO2 as a pollutant and seek its reduction when it is essential to plants and a reduction would put them in jeopardy.

•
Caused many governments to restrict or ban development of most fossil fuel energy sources.

•
Caused governments to spend billions on climate research to stop climate change when it is impossible.

•
Caused diversion of money to climate research better spent on real and identified pollution problems.

•
Allowed environmentalists to bully whole societies into adopting inappropriate policies and ideas.

•
Caused unnecessary increases in transportation costs that results in a higher cost of living that especially impacts the poor and middle class.

•
Caused increase in travel costs that were beginning to become affordable for most people.

•
Caused extensive and unnecessary fear among people, but especially children.

Strong and the IPCC exploited fear with threats of impending doom due to global warming/climate change, but they also exploited lack of knowledge about science and especially climate science. Governments, eager to be green, unknowingly introduced policies to reduce greenhouse gases that are undermining the developed nations as effectively as terrorism.

The title of Vaclav Klaus book Blue Planet in Green Shackles succinctly summarizes the broader problem and he elaborates as follows;

“Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will nevertheless be identical: the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality. What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its present strongest version, climate alarmism.”

There is no scientific justification for any of the energy or economic policies designed to reduce greenhouse gases or stop warming or climate change. CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming or climate change. The IPCC and their computer models, an agency and approach set up to mislead the world, are the sole source of this belief. Yes, Sir David the false story of global warming is worse than terrorism.

Carlton Bartels was the most important, addition to the CCX roster. As CEO of CO2e, Bartels developed and delivered a system for facilitating and managing the actual carbon trades. Just three weeks after filing for a patent, Bartels was killed on 9/11. Bartels’ death opened the door for a new CCX partner, the oddest fit of them all: Fannie Mae.

In a move still unexplained, the quasi-governmental mortgage agency, led by CEO Franklin Raines, purchased the rights to the system from Bartel’s widow. A patent on the invention was granted to Raines and Fannie Mae on November 7, 2006, ironically, the day after the Democrats regained control of Congress.

According to the Washington Examiner's Barbara Hollingsworth, the patent covers both the “cap” and “trade” parts of Obama’s top domestic energy initiative and gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over the automated trading system used by Sandor’s CCX.

===============================================

REFERENCE Franklin Raines' Letter to Shareholders----From 2003 Fannie Mae Annual Report

EXCERPT Ten years ago, for example, the typical conforming mortgage required a down payment of 10 to 20 percent, and low-down payment mortgages were considered too risky. But then we helped to standardize the 3 to 5 percent down payment loan, brought it to global capital markets, and made it available to lenders and communities nationwide. Now low-down payment loans are commonplace. And we just adopted a new variance in our underwriting standards that will make the $500 down payment loan widely available as well...

In 1994, we pledged to provide $1 trillion in capital to ten million underserved families by the end of 2000. Thanks to our housing and industry partners, we met that goal early. Then in 2000, we launched our American Dream Commitment, a pledge to provide $2 trillion in capital to 18 million underserved families by the year 2010, including $400 billion targeted specifically for minority families (later raised to $700 billion in response to President Bush’s Minority Homeownership Initiative).

After four of the strongest years in housing and mortgage finance history, we’ve already surpassed the top-line goals of this commitment. But our work is far from complete.

So in January 2004, we announced our Expanded American Dream Commitment and pledged significant new resources to tackle America’s toughest housing challenges. Our new commitment has three main goals.

First, we will expand access to homeownership for six million first-time home buyers in the next ten years, including 1.8 million minority first-time home buyers.We also will help raise the national minority homeownership rate from 49 percent to 55 percent, with the ultimate goal of closing it entirely.

Second, we will help new and long-term homeowners stay in their homes through a series of initiatives, and commit $15 billion to preserve affordable rental housing and $1.5 billion to support the revitalization of public housing communities.

Third, we will increase the supply of affordable housing and support community development activities in at least 1,000 neighborhoods across the country through our American Communities Fund, and through targeted investments like Low-Income Housing Tax Credits that help finance affordable rental housing.

It is because of initiatives like our Trillion Dollar Commitment and our American Dream Commitment that we have exceeded our HUD affordable housing goals for ten consecutive years. And we have increased our financing of mortgages to African Americans by over 400 percent and to Hispanic Americans by 470 percent in the past ten years, compared with a 205 percent increase in overall financing. Our Expanded American Dream Commitment will help us do even more. END RAINES LETTER

==========================================

The Government filed suit against F/M head Franklin Raines when the depth of the F/M accounting scandal became clear. READ IT HERE http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/

The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner."

These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the mis-stated Fannie Mae profits. (Did Raines ever return the money?)

Franklin Raines looted and pillaged Fannie Mae as Clinton's appointee. Raines famously bought into the climate control scam w/ F/M funds. Now he's hooked up with Ohaha who organized the Chicago Climate Exchange.

========================================

Ex-Fannie CEO Raines should be behind bars for life. He is a crook of the worst kind.

NOTE: John Houghton denies that he made this statement quoted by Tim Ball (and many others), here:

“Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three Reports, signaled the objectives were political and not scientific. He said, ‘Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.’” [snip] Tim Ball 4/30/08 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840

He denies he said it:

Sir John Houghton explains to Steve Connor how global warming sceptics have misrepresented his views
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote\-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html

But:

No, he did say it....

Feb 16, 2010 AuthorClimate

...or something very like it.

I’m referring to the recent kerfuffle over whether Sir John Houghton did actually say the controversial words that have been ascribed to him for many years. These words:

Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.

A few days ago, after years of this quotation doing the rounds of sceptic blogs, Sir John suddenly denied that these words had ever passed his lips, pointing out that they didn’t actually appear in his book, to which early citations had pointed as the original source. Cue much gnashing of teeth and wailing about “deniers”.

There has now been another development in this story, reported by Benny Peiser, who took a certain amount of stick for repeating the quotation over the years, including a demand from Sir John that he issue an apology.

In a posting on the GWPF website today, Benny relates how Professor John Adams has unearthed from his archives an clipping from the Daily Telegraph, dating right back to 1995. In it, Sir John is quoted as follows:

“If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”

Oh dear.

The story was originally broken on Professor Adams’ blog here. More here. [Access hot links within commentary at URL below]

~ Bishop Hill http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.