(Susanne Posel) Blueseed is a San Francisco startup corporations that plans to launch a floating city 12 nautical miles off the coast of California.Blueseed will revamp a cruise ship or barge to create the off-shore city. It will sit in international waters and be a metropolis where foreign and American workers can conduct business and theorize new corporations without the pesky need for American work visas.
The sustainable design of the ship will allow for an environmentally-friendly workplace.
Only passports will be needed for businesses to work from the ship. Being situated in international waters means that no taxes will be collected or have to be paid by the corporations involved.
Those living on the ship and working on the mainland will be given temporary or tourist visas through investors, partners and collaborators.
Sitting just across from Silicon Valley, this floating city will allow entrepreneurs to do what they cannot do in the US because of business restrictions.
The ship will showcase all the luxuries of the Elite, including pools, massage parlors, gyms, rock climbing walls and indoor soccer fields as well as trendy food and other aesthetics. Food and supplies will be provided by local merchants and corporations on the West coast.
Employees can use either a ferry or helicopter ride to and from Blueseed to the mainland. With more than 250 corporations wanting to rent space, the cost of a standard cabin is estimated to be $1,600 per month. Start-ups in the US, India, the UK, Australia, Canada and Spain are eager to be part of this endeavor.
Founders of Blueseed are Marty Max, the son of Cuban immigrants, and Dario Mutabdzja are gaining momentum in the corporate world for their idea.
Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal is leading the financial research in supporting this seastead; a self-ruling city on the ocean. Both Max and Mutabdzja have worked for the Seasteading Institute.
Libertarian activist, member of the Bilderberg Group and corporate titan, Peter Thiel has contributed$1.25 million to the floating city project. Political influence in the Libertarian party ends with Thiel who was the biggest campaign contributor to Ron Paul, an influential collaborator who was in secret meetings with Rand Paul just before he publicly endorsed Mitt Romney and in a private conference with Ron Paul 3 days prior to his announcement that he was ending his campaign for US President.
Blueseed is a concept for “new sovereign nations built on oil-rig-type platforms anchored in international waters — free from the regulation, laws, and moral suasion of any landlocked country. . . They’d be small city-states at first, although the aim is to have tens of millions of seasteading residents by 2050.”
Other members of the Libretarian movement are in full support of Theil. The fake revolution established by the ideals cry anti-government sentiment for the ignorant masses while also promoting their self-proclaimed rise to power. Just as any political party controlled by the global Elite, Libretarians have escaped comparison to their socialist peers – the Democrats and Republicans.
Theil, heading the offshore gang of nation-states may reflect the invention of a radical movement toward publicly establishing the global Elite as supreme rule. By rewriting political systems with the advent of floating cities, these independent nations could be allowed to “offer people the opportunity to peacefully test new ideas about how to live together.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) could become the most valid international document with regard to seasteading. LOST binds the US to UN tribunals and international mandates, and these international mandates do not have the best interests of the US in mind. LOST could assist seasteading in becoming legitimate as sovereign nation-states.
The International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) which has binding authority over all treaty participants under Annex 8. Although there are many tribunals created within the treaty, one of particular interest is the Special Arbitral Tribunal (SAT). This is defined as a 5 person body with majority rule. Each party to a dispute within SAT chooses 2 representative panelists. The fifth panelist, if both parties cannot agree to who it should be, is decided by the UN Secretary General.
Should seasteading become the norm, LOST would be relevant and applicable regardless of its ratification in the US Congress.
Investing in Facebook when it was a burgeoning startup, Theil understands the power behind Blueseed and is not only financially contributing, but also assisting in gaining more funding for the project.
The Seasteading Institute collaborates ideas for potions for governments as the option of floating cities provides new avenues of living and ultimately controlling the population. Offering business opportunities for venture captiol and startups to invest and participate in seasteading extends real estate markets, economies of countries and creates a new level of diplomacy.
Research into engineering, science and technology would not be constrained by laws and regulations that are imposed on the mainland.
Slated for 2015, the Seasteading Institute expects to have manufactured the first independent city-state guided by inter-nation provisions and not responsible to any established country or sovereignty.
Moving the multi-national corporations offshore and into international water alleviates the jurisdiction of these megaliths from all known and established governments. Perhaps replacing sovereign nations would be the corporate-establishment where the floating city could be socially and technologically influenced and directed by the corporate-industrial complex.
Nation states created by Google, Microsoft or Facebook that owed no answer to the US could create such an over-reaching monster that the necessity of established governments could fall to the way side.
Off-shoots of the Seasteading Institute are forming around the world at technological universities to force the American corporation to remain competitive. Focusing on eco-sustainability and making money, the Seasteading Institute want to take advantage of the ocean as an untapped real estate resource.
Living on the ocean may become a reality in “balancing at the edge of uptopia.”
(Food Freedom News) Monsanto’s Food and Drug Administration can’t close down small dairies and private food clubs fast enough, bursting on the scene with guns drawn as if the criminalized right to contract for natural foods we’ve consumed for millennia deserves SWAT attention.
Now, Obama has the Dept. of Justice going after small farmers under the post-911 “Bank Secrecy Act” which makes it a crime to deposit less than $10,000 when you earned more than that.
“The level we deposited was what it was and it was about the same every week,” Randy Sowers told Frederick News. The Sowers own and run South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland.
Admittedly, when the Sowers earned over $10,000 in February, and learned they’d have to fill out paperwork at the bank for such large deposits, they simply rolled the deposits over to keep them below the none-of-your-fucking-business amount, rather than waste time on bureaucratic red tape aimed at flagging terrorism or other illegal activities.
“Structuring,” explains Overlawyered.com, “is the federal criminal offense of splitting up bank deposits so as to keep them under a threshold such as $10,000 above which banks have to report transactions to the government.”
While being questioned, the Sowers were finally presented with a seizure order and advised that the feds had already emptied their bank account of $70,000. The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy.
Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting.
When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor’s money.
Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family’s income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.
You can just smell attorney Michael Taylor behind all this, Obama’s dairy dog. Who you’ll find, instead, is US district attorney Stefan Cassella. He’s the first to head the DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section, created in 2009, having wrote the books on it. He cut his teeth on seizing $1.2 billion from real money launderer, BCCI. Guess his focus has changed since then.
The Maryland Dept. of Agriculture had no trouble hitting up the Sowers for a recipe in its Buy-Local cookbook; but Cassella must’ve missed that public service, or it’s what drew his attention – “Ah! A small dairy! Let’s rob them of their cash, those evil Big Dairy competitors. They probably sell raw milk under the table. Even if we find no evidence of wrongdoing, we’ll keep their money anyway.” (Cue Curly’s, “yuh, yuh, yuh.”)
City Paper reports that in 2011, “Maryland brought 14 of the nation’s 99 structuring cases, making it the top state for such prosecutions. Nationally, the numbers have been rising; the 2011 figures are up 8.8 percent from the year before and up 57.1 percent from five years ago.”
Funny, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and other criminal banksters are still in operation, despite committing millions of acts of fraud during mortgage reassignations. But the DOJ prioritizes squashing family farmers since it’s easier to pick the low-hanging fruit than do battle with well-financed criminals who’ve illegally seized the homes of millions of US citizens.
Former Maryland assistant U.S. attorney Steven Levin told the paper, “The emphasis is on basically seizing money, whether it is legally or illegally earned. It can lead to financial ruin for business owners, and there’s a potential for abuse here by the government.”
The Bank Secrecy Act was modified* after 9/11, another in a long line of Constitutionally-abhorrent laws enacted by officials who cannot prove they were elected to office (given those elections were held on electronic voting systems that can be hacked without leaving evidence of the crime).
With the current Administration’s Agenda 21 focus on destroying the natural food and herb industry, is it not unsurprising to see unconstitutional terrorist legislation used on innocent, law abiding citizens?
(INFOWARS) The shocking story of Andrew Wordes, who had his property seized and was terrorized to death by the city of Roswell, GA, for the crime of keeping chickens on his land, underscores how “green” zoning laws introduced in accordance with the United Nations’ Agenda 21 policy are responsible for a new wave of brutal neo-feudalism now sweeping the United States.
Despite the fact that the city of Roswell allows chickens to be kept on properties less than 2 acres, Wordes was subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment and intimidation by the state which began in December 2008 when the city issued Wordes with a citation for keeping the chickens after a complaint by a neighbor.
After all the charges against Wordes were dropped, city administrators then re-wrote the ordinance to say that only six or less chickens could be kept on a property of less than 2 acres and hit Wordes with another citation.
Wordes won the case for a second time when the judge concluded that he was “granfathered in” under the previous ordinance that allowed for chickens on less than 2 acres.
Despite Wordes constantly winning legal cases, the city would not let up on their campaign of terror, moving to illegally intimidate the mortgage holder on Wordes house, an 80-year-old woman, to sell the mortgage note to the city for 40 cents on the dollar.
Amidst all this constant harassment, Wordes had to cope with his house flooding numerous times and criminals breaking in and vandalizing his property, including one incident where a third of his birds were poisoned to death, an act likely perpetrated by the neighbor who had sided with the city in targeting Wordes.
Now turning to the argument that Wordes’ activities represented a “nuisance,” the city filed a 55 page civil lawsuit, while simultaneously declaring Wordes’ property to be a “Conservation Area or Greenspace,” representing the final move in seizing the property under the auspices of tyrannical environmental mandates that were clearly manufactured by the state as a tool of harassment.
Although Wordes attempted to sell his land to the city, councilors then slapped a phony foreclosure notice on the property. When Wordes missed a probation check and was jailed for 99 days, the city immediately issued a press release announcing that his property was “vacant,” prompting criminals to break in and steal Wordes’ firearms, valuables and other ammunition. City administrators signaled they were unconcerned about the incident and would do nothing about it.
While he was in jail, the unknown mortgage note holder tried to foreclose on the property and Wordes was prevented from mounting any kind of appeal.
On March 26, Fulton County Marshals arrived at Wordes’ home to follow through on the city’s illegal order to evict him. Shortly afterwards there was an explosion and Wordes’ was subsequently found dead. Although initially declared to be a suicide, circumstances surrounding the incident remain unclear.
What is abundantly clear is the fact that Andrew Wordes was terrorized, harassed and abused to death by a predatory state whose plan all along was to seize the property under the justification of so-called ‘green’ zoning laws.
Check out Natural News’ infographic for a detailed summary of Andrew Wordes’ case.
Americans all over the country are facing similar threats, intimidation and harassment as the state attempts to reintroduce feudal serfdom and arbitrary property seizures all under the justification of environmental zoning laws.
The United Nations’ Agenda 21 project, which cities and states are now adhering to in places like California, where building detached family homes is now virtually illegal, dictates that authorities must adopt “sustainable development” policies at all costs.
Under the new system of eco-fascism that the elite are implementing through the vehicle of global warming hysteria, property rights are non-existent as people are forced into high density prison cities wherein any form of self-sufficiency whatsoever, down to the level of keeping chickens, is crushed under the iron fist of regulation, code enforcement, and authoritarian environmental despotism.
(THE TENNESEAN) Tennessee lawmakers passed a resolution Thursday condemning a United Nations environmental plan as a “destructive and insidious” effort to advance a communist agenda through the guise of community planning.
The state House of Representatives voted 72-23 in favor of House Joint Resolution 587, which denounces the nonbinding Agenda 21 plan adopted by a United Nations environmental conference two decades ago.
The plan called on members of the United Nations to adopt sustainable development principles to alleviate poverty and combat global warming. But the resolution approved by Tennessee lawmakers on Thursday depicts it as a plan for the “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth” through energy conservation policies, zoning restrictions and forced abortions.
“It reads well. It has nice words like sustainability and helping the poor,” said state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin. “But what these people want to do is they want to cap the number of people this planet can have. … So ladies and gentlemen, if that doesn’t bother you, if those words don’t scare you, we’ve got to talk.”
Little known even in environmental and planning circles until recently, Agenda 21 has grabbed the attention of conservative groups, who say the document calls on national and local governments to pursue environmental goals by limiting property rights and freedom.
Environmental groups, in turn, believe the resolution is part of a broad-based effort to roll back or prevent planning and zoning.
Agenda 21 was developed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The proposal was meant to address problems such as overpopulation, global warming and Third World poverty, but it had largely been forgotten until groups such as the Republican National Committee and the John Birch Society began to link it to zoning decisions and other local government actions that they say limit property rights.
State Rep. Rick Womick, R-Rockvale, pointed to policies such as a Cocke County proposal to ban building on ridgetops and a Rutherford County demand that a business owner pave his parking lot as examples of Agenda 21 put to action.
Casada, meanwhile, said the plan’s focus on sustainability could be used to justify forced abortions in the interest of controlling population growth.
Opponents mocked the resolution.
“Boy that’s … whoo! Insidious! Communist! Socialist!” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner said. “I didn’t know what Agenda 21 was, to be honest with you. … I really want to learn about this Agenda 21.”
Seven Democrats joined the House’s 64 Republicans and one independent in voting for the measure, and the resolution’s 33 co-sponsors gathered in the well of the House of Representatives when it was introduced.
Supporters said the resolution would send a message that Tennesseans oppose the actions and principles behind Agenda 21.
“It really is a problem that many Tennesseans do know about,” the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Kevin Brooks, R-Cleveland, told reporters later. “The responses we’ve received — emails, letters, phone calls, petitions signed by hundreds of Tennesseans saying, ‘Please protect us.’ That’s what we were elected to do.”
Neither the House resolution nor the U.N. plan it opposes are binding, and supporters have not shown a direct link from the plan drafted in Brazil in the early 1990s to decisions made by local governments in Tennessee 20 years later.
But they said government entities such as the courts, the Environmental Protection Agency and zoning boards could be carrying out the plan.
“It basically says in the 288-page document that they can take your land,” he said. “They don’t name names. They don’t name a czar over this. But if in fact it’s there, we don’t want it to come into our borders.”
Two other states, Georgia and New Hampshire, have considered anti-Agenda 21 measures this year. Brooks said the resolution had been promoted by the RNC.
But the measure matches up nearly word for word with a model posted on the website of the John Birch Society, a conservative group that Republicans have largely shunned since the 1960s, Turner said.
“It’d almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad that so many people buy into this,” he said. “Elected officials actually think there’s a communist behind every tree. … At one time, I used to think they tried to put this on just to keep people stirred up, but I think some of their people actually believe that.”
Brooks said the John Birch Society played no role in drafting the resolution.
Still, Jim Sandman, state coordinator for the organization, attended Thursday’s vote and praised the resolution.
“It just gives a sense to Congress where Tennesseans feel on this threat from sustainable development policies,” he said. “Private property and freedom are inseparable, and when there’s a threat against private property. … It’s already happening, some of it.”
(FOXNEWS) An environmental report issued by an agency of the United Nations last month has some critics sounding the alarm, saying it is a clarion call for “global governance” over how the Earth is managed.
The report, “21 Issues for the 21st Century,” from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June.
The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions.
But its critics see an agenda lurking in its 60 pages, which call for a complete overhaul of how the world’s food and water are created and distributed — something the report says is “urgently needed” for the human race to keep feeding and hydrating itself safely.
“This is more utopianism, pie-in-the-sky pleading for ‘global governance,’ including what they acknowledge as ‘novel governance arrangements,’ including, ‘alliances between environmentalist and other civil society groups,’” charged Chris Horner, author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, and a senior fellow for energy and environment at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in Washington, D.C.
The Foresight Report suggests actions to save humanity from starvation, the overheating planet and the collapse of the world’s oceans — options that include new “constitutional frameworks,” “international protocols” and a “shared vision” for land and water management that essentially rewire existing treaties and governments.
But the group insists it’s not a call for global governance.
“We are not talking about a world government,” said Dr. Oren Young, professor of institutional and international governance and environmental institutions at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and one of the scientists who issued the report.
He said the panel’s conversations included questions like, “How do we resolve these problems without creating this monster entity?”
Young said the panel wasn’t tasked with finding all the answers.
“We realize that government can be part of the problem,” he told FoxNews.com. “But we can’t close our eyes and say, ‘oh well, everything will work out,’ without us even looking at it.”
Even environmentalists don’t believe that planet-wide accords are particularly popular.
“I don’t think there is a global appetite right now for new institutions … or a world environmental organization like we have, say, with the World Trade Organization,” said Janet Redman, co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.
“There are a lot of places — especially the oceans and food security — where everyone is saying that doing this piecemeal is not going to address the bigger sense of these environmental issues.”
But on the whole, she said, global government probably won’t work.
“I think everyone agrees this is not the right time,” Redman told FoxNews.com.
The State Dept. has already weighed in on many of the issues presented by the Foresight Panel in its own statement, titled “Sustainable Development for the Next Twenty Years United States Views on RIO+20.”
Submitted to the U.N by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OIES) in November, this policy vision makes it clear the State Dept. will back global government solutions — whether they be in addressing the overfishing of the oceans, making national laws and regulations more transparent, addressing land and ocean-based pollution, or water management.
The U.S. also is wholly supportive of strengthening the UNEP as “a body through which governments can cooperate to recommend environmental policies, promote best practices, and build national capacity for governance, monitoring and assessment,” according to the vision statement.
Yet UNEP is unsuited for that, by the agency’s own admission.
An internal U.N study obtained by Fox News last June found that the $450 million organization is an administrative mess, not knowing how its money is spent or how many public and private partners it might be working with at any given time.
Questions about the ability of nations to work with global bodies such as the U.N, and whether they should subscribe to transnational guidelines or mandates, will no doubt be a subject of concern in the run-up to the Rio summit.
Just as global governance solutions are raised in the report, so are local solutions that involve local governments, private industry and promoting individual and community shifts in the way people live and tend to the environment in their daily lives and workplaces.
Congress set to hand our highways and freeways over to foreign corporations: New toll roads planned for all 50 states
(PPJ GAZETTE) The efforts to parcel off and sell out entire sectors of America’s infrastructure to foreign interest continues daily. HR 7, the bill at issue here would put tolls on roads American taxpayers funded and paid for and which they continue to fund through gasoline taxes diverted to the Transportation and Highway Trust account at the IMF. Of course, that trust fund, just like Social Security has been raided continually by the federal government since its inception leaving a negative balance for that particular identified revenue stream. The money the federal government invested in the original construction of these highways and freeways was garnered from individual taxes and was not taken from some non-existent private account owned by the Fed. The Fed has no money of its own.
HR 7 will effectively end our right to travel freely by making the cost of travel so expensive, that we won’t travel.
From www.texasturf.org Texas Turf:
It’s been 7 years since Congress passed the last federal highway bill. Now its racing through Congress at the speed of light — why? Because they want to sell-off our public roads to private corporations, raise your taxes through tolls, and lift the ban on imposing tolls on existing highways. There are 500 toll projects being contemplated inTexas alone!
An amendment to allow tolls on ALL existing interstates in all 50 states is expected to be presented on the floor by Senator Carper of Delaware. Imposing tolls on existing freeways is a massive DOUBLE TAX — charging motorists an additional tax, a toll, to use what they’ve already built and paid for!
The current House Bill, HR 7, only bans tolls on existing FEDERAL interstates. It GUTS the ban on imposing tolls on existing STATE highways — a ban that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison put in place for Texas since 2007. The fate our public freeway system is under attack!
STEP 1 –
Call Senator John Cornyn and ask him to support the Hutchison ban on tolling existing STATE and FEDERAL freeways and to STRIP PPPs & TIFIA loans OUT of the transportation bill .
Call Cornyn’s office at 202-224-2934 & email him here.
STEP 2 –
Call your member of Congress and ask him/her to ADD the Hutchison “Freedom from Tolls” Amendment to ban tolling existing freeways – BOTH state and federal – to HR 7 and STRIP PPPs & TIFIA loans OUT of the transportation bill.
Find out who your member of Congress is here or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Sneaky new tax
Government has figured out that instead of solving congestion, they can manipulate it for a profit (by keeping your free lanes congested and forcing people to pay a premium to get mobility). They’re terrified to raise the gas tax, but have no problem imposing tolls on all new capacity to our roads, even on EXISTING lanes that we travel today without tolls.
It costs 1-2 cents per mile to travel a gas tax funded freeway, but anywhere from 20 cents a mile up to 75 cents per mile to use a toll lane. It’s an explosion in our cost to travel. A gas tax funded road costs PENNIES a day, a toll road costs DOLLARS a day and THOUSANDS more in new taxes per year.
The way toll roads are being financed today, ALL Americans are paying to build them through subsidies of taxpayer money like gas tax, but you won’t be able to use them without paying a toll, too (a DOUBLE TAX)! So whether you can afford to take these toll lanes or not, you’re paying for them. This notion that tolls are user fees is a myth when you look at how heavily they’re subsidized by ALL taxpayers. You’re also paying for them through a higher cost of goods that gets passed onto consumers.
Selling us out
Both the House and Senate versions of the federal highway bill, dubbed the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act, include public private partnerships (or PPPs) that sell-off our public roads to private corporations in 50-99 year government-sanctioned toll road monopolies. PPPs use heaps of public money to socialize the losses, while they privatize and GUARANTEE profits for the private operators.
Columnist Michelle Malkin calls PPPs ‘corporate welfare.’ Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were some of the first PPPs and eventually caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis and subsequent $1 trillion dollar taxpayer BAILOUT!
The TIFIA loan program is a HUGE source of funds used to subsidize ill-conceived toll roads that can’t pay for themselves. It’s the primary pot of taxpayer money given to these private, foreign corporations seeking to takeover ourU.S. highways using public private partnership toll road contracts.
NOTE: The first TIFIA loan was awarded to a private consortium in a PPP deal on the South Bay Expressway in San Diego. It went bankrupt less than three years later due to traffic projections that were off by over 40,000 cars per day! Taxpayers had to accept a write-down of nearly $80 million of a $172 million federal TIFIA loan in yet another taxpayer bailout for private corporations.
The TIFIA loan program is all BORROWED money from the Federal Reserve, so who will have to bailout these toll roads when the cars don’t show up as they didn’t in San Diego along with other projects across the country? YOU and me, the taxpayer.
Think about it – PPPs give private corporations the power to TAX! They are granted the power to levy unlimited toll taxes on the traveling public – and we can’t hold corporations accountable like we can politicians at the ballot box. This is why politicians LOVE PPPs. They get to OUTSOURCE the taxation to their special interest buddies and makes us pay back our own money with interest through tolls!
Rather than get rid of the failed TIFIA loan program, the federal highway bill INCREASES TIFIA funding by nearly TEN times from $100/yr to $1 BILLION/yr. Current law requires the taxpayers to be paid back first, now in the bill as written, private interests would get paid back first and taxpayers would be paid back last.
PPPs also contain non-compete clauses that prohibit or penalize the expansion of free roads surrounding the privatized toll roads, guaranteeing congestion on the free routes.
Also, PPP toll contracts allow private entities to benefit from the use of eminent domain, and they result in toll rates as high as 75 cents a mile. That’s like adding $15 to every gallon of gas you buy!