No related posts.

See Also:

(LRCBlog) – More Ways To Protest the FOX Cancellation of ‘Freedom Watch’

FOX plans to cancel the greatest program of its sort in the history of television, “Freedom Watch,” starring the heroic Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here are more people to write in protest:

Kevin Magee (Fox Executive VP) made the decision to cancel the show. Write him at Kevin.Magee@foxnews.com.

Write Fox CEO Roger Ailes’s assistant, Gena Dellaquila, at Gdellaquila@newscorp.com.

And if you have not already done so, protest this outrageous act to the public/media relations department at:

Irena Briganti, Senior Vice President
Media Relations
Phone: 212-301-3608
Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: irena.briganti@foxnews.com

We are being heard. I am told that the Fox higher-ups are “stunned” at the public response.

UPDATE from a friend:

With respect, I suggest that complaints directed to Fox’s advertisers might also have great effect.

Source: LRCBlog

Related posts:

1. 12 Signs That Americans Who Love Liberty And Freedom Should Watch Their Backs
2. The Myth of American Freedom – Andrew Napolitano
3. America’s Treasonous Media: The Voice of Peace And Freedom Is Kooky And Fringe

Related posts:

1. Pentagon Drones Now Targeting Rural Americans – Alex Jones
2. Congress Welcomes Drones Into American Skies ASAP
3. Are Drones Watching You? UAF Surveillance for “Non-Military Purposes”

more NEWS at http://www.wideawakenews.com/
Thank you Warren Pollock for allowing me to upload. Subscribe to Warren’s channel http://www.youtube.com/user/wepollock?ob=0

Related posts:

1. Collapse Imminent…. and needed – Charlie McGrath
2. Shocking Reality – Charlie McGrath
3. Govt Evil Doers – Charlie McGrath

The government in Greece has just passed a cost-cutting measure chopping all private-sector salaries by 35%. This means that any job that you do, you will suddenly be doing it for two thirds of the money you were before. This comes at a time where many people in Greece can barely afford to feed their families, causing them to drop off their children to become wards of the government, all in an effort to see to it that the kids don’t starve. The numbers of homeless people are growing exponentially. Suicides are at an all-time high. Basic supplies like aspirin are no longer available.

This letter was sent as my friend leaves today to take part in a workers strike, a protest against this salary cut. The strike is very likely to be met with extreme violence, as the reactions of the police are becoming more brutal by the day.

Please reflect on this letter and know that we will be in the same place as this man if our government continues on it’s current course. Think about the bravery it takes to go out and stand for something knowing that it might be your last stand. As the government continues to print money that is backed by nothing more than promises, we sink further and further into debt with other countries. At some point, one of them is going to say, “Enough” and they will come to collect. They will be to us like Germany is to Greece, controlling the very livelihood and survival of the people in order to collect on a debt that never should have occurred in the first place.

Learn from him – we cannot go silently into the night either.

v

It’s 16.00 local time.

I just got back from the office, have a quick shower, and getting ready.

The strike is scheduled for 18.00. I’m going to pick up my sister, my daughter’s god father, and two friends.

We will park the car away from the city’s main square, and we will walk to the gathering.

All over the country, plain people like you and me are marching together. Scared people, family men, homeless, hungry, and poor. Women who have nothing to lose anymore but their own lives. Students, soldiers, teachers, and even policemen.

We are not like our ancestors. They were brave; they stopped the Persian forces, the defeated the Turks, and screwed Hitler’s plan for a couple of months.

We are scared, soft, and peaceful. I don’t know how this will end up. But I really don’t care anymore. As I told you, I will not go silently into the night.

Things in Athens already got out of control. You will see and read the evening news I presume.

I’m not the tough guy or the macho man. I don’t know how to deal with the full armoured trained riot-police forces. What ever is to come, I hope it comes fast.

My only joy is that my friends are with me. My only concern is for my family to be safe.

It’s raining now; it’s like as if the sky is crying along with humanity.

God may be with us. I know He is.

Pass the message dear. Be safe.

Souce: Daisy Luther

Related posts:

1. Farage: Greece Under Full Globalist Dictatorship
2. Anger in Athens: Video of riots at mass Greece protest
3. Another military coup in Greece – can you blame them?

(BFP) – This morning Asia Times showcases a fairly decent articleon 9/11, revisiting one of its many still-unanswered questions: ‘Was Saudi Arabia Involved?’ The article revisits the cases of hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi under CIA surveillance prior to the attack, the Alec Station and FBI bungling, Prince Bandar and his wife’s funneling of money to the hijackers, Saudi and supposed Bin-Laden connected suspects-witnesses flying out of the US under US government protection, the FBI being prevented from stopping or questioning these fugitives’ escape … basically the whole nine yards we 9/11 activists, witnesses, whistleblowers and experts  have been pointing out  for the last ten years plus.

Yawn. A cat-like stretch and a big yawn. Don’t get me wrong. I am not putting down the article. I am a big fan of Asia Times, and this piece is decent. Nothing wrong with decent articles-analyses on these highly censored 9/11 related topics by the mainstream and pseudo alternative media. I am not even calling it boring. Then what is my problem?

My main problem has to do with the entire trend when it comes to 9/11 and those of us who still seek to prevent it from being permanently pushed into a black hole and forgotten, while its use as a pretext for our imperial foreign and domestic policies continues and expands.

So much time and energy and focus is being wasted on tiny bits of detail, while the macro picture is being completely ignored. Especially when many of these pieces act as smoke and mirror ingredients, rather than important pieces leading to the entire picture. What is missing is some good ole fashion accounting. What is needed is a general listing of losses and gains. And of course, with that, ferreting out those with the biggest wins and those with the biggest losses. How hard can that be? And why is no one doing it? I don’t want to preach instead of practice, and I don’t claim to have accounting expertise, but the least I can do is to list the gains and losses as best as I can, and let those with much better and more polished accounting capabilities come up with the net results, and with that the top gainers and losers on 9/11.

Allow me to give you an idea. Let me start the process, however crudely, and invite you to take it from here, expand, and conclude with a far more comprehensive and polished report:

The American People
Liberties- loss (negative gains)
Financial- loss (negative gains)
Security & Safety- zero and negative

The Alleged Terrorists-Hijackers
Loss- dead.

The Alleged Terrorists: So-called Al-Qaeda
Financial- loss (negative gains)
Power- loss (supposedly on the run)
Physical Domain- loss (supposedly flushed out of the caves they were housed in)

Afghanistan People & Nation Status
Financial- loss
Liberties- zero (unchanged)
Security & Safety- loss (negative gains)

The US Government
Expenditure Power- gain; (positive; on borrowed money, peoples’ back)
Authority & Ruling Power- gain (positive)
Immunity & Untouchability- gain (positive)
War Power-  gain (positive)
Abuse of Power Threshold-  gain (positive)
International Colonies & Domain- gain (positive)

Military Industrial Complex & Related Parasitic Bottom-Feeders
Financial- gain (uber positive)
Physical Domain & Expansion; National and international- gain (positive)
Immunity and Exemptions from Laws-Regulations- gain (positive)

I am going to emphasize again: this is only a starting point- a glimpse of the required framework. Take yourself outside the murky details. Stand there and look at the picture through a birds-eye view. Think about Israel. Think about oil companies. Think about global financial giants. Think about a $50 Billion+ Heroin Industry. Think about …

Who are the players with the means and power to gain from 9/11? What have they gained? How much? Who are the ones with real and undisputable losses? What have they lost? How? Then ask yourself why those with such losses would bring about such an event? Why those with so much to gain would hesitate to create such event? And why those with the great losses, who are still losing big, remain silent and passive?

Source: BFP

No related posts.

(PaulWatson) – With the announcement that 30,000 drones are expected to fill American skies within ten years, the U.S. government has officially declared war on the American people, turning to technology normally used to hunt down insurgents abroad as the whole arsenal of the war on terror is re-focused domestically.

“The Federation Aviation Administration said up to 30,000 drones could be in airspace shared with airliners carrying passengers,” reports UPI.

Once signed by president Obama, the FAA Reauthorization Act allows for the FAA to permit the use of drones and develop regulations for testing and licensing by 2015.

Some types of surveillance drones are already being used by police departments across the country, including in Montgomery County, Texas, where the Department of Homeland Security recently gave the go-ahead for law enforcement in the United States to deploy the ShadowHawk mini drone drone helicopter that has the ability to taze suspects from above as well as carrying 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers.

US law enforcement bodies are already using drone technology to spy on Americans. In December, a Predator B drone was called in to conduct surveillance over a family farm in North Dakota as part of a SWAT raid on the Brossart family, who were suspects in the egregious crime of stealing six missing cows. Local police in this one area have already used the drone on two dozen occasions since June last year.

The DHS also recently announced a plan to spend up to $50 million dollars on a spy system that has been used to hunt insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of “emergency and non-emergency incidents” within the United States.

While preparing the use of surveillance drones against Americans, the U.S. government is also keen to characterize a myriad of behaviors and activities, no matter how normal or mundane, as potential indicators of terrorism, encouraging citizens to spy on each other in a chilling throwback to how people were hired as informants under the East German Stasi.

As part of its Communities Against Terrorism program, the FBI is encouraging business owners from across the spectrum to spy on their customers.

Lists of examples of “suspicious behavior” being sent out to everything from Internet Cafes to tattoo parlors define things like paying for a cup of coffee with cash, buying food in bulk, and showing an interest in online privacy as evidence of potential terrorist activity.

The DHS has also released numerous PSAs that depict routine activities as potential signs of terrorism, including using a video camera, talking to police officers, wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application.

The federal agency attracted much derision last week when it announced that Super Bowl vendors, including hot dog sellers, had been trained to spot terrorists under the First Observer program.

Even more chilling, the feds have also begun to characterize perfectly legitimate political and economic beliefs as those held by terrorists, effectively denouncing them as thought crimes.

As Reuters reported on Monday, authorities are now treating those who “believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard” as extremists who are a potential violent threat to law enforcement. The DHS has also previously characterized returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, gold investors, and people who display political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists.

All this serves to underscore the fact that the American people have now been targeted as the number one terror threat in the eyes of the authorities. The state has declared war on U.S. citizens. Not only will they be subject to surveillance and intimidation campaigns, but with the recent passage of the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, the government has afforded itself the power to hold Americans without trial.

Source: Infowars

Related posts:

1. Police State 10-26-11
2. 9 Ways The Hijacked Federal Government Is Waging War Against The American People
3. Congress Welcomes Drones Into American Skies ASAP

(FknNewz) – February 8th, 2012 –

No related posts.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/us-military-beginning-review-of-syri…

http://rt.com/usa/news/iran-us-military-sajjadi-829/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/obama-orders-central-bank-iran-sa…

http://patriotupdate.com/18148/congress-calls-for-accelerated-use-of-drones-i…

Related posts:

1. Point of No Return – Charlie McGrath
2. Hard Economic Tyranny is Here… – Charlie McGrath
3. Chaos – Charlie McGrath

Also on CounterSpin today, New research heralds the end of the segregated century, says census data show US cities most integrated they’ve been since 1910. Media took the news, from the conservative Manhattan Institute, with a grain of salt, but they took it. So how true is it, really? We’ll hear from Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute and the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

Source: Fair

Related posts:

1. CounterSpin: Paul Mutter on Syria, Richard Martinez on Arizona ethnic studies
2. CounterSpin: John Feffer on Africa & ‘counter-terrorism,’ Heidi Garrett-Peltier on job creation
3. Best of CounterSpin 2011

Watch live video from michaelrivero on Justin.tv

Related posts:

1. What Really Happened with Michael Rivero – February 6th, 2012
2. What Really Happened with Michael Rivero – February 1-2nd, 2012
3. What Really Happened with Michael Rivero – January 5th, 2012

Related posts:

1. The Cancer in Occupy – Chris Hedges
2. Why I’m Suing Barack Obama – Chris Hedges
3. Why I’m Suing Barack Obama – Chris Hedges

Thank you to all participants for having a good time and not punching Luke in the face. Our main objective was to raise awareness about the existence of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which as we documented, many Americans do not know about.

Related posts:

1. Clint Eastwood Super Bowl Ad: It’s Half Time in America
2. Illuminati Super Bowl Half Time Show Symbolism Explained – Madonna, Nicki Minaj, M.I.A
3. We Are Change Talks with Michael Franti About the Fed at OWS New York

Part 2 of 2

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul vs the moron arguments – Ryan Dawson
2. Ron Paul Vs …Tea-o-cons or Obama – Ryan Dawson
3. Today’s News only truthful – Ryan Dawson

No related posts.

(BusinessInsider) – What if you were promoting an industry that had the potential to kill and injure enormous numbers of people as well as contaminate large areas of land for tens of thousands of years? What if this industry created vast stockpiles of deadly waste but nevertheless required massive amounts of public funding to keep it going? My guess is that you might want to hide that information.

From the heyday of the environmental movement in the late 1960s through the late 1970s, many people were openly skeptical about the destructive potential of the nuclear power industry. After the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in central Pennsylvania in March 1979 and the explosion of Chernobyl’s unit four reactor in the Ukraine in April 1986, few would have predicted that nuclear power could ever shake off its global pariah status.

Yet, thanks to diligent lobbying efforts, strong government support, and a full public-relations blitz over the past decade, the once-reviled nuclear industry succeeded in recasting itself in the public mind as an essential, affordable, clean (low carbon emission), and safe energy option in a warming world. In fact, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has just cleared the way for granting the first two licenses for any new reactors in more than 30 years. The new reactors will be built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, southeast of Augusta.

Even so, the ongoing crisis following meltdowns in three of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex in Japan nearly a year ago has shined an unwanted spotlight on the dark side of nuclear power, once again raising questions about the reliability and safety of atomic reactors.

In response, the nuclear industry and its supporters have employed sophisticated press manipulation to move the public conversation away from these thorny issues. One example is PBS’s recent Frontline documentary, Nuclear Aftershocks, which examines the viability of nuclear power in a post-Fukushima world.

What follows is a detailed critique of many of the issues raised in the program, which initially aired January 17, 2012.

***

In the program, NASA’s celebrated chief climate scientist, James Hansen—who has a penchant for getting arrested protesting the extraction and burning of the dirtiest fossil fuels—says that the Fukushima accident was “really extremely bad timing.” Though it was at the end of a statement about the harm of continuing to burn fossil fuels, Hansen’s comment begs the question: Is there ever a good time or place for a nuclear catastrophe?

Under the cloud of what some experts believe is already worse than Chernobyl, the nuclear industry and its supporters are scrambling to put as good a face on the Fukushima Daiichi disaster as possible.

Fukushima’s triple meltdowns, which are greatly complicating and prolonging the cleanup of the estimated 20 million metric tons of debris from the 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami last March, present a steep public relations challenge.

The strategy seems to be: 1) to acknowledge the undeniable—the blown-up reactor buildings that look like they were bombed in a war, the massive release of radionuclides into the environment, the fact that tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes and livelihoods, and that some areas may not be habitable for generations, if ever. But then, 2) after coming clean about those harsh truths, downplay or dismiss the harm of the ongoing radiation contamination, invoking (irrational) “fear” as the much greater danger. And 3) frame discussion of the need for nuclear power in the even scarier context of global warming-induced catastrophic climate change (this despite the irony that the reality of global warming is still rejected by fossil fuel industry partisans and growing numbers of the public who have been swayed by the industry’s media-amplified misinformation). Whether consciously or not, Frontline’s Nuclear Aftershocks adheres to this PR strategy.

The program begins with a harrowing view of nuclear power at its most destructive. Viewers see close-ups of the three destroyed Fukushima Daiichi reactors with the tops of their buildings blown off amidst the wreckage around the plant. Real time video captured on cell phones shows the precipitating earthquake, and there is film of the ensuing tsunami that engulfed the plant.

Frontline also captures the dystopian scene of an utterly destroyed landscape littered with seemingly unending tracts of twisted and broken buildings, infrastructure, and the various trappings of modern Japanese life—much of it now radioactive detritus. A member of the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission who toured the plant six weeks after the beginning of the disaster sums it up with this simple comment: “This scenery is beyond my imagination.”

Frontline clearly explains how, without electricity to run the valves and pumps that push water through the reactors’ cooling systems, the intensely radioactive and thermally hot fuel in three of the six General Electric Mark 1 boiling water reactors (BWRs) then in operation quickly began to melt. (Loss of all electricity is one of the most dangerous situations for a nuclear reactor, and is known as a station blackout.) This in turn led to a build-up of hydrogen, which is highly combustible, in the reactor buildings where any small spark could—and did—trigger explosions.

“It was an unprecedented multiple meltdown disaster,” Frontline correspondent Miles O’Brien reports. “For the first time since the Chernobyl accident in 1986, large quantities of dangerous radioactive materials—about one-tenth of the Chernobyl release—spewed into the atmosphere from a stricken nuclear power plant.”

As bad as that was, O’Brien says the problems for plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco,) were only just beginning. That’s because Tepco had to try to keep the reactors cooled with enough water in order to prevent the absolute worst, what is popularly but misleadingly referred to as “The China Syndrome.”

According to nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, a China Syndrome accident is a three-stage progression. In stage one, all of the fuel inside a reactor melts and turns into a blob at the bottom of the reactor core (the “meltdown”). In stage two, the molten radioactive blob eats through the nuclear reactor vessel (“a melt-through”), which in the case of GE Mark 1 BWRs is an eight-inch steel encasement. Housing the reactor vessel is the containment structure, three feet of concrete lined with two inches of steel. If the melted nuclear fuel were to bore through that and hit the natural water table below the plant, it would result in a massive steam explosion that would send most of the reactor’s deadly contents into the air, where they would disperse far and wide.

Although CUNY physics professor Michio Kaku said on ABC’s Nightline, that Tepco’s efforts were “like a squirt gun trying to put out a forest fire,” the company was able to get enough water in to keep the fuel cool enough to prevent the absolute worst case.

Gundersen says that was the good news.

The bad news is that the water that has come into direct contact with the melted fuel in the three destroyed reactors (including water that is still covering them) is leaking out the side through cracks in the containment structures, filling other buildings at the plant, and seeping down into the groundwater below and around the plant and directly into the Pacific Ocean. Frontline acknowledges the problem, pointing out that because of the high levels of radiation, it will be “a long time” before the site is decontaminated enough for anyone to be able to get inside the reactor to see exactly where the cracks are and to fix them.

As significant a problem as this ongoing contamination is, the biggest discharges of radioactivity into the Pacific—considered the largest ever release of radioactive material into the sea—occurred within the first seven weeks of the accident. At its peak concentration, cesium-137 levels from Fukushima were 50 million times greater than levels measured before the accident, according to research by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution chemist, Ken Buesseler and two Japanese colleagues.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much radioactivity contaminated the Pacific or what the full impact on the marine food chain will be. A preliminary estimate by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency reported in the Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun in October said that more than 15 quadrillion becquerels of radioactivity poured into the ocean just from the Fukushima Unit 1 reactor between March 21st and April 30th last year. (One quadrillion equals 1,000 trillion.)

A report in January in the Montreal Gazette noted that Japanese testing for radioactive cesium revealed contamination in sixteen of 22 species of fish exported to Canada. Radioactive cesium was found in 73 percent of the mackerel tested, 91 percent of the halibut, 92 percent of the sardines, 93 percent of the tuna and eel, 94 percent of the cod and anchovies, and 100 percent of the carp, seaweed, shark, and monkfish. These tests were conducted in November and indicate that the radioactivity is spreading, because tuna, for example, is caught at least 900 kilometers (560 miles) off shore.

Real Health Concerns or Just Fear?

In summing up the disaster, Frontline’s O’Brien says: “The earthquake and tsunami had stripped whole towns from their foundations, killing an estimated 18,000 people. Life is forever changed here.”

But then he shifts from documenting the undeniable devastation to speculating on how big a problem remains: “[T]he big concern remains the radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear explosions. People here are fearful about how much radiation there is, how far it has spread, and the possible health effects.”

Japanese citizens have decried their government’s decision to allow radiation exposures of up to 20 millisieverts a year before ordering an evacuation. O’Brien equates this level with “two or three abdominal CAT scans in the same period” but nevertheless characterizes it as “conservative.” What follows is his exchange with Dr. Gen Suzuki, a radiation specialist with the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission.

MILES O’BRIEN: [on camera] So at 20 millisieverts over the course of a long period of time, what is the increased cancer risk?
GEN SUZUKI, Radiation specialist, Nuclear Safety Comm.: Yeah, it’s 0.2— 0.2 percent increase in lifetime.

MILES O’BRIEN: [on camera] 0.2 percent over the course of a lifetime?

GEN SUZUKI: Yeah.

MILES O’BRIEN: So your normal risk of cancer in Japan is?

GEN SUZUKI: Is 30 percent.

MILES O’BRIEN: So what is the increased cancer rate?

GEN SUZUKI: 30.2 percent, so the increment is quite small.

MILES O’BRIEN: And yet the fear is quite high.

GEN SUZUKI: Yes, that’s true.

MILES O’BRIEN: [voice-over] People are even concerned here, in Fukushima City, outside the evacuation zone, where radiation contamination is officially below any danger level.

Missing from the above exchange is both established and emerging radiation biology science, as well as the fact that radiation exposure is linked to numerous other health problems from immune system damage, heart problems and gastro-intestinal ailments to birth defects, including Down’s syndrome.

Gundersen points out that, according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 2006 BEIR report (BEIR stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation), an annual exposure of 20 millisieverts will cause cancer in one of every 500 people. Since this is an annual exposure rate, the risk multiplies with each year of exposure. So, for example, five years of exposure to 20 millisieverts will result in an additional cancer in one in 100 people.

Gundersen notes that the risk is not the same for all population groups. According to Table 12-D in BEIR VII Phase 2, the younger the person exposed, the greater the risk of cancer.

Girls are nearly twice as vulnerable as boys of the same age, while an infant girl is seven times and a five-year-old girl five times more likely to get radiation-induced cancer than a 30-year-old male. Using BEIR’s risk data, one in 100 girls will develop cancer for every year that they are exposed to 20 millisieverts. If they are exposed for five years, the rate increases to one in twenty.

New radiobiology science shows even more cause for concern. Numerous studies of nuclear workers over the last six years—including one authored by 51 radiation scientists that looked at more than 400,000 nuclear workers in 15 countries—found higher incidences of cancer at significantly lower exposure rates than what Japan is allowing.

This finding is important because it challenges the application of the highly questionable data from the Japanese atom bomb survivors that authorities use to set radiation exposure limits.

Nuclear reactors emit low doses of radionuclides into the air as part of their normal operation. Because workers are generally exposed to repeated low doses over time, compared to an initial very high dose from a nuclear bomb, this data is a much more accurate predictor of radiation-induced cancer in people in fallout zones, or downwind of nuclear reactors, than records of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.

Despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences accepts that there is no safe dose of radiation, nuclear proponents have long insisted that low doses provided very little, if any, risk from cancer. (Some even say it’s beneficial.)

But new evidence shows otherwise. Chromosomal translocations (or aberrations), a kind of genetic injury that occurs when DNA molecules damaged by genotoxic chemicals or radiation don’t properly repair themselves, are well documented in cases of medium to high radiation exposure. Chromosomal translocations are also known to increase the risk of many forms of cancer.

Until recently, it wasn’t clear whether low-dose exposures caused chromosomal translocations. A 2010 study looking at the impact of medical X rays on chromosomes not only found that this chromosomal damage occurs with low dose radiation exposure, but that there were more chromosomal translocations per unit of radiation below 20 millisieverts (the Japanese limit) and—surprisingly—“orders of magnitude” more of this kind of damage at exposures below 10 millisieverts.

Frontline’s complacent assessment of the “small increment” of increased cancer risk to Japanese citizens from the ongoing Fukushima fallout contrasts sharply with an assessment by the Canadian Medical Association Journal. That peer-reviewed journal quotes health experts who say the levels of radiation the Japanese government has set before requiring evacuation, combined with a “culture of cover-up” and insufficient cleanup, is exposing Japanese citizens to “unconscionable” levels of radiation.

CMAJ notes that instead of expanding the evacuation zone around the plant to 50 miles, as international authorities have urged, the Japanese government has chosen to “define the problem out of existence” by raising the allowable level of exposure to one that is twenty times higher than the international standard of one millisievert per year.

This “arbitrary increase” in the maximum permissible dose of radiation is an “unconscionable” failure of government, contends [chair of the Medical Association for Prevention of Nuclear War, Tilman] Ruff. “Subject a class of 30 children to 20 millisieverts of radiation for five years and you’re talking an increased risk of cancer to the order of about 1 in 30, which is completely unacceptable. I’m not aware of any other government in recent decades that’s been willing to accept such a high level of radiation-related risk for its population.”

Frontline’s take epitomizes a longstanding pattern of denying radiation health effects, even in the most dire nuclear disasters (though Fukushima is arguably the most dire to date) and blaming it on the victims’ personal habits or their levels of stress from fear of radiation. This was done to the victims of the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in central Pennsylvania, to Chernobyl victims, and it is happening again with Fukushima.

Nuclear TINA

But what about alternatives? Are there any, or does Margaret Thatcher’s famous slogan regarding capitalist globalization, “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) apply?

Frontline answers this question by going to Germany, where correspondent O’Brien probes the German psyche in an attempt to learn why nuclear power elicits such a strong negative reaction there.

He questions several German citizens, including an adorable little boy, on why they are so afraid of nuclear power. He speaks with the head of the German government committee tasked with considering how to phase out nuclear power, as well as a German energy economist, who says the decision is not likely to change.

And he expresses astonishment that an industrial nation the scale of Germany has decided to shut down all seventeen of its reactors, which account for 23 percent of its electricity generation, within a decade.

Standing in a field that he identifies as the world’s largest solar farm with solar panels as far as the eye can see, O’Brien says Germans support this “seemingly rash decision” because they have faith that there is an alternative.

He then informs viewers that over the past 20 years, Germany has “invested heavily in renewables, with tax subsidies for wind turbines and solar energy,” adding, “It’s kind of surprising to see [the world’s largest solar farm] in a place like this with such precious little sunshine.”

Though he says there is plenty of wind, he characterizes Germany’s target of producing 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050 as a “bold bet” whose success will depend on technological breakthroughs to store enough wind or other renewable energy (presumably through improved battery technology) so that it can provide a steady source of power. He notes that the steady production of power is something “nuclear energy does very well.”

Atomiconomics

Any honest discussion of nuclear power—especially when raising the issue of tax subsidies and other government support for renewable sources like wind and solar—must include information on the many hundreds of billions of dollars of public support thrown its way. Despite the highly publicized recent bankruptcy of Solyndra, this support dwarfs what has been given to renewables.

In the executive summary to his February 2011 report on nuclear subsidies, energy economist Doug Koplow says the “long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies and excessive charges to utility ratepayers…not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, [they] have also supported their operation for decades.”

Every part of the nuclear fuel chain—mining, milling and enriching the uranium fuel; costs associated with the construction, running, and shutting down and cleaning up of reactors; the waste; and even the lion’s share of the liability in the case of an accident—has been subsidized to one degree or another.

Koplow says that because the value of these subsidies often exceeded the value of the power produced, “buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.”

One of the most important gifts to the nuclear industry is the pass on financial responsibility for a serious accident. This was legislated during the Cold War in the Price-Anderson Act of 1957. In fact, without this protection, it’s highly unlikely the commercial nuclear power industry could or would exist.

In a recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists arguing for the end of Price-Anderson, nuclear industry economic analyst Mark Cooper points out that 50 years ago General Electric and Westinghouse, the two largest reactor manufacturers, said they wouldn’t build reactors without it.

Although Price-Anderson was initially rationalized (along with many of the other subsidies) as necessary protection to help get the fledgling industry going, Congress has repeatedly renewed it over the years.

Today, reactor owners have to carry a small amount of private insurance, and Price-Anderson creates an industry-wide pool currently valued at around $12 billion. Accounting for inflation, Cooper puts the estimated costs of Chernobyl in excess of $600 billion. In Japan, the Fukushima accident is projected to cost up to $250 billion (though it could well be more). Here in the U.S., Cooper says, a serious accident at, say, Indian Point, just 35 miles north of Manhattan, could cost as much as $1.5 trillion.

If such an accident were to happen in the U.S., taxpayers would be left with the tab for the difference.

But even with all of the subsidies, the cost of building a new reactor—pegged at between $6 billion and $12 billion apiece—is still so expensive that reactors only get built with substantial government help.

To jumpstart a new round of nuclear construction, the Obama administration is trying to offer $54.5 billion in loan guarantees (only $18.5 billion is actually authorized by Congress). This means that if a project is delayed or cancelled for some reason—including for concerns over safety—taxpayers pick up the tab for that delay or cancellation.

Although the U.S. Department of Energy is expected to approve $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for the two new reactors at the Vogtle plant in Georgia any day now, significant concerns remain over the lack of transparency regarding the federal loan guarantees.

Besides the massive federal subsidies, the nuclear industry has also succeeded in getting three states so far, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, to pass legislation mandating “advanced cost recovery.” This allows nuclear utilities to collect the cost of building a reactor from their customers before it is built.

Advanced cost recovery programs have existed in the past, but Morgan Pinnell, Safe Energy Program coordinator at Physicians for Social Responsibility, says the new ones the nuclear industry is pushing are particularly irresponsible from a public-interest point of view.

For example, in December 2011, a resolution was offered to the St. Petersburg City Council to repeal the 2006 legislation, F.S. 366.93, citing, among other things, that the two reactors that Progress Energy proposed for Levy County would raise Progress Energy customers’ bills more than $60 a month. Even if the reactors are never built, it’s not clear whether the utility would have to pay the money back.

Are Nukes Green?

Back in the 1980s, when nuclear power was widely considered a pariah, growing concern about global warming in government circles provided an opportunity for the beleaguered industry. Since it was recognized that nuclear power plants, unlike coal plants, did not produce carbon emissions when generating electricity, the UN International Atomic Energy Agency and some policymakers began to promote nuclear energy as a necessary power source in a warming world.

By the early nineties, the nuclear industry began casting itself as the clean, green “fresh air” energy source, a description that goes unchallenged in today’s mainstream media. Towing this line, Frontline’s Nuclear Aftershocks argues that nuclear power is needed to combat climate change.

It bears asking how true, or even realistic, this claim is. In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, many climate scientists have been saying for at least the better part of a decade that by 2050 humanity needs to reduce global carbon emissions 80 percent from what was emitted in 2000.

An MIT task force report, The Future of Nuclear Power, written ostensibly to figure out how to do that, calls for 1,000 to 1,500 thousand-megawatts electric (MWe) capacity reactors to be up and running by 2050 to increase the share of nuclear-generated electricity from 20 percent to 30 percent in the U.S. and 17 percent to 20 percent globally. (Currently there are 435 reactors operating in the world and 104 at 60 different locations in the U.S.)

The first page of the executive summary of the report says that such a deployment would “avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions from coal plants, about 25 percent of the increment in a business-as-usual scenario.”

But displacement of 25 percent of the expected growth in carbon emissions does not square with the need to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050. That aside, the 2009 update of the report notes that progress on building new reactors has been slow, both globally and in the U.S.

The 2003 report reveals another hitch in this plan: in order to deal with the nuclear waste from that many new reactors, an underground repository the size of the highly controversial and cancelled Yucca Mountain would have to be built somewhere in the world every four years. It bears noting that we are in the sixth decade since commercial nuclear power generation began and not one permanent repository has been completed anywhere in the world.

Some people are calling for fuel reprocessing, which takes spent nuclear fuel and uses a chemical process to extract plutonium and uranium to make more nuclear fuel. Aside from the fact that reprocessing wouldn’t actually reduce the volume of spent nuclear fuel very much, it’s dangerous, expensive, and irresponsibly polluting (the West Valley reprocessing plant in Western New York, which ran for six years between 1966 and 1972, is still a huge toxic mess).

Reprocessing also creates lots of weapons-grade plutonium that can be made into atomic bombs, a feature that one might question in our increasingly tense and politically unstable world.

Other nuclear enthusiasts see a magic bullet in thorium reactors, but according to a 2009 Department of Energy study, “the choice between uranium-based fuel and thorium-based fuels is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in addressing the nuclear power issues.”

One specific design, the “liquid fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”) has attained cult status as a “new, green nuke” that its promoters say will produce a virtually endless supply of electricity that is “too cheap to meter” in “meltdown proof” reactors, creating miniscule quantities of much shorter-lived waste that is impossible to refashion into nuclear bombs.

But critics say these claims are fiction. Thorium technology is significantly more expensive than the already exorbitant uranium-fueled reactors, so there are serious doubts it could ever be commercially viable without much higher subsidies than the nuclear industry already receives.

There are also serious safety concerns with reactors that run on liquid fuel comprised of hot, molten salt, as the LFTR design does.

Ed Lyman, senior scientist in the Global Security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says a small prototype of the LFTR that operated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s remains “one of the most technically challenging cleanup problems that Oak Ridge faces.”

Nukes in a Warming World

The need for nuclear power has been sold to the public as a way to prevent the existential threat of catastrophic climate change. But that argument can be turned the other way. In a world of increasingly extreme weather events, we need to question the wisdom of having more potential sources of widespread, deadly radiological contamination that could be overwhelmed by some Fukushima-style natural disaster.

In a presentation to the San Clemente City Council, home of the troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant, which is right on the Pacific Ocean halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego, nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen points out that U.S. nuclear plants are designed to meet whatever industry designers think Mother Nature is expected to throw at them. This requirement—their “design basis”—is found in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, No. 2.

Different locations have different risks, so the requirements for plants vary. For example, nuclear plants in California are designed to be able to withstand stronger earthquakes than, say, the reactor in Vermont. Likewise, plants built in Florida are designed to handle more severe hurricanes than plants in upstate New York.

The requirements are set for a one-in-a-thousand year event. Considering that four events exceeded the design basis of nuclear reactors in the past year—the 9.0 Tōhoku earthquake in Japan, the tsunami that followed, the flooding of the Missouri River around the Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska, and the 5.8 earthquake centered near the North Anna plant in Virginia (two of which resulted in disaster)—how confident can we be that either nuclear operators or the NRC have anticipated the worst nature can throw at us?

Using the thousand-year scenario, Gundersen points out that for any one reactor running for 60 years, there’s a 6 percent chance that it will see an event as bad as or worse than what it was designed for. Multiplying that 6 percent by the 60 nuclear plant locations bumps it up to a 360 percent chance.

“In other words,” Gundersen says, “it’s a near certainty that some plant in the U.S. over its lifetime will experience an event worse than designers had anticipated. As a matter of fact, it’s more like three or four plants…”

As the impacts from global warming worsen, the risks will undoubtedly increase.

Consider that 2011 broke all records for billion-dollar weather disasters in the U.S. AP science writer Seth Borenstein recently described it this way: “With an almost biblical onslaught of twisters, floods, snow, drought, heat and wildfire, the U.S. in 2011 has seen more weather catastrophes that caused at least $1 billion in damage than it did in all of the 1980s, even after the dollar figures from back then are adjusted for inflation.”

But it wasn’t just the U.S.: 2011 also saw record-breaking extremes all over the world. In his 1997 book The Heat is On, which chronicled the fossil fuel lobby’s remarkably successful campaign to deceive the public and derail any action to address global climate destabilization, Ross Gelbspan catalogues a hefty list of recent meteorological calamities, including floods, torrential rains and massive mudslides, colossal snowstorms, ripping windstorms, tornadoes, withering heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires here and here.

With or without nuclear power, the escalation of global warming isn’t likely to slow any time soon. Though a recent discovery of the effectiveness of polyethylemimine at capturing CO2 sounds promising (researchers say it sequesters carbon at large industrial sources, small individual sources like car exhausts, and can even pull it directly from the air), it remains to be seen how quickly scrubbers from this material can be manufactured and deployed and how well they will actually work.

In any case, fossil fuel companies are doubling down on their pursuit of  “unconventional” fossil fuels like natural gas from shale, coalbed methane, and tight gas sands (fracking), and oil from deepwater wells and tar sands—all in all, the dirtiest (in terms of greenhouse gas and other pollution), riskiest, and most energy-intensive sources.

And in the absence of policies to reduce greenhouse gases, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s International Energy Outlook 2011 projects global coal use to rise 50 percent between 2008 and 2035 from 139 quadrillion Btu to 209 quadrillion Btu.

Despite the increasing urgency to tackle global warming, the most recent global climate talks in Durban failed to reach agreement on extending the Kyoto Protocol, which laid out the world’s only legally binding (but subsequently ignored) carbon emissions reductions.

It’s time to reexamine a lot of the assumptions that lurk beneath the nuclear-power-is-necessary-to-deal-with-climate-change narrative. There was no mention in Frontline’s Nuclear Aftershocks program or any other mainstream media that I have seen about the big elephant in the room: the voracious energy-gobbling economy—which creates the need for enormous, centralized power sources—that’s making the planet (and us) sick.

When junk-food addicted smokers get diabetes, cancer, heart disease, or any number of other maladies considered “lifestyle diseases,” the admonishment that they need to change their lifestyle is typically accepted without question.

We would do well to start applying that same logic to the way our societies use energy and the kind of economy such energy use powers, rather than blindly accept the Hobson’s choice of either turning the Earth into Venus because of global warming or poisoning large swaths of it with radioactivity.

Source: Business Insider

Related posts:

1. Anti-nuclear protestors sit tight at Japanese ministry
2. Japan’s nuclear agency hides radiation results
3. Accident at Second Japanese Nuclear Complex: The Nuclear Accident You Never Heard About

(NaturalNews) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently snagged a hefty $500 million forfeiture, one of the largest in history, from search engine giant Google for running advertisements on its AdWords service for Canadian pharmacies. The agency claims these ads, which were also viewable by Americans, facilitated the illegal shipment of prescription drugs into the U.S. in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as well as the Controlled Substances Act.

A trophy in the FDA’s trophy case of strong-armed regulatory enforcement actions, the $500 million forfeiture demonstrates the agency’s intolerance for the sale of any drug that is not officially FDA-approved. But what it also embodies is a whole new level of government reach into private business practices, which in this case did not necessarily constitute a violation of the law on Google’s part.

Since Google did not directly introduce or deliver Canadian drugs to U.S. customers, the company is technically not in violation of U.S. law. But according to the Justice Department, Google acted as an accomplice to the crime by “enhancing the ability of Canadian pharmacies to reach American consumers,” according to The New York Times (http://dealbook.nytimes.com).

But does allowing various advertising as part of its service constitute engaging in criminal behavior? This is a blurry zone in federal law that was recently addressed in the debates about SOPA and PIPA as well, concerning whether or not allowing links to diverse content that could be in violation of the law, rather than directly censoring them, is illegal.

In this case, Google chose to enter a non-prosecution agreement with the government, which is basically a formal way of saying that Google essentially paid off the federal government not to prosecute the company. Such an agreement can go both ways — on the one hand, the federal government gains protection against a countersuit for its potential overreach into Google’s activities, while at the same time Google gains protection from creating for itself a criminal record.

Meanwhile, the only things that were technically accomplished in the case is that Google had to sacrifice a small percentage of its profits, and the FDA became $500 million richer. The public, on the other hand, gained nothing.

Since there was no actual legal case or ruling, Google is now technically free to continue allowing Canadian pharmacy advertising as it was never determined whether or not this practice is considered legal. So when you really think about it, the FDA just wanted a piece of the pie that is Google’s profits, and really could not care less about consumer safety.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm276002.htm

http://dealbook.nytimes.com

http://www.dailytech.com

Source: Natural News

Related posts:

1. Google chairman says online piracy bill would ‘criminalize’ the Internet
2. CVS pharmacy promotes flu shot propaganda using life-sized grim reapers – Mike Adams
3. Fluoridated water a boost to medical industry profits

Related posts:

1. Video Leaked Showing Rand Paul’s Run In With TSA
2. Video: Ron Paul Blasts “Bureaucratic Monster” TSA
3. The TSA’s “Wiener Police”: Alex Jones Sunday Edition

(PaulWatson) – The Department of Homeland Security plans to spend up to $50 million dollars on a spy system that has been used to hunt insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of “emergency and non-emergency incidents” within the United States.

The DHS is seeking four contractors to provide “aerial remote sensing” services, using LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) technology fitted to drones or manned aircraft that will provide surveillance capability for “homeland security missions,” as well as “management of emergency incidents by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regional offices, joint field offices and by state and local government.”

“DHS believes these airborne images are essential for homeland defense missions, such as planning for National Special Security Events (Super Bowls or a national political conventions come to mind); enhancing border, port and airport security; as well as performing critical infrastructure inventories and assessments,” reports Government Security News, adding that the technology will be used for “emergency and non-emergency incidents nationwide.”

The DHS expects successful contractors to “ensure imagery can be acquired, processed and delivered in 48 hours or less and the ability to support simultaneous missions in multiple geographic locations.”

LIDAR spy technology, which uses ultraviolet, visible, or near infrared light to track objects or people from the sky, has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan to track insurgents. The US military has praised the technology for its proficiency in providing “battlefield surveillance” and being able to easily locate enemy combatants due to it being “especially useful at seeing through foliage.” LIDAR can be deployed using both manned and unmanned aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force “has already deployed an unknown number of LIDAR aircraft to map all of Afghanistan,” reports MSNBC, with the 3-D laser mapping technology also being adapted to work aboard U.S. Special Forces helicopters such as the Blackhawk or Chinook to help hunt insurgents.

According to Raytheon, one of the companies that develops LIDAR, the technology is adept at tracking “people in crowded environments for safety and security,” because unlike traditional surveillance methods, LIDAR is honed to measure characteristics of individuals and keep them tracked within a “grid cell” so they cannot evade detection.

Under the terms of the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, the whole of America has been defined as a battlefield, with the government reserving the power to have “belligerents,” including American citizens, arrested and detained indefinitely without trial.

US law enforcement bodies are already using drone technology to spy on Americans. In December, a Predator B drone was called in to conduct surveillance over a family farm in North Dakota as part of a SWAT raid on the Brossart family, who were suspects in the egregious crime of stealing six missing cows. Local police in this one area have already used the drone on two dozen occasions since June last year.

Last summer, the Department of Homeland Security gave the green light for police departments in the United States to deploy the ShadowHawk mini drone drone helicopter that has the ability to taze suspects from above as well as carrying 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers. The drone, also used against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, is already being used by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office in Texas.

The DHS has also provided drone surveillance for foreign countries, aiding Jamaican authorities in a botched drug raid that led to the massacre of 73 civilians last year.

A bill passed in by Congress this week paves the way for the use of surveillance drones in US skies on a widespread basis. The FAA predicts that by 2020 there could be up to 30,000 drones in operation nationwide.

Source: Infowars

Related posts:

1. Congress Welcomes Drones Into American Skies ASAP
2. Are Drones Watching You? UAF Surveillance for “Non-Military Purposes”
3. Drones Officially Take Flight For Domestic Law Enforcement

(CanadaFreePress) – Are you baffled by the wording, timing and bipartisan support of recent legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Expatriation Act, SOPA, PIPA and ACTA? Are you concerned over the enhancement of domestic security measures that appear to be targeting and incrementally ripping away the rights of law abiding American citizens? Are you concerned about the evolving DHS “domestic extremist” definitions? Have you wondered about the true origins of the financial crises and what appears to be a quickening of events in all sectors of our lives? How about the origins of the current “Occupy Movement?” When and why everything started? Who and what is to blame? If so, you’re not alone.

We conducted an extensive investigation of the occupy movement to identify the people involved, as well as the money and influence behind it. What we found is that nothing related to the “Occupy Movement” is what it appears. In fact, nothing from Arab Spring, to DHS policy and beyond is what it appears to be. We found unsettling relationships between people, elected and appointed officials, groups, and organizations that extend back many years.

Investigative integrity demands a deliberate blindness to political party affiliations, but not ignorance to political associations. Consequently, our results will most assuredly anger many on both sides of the political aisle. If it does, we’ll know that we’ve done our job. Our findings might also brand us as conspiracy theorists too. If so, we’ll know that we’ve done our job well. Our findings are bound to make some people nervous. We hope they do, as we will then know that we’ve put our investigative skills and experience to good use.

Based on our investigative findings, we have arrived at a very startling and irrefutable conclusion. We are witnessing the orchestrated destruction of America. Soon, in the streets of the U.S., we will see some of the most violent events in modern history take place, likely to result in the implementation of public curfews, restrictions on travel, and possibly even Martial Law. That appears to be the plan. It is not a new plan, but one that has been in the works since the early twentieth century. We have created an in-depth report that reveals the individuals and groups behind these events, their motives, tactics and methods. The following is a summary of that report and our investigative findings.

“Occupy” is a sophisticated operation

To call the Occupy Movement a “movement” is to do it an injustice. We have found that it is an operation launched by the very same people who should be the actual targets of the protesters. Instead, it is the one percent global elite who are organizing, directing, and funding the operation behind the scenes. Their purpose is to create chaos and deflect the blame away from the actual financial terrorists to targets of lesser importance.

It is exactly this chaos that served as justification of the recent legislation redefining domestic extremists. The financial looting of America and other sovereign nations by the big banks, politicians and crony capitalists is beginning to unravel. When the curtain is pulled back and the true perpetrators are exposed, there will be rampant chaos in the streets of America. The politicians, bankers, Federal Reserve, and other individuals of prominence and perpetrators know this. Consequently, the U.S. government enacted legislation in anticipation of the public outrage.

Empathy as a tactic

Most of us can empathize with the 99 percent as we are the 99 percent to the extent that we are not among those societal elites with great wealth, power, influence and who are seemingly above the law who are responsible for the ills of our society.

It is not only easy to generate empathy from such a large pool of people, it is the primary tactic of this operation. After all, it is you, the readers, and us, the investigators who work increasingly longer hours just to keep up with expenses, trying to pay our bills on time while the elite exhibit unprecedented hubris and vile contempt for the masses. Sympathy for them? Hardly. Accordingly, it is easy to identify with the “99 percent” while setting aside other differences.

Definitions changed

In the case of the occupy operation, definitions of the opposing groups have been deliberately and maliciously changed by the media, social and political commentators, and the orchestrators of the operation. The “one percent” are not those who earn more than $506,000 per year as defined by The Wall Street Journal, but are a much more elite group of individuals. Therein lies the first layer of obfuscation intentionally created and constantly repeated by the covert powers behind the occupy operation.

Additionally, legitimate capitalism, which is the financial backbone of America and has been responsible for the success of our great nation – not its downfall, has been purposely demonized by its merger with crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is the incestuous bonding between business and government, the use of influence, inside information, and other illegal and immoral activity that enriches those in government and private individuals. It is this intentional merging of legitimate and crony capitalism that obfuscates the problem and provides a layer for protection for the crony capitalists themselves.

Perhaps one of the most important factors that must be fully understood is this: crony capitalism transcends political parties and creates some very interesting alliances. Accordingly, one must remove the blinders of political partisanship to understand that the Democrat-Republican paradigm has been successfully destroyed nearly beyond recognition – and perhaps to the point of no return. Unfortunately, too few are willing to do so, claiming that such assertions belong in the bin of historical conspiracy nonsense. Some are unwilling due to lack of investigation or understanding, while others refuse as they reap rewards of financial gain and positions of power.

History is key

Most trace the beginning of the American occupy operation to the September 2011 occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York City by individuals protesting economic inequality. Within a month, similar protests were taking place in nearly 600 communities in the U.S. and 95 cities worldwide.

Much like the inappropriately termed “Arab spring.” we were told by the media that these protests benefitted the oppressed, were largely spontaneous and without any leadership or organizational structure beyond the occasional tweet or mention in the social media. While right-wing talk show hosts, pundits and bloggers described occupy group members as human flea circuses in need of discipline and a good shower, the left presented them as courageous people taking a stand against social injustice created by a rigged economic system.¬†

Although there are elements of truth in each description, both sides are guilty of failing to break free of their political bias to provide their respective audiences the unadulterated truth about the occupy operation. As a result, unnecessary polarization among Americans is heightened by their words and writings, many who could relate to the injustices but had little sympathy for those who are denied justice. In some cases, the political pundits have become unwitting participants of the growing social divide, playing directly into the hands of the operation’s architects. In other cases, they are willful facilitators working with them.

All one has to do is to look at history to learn that “the 99 percent” was first referenced in 1947 within UNESCO (an acronym for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), an arm of the United Nations.¬† It was referenced by the mother of all globalist entities, the UN, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The importance of the slogan as used in the last century through the present cannot be underestimated. We must recognize that the distinction, as well as the general ideology behind it, originates from the same template used by Woodrow Wilson, Colonel Mandel House, FDR, the United Nations, activists of the 1960s through today.

The financial model that has exacerbated the economic train wreck of America can also be traced to the United Nation’s Monetary and Financial Conference (or Bretton Woods Conference) in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. John Maynard Keynes of England and Harry Dexter White of the United States, drafted a plan to stabilize the world economy. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was drafted and ultimately signed in 1947, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (a/k/a the World Bank) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were established.

Keynesian economics, which advocate a strong government role in private commerce and a favorite of globalists, is the current economic model in use by this administration. The path was also paved by such bipartisan financial initiatives as NAFTA, the SPP and the like.

Looking closer at those who were in positions of power and influence during pivotal points in history, and who had and have influence within our government during the passage of such legislation as NAFTA, the SPP, as well as the more draconian legislation such as the NDAA and others laws, both today and in history, we found direct ties to controversial organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the attendees of the Bildeberg Group. It is our professional opinion, based on extensive research, timelines and contacts, that these groups exist solely for the “one percent,” and the members set the agenda in the U.S. and globally. One might chuckle at the thought and call it nonsense, but the evidence proves otherwise.

When the operational layers are pulled back, we begin to see that the cries for changing the economic inequities that spawned previous and recent financial crises are actually being made under the umbrella of world governance.

1968: A look into our future

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Remember the riots of 1968? Our findings suggest that they will pale in comparison to what is on the immediate horizon.

The decade of the sixties saw the re-birth of Marxist-Communist groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), The Weathermen (or Revolutionary Youth Movement), the Progressive Labor Party, the Black Panther Party (BPP), the Communist Party USA (CP-USA), and the Nation of Islam (NOI).

A paperback book published by U.S. News & World Report in 1970 titled Communism and the New Left describes demonstrators embracing leaders such as Che Guevara, Castro, and Mao Tse-tung as the civil unrest of the late 1960s unfolded. The compilation of magazine reports link the 1968 protests, for example, with the resurgence of Marxist and Communist principles, and further link the leadership of the protesters with those ideologies.

Those specifically identified include individuals such as Bernadine Dohrn and Willaim Ayers, names that are very familiar today. Additionally, our research of specific history from the McCarthy era prove that the subversive groups have joined forces, are acting under the same leadership and have many of the same idols as today.

A half-century ago, the protestors and domestic terrorists were Dohrn, Ayers and their associates. They were the exuberant dupes at a time when globalism was still in its infancy.

Today, they are the mid-level leaders, along with some new associates, while working in positions of education and influence. Dohrn, for example, is an Associate Professor at the Northwestern University School of Law

The occupy operation and crony capitalism: the “perfect storm”

The Occupy Movement of today would not likely exist were it not for the rampant crony capitalism and various bipartisan legislation of the last century. Crony capitalism is an effective method of ushering in the “New World Order,” to the extent that it is this crony capitalism that facilitates the perceived need for financial globalization, or the centralization of money, power wealth to protect against such exploitation of the financial system. But it is critical to understand that this crisis was engineered from the foundation laid throughout recent history.

It is the perfect linking between the ideology of the globalists with a strong propensity for Keynesian economics, crony capitalism as facilitated in the U.S. by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, numerous lawmakers, with the tactics of Saul Alinsky, and the ultimate leadership from the executive branch to Progressive foot soldiers and actual domestic terrorists including, but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and others.

Much has taken place that set up the perfect storm of today. From Woodrow Wilson to Nixon, Bush, Clinton and Obama, from the establishment of the Federal Reserve to the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, the environment that exists today was made for the looting of America.

One must keep in mind that the stage was set by both Republicans and Democrats, former and current occupants of the House and Senate, along with each President over the last century that brought us to this point. At the top of the domestic pyramid are the very people who are members of the shadowy groups previously referenced. Individuals such as George Soros, for example, who has actively underwritten the destruction of the United States. The agenda is being accomplished through large banks and investment firms, including but not limited to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and others considered¬† “too big to fail.”

One has to be either intellectually impaired or disingenuous to not see the role Goldman Sachs alumni have played in the financial destruction of America. One glaring example is Jon Corzine of the MF Global crime scene. There are many others.

The Obama factor

One of the final stages of the globalist agenda, however, occurred with the selection of a virtual unknown community organizer from Chicago with a Marxist-Communist ideology and heritage to be the President of the U.S.  Barack Hussein Obama, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was also groomed for his current position by the powers of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Specifically, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller who served as his foreign policy advisors.

Few questioned who and what was behind the meteoric rise of a virtual unknown junior senator from Illinois. In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to select members of her district at the home of two previously referenced figures: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

The media was forgiving when it was disclosed that Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2001, accepted a $200 contribution from Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s.

The media stood firm that there was virtually no connection between Obama and Ayers, who also penned his memoir, “Fugitive Days” which was published in 2001. They also glossed over Ayers’ comments published in the September 11, 2001 edition of The New York Times when he said: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

The media and Obama “fact-checking” web sites downplayed the fact that Ayers and Obama served together for three years on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago based nonprofit. They also downplayed their joint appearance on two academic panels in 1997 and 2001. Like Dohrn, Ayers served as a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The media was first absent then forgiving to candidate Barack Hussein Obama when the flag of Che Guevara, an Argentine Marxist revolutionary was hanging in plain view on the wall of one of Obama’s campaign offices in early 2008. They were equally forgiving about the ornament that featured the portrait of Mao Tse-tung hanging on the 2009 White House Christmas Tree. It appeared that few understood the implications represented by that image alone, and the “change” that was intended for the U.S.

The corporate media and progressives in power and public influence deflected any due diligence background investigation of this unknown by frequently calling upon the race issue, which remains a very effective tactic today. Yet, the legitimate questions that have been asked yet never answered have absolutely nothing to do with race, but of concern for our country.

It would do us well to look twice at those who mock and ridicule anyone who questions the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama as President. The reader might find this difficult to believe after the onslaught of media assertions to the contrary, but the simple fact is that we really do not know who we have put in the White House, including his legal name. Obama was never properly vetted, and despite claims to the contrary, never submitted an actual hardcopy of his long form birth certificate to any legitimate body for review and examination. Just saying he did does not make it so.

Furthermore, why the secrecy surrounding the release of his other records? Passport records, school records, and so on? Why has he spent so much money fighting their release? Ridicule if you must, Obama would not pass any background investigation we would perform for a position on any board of directors of a Fortune 100 company in light of what little he has personally provided, along with his refusal to turn over other records related to his past. Yet, he sits in the White House at such a precipitous time in our history. His placement there was no accident, and his election was not some serendipitous event in U.S. history.

Meanwhile, crony capitalism – birthed by the creation of the Federal Reserve and exploited by career politicians and their financial counterparts- made significant inroads over the last few decades, exacerbating pre-existing societal divides. A “perfect storm” is now brewing.

Now, when the terrorist ideology of the radical left is combined with the effects of crony capitalism, we have a much more fertile environment for orchestrated social unrest than at any other time in history. Add to that an elected president with a communist heritage who launched his political career in the Ayers/Dohrn household, the timing is anything but coincidental, and the path to chaos should be quite clear.

Buckle up, America. It’s going to be a very long, hot summer.

Source: Canada Free Press

Related posts:

1. SOPA: Endgame Is Total Internet Censorship
2. While consumers shop, U.S. descends into planned financial implosion that favors corporate elite – Mike Adams
3. Syria: Endgame Approaches as Conspiracy Continues

No related posts.

No related posts.

No related posts.

“The issue centers on provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, signed by President Obama, for the indefinite and rights-free detention of those Washington cites as belligerents, whether American citizens or not.

“WND reported when Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. immediately drafted a resolution in the Rhode Island legislature to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA ‘that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.’

“Now the Tenth Amendment Center confirms that the resistance to the federal bureaucracy is catching on.”

Unruh continues, “‘Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say as many as 10 states will consider legislation or resolutions in response to the detention provisions in section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA,’ the organization is reporting. ‘Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Washington will likely introduce resolutions authored by the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition within the next week. Additionally, local governments, including Fremont County, Colo. and El Paso County, Colo., have passed resolution condemning the detention provisions.’

“Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin commented that ‘federal politicians never seem to repeal federal law.

“‘It’s going to take “We the People” in our states to stand up and say, “No!” to this unconstitutional monster,’ he said.”

Unruh goes on to report, “Already, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, has introduced HB 1160, which would prevent ‘any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.’”

“Mike Maharrey, communications director for the TAC, said the fight is shaping up like the conflict in the 1850s when northern states refused to cooperated with fugitive slave laws that required them to capture and return escaping slaves.

“‘It is clear to me, and I am far from alone in this view, that the detention provisions in the NDAA are vague, overbroad and open to interpretation,’ he said. ‘That leaves me to trust in the good character and moral clarity of Barack Obama, Rick Santorum or whoever happens to reside at the White House, to protect me and my fellow Americans from abuse of his power. No thanks.’

“Maharrey noted that during the latter days of slavery, ‘state and local governments in northern states stepped in and thwarted the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Acts, which allowed the federal government to arrest and detain black people, and send them back into slavery with little or no due process.

“‘We laud these men and women as heroes,’ he said. ‘I have no doubt that history will prove equally kind to those standing up for the most basic rights of Americans today.’”

See Bob Unruh’s report at:

http://www.wnd.com:80/2012/02/states-prepare-brakes-on-citizen-detention-option/

As I have said repeatedly in this column, the only hope for the preservation of liberty and freedom in America is for individual sovereign states to do what they were created to do: protect the rights and liberties of the citizens of their states from the overreach and despotic propensities of those miscreants in Washington, D.C. If freedom-loving people in the body politic truly intend to see to it that their rights and liberties are preserved, they will pay much more attention–and be much more attuned–to electing State governors, legislators, attorney generals, etc., than they are electing US congressmen, senators, and even electing the President.

With the exception of Ron Paul, there is not a major party Presidential candidate who will make a dime’s worth of difference in protecting the liberties and freedoms of the American citizenry. Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., are all about empire-building, foreign interventionism, and expanding the Welfare and Warfare states. Furthermore, none of them (with the exception of Ron Paul) would do anything to thwart or reverse the burgeoning police state that is currently being rapidly constructed in this country. That means, as Michael Boldin said, “It’s going to take ‘We the People’ in our states to stand up and say, ‘No!’”

And quite frankly, that’s about the only thing that the power-elite in Washington, D.C., are worried about. They aren’t worried about Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. Those are all orchestrated conflicts to keep our troops fighting endless wars, to have an excuse to print more and more fiat currency, to satisfy the international bankers who are making trillions of dollars off the military-industrial complex, and to give them an excuse of “national security” in order to strip away more and more freedoms from the American citizenry. But State governors, legislators, and attorney generals who actually believe the Constitution and who have the courage to defend it, now THAT scares them to death! Why? Because they know that the real power in this country rests with “We the People” who, through their state governments, have the ability to actually stop their quest for globalism and feudalism.

America’s Founding Fathers clearly understood that the states are the ultimate guardians of the peoples’ liberties. James Madison (and even Alexander Hamilton) spoke to this eloquently in the Federalist Papers.

In Federalist #46, Madison said, “Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the [states] would still have the advantage in the means of DEFEATING SUCH ENCROACHMENTS” (emphasis added). By “defeating such encroachments,” Madison included “opposition,” “refusal to cooperate,” “frowns of the [State] executive,” “obstructions,” and “plans of resistance.”

Did you see that? America’s fourth President and Father of the Constitution said that it was the duty of the states to obstruct, oppose, resist, and otherwise refuse to cooperate with any federal policy or mandate that runs counter to the principles of liberty. And, remember, this is from the man who authored the so-called “supremacy clause” of the US Constitution!

In Federalist #45, Madison said, “Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.”

Did you get that? In the mind of America’s founders, the federal government would be dependent upon the State governments, not the other way around! But what do we hear today? Even these so-called “conservative” politicos and talking heads say just the opposite. They keep insisting that the states are dependent upon, and subservient to, the federal government.

Even the colonists’ biggest proponent of central government, Alexander Hamilton, had it right on the power of the states to resist federal encroachment. In Federalist #26, Hamilton said, “Independent of … the national legislature itself … the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, if necessary, the arm of their discontent.”

Wow! Did you catch that? Hamilton said that the states held the right and duty to resist federal encroachment with their “voice” and with their “arm.”

Does any of this sound like America’s Founding Fathers expected the states to be lap dogs for federal usurpation of power? They fully recognized that it would take the individual states standing against any potential federal overreach to protect and secure the rights and liberties of the American people.

I will say it again: it is far more important who is elected as your governor than who is elected President. It is far more important who is elected as your State attorney general than who is appointed US attorney general. It is far more important who is elected to your State legislature than who is elected to the US House and Senate. It is far more important who is elected as your sheriff than who is appointed as the Director of the FBI. But if all you watch is FOX News, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, you will be mesmerized with national politics, and you will forget about that which is the most important defender of our liberties: our individual state governments. In fact, in many cases today, our State and local governments are as abusive of our liberties as is the federal government. This is mainly due to the inattention and misunderstanding of the People as to the importance of electing local and State leaders who will accept, as their first responsibility, the maintenance of liberty for the people they represent. And by nature, that means being a faithful watchdog to the incursions of the federal government against our freedoms.

It is encouraging to read that at least ten states are pushing back against the monstrously unconstitutional NDAA. If all fifty states would act as courageously as these tenacious ten–and not just against the NDAA, but also against EVERY assault of the federal government against our liberties–America could be restored to the “land of the free” very quickly. As it is, however, the protectors and guardians of our liberties (our State leaders and county sheriffs) are being bribed, coerced, cajoled, harangued, and intimidated into cowardly submission by these belligerent bullies in Washington, D.C.

Thank you Representative Daniel P. Gordon, Jr. of Rhode Island. Thank you Delegate Bob Marshall of Virginia. Thank you to all of you State legislators, State senators, and county sheriffs across our great land who truly understand the oath you took to the Constitution and who are willing to stand as the watchdogs of our liberties. It is a truism that if your tribe does not increase, our freedoms are surely lost.

P.S. Attention to any professional barber who is a like-minded patriot and who wants to relocate to, or currently resides in or near, the Flathead Valley of Montana. There is a job opportunity for a reliable, professional barber in an established shop located in a newly revitalized business area. This shop’s services include shaves, all style cuts, perms, and colors. References will be checked. This owner is a personal friend of mine and a real patriot. He wants to hire a fellow patriot in his shop. If you qualify and are interested, call Mike at Artistic Barbering, 236 2nd Ave. W., Kalispell, MT 59901, 406-755-1353.

Source: Baldwin Live

Related posts:

1. First NDAA; Now Enemy Expatriation Act – Chuck Baldwin
2. Bill of Rights No More – Chuck Baldwin
3. No Wonder America’s Founders Distrusted Standing Armies – Chuck Baldwin