The Intercept

Were Cheerleaders for a Libyan Style Intervention of Syria Interrupted by Patrick Seale?

2012-02-10T17:20:00.000-08:00

Amy Goodman's appalling coverage of NATO's plundering of Libya made "Democracy Now" look like cheerleaders for humanitarian death squads.

The next good-will bombing adventure may take place in Syria. No challenge from Amy Goodman as Susan Rice chastises China and Russia for their decision not to participate. State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland also occupied a sizable chuck of "Democracy Now" time to deliver her caring, empathetic, yet offensively condescending tone as she stated the need for the U.S. to "work outside of the United Nations" so the U.S. can force democracy on Syria.

Amy Goodman began her final interview on the subject with British author Patick Seale, who offered a surprisingly realistic account of the situation in Syria. Is that what Amy Goodman was going for? You decide.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

In Lead-Up to Mass Protests in Chicago, Illinois Ban on Recording Police Challenged

2012-02-10T13:45:00.000-08:00

Common Dreams

G8/NATO protests "that are almost certain to be countered with excessive police force will be illegal to record"

- Common Dreams staff

As Chicago prepares for thousands of protesters and journalists for the G8 and NATO summits this May, an Illinois law declaring a felony the audio recording of police officers is coming under the microscope. One representative has filed an amendment to allow for such recordings, a move protesters, who will likely be met with heavy-handed tactics from police, would welcome.
An Illinois law declaring a felony the audio recording of police officers is coming under the microscope. (photo: Paul Stein)Under the current Illinois Eavesdropping Act from 1961, a person recording a non-consenting police officer can be charged with a felony and 15 years in prison. The Huffington Post explains:

The Eavesdropping Act makes recording officers without their permission a Class 1 felony, but has been inconsistently applied by different sectors of the justice system who disagree on its merits, particularly in cases where audio spotlights police wrongdoing. In the recent high-profile case of Tiawanda Moore, who recorded police officers trying to talk her out of filing a complaint after she claimed she was sexually harassed by an officer, a jury acquitted her and called the county's charges against her "a waste of time."

An amendment to the law submitted by Rep. Elaine Nekritz would allow for the recording or police officer on duty in public place. The Daily-Journal reports:

House Bill 3944, sponsored by Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, would amend the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, under which a member of the public can be charged with a felony if he or she records the conversations of police officers, prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel without their knowledge. [...]

Nekritz said her legislation would "allow citizens to do what they think they already had the ability to do."

The amendment has an unlikely ally, Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy. The Huffington Post reports on McCarthy's stance:

"As far as the use of videotape, I certainly endorse it, for the protection of the police as well as [civilians]," he said at the panel. "There's no argument when you show videotape and can look at what happened. I actually am a person who endorses video and audio recording."

McCarthy, who came to Chicago from New York, said video and audio recordings helped prove officers acted appropriately amid allegations of brutality following a series of protest arrests. He added that this material could be equally useful as police prepare for massive crowds of protesters when Chicago hosts the NATO/G8 summits this spring. McCarthy clarified that it's not his job to advocate for policy changes, according to CBS Chicago, but called objections to covert recordings of police interactions a "foreign concept" after finding the practice helpful during previous stints in other cities.

As WLS-Chicago reported in September, the ACLU says the current law "doesn't make any sense":

The ACLU argues that the Illinois Eavesdropping Act is antiquated and overly-restrictive, and it wants the ability to record audio of police officers when they're on the public way - most specifically as a means of monitoring how police handle marches and demonstrations.

"You can video the police officer, you can photograph the police officer. They admit that you can listen to the police officer, and even write down what the police officer is saying, but you can't turn on the audio button. It simply doesn't make any sense," said Harvey Grossman, ACLU.

RT notes how the law, if it remains unchanged, will affect the Chicago Police Department and protesters:

...the protests that are almost certain to be countered with excessive police force will be illegal to record.

Some state lawmakers are trying to overturn the legislation before this spring, but it is a challenge that stands to be complicated with a goal only a few months into the future. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has asked the state Supreme Court for a new decision on the constitutionality of the law and others have come to her side. Some have even proposed an exception that will allow citizens to record the police, which is allowed in most jurisdictions in America.

"I don't believe there is an expectation of privacy for public officials on public property doing public duties," Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a local sponsor of the re-write, tells the Associated Press.

The US Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts countered a similar wiretapping law last year, with a judge ruling in August that filming the police is a “basic and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”

Many outside of Boston agree, and if the law isn’t changed in Illinois before spring, Chicago’s G-8 summit is expected to still be caught on film, law notwithstanding. But as thousands plans to flood the streets of the city to demonstrate against the meeting of leaders from the US, France, Russia, Italy and elsewhere, cops will be tasked with countering not just riled protesters, with journalists of all sorts gripping their cameras. Come springtime, the Chicago PD will have to determine which First Amendment guarantee is more important to crush: the freedom of the press or the freedom to assemble.

Christopher Drew, an artist in Chicago who recorded his own arrest, now faces 15 years in prison and spoke to RT about his situation:

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Richard Gage to Appear in Portland, Oregon

2012-02-10T12:21:00.000-08:00

1,600 Architects & Engineers Deliver 9/11 Explosive Evidence

Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will be returning to Portland . Gage will be delivering the evidence for explosive demolition in the compelling dynamic multi-media presentation “9/11: Blueprint for Truth - Re-Examining the Destruction of the Three World Trade Center Skyscrapers.” The presentation will take place at the Moreland Theater in southeast Portland at 2 pm on Sunday, February 19.

The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org) have examined in great detail the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 and are calling for a new independent investigation. They have found that the evidence and eyewitness testimony is completely at odds with the official explanation of events. Such an investigation will ensure that the evidence
ignored by prior building reports by governmental agencies like FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) is properly considered and that the truth sought by victim family members is finally delivered.

“My introduction to the problems with the official 9/11 narrative occurred several years after 9/11,” says Mr. Gage. “I was listening to the radio and heard Dr. David Ray Griffin describe how over 100 first responders reported explosions on 9/11.” Adds Mr. Gage: “I was shocked that this vital information was not being considered by the official investigations or reported by the media. As I looked into
these matters further, I discovered that this was only the tip of the iceberg.”

The Portland Action Group of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring this event and is proud to carry on the work begun by the family members of the 9/11 victims in seeking a new investigation.

ALSO:
Monday, Feb 20, at PCC Sylvania, Noon-2:30pm

In the Cedar Room of the College Center (CC Building), next to the cafeteria

(12000 SW 49th Ave. Portland, OR 97219)

A guest appearance by San Francisco Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA

(Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
Co-sponsored by PCC 911 Studies

Local Contact:
David Fura
503-481-8692
PortlandAE911Truth@yahoo.com
www.PortlandAE911Truth.org

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Cost a bomb: Congress approves $82 million for army’s biggest weapon

2012-02-10T11:45:00.000-08:00

Russia Today
Katerina Azarova

It weighs as much as the bell in Big Ben; it’s capable of plunging through 60 feet of reinforced concrete and has the most ridiculously sexual name imaginable for a deadly weapon – but the Massive Ordnance Penetrator is THE bomb, says the Pentagon.

Talk of beefing the bomb up with a hardened case and further advancements has been ongoing since the Air Force took delivery of it in September 2011. But Bloomberg reported that, in response to “an urgent request” from the Pentagon, immediate approval was given to shift $81.6 million to the so-called MOP program.

The urgency is not explained – but it can be speculated that the Pentagon does not want to mop up a potential mess if (or when) it goes to war with Iran. So they’re putting a rush on something that can easily destroy things like underground labs, or secret nuclear facilities.

Like, for example, the Fordo fuel enrichment plant, hidden deep underneath Iranian bedrock, where uranium enrichment has begun (a fact that has made the military top brass in Washington more than a little antsy).

But the existing modification of the bunker-buster, which the Pentagon paid over $330 million for, still presented some concerns. As did the Iranian lab location, deep within the Persian mountains.

So it was back to Chicago-based Boeing for some serious modifications – like a second fuse, enhanced weapon capabilities and tail-fin adjustments. In other words, everything needed to penetrate nearly 300 feet of mountain rock, as opposed to the current 60 that is the Massive Penetrator’s current limit (and according to the Army, a massive limitation).

However, it now looks like there is no nut the army won’t be able to crack (and no rock it won’t be able to penetrate), as an army fact sheet claims “final system refinement, design and test will be complete in 2012 with additional weapon deliveries in 2013.”

All this comes on the back of a long-simmering nuclear dispute has come to the boil in recent weeks, with the West imposing new sanctions that are having a real impact on Iran's economy, and Iran responding with threats to the transit of oil tankers through the Gulf, which have shaken up markets.

Secretary of defense Leon Panetta has recently confirmed no option is off the table in dealing with Iran, including the military one, and the US has been strengthening ties with its allies in the Persian Gulf, by selling them billions of dollars’ worth of bombs, missiles, fighter jets and other munitions.

With this latest investment in the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, however, the US clearly wants Iran to know that its military will MOP the floor with the Islamic Republic and its alleged nuclear threat. In 2013, of course, when the new Penetrator will achieve its new, superb levels of penetration

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Global Warming Summary – Scientific Evidence Rejects Anthropogenic CO2 Theory

2012-02-10T09:50:00.000-08:00

Appinsys

This document provides a brief summary of the CO2 global warming issue – and shows why the theory is wrong.

The Phenomenon

Global Temperatures have generally increased over the last century (except for the last 10 years) – as has the atmospheric CO2. The United Nations based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has become the definitive authority on the promotion of the anthropogenic CO2 as the cause of the warming and of the justification of scare stories of what the future may bring.

The following shows the Hadley Climatic Research Unit global average temperature anomalies (the IPCC uses data provided by HadCRU – plot from: [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]). The global average temperature has increased about 0.8 degrees C in the last 100 years.

The Evidence

There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has caused the observed global warming trend – the only evidence comes from the in the computerized climate models based on the assumptions incorporated in the models.

The following figure superimposes the above HadCRU temperature anomalies on the IPCC graph of model outputs. (IPCC 2007 AR4 Figure SPM-4 [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf]) In this figure, the blue shaded bands show the result of 19 simulations from 5 climate models using only the natural forcings. Red shaded bands show the result of 58 simulations from 14 climate models including anthropogenic CO2. This clearly shows that prior to about 1972, the global warming is fully explained by climate models using only natural forcings (i.e. no human CO2). The models need input of CO2 only after about 1970 – prior to 1970 all warming was natural, according to the IPCC. There is no empirical evidence relating CO2 to the post-1970 warming as a causative factor – only the fact that the computer models require CO2 to produce warming.

The media stories often report temperature increases over the last century and attribute it to anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 based global warming – but the models indicate that anthropogenic CO2 has only caused warming since the early 1970s. Even though the IPCC released this figure in 2007, it only shows temperatures up to the year 2000 – likely due to the fact that there has been cooling since then (although atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase).

This fact is also revealed in the CRU emails released in November 2009:

Email exchange between: Michael Mann, Edward Cook and Tom Crowley, May 2, 2001, (Subject: “Hockey Stick” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=172&filename=963233839.txt]).

Cook to Mann: “I think that most researchers in global change research would agree that the emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred
since after 1970. I am not debating this point, although I do think that
there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative
contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past
20-30 years at least.”

The Recurrent Cycles

The following figures show the global temperature anomalies from the Hadley figure shown previously. Two cycles have been highlighted in rectangles: the “natural” cycle (1880-1946: green) and the “CO2-caused” cycle (1942-2008: red), according to the IPCC. The final part of the figure shows the 1942-2008 cycle changed to red and overlaid on the 1880-1946 cycle (vertically shifted by 0.3 degrees).

As can be seen from the above figures, the two cycles were nearly identical, and yet the IPCC says the models can explain the early 1900s cycle with only natural forcings, but anthropogenic CO2 is needed for the later cycle. There appears to be a serious problem with the models when two identical cycles have two very different causes.

There is an overall upwards net trend in the cycles (about 0.3 degrees C per 60 year cycle) due to the fact that the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age: “The coldest time was during the 16th and 17th Centuries. By 1850 the climate began to warm.” [http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html]

The Satellite Era

The following figure shows global average temperature from five data sets since the start of the satellite temperature data era in 1979 (RSS MSU and UAH MSU are satellite data, HadCRUT3, NCDC and GISS are surface station data sets – graph from http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm). From 1979 to 1997 there was no warming trend. The major El Nino then resulted in a residual warming of about 0.3 degrees. Since the 1998 end of the El Nino there has also been no warming trend – all of the warming in the last 30 years occurred in a single year. And yet this is the era that the IPCC says the warming is caused by CO2 – and alarmists are still saying that it’s getting worse, etc.

Global? Warming

Global warming is not global. The following figure shows the global temperature change from 1978 to 2006 for the lower troposphere from UAH satellite data [http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg]. The warming is a northern hemisphere phenomenon – particularly in the Arctic.

The following figure shows a more recent satellite data trend from the RSS analysis 1979 - 2008 [http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html]. The left-hand figure shows regional warming around the world, the right-hand figure shows the average warming by latitude – zero warming at 60 degrees S with increasing warming into the Arctic. This illustrates that recent warming is a northern hemisphere phenomenon.

The following figure compares the Arctic temperature trends with global temperature trends.[http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/aw/index.php] Two observations are evident from this graph: the recent Arctic warming is not unprecedented, and the Arctic warming is much greater than the global warming.

The following figure is from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Figure 9.6 (2007). It shows the change in temperature (C per decade) by latitude. The black line shows the observed temperature, the blue band shows the output of the computer models including only natural factors, whereas the pink band shows the output of computer models including anthropogenic CO2. Notice that the models without CO2 (blue shaded area) can explain all of the warming for most of the world up to 30 degrees north latitude. This figure also shows cooling in Antarctica with warming increasing in the Arctic.

The following figure shows the average lower troposphere temperature (near the Earth’s surface) from satellite data, for the northern hemisphere (north of 20N), tropics (20N – 20S) and southern hemisphere (south of 20S) (figure adapted from http://climate4you.com/). The northern hemisphere has warmed about 0.5 degrees C, while the southern hemisphere has warmed about 0.1 C and the tropics show no net warming over the 30 years of available satellite data.

See http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm for more details on the non-global issue.

Sea Level Rise / Glacier Recession

The IPCC stated in the Third Assessment Report (2001) [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm]: “There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data”.

The report “Decadal Rates of Sea Level Change During the Twentieth Century” (Simon Holgate, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK) states: “The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).” [http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf]

The following figure shows cumulative sea level change for 1900 to 2002. The trend shows no increase in rate since measurements began [http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama08/S304-Shum_Global_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf]. Since according to the IPCC, CO2-based warming is only evident since the 1970s, all of this sea level rise since prior to 1970 cannot be caused by anthropogenic CO2, and yet the trend has not increased. Thus sea level rise cannot be attributed to CO2.

Alarmists say everything is accelerating and it’s worse than expected. But they carefully select start and end dates to create exaggeration. The following figure shows sea level from 1993 to 2009 [http://sealevel.colorado.edu/]. This figure shows a rate of 3.2 mm/year since it starts at a low point in the fluctuating data (the 1993 start indicated by the arrow in the above figure). But the last 6 years exhibit a much lower rate of increase.

Although Al Gore and other alarmists make statements about scary unrealistic increases in sea level, the IPCC AR4 (2007) report predicts that sea level rise will be 0.6 – 1.9 feet by the year 2100. The larger value is reduced from the IPCC TAR (2001) report which predicted 0.3 to 2.9 feet by 2100. The historic rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years translates into a sea level rise of about 6 inches by the year 2100.

See http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_SeaLevel.htm for more details on sea level change.

The same trend is true of glaciers around the world – they have been receding since record keeping began. The following figure shows the composite average of up to 169 glaciers (the number varies in different time periods) since 1700 (Oerlermans,2005 [http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2008/08068cuffey/cuffey.pdf]), and right – the same curves superimposed on the IPCC graph of model outputs shown previously. Glaciers have been receding since the Little Ice Age and cannot be attributed to CO2. If anything the rate of global glacier recession since 1970 has declined.

See http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm for more details on glaciers around the world.

Problems with Models

The CO2-based climate models have been shown to be incorrect. The following figure combines the following: Top: from the International Journal of Climatology. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions] comparing the climate models to observations from satellites and balloons(The report stated: “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere”);

Lower Left: from the IPCC 2007 AR4 Report Chapter 9 – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf] providing the climate model based simulation of the expected CO2 “spatial signature” of all forcings including anthropogenic CO2;

Lower Right: actual data from radiosonde data, from [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf] showing the actual temperature signature. This further evidence indicates that CO2 is not causing the warming and that there are problems with the models.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 does not by itself result in significant warming. The climate models assume a significant positive feedback of increased water vapor in order to amplify the CO2 effect and achieve the future warming reported by the IPCC. The specific humidity has been increasing over the last few decades near the Earth’s surface, while it has been decreasing in the upper troposphere. The decreasing specific humidity in the upper troposphere indicates that the warming at the Earth’s surface does not match the CO2 based warming theory. Other studies have found “The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations ... [this] would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2”

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part5_GreenhouseGas.htm

and http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm for more details on problems with climate models.

In 1988 NASA’s climate alarmist James Hansen provided temperature predictions based on climate models (the results of which he presented to the US congress to promote the scare). He modeled three scenarios: A had an increasing rate of CO2 emissions, B had constant rate of CO2 emissions, whereas scenario C had reduced CO2 emissions rate from 1988 levels into the future. The following figure compares Hansen’s 1988 predictions with actual temperature data since then. It compares the NASA GISS global data (as compiled by Hansen) with his model projections. (Figure from [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354]). While actual atmospheric CO2 levels have increased since 1988, the fact that actual temperatures are similar to the reduced CO2 models implies a problem with the models – the temperature increase is not due to CO2.

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm for more details on Hansen’s prediction scenarios.

Possible Causes

The scientific method involves making observations (the earth has been warming), forming a hypothesis (it is caused by anthropogenic CO2), testing the hypothesis through further observations and rejecting (or accepting) or revising the hypothesis. Alarmists say that the recent warming must be due to anthropogenic CO2 since we don’t know what else it could be. But that is not a scientific view – an alternative causal explanation is not required in order to reject a hypothesis. And the scientific evidence does not support the CO2 hypothesis.

The IPCC (AR4) report (The Physical Basis of Climate Change, 2007 [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html]) states that: “The direct RF [radiative forcing] due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced from the TAR [Third Assessment Report]”. In addition the 4AR states: “There is more uncertainty regarding the influence of solar forcing. In addition to substantial uncertainty in the timing and amplitude of solar variations on time scales of several decades to centuries, which has increased since the TAR although the estimate of solar forcing has been revised downwards”. The problem is that it is not currently understood how the sun can influence the earth’s climate. The IPCC says variation in solar irradiance is too small to have an effect – but the sun’s influence is not just solar irradiance.

The following figure (bottom) combines the global average temperature anomalies (top left – from Hadley shown previously) with the total solar magnetic flux (top right – from M. Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild: “A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years”, Nature Vol. 399, 3 June 1999 which states: “The magnetic flux in the solar corona has risen by 40% since 1964 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.” [http://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/papers/nature.html])

See also: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm for more details on solar influences on climate.

Mars

The planet Mars is also exhibiting a warming trend. A 2007 National Geographic article states: “Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause…. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.” [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html]

The principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera said: “The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago” [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1464931.htm]. William Feldman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (who is involved with NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter) says: “One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age” [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html].

There’s no anthropogenic CO2 on Mars. But both Earth and Mars are coming out of ice ages. I wonder what causes those. In the late 1800s, the “scientific” consensus was that ice ages did not exist. The current “consensus” is that the sun couldn’t be causing the warming because the mechanism is not understood.

Oceanic Oscillations

It is only in recent years that scientists are starting to recognize the influence of oceanic cycles in influencing climate. For example, a recent study – “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, (Compo and Sardeshmukh - Climate Dynamics, 2008) states: “the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales.” [http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf]

Joseph D’Aleo has conducted a correlation analysis between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), CO2 and temperatures [http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf] and [http://intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127]. The following figures compare the PDO+AMO with the US average annual temperatures (left) and CO2 with US temperatures (right). The oceanic oscillations provide a much stronger correlation with temperature than CO2 does.

The following figure compares the average annual temperature in Greenland with the AMO (no correlation to CO2).

See: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm for more details on the oceanic oscillations and relation to climatic phenomena (hurricanes, African Sahel rainfall, Cascade mountain snowpack, etc.)

Recent studies are showing that black carbon (soot) plays a larger role than CO2 in causing Arctic warming. A Cornell University study states: “A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions. … The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined.”

[http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/11/19/global.warming.predictions.are.overestimated.suggests.study.black.carbon]

Deforestation

“In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?” … “The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories ...deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total” [http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2539349.ece]

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in October 2006 that deforestation accounts for 25 to 30 percent of the release of greenhouse gases [http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000385/index.html]. The report states: “Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. … Delegates of the 46 developing countries present at the Rome workshop signalled their readiness to act on deforestation, 80 percent of which is due to increased farmland to feed growing populations. … But they also stressed that they needed financial help from the developed world to do the job.”

"People often do not take into account the main driver of deforestation, which is very different in Africa, where it is the need for fuel wood," said Kevin Conrad, director of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations at the Earth Institute of Columbia University. … Deforestation is responsible for 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon emissions every year, amounting to one-fifth of the global total, and to more than the combined total contributed by the world's energy-intensive transport sectors, according to the Indonesia-based Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). "Yet deforestation was specifically excluded from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which failed to address this significant source of carbon emissions." [http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75868]

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Deforestation.htm

The Reason

Since the scientific evidence doesn’t support the CO2 based theory of global warming, why is it being so overwhelmingly promoted by various groups?

1. Power: The alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s.The original goal was to use it to achieve global governance and fund it through a global carbon tax.

Maurice Strong Secretary General of the UN Earth Summit said it would play an important role in "reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance."
France’s former President Jaques Chirac called Kyoto "the first component of an authentic global governance."

See www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm for details on the development of the global warming scare and original sources for the above quotes.

2. Money: The biggest promoters of the global warming scare are also those benefiting the most monetarily.

Maurice strong is at the forefront of the CO2 monetization. His closing remarks at the 2007 International Financial Forum global conference: “I have to disclose my own association with this process in my earlier role in the United Nations negotiations which established the basis for the development of these new opportunities and now as Chairman of the China Carbon Corporation and Vice-Chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange.”

Nicholas Stern, who produced the apocalyptic “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” for the UK government in 2006 is Vice Chairman of the IDEAglobal Group. According to the Financial Times: “carbon trading was a “key plank” in dealing with climate change. The agency, run by the IdeaCarbon group of which Lord Stern is vice-chairman, said it would offer investors a guide to the quality of credits and the likelihood that they would be delivered. Sellers of carbon credits would have to pay to have their products rated, while buyers would also pay to gain access to the ratings.”

Al Gore runs the London-based Generation Investment Management set up to benefit from regulations passed for global warming related issues “According to Bloomberg News, Gore had less than $2 million when he left the vice presidency in 2001. Today his fortune is more than $100 million (Fast Company, July 2007)”

Climate Change Capital (CCC), whose slogan is 'Creating Wealth Worth Having®', is another carbon trading company, with $1.6 billion under management. They state: “All energy markets are created by policy… Our ability to advise on and execute financial transactions in carbon constrained markets gives us a clear advantage”. It’s easy to see where their advantage comes from. CCC’s Executive Director and Vice Chairman, James Cameron, “spent much of his legal career working on climate change matters, including negotiating the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol” and is a member of the board of GE Ecomagination and a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council. His first work on global warming was a 1988 commission from Greenpeace, to advise whether the International Court of Justice could be used to bring a claim against the US for its failure to deal with climate change. Cameron and Maurice Strong were both on the 2000-2001 advisory council of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulfur-dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade (which resulted in rolling power blackouts in California in the early 2000s). “Enron became one of the biggest corporate boosters of the Kyoto global warming treaty, which would require huge reductions in energy use by consumers and industry. According to an internal Enron memo, quoted by The Washington Post, the Kyoto treaty would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States. … Enron became a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, a leading industry front group pushing the Kyoto agenda.”

See http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CarbonMonetization.htm for details on the monetization of the global warming scare and original sources for the above quotes.

The United States’ refusal to go along with Kyoto weakened the UN’s plans for a global government. Thus the UN now views the issue more as a means of transferring wealth to Africa and to fund the Millennium Development Goals.

“Climate change threatens sustainable development, especially the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Unless adaptation to climate change is funded through additional channels, the growing impact of climate change is expected to consume an increasing share of development aid. Official development assistance alone amounted to $120 billion in 2008. This amount is already insufficient to reach international development goals”

“The revenue potential appears large – a fuel-consumption tax on CO2 emissions could by itself finance the MDGs. … It would require that the United States opt for it, however; 20 per cent of the tax yield would originate there alone”

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HumanImpact.htm#forum for more details on the MDGs and the UN’s scam.

3. Ideology: The global warming scam is being used as an excuse to promote “social justice” – the developed countries emit fossil-fuel based CO2 and should pay the “developing” countries money.

The former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart stated: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Many NGOs were in attendance at Bali, 2008. In their meetings they are getting more open about the real point of the global warming scare: The Climate Action Network web site provides the following discussion: "A common theme was that the “solutions” to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice. ... a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources" [www.climatenetwork.org/bali-blog/ngo-bustle-in-bali]

Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, referred to the Kyoto accord as: "Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations". [http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html]

The Politics

Politicians in the United States and Europe like the idea of cap-n-trade for CO2. The reason is simple:

House speaker Pelosi (Jan. 2009): “She said she hopes to hold a vote before December, when climate negotiators gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, to work on a successor to the treaty many countries adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. "I believe we have to because we see that as a source of revenue," she said, noting that proposed cap-and-trade bills would raise billions of dollars by forcing major emitters to buy credits to release greenhouse gases.”
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/22/MN5Q15EJQ2.DTL]

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced a measure for government oversight as part of the CO2 trading. She said: “This landmark legislation will not only significantly reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, it will also generate tremendous economic potential. In fact, new carbon markets – with annual values of approximately $300 billion – are expected to emerge once Congress establishes a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.” [http://www.apx.com/documents/APX-on-Market-Oversight.pdf]

The vast sums that will be generated by transferring money from consumers to credit traders will also increase government. In the case of the (non-elected) EU government: "The EU plans in their current shape will not lead to any more CO2 emissions savings, as those are capped, but bring sky-high new carbon taxes. … Power prices would increase by 50 percent after 2012. … the auctions will bring the government 15 billion euros ($21 billion) of additional annual income which would have to be borne by consumers.” [http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSLF4432920080915?sp=true]

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part7_PoliticalConsensus.htm

But while the governments see it as a revenue source, guess who pays:

Obama’s budget "climate revenues section, where the White House discloses that it expects $78.7 billion in new tax revenue in 2012 from its cap-and-trade program. The pot of cash grows to $237 billion through 2014, and at least $646 billion through 2019. … The Congressional Budget Office estimates that cap-and-trade taxes would actually throw off as much as $300 billion every year -- not merely $78.7 billion -- and in a footnote the Obama budget implicitly acknowledges that its $645.7 billion estimate is a lowball”. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569802712289113.html]

Obama: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. … they would have to retrofit their operations – that will cost money – they will pass that money on to consumers.” [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLK-U8kggFk] (Actually the utilities will be passing the cost not the money on to consumers.)

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu states the obvious: “The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate,” Dr. Chu said, “is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.” … and … “reaching agreement on legislation to combat climate change would be difficult in the current recession because any scheme to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would probably cause energy prices to rise and drive manufacturing jobs to countries where energy is cheaper.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/us/politics/12chu.html?em]

See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ObamasGovernment.htm

Other Countries

China – the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter – released its plan on climate change in 2007, supporting the rights of developing nations to pursue growth. The Chinese spokesman said "The consequences of inhibiting their development would be far greater than not doing anything to fight climate change … our general stance is that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets". [www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2575639,00.html]

In July 2008 the Government of India published a National Action Plan on Climate Change [http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf]. Section 1.4 of the Technical Document states: "No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established." India is taking a pragmatic approach and has no intention of cutting CO2 emissions if it affects its economic growth. The report Overview states: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives."

Many Russian scientists disagree with the anthopogenic CO2 theory “Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for cuts in CO₂ emissions, say that the theory underlying the pact lacks scientific basis. When President Vladimir Putin was weighing his options on the Kyoto Protocol the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him to reject it as having “no scientific foundation.”” Russian scientists state: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. This problem is overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis for important political decisions" and "The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases". [http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm]

Most of the Japan Geoscience Union members do not believe the IPCC: “Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report". … Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction.” [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html]

The U.S. CO2 Emissions

The following figure shows global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by type from the 2007 IPCC AR4 SPM [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf]. Note that CO2 fossil fuel use is 56.6 % of GHG globally. In 2004 the United States produced about 22 % of the global fossil fuel based CO2 emissions [http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm]. Thus, even if the United States eliminated all automobiles and all fossil fuel based electricity generation, etc – global GHG would be reduced by only 12 %. This massive change would have close to zero effect even if the CO2-theory were true.

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Congress Approves 30,000 Spy Drones Over America As US Police State Tightens

2012-02-10T09:12:00.000-08:00

Media Fails Us Once Again as US Police State Tightens With 24/7 Surveillance

The Intel Hub
By Tim Watts

Once again, another shocking story that threatens the personal privacy of US citizens has been kept from us by our politicians and the mainstream media.

Did you know that a bill, HR 658, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, has just passed both the House and the Senate which authorizes the use of 30,000 spy drones over America by the year 2015? Like the anti-Posse Comitatus NDAA legislation that passed in November, this bill was not widely reported by the mainstream corporate media.

Do not feel bad for not knowing about this, because, similar to the anti-Constitutional NDAA legislation, they purposefully tried to hide this from the American public. The corporate controlled mainstream media was once again complicit and was an integral accessory in this crime against “We the People.” The corporate mainstream media failed us all miserably once again.

Think about the enormity of this for a second… 30-THOUSAND drones flying overhead, surveying the US. If you divide that by 50 states, that is 600 drones per state! Most states don’t have even one-third of that in counties, so 600 drones, or more per state is a bit overwhelming. And considering that some state are very small, such as Rhode Island and Connecticut, it won’t take that many to spy on those diminutive territories, leaving far more drones to cover the larger states.

This is an outrage, plain and simple. If you’re not pissed off about this, you’ve got shit for brains. There is no good reason why we should have 24/7 surveillance of American citizens. Of course the advocates for creating this intensified police state will proffer that this is needed “to fight terrorism,” but let’s examine that issue for just a moment.

We’ve only had two successful acts of terrorism in the US, both happening well over ten years ago. It’s not like we’re under a constant monthly or weekly barrage of terrorism, at least not from foreign threats. We’ve been terrorized by our politicians and our media plenty, far more than we have from foreign entities. That’s an undeniable fact. Again, just look at the record.

We had the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and then shortly after we had the anthrax attacks. As we look at both of those events, there is an incredible amount of evidence that points to a false flag operation, state sponsored terrorism by rogue factions within our own government, blamed on a foreign entity. See the NewsFocus reports on the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks.

These plots succeeded solely because of US officials and their dereliction of duty, yet our Constitution and “We the People’ are the ones who have been made to suffer. The highly flawed 9/11 Commission admitted as much.

Senator Mark Dayton excoriated the Commission panel over bald faced lies in their report that attempted to cover up the numerous failures of protocol on that fateful day. Our top officials failed to do their jobs on 9/11, yet no one was demoted in rank and no one was prosecuted for their egregious ineptitude. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all failed to act appropriately, and in fact, acted suspiciously outside the norm of their designated duties.
As far as the anthrax attacks go, they were actually tracked to a US military facility, at Ft. Detrick, Maryland. That’s right, the anthrax used in the attacks was made in a US Army lab. Once that story became public, they shifted their blame from foreign terrorists to designated patsies within the US defense structure. The story died immediately.

So, with all of this in mind, we have only had TWO “alleged” successful terrorist attacks in this country in eleven years time, and both were highly suspicious events that have been attributed to false flag attacks from rogue officials with the US government, yet for some reason, we keep passing law after law that rescinds our Constitution and Bill of Rights, to set up a virtual police state in the US.

Does this honestly make any sense to you?

For what it’s worth, we are actually fomenting terrorism with our highly bogus, bst War On Terror. We have formally invaded and brutally attacked three countries without provocation, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, plus we’re also bombing Pakistan and killing scores of innocent civilians there as well.

This reporter’s take is, TPTB are trying to escalate terrorism to justify their fascist takeover of the United States. They’re literally trying to piss off foreign entities to pick a fight. Again, they’re attempting to justify their assault on “We the People,” to establish a police state lockdown in America. This isn’t about fighting terrorism folks, it’s about keeping us under their heel, under a 24/7 watch.

Look at what’s happened in just the last few months… Congress passed the NDAA Act behind our backs, authorizing military use on US soil against American citizens. At the same time, President Obama has enacted the SIP, the Strategic Implementation Plan against domestic “extremism.”

If you speak out against the government for criminal activity, or for egregiously attacking our Constitution, you can legally be considered an extremist and a terrorist. Bad news for you, because now you can be hauled away and imprisoned for life, without a trial or your Habeas Corpus rights.

FEMA also has drawn up a new Contingency of Government plan that incorporates offensive military definitions and criteria that can be used against “We the People.” Add to this the fact that the FBI has enacted new absurd terrorism identifiers that make us all suspects. (Having more than seven days worth of food in your house makes you a terrorist suspect. Please see my three-part series on the NDAA legislation.)

What is most unusual about the vote for the new drones over America bill (HR 658) is it was very much a partisan vote, with Republicans being the primary supporters and Democrats staunchly voting against it. You can see the roll-call of votes below if you doubt this. The house vote was very close, with 223 yes votes and 196 no votes. Sadly there were 13 reps that decided not to vote on the bill.

The real curiosity is that the vote in the Senate was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, with only 20 Senators voting no. Most of those voting no were Democrats. Still, how does the Senate vote highly in favor of such a horrific bill, while the House is nearly split?
I’m starting to think that maybe the research from the 2011 University College of London study is actually correct. They proffered that people tending to be conservatives have a much larger amygdala. What does that matter?

According to the study, the larger the amygdala, the more susceptible the brain is to being scared. At face value that seems ridiculous to this reporter, but in light of the Republican-led attack on our Constitution, through the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Homegrown Terrorism Act, and now the recent NDAA, the SIP and now HR 658, I’m seriously beginning to wonder.

To be fair, there have been Democrats involved in the passage of the bills as well, but the support has far and away been Republican led. That is disturbing to see one party so closely tied to usurping our Constitutional liberties in this country.

If you think that having 30,000 drones over America is going to make us safer, you’ve been watching too much TV. How do these drones know who is traveling in a particular vehicle? How do they know if a sleeper cell has suddenly become active, or if a group has successfully infiltrated the country?

Would these drones have stopped the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing? Would they have stopped the 9/11 attacks? Would they have stopped the anthrax attacks? The answer to all three of these questions is a resolute NO, because US authorities were asleep at the wheel, or complicit in all three of those events.

So how will 30,000 drones over the US keep us safe from terrorism? Maybe a better question is, how might 30,000 drones be used to enforce a police state of American citizens. The latter is more chilling and offers far more possibilities for TPTB.

The bill is worth $63.4 billion dollars, so it will be interesting to track the money on this one. Considering that we are in such a dire economic crisis, it is interesting that they deem it necessary to spend $63.4 BILLION dollars at this time.

Another disturbing thought, these drones can remain airborne for up to 50 hours at a time. What perils does this offer for air traffic safety, by adding 30-THOUSAND new aircraft to our skies? The FAA has nine months from the bill’s signing to submit a plan to safely allow access for the drones.

The fact that our corporate controlled mainstream media failed to report on this, as they failed to do with the NDAA legislation, ought to tell you that they are working with TPTB. No other conclusion can be made. They have been complicit and willing participants in these anti-Constitutional attacks on “We the People.”

This reporter advocates naming them as accessories to the crimes of state, for they are sharp enough to ferret out the real story, yet they refuse to do so.

One side note on HR 658… it also allows for GPS control and landing or aircraft. This is actually supposed to be the major impetus for the bill, with the drones as a secondary component. The GPS aspect is somewhat troubling because of the magnetic shifts that have been occurring on this planet.

The geomagnetic poles have undeniably been moving, so much so that airports have had to re-designate runway coordinates and adjust their GPS instrumentation. I would hope that with this in mind, they have implemented proper safeguards to account for this documented scientific anomaly.

In conclusion, it is very clear that a police state has descended upon America. If you doubt that, you have not been paying attention. The agenda for the New World Order has been furthered tremendously in the last decade since 9/11, and even more so in just the last year. NWO advocate Senator Jay Rockefeller said the bill is “the best news that the airline industry ever had. It will take us into a new era.”

You have to seriously ask yourself… with only TWO incidents of actual successful terrorist acts since 2000, why is our government moving recklessly with such EXTREME measures to counter a threat that does not present itself to us as on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis?

George W. Bush absurdly said after 9/11 that the terrorists hated us for our freedoms. It would appear to this reporter that it is the powers that be who truly hate our freedoms. Foreign terrorists did not take our freedoms away. Our politicians and government officials have done that, and they did it because Americans were too lazy to pay attention to what has been going on in their own country.

We are the most overly entertained society the world has ever known. There is a reason for that. If you keep watching the boob tube and continue to ignore what our elected servants are doing to us all, pretty soon you will be watching “Amerikan Idol” and “Goosestepping Mit Der Stars.”

What is happening in America today is far worse than Nazi Germany. Just because you still get to watch the idiot box and shop at Wal-Mart does not mean that you are free.
Time to wake up America. It’s time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of their country, while you still have the chance to do so.
******
Tim Watts is a veteran San Francisco broadcaster with 25 years experience in the industry as an on-air talent, Program Director, and consultant. He is the creator and sole author of the websites NewsFocus.org, and TheAmericanTruthNetwork.com. He has been writing about U.S. corruption over the last decade, while also investigating 9/11 from the moment that the first tower fell. He has documented his 9/11 research on a website called A September Coup.

The History of the Legislation:

HR 658 introduced on February 11, 2011 by Florida Representative John Mica.

H.Res 189 introduced on March 30, 2011 by Florida Representative Daniel Webster.

H.Res 533 introduced February 1, 2012 by Florida Representative Daniel Webster.

S.223 introduced January 27, 2011 by West Virginia Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (Jay Rockefeller).
The Library of Congress: Thomas Registry (Search HR 658)
Items 1 through 4 of 4
1. [112nd] H.R.658 : FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act
Sponsor: Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] (introduced 2/11/2011) Cosponsors (24)
Committees: House Transportation and Infrastructure; House Science, Space, and Technology; House Judiciary; House Homeland Security
House Reports: 112-29 Part 1, 112-29 Part 2; Latest Conference Report: 112-381 (in Congressional Record H230-304)

Latest Major Action: 2/8/2012 Presented to President.
2. [112nd] H.RES.189 : Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 658) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Webster, Daniel [FL-8] (introduced 3/30/2011) Cosponsors (None)

Committees: House Rules

House Reports: 112-46

Latest Major Action: 3/31/2011 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 249 – 171 (Roll no. 205).
Latest Action: 3/31/2011 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

3. [112nd] H.RES.533 : Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 658) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Webster, Daniel [FL-8] (introduced 2/1/2012) Cosponsors (None)

Committees: House Rules

House Reports: 112-382

Latest Major Action: 2/3/2012 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.

Latest Action: 2/3/2012 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

4. [112nd] S.223 : FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act
Sponsor: Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] (introduced 1/27/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Homeland Security

Latest Major Action: 2/17/2011 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 87 – 8. Record Vote Number: 25.
Latest Action: 4/7/2011 See also H.R. 658.

Deep Military Integration: Towards a North American Combined Military Force

2012-02-10T06:48:00.000-08:00

Global Research
Dana Gabriel

The U.S. and Canada recently signed several bilateral agreements that will further strengthen continental security and defense cooperation. Deeper military integration between both countries is part of efforts to establish a North American security perimeter and better address common global threats.

Following the recent Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD) meeting which took place in Ottawa, the Commander of Canada Command, Lt.-Gen Walter Semianiw and the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), Gen. Charles Jacoby, Jr. signed three military documents. The first was the Combined Defense Plan which a backgrounder described as a, “planning framework between Canada Command, its counterpart USNORTHCOM, and NORAD for enhanced defense cooperation between Canada and the U.S. should governments require each other’s assistance.” The second is the Information Sharing Memorandum of Understanding, “an arrangement between Canada Command, its counterpart USNORTHCOM and NORAD to identify and provide for ease of sharing information amongst the three organizations.” The Civil Assistance Plan, which was originally signed in 2008 and allows the armed forces of one nation to support the other during an emergency was also renewed for two years.

Lee Berthiaume of Postmedia News reported that, “The Combined Defense Plan has been under discussion for several years and would further integrate cross-border military co-operation at a time when the Harper government is trying to reassure Washington it has a reliable partner in Canada when it comes to security.” Defense Minister Peter MacKay is quoted as saying, “This agreement provides a framework for the combined defense of Canada and the U.S. during peace, contingencies, and war.” He added, “The plan describes the authorities and means by which the two governments would approve homeland military operations in the event of a mutually agreed threat, and how our two militaries would collaborate and share information.” In his speech in front of the PJBD, Minister MacKay also called for, “increased military involvement implementing the Beyond the Border strategy, saying the Canadian Forces and its American counterparts should be supporting civilian agencies monitoring the cross-border security.” Also on the agenda at the defense forum was security cooperation in the Arctic, along with Canadian and U.S. engagement in the Western Hemisphere.

In an article for iPolitics, Colin Horgan wrote that at the recent bilateral defense meeting, “MacKay noted that such initiatives as Beyond the Border and the Regulatory Cooperation Council Action Plan will work to ensure that the vital economic partnership that joins our two countries continues to be the cornerstone of our economic competitiveness and security.” Defense Minister MacKay emphasized that security is linked to the economy and called for even greater cooperation to support the dual action plans. He stated, “We need to increasingly focus our military forces in support of those civilian departments and agencies that have the lead.” MacKay also explained, “We need to all work together to mitigate capability gaps, share best practices and co-operate on new approaches.” He went on to say, “there is still room for more integrated collaboration – domestically and bi-nationally.”

The latest military agreements further promote a perimeter approach to security. They are part of the Tri Command Vision efforts to merge NORAD, USNORTHCOM and Canada Command into one. As for the PJBD, it has once again become more relevant as a venue for bilateral security and military dialogue. Created in 1940 the panel, “is the senior advisory body on continental defense. It is composed of military and diplomatic representatives from both nations.” Over the years, it has, “served as a strategic-level military board charged with considering, in a broad sense, land, sea, air and space issues.” This includes areas concerning, “policy, operations, financial, logistics and other aspects of Canada-U.S. defense relations.” The PJBD is well positioned to play a significant role in plans for a fully integrated North American security perimeter, as well as in other facets of the evolving Canada-U.S. partnership.
On January 6, the Obama administration released the new document, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. The new strategy calls for maintaining a strong presence in the Middle East, as well as an expanding role in the Asia-Pacific region. Much of the focus will be on countering China’s rising power. This will include supporting large bases in Japan and South Korea, along with stationing troops in Australia. The U.S. will also continue efforts to forge stronger military alliances with the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Burma. While the plan envisions a leaner military force, there is little doubt that Washington will continue to police the world. How does Canada fit into this new realignment of American strategic priorities? It is clear that the U.S. will rely more on its allies during international missions. Canada may gain a greater voice in future military operations, but it will also mean that they will have to bear more of the burden. In the coming years, as NATO members begin cutting defense spending, Canada will be counted on to play an even bigger role in any possible overseas conflicts.

Whether it’s the perimeter security deal, the ongoing mission in Afghanistan or the bombing campaign that took place in Libya, the U.S. and Canada continue to enhance security and military cooperation. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, both countries have further deepened their defense relationship. In addition, Canada has pursued a more U.S.-style foreign policy. This includes imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, along with further expanding sanctions against Syria. Much like the U.S., Harper has singled out Iran as a threat to international peace and security. He has echoed the same sentiments that the regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and would be prepared to use it. Defense Minister Peter MacKay has also indicated that if necessary, Canada's armed forces are ready to offer assistance in Syria. More than ever, the U.S, and Canada share a more common approach to advancing security interests in not only North America, but around the globe.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com. Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

British troops support Syrian armed groups in Homs

2012-02-09T20:45:00.000-08:00

PressTV

An intelligence report says that British are providing logistic support to armed terrorist groups in the Syrian city of Homs in their bloody battle against civilians and the Syrian army forces.

The report published by Debka-file, which is widely believed to have close links to Israeli intelligence sources, revealed that British and Qatari forces supply ammunition and direct tactical support to armed groups in Homs to prepare the ground for a covert Turkish military operation in Syria.

According to the report, the presence of British and Qatari forces in Homs was high on the agenda during a Tuesday meeting between Syrian officials and the head of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mikhail Fradkov.

Secret Intelligence Service MI6, which collects Britain’s foreign intelligence, has also set up four bases in Homs to facilitate Turkey’s secret military operations in the Arab state.

While Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani made a proposal in January to deploy troops in Syria, Britain insists that it does not seek military action against the Syrian government.

Britain’s presence in Syria is a highly debated parliamentary issue in that country as the British government will have to bear another heavy burden of war if it carries out a Libya-style military operation in Syria.

Homs, one of the main focuses of terrorist groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has witnessed a number of acts of deadly violence since the beginning of the unrest in the country 11 months ago.

Meanwhile on Thursday, eight Syrian government forces were killed by armed terrorist groups in Homs and Idleb.

In recent days violence has been raging in Homs, where Syrian media say over 100 government troops have been killed.

The Syrian government has repeatedly accused several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, of fueling the unrest in the country by providing armed gangs with weapons and financial resources to incite civil war and topple the government of President Bashar al-Asad.

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Bolivian president says NGOs spy on his country for US

2012-02-09T20:28:00.000-08:00

PressTV

Bolivian President Evo Morales speaks during a press
conference at the governmental Palacio Quemado

Bolivian President Evo Morales has said that a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are spying on his country for the United States.

Some of the NGOs that work with local philanthropic groups "are the fifth column of espionage in Bolivia. I'm convinced of that, they are systems of espionage," Moales said in Oruro, 370 kilometers (230 miles) south of the capital La Paz.

"Some countries, especially the United States through USAID (US Agency for International Development), give money to some NGOs. Why? So these NGOs will be accountable" to the foreign governments, he added.

Morales, who became the first indigenous leader of Bolivia in nearly 500 years after his inauguration in January 2006, has many times accused NGOs of clandestinely working for Bolivia's enemies and conspiring against the country.

He has especially blamed three NGOs -- the Center for Legal Studies and Social Research (CEJIS), the Bolivian Forum on Environment and Development (FOBOBMADE) and the League of Defense of the Environment (LIDEMA) -- for plotting to undermine the Bolivian state.

The indigenous people of Bolivia and the rest of South America have suffered through five centuries of oppression, which began with the European invasion and conquest of the Americas.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Israel's Mossad trained assassins of Iran nuclear scientists, report says

2012-02-09T14:52:00.000-08:00

Haaretz

U.S. officials confirm link between clandestine Israeli operations and People’s Mujahedin of Iran activists, according to NBC News report.

Mossad officials are training Iranian dissident activists to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, a NBC News report citing U.S. officials said on Thursday. The report noted, however, that Washington was not directly involvement in the alleged attacks.

The report by NBC News followed Iranian accusations that Israel and the U.S. had been orchestrating attacks against Iranian scientists and military officials associated with Iran's nuclear program.

Ahmadi Roshan's car following the
explosion in Tehran, January 11, 2012.

These accusations resurfaced following the most recent alleged attack, as Iranian media reported last month that nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan was killed by a bomb placed on his car by a motorcyclist in Tehran.

According to the semi-official Fars news agency, Ahmadi Roshan, 32, supervised a department at Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province.

Funeral of of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a chemistry
expert and a director of the Natanz uranium
enrichment facility in central Iran, who was killed in a
brazen daylight assassination.

The United States has denied involvement in the killing and condemned it. Israel has declined to comment.

Just days following the bombing, Foreign Policy, quoting U.S. intelligence memos, reported that Mossad agents posed as CIA officers in order to recruit members of a Pakistani terror group to carry out assassinations and attacks against the regime in Iran.

Foreign Policy's Mark Perry reported that the Mossad operation was carried out in 2007-2008, behind the back of the U.S. government, and infuriated then U.S. President George W. Bush.

Later, a Sunday Times report claimed that agents associated with Israel's secret services were behind Ahmadi Roshans' assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

On Thursday, U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group People’s Mujahedin of Iran in order assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, adding that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama was aware of the operation, but had no direct link to them.

The U.S. officials reportedly confirmed the link between Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), with one official saying: "All your inclinations are correct.”

Yet another American official would only tell NBC “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All officials in question denied any U.S. involvement.

A Foreign Ministry comment to the story said that as "long as we can't see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won't react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."

The NBC report also cites a senior aide to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as describing what he said were strong links between Israel and Iranian dissident groups.

Mohammad Javad Larijani is quoted as saying that the these relations are "very intricate and close."

"[Israelis] are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information. And they recruit and also manage logistical support,” the reported quoted Larijani as saying.

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Nevada Election Result Likely Fraudulent, Ron Paul Votes Seemingly Discarded

2012-02-09T12:32:00.000-08:00

Money Trends Research
Gekko

by Daniel aka ‘Vision Victory’, Future Money Trends:

Something Is WRONG with the Nevada Election Results.

FutureMoneyTrends.com normally doesn’t comment on politics, but we have to mention this as there is definitely something wrong with the Nevada election results. First off, this was a very small election, so getting the results should have been easy. Yet for some reason, the Nevada State Republican party took 3 days to give us a final count of only 32,894 votes.

***No matter who you support, anytime we have something wrong with an election, it effects all of us, so we should all be concerned. Did Ron Paul Really Come in 3rd?

One clear trend in this 2012 election is that Ron Paul’s support is much larger than it was in 2008. For example, when you compare 2008 to 2012 vote totals, Ron Paul has increased his support in each state, significantly.

Ron Paul Vote Increase in 2012 VS. 2008:

* Iowa UP 119%

* New Hampshire UP 210%

* South Carolina UP 385%

* Florida UP 86% (He didn’t even campaign in Florida)

Click Here To Sign A Petition Demanding A Visible Recount

Now here is the part that makes no sense at all: Ron Paul who took second in Nevada in 2008 with 6,087 votes, only increased his support by 1.4% to just 6,175 in the 2012 results, despite all of the excitement, all the money spent, which was a lot more. In fact, the Paul campaign had brochures and volunteers almost knock on every door in Nevada this time around. Nevada is also very fertile ground for a candidate like Ron Paul, many people in Nevada just want to be left alone by the government, Ron Paul opposes taxing tips, seeing that they are not really income, but gifts, you would think this would go over real well in Las Vegas.

On January 31st, a FutureMoneyTrends.com staff member and his family were in Henderson, Nevada, at a rally. At this rally over 1,200 people showed up. Let’s say that out of that 1,200, only 1,000 were from Nevada, that would mean out of the entire state of Nevada, at just one of his many rallies over 3 days, 17% of his supporters showed up. If we assume that most of the 1,200 were from Nevada, then that would bring that number up to 20%.

Are we the only ones that are looking at this and scratching our heads?

Sometimes a picture can help put things into perspective. Regardless of who you are voting for, if we can’t trust the vote counters or the media to hold them accountable, then what is the point of even having an election.

The one caucus that was on live TV that was held special for Jews and Seventh Day Adventist was covered by CNN. Ron Paul won this one in a landslide, again we find this interesting because if Ron Paul is winning very religious people over in a landslide, we are willing to make a Las Vegas bet that he won the non-religious Las Vegas residents by even more. For people who just want to mind their own business and do their own thing, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, Ron Paul is really their only option.

You can go through all of the articles we have written, videos produced, and emails sent out, we are not a conspiracy site at all, 99.9% of our content is about future trends and economy.

So, here is what we are asking our members to do. If this Nevada election result bothers you, forward this article. Maybe this article will eventually get forwarded to the right person who does have the authority and integrity to look into this further
Click Here To Sign A Petition Demanding A Visible Recount
Source

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Profit Driven Prison Industrial Complex: The Economics of Incarceration in the USA

2012-02-09T12:13:00.000-08:00

Global Research
Nile Bowie

For anyone paying attention, there is no shortage of issues that fundamentally challenge the underpinning moral infrastructure of American society and the values it claims to uphold. Under the conceptual illusion of liberty, few things are more sobering than the amount of Americans who will spend the rest of their lives in an isolated correctional facility – ostensibly, being corrected. The United States of America has long held the highest incarceration rate in the world, far surpassing any other nation. For every 100,000 Americans, 743 citizens sit behind bars. Presently, the prison population in America consists of more than six million people, a number exceeding the amount of prisoners held in the gulags of the former Soviet Union at any point in its history.

While miserable statistics illustrate some measure of the ongoing ethical calamity occurring in the detainment centers inside the land of the free, only a partial picture of the broader situation is painted. While the country faces an unprecedented economic and financial crisis, business is booming in other fields – namely, the private prison industry. Like any other business, these institutions are run for the purpose of turning a profit. State and federal prisons are contracted out to private companies who are paid a fixed amount to house each prisoner per day. Their profits result from spending the minimum amount of state or federal funds on each inmate, only to pocket the remaining capital. For the corrections conglomerates of America, prosperity depends on housing the maximum numbers of inmates for the longest potential time - as inexpensively as possible.

By allowing a profit-driven capitalist-enterprise model to operate over institutions that should rightfully be focused on rehabilitation, America has enthusiastically embraced a prison industrial complex. Under the promise of maintaining correctional facilities at a lower cost due to market competition, state and federal governments contract privately run companies to manage and staff prisons, even allowing the groups to design and construct facilities. The private prison industry is primarily led by two morally deficient entities, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut Corrections Corporation). These companies amassed a combined revenue of over $2.9 billion in 2010, not without situating themselves in the center of political influence.

The number of people imprisoned under state and federal custody increased 772% percent between 1970 and 2009, largely due to the incredible influence private corporations wield against the American legal system. Because judicial leniency and sentencing reductions threaten the very business models of these private corporations, millions have been spent lobbying state officials and political candidates in an effort to influence harsher “zero tolerance” legislation and mandatory sentencing for many non-violent offenses. Political action committees assembled by private correctional corporations have lobbied over 3.3 million dollars to the political establishment since 2001. An annual report released by the CCA in 2010 reiterates the importance of influencing legislation:

“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.”

Considering today’s private prison population is over 17 times larger than the figure two decades earlier, the malleability of the judicial system under corporate influence is clear. The Corrections Corporation of America is the first and largest private prison company in the US, cofounded in 1983 by Tom Beasley, former Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. The CCA entered the market and overtly exploited Beasley’s political connections in an attempt to exert control over the entire prison system of Tennessee. Today, the company operates over sixty-five facilities and owns contracts with the US Marshal Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Prisons. The GEO Group operates 118 detention centers throughout the United States, South Africa, UK, Australia and elsewhere. Under its original name, the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation was synonymous for the sadistic abuse of prisoners in its facilities, resulting in the termination of several contracts in 1999.

The political action committees assembled by private prison enterprises have also wielded incredible influence with respect to administering harsher immigration legislation. The number of illegal immigrants being incarcerated inside the United States is rising exponentially under Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency responsible for annually overseeing the imprisonment of 400,000 foreign nationals at the cost of over $1.9 billion on custody-related operations. The agency has come under heavy criticism for seeking to contract a 1,250-bed immigration detention facility in Essex County, New Jersey to a private company that shares intimate ties to New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie. Given the private prison industry’s dependence on immigration-detention contracts, the huge contributions of the prison lobby towards drafting Arizona’s recrementitious immigration law SB 1070 are all but unexpected. While the administration of Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer is lined with former private prison lobbyists, its Department of Corrections budget has been raised by $10 million, while all other Arizona state agencies are subject to budget cuts in 2012’s fiscal year.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this obstinate moral predicament presents itself in the private contracting of prisoners and their role in assembling vast quantities of military and commercial equipment. While the United States plunges itself into each new manufactured conflict under a wide range of fraudulent pretenses, it is interesting to note that all military helmets, ammunition belts, bulletproof vests, ID tags, uniforms, tents, bags and other equipment used by military occupation forces are produced by inmates in federal prisons across the US. Giant multinational conglomerates and weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Corporation employ federal prison labor to cheaply assemble weapons components, only to sell them to the Pentagon at premium prices. At the lowest, Prisoners earn 17 cents an hour to assemble high-tech electronic components for guided missile systems needed to produce Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missiles and anti-tank projectiles.

In the past, political mouthpieces of the United States have criticized countries such as China and North Korea for their role in exploiting prisoner labor to create commodity products such as women’s bras and artificial flowers for export. Evidently, outsourcing the construction of the military equipment responsible for innumerable civilian causalities to the prisons of America warrants no such criticism from the military industrial establishment. In utter derision toward the integrity of the common worker, prison inmates are exposed to toxic spent ammunition, depleted uranium dust and other chemicals when contracted to clean and reassemble tanks and military vehicles returned from combat. Prison laborers receive no union protection, benefits or health and safety protection when made to work in electronic recycling factories where inmates are regularly exposed to lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.

In addition to performing tasks that can result in detrimental illnesses, prison labor produces other military utilities such as night-vision goggles, body armor, radio and communication devices, components for battleship anti-aircraft guns, land mine sweepers and electro-optical equipment. While this abundant source of low-cost manpower fosters greater incentives for corporate stockholders to impose draconian legislation on the majority of Americans who commit nonviolent offenses, it’s hard to imagine such an innately colossal contradiction to the nation’s official rhetoric, i.e. American values. Furthermore, prison labor is employed not only in the assembly of complex components used in F-15 fighter jets and Cobra helicopters, it also supplies 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services, with similar statistics in regard to products such as paints, stoves, office furniture, headphones, and speakers.

It is some twisted irony that large sections of the workforce in America’s alleged free-market are shackled in chains. Weapons manufactured in the isolation of America’s prisons are the source of an exploitative cycle, which leaves allied NATO member countries indebted to a multibillion-dollar weapons industry at the behest of the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon. Complete with its own trade exhibitions, mail-order catalogs and investment houses on Wall Street, the eminence of the private prison industry solidifies the ongoing corrosion of American principles – principles that seem more abstract now, than the day they were written.

Predictably, the potential profit of the prison labor boom has encouraged the foundations of US corporate society to move their production forces into American prisons. Conglomerates such as IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom's, Revlon, Macy's, Pierre Cardin, Victoria’s Secret, and Target have all begun mounting production operations in US prisons. Many of these Fortune 500 conglomerates are corporate members of civil society groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). These think tanks are critical toward influencing American foreign policy. Under the guise of democracy promotion, these civil societies fund opposition movements and train dissent groups in countries around the world in the interest of pro-US regime change. With naked insincerity, the same companies that outsource the production of their products to American prisons simultaneously sponsor civil societies that demanded the release of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest – an overly political effort in the on-going attempts to install a compliant regime in that country.

The concept of privatizing prisons to reduce expenses comes at great cost to the inmates detained, who are subjected to living in increasingly squalid conditions in jail cells across America. In 2007, the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) was sent to a West Texas juvenile prison run by GEO Group for the purpose of monitoring its quality standards. The monitors sent by the TYC were subsequently fired for failing to report the sordid conditions they witnessed in the facility while they awarded the GEO Group with an overall compliance score of nearly 100%. Independent auditors later visited the facility and discovered that inmates were forced to urinate or defecate in small containers due to a lack of toilets in some of the cells. The independent commission also noted in their list of reported findings that the facility racially segregated prisoners and disciplined Hispanics for speaking Spanish by denying their access to layers and medical treatment. It was later discovered that the TYC monitors were employed by the GEO Group. Troublingly, the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (WGYCF) operated by the GEO Group in Mississippi has been subject to a class-action lawsuit after reports that staff members were complicit in the beating and stabbing of a prisoner who consequently incurred permanent brain damage. The official compliant authored by the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center also highlights cases where the administration turned a blind eye to brutal cases of rape and torture within the facility.

The first private prison models were introduced following the abolishment of slavery after the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865, which saw expansive prison farms replace slave plantations. Prisons of the day contracted groups of predominately African-American inmates to pick cotton and construct railroads principally in southern states such as Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. In 2012, there are more African-Americans engrossed in the criminal-justice system than any point during slavery. Throughout its history, the American prison system has shared little with the concept of rehabilitation. Like the post-Civil War prison farms, today’s system functions to purport required labor, largely on a racially specific basis. African-Americans consist of 40% of the prison population and are incarcerated seven times more often than whites, despite the fact that African-Americans make up only 12% of the national population. Once released, former inmates are barred from voting in elections, denied educational opportunities and are legally discriminated against in their efforts to find employment and housing. Few can deny the targeting of underprivileged urban communities of color in America’s failed War on Drugs. This phenomenon can largely be contributed to the stipulations of its anti-drug legislation, which commanded maximum sentencing for possession of minute amounts of rock cocaine, a substance that floods poor inner-city black communities.

Unbeknown to the vast majority of Americans, the US government has been actively taking steps to modify the legal infrastructure of the country to allow for a dramatic expansion of the domestic prison system at the expense of civil rights. On December 31st, 2011, Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) H.R. 1540. Emulating the rouge military dictatorships the US Government has long condemned in its rhetoric, the NDAA introduces a vaguely worded legislation that allows for US citizens to be arbitrarily detained in military detention without due process - might they be predictably be deemed radical, conspiratorial or suspected of terrorism. In a climate of rising public discontent, the establishment media has steadfastly worked to blur the line between public activism and domestic extremism. In addition to the world’s largest network of prison facilities, over 800 located detainment camps exist in all regions of the United States with varying maximum capacities.

Facing economic stagnation, many Americans have been detained in responder camps as a consequence of publically demonstrating in accordance with the Occupy Wall Street movement launched in New York City. Under the guise of protecting Americans from a largely contrived and abstract threat of fundamentalist violence, citizens have been denied the right of peaceful assembly and placed in detainment apparatuses, managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Documents have been released by the American Civil Liberties Union detailing the Pentagon’s widespread monitoring of public demonstrations and the targeting of individual activists under threat of national security. Co-authored by Senator Joe Lieberman, the Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166) gives the US government the power to detain nationals and revoke their American citizenship under suspicion of behavior perceived as terrorism.

This legislation becomes increasingly more dangerous as citizens can be labeled domestic extremists based on their constitutionally protected activism or personal political leanings. In January 2006, a contract to construct detention facilities for the Department of Homeland Security worth a maximum of $385 million was awarded to KBR, a subsidiary of Haliburton. Following the signing of NDAA earlier in 2012, leaked documents reveal that KBR is now seeking to staff its detention centers and award contracts for services such as catering, temporary fencing and barricades, laundry and medical services, power generation, and refuse collection. It would be reasonable to assume that these facilities could be managed in partnership with private corporations such as the GEO Group or the CCA, as many federal and state penitentiaries privatize sections of their facilities to privately owned companies. Declassified US Army documents originally drafted in 1997 divulge the existence of inmate labor camps inside US military installations. It is all but unexpected that the relationship between the upper echelons of government and the private prison enterprise will grow increasingly more intimate in the current climate of prison industrial legislation.

The partnership between the United States government and its corporate associates spans various industries however, they all seek the common pursuit of profit irrespective of the moral and ethical consequence – the human consequence. The increasing influence of the Prison Industrial Complex towards official legislation and economic undertakings signifies a reprehensible threat to basic human rights. Perhaps the issuance of government legislation that leads offenders into detainment for the benefit of private shareholders is the purest embodiment of fascism, as cited in Mussolini’s vision of a Corporate State. Perhaps we all (this author included) fail to grasp the seriousness of these legislations and their implications on our lives.

Mumia Abu-Jamal has spent over three decades on death row in the throngs of the American prison system. Prior to his conviction in 1981 for the murder of a white police officer, Jamal was a political activist and President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. Critical evidence vindicating Jamal was withheld from the trial prior to the issuance of the death penalty. Forensic experts believe he was denied a fair trial. On December 7, 2011, the Philadelphia District Attorney announced that prosecutors would no longer seek the death penalty for Jamal. He remains imprisoned for life without parole and continues his work as a journalist from his jail cell in Pennsylvania.

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Why Is Global Shipping Slowing Down So Dramatically?

2012-02-09T11:57:00.000-08:00

The Economic Collapse

If the global economy is not heading for a recession, then why is global shipping slowing down so dramatically? Many economists believe that measures of global shipping such as the Baltic Dry Index are leading economic indicators. In other words, they change before the overall economic picture changes. For example, back in early 2008 the Baltic Dry Index began falling dramatically. There were those that warned that such a rapid decline in the Baltic Dry Index meant that a significant recession was coming, and it turned out that they were right. Well, the Baltic Dry Index is falling very rapidly once again. In fact, on February 3rd the Baltic Dry Index reached a low that had not been seen since August 1986. Some economists say that there are unique reasons for this (there are too many ships, etc.), but when you add this to all of the other indicators that Europe is heading into a recession, a very frightening picture emerges. We appear to be staring a global economic slowdown right in the face, and we all need to start getting prepared for that.

If you don't read about economics much, you might not know what the Baltic Dry Index actually is.

Investopedia defines the Baltic Dry Index this way....

A shipping and trade index created by the London-based Baltic Exchange that measures changes in the cost to transport raw materials such as metals, grains and fossil fuels by sea.

When the global economy is booming, the demand for shipping tends to go up. When the global economy is slowing down, the demand for shipping tends to decline.
And right now, global shipping is slowing way, way down.

In fact, recently there have been reports of negative shipping rates.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, one company recently booked a ship at the ridiculous rate of negative $2,000 a day....

Glencore International Plc paid nothing to hire a dry-bulk ship with the vessel’s operator paying $2,000 a day of the trader’s fuel costs after freight rates plunged to all-time lows.

Glencore chartered the vessel, operated by Global Maritime Investments Ltd., a Cyprus-based company with offices in London, Steve Rodley, GMI’s U.K. managing director, said by phone today. The daily payments last the first 60 days of the charter, Rodley said. The vessel will haul a cargo of grains to Europe, putting the carrier in a better position for its next shipment, he said.

So why would anyone agree to ship goods at negative rates?

Well, it beats the alternative.

This was explained in a recent Fox Business article....

“They’re doing this because you can’t just have ships sitting. If they sit too long, then that’s hard on the ships. They have to keep them loaded and moving from port to port,” said Darin Newsom, senior commodities analyst at DTN.

If the owner of a ship can get someone to at least pay for part of the fuel and the journey will get the ship closer to its next destination, then that is better than having the ship just sit there.

But just a few short years ago (before the last recession) negative shipping rates would have been unthinkable.

Asian shipping is really slowing down as well. The following comes from a recent article in the Telegraph....

Shanghai shipping volumes contracted sharply in January as Europe's debt crisis curbed demand for Asian goods, stoking fresh doubts about the strength of the Chinese economy.

Container traffic through the Port of Shanghai in January fell by more than a million tons from a year earlier.

So this is something we are seeing all over the globe.

Another indicator that is troubling economists right now is petroleum usage. It turns out that petroleum usage is really starting to slow down as well.

The following is an excerpt from a recent article posted on Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis....

As I have been telling you recently, there is some unprecedented data coming out in petroleum distillates, and they slap me in the face and tell me we have some very bad economic trends going on, totally out of line with such things as the hopium market - I mean stock market.

This past week I actually had to reformat my graphs as the drop off peak exceeded my bottom number for reporting off peak - a drop of ALMOST 4,000,000 BARRELS PER DAY off the peak usage in our past for this week of the year.

I would encourage you to go check out the charts that were posted in that article. You can find them right here. Often a picture is worth a thousand words, and those charts are quite frightening.

Over the past few days, I have been trying to make the point that nothing got fixed after the financial crisis of 2008 and that an even bigger crisis is on the way.

Yes, the stock market is flying high right now.

Yes, even "Dr. Doom" Nouriel Roubini is convinced that the stock market will go even higher.
But this rally will not last that much longer.

Wherever you look, global economic activity is slowing down. The UK economy and the German economy both actually shrank a bit in the fourth quarter of 2011. About half of all global trade involves Europe in one form or another. As Europe slows down, it is going to affect the entire planet.

Many thought that the German economy was so strong that it would not be significantly affected by the problems the rest of Europe is having, but that is turning out not to be the case.

In a new article by CBS News entitled "German economic slowdown worse than expected?", we are told that industrial production in Germany is declining even more than anticipated....

German industrial production fell 2.9 percent in December from the month before, according to official data released Tuesday, suggesting the country's economic slowdown could be worse than expected.

So don't believe all the recent hype about an "economic recovery". Europe is heading into a recession, Asia is slowing down and the U.S. will not be immune.

Despite what you hear from the mainstream media, the truth is that the U.S. economy is not improving and incredibly tough times are ahead.

Thankfully, those of us that are aware of what is happening can make preparations for the economic storm that is coming.

Others will not be so fortunate.

Help Us Transmit This Story

Add to Your Blogger Account
Put it On Facebook
Tweet this post
Print it from your printer
Email and a collection of other outlets
Try even more services

Nevada vote fraud official

2012-02-09T11:45:00.000-08:00

The Examiner

Jeffrey Phelps

Once again, the 2012 election season brings
the worst out of establishment politicians
as Nevada GOP officials steal another
election from Ron Paul

As if anyone who’s been paying attention over the last few weeks is actually surprised, another caucus state is taken down by GOP officials, permanently altering the outcome of yet another election, rendering its results forever in question.

This time, however, the people of Nevada are the immediate victims of mounting state GOP scandals, as the historical “First in the West” Nevada Caucus has been officially rendered a fraud, and the unwitting citizens and voters are once again left holding the bag.

So far, the overall magnitude of the circumstances has gone largely unnoticed by the people of the US in general, but that didn’t deter NV GOP Chairwoman, Amy Tarkanian from filing her resignation the very next morning on Sunday, as obvious and rampant, widespread election fraud is sweeping through the country in an establishment elite attempt to hide the real results, in favor of a pre-chosen candidate, despite the wishes of the American people.

Very similar to the circumstances that played out in Iowa just weeks ago, also forcing a state GOP official there to recently submit his own resignation, precincts across the state of Nevada are now coming up with mismatching numbers, missing votes, and ultimately and permanently unverifiable results, rendering the entire United States 2012 election process a total failure and, so far, unrecoverable.

After almost every Caucus thus far, the election has to be ultimately rendered meaningless. with the only real solutions being independent Grand Jury investigations, total do-overs, or simply allow the establishment and it’s minions to steal the nomination away from the people and the candidate they are actually trying to choose, and simply give it to Mitt Romney instead.

Amazingly, as state after state is ransacked by establishment backed party officials, as Romney continues to benefit from all the pre-meditated mayhem, the establishment’s media continues to act as if nothing whatsoever is happening and everything is under control, as if all this has been the plan all along.

Breaking the story of Chairwoman, Tarkanian’s resignation, while trying to be as quiet about it as possible, The Nevada Sun did their very best to spin the circumstances and cleverly word the story, attempting to leave the reader with the impression that everything was going to be ok, when the actual reality of the circumstances is obviously quite dire.

As it turns out, just as in Iowa, the likelihood that Ron Paul should have actually been the winner is very high. Not only did CNN show live coverage of a special late evening vote count in a populated Las Vegas precinct that had Ron Paul winning by almost 60%, statistics are showing that Ron Paul may have actually won the entire caucus by approx. the same margin, had in not been for another round of State GOP election fraud that is seemingly never going to be address by the powers that be, for obvious reasons.

There was even a CNN videotaped situation outside of that same precinct that had event staff attempting to prevent a Ron Paul supporter from entering the premises, seemingly so he couldn’t assure a fair results count.

Perhaps the most obvious aspect of the situation, however, may be the fact that Nevada is a known Libertarian state, Ron Paul has basically campaigned there since his last attempt at the white house, his numbers have almost doubled in every state since then, yet Nevada state GOP ‘officials’ expect everyone to believe he actually received fewer votes there in 2012 than he did in 2008?

The situation has become so desperate for the American People and the rule of law, even the historically very humble and quiet Ron Paul should consider coming forward to cry foul. Something he has yet to do, largely because he came so close to winning in Iowa, despite GOP state officials rigging the outcome for Romney…then Santorum.

He also knew he’d be targeted by that same establishment’s media and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist, if he tried speaking out against what should be obvious if it were actually handled honestly by the media, both locally and nationally.

It’s now become so obvious that the establishment will do anything to rig the results they are even willing to do it openly, even in caucus states that have paper ballots that are harder to hide.

This desperate attempt to make Mitt Romney the candidate, despite the wishes of the American people, must be a dead give-away that, should he happen to end up beating Obama, he is the one that is guaranteed to continue the overall and continual, multi-decade, establishment 1%’r agenda, whether the people of the United States agree with it or not.

Considering the fact that it seems Ron Paul should be the one actually winning the majority of the caucuses and primaries thus far, goes a long way in showing those paying attention that Obama also represents that same status quo that Mitt Romney does, something the establishment is refusing to let the people of America chose not to go along with.

One thing is for sure, it’s going to be very interesting to watch this play out, as scandal after scandal mounts, state by state. Will the people simply sit back and allow the establishment to force their favorite candidate into office, regardless of what the people desire? Only time will tell...

Sources:

Iowa Situation:

Iowa Vote Fraud Official: http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/iowa-vote-fraud-official

Matt Strawn, Iowa GOP Chairman, To Step Down http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/matt-strawn-iowa-gop-chairman-resigns-_n_1244186.html

Nevada Situation:

Vote count in GOP caucus continuing in Nevada’s largest county http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/05/vote-count-gop-caucus-continuing-nevadas-largest-c/

Nevada GOP dealing with ‘trouble box’ of questionable ballots http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/05/nevada-gop-dealing-trouble-box/

Excess Ballots Were Counted In Clark County, Nevada http://youtu.be/LphvuOJh8Ak

Ron Paul Trounces Everyone! In Only Nevada Caucus Vote Counted On Live TV http://youtu.be/J8zFzebsoAU

Ron Paul 2008-2012 Vote Comparison (image graph) http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ron-paul-2008-2012-vote-comparison/question-2441519/

NEVADA CAUCUS VOTE FRAUD PROOF! 2012 NEVADA CAUCUS PRIMARY VOTER FRAUD PROOF http://youtu.be/Z3D9-NNuC4g

Newt Gingrich Supporter: Everyone Is Voting For Ron Paul! http://youtu.be/12lXCXEtJnY

Move Over, Iowa, Nevada Has A Caucus Problem Too http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/02/05/146415698/move-over-iowa-nevada-has-a-caucus-problem-too

It is official: Elections in America are a complete hoax http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/it-is-official-elections-america-are-a-complete-hoax?CID=obinsite

Why Nevada’s GOP caucuses were a jackpot of embarrassments http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/02/05/why-nevadas-gop-caucuses-were-a-jackpot-of-embarrassments/?gta=commentlistpos#commentlistpos

Nevada! Clark County Vote Fraud http://robertwanekreports.com/nevada-clark-county-vote-fraud/

<h3>

Help Us Transmit This Story</h3>

<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style ">

<a class="addthis_button_preferred_1" href=""></a>  Add to Your Blogger Account

<a class="addthis_button_preferred_2" href=""></a>  Put it On Facebook

<a class="addthis_button_preferred_3" href=""></a>  Tweet this post

<a class="addthis_button_preferred_4" href=""></a>  Print it from your printer

<a class="addthis_button_compact" href=""></a>  Email and a collection of other outlets

<a class="addthis_counter addthis_bubble_style" href=""></a>  Try even more services

<script src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#pubid=xa-4dffbfdc254d8b14" type="text/javascript">

</script></div>

Vahrenholt’s Spiegel Interview –“I Feel Duped On Climate Change!”

2012-02-08T16:53:00.000-08:00

Spiegel

Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science.

The articulate utility executive is nervous at the beginning of the conversation. He is groping for words -- not a common occurrence for the practiced provocateur. After all, Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. "Perhaps it's just part of my generation," he says.

He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry's toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname "Feuerfritze" (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. "I'm going to make enemies in all camps," he says.

He wants to break a taboo. "The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.
He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to read prior to its publication. Marotzke's assessment is clear: Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. "A number of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago," Marotzke claims, but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly. Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and even minor declines in temperature. "This has exposed us to potential criticism," he says.

While books by climate heretics usually receive little attention, it could be different in Vahrenholt's case. "His fame," says Marotzke, "will ensure that there will be a debate on the issue."

The book is a source of discomfort within Vahrenholt's party. No one with the SPD leadership is willing to comment on the theories of their prominent fellow party member, from former Environment Minister and current SPD Chairman Sigmar Gabriel to parliamentary floor leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who was given an advance copy of the book.

A lecture Vahrenholt was scheduled to give at the University of Osnabrück in northwestern Germany was recently cancelled.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Vahrenholt, in the week before last, you made the surprising announcement that you are resigning as head of RWE Innogy. And now your book "Die Kalte Sonne," in which you deny the climate catastrophe, is appearing. Were you forced to step down because your ideas could damage RWE's new green image?

Vahrenholt: No. My contract would have expired at the end of the year, anyway. Besides, I will continue to be a member of the company's supervisory board for another three years.

SPIEGEL: How have your fellow executives responded to your provocative prediction that it will get colder instead of warmer in the coming decades?

Vahrenholt: This is not an RWE book. Aside from CEO Jürgen Grossmann, I didn't give an advance copy to anyone in the company. Grossmann, at any rate, found it so engrossing that he read the entire book in one night.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, your precipitous withdrawal from RWE management is reminiscent of the scandal surrounding Thilo Sarrazin, who was forced to resign from the board of Germany's central bank in 2010 following the publication of his controversial book on immigration and integration.

Vahrenholt: This isn't a precipitous withdrawal. Besides, I don't need Thilo Sarrazin as a role model. I also didn't need a role model when I drew attention to risks in the chemical industry in my 1978 book "Seveso ist überall" (ed's. note: Seveso is Everywhere -- a reference to the infamous Seveso chemical spill in 1976 in Italy). Today, I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate. It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn't gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.

SPIEGEL: You are an electric utility executive by profession. What prompted you to get involved in climatology?

Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully.

SPIEGEL: And what was your conclusion?

Vahrenholt: The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2. CO2 alone will never cause a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. Only with the help of supposed amplification effects, especially water vapor, do the computers arrive at a drastic temperature increase. I say that global warming will remain below two degrees by the end of the century. This is an eminently political message, but it's also good news.

SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don't you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?

Vahrenholt: Because I don't engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don't have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals -- just as the IPCC does. The book is also a platform for scientists who apply good arguments in diverging from the views of the IPCC. The established climate models have failed across the board because they cannot cogently explain the absence of warming.

SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill has to do with the sun. What makes you so sure?

Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …

SPIEGEL: … but solar researchers are still in disagreement over whether the cycles you mention actually exist. What do you think this means for the future?

Vahrenholt: In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This "large solar maximum," as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now.

SPIEGEL: It is undisputed that fluctuations in solar activity can influence the climate. Most experts assume that an unusually long solar minimum, evidenced by the very small number of sunspots at the time, led to the "Little Ice Age" that began in 1645. There were many severe winters at the time, with rivers freezing over. However, astrophysicists still don't know the extent to which solar fluctuations actually affect temperatures.

Vahrenholt: Many scientists assume that the temperature changes by more than 1 degree Celsius for the 1,000-year cycle and by up to 0.7 degrees Celsius for the smaller cycles. Climatologists should be putting a far greater effort into finding ways to more accurately determine the effects of the sun on climate. For the IPCC and the politicians it influences, CO2 is practically the only factor. The importance of the sun for the climate is systematically underestimated, and the importance of CO2 is systematically overestimated. As a result, all climate predictions are based on the wrong underlying facts.

SPIEGEL: But you are doing exactly what you criticize climatologists of doing: Using a thin body of data, you make exact predictions. In your book, you estimate the sun's influence on the climate down to the last 0.1 degrees. No one can do that.

Part 2: 'Dozens of Solar Researchers Agree with Me'

Vahrenholt: I don't claim that I know precisely whether the sun is responsible for a 40, 50 or 60 percent share of global warming. But it's nonsense for the IPCC to claim that the sun has nothing to do with it.

SPIEGEL: On balance, you predict a global cooling of 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2035. Why such a risky prediction?

Vahrenholt: If you want to revitalize the deadlocked debate, you have to have the courage to name a number. And we derive this number from scientific studies on climate history to date.

SPIEGEL: So your contention that we are wrong about global warming is merely a provocation?

Vahrenholt: No. I mean it very seriously, and I know that dozens of solar researchers agree with me. I am perfectly aware of the defamation I will have to listen to in the near future. The climate debate also has some of the trappings of an inquisition. I'm curious to see which truth ministry will now initiate proceedings against me. Perhaps it'll be the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, which is headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, an adviser to the chancellor.

SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill in global warming since 2000 has been caused in large part by a simultaneous decline in solar activity. But, in fact, the sun behaved relatively normally until the middle of the century, only becoming noticeably quieter after that. How does this fit together?

Vahrenholt: There are two effects: the declining solar activity, as well as the fluctuations in ocean currents, such as the 60-year Pacific oscillation, which was in a positive warm phase from 1977 to 2000 and, since 2000, has led to cooling as a result of its decline. Their contribution to the change in temperature has also been wrongly attributed to CO2. Most of all, however, the last sunspot cycle was weaker than the one before it. This is why the sun's magnetic field has continued to weaken since 2000. As a result, this magnetic field doesn't shield us against cosmic radiation quite as well, which in turn leads to stronger cloud formation and, therefore, cooling. What else has to happen before the IPCC at least mentions these relationships in its reports?

SPIEGEL: What you neglect to mention is that it hasn't been proven yet that cosmic radiation, which is shielded by the sun at varying degrees of effectiveness, truly leads to more cooling clouds on Earth. So far, it is only a hypothesis.

Vahrenholt: It's more than that. The Cloud Experiment, headed by physicist Jasper Kirkby, has been underway at the CERN particle research center near Geneva since 2006. The initial results of tests conducted in a chamber in which the earth's atmosphere was simulated showed that cosmic particles do indeed lead to the formation of aerosol particles for clouds.

SPIEGEL: But the aerosols demonstrated in the Cloud Experiment are much too small. They would have to grow before they could actually serve as condensation germs for clouds. Whether this happens in nature is still an open question. You present this as a fact.

Vahrenholt: You will find many correlations between cloud cover and cosmic radiation in the book. I'd like to know why the IPCC doesn't thoroughly examine this mechanism. My guess is that the answer to this question would jeopardize the entire foundation of the IPCC predictions.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, you should be more careful with prognoses on future solar activity. In 2009, US scientists predicted that there would be no sunspots for years. In fact, they returned in 2010. The truth is that we are experiencing rather normal solar activity at the moment.

Vahrenholt: The solar cycle is everything but normal. NASA scientists predict that this cycle will indeed be the weakest of the last 80 years. Not only did it start two years too late, but it's also very weak. And, besides, you can't just count sunspots. Cosmic particles continue to rain down on us because the sun's magnetic field is hardly shielding us.

SPIEGEL: It's true that there will be a large solar minimum sometime in the next 500 years. But no one knows exactly when. The probability that this will occur in the next 40 years is less than 10 percent. But, in your book, you predict: "It is clear that the sun will be responsible for colder periods in the first half of this century." Do you know more than all astrophysicists combined?

Vahrenholt: The probability of a large solar minimum, as it occurred during the Little Ice Age, is indeed less than 10 percent. But we are at the beginning of a lighter decline in solar activity of the kind we see every 87 and every 210 years. I've spoken with many solar physicists who expect this to happen.

SPIEGEL: We know many other solar scientists who question this. Another maximum is just as statistically likely as a minimum. Predicting what the sun will do in the coming decades borders on fortune-telling.

Vahrenholt: I know only one German solar scientist who has expressed such doubt. Various American and British solar research groups believe that weak solar cycles are ahead. I take this seriously and expect only cooling from the sun until 2050.

SPIEGEL: And what will you do if temperatures continue to rise, after all?

Vahrenholt: Then I'll give SPIEGEL an interview in 2020 and publicly admit that I've made a mistake. But I'm convinced that it won't be necessary.

SPIEGEL: Do you seriously believe that all 2,000 scientists involved in the IPCC are deluded or staying true to the official line?

Vahrenholt: It's not like that. However, I am critical of the role played by the handful of lead authors who take on the final editing of the report. They claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, which are not peer-reviewed sources. These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. Such exaggerations don't surprise me. Of the 34 supposedly independent members who write the synthesis report for politicians, almost a third are associated with environmental organizations like Greenpeace or the WWF. Strange, isn't it?

SPIEGEL: Why are you taking on the role of the climate rebel with such passion? Where does this rage come from?

Vahrenholt: For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I've been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance.

SPIEGEL: If we take your book to its logical conclusion, it will be unnecessary to reduce CO2 emissions at all.

Vahrenholt: No. Even a temperature increase of only one degree would be a noticeable change. But I am indeed saying that climate change is manageable because the cooling effects of the sun and the ocean currents give us enough time to prepare. In any case, it will be easy for us in Germany to adjust.

SPIEGEL: So, is it a mistake to concentrate exclusively on the reduction of carbon dioxide?

Vahrenholt: Yes. In addition to carbon dioxide, we also have black soot, for example. It creates 55 percent of the warming effect of CO2, but it could be filtered out with little effort within a few years, especially in emerging and developing countries. And, in doing so, we would achieve huge benefits for human health.

SPIEGEL: Would the expansion of wind energy have proceeded as quickly without concerns over the climate?

Vahrenholt: It was a driving force. But it was mainly engineering skills that brought wind energy to a profitable level. Again, I want us to continue stressing renewable energy, which we have to make competitive. I just think that we should proceed sensibly: Wind power and biomass are fine in Germany, but no solar panels, please! They're better off in Africa and southern Europe. It's crazy to install 50 percent of worldwide solar panels in "Solar Country Germany" for fear of the supposed climate disaster and to spend €8 billion ($10.4 billion) a year on it!

SPIEGEL: But aren't you shooting yourself in the foot when you say that climate change isn't really that bad? How do you intend to keep justifying emissions trading if you feel that greenhouse gases are irrelevant?

Vahrenholt: All I'm saying is that CO2 is a climate gas, but that its effect is only half as strong as the IPCC claims. Nevertheless, we still have to reduce CO2 emissions through worldwide emissions trading. And there are also other reasons to burn fewer fossil fuels. We don't have that much coal, oil and gas left in the world, so we have to economize more. We also have to become less dependent on imports from totalitarian countries.

SPIEGEL: Surveys show that fear of the climate catastrophe has declined. Are you preaching to the choir with your all-clear?

Vahrenholt: The fear mongers are still shaping the political debate. According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change, environmentally minded countries should forcibly bring about reduced consumption for the sake of protecting the climate. This takes us in the direction of an environmental dictatorship. And the fearmongering is also beginning to take effect. When I was in a restaurant recently, I overheard a woman at the next table telling her children that it's wrong to eat an Argentine steak -- because of the climate. That's when I ask myself: How could we have come to this point?

SPIEGEL: Mr. Vahrenholt, thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter and translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Nobel peace prize jury under investigation

2012-02-08T12:31:00.000-08:00

Associated Press

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Nobel Peace Prize officials were facing a formal inquiry over accusations they have drifted away from the prize's original selection criteria by choosing such winners as President Barack Obama, as the nomination deadline for the 2012 awards closed Wednesday.

The investigation comes after persistent complaints by a Norwegian peace researcher that the original purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.

If the Stockholm County Administrative Board, which supervises foundations in Sweden's capital, finds that prize founder Alfred Nobel's will is not being honored, it has the authority to suspend award decisions going back three years — though that would be unlikely and unprecedented, said Mikael Wiman, a legal expert working for the county.

Obama won in 2009, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won in 2010, and last year the award was split between Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian activist Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman of Yemen.

For this year's award, Russian human rights activist Svetlana Gannushkina, jailed former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Cuban rights activists Oswaldo Paya and Yoani Sanchez are among the candidates who have been publicly announced by those who nominated them.

The secretive prize committee doesn't discuss nominations — which have to be postmarked by Feb. 1 to be valid — but stresses that being nominated doesn't say anything about a candidate's chances.

Fredrik Heffermehl, a prominent researcher and critic of the selection process, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that "Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace."

"And it's indisputable that he had in mind the peace movement, i.e. the active development of international law and institutions, a new global order where nations safely can drop national armaments," he said

Especially after World War II, the prize committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, has widened the scope of the prize to include environmental, humanitarian and other efforts, he said.

For example, in 2007 the prize went to climate activist Al Gore and the U.N.'s panel on climate change, and in 2009 the committee cited Obama for "extraordinary efforts" to boost international diplomacy.

"Do you see Obama as a promoter of abolishing the military as a tool of international affairs?" Heffermehl asked rhetorically.

Nobel, a Swedish industrialist and inventor, gave only vague guidelines for the peace prize in his 1895 will, saying it should honor "work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Nobel said the peace prize should be awarded by a Norwegian committee, and the other Nobel Prizes by committees in Sweden. The two Scandinavian nations were in a union at the time.

Geir Lundestad, the nonvoting secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, dismissed Heffermehl's claims.

"Fighting climate change is definitely closely related to fraternity between nations. It even concerns the survival of some states," he told AP.

Still, the County Administrative Board decided to sent a letter to the Stockholm-based Nobel Foundation, which manages the prize assets, requesting a formal response to the allegations.

"We have no basis to suggest that they haven't managed it properly. But we want to investigate it," Wiman said.

"The prize committee must always adjust its rules to today's society," he said. "But peace work has to be at the core — it can't deviate too much from that," Wiman said.

The peace prize and the Nobel awards in chemistry, physics, medicine, literature and economics are always handed out Dec. 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Government 'may sanction nerve-agent use on rioters', scientists fear

2012-02-08T12:14:00.000-08:00

The Independent

Leading neuroscientists believe that the UK Government may be about to sanction the development of nerve agents for British police that would be banned in warfare under an international treaty on chemical weapons.

A high-level group of experts has asked the Government to clarify its position on whether it intends to develop "incapacitating chemical agents" for a range of domestic uses that go beyond the limited use of chemical irritants such as CS gas for riot control.

The experts were commissioned by the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of sciences, to investigate new developments in neuroscience that could be of use to the military. They concluded that the Government may be preparing to exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the use of incapacitating chemical agents for domestic law enforcement.

The 1993 convention bans the development, stockpiling and use of nerve agents and other toxic chemicals by the military but there is an exemption for certain chemical agents that could be used for "peaceful" domestic purposes such as policing and riot control.

The British Government has traditionally taken the view that only a relatively mild class of irritant chemical agents that affect the eyes and respiratory tissues, such as CS gas, are exempt from the treaty, and then only strictly for use in riot control.

But the Royal Society working group says the Government shifted its position to allow the development of more severe chemical agents, such as the type of potentially dangerous nerve gases used by Russian security forces to end hostage sieges. "The development of incapacitating chemical agents, ostensibly for law-enforcement purposes, raises a number of concerns in the context of humanitarian and human-rights law, as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)," the report says.

"The UK Government should publish a statement on the reasons for its apparent recent shift in position on the interpretation of the CWC's law enforcement position." The Royal Society group points to a 1992 statement by Douglas Hogg, the then Foreign Office Minister, who indicated that riot-control agents were the only toxic chemicals that the UK considered to be permitted for law-enforcement purposes. But in 2009 ministers gave a less-restrictive definition suggesting the use of "incapacitating" chemical agents would be permitted for law-enforcement purposes as long as they were in the categories and quantities consistent with that permitted purpose.

Professor Rod Flower, a biochemical pharmacologist at Queen Mary University of London, said the latest scientific insights into human brain is leading to novel ways of degrading human performance using chemicals.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Neuroscientists to Top Brass: Mess With Minds… Carefully

2012-02-08T09:54:00.000-08:00

Wired
Katie Scott

A working group led by the Royal Society has warned the scientific community and the Government to tread carefully when entering the ethical minefield that is the use of neuroscience.

A report published today by the Royal Society tackles the divisive issue of the potential uses of neuroscience research by the military or security forces — whether to improve the performance of our troops, to “diminish” the performance of the enemy or, perhaps most controversially, in law enforcement.

The paper, entitled Brain Waves Module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security, is one of four that have been published looking at the current and potential impact of neuroscience on society and policy, the law, and education.

This, the final report to be released, looks at the neuroscience research that is already being deployed by the military and what is being developed.

In a military context, the report authors have looked at the potential and current uses of neuroscience in every step of a soldier’s career, from recruitment to rehabilitation after injury. There are neuroimaging techniques that could help determine the best recruit for the role based on their propensity for risk-taking or specific skills that could help them train in a specialist area, for example, reconnaissance.

It also discusses the benefits of using brain stimulation technology to improve learning; and neuropharmacological agents to enhance cognition or attenuate effects of sleep deprivation, or treat post-traumatic stress disorder. The potential of neural interface systems (NIS) — a person controlling a computer with their mind — could go beyond “the restoration of function to individuals with sensory or motor deficits” (such as Braingate), says the report. “The ability to control a machine directly with the human brain could, for example, provide the potential to remotely operate robots or unmanned vehicles in hostile territory.”

However, NIS could also be deployed on a smaller scale as sensory enhancers, add the authors. They state: “For example, research has been conducted on the ability of individuals to feel the heat and distance of an object of interest in a room by a simple procedure involving a small magnetic implant on a fingertip or anywhere else on the human body. Placing a small coil of wire around the finger can cause the magnet to vibrate. If the coil is connected up to an external sensor then signals from the sensor will alter the vibrations of the magnet, which are detected by the recipient.

“In this way a sonar sensor or an infrared sensor can be used to operate with the magnet — hence the recipient ‘feels’ how far away an object is or remotely ‘feels’ how hot an object is. Unobtrusive neural interfaces like these sensory implants might provide an edge to the law enforcement fields in small but tangible ways.”

However, a clear emphasis from the authors, who include psychologists, life scientists and international security experts, is the legislation that needs to be put into place to protect civilians and military personnel alike. In particular, the report calls for governmental clarification on a recent interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention’s (CWC) law enforcement provision, which, as the paper details, “suggests that the use of incapacitating chemical agents for law enforcement purposes would be in compliance with the CWC as long as they were in types and quantities consistent with that permitted purpose”.

Rod Flowers was chairman of the working group that produced the paper and is Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Queen Mary University of London. He says: “We know that neuroscience research has the potential to deliver great social benefit — researchers come closer every day to finding effective treatments for diseases and disorders such as Parkinson’s, depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy and addiction. However, understanding of the brain and human behaviour coupled with developments in drug delivery also highlight ways of degrading human performance that could possibly be use in new weapons, especially incapacitating chemical agents.

“This is why it is so important that UK government is clear about its reasons for the changes made to its interpretation of the law enforcement exemption in the CWC. It’s absolutely crucial that countries adhering to the CWC address the definition of incapacitating chemical agents under the CWC at the next Review Conference in 2013.”
Flowers also argues that neuroscientists need to be aware of the potential dual usage of their research at an early stage of their training. “The neuroscientists conducting this research also need to be aware that knowledge and technologies used for beneficial purposes can also be misused for harmful purposes,” he argues.

Key will be communication between scientists and those in power. The paper says: “The UK government…should improve links with industry and academia to scope for significant future trends and threats posed by the applications of neuroscience.” The authors also call for the bodies such as the World Medical Association to study “the legal and ethical implications of biophysical degradation technologies (such as directed energy weapons) targeted at the central nervous system”.

Ethical issues aside, Flower questions whether the resources being used for neuroscience research for potential military applications might not be better deploted elsewhere: “The application of neuroscience research in the development of enhancement and degradation technologies for military and law enforcement use raises significant ethical considerations. Support for this type of research is potentially diverting funding and resources away from other important social applications such as the treatment of neurological impairment, disease and psychiatric illness. This is why it should be subject to ethical review and as transparent as possible.”

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Leader Calls for Trillion-dollar "Firewall"

2012-02-08T09:45:00.000-08:00

The New American
William F. Jasper

“We need a larger firewall.” So declared Christine Lagarde (left), Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during a speech in Berlin on January 23, in which she called on taxpayers of the world to chip in $1 trillion to the IMF to stave off a global crisis. “We need to act quickly or else we could easily slide into a 1930s moment,” Lagarde warned, in an obvious reference to the Great Depression.

Suddenly, talk of “firewalls” was everywhere. Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan backed Ms. Lagarde, saying that without “larger firewalls” to protect embattled European nations the global economy was at risk. On January 27, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking at the annual billionaire confab known as the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, said that “building a stronger, more credible firewall,” is key to resolving the eurozone sovereign debt crisis.

But the IMF is not the only institution calling for expensive new fire protection. On January 30 CNN reported that European leaders meeting in Brussels had just concluded an agreement “to strengthen a financial firewall and most members of the 27-nation group will sign a new fiscal compact.” The centerpiece of that pact is €500 billion ($650 billion) to implement the European Stability Mechanism, or ESM, for bailing out Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and other troubled European economies.

Arsonists-R-Us Preaching Fire Protection? Time to Beware!
European Council president Herman Van Rompuy declared: "The early entry into force of this permanent firewall will prevent contagion in the euro area and further restore confidence."

The German audience that IMF chief Lagarde selected to pitch the new $1 trillion IMF firewall was carefully chosen: the German Council on Foreign Relations, or GCFR (in German, it is the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, or DGAP). Like its interlocking counterparts in the United States (the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR), Britain (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, RIIA), and other countries, the GCFR represents the globalist elites of corporate, banking, political, and academic circles that are promoting convergence toward world government. Selling the German public on the massive new funding for the ESM and IMF “firewalls” will be critical, and the influential voices represented by the GCFR will be key to accomplishing that. It remains to be seen whether the GCFR members and their counterparts throughout the Eurozone will succeed in duping their fellow Europeans into giving even more matches and gasoline to the arsonists who have already burned through trillions of dollars in “quantitative easing” and “stimulus” funds.

Secretary Geithner, a CFR member, was only too happy to assist his fellow arsonists in throwing more gasoline on the global “liquidity” and “stimulus” fire. He was interviewed on the main stage at the WEF palaver before a packed audience by Fareed Zakaria, editor-at-large of Time magazine, as well as a host and commentator at CNN, and — a member and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.

More Cash, More Power = Rosy Prognosis
Here is how the DGAP (GCFR) described Madame Lagarde’s speech in the opening paragraph of its report on January 23, on the DGAP web site:

In a cautiously optimistic address at the DGAP, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said that 2012 could be a “year of healing.” But overcoming the crisis will require quick and coordinated action. The eurozone must introduce measures that will lead to more growth and integration – and increases to the euro bailout fund. This is the only way to build trust in the financial system. Lagarde also envisages a massive increase in the IMF’s crisis funds.

“2011 was not a successful year because many measures were not thought through, were half-heartedly implemented, or were not coordinated with other countries,” reports the DGAP, “But the IMF head sees a positive turnaround coming in 2012.”

“We know what needs to be done,” said Lagarde. “It is now up to governments to show the necessary political will.”

The DGAP agrees and predicts a rosy economic picture — if producers and taxpayers will only stop being so miserly and agree to give the IMF, the European Central Bank and other central banks the “tools” they desperately need to solve the problem. After all the wise wizards at the IMF, ECB, and the Fed have sterling track record already, right?

According to the DGAP:

Eurozone countries have already taken important steps, including the establishment of the temporary European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS) and the permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM). But these are only “parts of a more extensive solution."

But what kind of “more extensive solution” would these new creations bring? The kind of solution only the central bankers and their politically connected corporate cronies could love. As The New American’s Bob Adelman and Alex Newman point out, the ESFS and ESM are “the tools of international fiscal dictatorship.”

The EFSM and ESM are integral parts of the scheme to destroy the dollar and “Supersize" the IMF into a global Federal Reserve that this magazine has been exposing for the past several years.

The European Central Bank (ECB) admits that the ESFS and ESM are designed to fit into the IMF’s new globalized architecture, stating in the ECB Monthly Bulletin for July, 2011: “These design features of the European crisis management framework purposely resemble the main design features of the IMF-supported adjustment programmes.”

“Global crises call for global solutions” — GCFR

The German Council on Foreign Relations goes on to offer these points in favor of Lagarde’s arguments for supersizing the ECB and IMF (the enlarged, bold headings are their own):

Comprehensively Solving the Crisis
What would such a comprehensive solution look like? Lagarde thinks Europe needs stronger growth, higher financial firewalls, and more fiscal integration. Eurozone states now have a duty to expand financial firewalls to tackle the debt crisis: by increasing funds for the ESM, with further monetary easing through the European Central Bank, or through eurobonds (an idea that contradicts the German government’s present course)….

More Money to Avoid a Credit Crunch
Additionally, the eurozone bailout fund must be endowed with more than the planned 500 billion euros. “We need a larger firewall,” claimed Lagarde. The permanent bailout fund ESM should be expanded to include all funds set aside for the temporary EFSF… Lagarde thus sees stronger fiscal integration within the eurozone as a third essential task. “We cannot have seventeen completely independent fiscal systems and one common monetary policy.” Risks must be more strongly distributed beyond national borders….

Bulking Up the IMF
Lagarde envisions a massive increase in the IMF’s crisis reserves. This will allow the organization to help not only Europeans, but countries around the world that have been gripped by the crisis – even those without substantial debts of their own. “It is not about saving individual states or regions. Rather, it is about preventing a worldwide downward spiral.” Global crises call for global solutions. Lagarde estimates that 1 trillion dollars will be needed to fight the crisis in the coming years. A 500 billion dollar increase will be needed for the IMF ...

What Kind of Firewall?
"More fiscal integration," "more money," "bulking up the IMF," "global solutions," "higher financial firewalls." But what do the IMF and ECB mean when they talk about firewalls? Wikipedia offers this for its first definition of “firewall”:

“a barrier inside a building or vehicle, designed to limit the spread of fire, heat and structural collapse."

Christine Lagarde and the other Insiders at the IMF, the ECB, the Fed and the other central banks and Treasury departments obviously intend that definition and the image it evokes to win the support they need to pull off this enormous swindle. However, the firewall metaphor in this case not only is completely inappropriate, but ludicrous. Firewalls are made of noncombustible, “fireproof” materials, but the arsonists at the IMF and ECB are calling for throwing more paper and gasoline — more money and credit created out of thin air — onto the global inferno.

However, Wikipedia offers a second definition for “firewall” that is entirely apropos to the IMF/ECB proposals:

“a technological barrier designed to prevent unauthorized or unwanted communications between computer networks or hosts."

The IMF, ECB, and the Fed do indeed intend to “prevent unauthorized or unwanted” inspection of their activities by citizens or national legislators. The so-called firewall they are constructing is, as Alex Newman puts it, “a massive, perpetual bailout machine.” It is a machine that they intend to be completely unlimited, unaccountable and untouchable.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Carbon levy booklet fails fact check

2012-02-08T09:35:00.000-08:00

Sidney Morning Herald

Fact check fail ... the Climate Change Department

THE 20-page colour booklet What a Carbon Price Means for You, which was mailed to 10 million households in August, may become something of a collectors item.

The Audit Office has found the Climate Change Department used it to make 99 claims about climate change and the carbon tax, 32 of which it was unable to fully back up in the accompanying documentation, including the claim ''nine in 10 households will receive some combination of tax cuts and increased payments to help them with the cost-of-living impact of the carbon price''.

The Audit Office says the department relied on a document that stated ''about'' nine in 10 households would receive such assistance.
The booklet said more than 4 million households would get assistance that was ''at least'' 20 per cent more than their average price impact, whereas the source document said the assistance would be ''around'' 20 per cent more.

The department established a fact-checking matrix purporting to allow it to reference each of the 142 claims made in the radio, television, print and mailout campaign but, when checked by the Audit Office, 52 of the references were found to fall short.

In its response to the audit, the Department of Climate Change said all of the claims in the campaign could be supported by evidence.

The department pleaded ''difficult circumstances'' and a ''complex policy package'' that relied heavily on the work of other agencies.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Ron Paul super PAC prepares effort to combat election fraud

2012-02-08T08:59:00.000-08:00

The State Column

Revolution PAC, a pro-Ron Paul super PAC, reported Tuesday that it is in the process of preparing an effort to combat election fraud in the upcoming elections. Revolution PAC’s actions are a direct result of reports of election fraud during Saturday’s Nevada Caucuses.

Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul have been especially vocal about possible election fraud in Saturday’s Nevada Caucuses, citing comparisons of Mr. Paul’s voter support in 2012 to his voter support in 2008. Although Mr. Paul’s vote total had increased significantly in each election leading up to Saturday’s election, the voter turnout in the Nevada Caucuses was nearly equal to the voter turnout for Mr. Paul in 2008.

“Revolution PAC finds the litany of dissimilarities surrounding several ballot counts, suspect state party resignations, voters being asked to sign ‘religious declarations,’ in addition to precinct totals outnumbering actual registered voters documented by county election officials to be outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American,” explained Revolution PAC Chair Gary Franchi, in a press release. “This is no way in which to conduct any election, let alone a presidential primary nominating process,” Mr. Franchi added.

Revolution PAC will employ a nationally recognized research firm to monitor polling locations and to conduct exit polls. “Going forward,” Mr. Franchi professed, “we will be ready to take immediate action and challenge any irregularities.”

Revolution PAC posits that reports of election fraud first surfaced after the Iowa Caucuses in early January. Revolution PAC contends that misplaced ballots, inaccurate counts and other errors led to Mr. Santorum’s victory several weeks after the Iowa Caucus results were announced.

Revolution PAC provides support for Mr. Paul through TV advertising, direct mail campaigns, Web promotions, billboards and radio ads.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Facebook is a surveillance engine, not friend: Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation

2012-02-07T16:53:00.000-08:00

The Economic Times

"You know about the two rules right for interviewing Richard?" a volunteer asks before leading us to meet Richard Stallman, the man who fights for free software day in and out. One, don't use the term Open Source to mean free software.

Two, don't say Linux but say GNU/Linux. Dr Stallman, who started the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to promote freedom to create, share and modify software, is extremely sensitive to whether the goals of his initiative are rightly communicated.

A computer engineer and self-proclaimed hacker, the 58-year-old Dr Stallman lives the life of an activist. He lives frugally, like a student, he has said once. The philosophy behind the support for free software reflects in other things too.

During this interview, he gave back a Kinley water bottle, because he doesn't consume Coca-Cola bottles for the way it handles labour. Ditto is his feeling about Walmart. He uses the low-profile Lemote Yeeloong computer, browses the Net only once or twice daily and doesn't own a cell phone, because he believes it creates privacy issues.

He's a Green Party supporter. And can cut down to size all the new age iconic business corporations, which he has done in this interview. In fact, in what raised a storm, he re-quoted the famous lines 'I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone,' after the death of Steve Jobs. Excerpts:

How do you see the recent move by Facebook to go for listing?

I don't care about that. Facebook mistreats its users. Facebook is not your friend, it is a surveillance engine. For instance, if you browse the Web and you see a 'like' button in some page or some other site that has been displayed from Facebook.

Therefore, Facebook knows that your machine visited that page. So, Facebook carries out surveillance over visitors to thousands of different Websites, even for people who are not Facebook users. I hope we will have something for free browsers to block Facebook 'like' buttons so that people won't be under surveillance.

In any case, this is why I ask people not to put photographs of me on Facebook, because Facebook collects data about the names of people in photos. It might as well be working directly for Big Brother.

Mark Zuckerberg says the likes of Google and Microsoft are collecting information behind your back.

They all do it in a secret way. Facebook collects a lot of data from people and admits it. And it also collects data which isn't admitted. And Google does too. As for Microsoft, I don't know. But I do know that Windows has features that send data about the user.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Prop. 8 overturned in California, court says state can’t ban gay marriage

2012-02-07T16:12:00.000-08:00

Yahoo
Liz Goodwin

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.

The Circuit Court backed up District Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled in August of 2010 that the state of California has no "rational basis" to single out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage. The group fighting for Prop. 8, which passed in 2008 after thousands of gay couples had already married, appealed Walker's decision arguing that it should be vacated because Walker is gay and has a same-sex partner. The 9th Circuit Court judges denied this motion.

Walker's sweeping 2010 decision was called a "grand slam" by gay rights advocates, who hoped it would convince the Supreme Court to rule states cannot outlaw gay marriage. But Reinhardt was explicit in his decision that his ruling is "narrow" and only relates to California, not to the entire nation. In California, gay people had the right to marry for five months before it was taken away by voters. This amounts to a violation of equal protection because a right was specifically taken away from a minority group, Reinhardt writes. But this argument would not apply to gay people in most other states, where gay marriage was never legalized in the first place. "It's a strong decision but it is not the ringing endorsement of broader marriage equality that some might have hoped for," Hunter College professor and gay rights advocate Kenneth Sherrill said.

But University of California Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky tells Yahoo News that the underlying reasoning in the decision is broad--there's no legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage rights. Chemerinsky noted that the decision appeals to swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, by citing his decision in a 1996 case striking down a Colorado law that prevented communities from treating gay people as a protected class.

Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush who represents the plaintiffs, said at a press conference that the decision is the first step to ending discrimination. "Today we are more American because of this decision," he said.

The pro-Prop. 8 camp has said it will appeal the decision. The group can now ask for 11 members of the 9th Circuit hear their case, instead of just the panel of three who decided against them on Tuesday. "Today's ruling finally clears the field for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where we are confident we will be victorious," the Save Prop 8 campaign said in a statement.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

Press-Free NATO Summit? Filming Cops on the Street Illegal in Chicago

2012-02-07T14:16:00.000-08:00

IntelHub

Intel Hub Note: With the passing of these anti American laws in Chicago, the end of America as we know it is HERE.

It is 100% illegal and unconstitutional to pass or enforce any of the laws and rules listed in the below article and those that do are committing open treason.

We are basically being told that Chicago cops will BEAT any protester they please and if someone tries to film their criminal actions they will be arrested.

Russia Today
February 7, 2012

Chicago, Illinois plans to host more than 7,500 international dignitaries and 3,000 journalists at the G8 Summit this spring.

But if history is any indication, those numbers will be dwarfed by tens of thousands of demonstrators descending on the Windy City this year to protest the massive gathering of world leaders.

And as police prepare to clash with protesters who picket the annual meeting of the minds, the crime scenes that are expected to be marred by messy arrests might never be made available outside of Chicago.

In the state of Illinois, an obscure eavesdropping law prohibits recordings of unknowing individuals. Even if a cop is caught clobbering a protester on the streets of Chicago, recording the incident can land both amateur photographers and seasoned journalists alike behind bars, where they could face sentencing on par with charges of rape and murder.

The law in question is an antiquated eavesdropping rule that can bring about felony charges for producing an audio recording without ones’ consent. Critics have come after the law and challenged its constitutionality — or lack thereof — but as of now the offense is on the books and is likely to stay that way come springtime. For the Chicago cops that will be tasked with controlling a swarm of protesters at the summit, it could be to their benefit. The same, sadly, can’t be said for the freedom of the press.

To say Chicago will become the scene of a mass protest might be an understatement. By comparison, the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Seattle, Washington spawned 600 arrests and prompted police to use tear gas, pepper spray and physical force on protesters.

A decade later, the 2009 G-20 Summit in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania yielded 190 arrests and still more incidents of police violence. The same summit a year later in Toronto, Canada caused police to put more than 1,000 citizens in handcuffs, making it the largest mass arrest in the country’s history.

With riots rendering nearly a million dollars worth of damages as well, it was also one of the biggest uprisings that Canada has seen in recent memory.

With the Occupy Wall Street movement only heightening awareness of corrupt politics in America and across the globe, dissatisfaction with the establishment and its decisions that impact the world are more rampant than ever.

Protesters are already planning how they will respond to the summit scheduled for this May, but under current law, video cameras that capture sound are just as illegal as assault weapons.

Under the Eavesdropping Act in Illinois, catching a cop crack down on a protester is a Class 1 felony. If budding videographers think they might be the exception come this spring, think again.

Christopher Drew thought he was exercising his First Amendment when he recorded an altercation with cops in 2009, but for the Chicago, Illinois artist, he couldn’t be further from the truth. He was approached by an officer with the Chicago Police Department three years ago and questioned about the artwork he was selling on the city’s State Street.

When law enforcement realized that they were being recorded, Drew was dished felony charges under the eavesdropping law and ended up spending a few days in jail. Drew asked an Illinois judge to dismiss the hefty felony charge, but the court rejected his plea. Later this year his case is expected to go to trial, and if found guilty, Drew could serve 15 years in prison.

“In a democracy you are suppose to oversee your public servants. If they’re doing wrong you’re suppose to bring it to the attention of other citizens and to the court,” Drew explained to RT. “They have no privacy right, they are in public and they are on the public dime and doing public duty. That means that we’re their employer. We have a right to record our employees and bring that evidence to the system that they are doing wrong.”

Michael Allison has become a victim of the police state’s bizarre law, too. He was at his mom’s house in Illinois when cops showed up and questions the automobiles he had parked on the property.
When Allison began recording his conversation with the cops, he was cuffed and charged with violating the eavesdropping law. Those charges included five counts of eavesdropping, each with a maximum of 15 years in prison.

For videotaping his own conversation with a cop on his family property, Allison could have served the rest of his life behind bars.

Circuit Court Judge David Frankland would later say that the case against Allison was unconstitutional, but that decision was just a small exception. The eavesdropping law still stands today, even if it has opponents sitting on judicial benches.

“A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote.“Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information,” added Judge Frankland.

Drew, Allison and Judge Frankland are just a small sampling of many opponents of the controversial law, but unless those numbers grow before the G8, the protests that are almost certain to be countered with excessive police force will be illegal to record.

Some state lawmakers are trying to overturn the legislation before this spring, but it is a challenge that stands to be complicated with a goal only a few months into the future. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has asked the state Supreme Court for a new decision on the constitutionality of the law and others have come to her side.

Some have even proposed an exception that will allow citizens to record the police, which is allowed in most jurisdictions in America.

“I don’t believe there is an expectation of privacy for public officials on public property doing public duties,” Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a local sponsor of the re-write, tells the Associated Press.

The US Court of Appeals in Boston, Massachusetts countered a similar wiretapping law last year, with a judge ruling in August that filming the police is a “basic and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”

Many outside of Boston agree, and if the law isn’t changed in Illinois before spring, Chicago’s G-8 summit is expected to still be caught on film, law notwithstanding.

But as thousands plans to flood the streets of the city to demonstrate against the meeting of leaders from the US, France, Russia, Italy and elsewhere, cops will be tasked with countering not just riled protesters, with journalists of all sorts gripping their cameras.

Come springtime, the Chicago PD will have to determine which First Amendment guarantee is more important to crush: the freedom of the press or the freedom to assemble.

Luckily America’s most well-known constitutional law professor and former Chicago resident will be in town that week. What do you think Barack Obama has to say about the law?

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services