30px; border: solid 2px #333; color: #000; background-color: yellow; padding: 5px; width: 400px; z-index: 5; font-family: verdana, geneva, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
My blog has moved!
You should be automatically redirected in 5 seconds. If not, visit redirectLink" href='http://blendz72.wordpress.com/'> http://blendz72.wordpress.com and update your bookmarks.


Thursday, September 30, 2010

Authorities plan to trawl phone calls and emails for signs of "resentment toward government"...

Authorities Plan To Trawl Phone Calls And E Mails For Signs Of “Resentment Toward Government”
Paul Joseph Watson
September 30, 2010

Do you resent the government for enforcing Obamacare or raising your taxes? Write about it in an email or talk about it on the phone and you could be placed under surveillance as a potential terrorist, if frightening new technology being shopped to law enforcement agencies is implemented.

Forget pre-crime and get ready for face-crime, Big Brother is set to unleash a new wave of shockingly invasive and Orwellian technology on the American people if a recent symposium in Hamburg New York is anything to go by. Federal agencies, police departments and others were all in attendance to see a demonstration of a system that trawls phone conversations, emails and instant messages to detect “resentment toward government,” alerting authorities to potential “terrorists” who are then placed under surveillance.

The technology was demonstrated to law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, and military representatives at a recent International First Responder-Military Symposium held at Hilbert College.

“A Swiss professor working with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who heads the Mind Machine Project there outlined how this program operates through computerized scanning of phone calls and electronic messages sent through e-mail and social networking mechanisms,” reports the Buffalo News.

The system works by detecting “resentment in conversations through measurements in decibels and other voice biometrics,” more specifically the emotional spikes that characterize “hatred and deep resentment toward government.”

“As for written transmissions scrutinized by the computer program, it can detect the same patterns of fixation on specified subjects,” states the report.

Once an individual has been identified as harboring “resentment toward government,” the information can be “passed along to authorities so surveillance can begin.”

Besides law enforcement applications, the program is also designed to aid mental health professionals to help “war veterans” become emotionally stable, chillingly implying that distrust or hatred of government, which was hailed by the founding fathers as a vital virtue, is now considered a mental illness.

Of course, this technology completely violates the 4th amendment, but by introducing it as a tool to fight terrorism, authorities hope to skirt around the issue – the problem being that, as we have exhaustively documented, the federal government now sees any political activity whatsoever, be it anti-war protesters on the left, or anti-big government activists on the right, as potential domestic terrorists.

The technology is rationalized by its adherents, who claim that it will help stop terrorists in their tracks, while also being used against ‘troubled veterans and first responders’.

However, the introduction of a program that closely resembles George Orwell’s “facecrime” in 1984 has little to do with fighting extremist Muslims hiding in caves in central Asia, this is all about targeting the American people with total panopticon-style surveillance, while also creating a chilling atmosphere and reminding people that their every conversation, instant message or email is being scanned by super-computers for any sign of extremism or “resentment toward government”.

As we have seen from the MIAC report, the spying case in Pennsylvania, and a host of others in recent years, the federal government defines “terrorist propaganda” as any material critical of the state, therefore any dissent against Big Brother in a phone conversation or an email would automatically trigger the new technology.

This is not only a constitution killer, it represents a hammer blow to free speech. The Internet as a forum of open discourse and free exchange of ideas will be fundamentally damaged if people live in constant fear of being raided by the feds at any minute because they sounded off about the government in an e mail or a posting on a comment board.

Of course, with distrust towards the state touching all time highs, there are millions of Americans who “harbor hatred and deep resentment toward government,” but that doesn’t mean they plan on bombing federal buildings.

The technofascism blog dug up a couple of quotes from George Orwell’s 1984 that almost precisely describe the exact same technology being used in the legendary dystopia about a totalitarian society that constantly hounds, harasses, and surreptitiously spies on its citizens.

“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself–anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face…; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”

-George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

“Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom.”

- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 6

Rather than an improper facial expression or nervous tic, which was more within the purview of the equally ludicrous “gait analysis” division of Admiral John Poindexter’s Total Information Office, a program that claimed to be able to identify terrorists by the way they walk, the facecrime technology defines “abnormality” as being critical of the authorities, a frightening throwback to the Soviet psikhushkas — mental hospitals — which were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally.

Indeed, the establishment media has intensified its dissemination of talking points that attempt to categorize distrust of authority as a mental disorder.

Although it survives under a number of different names with private sector funding, Total Information Awareness was mothballed by Congress in 2003 after widespread criticism that it would lead to the implementation of a “mass surveillance system”. Facecrime goes a step further, it not only creates a mass surveillance system of all our communications, it also corrodes and corrupts people’s confidence in being able to exercise their first amendment right to express “hatred and resentment toward government,” without being harassed and targeted as domestic terrorists.

Facecrime technology is illegal, immoral, anti-American and something that needs to be ditched permanently if the United States and indeed any free country is to heed George Orwell’s warning and resist the descent into totalitarianism.

Warning to parents: Vaccination increases the risk of contracting diseases

Warning to parents: Vaccination increases the risk of contracting diseases
by Jeremy Lasko


It's now clear that the information the government has been giving out on vaccination is misleading at best. They are in fact urging parents to expose their children to risks they could easily avoid while unconstitutionally trying to stop parents from knowing about safe means of keeping their families well. In addition, the FDA, with its own scientists have warned about its corruption, is now arguing in court that people have no fundamental right to their health.

In one thoughtful, thorough article by a mother trying to decide what to do for her own children, parents (and everyone else) have a chance to rethink the reality of vaccines.


An unpublished study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on a "measles susceptible" (malnourished) group of children showed that the group who hadn't been vaccinated contracted measles at the normal contract rate of 2.4%. Of the group who had received the measles vaccine (MMR), 33.5% contracted measles. (i)

In 1975 Japan raised the minimum age for infant vaccinations to 2 years. As a result, SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or, crib death) and infant convulsions virtually disappeared. In the 80's, Japan lowered the minimum age back down to 3 months and the rate of SIDS returned to previous levels. (ii)

In an Australian study, a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and all produced the expected antibodies. When later exposed to the disease, 80% of the recruits contracted it. (iii) ...

Massachusetts in 1961 experienced a 'type II' polio outbreak and "there were more paralytic cases in the triple vaccinates than in the unvaccinated"(vii)

In 1976, Dr. G.T. Stewart reported in the British Medical Journal that, "of 8,092 cases of whooping cough, 2,940 (36%) were fully immunized, while only 2,424 (30%) were definitely not immunized. (viii)

Professor George Dick, speaking at an environmental conference in Brussels in 1973, admitted that in recent decades, 75% of British people who contracted smallpox had been vaccinated. This, combined with the fact that only 40% of children (and a maximum of 10% of adults) had been vaccinated, clearly shows that vaccinated people have a much higher tendency to contract the disease. (ix)

Why has no one gotten this necessary scientific information?

Warnings on the corruption of medical science and its impact at every level of medicine now appearing everywhere, related to psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry, to Harvard Medical School and the pharmaceutical industry, to local doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, to governments at national and international levels and the pharmaceutical industry. Because of corruption the swine flu pandemic itself was a corrupt scheme between the pharmaceutical industry's advisors and the WHO which announced the pandemic. The CEO's of the pharmaceutical industry even voted for that their own untested vaccines be made mandatory worldwide. Even the corrupt WHO has issued a warning about corruption at all levels of medicine by the pharmaceutical industry.

Vaccines present the most severe danger because what they contain is unknown and untested, the pharmaceutical industry has been working with states and the national government to make them mandatory.

The pharmaceutical industry is responsible for at least 100,000 people dying every year from properly prescribed prescription drugs - the fourth leading cause of death in the US (and that number does not include deaths from over the counter drugs or from illegal prescription drugs. They are responsible for pushing S 510 and S 3767 (plus 3 other bills this year alone) to remove human access to safe, crucial nutritional supplements, which would ensure deaths in the millions.

But what they are doing with vaccines goes beyond even that for the pharmaceutical industry is attempting to get around the Nuremberg Code, put in place specifically to stop the forced medical experiments these companies conducted at Auschwitz where they killed people with unknown, untested vaccines.

John Le Carre, the author of spy books, comments that "Compared to the reality of the drug industry, my book reads like a vacation post card."

These companies were involved openly in genocide during WWII and have been committing covert genocide on an even greater scale since through the WHO's mandatory vaccination campaigns which have been sterilizing women without their knowing. This is why the CDC's behavior around the swine flu is relevant.

The CDC grossly exaggerated swine flu cases and blocked an investigation into the data and there are concerns now thatthe CDC may be falsifying data on the thousands of miscarriages from last year's H1N1 vaccine.(What is an accurate count of the death toll from the H1N1 vaccines?). The CDC already knows this year's vaccines are causing narcolepsy and many times the "normal" number of febrile seizures but are now urging them on everyone over 6 months of age. They contain nanoparticles which makes them experimental, while the government said they were typical flu vaccines, as their means to skip testing them. This year they have mixed seasonal flu vaccines with H1N1 though a Canadian study last year showed those who'd had the flu vaccine and then got the H1N1 had a greater risk of becoming ill (as the article above shows, vaccination increases risk of disease, not lowers it).

And now the FDA has a dangerous new rule allowing manufacturers to change or add any ingredient such as squalene with the approval of only one person at the FDA and no testing.

The last "pandemic" was proven phony by the EU parliament and the WHO itself has been exposed by the BMJ. A health minister in Europe raised large warnings abut the vaccines themselves.

So, why is the US nonsensically still under the pandemic here (until 2012!). Why does a flu come with military and with pandemic laws in each state put in place in advance by Bush which include making vaccines mandatory if an "emergency" is declared? What does that mean when a pandemic emergency was already falsely declared?

How does one ignore that these companies once experimented on and killed people with vaccines at Auschwitz? Or that their scientists were brought to the US by the Bushes who then undermined the science agencies here? Or that they lie about their products, and have received the largest criminal charges in history? Or that Bush's "terrorism" laws were put in place to be able to mandate their vaccines with no exemptions?

The H1N1 vaccines are already transparently dangerous. On top of that, though, the FDA is removing controls over the manufacturers and all safeguards for the public despite what Baxter did last year that could have killed millions. Meanwhile HHS is asking media to censor information about vaccines and Frontline put out a distorted story on vaccines,leaving off medical concerns about them.

None of this is good medicine and all of it is the opposite of protecting health.

But parents only need to focus on one thing: vaccination increases the risk of their children contracting diseases.



FBI raids and the criminalization of dissent...

FBI Raids and the Criminalization of Dissent
Posted on Sep 28, 2010
By Amy Goodman


Early in the morning on Friday, Sept. 24, FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota’s Twin Cities kicked in the doors of anti-war activists, brandishing guns, spending hours rifling through their homes. The FBI took away computers, photos, notebooks and other personal property. Residents were issued subpoenas to appear before a grand jury in Chicago. It was just the latest in the ongoing crackdown on dissent in the U.S., targeting peace organizers as supporters of “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Coleen Rowley knows about the FBI. She was a career special agent with the FBI who blew the whistle on the bureau’s failures in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. Time magazine named her Person of the Year in 2002. A few days after the raids in her hometown of Minneapolis, she told me, “This is not the first time that you’ve seen this Orwellian turn of the war on terror onto domestic peace groups and social justice groups ... we had that begin very quickly after 9/11, and there were Office of Legal Counsel opinions that said the First Amendment no longer controls the war on terror.”

Jess Sundin’s home was raided. She was the lead organizer of the St. Paul, Minn., anti-war march on Labor Day 2008 that occurred as the Republican National Convention began. She described the raid: “They spent probably about four hours going through all of our personal belongings, every book, paper, our clothes, and filled several boxes and crates with our computers, our phones, my passport ... with which they left my house.”

They smashed activist Mick Kelly’s fish tank when they barged into his home. The net cast by the FBI that morning included not only anti-war activists, but those who actively support a changed foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine and Colombia. The warrant for Kelly sought all records of his travel, not only to those countries, but also all his domestic U.S. travel since 2000, and all his personal contacts.

No one was arrested. No one was charged with a crime. Days later, hundreds of protesters rallied outside FBI offices nationally.

The raids happened just days after the U.S. Department of Justice’s inspector general released a report, “A Review of the FBI’s Investigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups.” The IG looked at FBI surveillance and investigation of, among others, the environmental group Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Pittsburgh-based Thomas Merton Center.

Founded in 1972 to support opposition to the war in Vietnam, the Merton Center continues to be a hub of anti-war activism in Pittsburgh. In 2002, the FBI spied on a Merton-organized rally, claiming “persons with links to international terrorism would be present.” As the IG reports, this claim was a fabrication, which was then relayed to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeated it, under oath, to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The illegal surveillance trickles down, through “Joint Terrorism Task Forces” that bring together federal, state and local law enforcement, homeland security and military agencies, often under the roof of a “fusion center,” the name given to shadowy trans-jurisdictional intelligence centers. There, it seems, slapping the “domestic terror” tag on activists is standard.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell recently apologized when it was revealed that his state homeland security director, James Powers, had contracted with a private company to research and distribute information about citizen groups engaged in legal activity. Groups opposed to the environmentally destructive extraction of natural gas known as “fracking,” for example, were referred to as “environmental extremists.”

Their crime: holding a screening of the Sundance-winning documentary “Gasland.”

Back in the Twin Cities, the state has been forced to back off eight other activists, dubbed the “RNC 8,” who were part of organizing the protests at the Republican National Convention. They all were pre-emptively arrested, before the convention started, and charged, under Minnesota state law, as terrorists. The prosecution has since dropped all terrorism charges (four of them will go to trial on other charges).

This is all happening while the Obama administration uses fear of terrorism to seek expanded authority to spy on Internet users, and as another scandal is brewing: The Justice Department also revealed this week that FBI agents regularly cheated on an exam testing knowledge of proper rules and procedures governing domestic surveillance. This is more than just a cheating scandal. It’s about basic freedoms at the core of our democracy, the abuse of power and the erosion of civil liberties.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 800 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Mission Creep: TSA to implement "Secure Flight" on November 1st

Mission Creep: TSA to Implement “Secure Flight” On November 1
Kurt Nimmo
September 29, 2010

On November 1, boarding an aircraft in the United States will become more intrusive. That’s when the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration will begin enforcing something called “Secure Flight.”

In June, DHS boss Janet Napolitano announced “that 100 percent of passengers traveling within the United States and its territories are now being checked against terrorist watchlists through the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Secure Flight program,” as recommended by the 9/11 white wash commission.

Under the program, destined to be a bureaucratic nightmare, TSA goons wearing blue latex gloves will prescreen a passenger’s name, date of birth, and gender against government watchlists for domestic and international flights, according to a TSA press release. “Individuals found to match watchlist parameters will be subjected to secondary screening, a law enforcement interview or prohibition from boarding an aircraft, depending on the specific case.”

If you think only Muslims and shady characters from Yemen or Pakistan will be double checked, think again. Recall the nightmare experienced by Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon, two peace activists who were detained in San Francisco in September, 2002, a couple weeks after the first anniversary of the day we were told cave-dwelling Muslims made NORAD stand down. The pair were searched and interrogated after the TSA claimed their names resembled “those of suspected criminals or terrorists,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported son September 27, 2010.

“One detainment forced a group of 20 Wisconsin anti-war activists to miss their flight, delaying their trip to meet with congressional representatives by a day. That case and others are raising questions about the criteria federal authorities use to place people on the list — and whether people who exercise their constitutional right to dissent are being lumped together with terrorists,” the newspaper also reported.

Meanwhile, supposed terrorists are allowed to board planes, for instance Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the fizzle pants non-bomber. It was no secret Abdulmutallab had “multiple communications” with Islamic extremists in Londonistan, the home base of MI6 groomed patsies, dupes, and mental deficeints.

Abdulmutallab was also allowed to get a visa, just like Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who was on a terrorist watch list at the time and would later as a star patsy be convicted in the first WTC bombing case. In 2006, investigative reporters discovered that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency specialized in deliberately keeping some suspected terrorists off the US international no-fly list. In order to make sure its dupes and patsies are allowed to travel unrestricted, the CIA has operatives inside the Federal Air Marshal Service.

It is not a coincidence the absurdly over-hyped fizzle pants non-bombing was staged on Christmas day over Detroit as Congress was talking about reforming the Constitution nullifying Patriot Act. Moreover, in the months following the orchestrated event, the government’s no-fly list doubled, from about 3,400 people to about 6,000 people, a senior intelligence official told USA Today in March.

The TSA also used the Times Square non-bombing to tweak its no-fly list procedures. “The Transportation Security Administration has implemented a new rule requiring airlines to check the no-fly list within two hours after being notified of a special update,” Fox News reported after Faisal Shahzad’s cobbled together barbeque canister bomb failed to explode.

The Secure Flight program was not designed to prevent terrorists from boarding planes. It will be implemented next month as part of an effort to expand the government control grid and get commuters acclimated to submitting to absurd mandates that are obviously unconstitutional.

As Paul Joseph Watson noted earlier today, the government is moving forward in its efforts to impose its police state control and submission grid on the American people. It has now moved its naked body scanner technology from airports to the streets and highways of America. “Body and vehicle scanners are just one tool authorities plan to implement on a widespread basis as part of our deepening decline into a hi-tech militarized police state,” writes Watson. “The implementation of ‘Checkpoint USA’, where citizens are routinely stopped, searched and radiated by federal VIPER teams is further evidence of how America is crumbling into a Soviet-style police state where the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is abolished and the 4th amendment eviscerated.”

Secure Flight is yet another step in that direction. It may appear innocuous, but is in fact designed to get citizens accustomed to government officials micromanaging every aspect of their daily lives, be it at the airport or at the local mall.

European cities hit by anti-austerity protests...

European cities hit by anti-austerity protests
29 September 2010 Last updated at 15:55 ET


Tens of thousands of people from around Europe have marched across Brussels in a protest against spending cuts by some EU governments.

Spain has held a general strike, with protesters in Barcelona clashing with police and torching a police car.

Other protests against austerity measures have been held in Greece, Italy, the Irish Republic and Latvia.

Trade unions say EU workers may become the biggest victims of a financial crisis set off by bankers and traders.

Many governments across the 27-member bloc have imposed punishing cuts in wages, pensions and employment to deal with spiralling debts.

On Wednesday night, Portugal's minority government announced proposals to cut civil servants' pay and state spending while raising taxes in an attempt to lower the country's debt levels.

In Greece and the Irish Republic, unemployment figures are at their highest level in 10 years, while Spain's unemployment has doubled in just three years.

In Britain the government is planning to slash spending by up to 25% in some areas, while France has seen angry protests against a planned increase in the minimum retirement age.


Police sealed off the EU headquarters and barricaded banks and shops ahead of the protest in Brussels. It was described by unions as a day of action under the slogan "No to austerity, priority to jobs and growth".

Tens of thousands of demonstrators, many carrying large red and green balloons and banners, headed towards EU institution buildings in the Belgian capital.

They made heard their voices, whistles, horns and anything else they could find, says the BBC's Nick Childs in the city, amid the sound and smoke of firecrackers.

Speaking at the march, Jean Claude Mailly, head of the French union Force Ouvriere, said there was still time to rethink the austerity measures.

"It is never too late because the austerity measures are in the process of being set up now," he told the BBC.

"So we are in a period where social movements of a different nature will have a big value in the weeks and months to come. There is a strong social tension."

Labour unions in Spain began the country's first general strike in eight years by marching through the capital, Madrid, in an effort to shut down the city.

Also in the capital, there were mass protests outside bus and metro stations, and few buses were running. Many high-speed trains were cancelled and only about a quarter of commuter trains were running.

Groups of strikers went into shops and banks trying to force them to close.

The airline Iberia said it expected to operate only 35% of scheduled flights.

'Banks to blame'

In the Irish Republic, a man drove a cement mixer covered with anti-bank slogans into the gates of the parliament in Dublin, in an apparent protest at the country's expensive bank bail-out.

The European Trade Union Confederation (Etuc) said the protesters were marching to voice their anger over budget-slashing plans and cuts which "could lead Europe into a recession".

The union warns that the financial crisis - which it describes as the worst in Europe since the 1930s - has already made 23 million people across the EU jobless. It fears that the austerity measures being implemented by various EU governments could "result in even more unemployment".

"We didn't cause this crisis. The bill has to be paid by banks, not by workers," Etuc said.

Instead, the organisation urges governments to guarantee workers stable jobs, strong social protection and better pensions.

Workers in many EU countries are frustrated that they are paying for the mistakes of the banks and the financial sector, the BBC's Christian Fraser in Brussels reports.

The recovery is still fragile. In some countries it has not even begun, and many fear the cuts could provoke further trouble, our correspondent says.

He adds that in short, it is a debate on austerity versus stimulus, cuts or spending, and the opinions are deeply and bitterly divided.

UK contractor to build new million square foot data centre site for the NSA in Utah...

Balfour’s USA spy HQ


UK CONTRACTOR Balfour Beatty has bagged a £750million contract to build one of the world's biggest spy bases.

A consortium led by the firm will build a data centre for the secretive US National Security Agency - in a huge boost for the UK.

The one million square foot site - larger than 13 football pitches - will house super-computers to "eavesdrop" on terrorists around the globe.

Staff will pass intelligence to Homeland Security - and monitor cyber warfare threats.

American authorities have slapped a "mission critical" tag on the espionage site - at Camp William near Salt Lake City in Utah.

Balfour is best known in the UK for building schools and widening the M25.

A spokesman was unavailable for comment last night.

"There has been an increase in unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan lately and that is being tied to the story of this new threat. But others in the security establishment are wondering, again quietly, whether the new alleged threat is being used as a cover for a drone offensive in Pakistan, one that is understandably unpopular with the Pakistani population (which often becomes collateral damage in the strikes) and with the unstable Pakistani government...a well-informed British source went so far as to tell CBS News he's been told by law enforcement officials that the reports of a foiled plot are, "a load of old rubbish which have been planted to justify the increased drone attacks taking place in the tribal areas" of Pakistan"...

Beware of Governments Trumpeting Terror Threats
Posted by Mark Phillips
September 29, 2010 10:04 AM


Fans of the movie Men in Black will be smirking quietly at the European terror plot story currently circulating.

According to reports attributed to security forces, al Qaeda affiliated groups have been planning Mumbai-style commando attacks in western Europe - and only strikes using unmanned U.S. drones in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan have derailed those attacks by targeting the terror cells which have been planning them. The Mumbai attacks, organized by a terror group in Pakistan, killed more than 170 people in 2008.

In the film, the Will Smith character, unhappy at the lack of urgency being shown in dealing with the latest alien threat to Earth says, "But there's an Arquillian battle cruiser that's about to destroy the planet!" He's told to calm down.

"There's always an Arquillian battle cruiser, or a Corillian death ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet," the Tommy Lee Jones character tells him. It's the same with terror. The threat is always there. There are ways to measure whether it is really increasing.

Tellingly in this case, neither Britain nor Germany - two of the allegedly targeted countries - have raised their security alert levels. France raised its level half a click (to "reinforced red") earlier this month because of the perceived increased threat from North African jihadists angry over French attempts to ban the wearing of the burqa by Muslim women. French authorities have received several phoned-in bomb threats in the past weeks, including two at the Eiffel Tower. All were hoaxes. There's even speculation in the French press that President Nicolas Sarkozy, currently unpopular over other domestic issues, knows the suggestion of a public security threat can do wonders for your poll ratings.

In any event, al Qaeda doesn't generally issue warnings.

There has been an increase in unmanned drone strikes in Pakistan lately and that is being tied to the story of this new threat. But others in the security establishment are wondering, again quietly, whether the new alleged threat is being used as a cover for a drone offensive in Pakistan, one that is understandably unpopular with the Pakistani population (which often becomes collateral damage in the strikes) and with the unstable Pakistani government.

Germany's interior minister said Wednesday that there are "no concrete pointers to imminent attacks in Germany ... the current pointers do not warrant a change in the assessment danger level." German intelligence sources have told news outlets there that the plot was an "aspiration" but "no substantial plans and no explosives."

Meanwhile, a well-informed British source went so far as to tell CBS News he's been told by law enforcement officials that the reports of a foiled plot are, "a load of old rubbish which have been planted to justify the increased drone attacks taking place in the tribal areas" of Pakistan.

The information on the plots is reportedly coming from three German-Pakistani dual nationals who have been arrested and are being questioned. The reliability of their information is suspect. People wanting to kill you is different from people are actively planning, organizing the teams, securing the weaponry and implementing plans to kill you.

Another thing: moving to higher threat alert levels would start to cost money. More security personnel would have to be put on duty. Closing train stations and airports even temporarily costs a fortune. Terror groups can have a destabilizing effect without actually blowing anything up.

If you want to know whether anti-terror authorities are really worried, look at the threat alert levels. The rest is background noise.

The war on drugs: What a joke!(Video)


Apparent execution by Israeli soldiers on board Mavi Marmara aid ship(Video)

Apparent Execution by Israeli Soldiers on Board Mavi Marmara
Wednesday, 29 September 2010 08:24


This video captures the moment when according to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, 19-year old Furkhan Dogan, a native of New York and carrying a US passport, already shot by the IDF while holding a camcorder and lying helpless on the deck, is shot point-blank in the face!

Jesse Ventura charges: "Huffington Post censored my 9/11 article!" (Video)


D.C.'s juvenile "justice" agency to put GPS monitors on young criminals...


D.C. turns to GPS to monitor young criminals
By: Freeman Klopott
Examiner Staff Writer
September 24, 2010

The District's juvenile justice agency is piloting a program that puts global positioning system devices on the ankles of the young criminals it releases into the community.

The program was started under Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services interim Director Robert Hildum, and seeks to keep better track of the agency's wards. This pressure has been on DYRS this year after nearly a dozen of its wards have been charged with murder and more than six have been slain. Hildum was appointed to the job in July by Mayor Adrian Fenty.

"Electronic monitoring is a 'tool' in the 'toolbox' for case managers," DYRS spokesman Reggie Sanders wrote in an e-mail. "It is not a panacea, but can be helpful to improve the oversight of young people in the community."

Sanders said the agency has contracted with Satellite Tracking of People LLC, the same company used by District's adult probation agency. DYRS, he said, is applying for grants that would help supply the funding needed to cover the costs that could range as high as $12 per day for each device. He wouldn't say how many monitoring bracelets have been slapped on the ankles of DYRS wards, but sources said the program is running and about 200 bracelets have been purchased.

The monitoring system allows case managers to make sure their wards are attending school and treatment programs. It can also be used to enforce house arrest. If a ward deviates from a prescribed schedule, or steps out of his home, the case manager is alerted via e-mail. It's not the first time the District has employed electronic monitoring, youth advocates said, but this program appears to be more advanced than previous iterations.

Over the past five years, DYRS has increasingly focused on putting its wards in residential rehabilitation programs, where officials have hoped proximity to family can help ease treatment.

Youth advocates like D.C. Lawyers for Youth's executive director, Daniel Okonkwo, support residential programs as a method of getting youth out of what they say is a toxic environment inside juvenile detention centers. Okonkwo said the electronic monitoring system could be beneficial if it's used to keep more kids out of the detention centers.

But "if they're taking kids who are already in the community and putting them a monitoring program, they'll further stigmatize them," he said.

Critics of the residential program model say it's too lax, and has led to the killings in which DYRS wards have been implicated.

Among them is police union chief Kris Baumann, who said, "If you think someone is violent enough that they need to be monitored, you just shouldn't let them out in public."

He added, "They're still not taking violent crime seriously."

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

"More Guns, Less Crime" author was set to give talk at UT on same day shooter opens fire on campus...

‘More Guns, Less Crime’ author to speak in Austin today
By Joe Gross | Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 01:45 PM

In an unfortunate coincidence, several student organizations, including the Libertarian Longhorns, the UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the UT Objectivism Society and the UT Federalist Society planned to host John Lott, author of the book “More Guns, Less Crime,” at the UT Law School.

It was planned for 6 this evening. The event is postponed tentatively, said Jeff Shi, a full-time student computer science student and the president of UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, “and we are talking to Mr. Lott about alternative plans.”

I don’t want to comment on any political aspects of this,” Shi said. “I hope everything turns out well and the only casualties are the bad guys.”

The Federalist Society posted a message on Twitter at 11:30 saying, “In light of this morning’s events, John Lott’s talk at the law school has been canceled.”

Former Wikileaks spokesman speaks on why he quit...

'The Only Option Left for Me Is an Orderly Departure'
WikiLeaks Spokesman Quits


In an interview with SPIEGEL, Daniel Schmitt -- the 32-year-old German spokesman for WikiLeaks who is also the organization's best-known personality after Julian Assange -- discusses his falling out with the website's founder, his subsequent departure and the considerable growing pains plaguing the whistleblower organization.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Schmitt, you and WikiLeaks have been unreachable by e-mail for several weeks. What's wrong?

Schmitt: There are technical problems and no one to take care of them. WikiLeaks is stuck in a phase in which the project has to change itself. We grew insanely fast in recent months and we urgently need to become more professional and transparent in all areas. This development is being blocked internally. It is no longer clear even to me who is actually making decisions and who is answerable to them. Because of the high pressure we have all been under following the publication of the American military documents, we have not been able to restructure our organization accordingly. This has created a situation in which not all of the work is being done correctly, and that is overwhelming the project.

SPIEGEL: Is that your opinion or do all the people involved share it?

Schmitt: That is one of the points of dispute internally, but there are others. WikiLeaks, for example, was always free of discrimination. In the past we processed and published smaller submissions that were only of local importance the same way that we did more comprehensive documents that are of national or even international importance.

SPIEGEL: Why don't you do both?

Schmitt: We would like to, but unfortunately we've reached a dead-end. I have tried again and again to push for that, but Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project. Four weeks ago, he suspended me-- acting as the prosecutor, judge and hangman in one person. Since then, for example, I have had no access to my WikiLeaks mail. So a lot of work is just sitting and other helpers are being blocked. I know that no one in our core team agreed with the move. But that doesn't seem to matter. WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project.

SPIEGEL: Why has your fight with Assange escalated to this degree?

Schmitt: We have all experienced intense stress in recent months. Mistakes happened, which is okay, as long as people learn from them. For that to happen, though, one has to admit them. Above all, though, we seem to have lost the faith that we are all pulling together.

SPIEGEL: Assange himself says that you questioned his power and wanted to take over leadership of WikiLeaks.

Schmitt: From my perspective there was no power struggle. It wasn't about personal interests, it was about our organization and its development. Only he can say why he sees things differently.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, you did advise him to temporarily retreat from the public eye as a result of the rape allegations lodged against him in Sweden.

Schmitt: The investigation into Julian in Sweden is, in my opinion, a personal attack against him, but they do not have anything to with WikiLeaks directly. Still, it does cost time and energy and it weighs on him. In my opinion it would have been best if he had pulled back a bit so that he could quietly deal with these problems. It would have been fine if he had continued his normal work out of the spotlight. But he clearly saw my internal proposal as an attack on his role.

SPIEGEL: What will happen now?

Schmitt: I worked on WikiLeaks because I considered the idea to be right and important. We tried numerous times to discuss all of the issues mentioned with Julian, without success. I have given more than 100 interviews to media all around the world, coordinated finances in Germany and also worked on the publication (of documents). Now I am pulling out of the project and will turn my tasks over to -- who knows?

SPIEGEL: Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

Schmitt: A handful of people in the core team, who have views about these things that are similar to mine but do not want to go public. A large amount of the work is done by people who want to remain unnamed. There is a lot of resentment there and others, like me, will leave.

SPIEGEL: You are leaving the project at a critical juncture. Do you not worry that a number of Internet activists may accuse you of betraying the cause?

Schmitt: I am aware of that, but you should assume that I have thought long and hard about the step. Nevertheless, in recent years, I have invested a considerable amount of time, money and energy into WikiLeaks. But I also have to be able to support the things for which I am publicly responsible. That is why the only option left for me at the moment is an orderly departure.

SPIEGEL: What is it that you no longer stand behind?

Schmitt: That we promise all of our sources that we will publish their material, for example. Recently, however, we have only focused on the major topics and applied practically all of our resources to them. Take the US Army Afghanistan documents at the end of July, for example. The video of the air strike in Baghdad in 2007, "Collateral Damage," was an extreme feat of strength for us. During the same period of time we also could have published dozens of other documents. And through our rising recognition in the last six months, we have again received a lot of material that urgently needs to be processed and published.

SPIEGEL: With the publication of classified Afghanistan reports, also through SPIEGEL, you have taken on the United States, a superpower. Washington is threatening to prosecute you for espionage and WikiLeaks supporters have been interrogated by the FBI. Bradley Manning, who is believed to be one of your informants, is sitting in jail. Are you afraid of the massive public pressure?

Schmitt: No, pressure from the outside is part of this. But this one-dimensional confrontation with the USA is not what we set out to do. For us it is always about uncovering corruption and abuse of power, wherever it happens -- on the smaller and larger scale -- around the world.

SPIEGEL: What does it mean for the organization now that its second most recognizable face after that of Julian Assange is leaving? Is WikiLeaks' future in jeopardy?

Schmitt: I hope not. The idea behind WikiLeaks is too important for that. There are a number of new people in Sweden and Great Britain and I hope that they will all work on something sensible. I believe in this concept that we set out to do, and I am confident that it will survive.

SPIEGEL: With a part of the WikiLeaks team now leaving, do your informants need to be concerned about what will happen with the material they submitted?

Schmitt: It is my view that material and money from donors should remain at WikiLeaks, because both were intended explicitly for this project. There are other opinions internally -- with our technical people, for example. No matter what, though, we will ensure that a clean transition happens.

SPIEGEL: You quit your job because of WikiLeaks. What will you do now?

Schmitt: I will continue to do my part to ensure that the idea of a decentralized whistleblower platform stays afloat. I will work on that now. And that, incidentally, is in line with one of our original shared convictions -- in the end, there needs to be a thousand WikiLeaks.

SPIEGEL: In your role as WikiLeaks spokesman, you have always gone by the name "Daniel Schmitt." What's your real name?

Schmmitt: It is high time that I also stop doing that and to go public with my name and my opinions. My name is Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Interview conducted by Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

Meet the high-tech millionaire behind the West Bank settlement movement...

Meet the high-tech millionaire behind the West Bank settlement movement
By Dina Kraft · September 22, 2010

TEL SHILOH, West Bank (JTA) -- Naftali Bennett does not fit the mold of a typical Jewish settler leader.

He's just 38, made his fortune in high tech before entering what he describes as public service and doesn’t even live in the West Bank.

A former commando and company commander in the Israeli army, Bennett is now preparing for a possible battle against an old ally: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From 2006 to 2008, Bennett worked as Netanyahu’s right-hand man, serving as his chief of staff. But as the new director general of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Bennett finds himself at odds with Netanyahu, for whom he worked tirelessly to bring back to power.

Bennett, who is dynamic and telegenic, does not hold back on what he thinks of the effort of his former boss to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians -- one that, if successful, would lead to a Palestinian state that likely would necessitate the evacuation of some Jewish settlements.

"I strongly believe that Judea and Samaria has to be ours because I don't think we can survive without it," Bennett said, using the biblical name for the West Bank.

“A Palestinian state here, in the heart of Israel? I think it's national suicide,” he said. "Judea and Samaria are on a tall mountain range that overlooks the very narrow sliver of land about 9 miles from the sea."

Bennett spoke to JTA at the visitors' center of Tel Shiloh, an archeological site scholars believe to be the location of the biblical city of Shiloh, the first Israelite capital and one-time home to the Ark of the Covenant.

"It's that mountain range that protects my home in Ra'anana," said Bennett, who lives in the leafy Tel Aviv suburb with his wife and three young children.

He grew up in a Modern Orthodox home in Haifa. He wears a small, black kipah.

Not so long ago Bennett was preoccupied not with issues of war and peace but the high-tech start-up he co-founded and ran. The firm, Cyota, developed highly sought-after anti-fraud software for banks.

In 2005 he sold the company for $145 million to RSA Security, an American firm. Seven out of 10 bank transactions in the United States and Canada are now utilizing Cyota's engineering, according to Bennett.

A year after exiting the high-tech world, Bennett, like thousands of other Israeli men, received an emergency call-up order to serve in what became known as the Second Lebanon War. Devastated when his best friend was killed in the fighting, he decided not to return to the business world.

Bennett soon started to work for Netanyahu, who was then the head of the opposition. He won't discuss what kind of conversations he has with Netanyahu these days.

Bennett, who works under the Yesha Council's chairman, Danny Dayan, is unequivocal that the settlement freeze in the West Bank must not be extended. Settlements, he says, are the Western world's frontline against Islamic terror.

"There is no political option to give a new freeze order -- the world should instead be strengthening our presence here,” he said. "No one else in the region can predict what will be in the Middle East in even the next two years. Iran could topple Iraq. What breeds terror is the hope of kicking us out of here.”

"They want a state," he said of the Palestinians. "And I want to live."

Suddenly quiet, he adds, "It's a tragedy."

Shill out-of-town reporters brought to Gulf with BP money...

Shill Out of Town Reporters Brought to Gulf With BP Money
September 27, 2010 by Alex


The Intel Hub – This is absolutely disgusting. BP is paying major out of town writers to come down to the Gulf and lie to the American people. Hundreds if not thousands of American citizens are sick from the toxic dispersant that has continually been sprayed throughout the Gulf of Mexico. No matter how hard BP trys, this disaster will continue to poison the gulf for years to come.

Travel writers visiting beaches on BP dime
Louis Cooper

What does it take to get a half dozen travel writers to Navarre Beach?

This weekend, it took a check from BP and a white stretch limousine.

Six travel writers — chauffeured around in a limo — are on Navarre Beach this weekend to get the word out that this summer’s BP oil spill is over, and the beach, along with the rest of Santa Rosa County, is open for tourism.

Using money from BP, the Santa Rosa County Tourist Development Council hosted a familiarization — or “fam” — tour for select out-of-town reporters, showing them the pristine beaches and other assets of the county….

Ron Stern, editor of www.JustSayGo.com based in Colorado, said he will tell his readers that the oil hype has been overblown.”What the national media has been saying is totally untrue, for the most part, and blown totally out of proportion,” Stern said

Read Entire Article

The birth of Big Pharma(Pic)

Doctors may have been responsible for today's HIV epidemic...

Doctors may have been responsible for today's HIV epidemic
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A new report challenges many of the popular theories surrounding how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) came to become a worldwide pandemic, infecting more than 33 million people as of 2008. According to researchers from the Universite de Sherbrooke in Quebec, Can., early 20th century French colonial doctors using bad needles may be to blame for its massive spread.

Dr. Jacques Pepin and his team from the university traveled to central Africa to investigate the situation further, surveying local villagers who had been exposed to a sleeping sickness epidemic that occurred there between 1936 and 1950. Using hepatitis C infection as a model, they found that those who had been treated for sleeping disease before 1951 were three times as likely to be infected as those who were not treated, indicating that tainted needles used in treating the disease may have been the culprit in HIV's spread.

"What happened is that for a long time, the needles and syringes used to administer the intravenous drugs were not single-use," explained Pein to Reuters Health. "There were a lot of patients and not a lot of needles, so the sterilization of needles was not very efficient."

One of the most widely held mainstream theories about how HIV was first transmitted to humans was that it came from chimpanzees. Humans allegedly contracted the disease from the animals, and it morphed from simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) to HIV. But how it spread across the world so rapidly, and why it continues to ravage populations, has been unclear to many scientists.

But some now say that the new research lends some credence to the notion that infected needles are at least partially to blame. After all, the number of remaining villagers age 65 or older who had been treated for sleeping sickness is six times lower than it should be, which supports the hypothesis that many of them have already died from AIDS.

Fake news flourishes under the feds' noses...

On the Media: Fake news flourishes under the feds' noses
Hucksters continue to masquerade as journalists under FCC and FTC 'enforcement.'
By James Rainey
September 18, 2010


An old actor I know would watch a plodding drama and growl, "If you watch closely, it almost moves."

That's the feeling I'm getting, taking a look at the federal government's flimsy and fitful crackdown on news outlets and experts that fob off public relations drivel as news.

I raised the subject earlier this week in a column about Elizabeth Werner, the perky spokesmom who pitches toys during news broadcasts on local stations around the country. She is just one of a pack of paid touts presented to viewers as if they were independent experts.

But does anyone care? The public has gotten pitch-drunk from relentless salesmanship, on Twitter, Facebook, blogs and even their favorite sitcoms and reality shows. TV news producers have to fill airtime with staffs a fraction the size they were just a few years ago. Federal regulators speak loudly but carry a small stick — seldom invoking regulations that let them punish television outlets that don't disclose paid promotions.

Performers like Werner may be relatively new, but the song remains the same as it's been for years. A couple of public interest outfits demonstrated more than four years ago how dozens of TV stations flimflammed the public by presenting video news releases from advertisers as if they were unbiased expert testimonials.

Stories about the misuse of VNRs, as they're known, became a big deal back then. One revealed how columnist and TV personality Armstrong Williams took payments from the Bush Education Department to cheerlead the No Child Left Behind education reform. Then the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) released a pair of 2006 studies showing that more than 100 local TV news stations had presented the insidious VNRs without telling viewers where they really came from.

The watchdog group cited General Motors, Intel, Pfizer, General Mills and Victoria's Secret among the companies able to get the house message out to the mainstream using VNRs. News producers often did little or nothing to alter the corporate pitches, quietly sliding them into their regular newscasts, Wisconsin-based CMD told the Federal Communications Commission.

At least a couple of FCC commissioners, Michael Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, embraced the complaint and a follow-up a few months later as a call to action. The commission proposed a $4,000 fine in 2007 against Comcast for airing a VNR on a regional cable channel, touting a sleep aid without a sponsorship notice to the public.

Adelstein cheered that original fine. He said he would "look forward to quick action on the many other pending video news release complaints."

Three years later, Adelstein's wait has not ended. The commissioner has moved on to a new job in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And the complaints brought by CMD and Free Press, a partner public interest group, have not been resolved, at least as far as anyone knows.

But it's hard to tell exactly what the FCC has done on the matter. Eric Bash, associate bureau chief in the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, told me he assumed the fail-to-disclose complaints could be pending. But rules prohibit discussing ongoing investigations. And the rules might also preclude discussing complaints that had been tossed out.

The commission a couple of years ago discussed whether to step up demands for public disclosure of so-called "embedded advertising." It noted how commercial messages had been hidden inside entertainment (for instance, those TV plots driven by product lines) and news programs. But some producers — get this — protested that more rules would impede "artistic integrity," even free speech. An update of the rules stalled.

Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission has made considerable noise about the need for celebrities and other endorsers to disclose their commercial alliances. The agency last year announced new guidelines that required disclosure of "material connections" (cash and gifts, for example) that would not be readily apparent to consumers.

The commission said the rules applied to A-list celebrities and "mommy bloggers" alike. That latter category encompasses online writers who take washing machines and microwaves, then rhapsodize about the products on their Internet sites.

The new rules got a ton of press. Bloggers pledged full transparency about their paid alliances. But an agency executive conceded that the FTC doesn't have the staff to chase down violators and that "there's a relatively small risk of getting caught." The agency hopes the threat of public embarrassment will keep hucksters in check.

Judging from my reporting on toy woman Werner, I'm not so sure. Several PR professionals told me they see secretly paid promotions only growing. One executive told me that a multibillion-dollar technology firm he represents can't wait to push its products via so-called "satellite media tours" such as the ones that have enriched Werner.

On the tours, companies pay an "expert," who hypes a series of products — often electronics, toys, cars, or gardening products. The testimonials get beamed into news stations around America, where hometown anchors play along, almost never asking a critical question. Though federal regulations require the paid nature of the segments to be disclosed, news stations often don't bother.

This is what we have come to on the public airwaves. Television stations won licenses from the FCC with promises to uphold a trust to serve the public interest. Critical in that trust is helping the audience understand where content comes from.

But today many viewers are slipping away to the Internet and DVDs or fast-forwarding past traditional commercials with video recorders. News staffs have been slashed dramatically. That leaves TV newsers scrambling to fill programs, too often with whatever stumbles over the doorstep.

The only antidote might be bringing more attention to broadcasters who produce fake news. The audience has had its fill of this sub rosa salesman, hasn't it? Or has the news just sunk to meet our increasingly low expectations?

British intelligence agency used semen as invisible ink...


British Intelligence Agency Used Semen as Invisible Ink


A new book reveals that a member of MI6, the British spy agency, discovered during WWI that semen makes excellent invisible ink, and often deployed it in the field. The name of the man who discovered this? Mansfield Cumming.

Lee Harvey Oswald’s first intelligence assignment...

Lee Harvey Oswald’s First Intelligence Assignment
25th September 2010
By Bill Simpich


Seventeen-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald began his first tentative steps into the intelligence milieu when he joined the Marines in late 1956 and obtained his qualifications as an aviation electronics operator. These credentials allowed him to perform basic radar functions, a post that requires above average IQ. For Oswald, with his spelling problems and a shaky education, this was a big deal. Keep in mind that Oswald may have been unwitting about some or all of the roles he would play for intelligence, although he seems to have been an agent in his own mind. He may have simply been manipulated for other purposes.

During 1957 and 1958, Oswald was stationed at the Atsugi naval air station in Japan, one of the major bases where the CIA flew secret U-2 reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union. The task of his unit was to use radar to direct aircraft to their targets.

At Atsugi, Oswald and the other radar operators tracked the radar-evading abilities of the U-2s as they flew at high altitudes, which was necessary in order to evade Soviet anti-aircraft fire. He and his unit also traveled to provide similar U-2 support at Cubi Point in the Philippines, where Oswald once tracked a U-2 flying over China and showed it to his commanding officer.

While Oswald was in Asia, Col. Pyotr Popov was a top double agent for the CIA, providing important Soviet military intelligence to legend maker #1 James Angleton’s CI/SIG under the code name ATTIC. In April, 1958, Popov heard a drunken colonel brag about the “technical details” that the KGB had on a new high-altitude spycraft that America was flying over the USSR. Popov concluded that the leak of such details came from within the U-2 project itself. While in Berlin, Popov passed this U-2 leak to the Agency and then returned to Moscow.

In September, 1959, Oswald received a dependency discharge from the Marines on the grounds that his mother was injured and needed his care. However, after a three day visit with her, he left for Europe. Supposedly, he was off to attend college for the first time at the Albert Schweitzer College in Zurich, Switzerland. Percival Brundage, the college president, was Eisenhower’s budget director and a staunch advocate of black budget financing for military and intelligence operations. Brundage is also known as one of the two owner-operators of Southern Air Transport, infamous as the “CIA’s airline” in the Caribbean and in Southeast Asia during the 60s and 70s.

Oswald never made it to Albert Schweitzer College. He changed direction once his freighter docked in France, avoiding the usual visa delays and zipping through to the Soviet Union in unheard-of time for an American at the height of the Cold War. After Oswald arrived in Helsinki on the 10th, he sought a visa on Tuesday the 13th, obtained it on the 14th, and had crossed the border into the Soviet Union by the 15th. How he did it is a highly revealing story.

The day before Oswald’s arrival to Helsinki, the CIA had just confirmed on October 9 that the Finnish city was the only known spot in the Soviet empire where someone could get an instant visa in a few minutes instead of at least a week and prior approval from Moscow. This confirmation came in the wake of an August 28 memo from vice consul/CIA officer William Costille, entitled REDCAP/LCIMPROVE.

Why this complicated arrangement? Something big was about to happen. What were REDCAP and LCIMPROVE?

Background on REDCAP and REDSKIN

Throughout 1959, Costille had been meeting with his Soviet counterpart Gregoriy Golub, cordially swapping unimportant items of information and feeling each other out. During this time, the memos about the Costille-Golub meetings were directed to the CIA division heads for the Soviet Union and Western Europe, bearing the subject line of REDCAP.

REDCAP was originally designed in 1952 to deal with the results of uprisings in the Soviet satellites, with a special focus on defectors and refugees. In the words of former CIA Soviet chief David Murphy:

“First priority went to efforts to recruit Soviets as sources or, as the Redcap sloganeers put it, to encourage them to ‘defect in place’. Failing that, those who insisted on defecting outright would be brought to the West, where their intelligence knowledge could be tapped.”

In July, a REDCAP memo reveals that Golub was sweetened up by spending time with REDSKIN student-travelers PAWNEE/3 and PAWNEE/5. (REDSKIN was a legal program using student travelers and those similarly situated to report what they observed. As seen in the previous article, JFK himself recommended legend maker #3 Priscilla Johnson for entry into a REDSKIN program.) This indicates an ongoing attempt to persuade Golub to defect. However, REDCAP or REDSKIN may have also been used as a means of using Lee Harvey Oswald.

This is illustrated by a crucial memo written by Deputy Director of Plans Richard Bissell on 9/2/59, just days before Oswald left the United States. In this memo, Bissell said that it was time to expand the effort by Clandestine Services against the Soviets, and that it must be done in two ways. One was “to monitor the activities of Soviet personnel and installations (REDCAP) and to negate (their) activities” outside of the USSR, and the other was all the operations aimed inside the USSR itself, including REDSKIN.

Oswald could have qualified as a REDSKIN traveler. The State Department described him as a “tourist” on the defector list. Or, given the presence of only about twenty REDCAP agents actually inside the Soviet Russia in the late fifties, REDCAP could have been a convenient spot to tuck in someone like Oswald who related to the USSR but wanted to keep his option to “defect in in place” or re-defect to the West.

US president should be able to shut down internet says former CIA chief...

U.S. should be able to shut Internet, former CIA chief says
September 26, 2010|4:05 p.m

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - Cyberterrorism is such a threat that the U.S. president should have the authority to shut down the Internet in the event of an attack, Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said.

Hayden made the comments during a visit to San Antonio where he was meeting with military and civilian officials to discuss cyber security. The U.S. military has a new Cyber Command which is to begin operations on October 1.

Hayden said the president currently does not have the authority to shut down the Internet in an emergency.

"My personal view is that it is probably wise to legislate some authority to the President, to take emergency measures for limited periods of time, with clear reporting to Congress, when he feels as if he has to take these measures," he said in an interview on the weekend.

"But I would put the bar really high as to when these kinds of authorities might take place," he said.

He likened cyberwarfare to a "frontier."

"It's actually the new area of endeavor, I would compare it to a new age of exploration. Military doctrine calls the cyber thing a 'domain,' like land sea, air, space, and now cyber … It is almost like a frontier experience" he said.

Hayden, a retired U.S. Air Force general, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the administration of President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009.

The former guerilla set to be the world's most powerful woman...

The former guerrilla set to be the world's most powerful woman
Brazil looks likely to elect an extraordinary leader next weekend
By Hugh O'Shaughnessy
Sunday, 26 September 2010


The world's most powerful woman will start coming into her own next weekend. Stocky and forceful at 63, this former leader of the resistance to a Western-backed military dictatorship (which tortured her) is preparing to take her place as President of Brazil.

As head of state, president Dilma Rousseff would outrank Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State: her enormous country of 200 million people is revelling in its new oil wealth. Brazil's growth rate, rivalling China's, is one that Europe and Washington can only envy.

Her widely predicted victory in next Sunday's presidential poll will be greeted with delight by millions. It marks the final demolition of the "national security state", an arrangement that conservative governments in the US and Europe once regarded as their best artifice for limiting democracy and reform. It maintained a rotten status quo that kept a vast majority in poverty in Latin America while favouring their rich friends.

Ms Rousseff, the daughter of a Bulgarian immigrant to Brazil and his schoolteacher wife, has benefited from being, in effect, the prime minister of the immensely popular President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the former union leader. But, with a record of determination and success (which includes appearing to have conquered lymphatic cancer), this wife, mother and grandmother will be her own woman. The polls say she has built up an unassailable lead – of more than 50 per cent compared with less than 30 per cent – over her nearest rival, an uninspiring man of the centre called Jose Serra. Few doubt that she will be installed in the Alvorada presidential palace in Brasilia in January.

Like President Jose Mujica of Uruguay, Brazil's neighbour, Ms Rousseff is unashamed of a past as an urban guerrilla which included battling the generals and spending time in jail as a political prisoner. As a little girl growing up in the provincial city of Belo Horizonte, she says she dreamed successively of becoming a ballerina, a firefighter and a trapeze artist. The nuns at her school took her class to the city's poor area to show them the vast gaps between the middle-class minority and the vast majority of the poor. She remembers that when a young beggar with sad eyes came to her family's door she tore a currency note in half to share with him, not knowing that half a banknote had no value.

Her father, Pedro, died when she was 14, but by then he had introduced her to the novels of Zola and Dostoevski. After that, she and her siblings had to work hard with their mother to make ends meet. By 16 she was in POLOP (Workers' Politics), a group outside the traditional Brazilian Communist Party that sought to bring socialism to those who knew little about it.

The generals seized power in 1964 and decreed a reign of terror to defend what they called "national security". She joined secretive radical groups that saw nothing wrong with taking up arms against an illegitimate military regime. Besides cosseting the rich and crushing trade unions and the underclass, the generals censored the press, forbidding editors from leaving gaps in newspapers to show where news had been suppressed.

Ms Rousseff ended up in the clandestine VAR-Palmares (Palmares Armed Revolutionary Vanguard). In the 1960s and 1970s, members of such organisations seized foreign diplomats for ransom: a US ambassador was swapped for a dozen political prisoners; a German ambassador was exchanged for 40 militants; a Swiss envoy swapped for 70. They also shot foreign torture experts sent to train the generals' death squads. Though she says she never used weapons, she was eventually rounded up and tortured by the secret police in Brazil's equivalent to Abu Ghraib, the Tiradentes prison in Sao Paulo. She was given a 25-month sentence for "subversion" and freed after three years. Today she openly confesses to having "wanted to change the world".

In 1973 she moved to the prosperous southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, where her second husband, Carlos Araujo, a lawyer, was finishing a four-year term as a political prisoner (her first marriage with a young left-winger, Claudio Galeno, had not survived the strains of two people being on the run in different cities). She went back to university, started working for the state government in 1975, and had a daughter, Paula.

In 1986, she was named finance chief of Porto Alegre, the state capital, where her political talents began to blossom. Yet the 1990s were bitter-sweet years for her. In 1993 she was named secretary of energy for the state, and pulled off the coup of vastly increasing power production, ensuring the state was spared the power cuts that plagued the rest of the country.

She had 1,000km of new electric power lines, new dams and thermal power stations built while persuading citizens to switch off the lights whenever they could. Her political star started shining brightly. But in 1994, after 24 years together, she separated from Mr Araujo, though apparently on good terms. At the same time she was torn between academic life and politics, but her attempt to gain a doctorate in social sciences failed in 1998.

In 2000 she threw her lot in with Lula and his Partido dos Trabalhadores, or Workers' Party which set its sights successfully on combining economic growth with an attack on poverty. The two immediately hit it off and she became his first energy minister in 2003. Two years later he made her his chief of staff and has since backed her as his successor. She has been by his side as Brazil has found vast new offshore oil deposits, aiding a leader whom many in the European and US media were denouncing a decade ago as a extreme left-wing wrecker to pull 24 million Brazilians out of poverty. Lula stood by her in April last year as she was diagnosed with lymphatic cancer, a condition that was declared under control a year ago. Recent reports of financial irregularities among her staff do not seem to have damaged her popularity.

Ms Rousseff is likely to invite President Mujica of Uruguay to her inauguration in the New Year. President Evo Morales of Bolivia, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay – other successful South American leaders who have, like her, weathered merciless campaigns of denigration in the Western media – are also sure to be there. It will be a celebration of political decency – and feminism.

Female representation: A woman's place... is in the government

In recent years, female political representation has undergone significant growth, with dramatic changes occurring in unexpected corners of the globe. In some countries women are dominating cabinets and even parliamentary chambers. By comparison, the UK falls far behind, with only 22 per cent of seats in the Commons currently held by women.

Bolivia In the Bolivian cabinet, 10 men are now matched by 10 women. In 2009, women won 25 per cent of seats in the lower chamber, and 47 per cent in the upper chamber.

Costa Rica In 2010, women won 39 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Argentina In 2009, women won 39 per cent of seats in the lower chamber and 47 per cent in the upper chamber.

Cuba In 2009, women won 41 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Rwanda In 2009, women won 56 per cent of seats in the lower chamber and 35 per cent in the upper chamber.

Mozambique In 2009, women won 39 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Angola In 2009, women won 38 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Switzerland Has a female-dominated cabinet for the first time. In 2007, women won 29 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Germany In 2009, the cabinet had six women and 10 men. That year, women won 33 per cent of lower chamber seats.

Spain Nine women compared with eight men in cabinet. In 2008, women won 37 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Norway Equal numbers of men and women in the cabinet. Women won 40 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Denmark Nine women and 10 men in cabinet. In 2007, women won 23 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Netherlands Three women and nine men in cabinet. In 2010, women won 41 per cent of seats in the lower chamber.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Mystery over 'helicopter attack on Somalia's al-Shabab'...

Mystery over 'helicopter attack on Somalia's al-Shabab'


Residents of the southern Somali town of Merca say they witnessed an exchange of fire on Sunday between a helicopter and Islamist militants.

Al-Shabab, which controls the area and has links to al-Qaeda, said rockets from the helicopter narrowly missed killing some of its leaders.

The United States, which has previously targeted Islamist militants in Somalia, has said it was not involved.

Last year a US helicopter attack killed a senior member of al-Qaeda near Merca.

BBC East Africa correspondent Will Ross says if this was a failed attack on senior al-Shabab officials, perhaps it is not surprising that no-one is claiming to have carried out the mission.

Al-Shabab and other Islamist groups control most of southern and central Somalia.

The UN-backed government, supported by African Union (AU) peacekeepers, is only in charge of a few parts of the capital, Mogadishu.

Last week, AU executive chairman Jean Ping asked the international community to fund reinforcements to the peacekeepers and boost their numbers from 8,000 to 20,000.

More than 40 countries and international organisations are meeting in the Spanish capital, Madrid, on Monday to discuss ways of supporting Somalia's government in countering the Islamist insurgents.

The Spanish foreign ministry said that the gathering of representatives of the International Contact Group would consider plans to strengthen the AU peacekeeping force, which is below its mandated capacity of 8,000 troops.

FDA refuses to require labeling of genetically modified salmon...

FDA refuses to require labeling of genetically modified salmon
Mike Adams
September 27, 2010

As the FDA stands poised to approve genetically modified (GM) salmon safe for public consumption, the next logical question concerns how GM salmon would be labeled. Would the fish come with a large red warning that says, “Genetically modified salmon”?

As it turns out, no. In fact, the FDA has already gone on the record stating it will not require any special labeling of genetically modified salmon. You, the consumer, just have to take a wild guess because you’re not allowed to know what you’re really eating.

The biotech industry takes this absurdity one step further by claiming that labeling GM foods would just “confuse” consumers. David Edwards, the director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, explained it in this way: “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” he says. “It differentiates products that are not different.”

Except that they are different. If they were really no different, then AquAdvantage company wouldn’t be growing them. The whole point of genetically modified salmon is that they are modified with extra growth hormone genes to make them grow more quickly. I don’t know where David Edwards is getting his information, but in the rest of the world, when something is different, that means it’s different.

If it’s no different, then why are so many GM salmon processes patented? If it’s no different, there would be nothing to patent. The entire purpose of a patent is to make a legal claim that “we invented something different” and we own the monopoly rights to it.

The GM salmon industry can’t have it both ways, you see. They can’t claim it’s so unique that their technologies and animals should be proprietary or patented, yet when it comes to food labeling, they claim there are no differences. It’s either different or it isn’t, and in the case of GM salmon, only an outright liar would look you in the eye and claim GM salmon is identical to regular farmed salmon or wild-caught salmon.

FDA insists on keeping people in the dark

The FDA, for its sad part in this saga, claims that it would be against the law to require the honest labeling of GM foods. This agency claims that since GM salmon is identical to regular salmon (it’s “no different” once again, they say), they can’t require it to be labeled any differently.

Except, of course, it is different. The genetic code of GM salmon is provably different, and since that genetic code is imprinted in every cell of the fish flesh, consumers are buying genetically modified fish with a different genetic code whose sole purpose was to alter the biochemistry of that fish so that it would grow larger more quickly. Thus, the physical expression of GM salmon is, by definition, different from the physical expression of regular salmon.

When you eat genetically modified salmon, you are eating something that’s different from regular (natural) salmon.

Word game trickery

What the FDA and biotech industries are doing with the GM salmon issue is playing word games, trying to confuse consumers with sleight-of-mouth language intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. They’ve already decided they want to approve GM salmon and they don’t want it to be accurately labeled. In essence, they want to trick consumers into buying GM salmon by making them think it’s natural salmon.

The trouble with this FDA hucksterism is that the people aren’t as stupid as the FDA thinks, and they aren’t going to be fooled by this genetically engineered salmon. That’s because the minute the FDA approves this Frankenfish, NaturalNews.com and a long list of other websites are going to alert the whole world to the simple truths of the matter:

Truth #1) Genetically engineered salmon is different from regular salmon.

Truth #2) The FDA is going out of its way to make sure GM salmon isn’t accurately labeled.

This is a Frankenfood cover-up, pure and simple, and the public is going to be outraged that the FDA would introduce a genetically engineered fish into the food supply without even requiring it to be accurately labeled!

We’ll be watching this issue very closely, waiting for the FDA’s final decision. If the FDA decides to yet again betray the American public over this issue, we won’t be at all surprised. But we will be vigilant, and we will ask for your help to spread the word and take action to demand that genetically modified salmon be accurately labeled so that consumers know what they’re actually buying.

Gee, you would think the FDA might be interested in food labeling honesty. But of course, the more you learn about the FDA, the more you realize every decision the agency makes is a political decision that betrays the rights and safety of the American people.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to eat genetically modified salmon. And I don’t want the FDA shoving this down my throat by making me try to guess which salmon is real versus artificially engineered. This Frankenfood shell game must end!

Watch for more news updates on this issue from NaturalNews.com.

Banksters inflate speculative food bubble...

Banksters Inflate Speculative Food Bubble, U.N. Offers Global Governance Solution
Eric Blair
Activist Post
September 27, 2010

Never let a good crisis go to waste. The international bankers are taking advantage of the “food crisis” by driving up food prices in what is shaping up to be a classic case of a manufactured bubble. It is also looking like a clear model of Problem-Reaction-Solution methodology. Create the food inflation problem (of course profiting all the way up), force an enraged reaction among the public, and take more sovereignty away with the solution of global food regulation.

Take a look at the commodity price charts for wheat and corn. Pay particularly close attention to what has happened since July 1st....


Stuxnet worm attack on Iran launched for internet takeover?

Stuxnet False Flag Launched For Web Takeover
Paul Joseph Watson
September 27, 2010

Israel and the United States have emerged as the prime suspects behind the Stuxnet worm attack, which has infected the Iranian nuclear plant at Bushehr, following the discovery that a “wealthy group or nation” must have been responsible for the malware assault.

On Sunday, Infowars speculated that Stuxnet was a false flag intended to both target Iran and provide a pretext for the implementation of draconian cybersecurity legislation.

That suspicion has been greatly enhanced by new evidence which proves the virus was “created by experts working for a country or a well-funded private group,” according to Liam O Murchu, manager of security response operations at Symantec Corp.

“A number of governments with sophisticated computer skills would have the ability to create such a code. They include China, Russia, Israel, Britain, Germany and the United States,” states the Associated Press report, clearly indicating that the US, Israel, Great Britain, or a combination of the three were behind the attack.

The Stuxnet worm is now “rampaging through Iran,” causing havoc to the country’s industrial infrastructure, having already infected at least 30,000 IP addresses.

There would be no motivation whatsoever for Russia to be behind the attack because they have helped fuel the Bushehr reactor. China has backed US calls for sanctions in response to the nuclear plant, but it can hardly be claimed that the Chinese have aggressively opposed its construction and fueling. Indeed, China has been a regular exporter of nuclear technology and assistance to Iran in recent years.

That leaves three prime suspects, all of whom have followed identical foreign policies in vehemently opposing Iran’s self-proclaimed goal of developing peaceful nuclear energy.

Top globalists such as Richard Falkenrath, a principal at Chertoff Group and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor, already blamed Israel for the attack before evidence emerged that the virus was the work of a sophisticated nation state.

If the United States’ involvement in the attack was to be confirmed, it would completely discredit the foundation of cybersecurity legislation, which is being promoted as a means of defending against cyber attacks launched by terrorists and other nation states.

However, if any US involvement remains concealed, Stuxnet will be hyped as a primary reason for rushing the passage of the amalgamation of the Lieberman and Rockefeller bills, which as we have documented, have little to do with security and everything to do with shutting down free speech on the Internet, despite the fact that Stuxnet was distributed through a physical USB device and not via the public Internet.

Lieberman’s version of the original bill includes language that would hand President Obama the power to shut down parts of the world wide web for at least four months with no congressional oversight. The combined version appears to shift that responsibility to DHS, who under the pretext of a national emergency could block all Internet traffic to the U.S. from certain countries, and close down specific hubs and networks, creating an ominous precedent for government regulation and control over the Internet.

Cybersecurity legislation is being promoted as a vital tool to defend the nation’s critical infrastructure against cyber- terrorism. However, as we have highlighted, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear is the real agenda behind cybersecurity – to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.

Fears that cybersecurity legislation could be used to stifle free speech were heightened when Senator Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the real motivation behind the bill was to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.

Astrophysicist to be tapped for space ambassadorship to "greet alien visitors" if and when extraterrestrials make contact...

UN 'to appoint space ambassador to greet alien visitors'
A space ambassador could be appointed by the United Nations to act as the first point of contact for aliens trying to communicate with Earth.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 11:30AM BST 26 Sep 2010


Mazlan Othman, a Malaysian astrophysicist, is set to be tasked with co-ordinating humanity’s response if and when extraterrestrials make contact.

Aliens who landed on earth and asked: “Take me to your leader” would be directed to Mrs Othman.

She will set out the details of her proposed new role at a Royal Society conference in Buckinghamshire next week.

The 58-year-old is expected to tell delegates that the proposal has been prompted by the recent discovery of hundreds of planets orbiting other starts, which is thought to make the discovery of extraterrestrial life more probable than ever before.

Mrs Othman is currently head of the UN’s little known Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa).

In a recent talk to fellow scientists, she said: “The continued search for extraterrestrial communication, by several entities, sustains the hope that some day human kind will received signals from extraterrestrials.

“When we do, we should have in place a coordinated response that takes into account all the sensitivities related to the subject. The UN is a ready-made mechanism for such coordination.”

Professor Richard Crowther, an expert in space law at the UK space agency who leads delegations to the UN, said: “Othman is absolutely the nearest thing we have to a ‘take me to your leader’ person”.

The plan to make Unoosa the co-ordinating body for dealing with alien encounters will be debated by UN scientific advisory committees and should eventually reach the body’s general assembly.

Opinion is divided about how future extraterrestrial visitors should be greeted. Under the Outer Space Treaty on 1967, which Unoosa oversees, UN members agreed to protect Earth against contamination by alien species by “sterilising” them.

Mrs Othman is understood to support a more tolerant approach.

But Professor Stephen Hawking has warned that alien interlopers should be treated with caution.

He said: “I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. The outcome for us would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...