Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Establishment Rag Boston Globe Nixes Hard Facts Pointing To NAU Reality

Establishment Rag Boston Globe Nixes Hard Facts Pointing To NAU Reality

note: this is how today's elite establishment goes about covering up their treasonous ways. They start off by downplaying and marginalizing the hard facts. Then they label all who disagree with their more "reasonable" and "enlightened" explanation as being "a bunch of paranoid right wing conspiracy theorists". FYI, this is a text book example of elitist cover-up and spin-doctoring! Read on..........

The amero conspiracy
Behind closed doors, a secret cabal is planning the end of the United States as we know it. Inside a paranoid vision for our time.

By Drake Bennett | November 25, 2007
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/11/25/the_amero_conspiracy?mode=PF

SINCE HE BEGAN his presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has held more than 125 "Ask Mitt Anything" town hall forums, and the people who have shown up for them have done their best to make the events live up to their name. There have been questions about medical marijuana, about abolishing the income tax, about Romney's Mormonism and his potential vice president.
Of course, certain topics come up more than others. One is healthcare. Another is Iraq. A third is the North American Union.
The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries' leaders, but the NAU's central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.
If you haven't heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU - that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence - has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe, coloring political press conferences and candidate question-and-answer sessions, and reaching a kind of critical mass on the campaign trail. Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues.
As fears of the mythical NAU grow, they appear to be subtly shaping more mainstream debates about immigration and trade. Paul's fellow Republican congressman Virgil Goode introduced a congressional resolution early this year to block the creation of the NAU and the "NAFTA Superhighway System." Similar resolutions have been introduced in several state legislatures - in Montana's case, the resolution passed nearly unanimously. And back in July, the US House of Representatives easily approved a measure that would cut off federal funds for an existing trade group set up by the three countries.
The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan, and gives a glimpse of where, politically, many Americans are right now: alarmed over immigration, worried about globalization, and - on both sides of the partisan divide - suspicious of the Bush administration's expansive understanding of executive power.
The belief in an imminent North American Union, says Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of a 2001 book on conspiracy theories, "reflects the particular ways in which Americans feel besieged economically, powerless politically, and alienated socially."
. . .
As a social anxiety, the NAU's roots run deep. Global government and elites who secretly sell out their own citizenry have long been staples of conspiracy theories, thanks in part to the Book of Revelation's warning that world government will be an early indicator of the Apocalypse. Over the centuries, the world's puppeteers have been thought to be, in turn, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Freemasons, the pope, the Jews, international bankers, the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Rockefellers, and the Communist International.
For most of the 20th century, American conspiracy theories tended to focus on communist infiltration of the upper echelons of the US government. The founder of the John Birch Society, a leading source of such imagined schemes, accused President Dwight Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, among many others, of being communist agents.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union, the one country that has actually challenged American global preeminence in the postwar period, forced a conceptual adjustment among the conspiracy-minded. In the past two decades, the United Nations and trade groups like the World Trade Organization have figured more prominently in their dark visions. "In the 1990s in particular, with the militia movement, you had all the rumors of black helicopters and jackbooted UN troops," says Chip Berlet, an analyst at the liberal, Somerville-based think tank Political Research Associates. "There was this sense that the secret elites behind the UN were the same secret elites who had been behind the Soviet Union."
Recently, other threads have emerged. The 1994 birth of NAFTA gave new strength to worries that free trade would cripple the American middle class. In the past two years, immigration has once again thrust itself into the national political discussion. And the once-mighty dollar has entered a steady decline that shows no signs of ending - in sharp contrast to the strength of the euro, the new currency of an economically united Europe.
In March 2005, those seemingly disparate worries found a banner under which they could unite. President Bush, along with then-President Vicente Fox of Mexico and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, held a summit in Waco, Texas, and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a framework for greater continental cooperation on trade and security issues.
Alarmed at the fact that the United States had entered into the arrangement without explicit congressional approval, and by what they saw as a lack of public detail about the meetings, a few conservative activists became convinced that the SPP was the first step in a secret plan to dissolve the three nations into one continental unit. Their suspicions were further inflamed when, two months later, a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank long viewed with suspicion by the conspiratorial fringe, published a report called "Building a North American Community." The report recommended the establishment of a common North American security perimeter, the development of biometric North American border passes, and the adoption of a common North American tariff.
One of the vice chairs of the council's working group was a political science professor at American University and former Carter administration official named Robert Pastor. In 2001, Pastor had written a book arguing for greater economic integration between the three North American nations - and specifically discussed the possibility that the nations could jointly adopt an amero currency.
A fully realized theory was born. In the fall of 2006, Phyllis Schlafly, along with the conservative author Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips, founder of an organization called the Conservative Caucus, started a website dedicated to quashing the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."
If the anti-NAU cause has a prophet, it is Corsi. In 2004, Corsi was a leading spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; last year, he co-wrote a book on the Minuteman Project with its founder, Jim Gilchrist. Earlier this year Corsi published a book, "The Late Great U.S.A.," and it was here - and in his columns on the conservative websites WorldNetDaily and Human Events - that the NAU conspiracy theory emerged in full flower.
A new continental government will grow out of the tri-national working groups set up by the SPP, complete with bureaucratic agencies outranking the three national legislatures, and a North American Court able to overrule national courts. There is talk, Corsi writes, of issuing North American passports, and of meshing the three nations' militaries. And the infrastructural backbone of the sprawling new superstate is already being built: The NAFTA Superhighway, a "four-football-fields wide" Mississippi of concrete and rail along which goods, cheap labor, narcotics, terrorists, and pandemics will flow unimpeded from Mexico (and, via Mexico's Pacific ports, from China) into the United States and on to Canada.
Corsi said in an interview that his belief in the NAU stemmed from his realization that it was the only logical explanation for the Bush administration's refusal to police the US-Mexico border adequately. "I kept asking myself why, six years into the war on terror, was Bush not securing the border?" he said.
When he heard about the SPP, he had his answer: Bush, bent on creating the NAU, saw the border as a near-anachronism, fated for irrelevance in a North American superstate.
"He's creating a fait accompli," said Corsi. "First you change the North American reality, then you can change the regulations."
Corsi's warning cry and gift for detail have given the theory traction in circles where anxieties about immigration and corporate oligarchy intersect. Lou Dobbs, whose CNN show portrays both free trade and increased immigration as sops to multinational corporations and body blows to the middle class, has devoted investigative segments to the NAU, the amero, and the NAFTA Superhighway. The John Birch Society a month ago devoted an entire issue of its magazine to the NAU.
The coin designer Daniel Carr, who created the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, has minted a series of copper and silver ameros, in denominations from one up to one thousand, and is selling them online to raise awareness of the issue. And a year ago on CNBC, a financial analyst named Steve Previs, from the investment bank Jefferies International, caused a minor stir when he called the amero "the one thing that nobody's talking about that I think is going to have a big impact on everybody's life in Canada, the US, and Mexico." (Asked about his comments recently, he said that, while he was happy to "get the message out," what he said had also been "not a joke, exactly, but a way of deflecting a hard question about the behavior of the dollar.")
. . .
So how real is the NAU? In the literal sense, not very. Its underpinnings turn out to be a hodgepodge of mostly unconnected facts and suppositions. But the very existence of the theory is starting to have an influence of its own, and the concerns it represents suggest a new kind of anxiety that crosses traditional political boundaries.
The SPP does exist, and its tri-national task forces continue to meet, but its members consider it a way for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to collaborate on issues such as customs, environmental and safety regulations, narcotics smuggling, and terrorism. The amero, on the other hand, appears to be purely theoretical. It was first proposed in 1999 by a Canadian economist named Herbert Grubel, when the euro was first entering circulation. Grubel says he did manage to interest Vicente Fox in the idea, but whenever he brought up the topic with American officials, he recalls, he got nowhere. "There wouldn't be very much benefit for the United States" in an amero, he concedes.
The NAFTA Superhighway has a more complicated origin. One piece is a nonprofit organization, called the North America's Supercorridor Coalition, or NASCO, dedicated to ensuring the efficiency and safety of some of the country's major truck trade routes - a map from the organization's website has shown up on NAU watchdog websites, erroneously labeled the blueprint for the NAFTA Superhighway. Another is a controversial toll highway that Texas is considering building to accommodate the sharp increase in freight traffic brought by NAFTA.
These constituent parts are a long way from the many-tentacled conspiracy that Corsi and other see. But the theory still has managed to make itself felt.
Frank Conde, the director of communications for NASCO, believes that fears of an NAU are preventing the North American countries from having long-overdue discussions. US-Mexico trade has quadrupled since 1993, and at $540 billion, the US-Canada trading relationship is the largest in the world. He argues that making economic relations among the three nations more efficient is no more than responsible stewardship.
"This country has never really had a national strategy to service the huge increase in trade that came about as a part of NAFTA," he says. "The worst damage that [anti-NAU activists] are doing is distracting political leaders at all levels, and preventing us from putting together that policy."
In a deeper sense, the apprehension and anger that sustain the NAU rumors are quite real. For all their talk about national threats, national sovereignty, and national strength, conspiracy theories are usually more about individual powerlessness, says the University of Florida's Fenster. They are a form of political populism, with its suspicion of concentrations of control and its sense that ordinary people are being shut out of the decision-making process. And the issues around which those theories grow up are as good a Rorschach as any, not so much of people's concern about their country overall, but about their own place in it.
The surprising prevalence of NAU suspicions also suggests a desire for fresh thinking from America's two major political parties. In the United States, trade and immigration divide more along class lines than party lines: wealthy Democrats and Republicans tend to support free trade and more immigration, poorer Democrats and Republicans don't. In neatly linking free trade and increased immigration together into one international plot, the NAU has the potential to appeal to both left and right.
Indeed, while the threat of a continental merger is, in the United States, primarily a conservative concern, in Canada it has its greatest resonance on the left, where it is seen as an attempt by American business interests to take over our northern neighbor, dismantle its social services, and privatize its abundant natural resources. The Council of Canadians, a progressive advocacy group that claims more than 100,000 members, has made the threat of "deep integration" with the United States one of its central causes.
To some analysts, it's a sign of how far apprehension about globalization - whether of money or people or goods - has spread. "It's easier to blame the North American Union, or some world government, than an increasingly globalized market," says Pepper Culpepper, an associate professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
With US trade projected to grow even faster in the coming years, the economic dislocations, and the resulting anxieties, are likely to increase. So while the North American Union may not exist, we surely haven't heard the last of it.
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com. 

Law of the Sea treaty should be voted down

Law of the Sea treaty should be voted down

Bill McNally
Nashua Telegraph
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071126/OPINION02/311260037/-1/landrigan
Monday November 26, 2007

The big news in 1978 was when Ronald Reagan declared: "No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World."
Now we have President Bush and U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg trying to push the United States overboard into LOST – the Law of the Sea Treaty – controlled by the United Nations.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is sending this treasonous treaty to the full Senate with a 17-4 approval vote.
You should know that Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a presidential candidate, has a bill (H.R.-1146) that would get the United States out of the United Nations and hopefully the UN out of the United States (www.GetUSout.org).

Call U.S. Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter and ask them to co-sponsor H.R.-1146.
It's doubtful that Sen. John E. Sununu would dare to vote for LOST because of his re-election bid in 2008.
What has the Republican administration promised Gregg to vote to ratify LOST? You should call Gregg today and tell him "Don't let the USA get LOST."

Monday, November 26, 2007

Internet Soon to be “Full,” Government Solution: More Taxes

Internet Soon to be “Full,” Government Solution: More Taxes

Kurt Nimmo
TruthNews
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=965
Monday November 26, 2007

“Consumer and corporate use of the Internet could overload the current capacity and lead to brown-outs in two years unless backbone providers invest billions of dollars in new infrastructure, according to a study released last week,” reports the Washington Post. “A flood of new video and other Web content could overwhelm the Internet by 2010 unless backbone providers invest up to $137 billion in new capacity, more than double what service providers plan to invest, according to the study, by Nemertes Research Group, an independent analysis firm. In North America alone, backbone investments of $42 billion to $55 billion will be needed in the next three to five years to keep up with demand, Nemertes said.”
But since most telecoms are monopolies or strive to practice monopolistic business practices, they are not inclined to make the investment required. Instead, as usual, the telecoms will rely on socialism, that is to say corporate socialism—they will expect the government to solve the problem and since the government is a one trick pony and basically an incorrigible thief with a gun, the solution will arise in the form of new taxes.
“U.S. lawmakers can also help in several ways,” said Bruce Mehlman of Internet Innovation Alliance, an “advocacy” group, that is to say an organization advocating stealing from one group of people to give to another. “For example, the U.S. Congress could require that home contractors who receive government assistance for building affordable housing include broadband connections in their houses, he said. Congress could also provide tax credits to help broadband providers add more capacity, he said.”
(Article continues below)

“Consumers also pay high taxes for telecommunication services, averaging about 13 percent on some telecom services, similar to the tax rate on tobacco and alcohol, Mehlman said. One tax on telecom service has remained in place since the 1898 Spanish-American War, when few U.S. residents had telephones, he noted.”
“It takes a digital village,” he said. “Certainly, infrastructure providers have plenty to do. You’ve seen billions in investment, and you’re seeing ongoing billions more.”
Indeed, they have plenty to do, now that an “exaflood” is on the way, and it will take a “digital village” to pay for it all in the form of higher compulsory taxes.

PJB: The Crash of 2008?

PJB: The Crash of 2008?

November 15, 2007
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=884

In March 1929, the Harding-Coolidge era came to an end. The eight years had witnessed the greatest peacetime prosperity of any nation in history: America in the Roaring 20s. Early that March, Calvin Coolidge handed the presidency over to Herbert Hoover, who had just pulled off a third straight Republican landslide.
“I do not choose to run,” said Coolidge, who could easily have won a second full term. Silent Cal went home. Hoover, whom he privately derided as “Wonder Boy,” presided over the Crash of ‘29 and the first three years of the Great Depression.
History holds Harding, Coolidge and Hoover responsible for the Depression, with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, and Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley of Smoot-Hawley fame, as accessories. As Voltaire observed, history is a pack of lies agreed upon.
Two men debunked the myth that the low-tax, high-tariff policy of the 1920s brought on the Depression. The more famous is Milton Friedman, who proved to the satisfaction of a Nobel Prize committee that the Depression was a monetary phenomenon. The Fed had opened the sluices, and the money had swamped the stock market.
When Wall Street crashed, there came a run on the banks by men who had bought on margin, a depositors’ stampede, a bank collapse, a wipeout of uninsured savings and the loss of a third of the money supply, lifeblood of the economy. The Fed never gave the nation the needed transfusions. Hoover and FDR misdiagnosing the crisis, raised taxes and wrote up new regulations, which was like putting a body cast on a patient in shock from the loss of a third of his blood.
The Smoot-Hawley myth, repeated by John McCain in the Detroit debate, was demolished by Alfred Eckes of Ohio University, Reagan’s man at the FTC and America’s foremost authority on the history of trade and tariffs, in his 1995 “Opening America’s Markets.”
The point of this brief history: The recent hand-off from Alan Greenspan, the maestro of the Global Economy, to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke may turn out to have been a lateral far behind the line of scrimmage, leaving Bernanke holding the bag for a recession for which he is no more responsible than was the hapless Hoover.
Last week, the stock market saw 4 percent of its value wiped out. Oil reached nearly $100 a barrel. The dollar fell to record lows against the Canadian dollar and the euro. The price of gold was $850 an ounce, signaling inflation and a worldwide lack of confidence in the Fed’s ability or determination to defend the world’s reserve currency.
The Chinese, with $1.4 trillion in reserves, perhaps 80 percent in dollar assets, indicated they may dump dollars and move into euros. Merrill-Lynch took an $8 billion hit. Citibank is signaling massive losses from its subprime mortgage debt. General Motors reported an operating loss of $1.6 billion for the quarter and a whopping $39 billion charge that is among the biggest profit hits ever reported.
Where does this leave Bernanke? On the horns of a dilemma.
Exposure of all that subprime debt going rotten on the books of our biggest banks, the staggering losses being reported, the inability of homeowners to refinance or borrow any further against their equity, the credit crunch – all argue for an easy money policy to get capital back into the economic bloodstream.
Thus the Fed has cut interest rates from 5.25 percent to 4.5 percent. Thus the howls for deeper cuts, thus the market anticipation of another cut, though the Fed has said no more.
But the Fed is responsible not only for the national economy. It is responsible for defending the dollar, which represents the real savings and wealth of the nation. And that dollar has lost more value in seven years than in any similar period in modern history. A euro, worth 83 cents the year Bush was elected, has risen in value to $1.47.
As the dollar sinks, exporters may cheer rising sales, but at home we will soon find that the prices of all those imported goods from Europe and Asia down at the mall are starting to rise. U.S. soldiers, diplomats, tourists and businessmen overseas are already feeling the pain of a falling dollar.
If a recession is generally a sign the Fed should loosen up, a run on the dollar is a sign the Fed should tighten by raising interest rates to make dollars and dollar-denominated assets more attractive.
But the Fed’s raising of interest rates would push up the rates on mortgages, credit cards and auto loans, and push millions of marginal folks into bankruptcy and the country into recession, a disaster for the Republicans.
But, given their free-trade fanaticism and free-spending ways, that fate would not be undeserved. Say a prayer for Ben Bernanke. He may have to eat the football that scrambling quarterback Greenspan tossed to him far behind the line of scrimmage.

Friday, November 23, 2007

North American Union & African Union only a couple years away

North American Union & African Union only a couple years away

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58778


WASHINGTON – The next giant step toward world government will be integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in European Union-style merger in the next few years, says the author of a best-selling book on the power of shadowy international organizations promoting the move.
"I would say [it's just] a couple of years away," reports Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group."
Estulin, a Canadian now living in Europe, says the original plans for a North American Union involved the U.S. and Canada as the prime participants. It was motivated primarily by the desire to harvest Canada's abundant natural resources.
In his new book, Estulin reveals the first efforts in this plan date back to 1996 when the elite Bilderberg Group first discussed plans for the dismantlement of Canada as an independent nation and proposed its merger – minus Quebec – with the United States into a Greater North America.
"Actually, the North American Union, or rather a Canada-U.S. merger, was initially discussed shortly after the Reagan-Bush candidacy won the White House," he says in an interview with WND. "Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan called in the presidents of the key trans-national companies and asked them for the real picture. The money people told them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It was bankrupt."

The solution proposed then, according to Estulin, was merger between the U.S. and Canada.
"Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc.," he explains. "They decided that it was going to take 14 or 15 years to put the whole project together. In the interval, the economies, social programs and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible."
Back then, part of that harmonization plan involved the separation of Quebec as an independent state, he says.
"Actually, when all is said and done, it all comes down to money," Estulin says. "Money makes its own rules. If your goal is to make the most money possible using Canada's natural resources, what would you ask for? Number one, give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number three, give me control over water. Now, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. Water, after all, is the most important element that can be controlled."
But the plot for a North American Union, as exposed in detail in Jerome Corsi's new bestselling book, "The Late Great USA," is but a prelude, Estulin says, to the ultimate merger – one-world government.
"Everything is in place," he says. "Europe is now one country, one currency and one constitution. North America is about to become one. The African Union has had its working model going for over a decade. Asia is openly discussing the near-future Asian Union, being sold to us as an economic inevitability beneficial to all its citizens."
Estulin sees the current focus in the U.S. on the presidential election of 2008 as something of a farce in light of this trend.
"Does it really matter who wins?" he asks. "As I make very clear in 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' every politician of note and promise belongs to the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or the Trilateral Commission. Unless you are one of them, you can hardly hope to win the presidency. If we vote for the lesser evil, forced upon us by the secret oligarchies and the powerful men behind the curtain, we end up playing the game imposed upon us by them. Democracy, I guess what I really want to say, is a fallacy, an unattainable dream, a useless label trotted out and dusted off by the rulers every four years for the benefit of the great unwashed – us. There are two sides in this equation – the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity."
Estulin "guarantees" today's Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani will not get the nomination of his party. With less certitude, he speculates the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, could still be positioned to head the GOP ticket.
"Bloomberg, according to my sources within Bilderberg, will emerge as a credible candidate of consensus for the discredited American political establishment, your virtual "People's Choice" candidate," he says.
What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"?
"The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government."
Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs."
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Estulin's book, first written in 2005 in Spain, has been translated into 24 languages, most recently this English edition. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years.
Why does he singularly devote so much attention to exposing their activities?
"They cannot survive the light, and they know it," he says. "This is why the powerful people have long insulated themselves from that possibility. You see, the greatest form of control is when you think you are free while you are being manipulated and dictated to. People have been disarmed through the greatest hypnotist the world has ever known – the oblong box almost everyone has in the corner of their living rooms known as the television. By persuading ordinary people that what they can see with their eyes is what is there to see, the men behind the curtain have ensured their own survival, because people will laugh in your face when you explain to them that there is a bigger picture they are not seeing."
What is his personal prescription for fighting back? He offers a five-point program:
1. Understanding that governments do not represent the people nor have their best interests at heart.
2. Understanding that corporate media's main job is to hide the transgressions of the most powerful people in the world not shine the light of truth on it.
3. Understanding that the corporate media forms part of the world's elite societies such as the Bilderbergers, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.
4. Understanding how money works and how through intelligent use of money we can destroy the Bilderbergers of this world.
5. Getting out of debt now.

Should fireplace fires be banned?

Should fireplace fires be banned?

Jeffrey Earl Warren
Thursday, November 22, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/22/EDNKTDK1S.DTL

Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "public hearings" are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth.
Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.
Still, in the interest of basic fairness, we'd at least like the decision-makers to employ the rudiments of the scientific method, rather than riding the winds of energy dependence and global warming hysteria, before coming to a final decision.
The scientific method follows a rigid methodology. Ask a question. Do background research. Construct a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. And then, communicate the results.
So what is the question? Are the fires in our homes bad because they add to global warming? Release carbon dioxide into the air? Pollute the atmosphere with soot and particulate matter? All of the above?
Where is the research? The Chronicle reported that "government studies" indicate that 33 percent of all "particulate matter" comes from your fireplace and mine. With all the industry and all the cars in the Bay Area, does anyone actually believe that?
Shouldn't we be given more quantitative information such has, "How many fireplaces are there in the nine counties? How many are used each night? How many hours is each fireplace used? How much "particulate matter" is expelled from each fire? How many parts per million are in the air? How much dissipates into the atmosphere?"
Is this decision truly about air quality or global warming?
Interestingly, one loses on the issues of global warming because the odd paradox is, the more there is cloud cover or "smoke" in the air, the cooler the Earth will be. It is well documented how the Earth's temperature cooled after the explosion of the volcano Krakatoa. From that standpoint, one ought to encourage fires which produce the maximum amount of smoke.
Of course, that position is politically absurd.
Those of us in rural communities feel bullied by this sort of nanny state legislation. We'd like to believe that a man's home is indeed his castle. Most of us live in small towns or the country for a reason. We don't like cities. We don't like traffic. We don't like noise. We don't like the dirty air.
Our air is clean, and we take umbrage when someone says our fires are polluting their air.
If the ban goes into effect, what is the cost to society? What is the benefit? We need to weigh these carefully.
Then there is this question: Why do we burn?
We stoke our hearths for two reasons.
First, many rural people burn wood because they can't afford to heat their old houses with electricity. Many more feel that burning wood does less damage to the planet than increasing their carbon footprint by using so much electricity.
Banning fires would hurt the elderly who live on fixed incomes and the poor in general. It would be an added tax on the rest of us and increase dependence on petroleum.
Second, for many of us, a fire crackling in the fireplace is about a different kind of energy - psychic energy. After a day's work, is there anything nicer than coming home and having a class of Napa Valley Cabernet in front of a roaring fire?
Rainy Sundays find us stretched out on the couch, newspapers scattered, 49ers on the TV, and a fire roaring in the fireplace.
On wintry school nights, our children used to come down into the living room to do their homework in front of the fire as my wife and I read.
During the energy crisis in California, our family closed the parlor doors and gathered in one tiny room around the fire. it was a scene out of a Jane Austin novel. Five of us read, played chess, did homework and paid bills, in a chilly room heated only by our tiny hearth.
Never was our family closer. The fire was more than a source of heat. It was a mystical, magical magnet of love, warmth and togetherness.
We worry that the real issue here isn't about health, global warming or energy savings, but about control.
Were it not about control, the dialogue would be about baffles and filters to eliminate soot, not about outright bans.
Home fires are not about "particulate matter." They are about warmth, love, quality of life - and for many an economic necessity. How cold are those who would take that from us, their neighbors?

Friday, November 16, 2007

Greasing the Skids for Thought Crime Legislation or H.R. 1955

Greasing the Skids for Thought Crime Legislation or H.R. 1955

Kurt Nimmo
TruthNews
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=849
November 15, 2007

It has all the hallmarks of a concerted effort—the corporate media, in particular Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, are attacking Ron Paul and the 9/11 truth movement at the very moment H.R. 1955, entitled the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? (although more accurately entitled the Thought Crime Bill) inches its way toward the Senate, having passed the House of Representatives, that is to say the house of corporate and neocon whores in the District of Criminals. As if to send a strident message they mean business, a Ministry of Homeland Security subcommittee on “terrorism risk assessment” went out of its way on November 6 to conflate so-called jihad terrorism—you know, terrorism engineered by the CIA—with 9/11 truth.
“Under the guise of a bill that calls for the study of ‘homegrown terrorism,’ Congress is apparently trying to broaden the definition of terrorism to encompass both First Amendment political activity and traditional forms of protest such as nonviolent civil disobedience, according to civil liberties advocates, scholars and historians,” writes Jessica Lee. “Many observers fear that the proposed law will be used against U.S.-based groups engaged in legal but unpopular political activism, ranging from political Islamists to animal-rights and environmental campaigners to radical right-wing organizations. There is concern, too, that the bill will undermine academic integrity and is the latest salvo in a decade-long government grab for power at the expense of civil liberties.”
Of course, “political Islamists,” at least here in America, are too intimidated—thanks to the Palmeresque round-up and sadistic abuse of Muslims in the wake of September 11, 2001—to be of serious concern to the neocon-hijacked government. Many of the “animal-rights and environmental campaigners” fall into the category of the big foundation controlled opposition and do not sincerely pose a threat to the neocon “clash of civilizations” agenda abroad and the orchestrated attack against the Bill of Rights at home.
In fact, the only serious threat to the neocons and their neolib partners in crime emanates from the patriot and 9/11 truth movements—and that is why, as increasing numbers of patriotic and politically diverse Americans rally around the Ron Paul presidential campaign, we are witnessing increasingly virulent and desperate attacks against Paul, who is now absurdly conflated with “Islamo-fascist” terrorists.
H.R. 1955 is scary because it does not target actual terrorists but rather “extremist belief systems” and “is not necessarily about violence” but rather the potential “use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence,” according to Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. “What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad definitions that encompass so much…. It is criminalizing thought and ideology.”
H.R. 1955 is a “form of prior restraint,” explains David Price, a professor of anthropology at St. Martin’s University who studies government surveillance and harassment of dissident scholars. It will prevent people from petitioning the government, lest they find themselves equated with terrorists.
Kamau Franklin, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is concerned the bill will be used to target peaceful protests. Franklin believes the “Commission’s broad mandate can lead to the ability to turn civil disobedience, a form of protest that is centuries old, into a terrorist act,” thus making it possible “that someone who would have been charged with disorderly conduct or obstruction of governmental administration may soon be charged with a federal terrorist statute…. My biggest fear is that they [the commission] will call for some new criminal penalties and federal crimes…. Activists are nervous about how the broad definitions could be used for criminalizing civil disobedience.”
“There are all sorts of things that activists do that involve little or no risk of hurting people, but their actions get labeled as violent, or even worse, as acts of terrorism,” explains Bron Taylor, a professor at University of Florida. “For example, if 10 activists push themselves into a congressperson’s regional office, make noise, pull out files and make a scene, is that an act of terrorism? It is quite possible that the act could scare the hell out of the secretary and office workers because they don’t know these people or what they intend to do? But is that terrorism? Some people would like to frame it that way.”
Indeed, no doubt “some people” would like to characterize We Are Change—infamous for confronting Giuliani, Romney, Biden, the neocon grand dragon Podhoretz and others—as a terrorist organization that needs to be arrested en masse and shipped to Camp Gitmo or one of those CIA torture dungeons in Poland or Jordan.
“One of the most useful tools for political campaigns today is the use of the internet,” writes Anthony Merola. “Certainly we can see how this has been used over the last few months as Congressmen Paul, as well as other candidates, has used the internet to spread their messages and appeal to new voters, but don’t worry, HR 1955 has taken care of this,” as H.R. 1955 declares the “Internet has aided in facilitating ideologically-based violence and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”
With this piece of legislation in congress, my generation will no longer be able to use the internet in a peaceful manner. All activity will certainly be logged, and every letter typed will be scrutinized by the state.
My generation has, without their knowing, been forced into a society in which we cannot choose, where we cannot think, where we cannot be free. This legislation is another step towards an Orwellian society that will create misery and despair for generations to come. We will be forced into more wars, more taxation, and more Statist welfare, and there is nothing we will be able to do to stop those in power.
That is, unless we elect Congressman Paul. Ron Paul is the only person in our government advocating for personal liberty, and for privacy rights of the Citizens of this country. Sure, Barack Obama may appeal to the youth vote. But, he has made it clear that he is just another member of the Welfare/Warfare state. He has already told us that he cannot promise our troops will be home by the end of his first term. Style and Substance are two completely different things.
Our rulers understand this as well as the youthful Anthony Merola—and that’s why they are pulling out all the stops to pass the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.”
If they are able to successfully characterize Ron Paul as a terrorist and thus sabotage his political campaign, there will be no end to the state-sponsored domestic terrorism they will unleash against the American people stripped of all advocates.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

PJB: Bush’s Failure in Pakistan – And the World

PJB: Bush’s Failure in Pakistan – And the World

November 6, 2007
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=881

“Inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan, and I cannot allow the country to commit suicide.”
Thus did President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declare a state of emergency and invoke martial law.
The Supreme Court has been dismissed, the chief justice put under house arrest. A thousand lawyers and political opponents have been incarcerated. Human rights organizations have been shut down. Independent news media have been silenced.
Musharraf has effected a second coup, the first being his takeover in 1999. Doing so, he invoked Abraham Lincoln: “By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life.”
Indeed, Lincoln, too, impeded elections in Maryland, ordered Chief Justice Roger Taney arrested, shut newspapers, suspended habeas corpus, arrested thousands who sympathized with the South’s right to independence and ordered a blockade of Southern ports.
What has been the reaction of the great evangelist of Wilsonian democracy in the White House to its suspension in Pakistan?
Military aid to the regime and army will continue.
Welcome to the real world, where state interests always trump ideology. The “world democratic revolution” and the Second Bush Inaugural goal of “ending tyranny in our world” have been put on the shelf. For what is at issue is more critical than whether Musharraf is dictator or democrat.
Pakistan, a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons, is up for grabs. And the major contenders are not democrats. On one side is Musharraf and loyal elements of the army, police and intelligence services. On the other are radicals with guns – disloyal soldiers, pro-Taliban militia, al-Qaida sympathizers and suicide bombers.
Such folks do not settle quarrels at ballot boxes.
The crisis in Pakistan brings home the reality the Bushites have ignored in their ideological crusades. For in the Pakistan crucible we see starkly who our real enemies are, whence the true dangers come and where our vital interests lie.
Musharraf is – as were Franco, Pinochet and the shah in the Cold War – a flawed friend and an enemy of our enemy. If he falls, any democratic successor, like Benazir Bhutto, would not likely long survive al-Qaida and the suicide bombers who already tried to kill her.
What is happening in Pakistan exposes, too, the limits of U.S. power and the failure of President Bush – because of the democratist ideology to which he converted after 9/11 – to see clearly the real dangers to his country. Our enemy was always al-Qaida. It was never Iraq. And it is not Iran, at whom the GOP candidates are all braying their bellicosity.
After 9/11, those who viewed the horror and asked, “Why do they hate us?” were hooted down as unpatriotic. We were told Muslim militants hate us because we are free, democratic and good, and they are evil.
Americans can no longer afford to indulge this ideological claptrap. We are hated not because of who we are, but because of what we do. Nowhere is that more true than in Pakistan.
A loyal ally in the Cold War, Pakistan served as a strategic base camp for the Mujahedeen, who used U.S. mortars and Stinger missiles to run the Red Army out of Afghanistan. Then we dumped Pakistan to court her adversary, India.
Millions of Muslims now no longer see America as the beacon of liberty, but as an arrogant superpower with a huge footprint in their world, dictating to their regimes. Instead of bringing our troops home after our Cold War and Gulf War victories, we moved permanently into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Then we attacked a Muslim nation, Iraq, that had neither attacked us nor threatened us, to impose our system upon it.
Like the British, French and Russians before us, we are seen as imperialists, and shall be so seen and so hated until we get our troops out of their world. Finally, we are despised for our toxic culture and our uncritical support of the Israelis, who are viewed as the persecutors and robbers of the land and dignity of the Palestinian people.
Why cannot we see ourselves as others see us?
Pakistan reveals, too, the limits of military power. With an army of 500,000 “breaking” from Iraq and Afghanistan, we lack the forces to wage any more wars. And NATO is a paper army.
If Pakistan’s army cannot crush the Taliban and al-Qaida in its western provinces, and now in its cities, how can America do it, if Musharraf falls? How can the Afghan war ever be won, if the Taliban and al-Qaida enjoy a permanent privileged sanctuary from which to launch forays into Afghanistan?
With the end of the Cold War, America needed a strategist of the caliber of George Kennan. But we got George Bush, Condi and the neocons, with their messianic vision of global democracy brought about through an endless series of cakewalk wars.
Pakistan brings us back to Earth.

PJB: Sinking Currency, Sinking Country

PJB: Sinking Currency, Sinking Country

November 1, 2007
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=880

The euro, worth 83 cents in the early George W. Bush years, is at $1.45.
The British pound is back up over $2, the highest level since the Carter era. The Canadian dollar, which used to be worth 65 cents, is worth more than the U.S. dollar for the first time in half a century.
Oil is over $90 a barrel. Gold, down to $260 an ounce not so long ago, has hit $800.
Have gold, silver, oil, the euro, the pound and the Canadian dollar all suddenly soared in value in just a few years?
Nope. The dollar has plummeted in value, more so in Bush’s term than during any comparable period of U.S. history. Indeed, Bush is presiding over a worldwide abandonment of the American dollar.
Is it all Bush’s fault? Nope.
The dollar is plunging because America has been living beyond her means, borrowing $2 billion a day from foreign nations to maintain her standard of living and to sustain the American Imperium.
The prime suspect in the death of the dollar is the massive trade deficits America has run up, some $5 trillion in total since the passage of NAFTA and the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994.
In 2006, that U.S. trade deficit hit $764 billion. The current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit, plus the net outflow of interest, dividends, capital gains and foreign aid, hit $857 billion, 6.5 percent of GDP. As some of us have been writing for years, such deficits are unsustainable and must lead to a decline of the dollar.
A sinking dollar means a poorer nation, and a sinking currency has historically been the mark of a sinking country. And a superpower with a sinking currency is a contradiction in terms.
What does this mean for America and Americans?
As nations realize that the dollars they are being paid for their products cannot buy in the world markets what they once did, they will demand more dollars for those goods. This will mean rising prices for the imports on which America has become more dependent than we have been since before the Civil War.
U.S. tourists traveling to the countries whence their ancestors came will find that the money they saved up does not go as far as they thought.
U.S. soldiers stationed overseas will find the cost of rent, gasoline, food, clothing and dining out takes larger and larger bites out of their paychecks. The people those U.S. soldiers defend will be demanding more and more of their money.
U.S. diplomats stationed overseas, students and businessmen are already facing tougher times.
U.S. foreign aid does not go as far as it did. And there is an element of comedy in seeing the United States going to Beijing to borrow dollars, thus putting our children deeper in debt, to send still more foreign aid to African despots who routinely vote the Chinese line at the United Nations.
The Chinese, whose currency is tied to the dollar, and Japan will continue, as long as they can, to keep their currencies low against the dollar. For the Asians think long term, and their goals are strategic.
China – growing at 10 percent a year for two decades and now growing at close to 12 percent – is willing to take losses in the value of the dollars it holds to keep the U.S. technology, factories and jobs pouring in, as their exports capture America’s markets from U.S. producers.
The Japanese will take some loss in the value of their dollar hoard to take down Chrysler, Ford and GM, and capture the U.S. auto market as they captured our TV, camera and computer chip markets.
Asians understand that what is important is not who consumes the apples, but who owns the orchard.
Other nations that have kept cash reserves in U.S. Treasury bonds and T-bills are watching the value of these assets sink. Not fools, they will begin, as many already have, to divest and diversify, taking in fewer dollars and more euros and yen. As more nations abandon the dollar, its decline will continue.
The oil-producing and exporting nations, with trade surpluses, like China, have also begun to take the stash of dollars they have and stuff them into sovereign wealth funds, and use these immense and growing funds to buy up real assets in the United States – investment banks and American companies.
Nor is there any end in sight to the sinking of the dollar. For, as foreigners demand more dollars for the oil and goods they sell us, the trade deficit will not fall. And as the U.S. government prints more and more dollars to cover the budget deficits that stretch out – with the coming retirement of the baby boomers – all the way to the horizon, the value of the dollar will fall. And as Ben Bernanke at the Fed tries to keep interest rates low, to keep the U.S. economy from sputtering out in the credit crunch, the value of the dollar will fall.
The chickens of free trade are coming home to roost.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Suitcase Nukes Said Unlikely to Exist

Suitcase Nukes Said Unlikely to Exist

Saturday November 10, 2007 4:31 PM
By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7067083,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of Congress have warned about the dangers of suitcase nuclear weapons. Hollywood has made television shows and movies about them. Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency has alerted Americans to a threat - information the White House includes on its Web site.
But government experts and intelligence officials say such a threat gets vastly more attention than it deserves. These officials said a true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune.
Counterproliferation authorities do not completely rule out the possibility that these portable devices once existed. But they do not think the threat remains.
``The suitcase nuke is an exciting topic that really lends itself to movies,'' said Vahid Majidi, the assistant director of the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. ``No one has been able to truly identify the existence of these devices.''
Majidi and other government officials say the real threat is from a terrorist who does not care about the size of his nuclear detonation and is willing to improvise, using a less deadly and sophisticated device assembled from stolen or black-market nuclear material.
Yet Hollywood has seized on the threat. For example, the Fox thriller ``24'' devoted its entire last season to Jack Bauer's hunt for suitcase nukes in Los Angeles.
Government officials have played up the threat, too.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., once said at a hearing that he thought the least likely threat was from an intercontinental ballistic missile. ``Perhaps the most likely threat is from a suitcase nuclear weapon in a rusty car on a dock in New York City,'' he said.
In a FEMA guide on terrorist disasters that is posted in part on the White House's Web site, the agency warns that terrorists' use of a nuclear weapon would ``probably be limited to a single smaller 'suitcase' weapon.''
``The strength of such a weapon would be in the range of the bombs used during World War II. The nature of the effects would be the same as a weapon delivered by an intercontinental missile, but the area and severity of the effects would be significantly more limited,'' the paper says.
---
THE GENIE THAT ESCAPED
During the 1960s, intelligence agencies received reports from defectors that Soviet military intelligence officers were carrying portable nuclear devices in suitcases.
The threat was too scary to stay secret, government officials said, and word leaked out. The genie was never put back in the bottle.
But current and former government officials who have not spoken out publicly on the subject acknowledge that no U.S. officials have seen a Soviet-made suitcase nuke.
The idea of portable nuclear devices was not a new one.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. made the first ones, known as the Special Atomic Demolition Munition. It was a ``backpack nuke'' that could be used to blow up dams, tunnels or bridges. While one person could lug it on his back, it had to be placed by a two-man team.
These devices never were used and now exist - minus their explosive components - only in a museum.
Following the U.S. lead, the Soviets are believed to have made similar nuclear devices.
Suitcase nukes have been a separate problem. They attracted considerable public attention in 1997, thanks to a ``60 Minutes'' interview and other public statements from retired Gen. Alexander Lebed, once Russia's national security chief.
Lebed said the separatist government in Chechnya had portable nuclear devices, which led him to create a commission to get to the bottom of the Chechen arsenal, according to a Center for Nonproliferation Studies report. He said that when he ran the security service, the commission could find only 48 of 132 devices.
The numbers varied as he changed his story several times - sometimes he stated that 100 or more were missing. The Russians denied he was ever accurate.
Even more details emerged in the summer of 1998, when former Russian military intelligence officer Stanislav Lunev - a defector in the U.S. witness protection program - wrote in his book that Russian agents were hiding suitcase nukes around the U.S. for use in a possible future conflict.
``I had very clear instructions: These dead-drop positions would need to be for all types of weapons, including nuclear weapons,'' Lunev testified during a congressional hearing in California in 2000, according to a Los Angeles Times account.
Naysayers noted that he was never able to pinpoint any specific location.
In a 2004 interview with the Kremlin's Federal News Service, Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, former head of the Russian strategic rocket troops, said he believes that Lebed's commission may have been misled by mock-ups of special mines used during training.
Yesin believed that a true suitcase nuke would be too expensive for most countries to produce and would not last more than several months because the nuclear core would decompose so quickly. ``Nobody at the present stage seeks to develop such devices,'' he asserted.
Some members of Congress remained convinced that the suitcase nuke problem persists. Perhaps chief among these lawmakers was Curt Weldon, a GOP representative from Pennsylvania who lost his seat in 2006.
Weldon was known for carrying around a mock-up of a suitcase nuke made with a briefcase, foil and a pipe. But it was nowhere near the weight of an actual atomic device.
---
THE SCIENCE
Majidi joined the FBI after leading Los Alamos National Laboratory's prestigious chemistry division. He uses science to make the case that suitcase nukes are not a top concern.
First, he defines what a Hollywood-esque suitcase nuke would look like: a case about 24 inches by 10 inches by 12 inches, weighing less than 50 pounds, that one person could carry. It would contain a device that could cause a devastating blast.
Nuclear devices are either plutonium, which comes from reprocessing the nuclear material from reactors, or uranium, which comes from gradually enriching that naturally found element.
Majidi says it would take about 22 pounds of plutonium or 130 pounds of uranium to create a nuclear detonation. Both would require explosives to set off the blast, but significantly more for the uranium.
Although uranium is considered easier for terrorists to obtain, it would be too heavy for one person to lug around in a suitcase.
Plutonium, he notes, would require the cooperation of a state with a plutonium reprocessing program. It seems highly unlikely that a country would knowingly cooperate with terrorists because the device would bear the chemical fingerprints of that government. ``I don't think any nation is willing to participate in this type of activity,'' Majidi said.
That means the fissile material probably would have to be stolen. ``It is very difficult for that much material to walk away,'' he added.
There is one more wrinkle: Nuclear devices require a lot of maintenance because the material that makes them so deadly also can wreak havoc on their electrical systems.
``The more compact the devices are - guess what? - the more frequently they need to be maintained. Everything is compactly designed around that radiation source, which damages everything over a period of time,'' Majidi said.
---
PROVING A NEGATIVE
A former CIA director, George Tenet, is convinced that al-Qaida wants to change history with the mushroom cloud of a nuclear attack. In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a statement called ``The Nuclear Bomb of Islam.''
``It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God,'' he said.
Among numerous of avenues of investigation after the Sept. 11 attacks, Tenet said in his memoir that President Bush asked Russian President Vladamir Putin whether he could account for all of Russia's nuclear material. Choosing his words carefully, Tenet said, Putin replied that he could only account for everything under his watch, leaving a void before 2000.
Intelligence officials continued digging deeper, hearing more reports about al-Qaida's efforts to get a weapon; that effort, it is believed, has been to no avail, so far.
But intelligence officials are loath to dismiss a threat until they are absolutely sure they have gotten to the bottom of it.
In the case of suitcase nukes, one official said, U.S. experts do not have 100 percent certainty that they have a handle on the Russian arsenal.
Laura Holgate, a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, says the U.S. has not appropriately prioritized its responses to the nuclear threat and, as a result, is poorly using its scarce resources.
Much to many people's surprise, she noted, highly enriched uranium - outside of a weapon - is so benign that a person can hold it in his hands and not face any ill effects until years later, if at all. It can also slip through U.S. safeguards, she says.
The Homeland Security Department is planning to spend more than $1 billion on radiation detectors at ports of entry. But government auditors found that the devices cannot distinguish between benign radiation sources, such as kitty litter, and potentially dangerous ones, including highly enriched uranium.
Holgate considers the substance the greatest threat because it exists not only at nuclear weapons sites worldwide, but also in more than 100 civilian research facilities in dozens of countries, often with inadequate security.
Her Washington-based nonproliferation organization wants to see the U.S. get a better handle on the material that can be used for bombs - much of it is in Russia - and secure it.
The big problem, she said, is not a fancy suitcase nuke, but rather a terrorist cell with nuclear material that has enough knowledge to make an improvised device.
How big would that be? ``Like SUV-sized. Way bigger than a suitcase,'' she said.
^---
On the Net:
White House's ``Are You Ready?'' information: http://tinyurl.com/5x6y
FEMA's kids' page: http://www.fema.gov/kids/nse/radiological.htm
FBI's weapons of mass destruction page: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/nsb/wmd/wmd-home.htm
National Atomic Museum: http://www.atomicmuseum.com/
Nuclear Threat Initiative: http://www.nti.org/

7 Countries Considering Abandoning the US Dollar

7 Countries Considering Abandoning the US Dollar

Jessica Hupp
Currency Trading.net
http://www.currencytrading.net/2007/7-countries-considering-abandoning-the-us-dollar-and-what-it-means/
Saturday November 10, 2007

It’s no secret that the dollar is on a downward spiral. Its value is dropping, and the Fed isn’t doing a whole lot to change that. As a result, a number of countries are considering a shift away from the dollar to preserve their assets. These are seven of the countries currently considering a move from the dollar, and how they’ll have an effect on its value and the US economy.
Saudi Arabia: The Telegraph reports that for the first time, Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates along with the US Federal Reserve. This is seen as a signal that a break from the dollar currency peg is imminent. The kingdom is taking “appropriate measures” to protect itself from letting the dollar cause problems for their own economy. They’re concerned about the threat of inflation and don’t want to deal with “recessionary conditions” in the US. Hans Redeker of BNP Paribas believes this creates a “very dangerous situation for the dollar,” as Saudi Arabia alone has management of $800 billion. Experts fear that a break from the dollar in Saudi Arabia could set off a “stampede” from the dollar in the Middle East, a region that manages $3,500 billion.
South Korea: In 2005, Korea announced its intention to shift its investments to currencies of countries other than the US. Although they’re simply making plans to diversify for the future, that doesn’t mean a large dollar drop isn’t in the works. There are whispers that the Bank of Korea is planning on selling $1 billion US bonds in the near future, after a $100 million sale this past August.
China: After already dropping the dollar peg in 2005, China has more trouble up its sleeve. Currently, China is threatening a “nuclear option” of huge dollar liquidation in response to possible trade sanctions intended to force a yuan revaluation. Although China “doesn’t want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order,” their large sum of US dollars does serve as a “bargaining chip.” As we’ve noted in the past, China has the power to take the wind out of the dollar.

Venezuela: Venezuela holds little loyalty to the dollar. In fact, they’ve shown overt disapproval, choosing to establish barter deals for oil. These barter deals, established under Hugo Chavez, allow Venezuela to trade oil with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba without using the dollar, shorting the US its usual subsidy. Chavez is not shy about this decision, and has publicly encouraged others to adopt similar arrangements. In 2000, Chavez recommended to OPEC that they “take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers,” or in other words, stop using the dollar, or even the euro, for oil transactions. In September, Chavez instructed Venezuela’s state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA to change its dollar investments to euros and other currencies in order to mitigate risk.
Sudan: Sudan is, once again, planning to convert its dollar holdings to the euro and other currencies. Additionally, they’ve recommended to commercial banks, government departments, and private businesses to do the same. In 1997, the Central Bank of Sudan made a similar recommendation in reaction to US sactions from former President Clinton, but the implementation failed. This time around, 31 Sudanese companies have become subject to sanctions, preventing them from doing trade or financial transactions with the US. Officially, the sanctions are reported to have little effect, but there are indications that the economy is suffering due to these restrictions. A decision to move Sudan away from the dollar is intended to allow the country to work around these sanctions as well as any implemented in the future. However, a Khartoum committee recently concluded that proposals for a reduced dependence on the dollar are “not feasible.” Regardless, it is clear that Sudan’s intent is to attempt a break from the dollar in the future.
Iran: Iran is perhaps the most likely candidate for an imminent abandonment of the dollar. Recently, Iran requested that its shipments to Japan be traded for yen instead of dollars. Further, Iran has plans in the works to create an open commodity exchange called the Iran Oil Bourse. This exchange would make it possible to trade oil and gas in non-dollar currencies, the euro in particular. Athough the oil bourse has missed at least three of its announced opening dates, it serves to make clear Iran’s intentions for the dollar. As of October 2007, Iran receives non-dollar currencies for 85% of its oil exports, and has plans to move the remaining 15% to currencies like the United Arab Emirates dirham.
Russia: Iran is not alone in its desire to establish an alternative to trading oil and other commodities in dollars. In 2006, Russian President Vladmir Putin expressed interest in establishing a Russian stock exchange which would allow “oil, gas, and other goods to be paid for in Roubles.” Russia’s intentions are no secret–in the past, they’ve made it clear that they’re wary of holding too many dollar reserves. In 2004, Russian central bank First Deputy Chairmain Alexei Ulyukayev remarked, “Most of our reserves are in dollars, and that’s a cause for concern.” He went on to explain that, after considering the dollar’s rate against the euro, Russia is “discussing the possibility of changing the reserve structure.” Then in 2005, Russia put an end to its dollar peg, opting instead to move towards a euro alignment. They’ve discussed pricing oil in euros, a move that could provide a large shift away from the dollar and towards the euro, as Russia is the world’s second-largest oil exporter.
What does this all mean?
Countries are growing weary of losing money on the falling dollar. Many of them want to protect their financial interests, and a number of them want to end the US oversight that comes with using the dollar. Although it’s not clear how many of these countries will actually follow through on an abandonment of the dollar, it is clear that its status as a world currency is in trouble.
Obviously, an abandonment of the dollar is bad news for the currency. Simply put, as demand lessens, its value drops. Additionally, the revenue generated from the use of the dollar will be sorely missed if it’s lost. The dollar’s status as a cheaply-produced US export is a vital part of our economy. Losing this status could rock the financial lives of both Americans and the worldwide economy.

Green tax puts extra £1,000 on family cars

Green tax puts extra £1,000 on family cars

From The Times
November 10, 2007
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article2843983.ece

Families who choose to drive larger cars face an increase of up to £1,000 in the cost of motoring under a government plan to force people to switch to greener vehicles.
At the same time, manufacturers will be given incentives to accelerate the introduction of hybrid cars — which have a petrol engine and an electric motor — and those that run entirely on electricity.
The Times has learnt that the review of low-carbon cars, commissioned by the Government and due to report in February, will recommend a range of tough measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Drivers who choose high-emission vehicles, including family saloons, will face much higher excise duties and a purchase tax. But grants are likely for people who opt for cars powered by alternative fuels and choose vehicles that are fitted with devices that reduce fuel consumption.
Professor Julia King, the Vice-Chancellor of Aston University, who is leading the review, believes that cars powered by rechargeable electric batteries, rather than hydrogen fuel cells or biofuels, are the best option for reducing dependence on fossil fuels. She is preparing a set of bold recommendations aimed at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that the average car emits per mile by at least 30 per cent within a decade.
Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, has asked her to complete the review in time to influence the budget in March.
Professor King told The Times that the Government would need to penalise drivers of high-emission cars as well as reduce the costs for those who invest in cars with low-emission technology: “We need both carrots and sticks. We are very focused on how we get results quickly. CO2 saved now is better than CO2 saved in 15 years time.
“In choosing cars, price is top of the list. Levels of increases of £1,000 to £1,500 seem to have a big effect on consumer behaviour. If there is a strong signal that there is only one direction we are going in — and that is lower CO2 — that will change behaviour. It’s got to be simple. The more complex it is, the more loopholes there will be.”
Professor King is considering measures such as a purchase tax on high-emission cars and an increase in the upper bands of vehicle excise duty. She said that she was particularly interested in influencing the purchase of company cars, which account for 55 per cent of new car sales.
“Linking company car tax to CO2 emissions has been very effective in changing behaviour. We could be encouraging companies to see car purchase as part of their CSR [corporate and social responsibility],” she said. Measures to encourage low-emission cars would have to be designed to ensure that the vehicles retained a high resale value to reassure purchasers. One option was to encourage companies to sell electric cars but lease the batteries.
Professor King acknowledged that the Government had to “consider what is palatable” and might find it politically difficult to accept all her recommendations.
“Sadly, I think it will be some pretty awful things happening in the rest of the world that will make us take some stronger decisions on climate change,” she said.
She was optimistic that recent developments in battery technology would allow a gradual shift to electric cars that could be plugged in and recharged overnight.
She was sceptical of the move towards biofuels made from crops as it was accelerating the destruction of rainforests and pushing up food prices. While 14 per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions come from transport, 18 per cent come from deforestation.
“In the long term we should not anticipate more than a small proportion of the UK’s car fuel coming from biofuels,” Professor King said.
She also expressed doubt about the use of hydrogen in cars, saying that it would be difficult to find efficient ways to produce and transport it. The process of producing hydrogen for use in fuel-cell cars resulted in up to 400 per cent more CO2 emissions than burning conventional fuels. “There is no point in having hydrogen until we have found a way of making it without high emissions,” she said.
The Government has already raised vehicle excise duty to £300 for cars in Band G which produce more than 225g/km of CO2. The Band G rate is due to increase to £400 next year.
Department for Transport research found that the differential between each band would have to be increased to £300 to persuade most drivers to switch to lower-emission cars. The differential between bands E and F, which account for the majority of larger cars, is now £40.
The RAC Foundation said that the review should consider the impact on families of any tax changes.
Edmund King, the foundation’s director, said: “Many families need larger cars and it would be unfair to penalise them. Big increases in road tax could also be counterproductive because it can be greener for a low-mileage driver to keep running a larger car than switch to a hybrid.
“Professor King should beware of knee-jerk price signals based on the green agenda. Any changes must take effect slowly. People cannot be expected to change their cars overnight.”

Cutting the carbon
Targets set by Professor Julia King for the average car’s carbon dioxide emissions:
Now 181g/km
2017 127g/km
2030 91g/km
2050 18g/km

Friday, November 9, 2007

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty Would Give the UN Control Over Everything About the Oceans

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty Would Give the UN Control Over Everything About the Oceans

Larry Greenley
JBS
http://www.jbs.org/node/6260
Friday November 9, 2007

The Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world’s oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Follow this link to the original source: "25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"
On October 31 the authoritative Capitol Hill news publication, CQ Today, stated:
The Senate is likely to ratify a 1982 U.N. treaty governing the use of the world’s oceans despite grumbling from a few conservative GOP senators.
That’s right. After 25 years of stalemate, the Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which would give total regulatory jurisdiction over the world’s oceans and seas to a United Nations body, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
(Article continues below)

This is the same UN famous for its corrupt oil-for-food scandal. This is the organization that consistently votes against American interests.
In order to understand just how comprehensive and sweeping are the powers over the oceans that LOST would confer on the UN, read what was said at an official UN celebration of the 25th anniversary of LOST on Oct. 17:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law.... Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order.... The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out. ("25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," Oct. 17, 2007; emphasis added.)
In short, the LOST treaty provides the legal framework within which all activities on, over and under the oceans and the seas must be carried out. In other words, the LOST treaty would give the UN jurisdiction over everything concerning the oceans and seas of the earth.
Everything would certainly include military and commercial uses of the oceans and seas. How do you think the anti-American UN would rule on U.S. Air Force planes and U.S. Navy ships using the oceans for military purposes? What would this mean for our national security? How about our commercial airliners flying over the oceans? How about the necessary transportation between our mainland states and Hawaii? And, on and on.
We would not have veto power protection in the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea like we do in the Security Council. We’d have one vote among a membership of over 150 nations.
For confirmation of just how bad it would be for the Senate to ratify LOST, take a look at these two videos of recent Senate hearings, featuring one of LOST’s most articulate critics, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.): (1) DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty: Part 1; (2) Round 2: DeMint on Law of the Sea Treaty.
This vote on LOST is arguably the most important vote the Senate will cast this year. The John Birch Society is urging its members and allies, especially the leaders and members of other organizations that also believe in preserving American sovereignty and security, to phone their senators within the next few days in opposition to the LOST treaty. Click here for a link to your senators’ phone numbers and talking points for the calls.
If enough Americans contact their senators, we can stop LOST just like we stopped amnesty back in June. However, fewer organizations are involved in this fight, so those of us who understand the long range threat posed by surrendering our sovereignty to the UN need to step up our activism and get the job done!
Our personal freedom and security depend on preserving American sovereignty and security by winning this fight against LOST!

Senate May Vote on "Thought Crimes" Act

Senate May Vote on "Thought Crimes" Act

JBS
http://www.jbs.org/node/6239
Thursday November 8, 2007

On October 23, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" by a landslide vote of 404 to 6. The bill has been referred to the Senate where it awaits scrutiny from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
According to supporters, the measure will play an important role in helping government and law enforcement officials understand and prevent domestic terrorism. In a speech on the House floor advocating passage of the bill, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) -- the coauthor and initial sponsor of the measure -- warned that the next time the U.S. faces a terrorist threat, "my assumption is that many who attack us will already be here, and some will be US citizens." To prevent that attack, she said, the new "legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it."

Critics of the measure allege that it is a thinly veiled and dangerous attempt to criminalize dissent. Such concern is based on the bill’s vague and open-ended language that, critics say, could be used by the government to trample basic rights to free speech and assembly and turn legitimate dissent into thought crimes.

Ex-Wall Street Journal Editor: Dollar Collapse Will Cripple European Economy

Ex-Wall Street Journal Editor: Dollar Collapse Will Cripple European Economy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/091107_european_economy.htm

Friday, November 9, 2007

The father of Reagonomics and former Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts has warned that the collapsing dollar will eventually cripple the European economy and may even return the world economy to a barter system as financial chaos ensues.
Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.
Speaking on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Roberts cautioned that "The loss in value of the dollar is becoming so rapid it's alarming....we've got unmanageable trade deficits, budget deficits, the economy is set for recession, the wars show no end."

Asked how bad the dollar crisis can get, Roberts responded, "It can get awfully bad - the trouble is where can they go?"
"If China removes the peg and all the surplus dollars drive up the value of the Chinese currency then given our dependence on China....it's going to drive the prices up here a tremendous amount and Americans don't have any discretionary income left," said Roberts.
"At some point the foreigners will stop financing our budget and trade deficits - then we're going to have a massive crisis the likes of which we've not experienced....if you're totally dependent on imports of manufactured goods and you can't pay for them, what do you do?" asked Roberts, explaining that the only recourse would be to print more money, pushing the dollar down even further.

Citing the fact that the dollar had lost more than 60 per cent of its value against the Euro since 2001, Roberts said that the flight from the dollar could eventually wreck the European economy because it would cripple their exports.
Asked how low the dollar could go, Roberts said that there was a limit because "There's simply so many dollars, there's not enough room in other currencies to absorb them - at some point the flight of investors from the dollar to the Euro will cause amazing troubles in Europe - they won't be able to export anything because the prices are driven up so high."
Roberts said investors will eventually desert the Euro as a safe haven from the dollar and the same process will cause a crisis in Britain as the pound is devalued due to exports being hit.
"Wages are being frozen, profit margins are shrinking, exports are down - so it's starting to impact on Europe," said Roberts.
Roberts warned that the potential destruction of the dollar as the world's reserve currency could eventually return us to a system of barter, completely altering the landscape of the economic structure as we know it.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Global Elite’s Plan For Forced Population Reduction Is Running Smoothly In The Third World

Global Elite’s Plan For Forced Population Reduction Is Running Smoothly In The Third World

Daniel Taylor
Old-thinker news
http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/endgame_the_rabbit_hole.htm
November 1, 2007

“It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.” — William H. Gates Sr.

If you have watched Alex Jones’ Endgame, you know that population reduction has been a leading goal of Rockefeller, Kissinger, and other global elite for many years. You may be wondering; How will the elite fulfill their plans for global population reduction? There are many theories as to how this will be done, and speculation abounds. Race specific bio-weapons, as written in the Project for a New American Century, “…may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A report released early this year by the U.K. Ministry of Defense outlining possible future scenarios says that, “The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings ‘might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world.” Documentation can be shown demonstrating that at this very moment massive population reduction programs are being carried out.
Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200, as noted in Endgame, is a foundational document regarding population reduction plans for the third world.
The 1974 NSSM 200 document cites “Injectable contraceptives for women” as a possible method of population reduction and control. Depopulation, as stated in the document, should be pursued because it would be in the “…economic interests of the United States.”
“Wherever a lessening of population pressures… can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.”
The Rockefeller Foundation and the Population Council, both Rockefeller organizations, have been instrumental in the funding and development of sterilization vaccines. The Rockefeller family has been involved with population control and eugenics since the early 1900’s. The Population Council, founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1952, was first headed by Frederick Osborn, who served as the Secretary of the American Eugenics Society.
“Injectable contraceptives for women” have been developed in the years after the infamous NSSM 200.
In 1989 research was conducted by the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi India on the use of ‘carriers’ such as Tetanus Toxoid and Diphtheria to bypass the immune system and deliver the female hormone called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). The effect of the hCG hormone was the sterilization of women by causing the body to attack itself. By using four women as test subjects, the research found that multiple doses - around 5 - of the Tetanus toxoid hCG carrier vaccine was required in order for it to effectively raise the level of hCG in their bodies. The research also found that if an alternate carrier such as Diphtheria was used, less doses would be needed to maintain the desired level of hCG.
The Rockefeller Foundation and the Population Council are listed as giving grants for the research.
The aforementioned research paper was carried in the Oxford University Press in 1990, and was titled “Bypass by an alternate ‘carrier’ of acquired unresponsiveness to hCG upon repeated immunization with tetanus-conjugated vaccine.”
Are these plans being implemented right now?
NSSM 200 outlines recommendations as to how to carry out population reduction and control policies. The World Bank, World Health Organization, UNICEF, and donor countries are listed as possible implementation arms.
GAVI (the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), which was founded in 2000, has the goal of vaccinating most of the third world. The member organizations of GAVI include many of the same partners listed in NSSM 200, including the Rockefeller Foundation. Listed on the GAVI website,
GAVI partners include: national governments of donor and developing countries, the Bill and Melinda Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA), the Rockefeller Foundation, UNICEF, the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In December of 2000, David Rockefeller and William H. Gates Sr., among others, visited the Rockefeller University campus to take part in a meeting on “Philanthropy in a Global Century”. While there, Gates spoke about his inspiration from Rockefeller in founding GAVI,
“Gates said that ‘Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.’”
He also praised the Rockefeller family’s century of philanthropy, saying, ‘It seems like every new corner we turn, the Rockefellers are already there. And in some cases, they have been there for a long, long time.’”
The targets
The targets of NSSM 200 for population reduction and control included “…countries where there is special U.S. political and strategic interest.” Those named include: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.
In 1995 the BBC aired a documentary titled “The Human Laboratory”, which covered the use of birth control drugs and vaccines in the third world. The discovery of “contaminated” Tetanus toxoid vaccines and the resulting negative effects on the Philippine population were covered. The documentary was never shown in the United States…………….
Contained in the program are the accounts of doctors from the Philippines who found that their Tetanus vaccines were “contaminated” with hCG, resulting in sterility and miscarriages. As the research shown above indicates, these are not contaminants, but rather scientifically crafted.
The following are excerpts from the BBC program:
MARY PILAR VERZOSA: The women would say why is it that the tetanus shots that we’ve been getting have had effects on us? Our fertility cycles are all fouled up, some of the women among us have had bleedings and miscarriages, some have lost their babies at a very early stage. The symptoms could come soon after their tetanus vaccination - some the following day, others within a week’s time. For those who were pregnant on their first three or four months the miscarriage was really frightening.

MARY PILAR VERZOSA: I began to suspect that here in the Philippines that’s exactly what’s happening. They have laced the tetanus toxoid vials with the Beta HCG. The only way I could make sure that they hadn’t done that was to examine the vials, and how to get a hold of those vials was going to be a problem. Who was I to collect them from the health centres?

MARY PILAR VERZOSA: Oh boy that was really something when this came out of my fax machine. Report on HCG concentration in vaccine vials. Three out of those four vials registered positive for HCG, so my suspicions are affirmed that here in our country they are not only giving plain tetanus toxoid vaccination to our women, they are also giving anti-fertility.
NARRATOR: Sister Mary was not alone. Many women and doctors reported similar findings. Dr. Vilma Gonzaga became suspicious when she had two miscarriages, both times after receiving the tetanus jab. She is now suing the government since tests showed she had very high levels of antibodies to Beta HCG.
Dr Fays Schrater comments on his suspicions that there is a deliberate campaign to immunise the Philippines with hCG.
DR FAYS SCHRATER: If there is a conspiracy to immunise the women of the Philippines with chorionic gonadotropin rather than tetanus, then it requires the knowledge of some member of a government, or two. It requires the participation of a manufacturer to link the chorionic gonadotropin physically to the tetanus toxoid - you can’t just throw it in the vial and expect it to do its work. And it requires that it be mislabelled and that it be shipped then to a centre who knows what’s in it and who is going to distribute it in a guise of tetanus vaccine.
Rural populations of the third world have caught on to possible negative effects of vaccination such as sterilization, while their fears are dismissed as “rumors” and “myths” by the mainstream press. Often, those reassuring that the vaccines are safe are the very organizations listed in NSSM 200 as partners in population reduction and control efforts. A 2006 press release from UNICEF (United Nations Children Fund), which is involved with vaccinating many third world countries, quotes the Assistant Project Officer for Health in Ethiopia’s Southern Nations, Tersit Assefa,
“In other places, women of this age often stay away,” said Ms. Tersit. “All sorts of misguided rumours go round that the injections will sterilize them or harm them in some way. But here, the village elders are on board. They are here, encouraging the women to come along.”
Nigerians have also become suspicious of vaccines. CBS news reported in 2004 that the Nigerian state of Kano was resisting Polio vaccines on grounds that the injections would render the female population infertile.
“In September, Shekarau suspended participation in a global immunization program on the grounds that local scientists had discovered traces of a hormone in foreign-made vaccines that they feared could make girls infertile.
Some local Islamic leaders accused the Nigerian federal government of being part of a U.S. plot to kill off Muslims with the vaccines.
The WHO insisted the vaccines were safe, and urged that vaccinations resume to stave off a resurgence of the paralyzing disease.”
Thailand, another target of NSSM 200, is ripe with stories of miscarriages and sterilization. According to the local population of the Akha, pregnant women are forced to receive the vaccine in order to get ID cards for their children. The vaccine often results with violent miscarriages…………….
The third world populations, which are largely out of sight and out of the minds of a large portion of the west, are taking the brunt of the global elite’s population reduction plans

Dollar's Fall Spiraling Out Of Control

Dollar's Fall Spiraling Out Of Control
Indications that the Fed has overstretched spell disaster for global economy

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/021107_dollar_fall.htm
Friday, November 2, 2007

The U.S. government and the Fed's drive to devalue the dollar in order to reduce the trade deficit and lower the living standards of the American middle class has spiralled out of control, promising a global financial meltdown despite the desperate efforts of the elite to restrain a horse that has already bolted.
Four years ago the Bush administration was forced to admit that they had initiated an "orderly decline in the U.S. dollar" for the purposes of inflating exports and creating jobs in order to secure votes before the 2004 presidential election.
When this admission was made, analysts raised the alarm that a "dollar crisis" was looming on the horizon and billionaire investors like Warren Buffett began to bail out. Since then the dollar has hit new lows against every major basket currency in the world bar the Mexican peso.
Now the debasement of the greenback has accelerated so rapidly that it threatens to engulf Europe in a spiraling downturn that will have reverberations for years to come.

Though Paulson, Bernanke and others offer tacit sound bites to the effect that a strong dollar is in America's interests the reality is that it is an "official policy of the central bank and the U.S. to debase the currency," as investor Jim Rogers recently remarked while announcing his intention to shift all his dollar assets into Chinese yuan. Rogers added that the U.S. is already "undoubtedly in recession".
The problem is that the "orderly decline" has now become a chaotic mess, as made evident by the fact that the Fed's indication that Wednesday's interest rate cut would be the last failed completely to rescue the ailing dollar which continues to hit record lows against the Euro today.
This proves that the dollar's depreciation has been too swift even for the Fed's liking, who are now desperately trying to prop up the greenback to no avail as it spins into the abyss.
The decision on behalf of the Saudis to drop their interest rates and maintain their dollar peg is another clue that the elite have lost control of the dollar's decline and are nervously attempting to halt the slide without success.

Now the dollar has dropped so low that even Eurozone head honchos are pleading with Bernanke to take drastic correctional measures as EU exports of staple commodities like food dry up while the U.S. barrels towards a full blown economic depression.
Exports are shrinking because demand from the U.S. is shrinking, allied to the fact that a weak dollar makes commodities unaffordable. Europe is now taking its biggest hit since just after 9/11 and predictions for economic growth across nearly all member nations are dire.
Most analysts predict that the knock-on effects will see the Euro and the pound follow the dollar's descent over the next two years as Europe is impacted by the economic tsunami of stagflation and recession in the U.S., while the Empire lurches forward into Iran and the U.S. national debt balloons.