C.H.A.N.G.E. at the Emergency Management Conference
FEMA Runs from Confrontation on WTC7 and Camps
FEMA Admits Role of Informing, Monitoring and Controlling Media During Emergency Operations Like the September 11 Attacks!!
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies man I'm sick of lies
this film is called "How to create an angry american"
OPEN YOUR EYES!
Bush Set To Veto To Remove Mercury From Infant Vaccines
http://www.emaxhealth.com/50/14153.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/77268.php
Infant Vaccines
President Bush would veto the HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill because of the cost and "objectionable provisions" such as a measure to ban the use of childhood flu vaccines that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative.
Autism advocacy groups are outraged because President Bush stated in a questionnaire during his 2004 campaign: "I support the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines on the childhood national vaccine schedule. During a second term as President, I will continue to support increased funding to support a wide variety of research initiatives aimed at seeking definitive causes and/or triggers of autism. It is important to note that while there are many possible theories about causes or triggers of autism, no one material has been definitely included or excluded."
But since 2005, President Bush has steadfastly refused to issue an Executive Order banning high amounts of mercury in vaccines that would protect children and pregnant women despite repeated requests from the autism community that he uphold his campaign promise. Under his current administration, mercury has been and will continue to be knowingly injected into the youngest of American citizens. The controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal has been linked by thousands of parents as being the cause of their children's mercury poisoning and autism.
The flu vaccine which continues to be manufactured with mercury is recommended for all pregnant women, infants and children despite the fact that the Institute of Medicine in 2001 recommended against the policy of exposing these same sensitive groups to thimerosal containing vaccines. According to the EPA, one in every six women of childbearing age already has blood levels of mercury high enough to cause neurological damage to their unborn children due to environmental exposures alone.
"Injecting even more mercury into the bodies of pregnant women, infants and children when it is not a necessary component of vaccines is just bad medicine," said Lyn Redwood, president of SafeMinds and parent of a mercury-injured child. "It defies logic that a flu vaccine must be disposed of as a hazardous waste if it is not used, but somehow injecting the same mercury-containing vaccine into a baby is safe."
Maybe surveillance is bad, after all!
John Borland
Wired News
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Privacy advocates have a problem.
People who want to increase the amount of surveillance in society, whether it's wire-tapping, closed-circuit cameras, or data mining, have an easy argument. There are terrorists and criminals out there, and these tools can help stop violence and crime, they say.
Philosopher Sandro Gaycken, a PhD student at Germany's Institut für Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung in Bielefeld, wants to give pro-privacy forces stronger arguments to counter these concerns. Speaking today at the Chaos Communication Camp, he conceded that activists' justifications for their concerns often fail to resonate with the broad public. Many anti-surveillance arguments are based on vaguely emotional concerns, or appeals to abstract values, as opposed to the hard facts of suicide bombers or commuters killed on the subway.
In response, Gaycken argued that there are well-established psychological consequences to being watched, observed consistently in studies. People change, tailoring their behavior to fit what they believe the observer wants (or in some cases actively rebelling against those wishes).
Now imagine a society where everyone knows they are or may be watched as they walk through the streets, or while surfing online. That – as in societies like Hitler's Germany or Soviet Russia – will have tangible and widespread psychological consequences, reinforcing conformity, and literally crippling the ability to make autonomous and ethical decisions, he argued.
An analogy might be the well-studied population of children with overprotective mothers, the philosopher said. Studies show that such children tend to be indecisive, dependent on others, have little "ethical competence," and often live suppressed and unhappy lives.
As or more disturbing may be the political implications of having a surveillance infrastructure in place.
Many philosophers reject the notion that given technologies are inherently politically neutral, Gaycken said. Surveillance, for example, can be used to support democratic values of freedom, equality, and state neutrality – but its tendency to create a watched and a watching class lends itself better to totalitarianism. In a country such as Germany, which has seen democracy slide into the Nazi state, such a warning resonates strongly.
"Surveillance stabilizes totalitarianism, and destabilizes democracy," Gaycken warned.
Are these issues enough to harden privacy advocates' arguments against the apocalyptic warnings of surveillance supporters? Not everyone in this hackers' audience was entirely convinced, with some asking for still more concrete arguments to counter Cheneyesque predictions of violence and chaos.
Others offered their own practical suggestions for action. Philippe Langlois, a French programmer, told of his own project hanging Christmas decorations on the closed-circuit cameras in Parisian Metro stations, thus drawing people's amused -- but often shocked -- attention to the devices' prevalence.
"That's a hack, too," he said. "Besides, it's fun."
We're afraid not
I love this Vid! It is just fantastic! it parodies an ad that is playing on air hear in Australia telling every one to ring a stupid hot line every time that see something "sus" This just ads to the Noise and keeps people scared.!
General Wesley Clark
Alex Debates David Mayer de Rothschild On Global Warming
New 9/11 Truth Film Exposes BBC Hit Piece
Infowars.net
Thursday, June 28, 2007
A new film has taken the BBC's Conspiracy files hit piece on 9/11 truth from earlier this year and ripped it apart point by point exposing it as a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation.
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy, produced by British researcher Adrian Connock and former MI5 counter terrorism officer David Shayler uncovers the BBC's selective and distorted 9/11 coverage and the corporation's attempts to portray the 9/11 truth movement as a racist cult like group of mythology.
The BBC programme, aired in February, produced a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath. The documentary attempted to dismiss serious questions about 9/11 firstly by implying that anyone who distrusts the official version has a borderline psychological illness and is a member of a mythological cult.
The programme then failed in debunking 9/11 questions by making points structured around fallacy, lying by omission, using defamation of character and overwhelming bias.
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy reiterates many of the counterpoints Prisonplanet.com raised in response to the BBC piece exposing it for the yellow journalism hatchet job it was.
Watch the documentary here :
Among the scores of counterpoints within the film, Shayler makes clear how the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers. He also points out that no eyewitness testimony or references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters were mentioned by the BBC.
Furthermore, Shayler highlights the fact that during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue, the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, were not even mentioned by the BBC.
Also exposed in the documentary is the fact that despite there having been numerous war games in operation in the lead up to 9/11, including involving planes crashing into buildings, the BBC boiled them all down into one and described them as "routine".
Shayler also points to the fact that manipulative editing and emotional bias was used to paint 9/11 truthseekers as social outcasts and lead the viewer into thinking the whole movement is insulting and hurtful to the victims, when there is an overwhelming faction of victims' families who are asking the same questions.
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy highlights the fact that the BBC's hit piece has only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and caused a redoubling of efforts on the part of hardened researchers to refute the official conspiracy theory.
Votergate - The Presidential Election Special Edition (Election Fraud)
Google Spider Goats is a great new interactive documentary
Police use London Underground smartcard to track people
read more | digg story
Bin Laden blameless - new Australian Mufti
read more | digg story
Facial recognition slipped into Google image search
Facial recognition slipped into Google image search
By Jacqui Cheng | Published: May 30, 2007 - 11:56AM CT
Google upped its stalker factor this week by adding face recognition abilities to its image search. While currently unofficial and unannounced, users can now search for images that only contain faces by appending a query string onto the end of a search URL. For example, a general image search for "Ars Technica" produces a variety of image results, but when appending "&imgtype=face" to the end of the URL, all new results contain photos of people.
The hidden feature was discovered by Google Blogoscoped, and there is currently no way to indicate that you only want to search for faces through the image search interface. However, both "&imgtype=face" and "&imgtype=news" trigger different search results than what is presented by default—the latter showing only images that are associated with news stories.
The technology appears to be the fruit of Google's 2006 acquisition of Neven Vision, a company that had developed techniques for facial recognition in photos. "Neven Vision comes to Google with deep technology and expertise around automatically extracting information from a photo. It could be as simple as detecting whether or not a photo contains a person, or, one day, as complex as recognizing people, places, and objects," wrote Picasa product manager Adrian Graham on the Official Google Blog last August.
Google is apparently taking that technology to heart by experimenting with facial recognition online. Even cooler (or creepier, as the case may be), one day Google's image search may be able to find faces of specific people based on image analysis/recognition alone instead of relying on the text associated with that image to identify the person in the photo. We can probably expect more search parameters to be added to the search in the future, too, such as different types of animals, different clothing items, and more. Until then, we're stuck experimenting with different search terms in hopes of discovering one that the public doesn't know about yet.
Korey Rowe Interview about his time in the military before loose change
well worth a look.
Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold
Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr
According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.
Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.
Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”
However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.
In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”
Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.
UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.
If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.
No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.
When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”
Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.
An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.
“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper.
Bayer knew about Aids in its products but kept on selling it!
Bayer knew about aids in its product! then shiped it around the world because they needed to make a profit! Why are we still trusting this company?
So we see what cover ups Bayer has done, That is Why I don't trust Gardasil because Merc have only tested it on a few thousand girls and they still don't know what putting a live cancer virus into someone does. Their should be more science before all our girls get told to take this Vaccine.
What’s wrong with this photo?
March 28, 2007
PHOTO: Graffiti on the wall of a home in the Amil district of Baghdad reads "Wanted blood, Hell for infidels." As families begin to return to the neighborhoods they fled, the threat of sectarian violence remains. (Max Becherer/Polaris, for The New York Times)
What’s wrong with this photo?
This is most suspicious. Call me conspiratorial--please, do; I mean it. It does not offend me in those times. The New York Times published this picture today with this caption: "Graffiti on the wall of a home in the Amil district of Baghdad reads "Wanted blood, Hell for infidels." As families begin to return to the neighborhoods they fled, the threat of sectarian violence remains." But anybody who knows Arabic will notice something really odd and fishy about the graffiti: It is not written by an Arabic speaker. It does not read Arabic, and the basic words for blood and infidels are misspelled, and the sentence structure is wrong. As if it was written in another language and then google-translated, or something.
Actually, it is very similar to a google translation. I just wanted to share this photo and the questions around it - many things going on in Iraq and the Middle East are not as they first appear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)