Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
Announcements and links |
| Henry Cavill Hayden Christensen Comics Continuum Doctor Who Online Ebay | Charlie Hunnam Outpost Gallifrey Anne Rice David Tennant Tenth Planet | |
| Welcome to The Garden District. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our fabulous features: |
| New World Disorder | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2007, 06:27 PM (2,601 Views) | |
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Mar 12 2008, 07:05 PM Post #121 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
the bush administration is the only true axis of evil |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Mar 14 2008, 07:03 PM Post #122 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
House passes new surveillance bill By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago WASHINGTON - The House on Friday approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States. ADVERTISEMENT The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213-197, largely along party lines. Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The vote sent the bill to the Senate, which has passed its own version that includes the legal immunity for telecom companies that Bush is demanding. Without that provision, House Republicans said, the companies won't cooperate with U.S. intelligence. "We cannot conduct foreign surveillance without them. But if we continue to subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits, we risk losing their cooperation in the future," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. The government does have the power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with wiretaps if it gets warrants from a secret court. The government apparently did not get such warrants before initiating the post-9/11 wiretaps, which are the basis for the lawsuits. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the bill is meant to fix that. It would let a judge determine whether lawsuits should be dismissed, rather than having Congress make that decision. "I believe that the nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last seven years, and I want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community," Reyes said. About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging the companies violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California. The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program to decide if the companies acted lawfully. The administration has prevented those documents from being revealed, even to a judge, by invoking the state secrets privilege. That puts the companies in a bind because they are unable to defend themselves. Just a fraction of Congress has been granted access to the records. Democrats argued against quashing the lawsuits without knowing in detail why the immunity is necessary. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said the government may have as many as five ongoing clandestine surveillance programs. "Congress is not fully informed, and it would be reckless to grant retroactive immunity without knowing the scope of programs out there," Harman said. "All members of Congress should see those documents so they could see the breadth and scope" of the wiretapping program, said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass. The surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S, and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States_ for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server. A temporary law expired Feb. 16 before Congress was able to produce a replacement bill. Bush opposed an extension of the temporary law as a means to pressure Congress into accepting the Senate version of the surveillance legislation. Bush and most Capitol Hill Republicans say the lawsuits are damaging national security and unfairly punish telecommunications companies for helping the government in a time of war. "There is not one iota of evidence that the companies acted inappropriately whatsoever," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif. Democrats say the bill protects the privacy rights of Americans by making sure the telecommunications companies — and the wiretapping program — did not violate any laws. "We have the opportunity to serve the protection of our country ... and uphold our oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Let us take that opportunity." The Democratic bill also would initiate a yearlong bipartisan panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the administration's so-called warrantless wiretapping program. Friday's vote came after House Republicans forced a rare, late-night secret session of Congress on Thursday to discuss the bill. It was the first such session of the House in a quarter century; the last one was in 1983, on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have occurred in the House since 1825. Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas said she didn't believe any minds were changed on the bill. "We couldn't have gone more of an extra mile to make sure we're doing the best for national security," she said. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Mar 20 2008, 08:14 PM Post #123 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You? If you have some tinfoil handy, now might be a good time to fashion a hat. At the Digital Living Room conference today, Gerard Kunkel, Comcast’s senior VP of user experience, told me the cable company is experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who’s in your living room. The idea being that if you turn on your cable box, it recognizes you and pulls up shows already in your profile or makes recommendations. If parents are watching TV with their children, for example, parental controls could appear to block certain content from appearing on the screen. Kunkel also said this type of monitoring is the “holy grail” because it could help serve up specifically tailored ads. Yikes. Kunkel said the system wouldn’t be based on facial recognition, so there wouldn’t be a picture of you on file (we hope). Instead, it would distinguish between different members of your household by recognizing body forms. He stressed that the system is still in the experimental phase, that there hasn’t been consumer testing, and that any rollout “must add value” to the viewing experience beyond serving ads. Perhaps I’ve seen Enemy of the State too many times, or perhaps I’m just naive about the depths to which Comcast currently tracks my every move. I can’t trust Comcast with BitTorrent, so why should I trust them with my must-be-kept-secret, DVR-clogging addiction to Keeping Up with the Kardashians? Kunkel also spoke on camera with me about fixing bad Comcast user experiences, the ongoing BitTorrent battle and VOD. But he mostly towed the corporate line on these issues (the monitoring your living room came up after my camera was put away).
|
![]() |
|
| Jane | Mar 20 2008, 10:02 PM Post #124 |
|
Board Bitch!
|
I agree with the It's like just becuase certain technologies exist people think they are of value and we should be using them. |
![]() |
|
| Julesy | Mar 21 2008, 02:07 AM Post #125 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
wtf? is this really neccessary? it would know me by my fuck you gesture I would give it.
|
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Mar 21 2008, 12:48 PM Post #126 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
|
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Apr 1 2008, 06:07 PM Post #127 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Obama: I don't carry a Council on Foreign Relations card or know any 'special handshake' David Edwards and Eric Mayes Raw Story Tuesday, April 1, 2008 Worries about One World Order and a North American Union have been "ginned up by the blogs and the Internet," Sen. Barack Obama told a Lancaster, Pennsylvania audience in a stump speech as he continued his tour through the battleground state. The Illinois senator also defended the recently re-authorized Patriot Act. Responding to a question from the audience, asking whether he was a member for the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many allege is leading a move toward one world government, Obama said: "I don’t know if I’m an official member. I’ve spoken there before. It basically is a forum where people talk about foreign policy. There is no official membership. I don’t have a card, or you know a special handshake or anything like that." Sen. Hillary Clinton has spoken several times to the club. Comments she made today against NAFTA, were posted on the group's website. Often, because the council has served as lightning rod for conspiracy theorists, candidates shy away from listing their affiliation with the group. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former director but has taken pains not to publicize the fact. "I’ve been a member for long and was actually a director for some period of time," he told members in a speech broadcast on C-Span and now on YouTube, adding, "I never mentioned that when I was running for re-election back home in Wyoming." The council has been at the center of several One World Order conspiracies with theorists contending that the group is conspiring to bring about one world government and a North American Union similar to the European Union. Obama dismissed those notions. "I see no evidence of this actually taking place," he said. "I think this is something that has been ginned up on certain blogs and the Internet. It was based mostly on the fact that there is this highway being built in Texas that will facilitate transportation more transportation between Mexico and the intercontinental United States and Canada...NAFTA helped to break down barriers, but I don’t think there is some conspiracy to create this one continental government." Defends portions of Patriot Act Obama said he opposed NAFTA because it didn’t offer enough protections to American workers but he defended portions of the Patriot Act which he said he worked on to cut out some of the most objectionable portions. Free trade has been an issue across the nation in this campaign particularly as many once prosperous industrial states struggle with ways to cope with the changing global economy. It was a critical issue for voters in Ohio where Clinton managed to beat Obama. Pennsylvania voters have expressed similar concerns. Obama said he did not support NAFTA. "I was opposed to NAFTA because I thought that it didn’t have the labor and environmental standards and the safety standards that would look out for US workers," replied Obama. Clinton’s husband oversaw passage of NAFTA but today she called for parts of it to be renegotiated. "I spoke out against it starting in 1992 -- the president made a different decision," Clinton said. "I think now with 14 years of experience under our belt, we can see that in some parts of our country there have been, perhaps, some economic advantages, but in other parts of our country, like where we are right here in northwest Indiana, it hasn't worked as it was promised, and therefore I think we need to renegotiate it," she told an Indiana audience today. Obama also spoke about the Patriot Act, which he voted to re-authorize. The Patriot Act is not the problem, he said. A series of executive orders is what has really eroded civil liberties. "Most of the problem that we have had in civil liberties were not done in the Patriot Act they were done in executive order by George W. Bush...I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen," he said, listing the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Other parts of the law were valid, he said. "There were some provisions in the Patriot Act that did address changes that needed to take place," said Obama, citing as an example a clause that now allows the government to tap cellular phones. His work he said, kept many of the worst portions of the law from being re-enacted. "We instituted a series of amendments that changed some of the worst excesses of the previous law," he said. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Apr 2 2008, 06:31 PM Post #128 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Deep Oil, Deep Politics Added: Apr 1st, 2008 12:27 PM By Paul Collins April, 2008 RaidersNewsNetwork.com It’s a move that is causing fear among the left in Mexico. Mexican president Felipe Calderon intends to present an energy reform bill to the Mexican congress that would allow private investment in Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil monopoly (Grillo, no pagination). Calderon claims foreign oil companies can save Pemex from underinvestment and mismanagement by increasing Mexico’s technological and operational capacity, thus allowing the nation to tap its deep-water reserves (no pagination). According to Calderon, if foreigners are not brought in, Mexico will not be able to tap its deep-water reserves and the nation will be importing petroleum in nine years (no pagination). Critics of Calderon’s plan include 2006 presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Rep. Alejandro Sanchez of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party (no pagination). Obrador and Sanchez fear foreign investment will lead to a predatory form of privatization and Mexicans will lose control of their own oil industry (no pagination). But the dangers related to foreign incursions into Mexico’s oil industry go deeper than the debate between proponents of nationalization and privatization. The oil industry and the intelligence community have always gone hand in hand. Pemex is certainly no exception. Pemex In 1960, George H.W. Bush secretly formed a partnership between his Zapata-Offshore Oil Company and Permargo, a Mexican drilling-equipment company that was known as Perforaciones Marinas del Golfe at the time (Trento 17). Bush’s main partner at Permargo was Jorge Diaz Serrano, a Mexican national (17-18). Both Bush and Serrano were CIA assets at the time. Bush had placed Zapata-Offshore at the CIA’s disposal, allowing the Agency to use the company as a conduit to place counterintelligence people in the Caribbean (17). Serrano had assisted the CIA with the logistical aspects of its anti-Castro operations (18). Through Bush and Serrano, the CIA gained control of the presidency of Lopez Portillo and successfully infiltrated Pemex (20). Portillo became president of Mexico in 1976, the same year Bush became the director of the CIA (20). Bush’s business partner, Diaz Serrano, was Portillo’s most powerful aide (20). Portillo went on to make Serrano head of Pemex (20-21). In 1983, Diaz was convicted of defrauding the Mexican government out of $58 million and was sentenced to ten years in prison (21). With the introduction of foreign involvement in Mexico’s oil industry, Pemex might be used as a cover for intelligence operations once again. But who would be the targets of such operations? Targets Three Latin American countries have angered Western factions of the power elite as of late: Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. In April 2007, the World Bank was given its “rejection slip” by Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa when the bank’s representative to Ecuador, Eduardo Somensatto, was told to leave the country immediately (Behar, no pagination). In 2005, when Correa was economic minister, the World Bank withheld $100 million credit because Ecuador had passed a new law governing oil funds that the bank disagreed with (no pagination). This move convinced Correa that the World Bank was in the business of economic blackmail and motivated him, as president, to do away with Ecuador’s reliance on the World Bank (no pagination). Venezuela’ President Hugo Chavez also voiced a desire to pull his nation out of the IMF and the World Bank (no pagination). Venezuela paid off its debts to the World Bank five years ahead of schedule and paid off its debt to the IMF in 1999 (no pagination). In 2006, the IMF’s offices in Venezuela were closed (no pagination). Chavez and Correa are certainly not boy scouts, but they correctly identified the IMF and World Bank as tools of economic warfare and social Darwinism. Oligarchs in the West are not at all happy with the withdrawal of Ecuador and Venezuela from their system of economic control. Nicaragua and Venezuela have also become a major obstacle to plans that Western factions of the power elite have to invade Iran. Iran and Venezuela have entered into a partnership with Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega (Bensman, no pagination). Iran and Venezuela plan to finance the construction of a deep-water port at Nicaragua’s Monkey Point (no pagination). Iran has also set up an embassy in Nicaragua (no pagination). Should an invasion of Iran take place, Iran could use Nicaragua as a staging ground for attacks against the United States (no pagination). Revolutionary Guard operatives and Hezbollah terrorists are already present in Latin America, and they could be deployed from Nicaragua should the shooting start (no pagination). Nicaragua’s President Ortega may have also displeased Western factions of the power elite by taking a pro-life stance concerning abortion. When Ortega was president back in the 1980s, he was very much in favor of abortion rights (“Nicaragua brings in abortion ban,” no pagination). Ortega has since had a change of heart and has adopted the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion stance and abortion is illegal in Nicaragua (no pagination). This move flies right in the face of the power elite’s agenda of depopulation and eugenical regimentation. None of these countries are lily white. The picture of Chavez, Correa, and Ortega as populist heroes is one that has been painted by left-wing romantics with no grip on reality. However, these countries have become a severe threat to Western factions of the global oligarchical establishment. The effort to create a New World Order has never been monolithic. Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua now have a chip in the big game. They have become competitors who refuse to be sidelined and refuse to be subordinates in the emerging world government. They are now targets. FARC enters the equation The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or FARC, could provide the pretext for both covert and overt moves made in Latin America. Initially, Western factions of the power elite sought an alliance with FARC. On June 26, 1999, Reuters news service reported that Richard Grasso, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, flew into a demilitarized region of Columbia’s southern jungle and savanna and held face-to-face talks with members of general secretariat of FARC (“NYSE Chief Meets Top Colombia Rebel Leader,” no pagination). Grasso discussed “foreign investment and the role of U.S. businesses in Colombia ” with the representatives of FARC’s high command (no pagination). It didn’t bother the Western oligarchs in the least that FARC is involved in narcotics trafficking and kidnapping or that the group is on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (no pagination). But the FARC declined Grasso’s offers to investment their money in Wall Street, so now its open season on the Colombian rebels. Engaging the FARC militarily would certainly draw the attention of Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. All three countries are sympathetic towards the revolutionary guerrilla organization. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has refused to join Colombia, the United States , and the European Union in classifying the FARC as a terrorist group (“Chavez proposal about the FARC creates deep analysis in Mexican press,” no pagination). When Raul Reyes, considered to be the number two man in the FARC’s secretariat, was killed by a Colombian military operation inside Ecuador, President Rafael Correa referred to the Colombian raid as a “massacre” and withdrew Ecuador’s ambassador in Bogota, Colombia (“Ecuador pulls diplomat from Bogota,” no pagination). When Chavez learned of the Reyes killing, he placed 10 battalions of Venezuelan troops on the Colombian border and closed Venezuela’s embassy in Colombia (no pagination). Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega also condemned the killing of Reyes (“Nicaragua ’s Ortega condemns FARC commander killing,” no pagination). Ortega has even referred to FARC chief Manuel Marulanda as a “dear brother” (no pagination). If the United States were to move against the FARC, it could very well ignite conflict of both an overt and covert nature with Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Movement in that direction may have already begun. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s campaign against the FARC is backed by the United States. The United States might lend a covert and overt assist to Uribe somewhere not too far down the line. If that were to happen, Pemex would be an ideal cover for covert operations against the FARC, Colombia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Would covert and overt war against the FARC and its state sponsors be in the best interests of the American people? FARC and the states supporting it are certainly no angels, but it seems that Western factions of the power elite merely wish to remove some pesky obstacles to establishing their position as the dominant force in the New World Order. A war would simply support that agenda. Bout If America began making moves militarily in Latin America, the FARC would prove to be a formidable foe for American soldiers. Who is responsible for building the Colombian rebels up? Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout is supposed to have supplied the FARC with 10,000 weapons between December 1998 and April 1999 (Casey, no pagination). The United States is currently trying to extradite Bout from Thailand so he can be tried for attempting to sell millions of dollars of weapons to FARC (no pagination). The sale would have included 100 surface-to-air missiles and armor-piercing rockets (no pagination). Bout did business with a rogue gallery that included the Taliban and al-Qaida (no pagination). But what many people don’t know is that there is a considerable amount of evidence that ties Bout to the power elite. In 2004, it was discovered that the Pentagon, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Air Force, and the Army Corps of Engineers were permitting U.S. contractors in Iraq to do business with Bout’s air cargo companies in spite of the fact that the Treasury Department labeled Bout an arms dealer and had frozen his assets (Braun, no pagination). One of the firms doing business with Bout’s network was none other than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), which was, at the time, a subsidiary of the multinational corporation formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney known as Halliburton (no pagination). Air Bas, a company tied to Bout’s aviation empire flew supplies into Iraq for KBR at least four times in October of 2004 (no pagination). Halliburton moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai at a time when Dubai was Bout’s base of operations (Grigg, no pagination). The United Nations also did business with Viktor Bout, using his planes to transport troops into Africa and East Timor (no pagination). Why was Viktor Bout allowed to operate for so long? Why was Bout doing business with those within the hallowed halls of officialdom, those who we would consider to be legitimate? It seems that Bout’s job was to create the enemies that the power elite and its prostitutes in government need to act as a pretext for war. FARC is one of those enemies. The disease and the cure are created in the same lab. Sources Cited Behar, Richard. “Ecuador Boots World Bank as Correa Continues Crackdown Against Opponents.” Fox News 26 April 2007 Bensman, Todd. “Iran making push into Nicaragua.” My San Antonio 18 December 2007 Braun, Stephen, et al. “Blacklisted Russian Tied to Iraq Deals.” Los Angeles Times 14 December 2004 Casey, Michael. “US Seeks Weapons Suspect’s Extradition.” Associated Press 7 March 2008 < http://ap.google.com/article /ALeqM5gNURV-EuOx57Uj9dL7RCzePH s33gD8V8J3J00> Castro, Ivan. “Nicaragua's Ortega condemns FARC commander killing.” Reuters 2 March 2008 “Chávez proposal about the FARC creates deep analysis in Mexican press.” ABN 18 January 2008 “Ecuador pulls diplomat from Bogota.” CNN 2 March 2008 Grigg, William. “Permanent War, Perpetual Profiteering.” Pro Libertate Grillo, Ioan. "Mexico Braces for Oil War." Time 17 March 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world /article/0,8599,1723153,00.html “Nicaragua brings in abortion ban.” BBC 18 November 2006 “NYSE Chief Meets Top Colombia Rebel Leader.” Reuters 26 June 1999 Trento, Joseph. Prelude to Terror: Edwin P. Wilson and the Legacy of America’s Private Intelligence Network. New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2005. Grillo, Ioan. "Mexico Braces for an Oil War." Time Magazine 17 March 20088 |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Apr 17 2008, 04:11 PM Post #129 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The government plans to begin collecting DNA samples from anyone arrested by a federal law enforcement agency — a move intended to prevent violent crime but which also is raising concerns about the privacy of innocent people. Using authority granted by Congress, the government also plans to collect DNA samples from foreigners who are detained, whether they have been charged or not. The DNA would be collected through a cheek swab, Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Wednesday. That would be a departure from current practice, which limits DNA collection to convicted felons. Expanding the DNA database, known as CODIS, raises civil liberties questions about the potential for misuse of such personal information, such as family ties and genetic conditions. Ablin said the DNA collection would be subject to the same privacy laws applied to current DNA sampling. That means none of it would be used for identifying genetic traits, diseases or disorders. Congress gave the Justice Department the authority to expand DNA collection in two different laws passed in 2005 and 2006. There are dozens of federal law enforcement agencies, ranging from the FBI to the Library of Congress Police. The federal government estimates it makes about 140,000 arrests each year. Those who support the expanded collection believe that DNA sampling could get violent criminals off the streets and prevent them from committing more crimes. A Chicago study in 2005 found that 53 murders and rapes could have been prevented if a DNA sample had been collected upon arrest. "Many innocent lives could have been saved had the government began this kind of DNA sampling in the 1990s when the technology to do so first became available," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said. Kyl sponsored the 2005 law that gave the Justice Department this authority. Thirteen states have similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. The new regulation would mean that the federal government could store DNA samples of people who are not guilty of any crime, said Jesselyn McCurdy, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Now innocent people's DNA will be put into this huge CODIS database, and it will be very difficult for them to get it out if they are not charged or convicted of a crime," McCurdy said. If a person is arrested but not convicted, he or she can ask the Justice Department to destroy the sample. The Homeland Security Department — the federal agency charged with policing immigration — supports the new rule. "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. The rule would not allow for DNA samples to be collected from immigrants who are legally in the United States or those being processed for admission, unless the person was arrested. The proposed rule is being published in the Federal Register. That will be followed by a 30-day comment period. |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Apr 29 2008, 04:47 PM Post #130 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
National “DNA warehouse” bill passes Passing the House of Representatives on a voice vote, S. 1858 has been sent to President Bush for signature. The Newborn Genetic Screening bill was passed by the Senate last December. The bill violates the U.S. Constitution and the Nuremberg Code, writes Twila Brase, president of the Citizen’s Council on Health Care (CCHC). “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research,” she states. “It does not require consent and there are no requirements to inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota ‘DNA warehouse’ have been subjected to genetic research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.” The federal government lacks the Constitutional authority as well as the competence to develop a newborn screening program, states Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (R-TX). He states that all hospitals will probably scrap their own newborn testing program and adopt the federal model, whatever its flaws, to avoid the loss of federal funding. “Drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure that these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children,” Dr. Paul noted. Ms. Brase has called on President Bush to veto the bill.
|
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | Apr 30 2008, 02:52 PM Post #131 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
what the fuck is the matter with Congress? Why is Ron Paul the only person in Capital Hill who cares about an individual's rights and privacy? |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | May 14 2008, 04:29 PM Post #132 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
The Face of Allah Weapon Returns By Sharon Weinberger May 13, 2008 | 3:39:00 PMCategories: Bizarro, Lasers and Ray Guns, Less-lethal Researchers are looking at a concept for creating large holograms that could be projected onto a battlefield, according to the New Hampshire. This idea, which has been proposed in the past, typically theorizes that an image of God could be projected. The most recent mention of this idea is in The New Hampshire, a student newspaper, which explores nonlethal weapons in a fascinating three-part series.The first article, which mentions the hologram weapon, is based on an interview with the head of the Non-Lethal Technology Innovations Center at the University of New Hampshire (also well worth the read in the article is the concept for a "smart dazzler"). This center, like another nonlethal lab at the University of Pennsylvania, has been supported by the Defense Department. "In the concept stage, [Glenn] Shwaery said, are more outlandish weapons such as enormous holograms to incite fear in soldiers on a battlefield." It's unclear if the proposed hologram is something the lab is working on, or just something they've heard exists. But projecting the image of something frightening -- like a deity -- is not a new idea and follows in the footsteps of the Voice of God weapon, a device that some have suggested could be used to transmit messages into people's head, as if God were speaking to them. Nor is the God hologram really a new idea, though it's interesting to see it's still bandied about; military analyst Bill Akin wrote about this concept back in 1999, which described it as holographic image of Allah. "According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air," Arkin wrote. "But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources. And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like?" Seriously, this is an excellent question, precisely because when I looked on Google Images for pictures of Allah, I found zilch. If I look for pictures of God (as in the Western God), however, I get tons. Usually an old dude with a billowy beard. http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/the-face-of-all.html |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | May 23 2008, 04:04 PM Post #133 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
In preparation for the Republican National Convention, the FBI is soliciting informants to keep tabs on local protest groups Moles Wanted By Matt Snyders Paul Carroll was riding his bike when his cell phone vibrated. Once he arrived home from the Hennepin County Courthouse, where he’d been served a gross misdemeanor for spray-painting the interior of a campus elevator, the lanky, wavy-haired University of Minnesota sophomore flipped open his phone and checked his messages. He was greeted by a voice he recognized immediately. It belonged to U of M Police Sgt. Erik Swanson, the officer to whom Carroll had turned himself in just three weeks earlier. When Carroll called back, Swanson asked him to meet at a coffee shop later that day, going on to assure a wary Carroll that he wasn’t in trouble. Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking. “She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.” What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.” Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered. “I’ll pass,” said Carroll. For 10 more minutes, Mazzola and Swanson tried to sway him. He remained obstinate. “Well, if you change your mind, call this number,” said Mazzola, handing him her card with her cell phone number scribbled on the back. (Mazzola, Swanson, and the FBI did not return numerous calls seeking comment.) Carroll’s story echoes a familiar theme. During the lead-up the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, the NYPD’s Intelligence Division infiltrated and spied on protest groups across the country, as well as in Canada and Europe. The program’s scope extended to explicitly nonviolent groups, including street theater troupes and church organizations. There were also two reported instances of police officers, dressed as protestors, purposefully instigating clashes. At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the NYPD orchestrated a fake arrest to incite protestors. When a blond man was “arrested,” nearby protestors began shouting, “Let him go!” The helmeted police proceeded to push back against the crowd with batons and arrested at least two. In a similar instance, during an April 29, 2005, Critical Mass bike ride in New York, video footage captured a “protestor”—in reality an undercover cop—telling his captor, “I’m on the job,” and being subsequently let go. Minneapolis’s own recent Critical Mass skirmish was allegedly initiated by two unidentified stragglers in hoods—one wearing a handkerchief over his or her face—who “began to make aggressive moves” near the back of the pack. During that humid August 31 evening, officers went on to arrest 19 cyclists while unleashing pepper spray into the faces of bystanders. The hooded duo was never apprehended. In the scuffle’s wake, conspiracy theories swirled that the unprecedented surveillance—squad cars from multiple agencies and a helicopter hovering overhead—was due to the presence of RNC protesters in the ride. The MPD publicly denied this. But during the trial of cyclist Gus Ganley, MPD Sgt. David Stichter testified that a task force had been created to monitor the August 31 ride and that the department knew that members of an RNC protest group would be along for the ride. “This is all part of a larger government effort to quell political dissent,” says Jordan Kushner, an attorney who represented Ganley and other Critical Mass arrestees. “The Joint Terrorism Task Force is another example of using the buzzword ‘terrorism’ as a basis to clamp down on people’s freedoms and push forward a more authoritarian government.” |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | May 27 2008, 11:37 PM Post #134 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Good article: http://keyholepublishing.com/Orwellian%20America.htm |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | May 27 2008, 11:43 PM Post #135 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
Weather warfare Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, says Michel Chossudovsky Date:22/05/2008 Author:Michel Chossudovsky Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use. Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world. Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes: ‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’ In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’ While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices. The HAARP Programme Established in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona, Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas that transmit, through high-frequency radio waves, massive amounts of energy into the ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere). Their construction was funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Operated jointly by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. According to its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu, HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site’. But Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’. Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar. According to a report by the Russian State Duma: ‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’ An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions. Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries. HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents, and British Aerospace Systems (BAES). The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defence giants. The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994. E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a nuclear war’. Subsequently acquired by Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest intelligence contractors in the World. BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research. The installation of 132 highfrequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. The project, according to a July report in Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s Electronic Warfare division. In September it received DARPA’s top award for technical achievement for the design, construction and activation of the HAARP array of antennas. The HAARP system is fully operational and in many regards dwarfs existing conventional and strategic weapons systems. While there is no firm evidence of its use for military purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP is an integral part of the militarisation of space. One would expect the antennas already to have been subjected to routine testing. Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’. This mandate includes environmental warfare. ‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists. ‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Michel Chossudovsky is a Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and an editor at the Centre for Research on Globalization, www.globalresearch.ca |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | May 28 2008, 02:39 PM Post #136 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
sounds like total science fiction to me, doesnt sound that plausible, at least I hope it isnt. Especially earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by the plates shifting and crashing against or rubbing against or spreading apart from each other. How the hell can they make the plates shift? but if this is for real, totally FUCKED UP
|
![]() |
|
| Julesy | May 28 2008, 08:36 PM Post #137 |
|
deliciously domestic
|
THEY can do anything. For fucks sake they made Bush president. TWICE! |
![]() |
|
| Jane | May 28 2008, 08:54 PM Post #138 |
|
Board Bitch!
|
Stupid war. That's my short answer! Seriously though, when I think about it modern warfare in simple terms it's just a form of bullying another country to do what they want. They have to submit or innocent people will be wiped out by severe weather or nuclear weapons. Why do those ideas even come into people's heads? |
![]() |
|
| la anaconda de chocolatee | May 28 2008, 09:10 PM Post #139 |
|
Skittle Skank
|
I know Jane. What makes people want to even do that to all of humanity? How evil you must be to be that greedy and power hungry |
![]() |
|
| Denovissimus | Jun 3 2008, 06:44 PM Post #140 |
|
Immortal Heretic
|
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...s_allseeing_eye |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Rowan ruminates · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:08 PM Jul 11
|
Infinite Results.
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy







2:08 PM Jul 11