Monday, July 28, 2008

US Secret Biowarfare Agenda

The Bush Administration's Secret Biowarfare Agenda
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, July 28, 2008
When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it's:
-- spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;
-- renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;
-- abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;
-- refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles - already dangerously too high;
-- spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;
-- advocates preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" and remaking the world to be like America;
-- rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research - a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;
-- GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits "the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons....;" on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention's implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes - the genetic constitution of individual organisms.
A Brief Modern History of Biowarfare
-- the Hague Convention of 1907 bans chemical weapons;
-- WW I use of poison gas causes 100,000 deaths and 900,000 injuries;
-- Britain uses poison gas against Iraqis in the 1920s; as Secretary of State for War in 1919, Winston Churchill advocates it in a secret memo stating: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes;"
-- the 1928 Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare;
-- in 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads infects human subjects with cancer cells - under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations; Rhoads later conducts radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients;
-- in 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins on 200 black men; they're not told of their illness, are denied treatment, and are used as human guinea pigs to follow their disease symptoms and progression; they all subsequently die;
-- in 1935, the Pellagra Incident occurs; after millions die over two decades, the US Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease;
-- In 1935 - 1936, Italy uses mustard gas in conquering Ethiopia;
-- In its 1936 invasion, Japan uses chemical weapons against China; in the same year, a German chemical lab produces the first nerve agent, Tabun;
-- in 1940, 400 Chicago prisoners are infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs;
-- the US has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s; in 1941, it implements a secret program to develop offensive and allegedly defensive bioweapons using controversial testing methods; most research and development is at Fort Detrick, MD; beginning in 2008, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs will also conduct it; production and testing are at Pine Bluff, AR and Dugway Proving Ground, UT;
-- from 1942 - 1945, (US) Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on about 4000 servicemen;
-- in 1943, the US begins biological weapons research at Fort Detrick, MD;
-- in 1944, the US Navy uses human subjects (locked in chambers) to test gas masks and clothing;
-- during WW II, Germany uses lethal Zyklon-B gas in concentration camp exterminations; the Japanese (in Unit 731) conduct biowarfare experiments on civilians;
-- in 1945, German offenders get immunity under Project Paperclip; Japanese ones as well - in exchange for their data and (for Germans at least) to work on top secret government projects in the US;
-- in 1945, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) implements "Program F;" it's the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoride - a key chemical component in atomic bomb production; it's one of the most toxic chemicals known and causes marked adverse central nervous system effects; in the interest of national security and not undermining full-scale nuclear weapons production, the information is suppressed; fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods; compounds of the substance are also commonly used for cavity-prevention, but few people understand its toxicity;
-- in 1946, VA hospital patients become guinea pigs for medical experiments;
-- in 1947, the US has germ warfare weapons; Truman withdraws the 1928 Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration; it's not ratified until 1974 and is now null and void under George Bush;
-- in 1947, the AEC's Colonel EE Kirkpatrick issues secret document #07075001; it states that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects;
-- in July 1947, the CIA is established; it begins LSD experiments on civilian and military subjects with and without their knowledge - to learn its use as an intelligence weapon;
-- in 1949, the US Army releases biological agents in US cities to learn the effects of a real germ warfare attack; tests continue secretly through at least the 1960s in San Francisco, New York, Washington, DC, Panama City and Key West, Florida, Minnesota, other midwest locations, along the Pennsylvania turnpike and elsewhere; more on outdoor testing below;
-- after the (official) 1950 Korean War outbreak, North Korea and China accuse the US of waging germ warfare; an outbreak of disease the same year in San Francisco apparently is from Army bacteria released in the city; residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms;
-- in 1950, the DOD begins open-air nuclear weapons detonations in desert areas, then monitors downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates;
-- in 1951, African-Americans are exposed to potentially fatal stimulants as part of a race-specific fungal weapons test in Virginia;
-- in 1953, the US military releases clouds of zinc cadium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, Canada, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, VA - to determine how efficiently chemical agents can be dispersed;
-- in 1953, joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in New York and San Francisco - exposing tens of thousands of people to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii;
-- in 1953, the CIA initiates Project MKULTRA - an 11 year research program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that can be used for mind control and behavior modification; unwitting human subjects are used;
-- in 1955, the CIA releases bacteria from the Army's Tampa, FL biological warfare arsenal - to test its ability to infect human populations;
-- from 1955 - 1958, the Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research (on over 1000 subjects) - to study its effect as an incapacitating agent;
-- in 1956, the US military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, GA and Avon Park, FL - to test the health effects on victims;
-- in 1956, Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, specifically states bio-chemical warfare isn't banned;
-- in 1960, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence authorizes LSD field tested in Europe and the Far East;
-- in 1961, the Kennedy administration increases chemical spending from $75 - $330 million; it authorizes Project 112 - a secret program (from 1962 - 1973) to test the effects of biological and chemical weapons on thousands of unwitting US servicemen; Project SHAD was a related project; subjects were exposed to VX, tabun, sarin and soman nerve gases plus other toxic agents;
-- in 1962, chemical weapons are loaded on planes for possible use during the Cuban missile crisis;
-- in 1966, the New York subway system is used for a germ warfare experiment;
-- in 1968, the Pentagon considers using some of its chemical weapons (including nerve gas) against civil rights and anti-war protesters;
-- in 1969, an apparent nerve agent kills thousands of sheep in Utah; Nixon issues two National Security Memoranda in 1969 and 1970; the first (in November 1969) ends production and offensive use of lethal and other type biological and chemical weapons; it confines "bacteriological/biological research for defensive purposes" and has other loopholes as well; the second (in February 1970) orders existing stockpiles destroyed, confines "toxins....research and development (to) defensive purposes only," and declares only small quantities will be maintained to develop vaccines, drugs and diagnostics - a huge exploitable loophole;
-- in 1969, the General Assembly bans herbicide plant killers and tear gases in warfare; the US is one of three opposing votes; despite being banned, open-air testing intermittently continues to the present, and the Pentagon apparently authorized it in its most recent annual report; it calls for developmental and operational "field testing of (CBW) full systems," not just simulations, and followed it up in a recent March 2008 test; in Crystal City, VA, it released perflourocarbon tracers and sulfur hexaflouride assuring residents it's safe; it's not and may harm persons with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory ailments;
-- in 1969, DOD's Dr. Robert MacMahan requests $10 million to develop a synthetic biological agent for which no natural immunity exists;
-- from the 1960s through at least the 1980s, the US assaults Cuba with biological agent attacks;
-- in 1970, US Southeast Asian forces conduct Operation Tailwind using sarin nerve gas in Laos; many die, including civilians; Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Joint Chiefs Chairman, confirmes the raid on CNN in 1998; under Pentagon pressure, CNN retracts the report and fires award-winning journalist Peter Arnett and co-producers April Oliver and Jack Smith because they refuse to disavow their report;
-- in 1971, US forces end direct use of Agent Orange in Southeast Asia; also in 1971 with CIA help, an anti-Castro paramilitary group introduces African swine fever into Cuba; it infects a half a million pigs and results in their destruction; a few months later a similar attack fails against Cuban poultry; in 1981, a covert US operation unleashes a type 2 dengue fever outbreak - the first in the Caribbean since the turn of the century involving hemorrhagic shock on a massive scale; over 300,000 cases are reported, including 158 fatalities;
-- in 1975, the Senate Church Committee confirms from a CIA memorandum that US "defensive" bioweapons are stockpiled at Fort Detrick, MD - including anthrax, encephalitis, tuberculosis, shellfish toxin, and food poisons;
-- in 1980, Congress approves a nerve gas facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas;
-- during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the US supplies Iraq with toxic biological and chemical agents; Ronald Reagan signs a secret order to do "whatever (is) necessary and 'legal' " to prevent Iraq from losing the war;" a 1994 congressional inquiry later finds that dozens of biological agents were shipped, including various strains of anthrax and precursors of nerve gas (like sarin), gangrene, and West Nile virus;
-- in 1984, Reagan orders M55 rockets retooled to contain high-yield explosives and VX gas; his administration begins researching and developing biological agents allegedly for "defensive purposes;"
-- in 1985 and 1986, the US resumes open-air biological agents testing; it likely never stopped;
-- in 1987, Congress votes to resume chemical weapons production;
-- in 1989, 149 nations at the Paris Chemical Weapons Conference condemn these weapons; after signing the treaty, it's revealed that the US plans to produce poison gas; at the UN, GHW Bush reaffirms the US commitment to eliminate chemical weapons in 10 years; the US implements the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 - "to implement....the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction....;"
-- in 1990, GHW Bush signs the 1989 act making it illegal for the US to develop, possess or use biological weapons; Bush also signs Executive Order 12735 stating: the spread of chemical and biological weapons constitutes an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;"
-- following the Gulf War, reports surface about US forces' health problems - later called Gulf War Syndrome; the likely cause - widespread use of depleted uranium, other toxic substances, and the illegal use (on nearly 700,000 theater forces) of experimental vaccines in violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation; over 12,000 have since died and over 30% are now ill from non-combat-related factors; they've since filed claims with the VA for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits;
-- in 1997, Cuba accuses the US of spraying crops with biological agents;
-- in 1997, the US ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) banning the production, stockpile and use of these substances;
-- in 2001, the Bush administration rejects the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) citing 38 problems with it, some called serious; claiming a need to counter chemical and biological weapons threats, it's spending multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile "first-strike" chemical and biological weapons that endanger homeland security and threaten good relations with other countries;
-- all along, a BWC loophole allows appropriate types and amounts of biological agents to be used for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes" - construed to be defensive; it also permits "research," not "development;" the CIA took full advantage to conduct programs for offense, not defense or to further peace; further, the BWC includes nothing about genetic engineering because it didn't exist at the time...

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

No smoking hot spot

No smoking hot spot
David Evans July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Vaccines and Autism

Vaccines and Autism - The science and the politics
Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008
Children of the current generation receive 24 mandatory vaccinations. A generation ago, only 10 were required.

Through vaccinations, children receive 400x the amount of mercury deemed safe by the FDA.
The Hep B routinely given to newborns contains so much mercury preservative that it would normally only be considered safe under standard medical guidelines to give to a 275 pound adult.
Why is this going on?
Politics and corruption. In the White House, in Congress, in the FDA, in the medical establishment and in the pharmaceutical industry.

Simple guidelines:
1. Never bring your child to be immunized if he or she is already ill
2. Do not allow the doctor to load your child up on multiple immunizations on a single visit just because it is more convenient for him, the doctor.
3. Avoid all unnecessary vaccinations. Make the doctor explain to you in detail the justification for every single one she recommends. They research it before you go ahead.
4. If you feel you must comply, delay them as long as possible to give your child time to grow.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

What Global Warming?

What Global Warming?
Such as it was is over
by Phil Brennan Global Research, July 22, 2008
Fact: All history reveals that time after time this planet of ours has experienced periods of warming and periods of cooling. A century of slight global warming, about half a degree, ended in 1998.
Fact: In this century a global cooling has set in. In 2008 most of the northern hemisphere, except for Western Europe, is coming out of what most scientists say has been the harshest winter in decades.
Malta, Israel, China and India's New Delhi have been subjected to record low temperatures. In Afghanistan, more than 900 people and 316,000 head of cattle died as a result of bitter cold weather according to Reuters.
In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon 13 top scientists including one Nobel Prize winner, pointed to the fact that while CO2 levels have continued to rise, global temperatures have fallen, dramatically contradicting the claim that CO2 levels cause global warming. They wrote that the UN Climate change Panel "must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices - Policies based on False science must be ended."
Meteorologist Anthony Watts says that the total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough, he says, to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.
In a news conference held in Orlando, Florida John L. Casey, Director of the Space and Science Research Center, issued a landmark declaration on climate change.
“In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of the past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.”

Fact: Lack of Sunspot activity portends the onset of global cooling. The sunspot number should stand close to 100; instead it's zero
The level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years," said Ian Wilson, lead author of a study appearing in the June issue of PASA, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.
The result is a strong, rapid pulse of global cooling, said Wilson. "On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by 1 - 2 C.”
"A 2 C drop would be twice as large as all the warming the earth has experienced since the start of the industrial era, and would be significant enough to impact global agriculture output."
Got it? Global warming, such as it was, is over. Done with. Kaput.
That however, had failed to dampen the enthusiasm of the global warming fear mongers. It has, instead, fueled a spate of often ludicrous claims of an impending planetary disaster due to alleged global warming. As meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman has said all the proponents of global warming can do is to lamely suggest that global warming has gone on vacation and is taking a ten-year hiatus on account of the absence of sun spots. “If this weren’t so serious it would be laughable” Coleman said.
“It is the greatest scam in history, he said. "I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global warming; it is a scam. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion (sic) of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environment whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon, they claimed to be a consensus.”
Yet the beat goes on, and gets more ludicrous with one member of Congress actually telling a bunch of kids that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and led to the deaths of Americans in the Blackhawk Down espoused in Somalia. He forgot to mention it also causes tooth decay, body odor and underarm perspiration.
Global warming is clearly over, yet Al Gore and his acolytes keep warning us that the planet is heating up even as it continues to get colder.
One definition of insanity is the compulsion to make the same mistake over and over again all the while expecting a different and successful outcome.
If that suggests that Al Gore and his fellow global warming fantasists are nuts, well , ...

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Oil Prices

Why do the US and UK Governments allow the financiers to trade in oil on the commodity markets? If they were seriously concerned about the poor public and industry suffering, these markets would be CLOSED. They are one of the chief reasons oil prices have gone through the roof, along with the dollar's devaluation. There is NOT any sudden shortage of supplies - it is greedy speculators making their fortunes out of our misery!!!

Monday, July 14, 2008

Nuclear Iran

The fact is that Iran is not doing anything illegal under international law. Just as USA and UK are wanting to expand their nuclear power plants for energy in the future, Iran needs an alternative source of electricity from nuclear power, without being dependent on the whims of the West supplying the source material. Otherwise the West could blackmail them by withholding this material at any time.

US and UK media are being constantly manipulated to portray Iran as the 'enemy' without any evidence to back it up. The UN Security Council with the help of the EU are illegally pursuing this illegal campaign with sanctions!!!

Sunday, July 13, 2008

David Icke

David Icke - Big Brother, the Big Picture (July 6th 2008)

Turning of the Tide

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Iran Sees Nuclear Bomb as Deterrent

Iran Sees Nuclear Bomb as Deterrent
By July 12, 2008
Iran does not intend to build a nuclear bomb, unless it is confronted with an external threat, according to Muhammad Sahimi, the National Iranian Oil Company chair in petroleum engineering and a professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

“Iran wants to put itself in a position such that if an international crisis arises and there is an external threat to the national security of Iran, Iran can be in a position to make a nuclear weapon in an emergency as a deterrent against a foreign threat,” said Sahimi, who has written extensively on Iran’s nuclear program.

"Otherwise, Iran has no intention whatsoever of making a nuclear weapon, because Iranian leaders are fully aware that if they cross the line and somehow they make nuclear weapon, that will start a very bad nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which will ultimately will not be in Iran's benefit or in any body's benefit in that region," Sahimi said, who is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Double standards of our ‘war on terror’

Double standards of our ‘war on terror’
Friday, July 11th, 2008
Truth about our covert alliances shatters the West’s cosy moral universe, says Matthew Carr

Western governments like to depict terrorism as a uniquely moral evil which democratic states do not engage in. But history is filled with instances in which even democratic governments have sanctioned or perpetrated acts of violence that would ordinarily be described as ‘terrorist’, from bombings and assassinations to black ops and ‘dirty wars’.

Consider the latest report by US journalist Seymour Hersh on the Bush administration’s secret war inside Iran. According to Hersh in the New Yorker, US Special Forces are supporting a number of violent organisations in Iran, including a Sunni fundamentalist group called the Jundallah whose followers, according to one US academic, “attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists”.

These revelations follow Britain’s recent removal of the National Resistance Council of
Iran from its list of proscribed terrorist organisations. The Resistance Council is generally considered a front for the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), an enigmatic Marxist-Islamist group based in Iraq which carried out dozens of attacks on Iran over the years with the support of Saddam.

As well as bombings and assassinations of Iranian state officials, the MEK is accused of killing Americans, and aiding Saddam’s 1991 repression of the Kurds and Shia. In the build-up to the Iraq war these activities were cited by the Bush administration as evidence of Saddam Hussein’s supposed sponsorship of ‘international terrorism’. Today the MEK appears to have become a US asset in a new war against Iran.

Covert operations are generally carried out by unaccountable sectors within the state machinery that conduct their activities beneath a veneer of ‘plausible deniability’. Such operations owe more to Machiavelli than they do to Mother Teresa and they tend to make use of whatever groups are available to inflict maximum carnage on their opponents. These alliances can also bite back viciously on their sponsors with occasionally devastating consequences. Both the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings and the 9/11 attacks were carried out by jihadist cells connected to the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan.

How many of those who now warn of the dangers of ‘Islamofascism’ recall the days when the CIA and its Pakistani and Saudi surrogates secretly funded the reactionary Islamic fundamentalist groups that ultimately spawned al-Qaeda? The largest covert operation in US history was carried out, in the words of one of its architects, “to make Russia bleed”. Russia did bleed and so did Afghanistan. The Bush administration’s new allies in Iran are clearly making other people bleed and they may yet produce equally unwelcome consequences for those who sponsor them.

We should not be surprised by these alliances. No matter how much governments may abhor terrorism in public, the covert machinery of the modern state tends to define its allies in terms of their enemies, rather than their methods.

For decades, Israeli propaganda routinely reviled Yasser Arafat’s Fatah organisation as a bloodthirsty terrorist gang comparable to the Nazis. In the last two years, both Israel and the US have armed Fatah in order to undermine Hamas, which has now taken the place of the PLO in the pantheon of evil.

Such twists and turns are not unique to Western states, but the West has been remarkably effective in presenting ‘terrorism’ as a kind of morality play of good vs evil. Such presentations reinforce the false sense of innocence that is intrinsic to the ‘War on Terror’, with its fairytale narratives of monstrous enemies who hate us because of our intrinsic goodness.

Beyond this cosy moral universe lies a less appealing picture, in which both states and the ‘terrorist organisations’ they fight act in accordance with the bleakest realpolitik, not morality. If we want to understand better the savage times we live in, we should talk less about ‘values’ and take a more honest look at the hidden sewers underlying our international system, where Special Forces and the Jundallah find common cause.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Biofuel Cause of World Food Crisis

World Bank Secret Report confirms Biofuel Cause of World Food Crisis
by F. William Engdahl Global Research, July 10, 2008
A secret study by the World Bank, which reportedly has not been made public on pressure from the Bush Administration, concludes that bio-fuel cultivation in especially the USA and EU are directly responsible for the current explosion in grain and food prices worldwide. The US Government at the recent Rome UN Food Summit claimed that "only 3% of food prices" were due to bio-fuels. The World Bank secret report says that at least 75% of the recent price rises are due to land being removed from agriculture—mainly maize in North America and rapeseed and corn in the EU—in order to grow crops to be burned for vehicle fuel. The World Bank study confirms what we wrote more than a year ago about the madness of bio-fuels. It fits the agenda described in the 1970’s by Henry Kissinger, namely, ‘If you control the food you control the people.’

According to the London Guardian newspaper which has been given a copy of the suppressed report, the World Bank study was completed in April, well before the June Rome Food Summit, but was deliberately suppressed as "embarrassing to the position of the Bush Administration." The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, is a former top Bush Administration official. Washington is trying to use a crisis which its bio-fuel subsidies created, since a new Farm bill passed in 2005, to advance the spread of Genetically Manipulated Organisms such as GMO maize, soybeans, rice and other crops patented by Monsanto and other "gene giants."

Their strategy is to use the explosive rise in grain prices worldwide, a rise fuelled by hedge funds and troubled US and European banks and investment funds pouring billions of dollars into speculation that grain prices will continue to soar. In other words, the food "crisis" is a crisis of speculation in food futures. The planned EU and USA bio-fuel acreage quotas and the periodic droughts and floods in key growing regions such as the USA Midwest then provide backdrop for speculative price run-ups. But the main driver is that tens of millions of hectares of prime agriculture land in the world’s two largest food export regions—the USA and the EU-- are being permanently removed from food production in order to grow raw material to be burned for vehicle fuel...

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

EMF, EMR, Our Brains and the Weather - What's the link?

EMF, EMR, Our Brains and the Weather - What's the link?
Tuesday, July 08, 2008 by: Michael Cambray
(NaturalNews) Thinking deeply about the current scare campaign on global warming and the latest 'natural' disasters occurring around the world, it is becoming more and more obvious, in my opinion, that these 'natural' disasters are anything but natural.It has been proven throughout the ages that for every action there is a reaction and we are playing games with Mother Nature at our peril.It seems there are very few people associating the massive increase in the use of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) with changes in the environment.We are very susceptible to the electrical environment. It has been firmly established by scientists testing mobile phones, computers and all similar products that EMF and EMR disrupt the body's cell growth mechanism, disturbing the brain, nervous and immune systems.The ever-growing sources of radiation in our everyday lives that can cause major problems to our health include power-lines, computers, hi-fi radios, I-pods, televisions, mobile phones and towers, satellites, x-rays, radios, fluorescent lighting, microwave ovens, electric blankets, all domestic appliances and wiring in the home. From a television alone there are ELF, VLF, infrared, ultraviolet rays, microwaves and radio waves.As biological stress occurs on a cellular level and you cannot see it, it doesn't mean it's not there!Have you ever wondered where all these EMF and EMR waves go?Think about it for a moment. There are electrical waves flowing around us and through us without a pause wherever we are, awake or asleep, indoors or outdoors and they are increasing daily.Seriously... do they just fade away? Do they gather momentum and get stronger? Do they keep going for eternity? Do they float off into the universe? They have to do something, go somewhere -- surely everything has got to go somewhere? Is this a silly question? I don't think so.If it affects us individually, then what snowball effect is all this extreme radiation having on the climate of our world?Further on this subject here is a story concerning an episode that apparently took place several years ago and was authenticated by the BBC T.V. in London at the time. It appears that a whole host of unrelated people all over the Midlands of the U.K. experienced an odd phenomenon. All at the same time, during a BBC program, people lost the BBC picture and received instead, for over an hour, an American television program from Houston in Texas.On receiving many queries and complaints (with some confirming videos people took of the program), the BBC reportedly investigated and found that the American program was over three years old and that the Houston station no longer existed! They ruled out the possibility of a hoax and admitted they could not explain the odd happening.Three years? Where were these pictures for those three years? What were they doing? We know where they came from, where were they going?That is an interesting report, as it seems to support my theory that these EMF waves do not dissipate. They just keep going around and around. To me this could explain one of the many reasons for the alarming increase in world mental health problems, emotional problems and weather patterns. After all, they must eventually affect our brains and the atmosphere at some level and that level is constantly rising.I find the possibility of there being some truth in these theories fascinating. What do you think?Michael is a naturopath of 30 years experience and has been studying the effects of EMF and EMR for the past 8 years. Michael would welcome any constructive comments.
About the author: Michael Cambray is a retired naturopath and has accumulated specialised knowledge of many alternative health subjects over the past thirty years. Michael has diplomas in many alternative subjects and has published 13 books on various topics plus a popular Australian monthly newsletter.

David Icke - Big Brother, the Big Picture (Hull July 2008)

Friday, July 04, 2008

Dangers of Biofuels

Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis
Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive
Aditya Chakrabortty The Guardian, Friday July 4, 2008
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.
The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.
The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.
The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.
It will also put pressure on the British government, which is due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, the Gallagher Report. The Guardian has previously reported that the British study will state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels. Although it was expected last week, the report has still not been released.
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".
President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."
Even successive droughts in Australia, calculates the report, have had a marginal impact. Instead, it argues that the EU and US drive for biofuels has had by far the biggest impact on food supply and prices.
Since April, all petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include 2.5% from biofuels. The EU has been considering raising that target to 10% by 2020, but is faced with mounting evidence that that will only push food prices higher.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.
It argues that production of biofuels has distorted food markets in three main ways. First, it has diverted grain away from food for fuel, with over a third of US corn now used to produce ethanol and about half of vegetable oils in the EU going towards the production of biodiesel. Second, farmers have been encouraged to set land aside for biofuel production. Third, it has sparked financial speculation in grains, driving prices up higher.
Other reviews of the food crisis looked at it over a much longer period, or have not linked these three factors, and so arrived at smaller estimates of the impact from biofuels. But the report author, Don Mitchell, is a senior economist at the Bank and has done a detailed, month-by-month analysis of the surge in food prices, which allows much closer examination of the link between biofuels and food supply.
The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact.
Supporters of biofuels argue that they are a greener alternative to relying on oil and other fossil fuels, but even that claim has been disputed by some experts, who argue that it does not apply to US production of ethanol from plants.
"It is clear that some biofuels have huge impacts on food prices," said Dr David King, the government's former chief scientific adviser, last night. "All we are doing by supporting these is subsidising higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change."

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Global Warming Movement Turns Cool

Global Warming Movement Turns Cool
June 22, 2008, 3:44 pm James Spann
Let me warn you, this is a little longer than my usual posts here, but it was prompted by a big op-ed article in the Birmingham News this morning. Take the time to read it, if you dare. Seems like our local paper has settled on one side of the climate change debate, which is certainly their right. But, I have the right to publish this article as well….
Two years ago, it seemed like nothing could stop the global warming train. Most of the media, those in Hollywood, politicians (many on both sides of the cultural divide), and “enlightened environmentalists” were all telling us that man was causing runaway warming of the earth’s atmosphere, meaning global catastrophe only decades ahead for all of us.
Scary stuff.
The problem is that a majority of those in this almost religious movement have little training in atmospheric science, and little understanding of the issue. They jumped on the bandwagon because it matches their worldview, or pads their pocket. This issue has generated great wealth on both sides of the argument, and I need to say up front I have absolutely no financial interest in climate. I am paid the same regardless of whether man is involved in climate change or not, and I have never taken a dime for a speech on the subject.
The simple truth is that the anthropogenic global warming train has slowed to a crawl, and the riders are jumping off as the facts are discovered.
What is the truth? Lets begin with something we all can agree on. The climate IS changing. It has always changed, it is changing now, and it will always change.
Beyond that, here are some simple facts that make those left on the global warming train very uncomfortable:
*The earth is no warmer now than it was in 1998.*Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas indispensable to plant life. Plants, in turn, release oxygen, which sustains animal and human life.*The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.*The lack of solar activity in recent months suggests global cooling might be our biggest potential climate change problem in coming years.*The planet has had weather disasters, extremes, and anomalies since it has been here. We just didn’t have 24 hour news channels and the Internet in prior decades to spread the news.
I have been doing the weather on local television for 30 years, and EVERY YEAR I have had people come up to me and tell me that they can “never remember the weather being this strange”.
Most of those that you see and hear speaking on the subject have little scientific knowledge. Here is a quote from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, from an article he penned recently:
“Alarmists like Al Gore will use pseudo-scientific justifications and comparisons in their attempt to make a connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Even though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, the alarmists insist on calling it a pollutant, referring to our atmosphere as an “open sewer.” For instance, Gore likes to point out that Venus has far more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth does, and its surface is hot enough to melt lead. Therefore, more CO2 causes warming. But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero. So you see, in science a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
Dr. James McClintock (marine biologist at UAB) today, in an op-ed piece published by the Birmingham News, claims that Antarctica is “warming quickly”. Dr. McClintock, I am sure, is an excellent marine biologist, and I would not even make an effort to challenge his knowledge of that science. But, what is his background in atmospheric science? And, where does that claim come from?...