Activist Post

Will Iran Be Attacked?

2012-02-08T06:15:00.000-08:00

Paul Craig Roberts
Activist Post

Washington has made tremendous preparations for a military assault on Iran. There is speculation that Washington has called off its two longest running wars--Iraq and Afghanistan--in order to deploy forces against Iran. Two of Washington’s fleets have been assigned to the Persian Gulf along with NATO warships. Missiles have been spread amongst Washington’s Oil Emirate and Middle Eastern puppet states. US troops have been deployed in Israel and Kuwait.

Washington has presented Israel a gift from the hard-pressed American taxpayers of an expensive missile defense system, money spent for Israel when millions of unassisted Americans have lost their homes. As no one expects Iran to attack Israel, except in retaliation for an Israeli attack on Iran, the purpose of the missile defense system is to protect Israel from an Iranian response to Israeli aggression against Iran.

Juan Cole has posted on his blog a map showing 44 US military bases surrounding Iran.

In addition to the massive military preparations, there is the propaganda war against Iran that has been ongoing since 1979 when Washington’s puppet, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown by the Iranian revolution. Iran is surrounded, but Washington and Israeli propaganda portray Iran as a threatening aggressor nation. In fact, the aggressors are the Washington and Tel Aviv governments which constantly threaten Iran with military attack.

Neocon warmongers, such as David Goldman, compare the Iranian president to Hitler and declare that only war can stop him.

Washington’s top military officials have created the impression that an act of Israeli aggression against Iran is a done deal. On February 2 the Washington Post reported that Pentagon chief Leon Panetta believes that Israel is likely to attack Iran in two to four months.

Also on February 2, Gareth Porter reported that General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed the Israeli government that the US would not join Israel’s aggression against Iran unless Washington had given prior approval for the attack.

Porter interprets Dempsey’s warning as a strong move by President Obama to deter an attack that would involve Washington in a regional conflagration with Iran. A different way to read Dempsey’s warning is that Obama wants to hold off on attacking Iran until polls show him losing the presidential election. It has generally been the case that the patriotic electorate does not turn out a president who is at war.

On February 5, President Obama canceled Dempsey’s warning to Israel when Obama declared that he was in “lockstep” with the Israeli government. Obama is in lockstep with Israel despite the fact that Obama told NBC that “we don’t see any evidence that they [Iran] have those intentions [attacks on the US] or capabilities.” By being in lockstep with Israel and simultaneously calling for a “diplomatic solution,” Obama appeased both the Israel Lobby and Democratic peace groups, thus upping his vote.

As I wrote previously, this spring is a prime time for attacking Iran, because there is a good chance that Russia will be in turmoil because of its March election. The Russian opposition to Putin is financed by Washington and encouraged by Washington’s statements, especially those of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Whether Putin wins or there is an indecisive result and a run-off election, Washington’s money will put tens of thousands of Russians into the streets, just as Washington’s money created the “Green Revolution” in Iran to protest the presidential elections there.

On February 4 the former left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian, reported a pre-election protest by 120,000 anti-Putin demonstrators marching in Moscow and demanding “fair elections.” In other words, Washington already has its minions declaring that a win by Putin in March can only signify a stolen election. The problem for Obama is that this spring is too early to tell whether his re-election is threatened by a Republican candidate. Going to war prematurely, especially if the result is a stiff rise in oil prices, is not an aid to re-election.

The willingness of peoples around the world to be Washington’s puppets instead of loyal citizens of their own countries is why the West has been able to dominate the world during the modern era. There seems to be an infinite supply of foreign leaders who prefer Washington’s money and favor to loyalty to their own countries’ interests.

As Karl Marx said, money turns everything into a commodity that can be bought and sold. All other values are defeated--honor, integrity, truth, justice, loyalty, even blood kin. Nothing remains but filthy lucre. Money certainly turned UK prime minister Tony Blair into a political commodity.

The power of money was brought home to me many years ago. My Ph.D. dissertation chairman found himself in the Nixon administration as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security affairs. He asked if I would go to Vietnam to administer the aid programs. I was flattered that he thought I had the strength of character to stand up to the corruption that usually defeats the purpose of aid programs, but I declined the assignment.

The conversation was one I will never forget. Warren Nutter was an intelligent person of integrity. He thought regardless of whether the war was necessary that we had been led into it by deception. He thought democracy could not live with deception, and he objected to government officials who were not honest with the American people. Nutter’s position was that a democratic government had to rely on persuasion, not on trickery. Otherwise, the outcomes were not democratic.

As Nutter saw it, we were in a war, and we had involved the South Vietnamese. Therefore, we had obligations to them. If we proved to be feckless, the consequence would be to undermine commitments we had made to other countries in our effort to contain the Soviet Empire. The Soviet Union, unlike the “terrorist threat” had the potential of being a real threat. People who have come of age after the collapse of the Soviet Union don’t understand the cold war era.

In the course of the conversation I asked how Washington got so many other governments to do its bidding. He answered, “Money.”

I asked, “You mean foreign aid?”

He said, “No, bags of money. We buy the leaders.”

He didn’t approve of it, but there was nothing he could do about it.

Purchasing the leadership of their enemies or of potential threats was the Roman way. Timothy H. Parsons in his book, The Rule of Empires, describes the Romans as “deft practitioners of soft power.” Rome preferred to rule the conquered and the potentially hostile through “semiautonomous client kings which the Senate euphemistically termed ‘friends of the Roman people.’ Romans helped cooperative monarchs remain in power with direct payments of coins and material goods. Acceptance of these subsidies signified that an ally deferred to imperial authority, and the Romans interpreted any defiance of their will as an overt revolt. They also intervened freely in local succession disputes to replace unsuitable clients.”

This is the way Washington rules. Washington’s way of ruling other countries is why there is no “Egyptian Spring,” but a military dictatorship as a replacement for Washington’s discarded puppet Hosni Mubarak, and why European puppet states are fighting Washington’s wars of hegemony in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.

Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy funds non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. It is through the operations of NGOs that Washington added the former Soviet Republic of Georgia to Washington’s empire, along with the Baltic States, and Eastern European countries.

Because of the hostility of many Russians to their Soviet past, Russia is vulnerable to Washington’s machinations.

As long as the dollar rules, Washington’s power will rule.

As Rome debased its silver denarius into lead, Rome’s power to purchase compliance faded away. If “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke inflates away the purchasing power of the dollar, Washington’s power will melt away also.

This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts' new website Institute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

Read other contributed articles by Paul Craig Roberts here.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Time to Act on Companies Selling Mass Spy Gear to Authoritarian Regimes

2012-02-08T03:34:00.000-08:00

Trevor Timm
EFF

On Wednesday, EFF will give recommendations to the European Parliament for how to combat one of the most troubling problems facing democracy activists around the world: the fact that European and American companies are providing key surveillance technology to authoritarian governments that is then being used to aid repression.

Recent reports by the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News have exposed the shadowy but growing industry that sells electronic spy gear to governments known for violating human rights. The technology’s reach is very broad: governments can listen in on cell phone calls, use voice recognition to scan mobile networks, read emails and text messages, censor web pages, track one’s every movement using GPS, and can even change email contents while en route to a recipient. Some tools are installed using the same type of malicious malware and spyware used by online criminals to steal credit card and banking information. They can secretly turn on webcams built into personal laptops and microphones in unused cell phones. And all of this information is filtered and organized on such a massive scale that it can be used to spy on every person in an entire country.

Ordinary citizens, journalists, human rights campaigners and democracy advocates have all been targeted, eviscerating privacy rights and chilling free speech. Ample evidence suggests information acquired through this spy gear appears has played a role in the harassment, threats, and even torture of journalists, human rights campaigners, and democracy activists. Yet dozens of companies from the U.S. and E.U continue to sell this technology, including to authoritarian regimes. The market for surveillance equipment has grown to a staggering $5 billion a year.

Dutch member of the EU Parliament Marietje Schaake has been trying to spearhead an effort to curb sales of this type of technology to repressive regimes. In September, the EU parliament passed a resolution proposed by Ms. Schaake which called on European countries to regulate sales of this dangerous surveillance tools if they can be used in human rights violations. She has also asked the European Commission to investigate sales by these companies to the governments of Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia and Egypt. On Wednesday, EFF will be testifying at a workshop for Committee of International Trade and Committee on Foreign Affairs, co-chaired by Ms. Schaake. Here is part of what we will say:

Transparency

First, transparency is key. The mass surveillance industry as a whole has been notoriously secretive and that has, in turn, allowed it to proliferate without meaningful safeguards. But we know that just having this information in the public eye can, by itself, force change. Companies have pulled out of countries and created official human rights policies thanks to news reports. The world program director of I.S.S. Tatiana Lucas even complained that shining a spotlight on these practices “makes U.S. manufacturers gun shy about developing, and eventually exporting, anything that can remotely be used to support government surveillance.” We want to turn up the heat on these companies even more to be accountable for selling to authoritarian regimes.

We encourage the EU commission to act on Ms. Schaake’s request for an investigation into these companies and have them answer questions on the record. The EU Parliament should also consider disclosure requirements, requiring companies to publicize which governments they are selling to (either a full list or a limited list of based on troubling regimes or portions of regimes) and descriptions of the capabilities of their technologies, so an investigative body could follow the money trail to find out exactly whose equipment ends up where and how it is being used.

“Know Your Customer”

But beyond transparency, there is also the question of limiting sales to certain governments or parts of governments. Many have called for such direct legislation of surveillance tools but EFF has not joined that chorus, in part because we recognize how difficult it will be to create rules that both reach the problem and do not create collateral harms.

First and foremost, we want to make sure we do not leave activists with fewer tools than they already have. Parliament must be mindful of legislation just based on types of technology because broadly written regulations could have a net negative affect on the availability of many general-purpose technologies and could easily harm very people that the regulations are trying to protect. As EFF has highlighted before, legal terms used to define harmful technology can often encompass basic technology like web browsers and email servers. We can see this problem in the U.S., where overbroad regulations keep Syrian activists from accessing Google Chrome and Earth, Java, and or hosting services like Rackspace or SuperGreenHosting. It can also harm network security efforts.

So instead of focusing on the technology being sold, we recommend that any formal or informal effort to address the problem of misuse of surveillance technologies look at the government customers as the ultimate chokepoint. To that end, EFF has proposed a “know your customer” framework, based on already existing legal frameworks in the U.S. that can be implemented without significant overhead cost to government or businesses.

Simply put, companies selling surveillance technologies to governments or government providers need to affirmatively investigate and "know their customer" before and during a sale. EFF has already detailed extensive framework for such regulations including questions, definitions, and procedures for how to accomplish it.

It would require companies to comprehensively review everything about a sale of surveillance technology from the negotiations, discussions, background of the buyer, contractual specifications, technical support requests, to State Department and U.N human rights reports and the capability for abuse. Companies would refrain from participating in transactions where their investigations reveal either objective evidence or credible concerns that the technologies provided by the company will be used to facilitate human rights violations. You can read EFF’s full, detailed “know your customer” framework here.

This approach does three things: First, it avoids the many problems with pre-defining technologies, and instead focuses on the uses of the technologies to facilitate human rights abuses. Second it encompasses both government-like entities and sales to third-parties when the technology is likely to pass to repressive governments. This problem has been a frequent excuse from companies engaged in this business and their apologists. Yet in the context of tracking bribes in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other export regulations, the U.S. government, like other governments around the world, have developed tools to help discover these sorts of transactions. Third, because it is based on current regulations that many of the companies involved in selling surveillance equipment to government end users already have to comply with, this approach should not add a heavy regulatory burden.

We hope the EU moves quickly on this problem, as recent reports show it is only getting worse. We also hope the U.S. Congress is listening because with U.S companies sell the same equipment, they are not only undermining own foreign policy in these countries, but destroying the human rights the State Department claims it supports around the world.

When asked by the Guardian if he would be comfortable knowing that regimes in North Korea and Zimbabwe were purchasing this technology from the companies he does business with, Jerry Lucas, president of Telestrategies Inc., said, “That’s just not my job to determine who’s a bad country and who’s a good country. That’s not our business.”

By instituting EFF’s "know our customer" standards, we can make it their business.

Please visit and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation fighting for Internet privacy and freedom.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

The Line Between Selfishness and Self-Interest is Aggression

2012-02-08T02:03:00.000-08:00

All businesses aren't bad, just the selfish ones
Anthony Freda Art

J.G. Vibes
Activist Post

In the midst of the massive financial heists that we see on Wall Street and the wars of conquest that we see from Washington, it is only natural for us to become dismayed with how some people are hurting and manipulating others for their own personal gain.

We all experience self-interest to a certain degree, this seems to be some natural defense mechanism that keeps our bodies moving. This is nothing for anyone to be ashamed of, and it has nothing to do with the destructive behavior that we are talking about here. However, a line is crossed when someone makes the decision to employ force, fraud, coercion or manipulation to achieve their goals.

This is where it seems that the line between “selfishness” and “self-interest” should be drawn. If someone is not using aggressive, manipulative tactics to meet their needs and achieve their goals, then it is safe to say that no crime is being committed, no harm is being done. Every organization throughout history that has exploited people and made a mess of civilization has relied on violent and deceptive means to carry out this exploitation. Every menacing corporation that we see today has not risen to prominence on account of their contributions to society, but rather their ability to prevent their competitors from succeeding. Likewise, every despot and monarch on the face of the earth has been able to subjugate millions on account of the violence or manipulation that was used by themselves or their ancestors.

It seems to me that this way of doing business is not a result of human nature, but simply a consequence of our current establishment. These corporations typically get their way by using the arm of the State to tailor the marketplace according to their needs, which is why all of the biggest corporations always have armies of lobbyists. This is not only a deceptive maneuver, but it is also a violent one because all state demands are enforced under the threat of violence. Thus, allowing dominant corporations to maintain their dominance by legally paying a third party (government enforcers) to make trouble for their rising competition. This is why entrepreneurs have so much trouble competing with bigger corporations, regardless of how much value they offer the community.

The aforementioned actions are without a doubt selfish, as they show the blatant use of force, fraud and manipulation. However, everyone that starts a business with hopes of fulfilling their own self-interest is not behaving selfishly. Obviously, I’m sure that these aren’t the oxford English definitions for these terms, but I felt that they would be perfect in describing how the ethical value of actions are dependent upon the use of aggression or manipulation.

It is extremely important that we make this distinction because self-interest is harmless and exhibited by most if not all human beings, while selfishness is defined by violence, fraud and other rare psychopathic behavior. By removing aggression and manipulation from our encounters with other people, we can actually create a world where win-win encounters are the standard for human interactions.

Win-win encounters are possible but are unfortunately extremely rare because our culture is only built to support win-lose encounters. Hitting people over the head and forcing them to do things is the only conflict resolution technique that is presently being used in our civilization. The only thing that ever changes is who’s holding the club.

This is not the only world that is possible though, I’m sure you can think back on plenty of win-win encounters that you have had in your everyday life. It is totally possible for this to become the norm in society, but it’s only going to happen if we set a standard of non-violence and hold every human being on this earth accountable to the exact same rules.

When there is anyone who is exempt from the rules that everyone else is subject to, a situation is created where those who wish to hurt others will gravitate towards those positions of exemption or “authority”. This creates a chain reaction, wherein other people observe the double standard set by those in authority and are then able to justify their own aggressions against others. If aggression wasn’t exhibited by those in authority as it is, then your average person would have a much harder time rationalizing this kind of behavior when they start to see it in themselves.

To say that the world’s problems are rooted in the self-interest of individuals is at best a red herring, if not blatant disinformation. This seems to be just another defeatist trap that is designed to discourage people from attempting to change the status quo. After all, if we believe that the deplorable state of our civilization is a natural development, then we will have no motivation to create a better world.

J.G. Vibes is an author, and artist -- with an established record label. In addition to featuring a wide variety of activist information, his company -- Good Vibes Promotions promotes for electronic dance music events. You can keep up with him and his forthcoming book Alchemy Of The Modern Renaissance, at his Facebook page. AOTMR will be released this spring, thanks to Leilah Publications. This project features nearly 100 different essays, just like this one, that cover a wide variety of topics. These essays give historical and philosophical insight into the many important issues that our generation faces. From banking cartels and alternative currency to eugenics and the drug war, AOTMR offers a complete and comprehensive breakdown of the counter culture’s struggle.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

SHOCKING: New York Times Publishes Hit Piece Against US Constitution

2012-02-07T20:48:00.000-08:00

The Intel Hub

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.htm?_r=1

RELATED ARTICLE:
FBI Attempts to Make 'Libertarians' the Poster Children for Domestic Extremism

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Chatter Suggests a False Flag Terror Attack is Imminent

2012-02-07T19:45:00.000-08:00

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet

Given the fact that the US and Israel are both yearning for a casus belli to launch an attack on Iran, added to recent history where a staged provocation was considered, and in addition to the innumerable examples of false flags overseen by the Obama administration alone, the threat of staged terror has never been greater.

Unlike the plethora of fake terror alerts that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge admitted were issued for political propaganda, this one is very serious indeed.

The American public are being bombarded with the same propaganda in two similar but separate formats, one that Iran is looking to launch a terror attack on U.S. soil, and two that domestic extremists also pose a violent threat.

However, as recent history tells us, it is the government itself which routinely stages and facilitates violent events in pursuit of its political objectives, therefore the same interests should be the number one suspects if and when violent events occur.

US intelligence officials last week upped the rhetoric against Iran during congressional testimony by claiming that Tehran is prepared to launch reprisal attacks inside the United States.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. cited the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil as a sign that, “Some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

As we documented at the time, according to retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, no information concerning the supposed plot even existed within FBI channels, strongly suggesting the story was manufactured by the Obama administration. The New York Times also reported that the dubious nature of the plot caused “a wave of puzzlement and skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts.”

Advocates of an attack on Iran have implied that the US could stage a provocation as a pretext for a military assault. In January 2008, Dick Cheney’s office considered staging an incident to be blamed on Iran wherein US ships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz were attacked.

Despite the sordid history of lies that were manufactured about weapons of mass destruction, Niger yellowcake and dodgy dossiers to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we’re seeing history repeat itself as the US seeks to exploit another artificial crisis as a pretext to back the Israeli attack on Iran.

Numerous examples since Obama took office illustrate how his administration, and the intelligence agencies that surround it, are by no means reticent to brazenly lie and stage events for political purposes.

Despite the Obama administration’s best efforts to characterize Operation Fast and Furious, an ATF program that sought to put U.S.-based firearms into the hands of Mexican drug smugglers, as little more than a ‘screw up’, the most damning evidence strongly indicates that the whole operation was in fact an attempt to launch a false flag assault on the second amendment rights of the American people.

Obama himself told gun control advocate Sarah Brady last year that his administration was working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment, just months before the Fast and Furious scandal leaked, and at the same time as administration officials were blaming violence in Mexico on the second amendment, when in reality the administration itself was responsible for arming the drug cartels.

A further example of a false flag attempt under the current administration involves the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, who was helped through security, despite him being on a terror watchlist with no passport, by a well dressed Indian man, on Christmas Day 2009.

It later emerged that the State Department was ordered not to revoke Abdulmutallab’s visa by “federal counterterrorism officials” even though the accused bomber had known terrorist ties, in addition to the fact that his own father had warned U.S. intelligence officials of the threat posed by Abdulmutallab a month before the attempted attack.

While the public is being told that terrorists are about to strike on U.S. soil, the U.S. government itself has armed and funded Al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and is now backing Al-Qaeda groups in Iran to carry out bombings and assassinations in an effort to undermine the Ahmadinejad government. The same terrorists used in Libya were also subsequently airlifted into Syria as part of an effort to depose President Bashir Assad.

It is crystal clear that the gigantic anti-terror apparatus itself, created in the aftermath of 9/11, is now being used against the American people, with citizens being trained to spy on each other under the auspices of Homeland Security’s See Something, Say Something campaign. To illustrate the absurdity of how far this reaches, hot dog sellers at the recent Super Bowl were trained by the TSA to spot terrorists.

Both the DHS and the FBI are also characterizing mundane behavior, such as paying for a cup of coffee with cash, using a video camera, talking to police officers, wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application, all as indicators of terrorist activity.

To top it all off, the Obama administration was also instrumental in passing a provision of the NDAA bill which authorizes the military to kidnap and incarcerate US citizens without trial, merely on the accusation that they may be terrorists.

The environment of fear and paranoia that has been created as a result of all this makes fertile ground for the government to stage a crisis or manufacture an emergency situation that will be used to rally the American people around a number of different domestic and geopolitical agendas.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for PrisonPlanet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Mystery: Mass Dolphin Deaths By Beaching

2012-02-07T14:27:00.000-08:00

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

Around 129 dolphins mysteriously beached themselves upon Cape Cod in the last few weeks. The death toll is now up to 92, a bleak fatality rate. The dolphins sustain injuries as they are beached and have little time before organ damage, sunburn, and seagulls take their toll.

Marine biologists are extremely baffled at the unknown cause, as a comparable mass dolphin beaching hasn't happened since the '90s, and the Cape Cod dolphins show no signs of stopping soon.

The speculated causes are weather patterns, tide changes, and the social behavior of dolphins who follow their friends in packs. But what is leading to their confusion?

Usually, when lowering tides cause beaching, more than one type of animal lands ashore. This case is specific to dolphins only, and more have beached themselves in the last three weeks than the combined amount of dolphins beached in a year. That the event is confined to this particular location is odd, too.

Rescue workers take the animals to health trailers and evaluate and tag them to try and detect a pattern in their deaths. So far, there are no patterns. The dolphins have empty stomachs which only tells biologists that they are in fact searching for food, but the mass confusion is still a mystery.

“What we are seeing does not indicate any pattern of disease or injury or lesions that would indicate one particular cause for this event," said Katie Moore of International Fund for Animal Wildlife. “If we have different weather patterns, we could have a different distribution of prey.”

Congress was set to cut funding for these kinds of rescue missions, but Moore briefed the House of Representatives' Natural Resources Sub-committee on Friday and implored more support. They work from a budget under $300,000 annually and have used up to $60,000 for this occurrence alone, excluding time for the 300-plus rescuers, now working around the clock.

IFAW stated on their site:

If scientists do not have the funds to determine the cause of a mass mortality event, there could be a threat to public health without anyone knowing.

HAARP weather technology has come under much scrutiny in recent years, although it is still regarded as the stuff "tinfoil hat wearers" go crazy for. This is unfortunate. The effects of unnatural weather modification (attributed to quakes) go unheeded by most scientists even though weather patterns are often cited for causing and mass animal deaths. Animals like dolphins and birds who are sensitive to both weather changes and electromagnetic frequencies.

Just for the sake of curiosity, take a look at the HAARP locations, and then Google's map of recorded mass animal deaths. Could this pattern be why some have speculated that HAARP should be among the leading theories for the increase in dead birds and fish?

Possible HAARP locations around the world, Jan 8, 2011

Google's recorded mass animal deaths as of Jan 5, 2011

With so many tragic mass animal deaths recently including fish, birds, bees, Tazmanian devils, and dolphins to name a few, it is time for researchers to take a hard honest look at how both technology and natural patterns can combine to create a devastating ecological chain reaction.

Additional Sources:
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/02/number-dolphin-strandings-surpasses-annual-average-less-than-month-cause-remains-mystery/52mCYkNBgWy78ERuct6C4H/index.html
http://www.huliq.com/10061/no-answer-beached-dolphins-dying-cape-cod

Please help us combat censorship: vote for this story on Reddit -- http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/per15/mystery_mass_dolphin_deaths_by_beaching/

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Iran: A Manufactured Threat

2012-02-07T14:24:00.000-08:00

Anthony Freda Art

Stephen Lendman, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Iran has attacked no other country in over 200 years. It threatens none now. Its neighbors know it. So do Washington and Israel.

Nonetheless, saber rattling warnings continue. At issue is making an independent state a client one. It's why Washington orchestrated Syria's insurgency and continues anti-Iranian propaganda.

Tehran won't tolerate losing its sovereignty, nor should it. It suffered a generation of repression under Washington's installed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi after the CIA's first ever coup ousted democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh.

It also knows how America and Israel reign terror throughout the region. As a result, it's prepared to defend itself if attacked.

America's business is war; permanent war for unchallenged global dominance. Post-9/11, multiple ones rage and continue. Ordinary people want them stopped.

On February 4, dozens of anti-war organizations held a "Day of Mass Action to Stop a US War on Iran." Among others, The World Can't Wait announced it headlining, "NO war! NO sanctions! No intervention! No Assassinations."

A press release listed dozens of participating US cities, large and small. Other known countries involved included Canada, Britain, India, Ireland, Turkey, Norway, and Bangladesh.

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark participated. In 1992, he founded the International Action Center (IAC). Calling itself "anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist," it's committed against wars, racism, economic exploitation, and other forms of injustice.

Its web site urged worldwide participation in an "emergency" protest day of action.

Thousands across America alone participated. Follow-up actions are planned. People are fed up and want America's war machine stopped. Vital resources are squandered while growing needs go unaddressed.

Major media scoundrels misreported about Saturday's pro- and anti-government protests in Moscow, but ignored anti-war demonstrations in their own cities and across America.

In fact, they cheerlead Washington's wars. For months, they regurgitated hostile Syrian/Iranian propaganda. Their drumbeat continues daily.

Their misinformation promotes war, mass killing, vast destruction, and human misery. Their reports exclude these and other key facts. Instead they feature agitprop and bald-faced lies about a nonbelligerent state, threatening on one, including America and Israel.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on Anti-Iranian Propaganda

On February 2, FAIR's Peter Hart headlined, "Iran: This is What Propaganda Looks Like," saying:

Like crabgrass infests lawns, it's "everywhere, thanks to a Senate appearance yesterday by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper."

Yet his comments fell far short of justifying heightened anti-Iranian propaganda in response. "His main point was that Iran could launch attacks if it felt threatened." He also cited falsified claims that should have been condemned, not repeated as alleged facts.

For example, he said:

The 2011 plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States shows that some Iran officials - probably including (Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei - have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived US actions that threaten the regime.

At the time, CBS News called the report "dire," saying "Iran would likely launch terrorist attacks on US soil as pressure mounts against the regime in Tehran."

NBC's Matt Lauer asked if an Israeli "preemptive nuclear strike" was justified in response.

Only the Wall Street Journal couldn't stomach the ludicrous charge. Obama officials claimed it was "authorized at the highest levels in Tehran," according to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" analyst Karim Sadjadpour and many other paid-to-lie commentators, reporters, and opinion writers.

In fact, the allegation didn't pass the smell test or others about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program and wanting to wipe Israel off the map.

On February 3, ABC News reported a spurious accusation about potential Iranian strikes in North America, including against Israeli facilities. It cited an Israeli "internal security document," saying:

We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase....on both our guarded sites and 'soft' sites.

Israel's Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States Eliran Avitan circulated the allegation. Recently in Tel Aviv, Shin Bet's Yoram Cohen told an audience that Iran plans targeting Israeli sites in retaliation for Mossad's assassinations of its nuclear scientists.

All accusations are baseless. Yet ABC TV, other broadcasters, and cable channels featured them to generate anti-Iranian hostility.

On January 31, ABC's Diane Sawyer introduced Pentagon correspondent Martha Raddatz's propaganda piece complete with alarmist graphics and unrelated belligerent video footage, saying:

'The saber rattling from Iran has been constant.' Tehran 'may be more ready than ever to launch terror attacks in the United States.'

Unrelated images of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Venezuela's Chavez and Fidel Castro in Cuba were featured, saying these leaders "have little love for the US."

Neither do growing millions worldwide, especially throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan where US policies and officials are reviled with good reason.

Notably, since Iran's 1979 revolution and US hostage crisis, Washington's been spoiling for a fight. The Carter administration considered invading and seizing its oil fields.

Reagan escalated Carter's policies short of committing US forces in combat. Saddam then got US backing. A decade of war followed. America pretended support for both sides, but mostly gave it to Iraq.

US/Iranian relations remain tense. Washington's sought regime change for years. Various confrontational tactics include on and off saber rattling, sanctions, direct and covert meddling in Iran's internal affairs, cyberwar, subversion, targeted assassinations, other destabilization tactics, and vicious propaganda to incite fear and justice war.

Yet major media scoundrels regurgitate it like fact instead of offering readers and viewers truth and full disclosure.

On January 31, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams lied to viewers saying:

'Iran's threat. Not just the nuclear program. Tonight, US intelligence warns Iran may be prepared to strike on American soil.' Referring to Clapper's testimony, he called it a 'chilling new assessment about the scope of the threat from Iran.'

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell added:

'Experts warn that the US is even more vulnerable than Israel if Iran retaliates or launches a preemptive bomb plot....Soft US targets like embassies throughout the Persian Gulf and 90,000 American troops in Afghanistan, next door to Iran' are vulnerable.

Still, intelligence officials told the Senate today they don't think Iran has taken the final step, deciding to build a bomb. But Israel does think Iran has crossed that red line, and US officials say if attacked, Iran would not hesitate to retaliate against both Israel and the US.'

In fact, international law permits responding to belligerent attacks in self-defense. It's not only justified, it obligates nations to protect their people against enemies. US media reports exclude those facts. Instead they generate fear and hostility against nonexistent threats.

Is America headed for war on Iran? Only the fullness of time will tell. Yet heightened tensions make anything ahead possible, especially given Washington's intolerance for independent regimes. Stay tuned. Updates will follow.

Read other articles by Stephen Lendman here.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

The Fed Resumes Printing

2012-02-07T13:41:00.000-08:00

Dees Illustration

Bud Conrad, Chief Economist
Casey Research

The Federal Reserve recently announced important policy changes after its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. Here are the three most important takeaways, in its own words:

The Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions – including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run – are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.
The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate. In the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 6.0 percent.
The Fed released FOMC participants' target federal funds rate for the next few years.

Immediate Reactions

The first item is the most important as it was not expected – and it had an immediate effect on markets. As seen in the chart below, gold spiked higher on the surprise news of extending the zero-rate policy through 2014.

The news prompted a similar jump in silver services:

Keeping rates low requires the Fed to print new money to buy Treasuries, so the dollar weakened against the euro, although the reaction wasn't as big as in those in the gold and silver markets. This is partially due to the fact that the ECB is on its own campaign of printing money.

The promise to keep short-term rates low for a longer period also caused longer-term rates to fall slightly, as seen in the 10-year Treasury rate chart below, which fell from about 2.05% to 1.95 %, a relatively modest decline.

What Does This Say about the Fed's Policy?

The most important action of the three was to extend the zero Fed funds rate to the end of 2014. This is a form of easing that could affect more rates than just short-term rates. Furthermore, there is a debate as to whether the action was the result of the Fed's concern about the economy slipping back into recession. Or, this could also be a bullish sign for the economy and stock market, as the guaranteed low rates could increase investment to improve our economy. Zero rates drive investors to take on risks – such as buying stocks – to gain higher returns. As a result, this induces more investment toward riskier parts of the market, which might otherwise be underfunded. Though the Fed aims to stimulate the economy, we're more likely to see a slip back into recession rather than see an effective Fed stimulus improving the economy.

The press conference suggested that quantitative easing (QE) remains on the table. As a result, new targeted asset purchases by the Fed are likely in our future. These additional purchases with newly printed money could become inflationary. That is why gold shot higher and the dollar weakened in the short term.

Both the Fed and the ECB have decidedly less-hawkish members and leadership than just last year. Both have now moved toward more money printing to keep rates low. The chart of central bank balance sheet as a ratio to GDP shows that the central banks of the world are clearly "printing":

(Click on image to enlarge)

Longer-Term Implications

The problem with printing money and promising to do so for years ahead of time is that the negative consequences of inflation only happen after a delay. As a result, it's difficult to know if a policy has gone too far until years down the road at times. Unfortunately, if confidence in the dollar is lost, the consequences cannot be easily reversed. One problem for the Fed itself is that it holds long-term securities that will lose value if rates rise. The federal government faces an even more serious problem when interest rates rise, as higher rates on its debt mean greater interest payments to service. Due to this federal-government debt burden, the Fed has an incentive to keep rates low, even if the long-term result is higher inflation. However, for now the Fed's statement suggests it sees inflation as "subdued," so it's putting those concerns aside for now.

Along with the promise of low rates, the Fed for the first time gave an inflation target of 2%, as measured by Personal Consumption Expenditures. The actual and target inflation show that the Fed is currently not under major pressure from missing its target… not yet.

(Click on image to enlarge)

The Fed has not even tried to set a target for the unemployment rate, which is only expected to edge below 8% by 2013. The Fed says that that the longer-run unemployment range is 5% to 6%. The big difference from the current level of 8.5% indicates that the Fed faces a greater challenge with unemployment than inflation now.

(Click on image to enlarge)

My conclusion from the Fed's actions is that it doesn't care as much about its inflation target as it does about improving the unemployment rate. Thus, it will err on the side of letting inflation rise, if it would improve unemployment. But holding rates too low too long fueled the housing bubble. Repeating the same game will have consequences of malinvestment in the form of new bubbles in the economy. The Fed hopes to restore employment before the negative consequences of loose monetary policy show up.

The Fed provided the accompanying chart of the Fed funds rates expected by the seventeen members of the FOMC. Each dot indicates the value (rounded to the nearest quarter-percent) of an individual participant's judgment of the appropriate level of the target Federal funds rate at the end of the specified calendar year. Over the long run, the Fed expects the funds rate to rise to around 4.25%.

Eleven of the members indicate that the rate will rise before 2015. Only six expect the rate to stay close to zero through 2014.

The above chart should not be taken very seriously, as Fed predictions have been notoriously inaccurate. Furthermore, it's likely that rates will rise before 2014 as a result of market forces pushing them upward due to mistrust of the currency – measured by rising gold and commodity prices.

The Federal Reserve balance sheet expanded dramatically as the credit crisis became acute in 2008.

The Policy Tools (shown below in black) grew by $2 trillion with the QE1 purchase of mortgage-backed securities and the QE2 purchase of long-term Treasuries. This was an unprecedented effort to support those markets, provide liquidity, and drive rates down to zero. A simple extrapolation of similar expansion policies to the end of 2014 suggests that the Fed may require an additional $2 trillion to extend its goals. The problem is that such action would surely weaken the dollar and drive gold much higher. If confidence is lost, rates could rise even as the Fed continues to print and buy securities.

The Fed says that it will change its policy if conditions warrant. I think they will be forced to stop this policy well before 2014 is over. Nonetheless, in the meantime, they will plant the seeds of rising prices with ultralow rates.

(Click on image to enlarge)

The gold price is driven by Fed policies and its bias toward printing money rather than defending the dollar's purchasing power. This Fed bias was again reconfirmed by this announcement. With all the Fed's renewed vigor toward keeping rates low longer, we can once again reconfirm the ongoing downward slide for the dollar. As a result, gold remains the best investment against the damaging government deficits and central bank policies around the world.

[While the dollar may look good compared to the other fiat contestants on the global money stage, the United States' debt situation is untenable – and various factors could bring it to its knees faster than anyone expects. Don't let it burn you: learn how to protect yourself and your assets.]

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

FBI Attempts to Make 'Libertarians' the Poster Children for Domestic Extremism

2012-02-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

Anthony Freda Art

Eric Blair
Activist Post

As the definition of a domestic extremist continues to expand to include activists for peace, animal rights, currency, natural health, liberty and other noble causes, the FBI is ready to make an example out of one group in particular: Libertarians.

The FBI held a press conference Monday to "increase the visibility of the threat" that people who oppose taxes and regulations, government intrusions into their private property, and the desire for sound money allegedly pose to local authorities.

Although the FBI vaguely attempts to label this group as "sometimes known as 'sovereign citizens'", the description sounds an awful lot like me, and millions of other liberty-minded people in America that don't associate with any group.

They also sound like Ron Paul supporters.

According to Reuters:

Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday.

These extremists, sometimes known as 'sovereign citizens,' believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.

The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.

Notice the resolute use of the word "extremists" but the vague description "sometimes known as sovereign citizens." Yet the description that these "extremists may refuse to pay taxes and defy government environmental regulations" sounds more like General Electric than average liberty activists who the FBI clearly seems hellbent on demonizing.

Additionally, the official mission for Sovereign Citizens is to "Protect Property Rights and American Civil Liberties." As fierce protectors of property rights, they take environmental damage quite seriously. Many would argue that an environmental policy governed by property rights is far more effective than the bloated EPA which is wholly owned by corporate polluters.

"Sovereign members often express particular outrage at tax collection, putting Internal Revenue Service employees at risk," Reuters assumes. Yet, choosing not to pay taxes is by definition a form of non-violent civil disobedience. And no credible threats against individual IRS agents were cited.

Opposing taxes only seems dangerous to those who wish to perpetuate this prison society. I would even suggest that it's far more dangerous to continue to fund an organization who wages murderous wars abroad based on lies, who builds a militarized police state at home, who removes all individual liberty in the name of safety, and who bails out criminal cartels while the innocent suffer. The real extremists would seem to be the ones who support such a blood-thirsty organization, not the people who oppose its wicked ways.

But the FBI does their best to convince us that that sovereign citizens are dangerous extremists by warning us they can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," as Stuart McArthur, assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division, said at the press conference.

As evidence, McArthur refers to one incident where two men claiming to be Sovereign Citizens killed two Arkansas policemen after an argument. Because this isolated and highly suspect incident is hardly worthy of labeling an entire philosophical group as violent, McArthur desperately tries to dignify the reason for the FBI's alert with other, even more vague examples:

Last year, an extremist in Texas opened fire on a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was not hit.

Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.

Eighteen "such extremists" convicted of white collar fraud! That's all you can produce with an $8 billion FBI budget? And you wonder why people think their taxes may be better spent elsewhere?

The FBI and the Reuter's reporter must have forgotten to check the Sovereign Citizens' own website to see their very clear statement in complete disagreement to all allegations made in this article:

We do NOT endorse non-payment of taxes or violence to achieve these changes. We do NOT endorse giving up a social security number and we do NOT endorse violence against the police or the government.

But recently, the feds somehow excused the use of a domestic drone of all things in the arrest of farmers accused of stealing a handful of cattle because the farmers were said to be Sovereign Citizens.

It appears the federal government is trying to make an enemy out of non-violent activists, especially liberty activists. Imagine, people concerned with peace and liberty are the enemy of the FBI. What's the opposite of peace and liberty? War and tyranny. Which side are you on?

RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
25 FBI Reports That Can Put You on the Terror Watch List

Please help us combat censorship: vote for this story on Reddit -- http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/pephr/fbi_attempts_to_make_libertarians_the_poster/

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Bill would give DHS broader control of cybersecurity, follows corporate-sponsored MIT study recommendations

2012-02-07T11:10:00.000-08:00

Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

In December of last year I covered a study conducted by MIT with the help of “advisers” from the exact corporations which would benefit from the implementation of the recommendations of the report, and now it appears that these ideas have made their way all the way to Capitol Hill.

This bill, which is reportedly currently before Congress, would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) significantly more monitoring power of the cybersecurity practices of private industries and services which are supposedly part of the United States’ critical infrastructure.

The details of the bill have yet to be released, and I have not even been able to track down a number for the legislation yet so I can actually read it (if anyone can help me out with this I would be quite grateful).

The small portions of the bill which have been made public attempt to define which companies are covered by the bill, although it is hardly as precise as one might like.

Furthermore, I find it laughable that any legislation is allowed to be kept from the public at all, although given that our current government refuses to even justify why they think they are able to murder Americans without charge or trial, this is hardly unusual.

The companies which will be affected by the bill have systems “whose disruption could result in the interruption of life-sustaining services, catastrophic economic damage or severe degradation of national security capabilities.”

As I’m sure you can tell, this leaves a lot of wiggle room, something which legislators and bureaucrats love because it allows them to exploit the legislation as much as possible without technically violating it.

A recent article in the Washington Post claims that the bill is just going to allow DHS to inspect the computer systems and networks which fall under this jurisdiction in order to determine if they are sufficiently secured against cybersecurity threats.

I’m not sure if DHS and our so-called Representatives are aware, but our own deadly drone fleets are infected with malware. Maybe they should worry about securing the most critical of government systems before beginning to impose themselves on private industries.

If they can’t even manage to secure unmanned aerial vehicles or Pentagon networks, who in their right mind would trust them to tell private industries what to do when it comes to securing their networks?

This bill would allow the DHS to actually require companies to upgrade their systems and improve security if they decide they do not meet their arbitrary standards.

Apparently the legislation was mostly written by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee along with the Senate’s homeland panel.

Observers have reportedly noted that there isn’t a “kill switch” provision in the bill which would give the president the authority to shut down Internet traffic to anywhere and everywhere whenever he pleased, although of course it is claimed it would only be utilized in a so-called national emergency.

This is likely due to the fact that the concept of a kill switch has been so radically unpopular with the public, and has created a great deal of backlash and negative publicity.

That being said, a more informal system without the title of “kill switch” could very well be implemented under these network guidelines, although since the bill does not seem to be publicly available at this point it is impossible to tell what those actual requirements will be.

So far some technology companies and the United States Chamber of Commerce have opposed the legislation, saying that voluntary industry self-regulation along with government consultation would be more effective than a brand new set of cybersecurity laws.

Indeed the massive incompetence of individuals in our government, especially when it comes to anything computer-related, should be a matter of considerable concern when dealing with legislation like this.

Stewart Baker, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security does not seem to find the concerns of industry professionals to be valid.

Baker believes that the behemoth federal government must get involved in yet another sector about which they know nothing and have demonstrated a complete lack of competence.

He thinks that the concerns of those in the industry who would actually be affected by this legislation are ingenuous because of breaches of computer systems in the past which allegedly show that hackers and governments like Russia and China have already infiltrated industry networks.

Of course the evidence for this is so thin it is almost laughable for Baker to be treating it in this manner, especially given the past history with threats hyped up to a fever pitch, only to turn out to be completely false.

“[Critical infrastructure companies] already have governments in their business, just not the U.S.,” Baker said. “For them to say they don’t want this suggests they don’t really understand how bad this problem is.”

Or, perhaps they understand that turning to the American government is the last thing you want to do if you want to actually be effective and efficient.

Maybe if the government could show that they can actually secure their own networks they might have a right to start telling private entities how to operate. Yet that is obviously not the case and thus I think it ludicrous for them to be attempting to control the operations of outside companies.

I think of it like if I just witnessed a man get beaten to a pulp just to have him get up and try to tell me how to defend myself. In both situations I would have no choice but to laugh say, “You can’t be serious.”

Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security and our clueless legislators are indeed serious, and their meddling could not only cost the taxpayer countless dollars which we do not even have, but it could also hurt companies and actually make it easier for hackers to take down the system after it has been centralized and standardized.

This article first appeared at EndtheLie.com. Read other contributed articles by Madison Ruppert here.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Preparedness Tips for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

2012-02-07T10:44:00.000-08:00

Gaye Levy, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Something you may not have thought about is the special preparedness requirements for those individuals that are hard of hearing or deaf. Think about it. People who are deaf or hard of hearing (and there are a lot you out there) are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the traditional means of receiving emergency information.

Television, radio, sirens and police loudspeakers are largely dependent on one’s ability to hear. And while computers and the Internet provide a mode of visual communication, in a power-down situation, the hard of hearing are going to have a problem listening to their crank-up radio unless extra care is taken in advance to ensure they have the tools available to allow them to hear.

Today I present some preparedness tips for the deaf and hard of hearing, plus some tools you can use to improve communications both before, after and during a crisis or disaster situation. And note: just because you hear fine, you may have a relative, loved one or neighbor whose hearing is impaired. Having some knowledge to help them to prepare and to communicate effectively will pay huge karma dividends during a disaster.

Communicating Effectively with the Hearing Impaired

I know how frustrating it can be when communicating with someone who can not hear you. It is especially difficult when that person, who may be a parent or a spouse, refuses to admit they have a hearing problem. Couple that with a situation where you have to get out of your house fast; or when you need to communicate some emergency procedures, and you have a big problem.

If you happen to know someone that is hard of hearing, practice these communication tips now, before they are placed in a life-threatening position.

1. Get the other person’s attention before attempting to talk or communicate. Making eye contact is a good way to do this. If needed, you can use a light touch on the hand or shoulder to get the person’s attention.

2. Stay in the field of vision and face the person directly. Try to keep your eyes at the same level and don’t turn your head away. Don’t stare, but maintain eye contact and make sure the other person can see your face and your hand gestures. Body language is important, too.

3. Speak in a normal voice and tone. For heaven’s sake, don’t shout. Many people that have difficulty hearing can actually read lips even though they may be unaware that they are doing so. Shouting distorts your lip movements, making it difficult for a deaf person to follow your words. Also, increasing the volume or shouting has the negative effect of drawing attention from other people around you, making the person you are addressing feel self-conscious. Remember, if the person does not seem to hear or understand you, you can always communicate with a notepad and a pen.

4. Go to a quiet place where there is not a lot of background noise. Many hard of hearing people who can understand you perfectly in a quiet room will be unable to do so in, say, a noisy, crowded area or wherever the background noise is high.

5. Use gestures and visual cues. Point to or hold up any items that you’re talking about, and wait until they’re looking at you again before you resume speaking. And continue to maintain eye contact.

6. Be patient and polite and don’t give up by saying “never mind”. It is easy to get frustrated, especially when you have to repeat yourself again and again. Just try again and if you have to, go back to the notepad and paper. One other thing: don’t pick on the person and make fun of them. Yes, it would be nice if they had good hearing aids but hearing aids are expensive and not something that everyone can afford. So take your time, be nice, and soldier on until the person understands what you are trying to communicate.

Now that we have covered some effective communication skills, let’s move on to some specific preparedness tips for the hearing impaired.

Hearing Aids, Batteries and other Devices

Store extra hearing aid batteries with your emergency supplies. Include some in your bug-out bag, your first aid kit, and in the pockets of all off your coats and jackets. A $20 investment in batteries could make all the difference when coping after an emergency.
At night, place your hearing aid batteries next to your bed or in a beside drawer. That way you will be able to locate them if you have to get up and out in a hurry, say during a fire.
When setting your hearing devices aside – or at night when you are sleeping – put them in a container of some type so they do not fall and get lost or stepped on. Hearing aids are expensive and even if you have the money, you may not be able to get them replaced or easily fixed.
Store extra batteries for your pager, captioned telephone, and your TTY or other communication device. Check your owner’s manual for proper maintenance recommendations and if the devices are rechargeable, keep them fully charged at all times.

Smoke Alarms

Install smoke alarms that give signals that can be both seen and heard. And have plenty of them! At least one should be battery-operated.

Communication

Determine how you will communicate with emergency personnel if there is no interpreter or if you do not have your hearing aids. Store paper and a pen in your emergency kit for this purpose.
Consider carrying a pre-printed copy of key phrases, such as “I speak American Sign Language (ASL) and need an ASL interpreter” or “If you make an announcement, please write it down for me.”
If possible, obtain a battery-operated television that has a decoder chip for access to signed or captioned emergency reports.
Determine which broadcasting systems will provide continuous news that will be captioned and/or signed.

The Final Word

With our aging population comes the typical woes of getting older. One of the most common ailments of the over-70 crowd is difficulty hearing. In normal situations, this can be an annoyance, but in an emergency this can be a major impedance to their safety.

In addition there are deaf or hearing-impaired people of all ages who may need some extra assistance in an emergency or disaster. Do the right thing and practice good communication skills now so that when the time comes, you are prepared to assist those in need.

Read other articles by Gaye Levy here.

Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!

Gaye Levy, the SurvivalWoman, grew up and attended school in the Greater Seattle area. After spending many years as an executive in the software industry, she started a specialized accounting practice offering contract CFO work to emerging high tech and service industries. She has now abandoned city life and moved to a serenely beautiful rural area on an island in NW Washington State. She lives and teaches the principles of a sustainable, self-reliant and stylish lifestyle through emergency preparation and disaster planning through her website at BackdoorSurvival.com. SurvivalWoman speaks her mind and delivers her message with optimism and grace, regardless of mayhem swirling around us.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Strengthening U.S.-Canada Security Interests in North America and Around the Globe

2012-02-07T09:23:00.000-08:00

Dana Gabriel, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The U.S. and Canada recently signed several bilateral agreements that will further strengthen continental security and defense cooperation. Deeper military integration between both countries is part of efforts to establish a North American security perimeter and better address common global threats.

Following the recent Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD) meeting which took place in Ottawa, the Commander of Canada Command, Lt.-Gen Walter Semianiw and the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), Gen. Charles Jacoby, Jr. signed three military documents.

The first was the Combined Defense Plan which a backgrounder described as a, “planning framework between Canada Command, its counterpart USNORTHCOM, and NORAD for enhanced defense cooperation between Canada and the U.S. should governments require each other’s assistance.” The second is the Information Sharing Memorandum of Understanding, “an arrangement between Canada Command, its counterpart USNORTHCOM and NORAD to identify and provide for ease of sharing information amongst the three organizations.” The Civil Assistance Plan, which was originally signed in 2008 and allows the armed forces of one nation to support the other during an emergency was also renewed for two years.

Lee Berthiaume of Postmedia News reported that:

The Combined Defense Plan has been under discussion for several years and would further integrate cross-border military co-operation at a time when the Harper government is trying to reassure Washington it has a reliable partner in Canada when it comes to security.

Defense Minister Peter MacKay is quoted as saying, "This agreement provides a framework for the combined defense of Canada and the U.S. during peace, contingencies, and war." He added, "The plan describes the authorities and means by which the two governments would approve homeland military operations in the event of a mutually agreed threat, and how our two militaries would collaborate and share information.” In his speech in front of the PJBD, Minister MacKay also called for, “increased military involvement implementing the Beyond the Border strategy, saying the Canadian Forces and its American counterparts should be supporting civilian agencies monitoring the cross-border security.”

Also on the agenda at the defense forum was security cooperation in the Arctic, along with Canadian and U.S. engagement in the Western Hemisphere.

In an article for iPolitics, Colin Horgan wrote that at the recent bilateral defense meeting, “MacKay noted that such initiatives as Beyond the Border and the Regulatory Cooperation Council Action Plan will work to ensure that the vital economic partnership that joins our two countries continues to be the cornerstone of our economic competitiveness and security.” Defense Minister MacKay emphasized that security is linked to the economy and called for even greater cooperation to support the dual action plans. He stated, “We need to increasingly focus our military forces in support of those civilian departments and agencies that have the lead.” MacKay also explained, “We need to all work together to mitigate capability gaps, share best practices and co-operate on new approaches.” He went on to say, “there is still room for more integrated collaboration – domestically and bi-nationally.”

The latest military agreements further promote a perimeter approach to security. They are part of the Tri Command Vision efforts to merge NORAD, USNORTHCOM and Canada Command into one. As for the PJBD, it has once again become more relevant as a venue for bilateral security and military dialogue. Created in 1940 the panel, “is the senior advisory body on continental defense. It is composed of military and diplomatic representatives from both nations.” Over the years, it has, “served as a strategic-level military board charged with considering, in a broad sense, land, sea, air and space issues.”

This includes areas concerning, “policy, operations, financial, logistics and other aspects of Canada-U.S. defense relations.” The PJBD is well positioned to play a significant role in plans for a fully integrated North American security perimeter, as well as in other facets of the evolving Canada-U.S. partnership.

On January 6, the Obama administration released the new document, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. The new strategy calls for maintaining a strong presence in the Middle East, as well as an expanding role in the Asia-Pacific region. Much of the focus will be on countering China’s rising power. This will include supporting large bases in Japan and South Korea, along with stationing troops in Australia. The U.S. will also continue efforts to forge stronger military alliances with the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Burma. While the plan envisions a leaner military force, there is little doubt that Washington will continue to police the world.

How does Canada fit into this new realignment of American strategic priorities? It is clear that the U.S. will rely more on its allies during international missions. Canada may gain a greater voice in future military operations, but it will also mean that they will have to bear more of the burden. In the coming years, as NATO members begin cutting defense spending, Canada will be counted on to play an even bigger role in any possible overseas conflicts.

Whether it’s the perimeter security deal, the ongoing mission in Afghanistan, or the bombing campaign that took place in Libya, the U.S. and Canada continue to enhance security and military cooperation. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, both countries have further deepened their defense relationship. In addition, Canada has pursued a more U.S.-style foreign policy. This includes imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, along with further expanding sanctions against Syria. Much like the U.S., Harper has singled out Iran as a threat to international peace and security. He has echoed the same sentiments that the regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and would be prepared to use it. Defense Minister Peter MacKay has also indicated that if necessary, Canada's armed forces are ready to offer assistance in Syria.

More than ever, the U.S, and Canada share a more common approach to advancing security interests in not only North America, but around the globe.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel:
Pretext for a North American Homeland Security Perimeter
Canada Pursues U.S.-Style Security and Foreign Policy
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
Perimeter Security and an Integrated North American Command

Read other contributed articles by Dana Gabriel here.

This article first appeared at Be Your Own Leader. Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Experts Call For Nationwide BPA Ban Over Hazardous, Carcinogenic Effects

2012-02-07T07:20:00.000-08:00

Mike Barrett
Activist Post

Even small amounts of exposure to many chemicals can result in drastic negative health consequences – bisphenol-A (BPA) is no exception.

Found in many household goods such as plastic and some food items, BPA acts as an endocrine-disrupting chemical that mimics hormones in the body.

Due to the incredible negative effects BPA possesses, and given its prominent place in today’s society, scientist Frederick vom Saal thinks that this chemical should be banned completely.

For 20 years Saal has been on a quest to remove endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPA completely from daily use. The chemical is has been shown to adversely affect male genital development and therefore cause widespread fertility problems. In addition, there are more than 130 studies confirming the link between BPA and breast cancer.

Saal successfully generated dozens of scientific papers shedding light on the many negative effects of bisphenol-A, but now he is trying to persuade United States authorities to heavily regulate the use of the chemical.

Saal isn’t the only scientist looking to regulate the chemical, however. In September of 2011, a group of 20 scientists (of which Saal was a part) met to discuss why the Food and Drug Administration would ever allow such a harmful chemical in so many consumer products. While the research produced by many scientists was enough to persuade 11 states, Canada, China, and the European Union to restrict the allowance of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, it seems that U.S. government agencies aren’t so easy to convince.

'As a scientist I feel I have an obligation to identify when, in fact, science and government policy are not consistent with each other,' vom Saal says. 'And that’s what I’m doing.'

Of course what the scientists are doing will be amplified many times by public opposition to such chemicals. BPA leaches from its container into whatever it happens to contain. If you microwave a TV dinner for example, the chemical content of the plastic container would find its way into the food you are going to eat.

Likewise, when bottled water or a soft drink is manufactured and shelved, BPA leaches into the liquid over the time it takes to be purchased and consumed. The chemical is in food can linings, often in dental fillings, and can be found in 95 percent of paper money.

It seems clear that public opposition is more than called for to reduce exposure, and it will be key in future regulation.

Read other articles by Mike Barrett here.

Explore More:

This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water

2012-02-07T06:32:00.000-08:00

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

Fluoridated tap water and toothpaste are oftentimes considered the main sources of fluoride exposure, but it turns out that common food items could also be largely contributing to your fluoride intake.

According to fluoride expert, Jeff Green, who has been actively protesting and studying the effects of fluoride on the body for other 15 years, one common food product contains up to 180 times more fluoride than your fluoridated tap water!

According to Green, the culprit is non-organic food, but not just one kind.

If you’re still eating conventionally-farmed food products, you may be unknowingly exposing yourself to extreme levels of fluoride. Green says this is made possible by fluoride going incognito within the food supply in a very concerning way:

'Cryolite is actually sodium aluminum fluoride… This sodium aluminum fluoride is especially effective at killing bugs,' Green says. 'It’s also very sticky, so when they spray it, it’s more likely to stick on your produce, unless you’re… really working at trying to get it off of it.'

Fluoride-Based Pesticide Contaminating Food Staples

While Green states that a large number of non-organic produce items can contain shocking levels of this fluoride-based pesticide, iceberg lettuce may be one of the largest offenders. In fact, iceberg lettuce can now be laced with a startling 180 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride – 180 times higher than the ‘recommended’ water fluoridation level. This ‘health’ food could actually be corroding your body with heavy levels of fluoride. But what other seemingly-healthy produce items contain high amounts of fluoride?

Citrus fruits are actually allowed to contain 95 ppm of sodium fluoride.
Potatoes can have as much as 22 ppm on the outside, and 2 ppm inside.
Raisins are allowed 55 ppm.

Fluoride has been linked to decreased IQ in children, and even the United States government is calling for lower levels of fluoride to be added to United States water supplies.

Perhaps the next big hurdle in the fight against fluoride will be within the food industry.

Explore More:

This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information.

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

MSNBC Poll: Nearly 75% Oppose Israeli Strike on Iran

2012-02-07T04:58:00.000-08:00

Youtube

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW

Obama Declares "Threat" From Iran a National Emergency

2012-02-07T04:38:00.000-08:00

Youtube

BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW