Susanne Posel

Study: Sibling Rivalry Causes Mental Illness Later in Life

2013-06-19T05:08:10Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 19, 2013

Researchers have determined that the fighting between brothers and sisters is filled with physical and psychological aggression which traumatizes and leads to depression, anxiety and anger.

More than 3,500 children under the age of 17 were participants in the study entitled the “National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence”.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in conjunction with the Department of Justice (DoJ) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) commissioned the research that began the dialogue to blame parents for their child’s inability to cope with competition.

It was found that 32% of children surveyed reported aggressive behavior from a sibling which caused them anxiety and distress.

Corinna Jenkins Tucker, lead author of the study and professor of family studies at the University of New Hampshire explained that parents should take these claims by children seriously because they are indicative of a mental illness that affects children as peer bullying.

Tucker was involved in a new study entitled “Association of Sibling Aggression with Child and Adolescent Mental Health” where in the conclusions showed that there is a “possible importance of sibling aggression for children’s and adolescents’ mental health should not be dismissed. The mobilization to prevent and stop peer victimization and bullying should expand to encompass sibling aggression as well.”

Tucker believes that parents who ignore their children’s reaction to sibling rivalry or think that this is beneficial to their growth is “training” them to give in to bullying.

She said: “Historically, the general thinking has been that it’s not a big deal, and sometimes it’s even viewed as being a good thing. There appears to be different norms of acceptability. Peer aggression is unacceptable, but it’s not the same for siblings. The aggression among siblings should be taken just as seriously as that among peers.”

In terms of assessing dysfunction, Tucker views parents who overlook sibling conflict as showing their young that they will take sides which teaches the child that no one cares for them.

Tucker condemns parents who take away the object of desire when it is the focal point of conflict because it demonstrates “taking sides” and encourages “competition”.

John Caffaro, clinical psychologist claims that there is a “nationwide, sibling violence is by far the most common form of family violence, occurring four to five times as frequently as spousal or parental child abuse. According to some studies, nearly half of all children have been punched, kicked or bitten by a sibling, and roughly 15% have been repeatedly attacked. But even the most severe incidents are underreported because families are loath to acknowledge them, dismissing slaps and punches as horseplay and bullying as boys just being boys.”

Learning conflict resolution in the home is being compared with the development of mental illness later in life.

Researchers conclude that parents unwittingly encourage bullying within the rivalry of their children.

The old adage of letting them “settle their differences” is the most dangerous way to view the relationship between siblings, claims the study.

Research points toward the ideal that “sibling aggression is linked to worse mental health (for the victim), and in some cases it’s similar to what you find for peer aggression.”

Tucker maintains : “There is a natural emotional intensity to sibling relationships. There is a lot of love, but also the potential for a lot of conflicts.”

The victimization created by sibling rivalry is identified as multi-level with simple assault progressing to being physically harmed and psychologically damaged by another.

The post Study: Sibling Rivalry Causes Mental Illness Later in Life appeared first on Susanne Posel.

American Medical Association: Obesity is a Disease & a National Problem

2013-06-19T05:15:26Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 19, 2013

The American Medical Association (AMA) published a report stating that obesity is not a disease. This classification would necessitate pharmaceutical intervention, treatment and prevention.

However, a team of representatives at the AMA decided that obesity would be called a disease.

Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine said : “The American Medical Association’s recognition that obesity is a disease carries a lot of clout. The most important aspect of the AMA decision is that the AMA is a respected representative of American medicine. Their opinion can influence policy makers who are in a position to do more to support interventions and research to prevent and treat obesity.”

Patrice Harris, member of the AMA board said: “Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three Americans.”

The current obsession with an individual’s body mass index (BMI) is not the only factor when considering whether someone is over-weight or not.

In order for obesity to be considered as disease, a whole host of indicators must be taken into account because “without a single, clear, authoritative, and widely accepted definition of disease, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether or not obesity is a medical disease state. Similarly, a sensitive and clinically practical diagnostic indicator of obesity remains elusive.”

The AMA stated that obesity is a national problem.

John Armstrong, co-sponsor of the report said: “A condition leads to one set of solutions. A disease might lead to another. I would like to move away from the tyranny of ‘Is it a condition or is it a disease?’ and simply define obesity as a chronic disease, combine public health and clinical approaches, and work to bend the weight curve in the U.S.”

Simply being obese does not constitute having a disease, stated delegates at the seminar hosted by the AMA. Yet they were overridden by several board members stating that the patient has a responsibility for driving the cost of healthcare up with their lifestyle choices.

Dr. Barbara McAneny, an AMA board trustee, said: “The AMA is calling on insurers to provide physicians with better tools that can automatically determine a patient’s payment responsibility prior to treatment.”

In 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS) changed their position that obesity is not an official disease and that treating it as such would require more research into how the human body processes food and stores it.

Several studies have tried to pin-point the cause of obesity; some to a ludicrous summation.

In the International Journal of Obesity, a new explained that having a C-section “may have something to do with babies missing exposure to positive intestinal bacteria when born through C-section. If that is true, then it will be possible to identify those bacteria and give a dose of them to C-section babies.”

A said : “There’s definitely been enough research now where it does appear there is some connection between these two disorders.”

Castellanos contends that after socioeconomic status and environment were factored in, the obesity still persisted as an obvious link.

Pharmaceutical corporations such as Eli Lily, Shire Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline and Genopham funded the study; along with governmental agencies such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); along with the International Outgoing Fellowship (NOF).

Earlier this month a new study published shows that bisphenol-A (BPA) can be linked to causing obesity in pubescent girls.

Taking samples of urine from 1,326 girls and boys between the ages of 9 and 12, researchers discovered that BPA levels were higher in those girls who were over weight. The findings were not show to be true of the boys tested.

Shockingly, as little as 2 micrograms per liter of BPA found in the young gril’s system was twice as likely to cause obesity when compared to girls whose BPA levels were below “normal”.

Dr. Di-Kun Le, lead author of the study and reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, said: “Animal (studies) started to show that BPA can impact metabolic processes, which often leads to obesity and diabetes. So we decided to look at it (in humans).”

Le concluded that because BPA affects the endocrine system, exposure to this chemical is directly contributing to the global obesity issue because BPA “is an endocrine disrupter and acts similarly to the hormone estrogen, which impacts metabolic function.”

Le explained: “Overeating a little won’t cause obesity, but (by) having this kind of endocrine damage without knowing it, and adding more food, the consequences are magnified.”

Findings showed that during puberty, girls were sensitive to the effects of BPA because researchers observed no “significant relationship between BPA and obesity levels in girls older than 12 and boys of all ages.”

The post American Medical Association: Obesity is a Disease & a National Problem appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Employee Sues McDonalds Over Pre-Paid Debit Card Payroll Policy

2013-06-19T05:05:11Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 19, 2013

Natalie Gushannon, a single mother who worked for the McDonalds Corporation in Pennsylvania, has filed a lawsuit which claims that because her paycheck was placed on a pre-paid debit card, she has the potential of incurring a $1.00 fee to check her balance, a $1.50 fee to withdraw cash from the card and a $15 fee to replace a lost card.

Gushannon earned $7.44 an hour which is just above the minimum wage line of $7.25, and after the fees taken out by JP Morgan Chase because of the pre-paid debit card, Gushannon took home less money.

Gushannon was told by her employer that if she did not “activate the card” there would be no way for her to receive her paycheck.

According to the suit: “McDonald’s does not provide a choice for hourly employees to receive their justly earned wages through a bank check, cash or direct deposit.”

This suit is justified under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act under the rule of unjust enrichment.

Gushannon said that JP Morgan Chase was used for her payroll and was her only option as far as extracting her paycheck from McDonalds.

Michael Cefalo, lawyer for Gushannon said that both JP Morgan Chase and McDonalds were targeting “the most vulnerable” employees.

Gushannon said that she was forced to accept the pre-paid debit card as the only way she could receive her paycheck from her employer.

McDonalds franchisees Albert and Carol Mueller refused to allow Gushannon have her paycheck direct deposited into an account she holds at a credit union.

The Muellers claim: “We value our employees and everything they do for our organization. We are committed to providing them the best possible work environment so they can deliver the fast, reliable service that our customers expect. We are aware of this matter. But at this time, we have not seen a copy of the complaint. For this reason, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.”

Cefalo said: “It’s a violation of the law. They’re entitled to a choice to be paid in cash or check. Fees connected to this debit card which employees have to pay to get their wages which is unfair.”

Suzanne Martindale explained that employers are given incentives by banks to provide these pre-paid credit cards.

Martindale said: “Employers are always looking for ways to cut costs. There is incentive for employers to offer these cards but in some cases, they don’t negotiate with the payroll card provider over fees.”

The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) states that “nearly 4 million U.S. households, or 3.2 percent, have someone receiving wages on a payroll card.”

The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) released a report in 2010 entitled “Public Benefits and Wages on Prepaid Cards: Protecting Against Hidden Fees and Identity Theft” which outlined that employers could use this new service provided by financial institutions to reduce the amount of checks delivered to employees and eliminate check fraud.

Retail out lets such as Walmart, the YMCA of greater Atlanta, the US Navy, Vermont Ski Resorts and the US federal government could and do take part in this scheme.

Payroll cards are worth anywhere from $20.9 billion to $62.2 billion to financial institutions that provide them to retailers and government payroll service agencies.

The post Employee Sues McDonalds Over Pre-Paid Debit Card Payroll Policy appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Obama Threatens to Veto Late-Term Abortion Ban

2013-06-19T05:02:45Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 19, 2013

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (PCUCPA) is slated to challenge Roe v. Wade which legalized abortions at the time at the fetus becomes “viable” – or before 24 weeks of gestation.

The Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) states that there is “a wealth of anatomical, behavioral and physiological evidence shows that the developing unborn child (i.e., the human fetus) is capable of experiencing tremendous pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization.”

The House of Representatives voted in favor of the abortion ban, stating that there would be a national ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The Obama administration has stated that the president will veto the PCUCPA because the legislation “would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose.”

House Representative Trent Franks, champion of the bill to ban late-term abortions, changed the language of the legislation to include the entire country after the exposure of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and the murder of 3 babies born alive during abortion procedures.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion political action committee Susan B. Anthony List, remarked about Franks’ bill, saying: “The abortion industry nationwide is rife with the brutality and abuse revealed during the Kermit Gosnell trial. It is imperative that we examine how the scourge of late-term abortion impacts women, children, abortion-industry employees and our communities.”

Last May, Live Action , a pro-life organization, claims to be “a new media movement dedicated to ending abortion and building a culture of life.” Live Action has morphed to expose and “educate the public about the humanity of the pre-born child and investigative journalism to expose threats against the vulnerable and defenseless.”

Lila Rose, president of Live Action, explained that this exposure was the fruition of a year’s worth of recordings to reveal “the truly gruesome, illegal, and inhuman practices going on inside many of America’s abortion clinics.”

This activist group released short undercover films wherein abortion “professionals” were discussing late-term abortions and what their clinic’s procedure for dealing with a fetus that survives; including how they ensure the child dies.

An abortion counselor, employed at Dr. Emily Women’s Health Center , was caught on the video recalling an instance when a baby was born alive, breathing and then put into “a container – like a jar” and submerged in a toxic solution to kill the baby.

The counselor said: “The solution will make it stop. It’s not going to be moving around in the jar. … That’s the whole purpose of the solution.”

At another clinic, when asked about how the clinicians deal with a baby born alive, the head doctor replied: “Technically — you know, legally, we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. But, you know, it probably wouldn’t.”

Rose states that babies are killed when born alive quite often and this reality is not publically known. She said in a statement regarding the released films: “The gruesome and inhuman practices exposed in Gosnell’s ‘House of Horrors’ are business as usual for the abortion industry in America.”

Ninety-five Congressmen are standing with Franks to restrict abortions in America.

Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked by mainstream media reporters about her stance on the morality of late-term abortions.

Pelosi believes that there is no difference between an abortion preformed after 23 weeks and one preformed before that time.

Shockingly, Pelosi said that while late-term abortions performed by Dr. Kermit Gosnell “was reprehensible and everybody condemned it. For [the HIC] to decide to disrespect the judgment a woman makes about her reproductive health is reprehensible.”

In a turn of speak, Pelosi called the HIC reprehensible for making abortion illegal.

Pelosi asserted to the reporter: “I’m going to tell you something. As the mother of five children, my oldest child was six years old the day I brought my fifth child home from the hospital. As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when you talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics, and that’s where you’re taking it, and I’m not gonna go there.”

To Pelosi, the difference between what Gosnell did and late-term abortions was reduced to a technicality and arbitrary distinction instead of an acknowledgement of murder.

The post Obama Threatens to Veto Late-Term Abortion Ban appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Secrets of the Transhumanist Agenda Revealed at 2013 Conference

2013-06-18T04:35:53Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 18, 2013

Dmitry Itskov spoke at the Global Future 2045 Conference (GF2045) wherein he said that he would like to see technology developed that would allow human consciousness to be inputted into artificial computer neuro-brains and hologram bodies.

In 2020 Itskov envisions human brains being controlled by remote robots.

By 2025, there could be human consciousness “transplanted” into a robotic body which would replace the flawed physical bodies we now use.

The end goal for Itskov would be artificial brains controlling holographic bodies in 2045.

Referred to as neo-humanity, Istkov has begun his own political party in Russia called Evolution 2045.

Itskov said: “We shouldn’t just observe the wonderful entrepreneurs — we need to move ahead systematically. We are really at the time when technology can affect human evolution. I want us to shape the future, bring it up for public discussion, and avoid any scenario that could damage humanity.”

Itskov wants to align his vision with governments and create a movement within the UN to promote a common goal of merging man with machine.

Martine Rothblatt, speaker at the GF2045, stated that just as organ transplants were once considered insane, someday the public will view neo-humanity as commonplace.

Rothblatt said that Itskov will inspire start-up corporations to capitalize on technological advancements.

Dr. Robert Thurman, scholar, author and Tibetan monk spoke at the GF2045, explaining how there can be a balance between technology and culture with a focus on Buddhist teachings.

Conflicting ideology in the scientific community views Itskov’s vision as unrealistic. They say that technological progress does not facilitate Istkov’s timeline.

Hiroshi Ishiguro, Japanese robotics researcher presented his android Geminoid (Latin for “twin”) that he controlled remotely through connections to the internet and is able to see with cameras for eyes.

Professor Henrik Scharfe has his own “tele-operated android” that is not autonomous. Scharfe controls the robot with transmitters connected to his body. Ishiguro designed and conceptualized Scharfe’s Geminoid.

The 2045 Program will create “a new vision of human development that meets global challenges humanity faces today, realization of the possibility of a radical extension of human life by means of cybernetic technology, as well as the formation of a new culture associated with these technologies.”

Transhumanists at the 2045 Program assert that humanity “is in need of a new evolutionary strategy” consisting of a balance between the complexity of technological advances and the acceleration of informational processes to expand the “limited, primitive human” into a “highly self-organized” and technologically “higher intelligence”.

Technology can organize society and integrate unification of a super collective consciousness – a superbeing.

By doing away with individuality, the conclusion is the elimination of:

• Lack of consumer provisions
• Aging, illness and death
• Crime and conflicts
• Natural disasters and catastrophes

Superpeople are the epitome of communitarianism and collectivism as the new globalist vision of society marches toward immortal superpeople.

Because communitarianism is the ideology of the importance of community over the individual, the creation of a communalist society is the emphatic over-reaching value that if it does not provide for the whole, it is not worth pursuit.

The concept of the neo-human and neo-humanity is the replacement for a post-industrial capitalist and consumer-based society where a new form of civilization will emerge.

The goal of transhumanism is to replace all existing laws with the purpose of destroying the essence of humanity for the sake of control.

Hybrid humans with robotic implants are expected to be released into the general public by 2014.

Humanity+, “an international nonprofit membership organization which advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities”.

In their Transhumanist Declaration they advocate old and new ideals of globalist transhumanism by promoting:

• Using technology to “broaden human potential” by overcoming aging and “cognitive shortcomings”
• Provide forums where globalist scientist and researchers can “deliberate how [to enhance humanity through science] to expedite beneficial applications”
• Facilitate “social order, improve human foresight and wisdom” through genetic enhancement
• Influence policymakers to include the transhumanist “responsible and moral vision”

The Transhumanist Agenda uses eugenics, reproductive controls, sterilization campaigns, genetic engineering, RFID chips and rewiring of the brain through pharmaceuticals to achieve their goals. Their quest for immortality with the merging of human and machine is just one part in their convoluted scheme to retain their global dominance over our society. For now, the general public is guinea pigs to be used to prefect their experiments so that by 2050, they will have full implemented their control grid and there will be no one to dissent.

The post Secrets of the Transhumanist Agenda Revealed at 2013 Conference appeared first on Susanne Posel.

UN Climate Talks Outlines Global Governance on CO2 Emissions

2013-06-18T04:42:30Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 18, 2013

The UN claims that policy is made by consensus; however many countries are questioning this process by demanding clarification. During climate conferences decisions have come from the gavel and not the accord of those in attendance.

Christina Figueres, climate chief of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recommends that it is “ironic that even though all governments agreed that the decision-making procedure needs to be discussed, they couldn’t figure out, how do they get to what they want to do?”

The purpose of these talks in Bonn, Germany, is to devise a worldwide climate change pact that all nations must adhere to beginning in 2015.

In 2020 the agreement being spun now will outline targets for acceptable greenhouse gas emissions with the focus on climate change to avert extreme weather continuing; as well as meeting a goal devised by the international community to bring down the temperature of the planet.

Jean Jouzel, climatologist, explained that “the two-degree limit is perhaps symbolic, but if we exceed it, we take big risks. On paper it (2 C) is still possible [while] it seems difficult.”

Oleg Shamanov, climate envoy for Russia said : “Our process is very sick. We have constant problems with procedural matters and we are constantly forced to resolve problems in circumstances of haste and apprehension and anxiety.”

Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus have objected to the agenda of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) for failing to come to an accord over 2 weeks of negotiations.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called to action the youth of the world to take on the job of advocating for climate change in their own country by applying pressure to their governments.

Ban said : “I am glad to have this chance to talk with you, to discuss the most important and most pressing issue which will increasingly feature in your lives and coming generations. Climate change is a threat to development, the stability of countries and economies, and the health of the planet. Extreme weather is costing trillions of dollars and endangering lives and livelihoods all around the world.”

Figueres asserted that “the IEA report comes at a crucial moment for the UN Climate Change negotiations and for global efforts to address climate change at all levels.”

The 2013 World Energy Outlook (WEO) report entitled “Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map” produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA) claims that China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and should invest in renewable energy while mandating energy efficiency.

Globally, emissions of CO2 rose by 1.4% in 2012. Japan alone had a 6% rise which coincides with their phasing out of nuclear power.

The IEA would like to see global compliance to 4 policies that would endeavor to control the climate and not harm economic growth of individual nations.

• Constructing and improving energy efficient buildings
• Improving industry and transport
• Limiting the use of energy wasting power plants
• Halving methane emissions
• Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies

Looking to 2020, the international community should spend $1.5 trillion to adhere to climate targets.

The IEA expects that all governments would contribute to this investment into schemes to stored CO2 which would enable fossil fuels to continue to be used.

Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA said : “Climate change has quite frankly slipped to the back burner of policy priorities. But the problem is not going away — quite the opposite.”

Negotiations are in the works between countries and the UN to strike a global deal that would force all nations to adhere to international law concerning CO2 emissions.

With governments having the choice of whether or not to participate now, after this agreement were signed, the UN would be able to take over and force a nation to comply.

Birol said: “The IEA has also warned of the dangers of locking in fossil fuel infrastructure, which would need to be retired early, at great additional cost, in order to meet the 2C target. The IEA’s message is crystal clear: dither and delay in making the transition to a low-carbon energy system will be risky and expensive.”

Aggressive actions to make sure governments comply with international mandates on climate change would have energy corporations time to strategize.

Indeed there is the reality that adherence to the suggestions of the WEO would “require the complete reorientation of our fossil- fuelled energy system valued in the trillions of dollars.”

The WEO report claims that a move toward natural gas as a replacement for coal would “reduce [CO2] emissions by 200 million tons.”

The post UN Climate Talks Outlines Global Governance on CO2 Emissions appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Snowden: I’m Not a Spy For the Chinese Gov

2013-06-18T06:47:23Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 18, 2013

President Obama appeared on the Charlie Rose Show to dispel the assertions by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Obama claims that the American public is “not getting the complete story. What I’ve asked the intelligence community to do is see how much of this we can declassify without further compromising the program. And they are in that process of doing so now so that everything that I’m describing to you today – people, the public, newspapers, etc., can look at. Because frankly, if people are making judgments just based on these slides that have been leaked, they’re not getting the complete story.”

The president asserted that “if you’re a U.S. person, then NSA is not listening to your phone calls, and it’s not targeting your emails, unless it’s getting an individualized court order . . . folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion.”

Obama said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) assures transparency because Congress oversees the program and has all documentation to authorize monitoring because they know “exactly how this program works.”

Snowden maintains that he has not given classified documents to the Chinese government. He said: “This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public intended to distract from the issue of U.S. government misconduct. Ask yourself: If I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn’t I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.”

Snowden explained that Obama has “closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.”

He believes that the US government has “destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That’s not justice.”

Yahoo has revealed that the US government has made 13,000 requests for information on users in a data collection scheme.

These requests were made through FISA which legally binds the tech corporation to comply.

Ron Bell, chief counsel, stated that: “We’ve worked hard over the years to earn our users’ trust and we fight hard to preserve it. We will continually evaluate whether further actions can be taken to protect the privacy of our users and our ability to defend it.”

Apple recently divulged that federal surveillance agencies have used FISA to make between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data from December 2012 to May of this year.

This information was given to the National Security Agency (NSA) under the PRISM program.

Apple asserts: ‘We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order.”

The post Snowden: I’m Not a Spy For the Chinese Gov appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Climate Change: Adapt to the Reality or Die

2013-06-18T04:32:16Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 18, 2013

The UN International Energy Agency (IEA) stated in a recent report on climate change that computer predictions claim the global temperature will rise to 9.54 degrees Fahrenheit within this century.

The IEA says that governments across the globe must adhere to UN specifications on CO2 emissions to stave off extreme weather and the worst provided by the statistical assumptions in their computer models.

Recommendations include:

• Enacting UN energy policies in every nation
• Limit construction of coal and nuclear plants
• Restrict methane emissions from power plants and oil and natural gas extraction
• Phase out fossil fuel subsidies from governments to corporations
• Implement carbon taxing in every country

Alarmist conversations have shifted from stopping climate change to learning to live with it. Adaptation is the new solution being presented to the public in what the UN refers to as “managing the unavoidable.”

Just as Al Gore pointed out in his book “The Future”, scientists are clamoring around the idea that reduction is futile so the public must adapt to climate change or die.

The immediate necessity of governmental and UN intervention on behalf of the planet is evidenced in studies such as was recently published by the UCLA.

This research claims that by 2050, because of CO2 emissions, snowfall in California will slow down substantially. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villarairgosa remarked that the AdoptLA framework initiative would develop solutions to combat this problem preemptively.

The study states that less snow will coincide with flooding of the area. These predictions are based on computer models that work on the data inputted.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced that he will champion a $20 billion dollar project to combat climate change and the threat of rising sea levels with the construction of flood gates and levees.

Bloomberg said : “Whether you believe climate change is real or not is beside the point. The bottom line is: We can’t run the risk.”

The document outlines the assessment made by Bloomberg’s office on how to properly combat climate change which includes:

• Rewriting existing building codes
• Structuring public transportation, hospitals, water treatment plants and communities to meet the challenges of global warming

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee is in accord with Bloomberg to create digital cities that are climate change friendly. Construction will withstand extreme weather, reroute power during outages, be protected from flooding and assist residents in transportation out of devastated or affected areas.

Bloomberg and Lee have attended a summit to discuss these schemes for their cities that will bring together residents in conjunction with learning to live sustainable lives.

Rosina Bierbaum, presidential science adviser of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) said: “It’s quite striking how much is going on at the municipal level. Communities have to operate in real time. Everybody is struggling with a climate that is no longer the climate of the past.”

Bierbaum asserts that: “Many of the other developed countries have gone way ahead of us in preparing for climate change. In many ways, the US may be playing catch-up.”

Bloomberg is also beta-testing a program in Staten Island and Manhattan wherein certain apartment buildings and 3,500 homes are required to save their food scraps for composting.

By late this year, the initiative will become mandated throughout cities in New York; just as this scheme is required in San Francisco and Seattle.

Eric Goldstein, lawyer for the Natural resources Defense Council said : “New York City, because of its density, faces logistical challenges on many fronts, and so when the city concludes that food waste composting is workable and economically and environmentally sound, that’s a decision that other municipalities will give weight to.”

City officials say that residents spend $100 million annually to dispose of food waste. This scheme will save money and create fertilizer that is viewed as “an aggressive step into recycling food waste.”

The post Climate Change: Adapt to the Reality or Die appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Top Obama Donors to Organizing For Action Become US Ambassadors

2013-06-18T04:29:40Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 17, 2013

The Obama administration awards those who give exorbitant amounts in donations to his Organizing For Action (OFA), Obama’s non-profit propaganda machine.

They become US ambassadors.

John Emerson, investment executive will become the next ambassador to Germany.

James Costos, executive for the Home Box Office (HBO) Corporation has been upgraded to ambassador to Spain.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign said of Costos: “Ambassador-designate James Costos is a true citizen of the world. He has incredible global business experience and is a respected and innovative leader. He has solid business and political relationships at the highest levels and a proven commitment to community, philanthropy, human rights, and democracy that make him an outstanding choice to be the nation’s next Ambassador to Spain.”

Rufus Gifford, director of finance operation for the Obama campaign has a new title – ambassador to Denmark.

Ken Hacket, former president of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been dominated as the ambassador to the Holy See.

Department of State employees who have given large amounts to OFA have also been elevated to ambassador status: Patric Haslach is now the ambassador to Ethiopia and Liliana Ayalde is to be the ambassador to Brazil.

Regarding his new ambassadors, Obama said : “It gives me great confidence that such dedicated and capable individuals have agreed to join this Administration to serve the American people. I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come.”

Earlier this year, Obama set up OFA to coerce the American populace to support his agendas. Through local chapters strategically placed throughout the country, OFA will train volunteers to rally their local elected officials and state senate leaders to back Obama’s push for certain legislation; such as gun control laws, public education, Obamacare, environmental issues, renewable sources of energy and immigration reform.

OFA will devise a “plan for 2013” by conducting meetings to conceptualize how best to use their “grassroots” organization to vie for the Obama administration.

OFA is focused on “organizing for Action will support the legislative agenda we voted on, train the next generation of grassroots organizers and leaders, and organize around local issues in our communities.”

At their disposal is data collected on Obama supporters from two previous campaigns and a call to citizens to lead a fake grassroots effort that is not confined by the restrictions on Capital Hill.

Jim Messina, chair of OFA and former 2012 campaign manager, explains: “We’ll work on the key battles of our generation, train the next generation of grassroots organizers and leaders, and organize around local issues in our own communities. We’ll continue to support the President in creating jobs and growing the economy from the middle out, and in fighting for issues like immigration reform, climate change, balanced deficit reduction, and reducing gun violence.”

OFA is registered as a 501(c)4 nonprofit which gives the corporation the ability to raise unlimited amounts of money from any type of donor; whether it be an individual, corporation or union.

As a social welfare organization, OFA can and most likely will be used to funnel money through its doors as it is not required by law to disclose its donors.

Although OFA claims to be by the people, for the people, they are clearly a tool to advance the legislative agendas of Obama for the next four years.

OFA relies on heavy financial donations just as any SuperPAC to gain footing and influence over agendas put forth by the Obama administration.

For raising $500,000, the Obama administration will give those donors a seat on a national advisory board and the “privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.”

Cash speaks and donors can expect to have first seat on appointments to not only employment within the administration but also US ambassadorships.

The Obama administration has used contests and receptions for activists to encourage big donors to give their cash. Michael Jordan, former NBA basketball player has participated in these coercive efforts to elicit money from private sector millionaires.

George Clooney was offered up to the financial supporters a “win a date with Clooney” contest. According to OFA, if a donation of at least $3 is made, that individual is “automatically entered to win two seats at George Clooney’s reception with President Obama.”

Last March, OFA held a founder’s summit where those who donated enough money have a seat to witness history being made. Never before in America has a president had such a blatant organization dedicated only to pushing his administration’s agendas to the public.

Speakers at the dinner include:

• David Plouffee, former White House senior adviser
• Jim Messina, national chairman of OFA
• Jon Carson, executive director of OFA
• Dan Wagner, Obama campaign’s chief analytics manager
• Sara El-Amine, national organizing director for OFA
• Lindsey Siler, issues director for OFA

An official for OFA explained that “the summit is a series of meetings with volunteers, neighborhood team leaders, former campaign staff and donors who will shape the direction of Organizing For Action.”

At the St. Regis Hotel in Washington DC, and over two days, the Founders Summit will provide “brainstorming sessions” so that those involved at the upper echelon of OFA can properly coerce the American public toward advocacy and mobilization strategies.

Those who have paid $50,000 per seat they will have access to this closed meeting with Obama to talk about how to best use propaganda against the purveying social mindset of the American public.

The post Top Obama Donors to Organizing For Action Become US Ambassadors appeared first on Susanne Posel.

Facial Recognition Databases are Another Way to Monitor Americans

2013-06-18T14:17:31Z

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 18, 2013

Facial recognition databases on American citizens used by local and federal law enforcement are on the rise . These programs are sold to the public as necessary because they assist police in locating criminals with comparative CCTV surveillance camera images that are cross-referenced with driver’s license and state-ID photos.

We are becoming a caricature of ourselves with the advent of such sci-fi films as Minority Report coming to life.

Laura Donohue, professor of law at Georgetown University asked : “As a society, do we want to have total surveillance? Do we want to give the government the ability to identify individuals wherever they are … without any immediate probable cause?”

The reality is that over 120 million Americans are searchable in facial recognition databases. This includes the innocent and criminal intermingled with a few loosely interpreted legal safeguards in place.

However, authorities simply say that their surveillance is for “law enforcement purposes” and they can monitor anyone, anywhere.

The Next Generation Identification (NGI) databases is used by the US military to identify insurgents and local police departments (LPDs) to find murderers, bank robbers an drug dealers.

NGI is a part of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) that utilizes “advances in technology, customer requirements, and growing demand for Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) services.”

The FBI has received $1 billion in taxpayer money to collect information on Americans in order to develop an all-encompassing criminal database.

Biometric identifiers have replaced older software to create a “state-of-the-art biometric identification services and provide a flexible framework of core capabilities that will serve as a platform for multimodal functionality.”

House Representative Brett Geymann is concerned that US citizen’s “driver’s license [will] essentially becomes a national ID card.”

Earlier this month the US Supreme Court ruled this week that law enforcement officers may take DNA samples of suspects arrested “in connection with serious crimes.”

Federal agencies and local law enforcement (LLE) assert that this practice is vital to their investigatory processes.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: “When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody; taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that taking DNA samples of individuals arrested to set up a genetic database under the guise of solving cold cases in the distant future is an affront to the 4th Amendment.

Scalia said: “Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

Kennedy claims that there was a “need for law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify the persons and possessions they must take into custody.”

By describing an individual’s DNA as simply another part of the booking procedure, Kennedy made an illogical deduction that genetic markers are the same as fingerprints.

Kennedy wrote: “An individual’s identity is more than just his name or Social Security number, and the government’s interest in identification goes beyond ensuring that the proper name is typed on the indictment. Identity has never been considered limited to the name on the arrestee’s birth certificate. In fact, a name is of little value compared to the real interest in identification at stake when an individual is brought into custody.”

Scalia retorted in dissent that LLE and federal agencies would have the suspect’s name, address, phone number, height, weight, sex, etc. . . simply from the arrest itself and that DNA sampling was not necessary.

Scalia wrote: “Solving crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail. So the ironic result of the court’s error is this: The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who have been acquitted of the crimes of arrest.”

Continuing, Scalia said: “Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA whenever you fly on an airplane — surely the TSA must know the ‘identity’ of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children’s DNA when they start public school.”

In conclusion, from the bench, Scalia said: “It may be wise, as the Court obviously believes, to make the Leviathan all-seeing, so that he may protect us all the better. The proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

Justice Sotomayor commented that “DNA swabs could find their way into the nation’s schools and workplaces” and Justice Elena Kagan remarked that if this scheme were successful “why don’t we do this for anybody who comes in for a driver’s license?”

The post Facial Recognition Databases are Another Way to Monitor Americans appeared first on Susanne Posel.