US Think Tank Devises Plan To Sell Fake Iran Threat

March 6, 2012

InfoWars.com

By Tony Cartalucci

The corporate media has recently portrayed a narrative where we see the West apparently warning Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran. It appears that Israel is intent on “going it alone” despite the wishes of its “more rational” Western sponsors. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported in their article, “U.S., Israel Pull Closer on Iran,” that, “Israeli officials, meanwhile, said that President Barack Obama’s public and private acknowledgment of the Jewish state’s sovereign right to defend itself was a crucial gain as the two countries seek to deter Tehran,” in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

To the average reader, it would seem that both the US and Israel agree that Iran is an imminent threat against which Israel and the United States simply have differing views on how to counter. In reality, this is a premeditated, deceitful act, already clearly articulated since 2009 in a signed document, on how both nations plan on duping the world into accepting an unnecessary war.

Click here for the full report from InfoWars.com

Time To Act On Companies Selling Mass Spy Gear To Authoritarian Regimes

February 8, 2012

Activist Post

By Trevor Timm

“We should be just as concerned with the US government using spy gear as an ‘authoritarian regime.’  There really isn’t much of a difference.”  –KTRN

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:

Click here for the full report.

War With Iran Inevitable

January 16, 2012

USA Watchdog

By Greg Hunter

Two weeks ago, Iranians were saved from pirates on their hijacked ship by the U.S. Navy. Last week, the U.S. military saved a sinking ship in the Persian Gulf. It’s too bad that will not be enough goodwill to stop the coming Iran war. Headlines in the last few weeks look like a stark warning for a coming conflict. The West, spearheaded by America, is putting into place tougher sanctions that will target Iran’s financial and oil interests. Tension has been increasing by the week over the nuclear program that Iran steadfastly claims is for the peaceful production of energy. New sanctions will be fully implemented in about six months.

Iran has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz if sanctions are carried out. Iran has also warned Gulf oil producers against boosting production if an embargo stops or slows oil from the region. The U.S. has warned Iran against any action to close this narrow shipping passage where up to 40% of the world’s oil passes every year. The Pentagon has flatly said it will not allow that to happen. Meanwhile, the U.S. has warned Israel not to attack Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, “U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict. President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.”

Click here for the full story from USA Watchdog.

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 12-31-11

Kevin reveals how the drug companies keep you in the dark about the truth; are they using us as human experiments? Plus, the man that the media forgets about, Congressman Ron Paul joins Kevin and explains what we need to do to fix this country!

Health:
FDA Admits, HIV Drug Causes Liver Damage
Scientists Say Nicotine Drugs Overhyped
Do Not Give Your Children Cough Syrup
Obese Patients Need Larger Needles
Scientists In India Create Super Tomato
Abuse of Prescription Drugs a Rising Problem
Night Owls Have Worst Diet Habits
Coffee Prevents Prostate Cancer
17,000 Harmful Chemicals Kept Secret Under Obscure Law
Chemicals Pass Through Breast Milk to Cause Cancer
Antibiotics May Boost Risk for Recurrent Ear Infection
Another Emory Psychiatrist Draws Fire for Payments From Glaxo

NWO:
McDonalds Closing Hundreds of Outlets in Japan

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 10-8-11

Kevin reveals how the drug companies keep you in the dark about the truth; are they using us as human experiments? Plus, the man that the media forgets about, Congressman Ron Paul joins Kevin and explains what we need to do to fix this country!

Health:
FDA Admits, HIV Drug Causes Liver Damage
Scientists Say Nicotine Drugs Overhyped
Do Not Give Your Children Cough Syrup
Obese Patients Need Larger Needles
Scientists In India Create Super Tomato
Abuse of Prescription Drugs a Rising Problem
Night Owls Have Worst Diet Habits
Coffee Prevents Prostate Cancer
17,000 Harmful Chemicals Kept Secret Under Obscure Law
Chemicals Pass Through Breast Milk to Cause Cancer
Antibiotics May Boost Risk for Recurrent Ear Infection
Another Emory Psychiatrist Draws Fire for Payments From Glaxo

NWO:
McDonalds Closing Hundreds of Outlets in Japan

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!

White House Will Hit Panic Button On Fall Elections

July 14, 2010

The Examiner

By: Julie Mason

Amid new polls showing Democrats losing momentum with voters, the White House is sounding less confident about its chances in November.

The new posture is one-half reality check, one-half calculated strategy — aimed at waking the party’s base from a state of general apathy.

“I think I did what is maybe uncommon in this town,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. “I opened my mouth and stated the obvious.”

Gibbs over the weekend publicly acknowledged for the first time that Republicans could win control of the House.

It was not a far-fetched conclusion. A new Gallup poll found 38 percent of Republicans very enthusiastic about the midterm elections, compared to 25 percent of Democrats.

The pollsters also found the parties statistically tied heading into November, and noted that Democrats are unlikely to gain a substantial lead in the meantime.

That means for the White House, hitting the panic button for Democratic voters is now just as important as crafting an appealing message.

The Obama administration has struggled recently to calibrate its appeal — by sounding confident but also injecting pragmatic notes and warning that Republicans don’t have the answers.

“You’re going to have a choice between the leadership that we have now and the leadership that that believes that BP should be apologized to, first and foremost, and that the type of calamity wrought by the financial meltdown in the end of 2008 is analogous to the size of an ant,” Gibbs said.

President Obama has lost the support of many of the independent voters who helped him win two years ago. Many have told pollsters they now favor Republican candidates.

The Democratic Party is focusing its efforts on getting Obama’s 2008 voters back to the polls in November — a dicey prospect for a midterm election when Obama is not on the ballot.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 62 percent of Americans believe the country is moving in the wrong direction, and 57 percent said they disapproved of President Obama’s job performance.

That’s good news for Republicans, who want to make the election a referendum on the first two years of Obama’s presidency. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal pollsters surmised that Republicans could claim both chambers of Congress.

“You look at the polls right now, and I think the rankings of the Democratic Party have softened; the rankings of the Republican Party have not gone up,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. “The public is looking at Washington and saying, ‘A pox on all of their houses.’ ”

Even among Democratic voters, however, 17 percent said they disapprove of Obama’s policies, according to the poll.

Key issues are his handling of the economy and more recently, the BP oil spill. An emerging issue is immigration reform, which is always divisive even in a nonelection year.

Over the weekend, administration officials conceded that Guantanamo Bay prison may not close this year, and that hurdles still exist in prosecuting Sept. 11 terrorists — once hot-button issues for the White House lately engulfed by more recent events.

click here to read full article

News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments

April 13, 2010

New York Times

by Richard Pérez-Peña

From the start, Internet users have taken for granted that the territory was both a free-for-all and a digital disguise, allowing them to revel in their power to address the world while keeping their identities concealed.

A New Yorker cartoon from 1993, during the Web’s infancy, with one mutt saying to another, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” became an emblem of that freedom. For years, it was the magazine’s most reproduced cartoon.

When news sites, after years of hanging back, embraced the idea of allowing readers to post comments, the near-universal assumption was that anyone could weigh in and remain anonymous. But now, that idea is under attack from several directions, and journalists, more than ever, are questioning whether anonymity should be a given on news sites.

The Washington Post plans to revise its comments policy over the next several months, and one of the ideas under consideration is to give greater prominence to commenters using real names.

The New York Times, The Post and many other papers have moved in stages toward requiring that people register before posting comments, providing some information about themselves that is not shown onscreen.

The Huffington Post soon will announce changes, including ranking commenters based in part on how well other readers know and trust their writing.

“Anonymity is just the way things are done. It’s an accepted part of the Internet, but there’s no question that people hide behind anonymity to make vile or controversial comments,” said Arianna Huffington, a founder of The Huffington Post. “I feel that this is almost like an education process. As the rules of the road are changing and the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity.”

The Plain Dealer of Cleveland recently discovered that anonymous comments on its site, disparaging a local lawyer, were made using the e-mail address of a judge who was presiding over some of that lawyer’s cases.

That kind of proxy has been documented before; what was more unusual was that The Plain Dealer exposed the connection in an article. The judge, Shirley Strickland Saffold, denied sending the messages — her daughter took responsibility for some of them. And last week, the judge sued The Plain Dealer, claiming it had violated her privacy.

The paper acknowledged that it had broken with the tradition of allowing commenters to hide behind screen names, but it served notice that anonymity was a habit, not a guarantee. Susan Goldberg, The Plain Dealer’s editor, declined to comment for this article. But in an interview she gave to her own newspaper, she said that perhaps the paper should not have investigated the identity of the person who posted the comments, “but once we did, I don’t know how you can pretend you don’t know that information.”

Some prominent journalists weighed in on the episode, calling it evidence that news sites should do away with anonymous comments. Leonard Pitts Jr., a Miami Herald columnist, wrote recently that anonymity has made comment streams “havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnants of our propriety.”

No one doubts that there is a legitimate value in letting people express opinions that may get them in trouble at work, or may even offend their neighbors, without having to give their names, said William Grueskin, dean of academic affairs at Columbia’s journalism school.

“But a lot of comment boards turn into the equivalent of a barroom brawl, with most of the participants having blood-alcohol levels of 0.10 or higher,” he said. “People who might have something useful to say are less willing to participate in boards where the tomatoes are being thrown.”

He said news organizations were willing to reconsider anonymity in part because comment pages brought in little revenue; advertisers generally do not like to buy space next to opinions, especially incendiary ones.

The debate over anonymity is entwined with the question of giving more weight to comments from some readers than others, based in part on how highly other readers regard them. Some sites already use a version of this approach; Wikipedia users can earn increasing editing rights by gaining the trust of other editors, and when reviews are posted on Amazon.com, those displayed most prominently are those that readers have voted “most helpful” — and they are often written under real names.

Hal Straus, interactivity editor of The Washington Post, said, “We want to be able to establish user tiers, and display variations based on those tiers.” The system is still being planned, but he says it is likely that readers will be asked to rate comments, and that people’s comments will be ranked in part based on the trust those users have earned from other readers — an approach much like the one The Huffington Post is set to adopt. Another criterion could be whether they use their real names.

But experience has shown that when users help rank things online, sites may have to guard against a concerted campaign by a small group of people voting one way and skewing the results.

A popular feature on The Wall Street Journal’s site lets readers decide whether they want to see only those comments posted by subscribers, on the theory that the most dedicated readers might make for a more serious conversation.

A few news organizations, including The Times, have someone review every comment before it goes online, to weed out personal attacks and bigoted comments. Some sites and prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, simply do not allow comments.

Some news sites review comments after they are posted, but most say they do not have the resources to do routine policing. Many sites allow readers to flag objectionable comments for removal, and make some effort to block comments from people who have repeatedly violated the site’s standards.

If commenters were asked to provide their real names for display online, some would no doubt give false identities, and verifying them would be too labor-intensive to be realistic. But news executives say that merely making the demand for a name and an e-mail address would weed out much of the most offensive commentary.

Several industry executives cited a more fundamental force working in favor of identifying commenters. Through blogging and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, millions of people have grown accustomed to posting their opinions — to say nothing of personal details — with their names attached, for all to see. Adapting the Facebook model, some news sites allow readers to post a picture along with a comment, another step away from anonymity.

“There is a younger generation that doesn’t feel the same need for privacy,” Ms. Huffington said. “Many people, when you give them other choices, they choose not to be anonymous.”

Click here for full report

Banks Are Still Deceiving The Public

April 9, 2010

CNBC

By: Reuters

Major U.S. banks temporarily lowered their debt levels just before reporting in the past five quarters, making it appear their balance sheets were less risky, the Wall Street Journal said, citing data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The paper said on Friday 18 banks, including Goldman Sachs  [GS  178.75    -0.75  (-0.42%)    ], Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citigroup, understated the debt levels used to fund securities trades by lowering them an average of 42 percent at the end of each period.

The banks had increased their debt in the middle of successive quarters, it said.

Excessive leverage by the banks was one of the causes that led to the global financial crisis in 2008.

Due to the credit crisis, banks have become more sensitive about showing high levels of debt and risk, worried their stocks and credit ratings could be punished, the Journal said.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York could not be immediately reached for comment by Reuters.

Click here for the full report.

JPMorgan Investment Bankers to See Record Payday

January 18, 2010

Yahoo New/ Reuters

By Steve Eder

JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) on Friday announced a record $9.3 billion payday for its investment-banking employees, setting the stage for competitors like Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) to also make eye-popping payouts.

On a per employee basis, JPMorgan investment bankers, sales staff and traders, on average, are set to make about $379,000 for 2009, up more than $100,000 from 2008, when the broader financial sector was mired in crisis.

“People looking at it from the outside look at the dollars and say they are high,” said Kenneth Raskin, the head of law firm White & Case’s executive compensation practice. “There is no question the dollars are high. The question is whether they were deserving.”

Median U.S. household income in 2008 was $50,303.

Michael Cavanagh, JPMorgan’s chief financial officer, told reporters that even though pay is up overall, its investment bank still reduced the percentage of revenue that it set aside for pay, to 33 percent, from 62 percent for 2008 and historical averages of about 44 percent. Its investment bank had one of its strongest years.

Analysts also expect Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Morgan Stanley (MS.N), which report their results next week, to show an upswing in pay. Citigroup Inc (C.N), however, could pay commercial and investment banking bonuses for 2009 that are similar to 2008 levels, sources told Reuters.

Banks across the industry have changed their compensation plans to give managers more of their pay in the form of stock that must be held for multiple years. This sort of deferred compensation is meant to curb traders and others from taking short-term risks that could harm the investment bank several years later.

Changes in compensation plans, however, have done little to bring down overall pay figures and quell public outrage over pay.

The Wall Street Journal on Friday reported that the top 38 U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their people $145 billion, based the newspaper’s analysis.

The public anger over banker pay led the New York Times to call on Congress to pass a one-off windfall tax on banker bonuses. Britain plans a one-time tax of half of banker bonuses above 25,000 pounds ($40,675).

Banks, which now face President Obama’s bailout tax, have so far been successful in beating back other reforms, including plans for a consumer protection regulator.

The resistance of the banking industry to roll back pay is infuriating and short-sighted to some, especially with high unemployment and people losing homes to foreclosure.

“These people need some perspective on where we are and what they have done,” said Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University.

Click here for the full report.

California Considers Nation’s First Statewide ‘Green’ Building Code

January 13, 2010

USA Today

California, long a trendsetter for eco-friendly living, is breaking ground again this week. It’s set, as early as today, to adopt the nation’s first statewide green building code, which environmentalists say is not tough enough, and is also considering paying residents to cut their energy use.

On Monday, a state panel proposed that most of the new fees California plans to impose on greenhouse-gas emissions be returned to energy-saving consumers in the form of annual dividend checks that eventually could exceed $1,000 for a family of four, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The story says this proposal is part of an effort to find the most efficient way to change consumer behavior.

California is expected today to adopt a  green building code that would reduce water use, mandate the recycling of construction waste and step up enforcement of energy efficiency in new homes, schools, hospitals and commercial buildings, the Los Angeles Times reports.

However, environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, are mounting a last-ditch effort to derail key elements of the plan, backed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The report explains:

Critics say the rules fall short of rigorous standards adopted by Los Angeles, San Francisco and more than 50 California jurisdictions in league with the U.S. Green Building Council, a national non-profit group of architects, engineers and construction companies.

The council’s voluntary Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards have become an industry norm in recent years, with architects and construction firms competing on four levels — LEED basic, silver, gold or platinum — to market their buildings as green.

In 2004, Schwarzenegger ordered that all new state buildings meet at least a LEED silver level.

But parts of the state’s new code, which would take effect in January 2011, would amount to “a setback for California’s leadership on green building,” according to a Dec. 22 letter from six groups. They included the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Global Green, along with two non-profit certification groups, the Green Building Council and Berkeley-based Build It Green.

Click here for the full report.

Next Page »