Archive for September, 2010

Stuxnet False Flag Launched For Web Takeover

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Paul Joseph Watson
GCN Live.com
September 27, 2010

Israel and the United States have emerged as the prime suspects behind the Stuxnet worm attack, which has infected the Iranian nuclear plant at Bushehr, following the discovery that a “wealthy group or nation” must have been responsible for the malware assault.

On Sunday, Infowars speculated that Stuxnet was a false flag intended to both target Iran and provide a pretext for the implementation of draconian cybersecurity legislation.

That suspicion has been greatly enhanced by new evidence which proves the virus was “created by experts working for a country or a well-funded private group,” according to Liam O Murchu, manager of security response operations at Symantec Corp.

“A number of governments with sophisticated computer skills would have the ability to create such a code. They include China, Russia, Israel, Britain, Germany and the United States,” states the Associated Press report, clearly indicating that the US, Israel, Great Britain, or a combination of the three were behind the attack.

The Stuxnet worm is now “rampaging through Iran,” causing havoc to the country’s industrial infrastructure, having already infected at least 30,000 IP addresses.

There would be no motivation whatsoever for Russia to be behind the attack because they have helped fuel the Bushehr reactor. China has backed US calls for sanctions in response to the nuclear plant, but it can hardly be claimed that the Chinese have aggressively opposed its construction and fueling. Indeed, China has been a regular exporter of nuclear technology and assistance to Iran in recent years.

That leaves three prime suspects, all of whom have followed identical foreign policies in vehemently opposing Iran’s self-proclaimed goal of developing peaceful nuclear energy.

Top globalists such as Richard Falkenrath, a principal at Chertoff Group and a Bloomberg Television contributing editor, already blamed Israel for the attack before evidence emerged that the virus was the work of a sophisticated nation state.

If the United States’ involvement in the attack was to be confirmed, it would completely discredit the foundation of cybersecurity legislation, which is being promoted as a means of defending against cyber attacks launched by terrorists and other nation states.

However, if any US involvement remains concealed, Stuxnet will be hyped as a primary reason for rushing the passage of the amalgamation of the Lieberman and Rockefeller bills, which as we have documented, have little to do with security and everything to do with shutting down free speech on the Internet, despite the fact that Stuxnet was distributed through a physical USB device and not via the public Internet.

Lieberman’s version of the original bill includes language that would hand President Obama the power to shut down parts of the world wide web for at least four months with no congressional oversight. The combined version appears to shift that responsibility to DHS, who under the pretext of a national emergency could block all Internet traffic to the U.S. from certain countries, and close down specific hubs and networks, creating an ominous precedent for government regulation and control over the Internet.

Cybersecurity legislation is being promoted as a vital tool to defend the nation’s critical infrastructure against cyber- terrorism. However, as we have highlighted, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear is the real agenda behind cybersecurity – to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.

Fears that cybersecurity legislation could be used to stifle free speech were heightened when Senator Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the real motivation behind the bill was to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Banksters Inflate Speculative Food Bubble, U.N. Offers Global Governance Solution

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Eric Blair
Activist Post
September 27, 2010

Never let a good crisis go to waste. The international bankers are taking advantage of the “food crisis” by driving up food prices in what is shaping up to be a classic case of a manufactured bubble. It is also looking like a clear model of Problem-Reaction-Solution methodology. Create the food inflation problem (of course profiting all the way up), force an enraged reaction among the public, and take more sovereignty away with the solution of global food regulation.

Take a look at the commodity price charts for wheat and corn. Pay particularly close attention to what has happened since July 1st:

wheat

Wheat Prices – Source: Commodity Charts

wheat

Corn Prices – Source: Commodity Charts

These charts look like a technical trader’s dream, almost as if a computer program was set to incrementally increase the prices as to not make too many headlines on the way up. The recent market speculation has now driven food commodity prices for corn and soybean to their 2-year highs. An emergency meeting Friday by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome to address the urgent shortages and sudden surge in prices had this to say:

In the past few weeks, global cereal markets experienced a sudden surge in international wheat prices on concerns over wheat shortages prompted by the drought in the Russian Federation. These unexpected events raise important questions not only about the stability of markets but, even more importantly, about the accuracy of production forecasts and ultimately the overall supply and demand prospects. However, with an increasing proportion of world grain supplies originating from the Black Sea region, an area known for large variations in yields, unexpected production shortfalls are likely to emerge more as a common feature rather than an exception in the years to come.

The Guardian reported on the meeting that, “Environmental disasters and speculative investors are to blame for volatile food commodities markets, says U.N.’s special adviser.” The article went on to quote from a research paper by the U.N.’s “special rapporteur” on food, Olivier De Schutter, which summarizes how speculation is inflating a food bubble:

‘[Beginning in ]2001, food commodities derivatives markets, and commodities indexes began to see an influx of non-traditional investors,; De Schutter writes. ‘The reason for this was because other markets dried up one by one: the dotcoms vanished at the end of 2001, the stock market soon after, and the US housing market in August 2007. As each bubble burst, these large institutional investors moved into other markets, each traditionally considered more stable than the last. Strong similarities can be seen between the price behaviour of food commodities and other refuge values, such as gold.’

He continues: ‘A significant contributory cause of the price spike [has been] speculation by institutional investors who did not have any expertise or interest in agricultural commodities, and who invested in commodities index funds or in order to hedge speculative bets.’

Certainly, the flurry of reports about the growing concerns over global food production, extreme weather, and a record-weak dollar have offered sufficient excuses for the speculation. While at the same time, the human ramifications of these events are immeasurably awful. Here’s just a few headlines from this week alone:

* Global food risk from China-Russia pincer

* USDA reduces grain-production estimates

* Australian prime wheat in demand, supply outlook tight

* Canadian farmers hit by rain face latest foe — frost

* Brazil Crops Shrivel as Amazon Dries Up to Lowest in 47 Years

* Gold Climbs to $1,300 on Dollar Concern; Silver at 30-Year High

These are very real concerns for feeding the human population. And indeed, they are urgent matters to be solved. However, it seems too convenient to see the banksters profit, the public suffering turn to outrage, and the bank-owned government agencies to scramble for a “solution.” Haven’t we seen this Three-card Monte game enough by now? It’s a scam.

Almost right on cue, here comes the reaction from the food aid groups desperately calling for “swift action.” An ActionAid‘s hunger campaigner, Alex Wijeratna, was quoted in the Guardian article: ”The emergency U.N. meeting in Rome is a clear warning sign that we could be on the brink of another food price crisis unless swift action is taken. Already, nearly a billion people go to bed hungry every night — another food crisis would be catastrophic for millions of poor people.”

If we believe Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, we can expect to be offered the solution of global food regulation. In June of 2009, in response to the 2008 food crisis, he called for “bolstered global governance system for world food security” under the cover of feeding the hungry. He said, “We have to build a more coherent and effective system of governance for world food security; we have to correct the policies and international trade system that have resulted in more hunger and poverty.”

Incidentally, the organization’s plans for increased global governance seem to mainly focus on divvying up the elite’s table scraps to the poor hungry nations. Under this governance, we will likely see food continue to be used as an economic weapon. It is also likely that more “free trade” agreements will be forced for food. And, finally, we can expect more focus on increasing crop yields — no doubt with the help of big agribusiness. The one thing that we are most likely NOT to see is the prosecution or regulation of the banking speculators who hold the real power to starve the poor.

FDA refuses to require labeling of genetically modified salmon

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
September 27, 2010

As the FDA stands poised to approve genetically modified (GM) salmon safe for public consumption, the next logical question concerns how GM salmon would be labeled. Would the fish come with a large red warning that says, “Genetically modified salmon”?

salmon.jpg
The FDA has already gone on the record stating it will not require any special labeling of genetically modified salmon. Photo: Woodley Wonderworks.

As it turns out, no. In fact, the FDA has already gone on the record stating it will not require any special labeling of genetically modified salmon. You, the consumer, just have to take a wild guess because you’re not allowed to know what you’re really eating.

The biotech industry takes this absurdity one step further by claiming that labeling GM foods would just “confuse” consumers. David Edwards, the director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, explained it in this way: “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” he says. “It differentiates products that are not different.”

Except that they are different. If they were really no different, then AquAdvantage company wouldn’t be growing them. The whole point of genetically modified salmon is that they are modified with extra growth hormone genes to make them grow more quickly. I don’t know where David Edwards is getting his information, but in the rest of the world, when something is different, that means it’s different.

If it’s no different, then why are so many GM salmon processes patented? If it’s no different, there would be nothing to patent. The entire purpose of a patent is to make a legal claim that “we invented something different” and we own the monopoly rights to it.

The GM salmon industry can’t have it both ways, you see. They can’t claim it’s so unique that their technologies and animals should be proprietary or patented, yet when it comes to food labeling, they claim there are no differences. It’s either different or it isn’t, and in the case of GM salmon, only an outright liar would look you in the eye and claim GM salmon is identical to regular farmed salmon or wild-caught salmon.

FDA insists on keeping people in the dark

The FDA, for its sad part in this saga, claims that it would be against the law to require the honest labeling of GM foods. This agency claims that since GM salmon is identical to regular salmon (it’s “no different” once again, they say), they can’t require it to be labeled any differently.

Except, of course, it is different. The genetic code of GM salmon is provably different, and since that genetic code is imprinted in every cell of the fish flesh, consumers are buying genetically modified fish with a different genetic code whose sole purpose was to alter the biochemistry of that fish so that it would grow larger more quickly. Thus, the physical expression of GM salmon is, by definition, different from the physical expression of regular salmon.

When you eat genetically modified salmon, you are eating something that’s different from regular (natural) salmon.

Word game trickery

What the FDA and biotech industries are doing with the GM salmon issue is playing word games, trying to confuse consumers with sleight-of-mouth language intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. They’ve already decided they want to approve GM salmon and they don’t want it to be accurately labeled. In essence, they want to trick consumers into buying GM salmon by making them think it’s natural salmon.

The trouble with this FDA hucksterism is that the people aren’t as stupid as the FDA thinks, and they aren’t going to be fooled by this genetically engineered salmon. That’s because the minute the FDA approves this Frankenfish, NaturalNews.com and a long list of other websites are going to alert the whole world to the simple truths of the matter:

Truth #1) Genetically engineered salmon is different from regular salmon.

Truth #2) The FDA is going out of its way to make sure GM salmon isn’t accurately labeled.

This is a Frankenfood cover-up, pure and simple, and the public is going to be outraged that the FDA would introduce a genetically engineered fish into the food supply without even requiring it to be accurately labeled!

Watch NaturalNews for more breaking coverage of this issue

We’ll be watching this issue very closely, waiting for the FDA’s final decision. If the FDA decides to yet again betray the American public over this issue, we won’t be at all surprised. But we will be vigilant, and we will ask for your help to spread the word and take action to demand that genetically modified salmon be accurately labeled so that consumers know what they’re actually buying.

Gee, you would think the FDA might be interested in food labeling honesty. But of course, the more you learn about the FDA, the more you realize every decision the agency makes is a political decision that betrays the rights and safety of the American people.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to eat genetically modified salmon. And I don’t want the FDA shoving this down my throat by making me try to guess which salmon is real versus artificially engineered. This Frankenfood shell game must end!

Watch for more news updates on this issue from NaturalNews.com.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy…

NRA Supports Frivolous Microstamping, Evaluation Study Act

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Illinois Gun
GCN Live.com
September 27, 2010

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” -Cesare Beccaria

nra.jpg
Why is the NRA supporting a bill their own fact sheet suggests is a waste of money?

In a time of increasing unemployment and home foreclosures the NRA as decided to support a bill that according to their own fact sheet maybe be a waste of (taxpayers) money.

On July 1, 2010, Representative Dan Boren (D-Okla.) introduced HR 5667, the Firearms, Microstamping, Evaluation and Study Act. The Bill would require a study to determine if a low cost and reliable form of microstamping could be incorporated into the manufacturing of a firearm.

Gun control advocates believe microstamping technologies combined with a registration list of guns and their owners would create a rapid identification system for firearms used in crime.

A 2006 University of California (Davis) study concluded that laser cutting of the firing pin was feasible but the resulting stamping was inconsistent.

Microstamping involves using a laser to cut identifying marks into the tip of a guns firing pin or other internal surfaces. When a gun is fired, the firing pin strikes the cartridge primer leaving an indentation in the primer. Anti-gunners believe this striking action by the firing pin or other internal part could be used to stamp an identifier into the primer or case that would then be used to identify the guns owner.

The University of California (Davis) study showed that the vast majority of marks left in the primer were unreadable. Other studies by the firearms industry found similar results.

So why is the NRA supporting a bill their own fact sheet suggests is a waste of money?

Could it be to prove a point?

Congress has funded studies in the past that concluded that gun control schemes were frivolous and counter productive.

Studies from the Treasury Department, National Academy of Sciences and the Center for Disease Control have proven that gun bans and ammo bans simply do not work and create an undue burden on gun owners and law enforcement.

One study from the Urban Institute on the 1994 assault weapons ban, found that semi-auto type firearms covered by the 1994 ban were rarely used to commit crime.

The NRA maybe hoping to put the idea of microstamping on the trash heap of Congressional studies, but can the American people continue to fund frivolous studies.

Our nation is in debt, Bob Chapman is reporting unemployment at 21-5/8%, the American people would best be served by an NRA that is working for repeal of gun control laws than spending taxpayer dollars for frivolous studies.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has a new documentary film available on the web that exposes the Dangerous stupidity and hypocrisy of “gun controllers”.

Links of Interest.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=268

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514092333.htm

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z2/ngj-download-view.php

The Empirical Case against Government Stimulus

Friday, September 24th, 2010

Robert Murphy
Campaign for Liberty
September 24, 2010

Economists in the Misesian tradition stress the primacy of theory in the social sciences. When trying to figure out the Great Depression, for example, we can’t approach the topic with a blank slate and let the facts “speak for themselves.” Mises argued that in order for us to even know which facts to consider as relevant, we need to have an antecedent body of deductive insights.

Even so, it’s a good exercise — as well as just plain fun — to look at Keynesian economists trying to reconcile their outlandish policy prescriptions with the historical record. No matter how you slice it, “fiscal austerity” has a track record of success, whereas pump-priming “stimulus” spending has never delivered.
Government Spending Cuts Work in Practice, not Just Theory

Ironically, a recent (empirical) case for fiscal austerity came from the June bulletin of the European Central Bank (ECB).Download PDF In the wake of the Greek debt crisis, European governments are naturally keen on reining in their deficits. The ECB report looked at the historical episodes where Belgium, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Finland reduced their budget deficits. Three of the countries saw immediate improvements in economic growth, but all benefited in the long run from tightening government finances.

What’s really amazing about the ECB piece is that it stressed that spending cuts were a much better way of closing a budget hole than raising taxes. This is the kind of analysis you expect from a conservative DC think tank, not the European Central Bank!

So how did the prominent Keynesians deal with these apparent successes of anti-Keynesianism? Here’s Paul Krugman’s reaction:

It’s really amazing to see how quickly the notion that contractionary fiscal policy is actually expansionary is spreading. As I noted yesterday, the Panglossian view has now become official doctrine at the ECB.

So what does this view rest on? Partly on vague ideas about credibility and confidence; but largely on the supposed lessons of experience, of countries that saw economic expansion after major austerity programs.

Yet if you look at these cases, every one turns out to involve key elements that make it useless as a precedent for our current situation.

Here’s a list of fiscal turnarounds [a different list from the ECB bulletin], which are supposed to serve as role models. What can we say about them?

Canada 1994—1998: Fiscal contraction took place as a strong recovery was already underway, as exports were booming, and as the Bank of Canada was cutting interest rates. As Stephen Gordon explains, all of this means that the experience offers few lessons for policy when the whole world is depressed and interest rates are already as low as they can go.

Denmark 1982—86: Yes, private spending rose — mainly thanks to a 10 percentage-point drop in long-term interest rates, hard to manage when rates in major economies are currently 2—3 percent.

Finland 1992—2000: Yes, you can have sharp fiscal contraction with an expanding economy if you also see a swing toward current account surplus of more than 12 percent of GDP. So if everyone in the world can move into massive trade surplus, we’ll all be fine.

Ireland, 1987—89: Been there, done that. Let’s all devalue! Also, an interest rate story something like Denmark’s.

Sweden, 1992—2000: Again, a large swing toward trade surplus.

So every one of these stories says that you can have fiscal contraction without depressing the economy IF the depressing effects are offset by huge moves into trade surplus and/or sharp declines in interest rates. Since the world as a whole can’t move into surplus, and since major economies already have very low interest rates, none of this is relevant to our current situation.

It’s not worth commenting on Krugman’s reaction just yet; let’s get some more samples.

Read full article