Will the New "Black Pope" Work?

By Jeff Israely Saturday, Jan. 19, 2008

• Share
  • inShare1

The Jesuits were once such a powerful force in the Roman Catholic Church that their elected leader was unofficially called the "black pope," a nod both to his influence and to the order's predeliction for simple black cassocks. Indeed, it is said that the rest of the Church never allowed a Jesuit to be elected to the real papacy for fear of concentrating too much power in the hands of the order. On Saturday, Jan. 19, the Society of Jesus — the order's formal name — elected a new "black pope." Will he be able to help them regain the influence they've lost over the last few decades as their increasingly progressive reputation has clashed with recent traditionalist popes?

The gathering of 217 Jesuit leaders in Rome chose little-known Father Adolfo Nicolas, 71, as their new "Superior General", a position that has historically been a lifetime posting. The leader of the Jesuits has sway over a network of priests, universities, hospitals and other missionary institutions around the globe. Though there was no real white smoke to alert the world that they'd found a new leader, as there is in the conclave of Cardinals that elects the Pope, the vote is nonetheless a sacred and secret affair. An oath of loyalty is recited before the balloting, and tradition holds that all voting members remain closed in the hall after a decision is reached, while a single messenger brings the name of the new leader to the Pope, who must be the first non-Jesuit to get the news.

Once that happened Saturday morning, the Jesuits' modern press operation quickly sent out a press release biography, and a rare photo of the bespectacled new leader. Indeed Nicolas, who has lived almost uninterruptedly in the Far East since 1964, was not on the shortlist of those experts trying to predict who would get the nod. One Jesuit source said, only half-jokingly, after learning of the choice: "He doesn't like Rome."

Still, Nicolas will be trading in his sashimi for spaghetti, as the Jesuit creed requires priests to follow new missions to whatever part of the globe is required. After his early training in Spain, Nicolas studied in Japan and was ordained in Tokyo in 1967. Following four years of study at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, he then returned to the Far East, with subsequent stints in the Philippines and Japan. Nicolas had spent the last three years running Jesuit operations in East Asia and Oceania, an administrative experience that will serve him in his new job of managing 20,000 priests across the globe.

The Asian experience is an old strength of the order: St. Francis Xavier being the Jesuit's great Apostle to the East, who converted hundreds in Japan, died off the coast of China and has his body enshrined in the Indian city of Goa. Jesuits converted the last survivors of the Ming dynasty to Catholicism as they fled the Manchu invaders in the mid-17th century. But Nicolas also brings in another important strand of history: he hails from the northern city of Palencia, not too far from hometown of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the 16th century Basque soldier who founded the Society of Jesus. The Jesuits eventually became the shock troops of the Church as it fought the Reformation, terrorizing Protestant regimes from England to the Netherlands to Sweden.

But Nicolas' biography shares a striking parallel with another of his more recent predecessors. Pedro Arrupe, the charismatic and controversial Superior General from 1965 until 1983, was another Spaniard who rose up through the ranks in Japan before being chosen to lead the Jesuits. Arrupe's reign was marked by progressive challenges to the Church establishment, including clashes with both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Arrupe's reign, consistent with order's history of experiments with theology and philosophy, saw the rise of radical Jesuit participation in politics, from the anti-war movement in the U.S. in the 1960s to the liberation theology that swept Latin America. That kind of leftist activism was too much for the anti-Communist John Paul II. The Jesuits were eclipsed by the staunchly traditionalist Opus Dei.

His successor, a low-key Dutch priest named Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, was credited with reestablishing a serene rapport with top Vatican officials. Last year, Pope Benedict XVI accepted Kolvenbach's unprecedented request to retire from what had always been a lifetime posting.

Whether Nicolas turns out to be cut more from the Arrupe or Kolvenbach mold remains to be seen. A Jesuit source in Rome said that the new boss had ruffled Vatican feathers in 1998 with his role in a request by Asian bishops for more local authority for Church decisions. If that is an omen for the nature of his administration, the new black pope may find himself clashing with the regular Pope, who has reaffirmed that ultimate authority lies with the Vatican.

There has apparently already been some papal concern about the Jesuit's relatively liberal perspectives. In a letter last week to Kolvenbach, on the eve of the election of his successor and a month-long meeting of a congregation of Jesuit leaders, Benedict implored the order to hold firm in Catholic tradition on matters of morality and sexuality. "It could prove extremely useful that the general congregation reaffirm, in the spirit of St. Ignatius, its own total adhesion to Catholic doctrine, in particular on those

Congress Should Grill the FCC Over Redacted Google Wi-Fi Snooping Report

Google released a mostly uncensored version of the FCC’s report on the Street View privacy debacle over the weekend, and the new revelations in the document will undoubtedly prompt privacy groups and Congress to demand further investigations and sanctions. And justifiably so. The full FCC report reveals that Google’s systematic interception of Wi-Fi content was intentional, and not the “mistake” that senior executives have repeatedly claimed in the past.

But while Google should certainly be raked over the coals by privacy hawks on Capitol Hill, I don’t think Congress should stop there. The FCC must be next in line.

Chris Soghoian

For several years, Google has repeatedly insisted that the capture of payload data by the company was unbeknownst to them, the work of a single engineer acting on his own initiative. The FCC report (.pdf) states, however, that the code “was deliberately written to capture payload data” and that the engineer who wrote it (in his 20% time), told several colleagues about its capabilities — including, in writing, a senior manager.

None of those details emerged when the FCC first released its post-investigation report two weeks ago. That’s because the FCC opted to use page-long black redaction boxes — the kind commonly seen in CIA torture memos – to bury those sections of the report, keeping the public from learning about the extent to which Google had lied about its deliberate collection of Wi-Fi content data.

The FCC’s redactions led the media to focus on far less important issues, such as the number of seconds that it would take Google to pay off the pathetic $25,000 fine the FCC levied for Google’s reluctance to cooperate in the investigation, and the fact that the still-unnamed engineer invoked his 5th Amendment rights.

The FCC redacted the most incriminating portions of its report on Google's Wi-Fi sniffing (top). Google wound up releasing the redacted text itself (bottom). Click for full size.

The media didn’t screw up. It was essentially misled by a federal agency, which for some reason found it necessary to shield Google’s reputation.

Google ultimately decided to publish the more complete version of the report this weekend (initially via an exclusive provided to the Los Angeles Times), just a few days after the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C. public interest group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FCC for a copy of the full report. Had the group not filed the request and forced Google’s hand, the public still might not know the full story.

The FCC can and should have told the public

Now that Google’s prior statements have been shown to be less than truthful, I’m sure that some advocates will criticize the FCC for shuttering its investigation.

I won’t do this. It is quite possible that the FCC staffers quoted anonymously by the New York Times are correct in their belief that outdated U.S. electronic privacy laws do not provide the FCC with sufficient legal authority to go after a company that intercepts Wi-Fi payload data. My own former employer, the Federal Trade Commission, similarly closed its own investigation into Google’s Wi-Fi snooping with a mildly worded letter (.pdf). Although I was not permitted to work on the investigation due to a conflict, it is my personal belief that the FTC’s narrow “unfairness” and “deception” authority left it without a legal hook to go after Google for this particular privacy violation, and the FCC might well be in a similar position.

However, even if the FCC lacked the legal authority punish Google, nothing prevented the agency from alerting the public, the media, and Congress to the full extent of Google’s sins. Instead, the agency opted to keep the public in the dark.

The FCC has yet to reveal the reasons why it opted to so heavily redact the most damning portions of the Google WiFi report. Congress should not wait for the FCC to volunteer an explanation. It should demand answers.

It’s too late to keep details of deadly flu a secret! U.S. scientists say details of virus created in laboratory ‘are already out there’, sparking renewed terror alert

By Fiona Macrae and Katie Silver

Last updated at 8:38 AM on 22nd December 2011

A super-strain of bird flu that could infect and wipe out millions will not be published by the virologist developers.

Dutch scientists who created ‘probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make' have agreed to leave out details on how to construct the virus from published reports. But the scientists warned that the data had already been shared with hundreds of researchers.

The decision was made after the US government warned releasing the details could be kill millions of people if it was used as a weapon of biological warfare.

Their research focused on what it took to convert bird flu – which can kill more than half of those infected but does not spread easily – into a highly contagious virus.

Developer Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, said this knowledge would be vital for the development of vaccines and drugs to prevent a possible pandemic.

But others argue the virus should never have been created – and warn the potential if it escaped from the lab is ‘staggering’. There are also fears the recipe will be seized on by terrorists looking for a biological weapon.

National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity chairman Paul Kiem, an anthrax expert, said: ‘I can’t think of another pathogenic organism that is as scary as this one. I don’t think anthrax is scary at all compared to this.’

Ron Fouchier led a study into bird flu but he said that the work was to be used to create a vaccine

The results, which were to be published in U.S. journal Science, were impeded in an unprecedented move by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, ABCNews reported.

The group is an independent advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies.

'Due to the importance of the findings to the public health and research communities, the NSABB recommended that the general conclusions highlighting the novel outcome be published, but that the manuscripts not include the methodological and other details that could enable replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm,' the committee said in a statement.

In response, Erasmus Medical Center said: 'The researchers have reservations about this recommendation but will observe it.'

In terms of how the virus will be used, Mr Fouchier said: 'We know which mutation to watch for in the case of an outbreak, and we can then stop the outbreak before it is too late.'

'Furthermore, the finding will help in the timely development of vaccinations and medication.'

However, others pointed out that similar fears – raised six years ago when another team of scientists recreated the Spanish flu virus that killed up to 50million in 1918 – proved groundless.

The latest controversy surrounds the H5N1 bird flu virus. In 2005, there were warnings of a potential bird flu global pandemic which would kill hundreds of millions.

Dangerous: It is feared if new details of the avian flu is published, it could be used for bioterrorism

Of the 573 people that have caught the bug so far worldwide, 336 have died. However, the germ’s inability to spread easily from person to person means the predicted pandemic has never materialised.

Now, scientists at the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam have created a H5N1 bird flu that spreads as easily as winter flu.

In experiments on ferrets – whose flu symptoms are most like humans’ – just five mutations in two key genes turned the ‘normal’ bird flu into a highly contagious, super-spreader.

The scientist behind the project, Ron Fouchier, said: ‘We now know which mutations to watch for in the case of an outbreak and we can stop the outbreak before it is too late.’

A university spokesman said: ‘If this type of research is carried out under maximum safety conditions, the benefits are greater than the risks.’

But Donald Henderson, an expert in biosecurity who spearheaded the worldwide drive to eradicate smallpox, told New Scientist magazine if a highly contagious virus with a 50 per cent kill rate got loose, ‘a catastrophe would result’.

Last night, the journal Science said the U.S. government’s request to publish only an abbreviated version of Dr Fouchier’s work was being taken very seriously.

Science's editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts said the journal was taking the NSABB's recommendation 'very seriously' but that they have 'concerns about withholding potentially important public-health information from responsible influenza researchers.'

'Many scientists within the influenza community have a bona fide need to know the details of this research in order to protect the public, especially if they currently are working with related strains of the virus,' said Alberts in a statement reported by ABCNews.

Matt Miller
Washington Post
November 24, 2011

We were in a seminar room at the Chinese Executive Leadership Academy in Shanghai. It’s kind of an executive MBA center where rising Communist Party leaders come for training. I was there two weeks ago speaking about the future of capitalism. Since China holds more than $1.1 trillion of U.S. debt, the group was keen to learn when they could expect the United States to get its fiscal house in order.

I gave them the answer I generally give these days when asked that same question at home. Given Republicans’ denial about the need for taxes to rise as we double the number of seniors on Social Security and Medicare, and Democrats’ denial about the need to slow the growth of these huge programs as part of an overall fix, I explained, “We probably won’t get serious about taking these steps until our Chinese creditors tell us we have to.”

They laughed. But after the laugh you could tell my hosts also felt empowered. They have reason to feel that way. Yet from the American point of view, it’s not only not funny, it’s surreal.

According to the IMF, China’s GDP per capita is about $8,400. The United States’ is about $48,000. How can it be that a country nearly six times richer is relying on a country so poor to help finance its current consumption?

Read full article here

Mark Sumner
Daily Kos
September 19, 2011

When we chow down on cow, we use the term “beef” to distance what we’re putting in our mouths from the creature placidly chewing grass in a field. When we use the term “SuperPAC” we’re engaging in another polite euphemism to avoid upsetting those with tender ears. Beef is nothing more than sliced up cow. SuperPACs are nothing more than stitched together bribes. Unfortunately, the same thing can be said of many politicians.

Take Rick Perry. Half of Perry’s contributions have originated with only 204 people. So many dollars coming from so few sources means that Perry’s team is extremely aware of who puts the butter on their toast. This isn’t twenty bucks from a million people. It’s closer to a million bucks from twenty people, and when someone contributes at that level they don’t do it because they like a candidate’s haircut, or even his ideology. It’s not going to the candidate with whom they’d most like to share a beer. Donors at this level share all the beers (and champagne) with the candidates that they can guzzle.

When individuals cut checks to politicians the size of those being scribbled out to Rick Perry, it happens for one reason. It’s an investment. In this case, it’s a pretty safe investment, because history shows that Rick Perry is a slot machine who pays on every pull.

One share of Perry belongs to playboy billionaire Thomas Friedkin, who earned his money the old fashioned way—he inherited it—and who used part of that money to start big game hunting preserves in Botswana and Tanzania. Rick Perry rewarded Friedkin’s obvious love of animals (and $700k contribution) by making him head of the Texas Park and Wildlife Commission, where he bumped the not-quite-so-generous Perry contributor who last held the position.

Another piece of PerryCo goes to home builder, Bob Perry (no relation). Not only did Bob Perry hand out $2.5m to namesake Rick, he also passed along another $7 million to Karl Rove’s Crossroads PAC. For this, Bob was well rewarded. To help out his pal Bob, Rick Perryshepherded through legislation forcing home buyers who were taken in by incomplete or shoddy work to go to an industry-dominated commission for “justice” rather than a judge. For his contributions, Bob Perry got to have his lawyer design the legislation, which Rick Perry then signed. A very good deal for Bob, and that’s even before you get to his role in passing anti-immigrant regulations.

Perhaps the biggest block of Rick Perry shares belong to garbage magnate Harold Simmons. For the $3 million he’s contributed, Simmons walked off with the whole state program for monitoring nuclear waste. The program was turned into a private monopoly for Simmons’ company. That was just the beginning.

When Simmons’ proposed facility was sent for environmental review, it failed. The approval commission ignored the environmental review and allowed the facility anyway. That was still just the beginning.

Read full report here

FBI Grabs Servers, Knocks Out Websites

Steven Musil
CNET
June 22, 2011

The FBI seized Web-hosting servers from a data facility today, causing a number of sites to go down or transfer operations to other facilities.

Agents confiscated three racks of blade servers from a Maryland facility run by DigitalOne, the Switzerland-based hosting company said. DigitalOne’s site, as well as real estate blog Curbed and restaurant blog Eater–two sites affected by the outage, according to The New York Times–were inaccessible this afternoon.

Another site, bookmarking site Pinboard, was also affected by the server confiscation but had transferred some pages to a backup server, the site said in a status update:

Read more

By Keith Hansen

In 2010, legislation was quietly passed that heavily penalizes U.S. citizens who move assets to non-U.S. financial institutions. When that legislation is taken into consideration, along with a current State Department policy change, a clearer picture emerges about governmental plans to further erode citizens’ freedom of movement as well as their ultimate right to ownership of assets, including money.

Last year’s legislation punished Americans—many of whom had sought a more stable financial environment for their money than existed in the U.S. amid a wave of bank failures—by obligating foreign banks to disclose the full details of non-exempt bank accounts to the Internal Revenue Service.

These measures were implemented ostensibly to prevent terrorists and drug lords from moving and laundering money. But their chilling effect successfully froze Americans, who were ready to move their assets to foreign banks. The government’s implied message was clear: Your money isn’t going anywhere.

Now the State Department has jumped into the restriction game. Last month it revealed a new application process for granting passports—which, by the way, will be needed for travel to Canada andMexico—that in some cases is impossible to provide.

At the center of this process is the new “Biographical Questionnaire for a U.S. Passport,” a five-page, six-section form that asks for all kinds of information. Some of the requested information begs the greater question: What relevancy do these questions have in determining the acceptability of granting an applicant a passport?

The following is a sample of the information required by Form DS-5513:

� The full name, date of birth, place of birth and Social Security number for parents and/or stepparent(s), siblings, spouse and children.

� All residences inside and outside the United States.

� All former and current places of employment, including each company’s name, location, time employed, supervisor’s name and contact information.

� All schools attended, inside and/or outside the United States, beginning from elementary school with locations and dates of attendance.

It gets dicey for applicants who cannot answer “yes” to both of the following questions: Was your birth recorded within one year of the date your birth occurred? Were you born in a medical facility?

If one answers “no,” then applicant must supply all of the following information regarding their mother:

� All residences a year before and a year after the applicant’s birth.

�Mother’s employment and related information at the time of giving birth.

Among the 12 items in Section C, “Information for Non-Institutional Births or Delayed Birth Filings,” the most bewildering request is for applicant to “describe the circumstances of your birth including the names, as well as address and phone number, if available, of persons present or in attendance at your birth.”

Apparently, the State Department presumes that babies came into this world outfitted with a fully functional memory and a full dossier of paperwork. Lest prospective applicants get too exercised about this questionnaire—whose completion time has laughingly been estimated at 45 minutes—the State Department allays any such anxieties with its infamous doublespeak.

The Privacy Act Statement’s last sentence declares, “Providing the information requested on this form, including your Social Security number, is voluntary, but failure to provide the information requested may result in processing delays or the denial of your U.S. passport application.”

Keith Hansen is a veteran journalist and radio talk show host. His website can be found at beyondthegrassyknoll.com.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
May 25, 2011

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has circumvented a call by the newly elected senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, to debate the Patriot Act.

In order to prevent a filibuster, Reid performed “some procedural gymnastics,” according to Fox News, and slipped Patriot Act language into a House small business bill that is considered filibuster-proof.

In doing so, Reid has skirted objections to the bill led by Paul and has moved closer to extending the Patriot Act without debate. Democrats have applauded this effort to rush the extension into law without debate.

“The suggestion that the extension should be debated fueled considerable opposition, particularly from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D – CA), who insisted it would be a ‘huge mistake’ to debate the bill and might threaten national security,” writes Jason Ditz.

On Monday, Paul went on the floor of the Senate and argued against the extension. He introduced the Leahy-Paul amendment which would have National Security Letters expire on December 31, 2013. It also requires the Justice Department inspector general to audit the issuance of NSL letters and expands public reporting on the use of such letters under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act directly assaults the Fourth Amendment. It expands the FBI’s authority to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval.

Time's Up? U.S. Government Hits Debt Ceiling

Government says it has real images and video, still deciding whether to release them

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
May 2, 2011

The London Guardian has suggested that the fake image used by several British mainstream media websites this morning on their front pages was the work of “conspiracy theorists” who claimed it was genuine.

The Guardian notes that the image was used by the Mail, Times, Telegraph, Sun and Mirror websites, who picked it up from an online news site. The image was removed by the newspapers after it became apparent that it was a fake that had been online for over two years.

“Since then, however, the image has been claimed as genuine on a number of conspiracy forums and used to substantiate claims that the terrorist responsible for the 9/11 bombings had been killed.” Guardian writer Amelia Hill states.

Hill provides no link to the forums she is referring to, or the “conspiracy theorists” that suggested it was genuine.

The Guardian’s live blog speculated whether the image was real when it was first used this morning, where as this website, Prisonplanet.com, the “conspiracy theorists”, immediately reported it to be completely fake.

Indian government to issue biometric PAN cards

Nandan Nilekani
The Times of India
April 13, 2011

NEW DELHI: The government has decided to issue biometric PAN cards to taxpayers across the country to weed out the problem of duplicate and fake ones.

The decision was taken recently by the finance ministry and it comes in the wake of a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report that asked the income tax department to ensure that a single tax payer is not issued multiple cards.

The proposed new biometric Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards would bear the fingerprints (two from each hand) and the face.

Read entire article

U.S. consumers face "serious" inflation in the months ahead for clothing, food and other products, the head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations warned Wednesday.

The world's largest retailer is working with suppliers to minimize the effect of cost increases and believes its low-cost business model will position it better than its competitors.

Still, inflation is "going to be serious," Wal-Mart U.S. CEO Bill Simon said during a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board. "We're seeing cost increases starting to come through at a pretty rapid rate."

• CEO: Says Wal-Mart to go back to low prices, broad-based inventory

• VIDEO: Wal-Mart CEO answers five questions about the future of the retailer

• ECONOMY: Inflation worries push consumer confidence lower in March

Along with steep increases in raw material costs, John Long, a retail strategist at Kurt Salmon, says labor costs in China and fuel costs for transportation are weighing heavily on retailers. He predicts prices will start increasing at all retailers in June.

"Every single retailer has and is paying more for the items they sell, and retailers will be passing some of these costs along," Long says. "Except for fuel costs, U.S. consumers haven't seen much in the way of inflation for almost a decade, so a broad-based increase in prices will be unprecedented in recent memory."

Consumer prices — or the consumer price index — rose 0.5% in February, the most since mid-2009, largely because of surging food and gasoline prices. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy costs, rose a more modest 0.2%, though that still exceeded estimates.

The scenario hits Wal-Mart as it is trying to return to the low across-the-board prices it became famous for. Some prices rose as the company paid for costly store renovations.

"We're in a position to use scale to hold prices lower longer ... even in an inflationary environment," Simon says. "We will have the lowest prices in the market."

Major retailers such as Wal-Mart are the best positioned to mitigate some cost increases, Long says. Wal-Mart, for example, could have "access to any factory in any country around the globe" to mitigate the effect of inflation in the U.S., Long says.

Still, "it's certainly going to have an impact," Long says. "No retailer is going to be able to wish this new cost reality away. They're not going to be able to insulate the consumer 100%."

Glenn Greenwald
Salon
March 22, 2011

In October, 2007, candidate Barack Obama — in response to the Bush administration’s demand for a new FISA law — emphatically vowed that he would filibuster any such bill that contained retroactive amnesty for telecoms which participated in Bush’s illegal spying program. At the time, that vow was politically beneficial to Obama because he was seeking the Democratic nomination and wanted to show how resolute he was about standing up against Bush’s expansions of surveillance powers and in defense of the rule of law. But in a move that shocked many people at the time — though which turned out to be completely consistent with his character — Obama, once he had the nomination secured in July, 2008, turned around and did exactly that which he swore he would not do: he not only voted against the filibuster of the bill containing telecom amnesty, but also voted in favor of enactment of the underlying bill. That bill, known as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, was then signed into law by George W. Bush at a giddy bipartisan signing ceremony in the Rose Garden, which — by immunizing telecoms and legalizing most of the Bush program — put a harmless, harmonious end to what had been the NSA scandal.

Read entire article

The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves

Rising gas prices eating into U.S. shopping budgets

Debit cards: $50 spending limit coming?

Blake Ellis
CNNMoney.com
March 10, 2011

Editor’s note: Another good reason to use cash instead of plastic.

Declined! Your debit card may soon be denied for purchases greater than $100 — or even as little as $50.

JPMorgan Chase, one of the nation’s largest banks, is considering capping debit card transactions at either $50 or $100, according to a source with knowledge of the proposal.

Why? Because of a tricky thing called interchange fees.

Read entire article

DOJ Says Controversial Patriot Act Provisions Are Essential

Cheston McGuire
Main Justice
March 10, 2011

With key parts of the Patriot Act set to expire in two months, Obama administration officials told a House Judiciary subcommittee Wednesday that the expiring provisions are vital to national security.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Todd Hinnen told the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security that the “roving,” “lone wolf,” and “business records” provisions are “critical tools for national security.”
Hinnen’s comments come a month after House Democrats and conservative Republicans combined to reject a renewal of the expiring provisions over civil liberty concerns, surprising both House Republican leaders and the White House.

Read entire article

Press TV Covers FEMA

Press TV
February 22, 2011

In light of the recent popular protests in various parts of the world — particularly in Egypt — some conspiracy theorist have hinted at the possibility of the US government using FEMA camps to hold potential protesters.

Some of these theories suggest that the government is prepared to turn FEMA camps into “concentration camps” holding “civilians” deemed a potential threat to the US government.

Such claims prompted Press TV to take a closer look at FEMA and its activities:

FEMA

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, initially created by a Presidential Order on 1 April 1979. Fas.org

FEMA had one original concept when it was created, to assure the survivability of the United States government in the event of a nuclear attack on the nation.

It was also provided with the task of being a federal coordinating body during times of domestic disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes.

Some people have referred to it as the “secret government” of the United States. It is not an elected body, it does not involve itself in public disclosures, and it even has a quasi-secret budget in the billions of dollars.

The National Governor’s Association asked President Carter to streamline the nation’s disaster response mechanism. Endrtimes.blogspo.com

Like the George W. Bush effort to bring agencies under the umbrella of Homeland Security, Carter created FEMA to combine the efforts of dozens of agencies. But just as Homeland Security has done with Katrina, the new FEMA bungled its first tests with the Washington Post reporting, “The new anti-disaster agency is on the verge of becoming a disaster itself.”

Prior to 1950, the federal government stayed out of local disasters for the most part, with only an occasional congressional appropriation when absolutely necessary. But in that year, Congress gave the president the power to declare disasters and dispense monetary aid. Newsmax.com

Controversy surrounding FEMA

Not surprisingly, with the advent of FEMA, the number of national disasters began to balloon. However, it was not until Hurricane Andrew in August of 1992 that FEMA began to morph into what it now is.

A lot of money went to the victims of Andrew, but politicians were beginning to see the potential in natural disasters. A community college got a new parking lot. Miami Beach got new art deco lifeguard stands. The then-governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, obtained $25 million for a new prison that had nothing to do with the hurricane. Newsmax.com

FEMA was not created under Constitutional law by the Congress. It was a product of a Presidential Executive Order.

FEMA has the power to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant and hold them without trial, it can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution. Endrtimes.blogspo.com

In 2004, the federal government used hurricane aid money to pay funeral expenses for at least 203 Floridians whose deaths were not caused by last year’s storms, the state’s coroners have concluded. Sun-sentinel.com

As of 2008, FEMA had only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies; the bulk of their funding had been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure the continuity of the government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

Executive Orders associated with FEMA

Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period. Endrtimes.blogspo.com

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. Dmc.members.sonic.net

Rothschild Dynasty Slams Obama; Calls for Centrist Movement in U.S.

  By Michael Collins Piper

An influential member of the international Rothschild banking dynasty—often called “the family that rules the world”—has lent her support to the theme that Barack Obama must be removed from the White House and that America needs a grand “centrist” coalition to save the nation.

That a key Rothschild network figure endorsed this concept—which is being relentlessly promoted in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post—underscores recent exclusive reports appearing in AMERICAN FREE PRESS detailing a high-level scheme to foist a phony new “centrist” third party on Americans.

In 2008, lifelong Democrat Lynn Forester de Rothschild endorsed GOP presidential candidate John McCain after the Democratic Party rejected de Rothschild’s first choice, Hillary Clinton.

The American-born Lady Rothschild— chief executive of E.L. Rothschild,
a key Rothschild holding company—is the wife of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. She was first introduced to her husband in Scotland in 1998 by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during a meeting of Bilderberg—the global planning group dominated by the Rothschilds, assisted by their American lieutenants, the Rockefellers.

Endorsing McCain, Mrs. Rothschild proclaimed Obama too “ideological”—that is, too “liberal”—an interesting assertion coming from a stalwart Democrat. Now Mrs. Rothschild is once again aiming her guns at Obama, echoing the very rhetoric about the need to adopt “centrist” policies prevalent in all of the recent propaganda in the elite press that AFP—alone among the independent media—has been scrutinizing.

She expressed her “centrist” concerns on the Internet’s Daily Beast on Feb. 28, 2010, but few noticed it at the time. It’s no coincidence this was the forum she used to vent her attack: the Daily Beast is merging with the Rothschild-connected Washington Post Company’s Newsweek magazine, recently transferred to the control of Zionist billionaire Sidney Harman, who—like the Rothschild dynasty—is a major patron of Israel.

In her commentary, Mrs. Rothschild declared: “After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that . . . we already knew what kind of president he would become. . . . Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist.”

Mrs. Rothschild wrote: Sure, [Obama] made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. . . . They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America. . . .At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. . . . In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists. So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign . . . . Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. . . . His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His  cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives. Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle.

While it certainly confuses many people (particularly self-styled “patriots” and “conservatives”) that Mrs. Rothschild (and like-minded associates in the mass media) call the Clintons “moderates,” that has, in fact, been a continuing premise in the media, especially of recent date, as if the stage is being set for a return of “Bill and Hill” in the form of a “centrist” challenge to Obama.

However, note that Mrs. Rothschild denounced not just Obama but “both parties.” Her rhetoric precisely reflects ongoing high-level calls in the media monopoly for a “centrist” rebellion against both “the left” and “the right”:

We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi and Reid; and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong.

Here is what’s happening: Recognizing growing widespread disgust with both major parties, the elite big money forces seem to be laying the groundwork to usher in a new “centrist” party—a “controlled opposition” under their domination—to block the rise of any genuine populist third party challenging their power. The war-profiteering plutocratic elites want to be assured that—in the face of growing opposition from Americans on both the “left” and the “right”—budgetbusting internationalist policies promoting U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East and across the globe—in the name of what is now being touted as American “national greatness”—will be preserved.

In fact, the “national greatness” concept is just a patriotic-sounding cover name for what many call the New World Order.

Note, too, that although both “liberal Democrats” and “conservative Republicans” have done big money’s bidding for a century, a new “centrist” force—orchestrated by the major media (owned by the financial aristocracy)—would shatter the existing traditional local, state and federal political machines of the major parties which are closely tied to their own respective constituencies (small business, farmers, public employees, minorities, factory workers, etc). Divorced from grassroots demands, the new “centrist” mechanism would answer only to the major media controllers who conjured up the “centrist” party in the first place.

Civil war coming to USA? Army wants rapid-fire rubber bullets for crowd control

• Temporary Patriot Act extension gets final OK in Congress

FBI Pushes for Surveillance Backdoors in Web 2.0 Tools

• Action needed to assure new technology can be wiretapped, FBI says

Special Operations Unit Training on Outer Banks

WAVY
January 24, 2011

MANTEO, NC – The Special Operations Unit from Pope Air Force Base will be conducting urban environmental training exercises in Nags Head and Roanoke Island on Tuesday and Wednesday, Dare County officials announced.

Residents are urged not to be alarmed if they see military vehicles and armed soldiers.

According to county authorities, the exercises will involve uniformed, armed soldiers and four vehicles, including two military gun trucks practicing clearing and security procedures in Nags Head and Roanoke Island.

Read entire article

My President and Religious Intolerance in America

by Jeffrey Imm
Responsible for Equality And Liberty

To those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, we know how identity group intolerance caused Americans to fight each other and how it divided our nation. We’ve been there – done that.  We don’t want a divided nation again.  We remember the past, to provide context to those who want drag our nation back to the “bad old days.”

Many people seem to only believe that it was a time of racial intolerance and division, and they seem to also forget that it was also the final days of a period of religious intolerance as well.  In the 1920s, religious intolerance in America had reached a peak, as did the 4 million membership in the Ku Klux Klan organization.  But in the decades to follow, religious intolerance started to reduce through the 1950s.

Until America faced another test in 1960.

Not unlike recent times, progress in respect for one another faced another challenge when a Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy decided to run for president.  In 1960, to some people, the problem was that John Kennedy was a Catholic Christian.  Half a century later, it may seem laughable that some would have questioned a person’s “fitness” to be an American president because they were a Catholic Christian.  But at the time, it was viewed by some as a real issue, and John Kennedy had to address this topic in his campaign.

John F. Kennedy Speaking on Religious Freedom in 1960 at Houston, Texas Conference

In 1960, the question that some raised regarding John Kennedy was whether he could be a loyal American, while being a Catholic, or whether he would “led” by the Catholic Church in his decision-making as president.  Of course, such claims were an insult to the identity of what America is – a nation that supports freedom of conscience for all – from the youngest child to the President of the United States.  That is and always will be the America that I know and love.

John Kennedy addressed these concerns in a historic speech on September 12, 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.  His words are as powerful and important today as they were half a century ago, and not just to America, but to the entire world.

John Kennedy addressed these concerns in a historic speech on John Kennedy addressed the challenge of those who would judge his effectiveness to lead the United States of America and be commander-in-chief – solely based on his religion.  John Kennedy questioned what his religious identity had to do with “the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms–an America with too many slums, with too few schools…,” stating that these are “are not religious issues–for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.”

John Kennedy went on to address the campaign concerns over his religion: “it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.”

John Kennedy made it clear the type of America that he believed in: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” where no religious group would tell the president or public official how it must act, “and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.  For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

John Kennedy stated “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice”… “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace”…. and “where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

John Kennedy continued to say that while he would not “disavow either my views or my church” that he would act “in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.”  John Kennedy concluded that he would do “the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

John F. Kennedy was elected President of the United States of America in 1960.  He was president, not just of the Christians, not just of the Catholic Christians, but of all Americans.

President John Kennedy was my president.  I may have been too young to vote, but John Kennedy had a way to make us all know that he was the president for all of us – no matter how small, how large – we were all equal as Americans.

For a time in a difficult, divided America, THERE WAS HOPE.

My father and mother had a “mixed” religious marriage, by that era at least.  My father was a Protestant Christian and my mother was raised as a Catholic Christian.  My mother was a political worker, and was active in the John F. Kennedy campaign.  I was just a small boy, but I went with her to the election polls, and was taught to say “vote for Kennedy,” which I understand many found quite adorable.  I wish I could remember but I was very young.

But I do remember Friday, November 22, 1963 – the day my president was murdered.  There are some memories in life that are so painful, the sharpness is never dulled.  When my president was murdered, he was mourned not just by some, but by people in the streets, in their homes, and across television.  Those of you who read about it in the history books won’t quite understand it.  There was nothing else anyone talked about.  There was just the murder of our beloved President Kennedy.  There was a NATIONAL mourning.  I don’t think Americans who only understand the current generation can conceive of a national mourning or a national solidarity on anything.  But in 1963, the United States was truly united in its grief over the death of President Kennedy.

On Saturday morning, our president’s coffin was what that era’s children had to wake up and see on television. Our parents cried and we children watched in stunned silence as the television broadcast our president’s body as it was transported in his coffin from Dallas, Texas where he was gunned down back to our nation’s capitol.  I will never forget my president in his coffin, murdered.

After the national mourning, our nation got back to business. Our divisions grew and the nation fought among itself.  The tragedy of violence did not end.  We had to witness the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy among too many others.  Medgar Evers was murdered less than 6 months before President Kennedy.  For a while, America was degenerating into a nation whose politics of division had fallen into politics of violence and assassination. To those who lived such gut-wringing, heart-wrenching decades, surely we must never want to return to such a period of intolerance and division again.

But once again, in America, we find ourselves returning to an era of constant division and growing intolerance in America – both racial and religious intolerance.

In America today, there are religious extremists from different faiths that seek to declare a war on people of other faiths.  Their religious intolerance is the exact opposite of what my president represented.  We have seen a Muslim extremist seek to blow up a crowd at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, and in that same town, we have seen anti-Muslim extremists who have committed an arson attack on a Portland mosque.   In the reports on that story, I have seen people who have publicly called for blowing up mosques in America, which is part of the continuing anti-Muslim hatred that we have seen grow in the United States from coast-to-coast with people calling for bombings, terrorist attacks, and denying freedom of religion and worship for Muslims in New York City, Tennessee, Florida, and California.  It is a horrific disgrace to America and to Americans of every faith, belief, conscience, and identity group, and many, many Americans have been standing up to such hate, intolerance, and open calls of violence against Muslims and non-Muslims.

Yet more and more continue to publicly promote hate, intolerance, and violence against people of other faiths without fear of consequences.   The Ku Klux Klan once were afraid of what their public embrace of hate would do to their name, their employers, and their lives, which is why they hid behind hoods, while they promoted their white supremacist, twisted view of “Christian Protestant” hatred against other religions, other Christian sects, and other races.

What my president understood is that religious intolerance could never be given official political support.  This is a problem in American politics today.  Leaders of American political parties cannot be perceived to be supporting, favoring, or condemning one religion or one religious sect over another.  Leaders of Americans are not just leaders of a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc., nation – they are leaders for ALL Americans – no matter what their faith (or lack thereof), no matter what their religion.  America is a nation of the people and for the people – of all kinds.

As my president said in 1960, “this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died–when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches–when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.”

Our police officers, our firefighters, our public servants of all kinds do not protect, do not rescue, do not serve only Americans of one religious identity.  Nor do we know the religion of those who serve.  There is never a question.  All Americans are equal – it is a fundamental basis for the definition of our nation.

There was a time in America when we often didn’t know each other’s religions, nor was it something people asked in a polite society.  Certainly, many do and have the right to be evangelists and share their faiths, hope, and strength from their religion with others.  Evangelism is a great inspiration and mission in the lives of many people. When I was a boy, I too passed out Bibles to others, and there are a number of evangelistic missionaries in my family.  We can share our faith, while respecting the privacy and dignity of others.

But there is a difference between private evangelism and expecting our public government officials and leaders to perform religious evangelism or show religious preferences, while performing their public duties.  There are some political leaders in America today who believe that if our government leaders are not using their positions to evangelize or to comment on other religions, then they are “running away” from their religion. There are political leaders in America today who believe that if you don’t follow their form of religious beliefs and views than somehow you are “dodging” the issue of your religious responsibilities.

Houston Hilton hotel installs facial recognition; system can ID suitcases, employees and guests

By Barbara De Lollis, USA TODAY

Houston's 1,200-room Hilton is an early adopter of using facial recognition technology to improve hotel security and customer service. This file photo taken May 7, 2008 shows Pinellas County, Fla., Sheriff's Department System Analyst Scott McCallum demonstrating a system that uses facial recognition.

CAPTION

By Mike Carlson for USA TODAY

"The system will also allow us to do things we never thought about," John Alan Moore, the hotel's director of security and life, says in a Hilton press release.

• TWITTER: Hotel Check-In
• ALSO ONLINE: Would you mind if hotels share blacklisted-guest database?
• ALSO ONLINE: 'Death rays' at a Las Vegas pool - really?

The 24-story, 1,200-room Hilton is at times as busy as a tiny city, with more than 700 employees, ballrooms, meeting rooms, two restaurants, lobby bar, coffee emporium, full-service spa, health club and parking garage. The system - said to be 90% accurate in recognizing people and objects - will let the hotel track goings-on throughout the property using newfangled search functions that can track faces and objects by color and size.

Whether or not privacy rights watchdogs will approve remains a question, but the hotel is confident the system will help it bolster safety and even improve customer service.

The provider, San Francisco-based 3VR Security, is selling its product to the hospitality industry, and describes the Houston Hilton hotel's early adoption as one that "further validates 3VR's immense value not only from a security standpoint, but also in taking customer service in the hospitality industry to the next level."

Among the uses the hotel envisions for the system:

Security: For security problems that happened already, the system can find relevent surveillance footage in seconds rather than hours, which can aid in solving crimes and possibly prosecuting criminals. Hotel security could also derail potential dangers before they happen by, for instance, uploading a digital image of someone who is banned from the hotel and letting the system send an alert when the person shows up. Moore gave NetworkWorld.com the example of entering an image of a homeless person who wants to sneak into the hotel; using facial recognition, the system would issue an alert if the person walked into a hotel so security so then hotel security could then escort the person out of the hotel. In serious cases, footage can be stored and e-mailed to an insurance company or local district attorney, the article says.

Track employee behavior: The hotel plans to monitor areas where employees punch the time clock, which can verify the person's identity, the NetworkWorld.com article says. The hotel is also using the facial recognition system to watch for suspicious activities of employees or former employees, the story says. "If someone leaves under bad conditions, we set up alerts for that," Moore tells the publication. The hotel informs employees that video monitoring is taking place, NetworkWorld.com says.

Find guests' missing items claims: The hotel says the system can aid customers who've reported an item has gone missing inside the hotel somehow. The system can locate items using its color, directional and object search capabilities. For example, if a customer's suitcase was lost, the hotel says it will be now be able to locate it almost instantly by following the luggage piece using a search based on color and object from the time it entered the hotel through to its present location, the release says. In this hotel alone, more than 7,000 items are reported missing each year.

Monitoring garage traffic: To improve traffic flow in its parking facilities, the hotel can use the system to count arriving vehicles. That can help managers determine if they need to adjust the number of valet parkers on staff on specific shifts. The system can also help when there's a car in the garage area.

Impress loyal guests: Like it when a hotel front-desk clerk greets you by name? Well, then you might like this. "Another aspect of the system that Hilton Americas-Houston feels will be useful is its ability to recognize repeat customers," the release says. Moore says that they'll tie in the system with its front-office systems to "flag our Gold Card members in order to be able to blow them away with service."

Readers: What do you think about this? Does it make you feel safer - or does it make you feel uncomfortable?

Food Fascism in the Land of the Free

Eric Blair
Activist Post
September 21, 2010

The food industry is no longer a free market.  In fact, I’d go as far as saying it’s becoming the most glaring example of corporate-government fascism in America.

Actual monopolies fully control the basic building blocks of the food that makes up the majority of the American diet — and no one seems to care.  Simply put, those who control the corn, wheat, and soybeans control all food, since all livestock and all processed foods are dependent on those food resources.  These monopolies place their cronies in government regulatory agencies like the FDA and USDA to weed out their competition through excessive regulation.  Currently proposed legislation are textbook examples of their methods. 

There once was a time when free markets existed for food.  Back when local food ruled the day, if a farmer sold milk that was bad, he would not get return customers unless he adjusted his practices to make a healthier product.  This free market was self-regulating.  In other words, in a truly free market we shouldn’t need the FDA.  However, as mentioned before, we are light years from a free market.

Subsidies rain down on big agribusinesses that grow what the government tells them to grow.  Industry leaders like Cargill, Monsanto, and Tyson essentially turn farmers into indentured sharecroppers.  The food engineers at General Mills and others weave corn, wheat, and soybeans into chemical concoctions that end up in brightly colored packages — some even come with free Chinese-made toys.  The finished product develops from a Genetically Modified base, using multiple poisons to glue it together, demonstrating that the monopolies and their regulatory lapdogs care not for our health.

But what about voting with our pocketbooks, isn’t that a free market? Surely that is what we have been taught.  Yet, all 16 flavors of Cheerios — which give the appearance of free choice — are all made by General Mills from a genetically modified corn base.  This illusion of choice hides the monopolistic nature of food.

Enter Senate bill S. 510 Food Safety Modernization Act, already passed in the House as HR 2749.  Some have demonized the bill as ultimate food fascism where the FDA will micromanage even small farms and co-ops to the point where it will become illegal to grow, share, trade or sell homegrown food.  While others see it as a measured way to control the health and quality of factory farms. One thing is for sure, S.510 gives more power to the corrupt FDA to regulate our food.  And there is renewed interest in the Senate to pass this bill since the recent massive egg and meat recalls due to salmonella and E. coli outbreaks.

This bill does nothing to change the actual practices of factory farming and the way the food for animals is grown and delivered.  It does give the FDA draconian powers to force inspections to be paid for by the farmers themselves.  This can be an effective tool for the big multinational agri-corporations to further squeeze out their competition and gain near complete control of food resources in America.  Furthermore, S.510 essentially hands much of the FDA’s duties over to the liberty-smashing Department of Homeland Security — which is mentioned 41 times in the bill.

All 273 pages of the bill contain legalize that can be difficult to decode, but one of the easiest ways to determine if it is good for average Americans is to view who is supporting the bill, versus who opposes the bill.  Monsanto and other agri-monopolies support the bill with full force.  Indeed, some speculate that they even wrote the bill themselves.

Sadly, this bill is gaining momentum because of the recent food recalls.  One way or another, our corrupt politicians and their corporate overlords will see to it that there is more regulation over our food.  If this bill passes, we can expect more consolidation in agriculture and more police-state raids of private health-food cooperatives.  Worse yet, this bill may just be the primer for the even more egregious bill HR.759 Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act, which fully restricts local food producers and natural health remedies.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Food freedom starts at home with the individual choices that we make.  However, exposing the corrupt regulatory system and educating the powers that be about healthier ways to produce food is also vital to maintaining our food freedom.  It’s time we tell the corporate government to back off our food.

  Print this page.

Is National Security Behind Google's Wi-Fi Spying?

Has search and advertising giant Google been tracking you just to sell you stuff -- or is it because the U.S. government asked it to? A congressional hearing Thursday may have raised more questions than answers. Since May, Google has been in hot water worldwide over the information it collected during its street-mapping projects. European regulators have been pressing the company since it was revealed that Google collected information from Wi-Fi networks as its street-view vans cruised neighborhoods around the globe. The information Google gathered included e-mail fragments and passwords, alarming politicians and privacy and security advocates in Germany, France, and Spain.

4th Amendment Violating Mobile X- Ray Scanners Hit The Streets

As we warned all along, airport tyranny is coming to your door

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 25, 2010

As we warned at the beginning of the year, X-ray body scanners currently being used and abused in airports across the world are set to hit the streets as American Science & Engineering reveals that “more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighboring vehicles to see their contents” have been sold to government agencies.

In January, we divulged how the ultimate end use of the body scanners would not be limited to airports, and that they were going to be rolled out on the streets as mobile units that would scan vehicles at checkpoints as well as individuals and crowds attending public events.

Dutch police announced that they were developing a mobile scanner that would “see through people’s clothing and look for concealed weapons” and that it would be used “as an alternative to random body searches in high risk areas”.

The device would also be used from a distance on groups of people “and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches.”

Having A Supply Of Healthy Foods That Last Just Makes Sense (AD)

The plans mirrored leaked documents out of the UK Home Office three years prior, which revealed that authorities in the UK were working on proposals to fit lamp posts with CCTV cameras that would X-ray scan passers-by and “undress them” in order to “trap terror suspects”.

Now, according to a Forbes report, backscatter x-ray vision devices mounted on trucks are already being deployed inside the United States to scan passing individuals and vehicles in complete violation of the Fourth Amendment.

American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold many of the devices to U.S. law enforcement agencies, who are already using them on the streets for “security” purposes.

“Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,” points out Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. “Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure. If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

Watch a video demonstration of the device below.

“The TSA’s official policy dictates that full-body scans must be viewed in a separate room from any guards dealing directly with subjects of the scans, and that the scanners won’t save any images,” states the report. “Just what sort of safeguards might be in place for AS&E’s scanning vans isn’t clear, given that the company won’t reveal just which law enforcement agencies, organizations within the DHS, or foreign governments have purchased the equipment.”

However, as we reported right from the start and as was confirmed earlier this month, federal authorities have been storing checkpoint body scan images all along, proving that their claim that no images could be stored or transmitted was an act of mass public deception in order to grease the skids for the rapid introduction of the devices after the botched and highly suspicious underwear bomber incident.

As we have constantly reiterated, everything that we see unfolding in the airports is eventually designed to be used on the streets. People who had a blasé attitude about the privacy-busting body scanners, behavioral interrogations, and intrusive pat-downs occurring in airports on the basis that they could avoid them by not flying face a rude awakening once all this is in their face on a daily basis.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Body and vehicle scanners are just one tool authorities plan to implement on a widespread basis as part of our deepening decline into a hi-tech militarized police state.

Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. The video below explains how “Future Attribute Screening Technology” (FAST) checkpoints will conduct “physiological” and “behavioral” tests in order to weed out suspected terrorists and criminals.

The clip shows individuals who attend “security events” being led into trailers before they are interrogated as to whether they are terrorists while lie detector-style computer programs analyze their physiological responses. The subjects are asked about their whereabouts, and if they are attempting to smuggle bombs or recording devices into the “expo,” proving that the technology is intended to be used at public events and not just airports. Individuals who do not satisfy the first lie detector-style test are then asked “additional questions”.

The use of such technology is not only a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, it also eviscerates the notion of innocent until proven guilty, and therefore totally undermines everything America stands for. Given the widespread abuse witnessed in the first eight months alone after the roll out of airport body scanners, Americans need to boycott the companies producing these systems and also resist their deployment at every turn.

Fourth Amendment lawsuits such as the one filed by EPIC against the naked body scanners should be used as a tool with which to ensure that such systems are never allowed to become commonplace, unless we wish to see supposedly free countries turned into high-tech prison grids ruled over by corrupt government enforcers who treat citizens as slaves.

By James P. Tucker Jr.

The Trilateral Commission (TC) refused to tell AMERICAN FREE PRESS where it would meet next spring. Still, we figured it out. The globalist group will meet in Washington, D.C. April 8-10, 2011 to panhandle American taxpayers in a determined, but failing, attempt to establish a world government.

Already the TC is struggling to reignite its global government efforts but is unable to overcome resistance from American patriots. The Senate is balking at ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) because of unconstitutional excesses. Action has been delayed until a lame-duck session following the November elections. But the TC, and its brother group, Bilderberg, is using the time to pressure the Senate to embrace START after the elections are safely over.

START and other sovereignty-surrendering treaties, such as the North America Free Trade Agreement, are important steps in the TC-Bilderberg campaign to establish a world government. An “American Union” similar to the European Union is to be established with the proposed “amero” becoming the “euro” in this hemisphere.

The immediate danger is that the Senate will bow to immense pressure to ratify START at the post-election lame-duck session. A significant number of incumbents are likely to lose and have no political stake in the issue. Others will be told their votes will be forgotten before the next election so they had better take big bucks now rather than offend the power brokers.

Secretaries of state, defense and treasury always attend TC and Bilderberg meetings, as do White House officials and congressional lapdogs. All are pressuring the Senate to ratify START. The treaty creates a Bilateral Consultative Commission with power to approve “additional measures as may be necessary to improve the viability and effectiveness of the treaty.”

The U.S. and Russian executive branches could implement the commission’s recommendations without Senate ratification. This is unconstitutional on its face. When the White House gets through implementing commission recommendations you may be unable to recognize the START treaty.

Even the courts, not often recognized as bastions of constitutional principle, are saying such treaties are unconstitutional.

In 2006, the federal appellate court for the District of Columbia declined to implement “adjustments” by an international organization to an environmental treaty. The court cited “significant debate over the constitutionality of assigning lawmaking functions to international bodies.”

The court ruled that treating the treaty adjustments as law “would raise serious constitutional questions in light of the non-delegation doctrine, numerous constitutional procedural requirements for making law, and the separation of powers.”

Synthetic estrogen BPA coats cash register receipts

EWG-commissioned lab tests find BPA-laden receipts from big national retailers

by Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst; David Andrews, Senior Scientist; and Jane Houlihan, Senior VP for Research

The plastic component bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the headlines nonstop as scientists, health experts and consumers press for a federal ban on food packaging made with this synthetic estrogen, shown to leach readily into infant formula, beverages and canned food. But most Americans are probably unaware that they are regularly exposed to the same endocrine-disrupting chemical in cash register receipts.

Two-fifths of the paper receipts tested by a major laboratory commissioned by Environmental Working Group were on heat-activated paper that was between 0.8 to nearly 3 percent pure BPA by weight. Wipe tests conducted with a damp laboratory paper easily picked up a portion of the receipts' BPA coating, indicating that the chemical would likely stick to the skin of anyone who handled them. The receipts came from major retailers, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, post offices and automatic teller machines (ATMs).

Major retailers using BPA-containing receipts in at least some outlets included McDonald's, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, Walmart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service. Receipts from some major chains, including Target, Starbucks and Bank of America ATMs, issued receipts that were BPA-free or contained only trace amounts.

Scientists have not determined how much of a receipt's BPA coating can transfer to the skin and from there into the body. Possibilities being explored include:

• Oral exposure -- BPA moves from receipts onto fingers and then onto food and into the mouth.
• Dermal exposure -- BPA from receipts is directly absorbed through the skin into the body.

A study published July 11 by Swiss scientists found that BPA transfers readily from receipts to skin and can penetrate the skin to such a depth that it cannot be washed off (Biedermann 2010). This raises the possibility that the chemical infiltrates the skin's lower layers to enter the bloodstream directly. BPA has also been shown to penetrate skin in laboratory studies (Kaddar 2008).

EWG collected 36 receipts and commissioned the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences laboratory to investigate their BPA content. This laboratory is considered one of the world's foremost research facilities in its capability to detect environmentally relevant BPA concentrations.

The Missouri scientists found that the total mass of BPA on a receipt is 250 to 1,000 times greater than the amount of BPA typically found in a can of food or a can of baby formula, or that which leaches from a BPA-based plastic baby bottle into its contents. These data should not be interpreted to suggest that policymakers shift their focus from BPA contamination of food, which is widespread, to receipts. BPA exposure from food sources is ubiquitous and should remain the first priority of U.S. policymakers. However, a significant portion of the public may also be exposed to BPA by handling receipts. Since many retailers do not use BPA-laden thermal paper, this particular route of exposure is easy to correct.

Biomonitoring surveys by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found BPA in the bodies of 93 percent of Americans over age 6. EWG analysis of CDC data has found that people who reported working in retail industries had 30 percent more BPA in their bodies than the average U.S. adult, and 34 percent more BPA than other workers. (CDC 2004). As of May 2009, 1 in 17 working Americans -- 7 million people -- were employed as retail salespersons and cashiers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

EWG's biomonitoring study of minority newborns, published last December, found BPA in 9 of 10 samples, marking the first detections of the chemical in the cord blood of U.S. infants. EWG has published a Safe Baby Bottle and Formula Guide to help parents of infants avoid BPA and other harmful substances during this critical window of development.

In animal tests, scientists have produced evidence that BPA can induce abnormal reproductive system development, diminished intellectual capacity and behavioral abnormalities and can set the stage for other serious conditions, such as reproductive system cancer, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, resistance to chemotherapy, asthma and cardiovascular system disorders. It has caused epigenetic changes, meaning alterations in the way genes switch off and on and genetic changes that can be passed on to the next generations.

Frequent exposures to relatively large amounts of BPA in receipts are an obvious concern to every shopper, but even more so to the legions of people who staff cash registers and bag groceries at tens of thousands of retailers across the country. These workers handle BPA-loaded receipts hundreds of times a day, with as yet unknown consequences for their health (Biedermann et al 2010). According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of May 2009, the two largest U.S. occupations were “retail salespersons” and “cashiers,” with more than 7 million Americans in those jobs.

Retail workers carry an average of 30 percent more BPA in their bodies than other adults, It is unclear how much BPA-coated receipts contribute to people's total exposure to the ubiquitous plastics chemical. What is certain, however, is that since many retail outlets already use BPA-free paper for their receipts, this is one source of contamination that could easily be eliminated completely.

Thermal paper is widely used for point-of-sale receipts, prescription labels, airline tickets and lottery tickets. Thermal printers use paper that is coated with a dye and developer (BPA or an alternative chemical). Heat from the thermal printing head triggers a reaction between the dye and developer, allowing the black print to appear.

In an effort to quantify how much BPA would transfer to a person’s hand, the laboratory performed wipe tests on four BPA-laden receipts. In all four cases, BPA transferred from the receipts to the wipes. An average of 2.4 percent of the receipts’ total BPA content wiped off, suggesting that a person who handled receipts would be exposed to some BPA in the thermal paper. There have been no published studies of BPA residues inside pockets, purses and wallets, on wet produce in grocery bags or on the hands of people after they crumpled and discarded a receipt.

Since 60 percent of the receipts EWG collected did not have significant levels of BPA, it is apparent that many retailers are using alternatives. The leading U.S. thermal paper maker, Wisconsin-based Appleton Papers Inc., no longer incorporates BPA in any of its thermal papers (Raloff 2009). Reacting to concerns about the toxicity of BPA, the Japan Paper Association began to halt the use of BPA in 1998, completing the phase-out by 2003 (AIST 2007). EWG's analysis of three receipts collected in Japan at KFC, McDonald's and Starbucks found only trace amounts of BPA. In addition, 11 of 13 U.S.-based retailers whose receipts EWG tested used non-BPA paper in at least one outlet.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a program to evaluate the safety and availability of alternatives to BPA in thermal paper (EPA 2010).

EWG urges retailers to use BPA-free paper and to consider paperless options such as emailed electronic receipts. These measures could greatly reduce the volume of BPA disseminated by the retail industry and save paper in the bargain. Retailers should make public the identity of any chemicals used in the alternative they select. Very little information is publicly available on the now-common BPA alternatives for thermal receipts.

Tips to reduce exposures to BPA in receipts

• Minimize receipt collection by declining receipts at gas pumps, ATMs and other machines when possible.
• Store receipts separately in an envelope in a wallet or purse.
• Never give a child a receipt to hold or play with.
• After handling a receipt, wash hands before preparing and eating food (a universally recommended practice even for those who have not handled receipts).
• Do not use alcohol-based hand cleaners after handling receipts. A recent study showed that these products can increase the skin's BPA absorption (Biedermann 2010).
• Take advantage of store services that email or archive paperless purchase records.
• Do not recycle receipts and other thermal paper. BPA residues from receipts will contaminate recycled paper.
• If you are unsure, check whether paper is thermally treated by rubbing it with a coin. Thermal paper discolors with the friction; conventional paper does not.

Methodology and Findings. EWG collected 36 receipts from retailers in seven states and the District of Columbia:

• Ten national retail and service chains, including Walmart, Chevron and McDonald's;
• Three government establishments - the U.S. Postal Service and the cafeterias in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate; and
• One local supermarket in Colorado.

We contracted with the analytical laboratory at the University of Missouri-Columbia's Division of Biological Sciences to perform the analysis. The laboratory weighed, measured and photographed the receipts, dissolved them in an alcohol, then analyzed them for BPA using a sensitive, standard BPA test method (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with CoulArray detection).

The laboratory detected substantial amounts of BPA on 16 of 36 receipts at an average amount of 1.9 percent by weight, and a range of 0.8 to 2.8 percent (Table 1).

Table 1. Test Results - BPA in store receipts

Source: EWG compilation of BPA test results from the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences Laboratory, for receipts collected by EWG.
* Only trace BPA levels were detected on wipe samples of receipts not coated with BPA.

Safeway supermarket receipts had the highest levels by several measures. Safeway receipts had 3 of the top 6 highest overall BPA levels. A store in the District of Columbia had the greatest total estimated mass of BPA (41 milligrams). A Berkeley, CA Safeway had the highest concentration of BPA relative to the paper mass (2.8 percent of the receipt weight). Safeway was one of two retailers that had detectable BPA in all three store locations sampled.

The receipt for a McDonald's Happy Meal™ purchased in Clinton, Conn. on April 21, 2010 had an estimated 13 milligrams of BPA. That equals the amount of BPA in 126 cans of Chef Boyardee Overstuffed Beef Ravioli in Hearty Tomato & Meat Sauce, one of the products with the highest concentrations of BPA in EWG's 2007 tests of canned foods (EWG 2007).

Source: BPA test results from the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences Laboratory, for receipts collected by EWG.

* BPA at trace level or not detected.

EWG also collected receipts from stores and bank ATMs in three or four cities for each of the ten national retail and service chains sampled. Analysis of the laboratory tests found that of the 10 stores and bank ATMs:

• One, Safeway, issued BPA-containing receipts in all cities.
• Six issued a BPA-laden receipt in at least one, but not all, outlets - CVS, Walmart, KFC, Whole Foods, Chevron, and McDonald's - indicating that these retailers use BPA-free receipts at some outlets.
• Three provided receipts that were BPA-free or contained only trace amounts at all locations - Bank of America, Target and Starbucks.

EWG also collected receipts from post offices and government cafeterias. All receipts from the U.S. Postal Service contained BPA. A receipt from the U.S. House of Representatives cafeteria contained BPA, while a receipt from the U.S. Senate cafeteria did not.

The laboratory performed four wipe samples on four BPA-laden receipts - 0.7-to-3.8 percent of the BPA detected on the receipt easily wiped off onto a lightly moistened, BPA-free laboratory paper, with an average of 2.4 percent wiping off.

EWG also collected receipts from three retailers in Japan, at KFC, Starbucks and McDonald's outlets in the city of Sendai. None contained BPA above trace levels. In our U.S. samples, KFC and McDonald's issued BPA-containing receipts in at least one location.

Sources of Americans' exposures to BPA. BPA exposure is ubiquitous in the U.S. population. The CDC's National Biomonitoring Program found the chemical in the urine of 93 percent of Americans age six and older (Calafat 2008).

Researchers have considered BPA contamination of canned foods and beverages to be the primary sources of exposure in most populations, especially for infants and children.

In 2007, Environmental Working Group published a ground-breaking study  documenting that BPA had leached from epoxy can linings into more than half the canned foods, beverages and canned liquid infant formula randomly purchased at supermarkets around the country.  In the absence of any U.S. regulation on BPA contamination of food, EWG has published an online guide to baby-safe bottles and formula.

However, a recent study suggests that other sources may also be important (Stahlhut 2009). These researchers measured urinary levels of BPA in 1,469 adults after variable periods of fasting. They expected BPA levels in urine to fall rapidly in the absence of new food exposures, since the chemical is excreted very quickly from the body. Instead, BPA levels dropped only slowly, leading them to theorize that BPA from sources other than food may be significant, or, alternatively, that BPA may be stored in human fat and released slowly and constantly into the body.

EWG assessed CDC biomonitoring data from Americans tested between 2003 and 2004 to learn if retail workers carry higher amounts of BPA in their bodies than other adults. CDC provided employment information for 916 of 1,862 adults tested. EWG analysis found that the 195 people who reported working in retail industries had 28 percent more BPA in their bodies than the average U.S. adult, and 34 percent more BPA than other workers. EWG also found that four of the five occupations with the highest BPA measurements may come in contact with receipts, including those in retail department stores, communications, retail food stores, and eating and drinking establishments (Table 2).

Table 2. CDC biomonitoring studies indicate that retail workers are exposed to more BPA than other adults

Source. EWG analysis of CDC biomonitoring data from samples collected from 2003-2004 (CDC 2004).
* Retail workers include people designated in CDC employment groups 23-28 (CDC 2004).

EWG recommends that retailers switch to non-BPA receipt technologies immediately to help reduce their employees' BPA exposures.

References

AIST. 2007. Risk ASsessment Document Series No. 4: Bisphenol A. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), November 2007. AIST07-A00001-4.

Biedermann S, Tschudin P, Grob K. 2010. Transfer of bisphenol A from thermal printer paper to the skin. Anal Bioanal Chem. Published online: July 11, 2010.

Calafat AM, Ye X, Wong LY, Reidy JA, Needham LL. 2008. Exposure of the U.S. population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(1): 39-44.

CDC 2004. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data 2003-2004. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention: National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS). Hyattsville, MD, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/nhanes03_04.htm

EWG. 2007. Bisphenol A: Toxic plastics chemical in canned foods. Environmental Working Group, March 2007. http://ewg.org/reports/bisphenola

EWG. 2009. Body Burden: the Pollution in Minority Newborns. Environmental Working Group, March 2007. http://ewg.org/minoritycordblood/BPA-cordbloodpollution

EPA. 2010. BPA Alternatives in Thermal Paper Partnership. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Design for the Environment. Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/bpa/index.htm

Kaddar N, Harthé C, Déchaud H, Mappus E, Pugeat M. 2008. Cuteanous Penetration of Bisphenol A in Pig Skin. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 71(8):471-73.

LaKind JS, Naiman DQ. 2010. Daily intake of bisphenol A and potential sources of exposure: 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology:1-8

Raloff J. 2009. Concern about BPA: Check your receipts. Science News. October 7, 2009. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__ Concerned_about_BPA_Check_your_receipts

Stahlhut RW, Welshons WV, Swan SH. 2009. Bisphenol A data in NHANES suggest longer that expected half-life, substantial nonfood exposure, or both. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(5): 784-89.

APPENDIX - LABORATORY METHODOLOGY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

Laboratory Methodology - EWG staff collected receipts in seven U.S. states -- California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia -- and the District of Columbia.

Samplers wore clean, powder-free nitrile gloves (Dynarex). They received the receipt from the cashier and held it gently between two fingers. Once away from the cashier, samplers rolled the receipts with minimal handling and placed them into clean polyurethane 50 mL tubes (Fischer Scientific). They noted the time, date, location, items purchased, temperature and humidity as well as the location where receipts were rolled and tubed. ATM and gas station receipts were collected directly from the machines in most cases.

EWG sent receipts to a laboratory at University of Missouri-Columbia, Division of Biological Sciences in Columbia, Mo. The laboratory weighed, measured and photographed the receipts, analyzed for BPA and screened for bisphenol B, bisphenol S and bisphenol F, using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with CoulArray detection. The standard curve in our assay ranges from 0.05 -4 nanograms per HPLC run. Four receipts that had values below and above the range of the standard curve are considered to be outside the limit of quantitation of the assay. These estimated values were different from five samples labeled as "non-detectable (ND)," in which there was no evidence of BPA.

Digestion analysis: Lengths of receipt weighing 200 mg each were cut and placed in a glass tube. No attempt was made to control for the amount of printing on the receipt. The receipts were incubated in methanol (15 ml, to cover the receipt) for 3 hours at room temperature, with occasional agitation. The methanol was then poured into clean glass tubes and diluted for analysis.

Migration analysis : EWG selected 9 of the collected receipts for migration analysis. For these, a piece of lab wipe (KimWipe) was lightly dampened with methanol and wiped in a zigzag fashion across the top (printed) surface of a 5 cm by 5 cm piece of receipt. This wipe was then soaked in methanol for 3 hours at room temperature, and the methanol then decanted and analyzed for BPA.

Quality assurance / Quality control procedures

The laboratory found no detectable BPA on sampling materials, including KimWipes, gloves and shipping tubes.

The laboratory assessed recoveries of BPA from paper by spiking a piece of filter paper approximately 8-by-8 centimeters with BPA and soaking it in methanol, as described for the sales receipts. This method only approximates BPA recovery from receipts since the paper and coating matrices are different.

The laboratory also analyzed samples with added BPA to determine whether the sample extract quenches or augments BPA measurements. Recoveries in positive controls averaged 92 percent. Sample data values presented in this study are not corrected for recovery.

The laboratory did not detect BPB, BPF and BPS in the receipts tested. Unidentified peaks were seen in some receipt samples that did not contain BPA. Some of these appeared to reflect high concentrations.

Hologram Preachers Slated to Appear in Churches

Holographic preachers are stirring another technology-gone-too-far debate among Christians.

While the dust over beaming preachers on a video screen on multi-site campuses has somewhat settled, the new 3D tool is raising more questions and concerns among some believers.

"Since so many of us in the west are convinced that entertaining pew fodder is critical to advancing 'the gospel' and that only a very few have the necessary gifts to preachertain – this will become the 'perfect' solution," Bill Kinnon, author of A Networked Conspiracy, Social Networks, The Church & the Power of Collective Intelligence, wrote in a recent blog post.

What has Kinnon and many other Christians talking is the holographic technology that music artist Madonna famously used at the Grammy Awards in 2006 and that one company wants to promote in churches.

Tony Morgan, pastor of ministries at West Ridge Church near Atlanta, introduced the technology as a possible church tool on his blog this week. He had visited with the company Clark (formerly Clark ProMedia) at their offices in Alpharetta, Ga., where they demonstrated the 3D tool. As he stood on the stage of the company's new theater, an image of another person was projected next to him. From the audience's perspective, it appears as if the other figure was actually present.

The technology itself isn't new to Morgan but it was the first time he saw it in person.

Houston Clark, whose company has been involved in "high-end video venue type production environments," is looking to get holograms in churches. He met with Ainsley Henn of Musion Systems based in the U.K. – the company responsible for the Gorillaz hologram in the Madonna show.

In an interview with ChurchMediaDesign.tv, Clark said the technology creates an "as if you're there experience" and "begins to extend the realism of virtual teaching venues."

"This just gives you a completely limitless palette for creating environments that don't look as if you're viewing them but look as if you're part of them because it's in three dimensions," he added.

Currently, there are some 3,000 multi-sites in the country. Some churches that have adopted the one church in multiple locations approach have turned their other campuses into video venues. In other words, the pastor preaches at one location and is beamed to screens in other locations.

Video venues stirred debate among pastors, some of whom felt it was making a celebrity out of the preacher.

Bob Hyatt, lead pastor of Evergreen Community and a church planter, argued earlier that video venues focus "entirely too much on the preaching gifts of one person."

Now with holograms slated to replace 2D video images of preachers at multi-sites, the technology is reviving the debate.

"Wow!!! Who needs fellowship anymore? Soon I will be able to sit at home in my pj’s and have my Pastor in my living room. Who needs a Pastor? We can have one hologram preacher for the whole world and then we wouldn’t need to pay for one. What is the church coming to?" one commenter named Schuyler Hedrick wrote in response to Morgan's blog.

Missiologist Ed Stetzer, meanwhile, sees the use of holograms in the church as a "natural evolution" of the technology.

"[P]eople watched their pastor live on a big screen at a megachurch, then they watched their pastor on video from another place, now the video goes from 2D to 3D," he commented to The Christian Post. "It is not a shift of philosophy but of technology. If you are already OK watching via video, this is just a new tool, not a new approach."Continue » 

The Britain of today is watched constantly by CCTV cameras, is preparing for a national ID card, slaps a “crown copyright” on most government data, and can now censor websites and eventually boot people off the Internet.

According to the new Liberal Democrat/Tory coalition government, that’s all about to change. The coalition today released its unified policy statement (PDF), and for techies and privacy advocates, there’s lots to like.

• We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.
• We will outlaw the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission.
• We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
• We will review libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• We will further regulate CCTV.
• We will end the storage of internet and e-mail records without good reason.
• We will create a level playing field for open-source software and will enable large ICT projects to be split into smaller components.
• We will create a new “right to data” so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis.
• We will introduce measures to ensure the rapid roll-out of superfast broadband across the country. We will ensure that BT and other infrastructure providers allow the use of their assets to deliver such broadband, and we will seek to introduce superfast broadband in remote areas at the same time as in more populated areas. If necessary, we will consider using the part of the TV license fee that is supporting the digital switchover to fund broadband in areas that the market alone will not reach.

That last bit about broadband is a change from current Labour policies, which proposed a (hugely unpopular) 50p per month tax on broadband connections to help fund universal broadband infrastructure. The new proposal draws that money from the already-existing TV license fee.

In addition, the Lib Dems have separately pledged to roll back the worst excesses of the recent Digital Economy bill that brought Web censorship and possible Internet disconnection to the UK. At a party conference over the weekend, they asked ministers to “take all possible steps to ensure the repeal of those sections of the Digital Economy Act 2010 which are inconsistent with the policy motion ‘Freedom, creativity and the internet‘.”

Trilateral Commission Big Daddy confronted in Dublin resort: “Mr. Rockefeller, you will never get your New World Order! We are not your slaves!”

• Trilateral Commission gossip: Russian advisor overheard talking about removing Iranian leadership

God It's Great To Be A Banker

 

Trading, of course, is supposed to be a risky business: You win some, you lose some. That's how traders justify their gargantuan bonuses--their jobs are so risky that they deserve to be paid millions for protecting their firms' precious capital. (Of course, the only thing that happens if traders fail to protect that capital is that taxpayers bail out the bank and the traders are paid huge "retention" bonuses to prevent them from leaving to trade somewhere else, but that's a different story).

But these days, trading isn't risky at all. In fact, it's safer than walking down the street.

Why?

Because the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+ on the spread. What's more, the banks are leveraging this trade, borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to increase the size of their bets.  Which means the banks can turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.

Why is the US government still lending banks money at near-zero interest rates? Ostensibly, for the same reason that the government bailed out the banks in the first place: So the banks will lend money to small businesses, big businesses, and other participants in the "real economy."

But the banks aren't lending money to the real economy: Private sector lending has fallen off a cliff.

And one reason private sector lending has fallen off a cliff is that lending money to the private sector is risky. Lending money to the government, meanwhile, is nearly risk-free. So the banks are just lending money back to the government (by scarfing up US Treasuries), collecting a nearly risk-free 3% spread, and then leveraging up this bet 10-15 times.

Image: St Louis Fed

THAT's how the big banks made money 63 days in a row. Importantly, doing this required no special genius: If you had the good fortune of working at a big bank, you would be making money every day, too.  And then you'd get to take half of that money home as a bonus!

No wonder everyone wants to work on Wall Street.

The government's zero-interest-rate policy, in other words, is the biggest Wall Street subsidy yet. So far, it has done little to increase the supply of credit in the real economy. But it has hosed responsible people who lived within their means and are now earning next-to-nothing on their savings. It has also allowed the big Wall Street banks to print money to offset all the dumb bets that brought the financial system to the brink of collapse two years ago. And it has fattened Wall Street bonus pools to record levels again.

Related: Here's How to Make the World's Easiest $1 Billion

Greenspan's Testimony: Two hours of buck-passing

OpEdNews

Alan Greenspan's performance before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was a real Oscar winner. At no time, was the ex-Fed chairman in trouble, and he was able to showcase the full repertoire of fake emotions for which he is renowned. He was alternately condescending, professorial, combative, engaging, and acerbic. It was vintage Greenspan from start to finish; the tedious jabber, the crusty rejoinders, the endless excuse-making. At 80, Maestro still hasn't lost his touch. No one laid a glove on him, which is precisely the problem.

It's galling that, after everything that's taken place, Greenspan is still treated like royalty; still given a platform so he can run-circles around his critics and make them look like fools. That's not what the public wanted, another playful sparring-match with Chairman Flim-flam. They wanted to see him grilled, interrogated, badgered, threatened and humiliated. And they want to see some trifling sign of remorse for the ruin he's brought on the country. But there was no remorse; no restless squirming, no flickering look of self-doubt, no sudden outburst of regret. Nothing at all. Just the brazen buck-passing of a self-admiring old man trying to pluck his reputation from the ashheap.

No one person is more responsible for the financial crisis than Alan Greenspan. He can say whatever he likes, but the 8.5 million people who spend their days shuffling in unemployment lines, have him to thank. And that's doubly true for the 300,000 families who lose their homes every month or the millions of people now scrimping by on food stamps. They can blame Maestro for the mess they're in.

In his testimony, Greenspan blamed subprime securitization, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the fall of the Berlin Wall, too much saving in China etc. etc. etc. Everyone is to blame; everyone except Greenspan that is, the Teflon Fed chief.

Read More

New RFID Tag Could Mean the End of Bar Codes

• National Healthcare Will Require National RFID Chips

• Artificial intelligence and machine vision for unmanned vehicle smart cameras is aim of DARPA Mind's Eye program

• Big Brother has help in watching all of us

• Cameras Track Consumer Behavior

Healthcare Passes—Now What?

  On March 21, after months of wrangling, the House finally passed the healthcare “reform” bill by a slim margin of 219 to 212. As one commentator noted, at the end of the day this bill was more about showing who wields power in Washington than it was a battle over fixing systemic problems plaguing medicine in the United States.

Independent liberals and conservatives, who are not beholden to either Democrats or Republicans, saw the bill for what it truly is: A welfare check for private health insurance companies that does nothing to curb out-of-control costs or the high price of medicine that is strangling individuals and businesses alike.

On the eve of the bill’s passage one independent news web site called Firedoglake posted key facts gleaned from establishment and government sources that show why the bill would actually hurt middle-class Americans.

In actuality, the bill does not do what its advocates have promised. While it forces everyone—including those who are already struggling financially—to purchase private health plans or face fines administered by IRS revenuers, health insurance companies will not be barred from raising premiums. And, while it establishes an “insurance exchange” that is supposedly intended to give citizens the ability to shop around for cheaper insurance, it does not stop the industry from price-fixing or engaging in other trust-like behavior.

Finally, it does not allow citizens to save money by purchasing cheaper drugs from countries like Canada that regulate prices.

It is estimated the measure will insure 30 million Americans who previously had no health insurance.

But this will come at a steep cost to middle-class taxpayers and other healthy Americans, who will see their premiums go up to cover the new costs to private insurers for those people.

Barack Obama has promised that by 2016 the bill will reduce premiums by $2,500. However, an analysis by a watchdog group found that annual insurance premiums in all markets across the board will either remain the same in the next six years or will go up.

Working-class families are already struggling to pay the bills. Medical costs remain the leading cause of bankruptcies in America. Now, a family of four that makes $66,000 a year will have to pay a private insurance firm over $5,000—nearly 10 percent of their gross income—annually for private health insurance, not including deductibles and co-pays, which will likely increase, too.

Also, businesses are expected to take a hit with an excise tax to pay for the program. Of course, companies will pass on the extra expense to their employees by having them pay more for their insurance.

Finally, insurance companies will be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions like cancer. But, according to reports, it is expected that healthy employees will be forced to pay more to cover the rising cost of insuring everyone.

As if this is not bad enough, private health insurance companies will now be responsible for policing themselves and processing complaints. And they will remain exempt from antitrust laws designed to prevent the type of price controls made famous in the days of the robber barons.

The vote itself was split almost entirely down party lines, with all 178 House Republicans voting against the measure. Thirty-four conservative Democrats also voted against the bill. Their names are published in the chart below.

Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)
Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.)
Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.)
Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.)
Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.) and
Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.)

Monday, March  2010

A move is under way in California to protect the free-speech rights of Christians.

According to Pastor Allan Esses of Yes Jesus Christ is Lord Ministries, the amendments will allow Christians (1) to freely share their faith and (2) to publicly take a stand on issues of the day without fear of retribution from authorities.
 
"I just pray that God's people would see that there is a great spiritual battle before us," says the ministry spokesman. "That our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said we should gird up our loins and be ready for the soon return of Jesus Christ for his church. And we need to understand the battle that is before us [and] the attack upon God's Word and Jesus Christ."
 
Esses says the secretary of state's office must receive 694,000 signatures by the middle of April in order to get the initiatives on the ballot.

Pledge of Allegiance's God reference now upheld by court

Atheist in battle to remove 'In God We Trust' from US currency

Power to take fingerprints on street

Secret world bankers meeting

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Eric Holder

A team of Christian activists and pastors today filed a civil rights lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder over the "hate crimes" law that President Obama signed into law late last year, alleging it violates their civil rights.

The complaint states Christians now can become the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even charges for no more than opposing the activism of homosexuals who want not only public endorsement of their life choices, but to halt any criticism of those decisions.

"On account of … the Hate Crimes Act, plaintiffs are targets for government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and other adverse law enforcement actions and thus seek judicial reassurance that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs," the lawsuit explains.

It was filed today by the Thomas More Law Center in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, James Combs and Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

The plaintiffs include individuals who already have faced accusations by homosexual advocates that they bear responsibility for the actions of others for no other reason than their agreement with biblical condemnations of homosexuality.

The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a "hate crime" because of his "sexual orientation." In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force "blamed … Plaintiff Glenn's 'homophobic rants' for causing his death."

Freemasonry Rising 2012? David Rockefeller reportedly planning to build Third Temple

• Will Rockefeller build 3rd Temple?

By James Altucher

In the U.S. there are more than 30 million closed-circuit video cameras. If you live in a city, chances are your image is being captured, analyzed and stored on more than 400 different occasions throughout a single day. All of your bank and ATM transactions are analyzed. All of your instant messaging and Web site usage at your job is stored and potentially analyzed for misuse and then reported to managers. Your home is photographed from the sky every day. If you move suspiciously in a crowd, big brother will instantly notice.

Roughly $200 billion is spent annually in the U.S. on surveillance and monitoring. Humans can’t do it. A human looking at a surveillance camera for more than 20 minutes has been shown to miss 95% of the activity that he’s supposed to be catching. An entire industry has sprung up in the automation of this monitoring. These companies will continue to grow in a world that seems to be less safe each year.

Here are a few of the public companies that will benefit now and in years to come:

Watching you in crowds and tracking your bank transactions

NICE systems (NICE):  Started by seven ex-Israeli army soldiers, NICE has security productions ranging from motion detection in videos of crowds to detect unusual behavior within second, to monitoring bank transactions in search of automatically detecting fraud.

Photographing all of your belongings

Analogic (ALOG): When you check a bag at an airport, chances are it’s going to go through a 3D Xray scanner developed by Analogic. Any suspicious bags will be thoroughly photographed will be tagged for an operator to look at, complete with every item in the bag photographed with the company’s 3D X-ray technology.

Big Brother is in China
China Security & Surveillance (CSR): Think Big Brother. But

in China. This company sells automated surveillance systems all over China to monitor everything from ports to sports stadiums to government buildings, etc. With over 100% earnings growth this past year and trading at only five times next year’s expected earnings, this company is dirt cheap.

They analyze all of your ATM transactions

Verisign (VRSN): Most people know VRSN as the monopoly on domain-name registration. But one of their products keep track of all of your ATM usage and if there’s unusual usage (if someone is holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to withdraw money, for instance) then it alerts the appropriate authorities.

They log everything you do on the job
WebSense (WBSN): Approximately 50% of S&P 500 companies monitor their employees Internet usage and email usage. WBSN offers products that do everything from web filtering (so you can’t spend too much time, if any, on shopping, betting, or porn sites for instance) to actual email monitoring (they can track if you are sending out internal secrets or using email too much for personal use). Over 42 million employees are monitored by their employers using WBSN software. The company just announced that their billings for this quarter exceeded expectations.

Arcsight (ARST): Arcsight keeps track of every keystroke logged in a corporate enterprise and examines the data for anything suspicious (such as the same user logging in at the same time from two different places). With everyone worried about the threat of cyber-terrorism, Arcsight’s profits were up over 300% last year despite the recession and sales were up over 30%.

They watch you from the stars

Digital Globe (DGI) – Every piece of the planet is imaged each day by Digital Globe cameras orbiting in satellites. Think Google Earth. But for the military. The company was formerly called “EarthWatch” but before they went public they changed their name to “Digital Globe”. Trades for just nine times cash flows.  GeoEye (GEOY), trading for just six times earnings before interest and taxes, is the only other company in the satellite imaging space and is known for providing at least some of the images used for Google Earth (as does DGI) although 67% of its revenues come from the US Government.

They take naked photos of you at airports

OSI Systems (OSIS) – Nothing is sacred in the new world order of zero privacy. OSI makes the full body scanners that scan every inch of your body to find concealed explosives in your condom-sewn underwear. After last Christmas, these will now be in great demand. (Never thought I’d grow up to write the last two sentences side by side). The Netherlands just announced it is in the market for these scanners.

And everything else…

L-1 Identity Solutions (ID) – It knows your fingerprints, can recognize your face via software, can do background checks on you, and will be a big beneficiary of additional military spending (30,000 new trips to Afganistan ) and increase security at airports.

James Altucher, a contributor to Dow Jones Adviser, is a managing partner of Formula Capital, an alternative asset management firm, and an author on investment strategies. Unlike Dow Jones reporters, he may have positions in the stocks he writes about.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon

Dana Gabriel
January 11, 2010

NAFTA has extended from economic integration into a political and regional security pact which has been achieved through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, Plan Mexico, as well as other initiatives. Various pieces of legislation and reports, along with influential individuals have called for closer trilateral cooperation regarding common rules for immigration and security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent. A major part of the U.S. security agenda already includes the defense of North America, but a full blown security zone would bring Canada and Mexico further under its control. A Fortress North America poses a serious threat to our sovereignty and would mean the loss of more civil liberties

	What many Canadians think of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Plans for a North America security perimeter might have seemed like a pipe dream just a short time ago, but it could become a reality sooner than one thinks. Some believe that a perimeter approach to security would be a more effective way of providing safety while ensuring the free flow of trade and investment. For those pushing for deep continental integration, this move is seen as the next logical step. A recent article from the Toronto Star, Canada warms to idea of a tougher ‘perimeter’ suggests that Canadians might now be ready to debate the concept of perimeter security. David Biette who specializes in U.S.-Canada relations and is a member of the Woodrow Wilson Center stated that a, “Perimeter is no longer a dirty word. It’s beginning to come up again, at least in academic circles.” He went on to say, “Canada held back when it first came up and I can certainly understand why. There was still such bad feeling left over on free trade and what that might mean for Canadian sovereignty that perimeter security was just not palatable to Canadians.” Biette also added, “You ask yourself, ‘What would a mutually improved relationship look like?’ and really, there is nothing else. Perimeter is the one big thing - the last truly huge step on the horizon.” A North American security perimeter would be one of the final steps needed in the creation of a North American Union.

Some of the recommendations from the 2005 report, Building a North American Community co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, included a unified border, a North American border pass, a single economic space, as well as a common security perimeter by 2010. Many of the task force recommendations in areas of trade, transportation, energy, immigration and security became part of the SPP agenda. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key objectives continue to move forward under the North American Leaders Summit, as well as through other initiatives. In February of 2009, it was reported that former Canadian international trade and foreign affairs minister, David Emerson, “called on the government to aggressively seek stronger Canada-U.S. ties, up to and including a customs union. He said at minimum, Canada should advocate a North American security perimeter arrangement, a labour mobility agreement that modernizes NAFTA provisions, and greater integration on regulatory matters.” U.S. officials remain concerned on how risk assessments of people entering Canada are conducted as well as the differences in its immigration and visa policies. A common perimeter approach to border management and security would require harmonization of Canadian-U.S. immigration and customs standards.

It was clear before Obama became president that he wished to relax immigration restrictions with Mexico and supported some sort of amnesty program. In mid-December of last year, H.R. 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Obama administration has been criticized for its lack of immigration enforcement. Many have warned that the new legislation would not only grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, but also increase legal immigration and create more loopholes in the system. In Sec. 143. Reports on Improving the Exchange of Information on North American Security, there is wording which could further promote deep continental integration. This includes yearly status reports, “in developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter.” Previous failed security and immigration bills also contained similar language referring to a shared security perimeter around the continent.

The Merida Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico is an extension of NAFTA and has its roots in the SPP. It is based on America’s failed war on drugs, which has been costly and ineffective. The Merida Initiative relies primarily on military and law enforcement solutions and is advancing police state measures. In a recent interview, Laura Carlsen director of the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City described how Plan Mexico, “was designed in Washington as a way to ‘push out the borders’ of the US security perimeter, that is, that Mexico would take on US security priorities including policing its southern border and allowing US companies and agents into Mexico’s intelligence and security operations.” She also commented that, “The Obama administration has supported the plan and even requested, and received from Congress, additional funds beyond what the Bush administration requested.” The Plan Mexico strategy is working towards the development of a common security perimeter and is further encouraging the militarization of Mexico. Continued drug violence in the country could be used as a pretext to set up a North American security perimeter

The recent foiled terrorist attack on Christmas day is accelerating the implementation of a high-tech control grid which could restrict, track and trace our movements. With the war on terrorism back in the forefront, the continued merging of North America might include Canada and Mexico playing a bigger role in regards to perimeter security. Canadian officials have announced that within the next several months, body scanners will be installed in 11 airports across the country. Some proponents of a continental security zone believe that it is the best way to secure North America, but at the same time falsely claim that this could be done with respect to each nation’s sovereignty. We are well on the way towards a North American security perimeter where trade and investment will be able to roam freely, while we are all forced to endure new security practices dominated by U.S. interests.

Food For Thought From The Chuckwagon

President Obama Establishes "Council Of Governors"

By Chuck Baldwin January 19, 2010

The White House Office of the Press Secretary released a report on the White House web site titled "President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors." According to the press release, "The President today [January 11, 2009] signed an Executive Order establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

According to the report, the Council will be composed of "ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms . . . Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole."

The press release also states that "Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council."

As with most Presidential Directives or Executive Orders that have the potential to swallow our liberties and expand federal--or even international--police powers, the mainstream media conveniently fails to inform the American people as to what is happening. Such is the case with Obama's EO establishing a Council of Governors (COG). Therefore, it is left to independent writers to issue the alert. Thank God for the Internet!

As with any expansion of the federal government, this new Council of Governors needs to be monitored very carefully by freedom lovers. One blog rightly noted that the COG "clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed."

Another blogger wisely stated, "As with most government powers, there is always the potential for abuse. In this case, there is cause for serious concern because every bit of this entails expanding traditional Command in Chief powers to the DOD [Department of Defense], spreading troops around the US (potentially not American troops at that . . .) and deciding who has ultimate tactical command over reserves and Guard in the event of 'emergencies,' terrorist attacks, or natural disasters."

Actually, this EO is simply the latest in a series of events going back to the Bush and Clinton years, in which the federal government has taken steps to lay the foundation for extensive military police action within the United States.

Back in 2008, retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis, according to a police commander involved in homeland security planning and implementation.

"It is an initiative of the Bi-National Planning Group whose final report, issued in June 2006, called for the creation of a 'Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement,' or a 'continental approach' to Canada-US defense and security.

"The law enforcement executive told Newswithviews.com that the agreement--defined as a Civil Assistance Plan--was not submitted to Congress for debate and approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorists attacks.

"'This is a military plan that's designed to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act that traditionally prohibited the US military from operating within the borders of the United States. Not only will American soldiers be deployed at the discretion of whomever is sitting in the Oval Office, but foreign soldiers will also be deployed in American cities,' warns Lt. Steven Rodgers, commander of the Nutley, NJ Police Department's detective bureau."

See Kouri's column at:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8551

Of course, the groundwork for this US-Canadian agreement occurred in 2002 when President G.W. Bush created USNORTHCOM. For the first time in US history, an entire Army division has been tasked with "homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities." (Source: USNORTHCOM official web site) Plus, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which passed with almost unanimous bipartisan support, and was signed into law in January 2008 by then-President Bush, required the implementation of the COG.

Then, in June of 2009, USNORTHCOM sent a legislative proposal to Congress requesting "amending Title 10 of USC, expanding the Secretary of Defense's powers to mobilization of the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve to assist civil authorities in disasters and emergencies . . . 'thus enabling a truly Total Force approach to disaster response.'"

See the full report at:

http://tinyurl.com/cog-history-connect-the-dots

Matthew Rothschild at The Progressive penned, "The Pentagon has approached Congress to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to post almost 400,000 military personnel throughout the United States in times of emergency or a major disaster."

Concerning this, David Mundy at the Texas National Press commented, "If granted, the move would further erode the authority of the states and would minimize the role played by the states' militia . . . in handling domestic issues.

"More ominously, nothing in the Pentagon's request specifies that the troops to be posted in U.S. cities would necessarily be Americans."

The report notes that in September of 2009, USNORTHCOM released its 32-page initial framework for the "Tri Command," referring to NORAD, NORTHCOM, and Canada COM. It is noted that while NORTHCOM and Canada COM are national organizations, NORAD is set up as a binational force.

It is largely understood, therefore, that the Council of Governors has been established for the purpose of getting the governors' blessing on this newly accumulated power. In other words, the COG is Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton's effort to establish a liaison between the governors, DHS, DOD, and the National Guard.

Of course, as the report suggests, what is not being disclosed is what powers will be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members and what authorities they will be required to cede to the federal government.

Anyone who is not concerned about the ever-increasing encroachment of federal power upon the states and citizenry at large is either not paying attention, or is already a slave at heart. Instead of worrying about whether a gubernatorial or State legislative candidate is a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, we need to be focusing on whether or not our State governors and legislators have the historical and constitutional acumen and resolve to resist the current dismantling of State sovereignty and personal liberty being orchestrated by this federal leviathan that is known as Washington, D.C.

We can survive hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, looters and thugs, blackouts, and even Muslim terrorists. What we cannot survive--at least not without great cost and effort--is tyranny at the hands of our own government. In this regard, our greatest threat is not foreign terrorists or natural disasters; our greatest threat is Washington, D.C.

So, while DC has an eye on this new Council of Governors, you'd better keep an eye on your governor as well; and keep the other eye on what's left of your liberties, because if those federal foxes come in the middle of the night and run off with them, it will be your governor that opened the door.

Equality Bill ‘dangerously’ trying to force religious belief behind closed doors, bishops warn

Is a cashless society on the cards?

• Intel, Microsoft Offer Smart-Sign Technology

The Texas Board of Education is holding public hearings and will vote this week on the content of textbooks, which will impact many other states that follow Texas' lead.

One of the major problems is a push by a small group that wants to censor religious information regarding historical figures from textbooks. Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs at Free Market Foundation, tells OneNewsNow the group has been very aggressive.
 
"We just think it's ridiculous," he says. "If you're going to talk about history and social studies, we should be doing it accurately; we should do it in a factual way," Saenz contends. "If some of our historical events and figures, [and] part of their history and significance has to do with their religious beliefs, then students should not be banned from being taught about that."
 
Saenz cites an example of Martin Luther King, Jr., and suggests that if teachers acknowledge him, they should also be able to say he was a Christian and how that influenced his role in the civil rights movement. The legislative affairs director says opponents are bringing up the tired and false argument of separation of church and state.
 
"The reality is it's undeniable that our country has a rich religious heritage [and] that the faith of our founding fathers had a tremendous impact on our government and law," he notes. "And so to teach students...otherwise, it's just wrong and it's something that we hope the State Board of Education won't tolerate."
 
Initial votes will be conducted this week, and a final vote will be tallied in two months. Those decisions will establish textbook content for the state for the next ten years as other states will purchase and use those same textbooks.

By Jim Edwards | Jan 5, 2010

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.

Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

The New World Order

As the 20th-century idols of atheism, humanism and communism are falling worldwide a spiritual vacuum is left that must be filled. In the resulting contest for the souls and minds of Americans in this new world order, the Church faces formidable opponents in godless liberal collectivists, neo-conservative fascists, globalists, New Age religion, Islam and Satanism.

No longer are we only threatened from without by a group of balding hard-line Communists - we are now threatened from within - by a group of intelligent, well-dressed globalists who are convincing America and the nations of the world that the only way to lasting world peace is the establishment of a ... "New World Order."

New World Order is a term used to describe the uniting of the world's superpowers to secure and maintain global peace, safety, and security. Synonymous with the term New World Order are the terms one world government, global governance, and globalization. All these terms are used interchangeably and at different times to communicate to different audiences. Make no mistake - they all basically mean the same thing.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." - Cicero, 42 B.C.

Conspiracy Theory or Fact?

While many people dismiss the New World Order as a conspiracy theory, it is neither a conspiracy nor a theory. It may be true there are many conspirators working within the New World Order, in it's broader application, the New World Order is really more of an agenda by a group of international elites that control and manipulate governments, industry and media organizations worldwide. Any intelligent person examining history and events occurring today cannot describe it as a theory either, rather the New World Order is clearly documented in historical documents in both the words and actions of world leaders.

World leaders are excited at the prospects for peace and there has been much talk about entering a "new era" and about the establishment of a "New World Order."

The New World Order agenda is detailed in documents from the Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome, United Nations, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

Mikhail Gorbachev was the first world leader to come out publicly with talk of a "new world order," and he did so nearly two years before George Bush caught the vision. In his historic address to the United Nations on December 7, 1988, the Soviet Prime Minister made this dogmatic and even prophetic statement: "Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order."

George Bush proved to be a good and faithful servant of the "brotherhood" in making the "New World Order" agenda a priority focus of his administration. Just before leaving for Helsinki, Finland, early in September 1990 to discuss the Persian Gulf crisis at his summit meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev, President George Bush expressed the hope that "the foundation for the new world order would be laid in Helsinki" and that it would be established under the United Nations.

At the news conference with Gorbachev following their historic meeting, President Bush declared optimistically: "If the nations of the world, acting together, continue as they have been we will set in place the cornerstone of an international order more peaceful than any that we have known."

Then in 1993, the New World Order was established as a legitimate national agenda - by a socialist Democrat, Bill Clinton. Both George Bush and Bill Clinton were beholding to the same secret orders, codes and financiers, and as a result, probably engineered the change of Presidents by manipulating the American people to pull the plug on Bush. George Bush may have actually been running a campaign to LOSE the presidency.

 Globalists welcomed this as democracy's finest hour - through manipulation, the democratic system installed a socialist, new age, one-world leader with the charismatic appeal of John F. Kennedy to do their bidding!

During Clinton's reign, New World Order Socialists publicly came out of the closet in the U.S. House of Representatives. The powerful and popular lobby called the Progressive Caucus now began openly espousing the principles of socialism and publicly signed onto the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Masterfully using the Hegelian Dialectic, Bill Clinton's favorite answer to all questions was government. Got a problem? Bill Clinton's new government program can fix it. Lost your job? Sign up for an employee retraining program. Feeling a little under the weather? A visit to your regional health alliance will shape you up. Having difficulty raising your children? Join our village because "It takes more than a family to raise children."

Bill and Hillary were introducing Americans to the 21st Century "Brave New World" described by Aldous Huxley in 1932 where humanity lives in a carefree, healthy, and technologically advanced society.

Warfare and poverty are to be eliminated in their "village" and everyone is permanently happy due to government-provided conditioning and drugs. Clinton also advanced the more hedonistic society, deriving pleasure from promiscuous sex and drug use, what Huxley called soma - a powerful psychotropic rationed by the government that is taken to escape pain and bad memories through hallucinatory fantasies, referred to as "Holidays". Of course, these things are achieved by eliminating many things that we consider to be central to our identity - family, culture, art, literature, science, religion, and philosophy.

"We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning." - President Bill Clinton

Peace, Safety, and Security

The pacified population accepts it readily enough believing that a world government establishing world peace and preventing a nuclear holocaust could not be considered evil.

While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:3

The Price of Security
In a statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994, David Rockefeller said, "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order."

By the time George W. Bush came into power, the next incremental step necessary to accomplish the global transformation Rockefeller referred to was to convice the American people that it was necessary they abandon the freedoms they were accustomed to in exchange for security.

To accomplish this goal, Bush needed the right major crisis, or what the Project for the New American Century called, "a new Pearl Harbor."

Thanks to a group of CIA funded and trained operatives, Mr. Bush got his New Pearl Harbor ushering in a period of de facto martial law where the American Constitution was shredded and Americans were told resistance was futile. Before leaving office, the Bush Administration introduced another major crisis when the central banks of the world looted the national treasuries of their assets and left a legacy of slavery to debt for generations not yet born.

Bigger Government
Economically, America is on the brink of financial disaster as she has jettisoned her strength through independence and has bound herself to a faltering global economy. Our government leaders no longer adhere to a concept of obeying the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of the law. Most of them have no concept of right and wrong. No concept of what is and is not appropriate. And perhaps no conscience.

These politicians have no respect for the people who elected them. No respect for the American people. No respect for their office. No respect for the Constitution of the United States. No respect for what it means to be entrusted by the people of this nation to serve at the highest capacity. Their only goal is to consolidate more money and power into the hands of the few in order to control and manipulate the many.

Originally created to defend and protect, our government was now being asked to provide. As the problems grow, so must the government. Traditionally, Democrats have stood for big government, far-reaching federally controlled and federally funded programs and taxation at levels to match. One has to only scan through a few of Clinton's policies in economic, spending, and tax strategy to see that sovereignty and freedom were the items actually targeted for reduction.

The governments ability to provide was demonstrated a few years later following the disaster left by hurricane Katrina. What emerged appeared to be more an operational test of "control" than of providing assistance.

We have witnessed over the past 100 years an ever increasing collectivist inspired transfer of wealth and a federal government takeover of the management of American business, health care, education and the American family. Clinton's actions demonstrated that he envisioned much more than mere renewal or reform; he wanted to create an entirely new society controlled by a massive collectivist government. George W. Bush flexed the collectivist muscle to bring the American population under the controlling wing of a government police state as he allowed the International banksters to siphon off Trillions of dollars of American assets.

America was ready for Change...

The Price of Security
In a statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994, David Rockefeller said, "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the new world order."

By the time George W. Bush came into power, the next incremental step necessary to accomplish the global transformation Rockefeller referred to was to convice the American people that it was necessary they abandon the freedoms they were accustomed to in exchange for security.

To accomplish this goal, Bush needed the right major crisis, or what the Project for the New American Century called, "a new Pearl Harbor."

Thanks to a group of CIA funded and trained operatives, Mr. Bush got his New Pearl Harbor ushering in a period of de facto martial law where the American Constitution was shredded and Americans were told resistance was futile. Before leaving office, the Bush Administration introduced another major crisis when the central banks of the world looted the national treasuries of their assets and left a legacy of slavery to debt for generations not yet born.

Bigger Government
Economically, America is on the brink of financial disaster as she has jettisoned her strength through independence and has bound herself to a faltering global economy. Our government leaders no longer adhere to a concept of obeying the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of the law. Most of them have no concept of right and wrong. No concept of what is and is not appropriate. And perhaps no conscience.

These politicians have no respect for the people who elected them. No respect for the American people. No respect for their office. No respect for the Constitution of the United States. No respect for what it means to be entrusted by the people of this nation to serve at the highest capacity. Their only goal is to consolidate more money and power into the hands of the few in order to control and manipulate the many.

Originally created to defend and protect, our government was now being asked to provide. As the problems grow, so must the government. Traditionally, Democrats have stood for big government, far-reaching federally controlled and federally funded programs and taxation at levels to match. One has to only scan through a few of Clinton's policies in economic, spending, and tax strategy to see that sovereignty and freedom were the items actually targeted for reduction.

The governments ability to provide was demonstrated a few years later following the disaster left by hurricane Katrina. What emerged appeared to be more an operational test of "control" than of providing assistance.

We have witnessed over the past 100 years an ever increasing collectivist inspired transfer of wealth and a federal government takeover of the management of American business, health care, education and the American family. Clinton's actions demonstrated that he envisioned much more than mere renewal or reform; he wanted to create an entirely new society controlled by a massive collectivist government. George W. Bush flexed the collectivist muscle to bring the American population under the controlling wing of a government police state as he allowed the International banksters to siphon off Trillions of dollars of American assets.

America was ready for Change...

Virtual eye in the sky sparks stalker fears

By News Online's Sarah Collerton

The Georgia Tech trial video of an augmented virtual Earth shows people walking around. (YouTube: Georgia Tech)

• Related Story: Google removes UK street view images
• Related Link: Watch the video showing the technology
• Related Link: Read the draft paper on the technology

Privacy groups are aghast at early plans to make virtual maps so realistic that individual humans could be spotted and tracked.

United States researchers are working on ways to layer more real-time, real-world information into Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth.

The Georgia Tech trial video of an augmented virtual Earth shows people just walking around, a soccer game being played in a park, how fast clouds move across the sky and the speed traffic is moving along the highway.

But the things you are seeing are not actually real, rather animations based on recordings of real people and events.

The researchers have produced the realistic animations of humans and various objects using live video feeds that detect the position and motion of things.

They also use behaviour simulation and motion capture data so the animated humans look and move realistically.

The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) says real-time capture of large-scale natural and man-made phenomena could be highly valuable, both socially and economically.

But they have grave concerns over the real-time capture of human activity, which they say is "grossly privacy-intrusive".

The group is worried about who will be collecting the real-time data, how it will be used and how long it will be stored.

APF chair Roger Clarke says there are far too many risks involved to even consider the technology.

"The risk of voyeurism in many different forms is enormous here," he told ABC News Online.

"Stalkers, particularly relating to celebrities and notorieties, but there's an awful lot of people who aren't celebrities who are at potential risk from people who have funny ideas."

Mr Clarke says Australia's privacy legislation is far too lax, and even the prospect of this technology shows Australia needs clearer privacy protection.

"We have an awful lot of holes in our privacy legislation in all countries, but Australia is atrocious, particularly in relation to the private sector," he said.

"We don't have appropriate protections in place."

Privacy concerns in the wake of the launch of Google Street View prompted the technology giant to blur faces of people caught in photographs and take down images at the request of property owners.

Street View allows people to see 360-degree ground-level images of cities captured from a car equipped with a camera.

Earlier this year, Google argued in a US court that an expectation of privacy concerning pictures of houses or yards is unrealistic in this age of aerial and satellite imagery.

The Georgia Tech researchers will present their findings at the IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality in Florida next month.

Click to Watch or Read Notes: President Obama delivered his first address to the UN General Assembly today, calling on the global community to come together in a "new era of engagement" to fight world problems.

In the debate over the PATRIOT Act, the Bush White House insisted it needed the authority to search people's homes without their permission or knowledge so that terrorists wouldn't be tipped off that they're under investigation.

Now that the authority is law, how has the Department of Justice used the new power? To go after drug dealers.

Only three of the 763 "sneak-and-peek" requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases, according to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sixty-five percent were drug cases.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) quizzed Assistant Attorney General David Kris about the discrepancy at a hearing on the PATRIOT Act Wednesday. One might expect Kris to argue that there is a connection between drug trafficking and terrorism or that the administration is otherwise justified to use the authority by virtue of some other connection to terrorism.

He didn't even try. "This authority here on the sneak-and-peek side, on the criminal side, is not meant for intelligence. It's for criminal cases. So I guess it's not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases," Kris said.

"As I recall it was in something called the USA PATRIOT Act," Feingold quipped, "which was passed in a rush after an attack on 9/11 that had to do with terrorism it didn't have to do with regular, run-of-the-mill criminal cases. Let me tell you why I'm concerned about these numbers: That's not how this was sold to the American people. It was sold as stated on DoJ's website in 2005 as being necessary - quote - to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists."

Kris responded by saying that some courts had already granted the Justice Department authority to conduct sneak-and-peeks. But Feingold countered that the PATRIOT Act codified and expanded that authority -- all under the guise of the war on terror.

Feingold, the lone vote against the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed, is introducing an amendment to curb its reach. "I'm going to say it's quite extraordinary to grant government agents the statutory authority to secretly break into Americans homes," he said.

WATCH:

Novosti: Obama extends 9/11 national emergency

Obama to seal US-UN relationship

By Harvey Morris at the United Nations

Published: September 8 2009 19:59 | Last updated: September 8 2009 19:59

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.

The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.

“The council has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it’s the world’s principal body for dealing with global security cooperation,” Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN, said last week.

Her remarks were the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, sometimes criticised by its UN partners for seeking to use the world body principally to endorse its own unilateral policies. The US currently holds the month-long rotating presidency of the Security Council.

Mr Obama will join other heads of government in New York during the week of the nuclear summit for the opening of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly. The annual meeting of world leaders is this year raising expectations on a number of fronts.

UN officials hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.

Heads of state are also likely to consider how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr Obama gave Tehran a September deadline to reply to his offer of negotiations. Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad will attend the General Assembly “to encourage Iranian views in managing the world,” an aide said.

US officials are concerned Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi might try to steal the limelight during his first visit to New York. A public outcry at the Libyan leader’s visit after he last month welcomed home Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the freed Lockerbie bomber, has already stymied his plans to pitch his tent in Central Park.

“How President Gaddafi chooses to comport himself, when he attends the General Assembly and the Security Council in New York, has the potential either to further aggravate those feelings and emotions or not,” Ms Rice said.

The State Department has not ruled out the possibility that Mr Obama and Colonel Gaddafi would cross paths. They are both due to address the General Assembly on the same day, and the Libyan leader, whose country is a temporary member of the Security Council, is entitled to attend the nuclear summit session that Mr Obama will chair.