U.S. Government Program Injected Citizens with Plutonium,Uranium

February 22, 2012 Leave a Comment

by Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society
February 22. 2012

In a secret program that is now admitted to be true, the United States government injected unknowing human ‘participants’ with highly toxic plutonium. It sounds like a bizarre torture scenario that you’d expect to see blamed on illegal terror organizations, but the individuals behind this crime are actually doctors working for the United States government. Disregarding the health of innocent citizens, the government testers were eager to see how unknowing participants suffered as a result of secret plutonium injection.

It began in 1945, when an employee at the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility was in a car accident. Ebb Cade survived, but was taken in as a human participant in a disturbing study he did not consent to. It is important to note that this man was a fifty-three-year-old African American, as previous government trials have singled out African Americans and other minorities. The racist sterilization programs occurred between 1929 to 1974 under an admitted eugenics programs that officials claimed were ‘creating a better society’. Most victims were poor, black women who were ‘deemed unfit to be parents’. Individuals as young as 10 were sterilized simply for not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous, and many parents were misled into sterilizing their children.

 Ebb Cade was taken and bound to a bed with a broken arm and leg, where doctors interviewed him regarding his current state of health. After determining he was in a state of proper health, doctors secretly injected him with 4.7 micrograms of plutonium on April 10th. It is still unknown who exactly ordered the program within the U.S. government, as they have managed to disassociate themselves with the entire nefarious program. At the time of the injection, scientists were perfectly aware of the negative effects associated with radiation. With cancers and radiation sickness on the rise, these scientists knew exactly what they were doing — examining the effects of plutonium isotopes on living beings.

Prior to the tests on Cade, the scientists injected animals with plutonium and noted the severe adverse effects. In some cases, animals were even fed radioactive waste. In fact, one scientist received a face full of gas and required his stomach to be pumped along with a full face scrub in an attempt to eliminate the threat. The scientists made sure that they were given the full treatment after the exposure. Meanwhile, they were injecting individuals with plutonium.

Scientists took excretions from Cade over the next five days to see how much plutonium retained in his body. They also refused to set his broken bones until April 15th, and cut samples from the bone before doing so to examine the plutonium content in his bone tissue. Fifteen of his teeth were pulled for testing. After all of this, they never informed Cade what they were doing. One nurse said that the tortured Cade escaped in the middle of the night, and he was later found to die in 1953 of heart failure.

Sadly, Cade was not the last test experiment.

Three human experiments followed, all cancer patients seeking treatment. Instead of treatment, the patients were injected with deadly plutonium in order for government scientists to see the effects. A man in his sixties with lung cancer, a woman in her fifties with breast cancer, and a “young man” with Hodgkin’s lymphoma were all given the poison. Conveniently, the third patient’s records are not available. He was injected with fifteen times more than any other individual, at 95 micrograms.

What followed is further widespread testing. The University of Rochester joined the program, injecting patients with not only plutonium but radioactive isotopes like polonium and uranium. Other institutions like the University of California soon followed suit.

Perhaps most concerning is the fact that this disgusting disregard for human health is not an isolated incident. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is but one example of secret government human experiments that have run rampant throughout recent history. Taking place between 1932 and 1972,  Tuskegee, Alabama, the U.S. Public Health Service knowingly infected poor black men with syphillus in order to test the effects. These men thought that they were receiving free healthcare by the U.S. government.

The list goes on, targeting minorities and the disabled in particular. From forced sterilizations to incognito injections, there is a lengthy history of government testing that shows the blatant disregard for your health by the United States government and elsewhere. With this in mind, is it any wonder why the FDA keeps toxic substances like mercury unregulated among the food supply?

Filed under North America, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , ,

Absurd: “Unemployment is good for Economy”

February 22, 2012 Leave a Comment

Valerie Jarret, a White House senior adviser kept a straight face while explaining to a crowd  in North Carolina how unemployment welfare checks are good for the economy.

by Daniel Halper
Weekly Standard
February 22, 2012

This evening, speaking at North Carolina Central University in Durham, North Carolina, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said that folks getting and spending unemployment checks is a healthy thing . . . because it stimulates the economy.

“Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community,” Jarrett said. “And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it’s good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well.”

Filed under North America Tagged with , , , ,

BP Oil Spill Litigation May Threaten Solution to Real Problem

February 22, 2012 1 Comment

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 22, 2012

The BP Oil Spill trial set to start on February 27 is doomed to accomplish nothing, just as the Congressional investigation conducted post disaster left hundreds of ends loose about BP’s responsibility in the explosion. U.S. District judge Cari Barbier of New Orleans has made it clear that the scope of the trial will be limited and its main focus may not be holding those responsible for the disaster really accountable. Instead, it seems the trial will turn into a window-dressing spectacle that seeks to get money from BP and the other accused entities as supposed to making it imperative to find a solution to the current emergency in the Gulf, where millions of gallons of oil and gases are still pouring out into the sea.

Judge Barbier issued a set of directives regarding the manner in which the trial will be conducted by establishing policies he has created himself to reduce the amount of information that is presented during the process. Some of the information that will not be presented includes former BP CEO Tony Hayward’s Congressional testimony which is key in order to establish liability on the part of BP given the discrepancies that surfaced when comparing his testimony and what actually took place. New information that The Real Agenda will publish in future reports reveals that much of Haywards’s testimony was flawed to say the least, about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Although judge Barbier has made it explicit that the main goal of the trial is to find out Who is liable for the April 20, 2010, explosion that killed 11 workers, judge Barbier himself is limiting, if not greatly reducing the amount of information that is presented, which will not allow the public to learn about the real causes of the BP Oil Spill disaster.

It seems that Judge Barbier believes that a shorter trial with less information will render a better outcome. However, by limiting the time allotted and banning  previously published information to be presented and analyzed, he could prevent the discussion of important facts and contradictions in the stories that BP, Transocean, Halliburton and even the EPA have told the public. As informed before, the trial will omit information from investigations published in the media since the disaster occurred. “In other words, he’s not going to be influenced by any out-of-court investigative findings that have been published prior to the start of the trial, but will rule solely on the facts of the record before him,” said Blaine LeCesne, associate professor at Loyola University New Orleans School of Law. This may mean that any pertinent information obtained by independent investigators, no matter how relevant to the case, will not be accepted.

The trial may then be tainted with “official” information, which by all measurable means is flawed. For example, the EPA decided to use Corexit to “clean” the Gulf waters, even though this chemical threatens the life of sea and land creatures. The EPA does this because it still enforces outdated protocols when it comes to cleaning oil spill disasters. The EPA isn’t even included as a plaintiff in the trial, even though it is directly responsible for poisoning the Gulf with Corexit.

Reading most traditional media outlets, it seems everyone believes the oil spill already stopped, with some media adventuring themselves to provide final oil spill numbers. This could not be further from the truth, because the oil spill still continues in the gulf. These facts will not be considered by the judge in order not only to obtain an economic solution to the disaster, which is what many of the parts want, but also to determine a solution to the ongoing oil spill disaster, which is the only solution to the problem that is now affecting millions of people along the Gulf’s coastline. Whatever money given to fishermen, hoteliers and other business owners or Gulf inhabitants will not solve the grave pollution problem now taking place.

Judge Barbier intends to hear the six accused parties: BP, Halliburton, Transocean, Cameron International Corp, M-I LLC, Anadarko Petroleum Co. and Moex, which settled with the government for $90 million dollars previous to the start of the trial. So the trial will be a show of six defendants accusing each other for the damage caused in the Gulf which will make it likely the judge splits the financial burden of such damages among the accused parties as supposed to addressing the real causes of the disaster and holding the individuals responsible accountable for their decisions. Additionally, the judge will also hear the accusing part, which will make the score 6-1. Six parties splitting the blame while one party tries to make sense of all the data to try to convince the judge that a crime has been committed. This is a monumental task and that is exactly why it’s important that the judge opens the trial to independently conducted investigations. Information obtained after the Gulf disaster and previous to the trial may facilitate the job of the parties — including Judge Barbier — in finding out what really happened, who is responsible, why and what the ruling should be based on the facts. Right now, judge Barbier seems to be shooting himself on the foot by limiting information, therefore making it more difficult to come up with a solution to the problem of the ongoing oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It is hard to believe that judge Barbier even knows the oil spill is still happening and this is perhaps the most important consideration when assigning blame and coming up with a solution.

At BP’s request, Judge Barbier will not hear any information regarding previous oil spill disasters, such as the ones in 2005 at BP’s refinery in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 people; the 2006 rupture of a pipeline in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska; and a series of accidents at a BP facility in Scotland in 2000. According to Law.com, the trial will also ignore U.S. government findings about some of these previous accidents and the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling’s report. “The excluded evidence could weigh heavily during the trial’s subsequent phases, however, when damages — particularly punitive damages — become the focus. Barbier specifically ruled that such evidence could be relevant then.”

If mountains of relevant evidence are left out for the sake of simplicity and comfort this trial runs the risk of becoming another public circus where the people to blame will walk untouched and the only solution will be an economic one. As it is obvious, cash won’t help stop the oil from flowing out into the sea and neither will it help clean the Gulf so that life returns to its waters. I don’t hold my expectations too high in this case.

 

Filed under North America Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom

February 21, 2012 Leave a Comment

by Robert McDowell
WSJ
February 20, 2012

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from economic and technical regulation and quickly became the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.

Since the Net’s inception, engineers, academics, user groups and others have convened in bottom-up nongovernmental organizations to keep it operating and thriving through what is known as a “multi-stakeholder” governance model. This consensus-driven private-sector approach has been the key to the Net’s phenomenal success.

In 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Internet world-wide. By 2011, more than two billion were online—and that number is growing by as much as half a million every day. This explosive growth is the direct result of governments generally keeping their hands off the Internet sphere.

Net access, especially through mobile devices, is improving the human condition more quickly—and more fundamentally—than any other technology in history. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing world, where unfettered Internet technologies are expanding economies and raising living standards.

Farmers who live far from markets are now able to find buyers for their crops through their Internet-connected mobile devices without assuming the risks and expenses of traveling with their goods. Worried parents are able to go online to locate medicine for their sick children. And proponents of political freedom are better able to share information and organize support to break down the walls of tyranny.

The Internet has also been a net job creator. A recent McKinsey study found that for every job disrupted by Internet connectivity, 2.6 new jobs are created. It is no coincidence that these wonderful developments blossomed as the Internet migrated further away from government control.

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

• Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

• Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

• Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering.”

• Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

• Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work;

• Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices.

Many countries in the developing world, including India and Brazil, are particularly intrigued by these ideas. Even though Internet-based technologies are improving billions of lives everywhere, some governments feel excluded and want more control.

And let’s face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity. They have formed impressive coalitions, and their efforts have progressed significantly.

Merely saying “no” to any changes to the current structure of Internet governance is likely to be a losing proposition. A more successful strategy would be for proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity within every nation to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to broaden the multi-stakeholder umbrella with the goal of reaching consensus to address reasonable concerns. As part of this conversation, we should underscore the tremendous benefits that the Internet has yielded for the developing world through the multi-stakeholder model.

Upending this model with a new regulatory treaty is likely to partition the Internet as some countries would inevitably choose to opt out. A balkanized Internet would be devastating to global free trade and national sovereignty. It would impair Internet growth most severely in the developing world but also globally as technologists are forced to seek bureaucratic permission to innovate and invest. This would also undermine the proliferation of new cross-border technologies, such as cloud computing.

A top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net, which is a global network of networks without borders. No government, let alone an intergovernmental body, can make engineering and economic decisions in lightning-fast Internet time. Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body.

Any attempts to expand intergovernmental powers over the Internet—no matter how incremental or seemingly innocuous—should be turned back. Modernization and reform can be constructive, but not if the end result is a new global bureaucracy that departs from the multi-stakeholder model. Enlightened nations should draw a line in the sand against new regulations while welcoming reform that could include a nonregulatory role for the ITU.

Pro-regulation forces are, thus far, much more energized and organized than those who favor the multi-stakeholder approach. Regulation proponents only need to secure a simple majority of the 193 member states to codify their radical and counterproductive agenda. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country can wield a veto in ITU proceedings. With this in mind, some estimate that approximately 90 countries could be supporting intergovernmental Net regulation—a mere seven short of a majority.

While precious time ticks away, the U.S. has not named a leader for the treaty negotiation. We must awake from our slumber and engage before it is too late. Not only do these developments have the potential to affect the daily lives of all Americans, they also threaten freedom and prosperity across the globe.

Mr. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

Filed under Asia, Africa, Latin America, North America, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , ,

No More ‘Miraculous’ Obama

February 21, 2012 Leave a Comment

The Holy President highlights his petty list of achievement that is way short than the one he filled with empty promises four years ago. The American dream has gone from owning a home to renting

By Erica Werner
Associated Press
February 21, 2012

This time around, President Barack Obama’s message can sound decidedly down-to-earth.

Four years after winning the White House, Obama is dealing with a different economic and political reality as he seeks re-election. He’s focused less on a lofty vision for overcoming divisions and remaking Washington, and more on the most basic building blocks of middle-class economic security: a job, a house, a college education for the kids, health care, money for retirement.

What Obama describes as the American Dream can seem a spare, fundamental aspiration, tailored for a campaign that looks to be fought over who is best equipped to safeguard the interests of middle-class Americans.

The question is whether it will convince, even as Mitt Romney and the other GOP presidential hopefuls mount a counter-argument that the president has made the American Dream harder, not easier, to achieve. And Obama must overcome the grinding realities many voters confront daily, even with the economy showing signs of life: no jobs, mortgages they can’t pay, dwindling retirement funds and college savings.

The president is betting that if he shows voters he understands their yearning for economic stability and security, they’ll reward him over Republicans he’s casting as just watching out for the rich – even though he hasn’t succeeded in fully reviving the economy so far.

“If you’re willing to put in the work, the idea is that you should be able to raise a family and own a home; not go bankrupt because you got sick, because you’ve got some health insurance that helps you deal with those difficult times; that you can send your kids to college; that you can put some money away for retirement,” Obama said recently in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

“That’s all most people want,” he said. “Folks don’t have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream.”

The goals can seem almost humdrum in comparison with some of the rhetoric from Obama’s 2008 White House campaign. But the message sounds made for the times, with the country emerging haltingly from recession, the income gap widening and unemployment stuck above 8 percent.

“He can’t run on change because he’s the incumbent, and he can’t paint too rosy a scenario because things aren’t that rosy,” said John Geer, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. “He’s got to come up with a theme that appeals to voters, especially middle-class voters, alleviates their fears and gives them reason to believe the future will be better.”

The message also creates an implicit contrast with the portrait Democrats are trying to create of front-runner Romney as preoccupied with the concerns of the rich. But Romney is answering Obama’s message head-on, seeking a careful balance between sounding optimistic about the nation’s future and accusing Obama of destroying the American Dream.

Read Full Article…

Filed under North America, Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts