Climate Alarmists want Forced Relocation of People

They also want to halt production and development in both the developed and underdeveloped worlds.

Paul Joseph Watson

Not content with merely pushing world war-style rationing and the complete de-industrialization of the planet, global warming alarmists meeting in Cancun Mexico this week will propose the forced relocation of entire populations in the name of offsetting man made climate change.

The shocking proposal appears on page 6 of the executive summary of the Special Climate Change Program.

As a means of mitigating climate change, encouraging sustainability and reducing CO2 emissions, the document calls for, “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.”

Relocation of populations has historically been achieved by force at the hands of an authoritarian ruling elite, to the “substantial harm” of the target settlement, with loss of private property and harrowing social dislocation, and in some cases genocide, being three primary outcomes. The most odious example in recent history was of course the forced transfer of Jews from wartime Germany by the Nazis.

Political scientist Norman Finkelstein notes that forced relocations are often justified by the ruling authorities as a necessary solution to a drastic crisis, which is precisely the rhetoric used in the Cancun document.

The proposal by climate alarmists to forcibly relocate communities against their will is yet another revealing indication that the green movement has dispensed with all pretense of liberal legitimacy and has openly bared its teeth as an authoritarian and despotic undertaking.

Yesterday we reported on how ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society published a series of papers to accompany the conference which stated that wartime-style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph reported.

Of course, the move has nothing to do with halting global warming, which even the Royal Society itself admits is slowing despite accelerating carbon emissions, and everything to do with lowering living standards in the west as part of the globalist drive to completely dismantle the middle class and thereby remove the primary obstacle to instituting an autocratic global government.

A prominent member of the Royal Society is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritarian elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.

Leading climate skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who is in attendance at Cancun over the next ten days, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, to warn that globalists are attempting to play down the significance of the summit in an effort to impose world government treaties by stealth.

Monckton stated that the alarmists were proposing “lunatic measures” like forced resettlement of populations and concentration camps, as well as food rationing in the west, all concepts familiar to socialists and communist enforcers. He said that the ideas were deliberately extreme in order to make what actually comes out of the conference look reasonable and rational so that “we almost breathe a sigh of relief when the world government takes over.”

 

 

Fake ‘slam dunk’ intelligence for War with Iran

Mysterious “Laptop Documents”. used to Justify a Pre-emptive Nuclear War on Iran

Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research

Photo: Hossein Fatemi

The UN Security Council on June 9 2010 adopted the imposition of a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran. UNSC Resolution 1929 includes an expanded arms embargo as well as “tougher financial controls”:

“[Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010)] Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems …. , decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related material, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related material;” (Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention, Includes complete text of UNSC Resolution 1929, UN News, June 9, 2010, emphasis added, )

Both the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China caved in to US pressures and voted in favor of UNSC Resolution 1929. In November, following a decree issued by president Dmitry Medvedev, Moscow announced the cancellation of its military cooperation agreement with Iran pertaining to the S300 air defense system.

Without Russian military aid, Iran is a “sitting duck”. Its air defense system depends on continued Russian military cooperation.

These developments strike at the very heart of the structure of military alliances. They prevent Russia and China to sell both strategic and conventional weapons and military technology to their de facto ally: Iran. In fact, that was one of major objectives of Resolution 1929, which Washington is intent upon enforcing.

Fake Intelligence

UNSC Resolution 1929 is based on a fundamental falsehood. It upholds the notion that Iran is an upcoming nuclear power and a threat to global security. It also provides a green light to the US-NATO-Israel military alliance to threaten Iran with a pre-emptive punitive nuclear attack, using the UN Security Council as  rubber stamp.

The US stance in the UN Security Council, has in part based on alleged intelligence documents which provide  “evidence” of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In November 2005, the New York Times published a report by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger entitled “Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims”. Washington’s allegations, reported in the NYT  hinged upon documents “obtained from a stolen Iranian computer by an unknown source and given to US intelligence in 2004″. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010, emphasis added).

These documents included “a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle” which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon.

“In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting.

The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East.”(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims – New York Times, November 13, 2005)

These “secret documents” were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program.

While their authenticity has been questioned on several occasions,  a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. The drawings contained in the documents do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s.

How stupid! The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the “Wrong Missile Warhead”:

In July 2005, … Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency’s leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or “schematics” showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or “warhead” of Iran’s medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3.

When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar “dunce cap” shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. …

The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. … (Gareth Porter, op cit )

Who was behind the production of fake intelligence? Gareth Porter’s suggests that Israel’s Mossad has been a source of  fake intelligence regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program:

The origin of the laptop documents may never be proven conclusively, but the accumulated evidence points to Israel as the source. As early as 1995, the head of the Israel Defense Forces’ military intelligence research and assessment division, Yaakov Amidror, tried unsuccessfully to persuade his American counterparts that Iran was planning to “go nuclear.” By 2003-2004, Mossad’s reporting on the Iranian nuclear program was viewed by high-ranking CIA officials as an effort to pressure the Bush administration into considering military action against Iran’s nuclear sites, according to Israeli sources cited by a pro-Israeli news service.” (Ibid)

Lies and Fabrications to Justify a Military Agenda

The laptop documents were essential to sustaining America’s position in the UN Security Council.

We are dealing with a clear case of fake intelligence comparable to that presented by Colin Powell in February 2003 on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The fake intelligence presented to the UN Security Council was used as a justification for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“The evidence, or lack thereof, speaks for itself. In the months leading up to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration produced hundreds of pages of intelligence for members of Congress and for the United Nations that showed how Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein possessed tons of chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The intelligence information, gathered by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, a Department of Defense agency that gathers foreign military intelligence for the Pentagon, was used by the Bush administration to convince the public that Iraq posed a threat to the world.” (See Jason Leopold, Powell Denies Intelligence Failure In Buildup To War, But Evidence Doesn’t Hold Up, Global Research, 10 June 2003)

The US has once again used fake intelligence to build a justification to wage war.The position of the US in the UN Security Council falls flat. The important question is whether Russia and China will revise their stance in the United Nations Security Council pertaining to the Iran’s sanctions regime?

Will the US antiwar movement confront Washington’s plans to wage a pre-emptive nuclear war against Iran based on fake intelligence?

Obama announces 2-year pay freeze for federal workers

The real collapse in beginning. This decision could accelerate destruction of middle class.

Washington Times

Bowing to growing budget concerns and months of Republican political pressure on federal pay and benefits, President Obama today announced he would stop pay increases for most of the two million people who work for the federal government.

The freeze applies to all Executive Branch workers — including civilian employees of the Defense Department, but does not apply to military personnel, government contractors, postal workers, members of Congress, Congressional staffers, or federal court judges and workers.

“Getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifices and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government,” Obama said in a speech Monday afternoon explaining the decision. He added, “I did not reach this decision easily, this is not a line item on a federal ledger, these are people’s lives.”

The freeze would take effect on Jan. 1, pending Congressional approval by the end of this year. The 2012 pay freeze will be proposed as part of fiscal 2012 budget proposals to be unveiled early next year.

The pay change will not impact bonuses for federal workers or when a federal worker is promoted to a new level of pay, meaning federal workers promoted in the next two years will receive a new level of pay, but not receive any additional annual raises.

The decision will save the government about $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and $28 billion over the next five years, the White House said. The long-term savings come from lowering the government’s base compensation over the next two years.

Obama made the announcement Monday because Tuesday is the deadline to set federal locality pay, or variations the government makes in pay and benefits based on geographic location, officials said.

Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said she disagreed with Obama’s decision.

The union “is mindful of our nation’s economic circumstances, but we are very disappointed with the White House’s position and intend to explore all of our options, including working with Congress to overturn it,” Kelley said. The union represents more than 150,000 federal employees nationwide.

John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, blasted the announcement, calling it “a superficial, panicked reaction to the deficit commission report.”

“This pay freeze amounts to nothing more than political public relations,” Gage said in a statement, suggesting government nurses, border patrol agents and other personnel are being unfairly targeted for Democratic election losses.

(Watch a video with the reaction of federal employees)

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), whose district is home to thousands of federal workers, said he was pleased Obama instituted only a two-year freeze instead of the three years proposed by the Bipartisan Deficit Commission. But Obama also should have cut pay for some military personnel, Hoyer said in a statement.

“There has been parity between civilian and military pay raises for 22 of the past 28 years in which raises were authorized, and hundreds of thousands of federal civilian employees work alongside military employees in the Department of Defense and other agencies,” Hoyer said, noting that the first American casualty in the Afghanistan conflict was a civilian CIA agent.

Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the freeze is “The first of many difficult steps ahead.”

“Clearly this is a difficult decision,” Zients told reporters ahead of Obama’s official announcement. “Federal employees are hard-working and dedicated and essential to delivering services to the American people. Today the president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice.”

Obama has already frozen the salaries of top White House officials and top political appointees. But freezing the salaries of all civilian workers is a much bolder step that will result in a big economic hit to the Washington region, which is home to more than 600,000 federal workers and their families.

Officials said the decision was not in response to Republican and fiscal conservative critics who have argued that federal employees are better paid than private sector counterparts. “This is in the context of difficult decisions that we need to make as part of deficit reduction,” Zients said.

In a statement, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), presumptive chairman of the House committee overseeing federal personnel issues, called Obama’s decision “long overdue.” He called on the president to institute other government spending cuts proposed in the GOP’s campaign “Pledge to America”.

In addition to cuts outlined in the Pledge, Republican lawmakers have introduced several proposals to cut federal pay and benefits and curtail the size of the federal workforce, including cuts to the government payroll through attrition or firing federal workers who fail to pay taxes.

During an October interview just weeks before the midterm elections, Obama signaled a willingness to consider pay and hiring freezes as a way to rein in government spending.

The administration had examined pay levels, “and the data we get back indicates that high-skilled workers in government are slightly underpaid. Lower-skilled workers are slightly overpaid relative to the private sector,” Obama said.

“And that’s not surprising,” he added, “because it’s a unionized workforce” in government, while the private sector typically is not.

“Government should have to tighten its belt as well. We need to do it in an intelligent way,” Obama said in October. “We need to make sure we do things smarter, rather than just lopping something off arbitrarily without having thought it through.”

Got Meat? Cloned Meat?

Anthony Gucciardi
Shatterlimits.com

Would you eat cloned meat? I certainly wouldn’t, but according to the The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, it is “unlikely to present any risk.” The worst part is that whether you’d eat it or not, you already may have. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture said that he is unsure if any cloned meat has been sold in North America. This means that you may have already eaten cloned meat without your knowledge.

Three other cases of cloned meat being sold in the UK have been documented by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Two of which involved Highlands farm bulls grown from embryos of a cow cloned in the US, with the third involving meat sent to a London butcher shop.

Despite cloned meat going incognito into the bellies of citizens worldwide, some scientists are now claiming that it is virtually identical to regular meat.

FSA chief scientist Andrew Wadge said: “The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has confirmed that meat and milk from cloned cattle and their offspring shows no substantial difference to conventionally produced meat and milk, and therefore is unlikely to present a food safety risk.”

This is the same claim that was made during the introduction of genetically modified foods, which many studies have linked to health risks. Even if the studies showing genetically modified foods to be harmful were proven wrong, there is no way to know the long-term effects, and the same goes for cloned meat. This is the most important element of both genetically modified and cloned food products.

There is simply no way to know what it does to the body in the long-term. There is some indication, however. Health experts have been studying genetically modified food and its interaction with the body, and the results are grim. This is why Germany has banned genetically modified corn, with India also questioning its safety.

Will we allow cloned meat to make its way to our dinner tables, or will we demand multiple independent studies done by scientists that have no financial ties to any organization that may be backing its approval? Chances are, however, that sneaky legislation will allow for cloned meat to be rushed out and unlabeled. This is what happened to genetically modified salmon very recently.

New York Times self censors on WikiLeaks Information

The paper asked White House for feed back and decided to hide information under the excuse of National Security.  It also asked other publications to do the same.

NYT

A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents

The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.

Reporting Classified Information

About 11,000 of the cables are marked “secret.” An additional 9,000 or so carry the label “noforn,” meaning the information is not to be shared with representatives of other countries, and 4,000 are marked “secret/noforn.” The rest are either marked with the less restrictive label “confidential” or are unclassified. Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term.

The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

Read more…

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links