Leaking Gas Mains Turn Jersey Shore Into Ticking Time Bomb

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

‘Climb stairs’: Amputee to scale US skyscraper with thought-controlled bionic leg

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Sci-Tech

Zac Vawter, 31, is to put the revolutionary prosthetic to the test on Sunday, when he attempts to climb 103 flights of stairs to the top of Chicago’s Willis Tower.

The whirring, robotic leg will respond to electrical impulses from muscles in his hamstring, with Mr Vawter’s thoughts triggering motors, belts and chains to synchronise the movements of the prosthetic ankle and knee.

Mr Vawter hoped to reach the top of the tower in an hour – longer than he would have taken before his amputation, but in less time than it would take him to use his normal prosthetic leg.

Full Article

Meningitis Outbreak Linked to Injections Causes Three More Deaths

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Sci-Tech

According to the reports coming from the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday, three more deaths have occurred in the region due to the fungal meningitis outbreak linked to injections.

Since sometime, a Massachusetts company is in news for supplying contaminated steroid injections, which has become a cause of the meningitis outbreak in the region that has claimed several lives till now bringing the death toll to 28 nationwide as has been recently confirmed .

Full Article

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein arrested in Texas

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

RT’s Third-Party debate has been postponed due to Super Storm Sandy and though the debate was scheduled on Tuesday, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein would have been unable to attend. Stein was arrested for protesting the Keystone Pipeline and Kristine Frazao brings us the latest on the matter.

Only Global Banks Will Benefit From A Cyber-Attack On The U.S. (AKA: E – Pearl Harbor)

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Commentary

Brandon Smith, Contributor
Activist Post

When it comes to national crises and man-made disasters, America as a society has a tendency towards selective blindness. If we were to truly think critically instead of reactively with hyperemotional conclusions, we might ask ourselves a few important questions. In the wake of 9/11, we did not investigate the actual crime for ourselves. Instead, the investigation was done for us, and within hours of the attacks a convenient group of villains was presented to us on a silver platter complete with trimmings as well as a few target countries we did not particularly like ready to bomb into oblivion. After 9/11, we did not think; we set out to slay monsters. Whether they were real or imagined made little difference…

If we had any sense back then, the populace would have asked themselves WHO truly benefited from the event? Who really gained, and who really lost? Did a bunch of cave dwelling Muslim fanatics “gain” from 9/11? What did they gain? Where was the incentive?

In any guerilla resistance or insurgency, the primary objective is to win the support of a particular populace. To win hearts and minds. Post 9/11, the world was ready to embrace the U.S. in a way that had not been seen in decades. The “terrorist” plan to undermine the collective American character had apparently backfired. The supposed goal of Al-Qaeda to rally the world behind its cause against U.S. imperialism had turned to poison. The attacks then opened the political doorway for even more U.S. military dominion in the Middle East, and policies of preemption continue more than a decade later as politician after politician rides the tired pony of “national security” to complete exhaustion, playing the terrorism card as an excuse for every violent action and every disruption of civil liberties, while the establishment rams through every piece of unconstitutional legislation they have had on the backburner for years.

Again, the question remains: who really benefited from the event?

Now, some might claim that terrorists are generally disposed to insanity or religious zealotry, and don’t necessarily need to think in terms of cost/benefit when planning to kill people. This assertion, however, is a mere feat of mental gymnastics designed to allow us to tapdance around the more complex issues. Many of us would like to assume that the story of a sinister super-secret Al-Qaeda clan of death exists, and in order to do so we also have to believe that they are smart enough to embed themselves into every fabric of Western culture as our government constantly forewarns. But, if they truly are that ingenious, wouldn’t we also have to consider the possibility that the terrorists are smart enough to take actions which serve THEIR interests, instead of only serving the interests of the people they are supposed to despise, like the U.S. and European power elite?

Al-Qaeda’s (or whoever they are) presence in Syria and the admitted (or loosely admitted) support they now receive from the U.S. in the form of monetary aid and weapons shipments is a perfect example of this dynamic. Why would we reinforce a terrorist organization which our government has accused of killing thousands on 9/11? Why would they help us destabilize Syria?

Why is it that everything Al-Qaeda does ultimately enriches the men they call their enemies?

Regardless of whether or not you believe such subversive events are the product of terrorist activities, it is impossible to deny that the establishment (globalists and their respective business entities) always seem to come out far ahead in the aftermath of every calamity. We lose, the Muslim nations lose, and the global banks win, every time. This is not debatable. It is simply today’s reality…

Knowing this dynamic exists, I have to apply a bit of skepticism when I read press releases from the Department of Defense and the White House asserting that a 2nd World country like Iran is possibly at the forefront of cyber warfare against the U.S.:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/world/iran-cyber/index.html

I have to double my skepticism when Fox News reports that Iran is planning cyber-strikes from Mexico (playing into the DHS talking point of joint Mexican/Al-Qaeda operations. Why the hell would Iran need to cyber attack from Mexico? Why not the South Pole, or the Hamptons…?). Not to mention, their expert guest on the matter is none other than Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of the primary soulless political figures behind such freedom roasting bills as the Enemy Belligerents Act (whose language was ultimately melded into the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012), and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which is essentially CISPA on steroids:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1329797936001/report-iran-plotting-cyber-attacks-against-us-from-mexico/

Neither the DoD, nor the White House, nor Lieberman, nor the mainstream media have ever offered any tangible evidence that Iran has anything to do with the alleged cyber attacks on major U.S. banks, the private Federal Reserve, or any American infrastructure of any kind. Yes, in case you haven’t noticed, it sounds like Iraq all over again; lots of “experts” telling us what to think, and no evidence to back their claims. So, without the benefit of any evidence from our fearless leaders in Washington D.C., we are left only with logic. What would Iran’s goal be in executing a cyber attack against the U.S financial system, and what would they gain?

Even if the Middle Eastern nation has the capability to carry out such a techno-barrage, wouldn’t Iran be the first country that the U.S. would blame for the event regardless of evidence? Why would Iran hand over the perfect pretext for a hard physical strike by Western powers? Again, are we supposed to believe that the Iranian government is brilliant enough to pull off a coded 9/11, but too ignorant to realize they will be immediately targeted afterwards?

Now, there have been some cyber attacks in recent years which DO have strong suspects with ample evidence to support their guilt. Namely, the Stuxnet virus attacks which were directed specifically at Iran and its nuclear energy program, all perpetrated by the U.S. and Israel. I have seen cold hard facts showing that the U.S. and Israeli governments have a penchant for computer terrorism, and I have seen no facts that sully Iran.

Iran gains little or nothing from cyber warfare, but there is one group of interests that gain much…

I submit that in the event of a cyber attack on the U.S., the spoils of such a victory will fall into the laps of the very global bankers that are being portrayed as victims, and I also submit that said attacks will open a door to government controls that certain elites have been clamoring for over decades. Here’s what they would get, and what you would lose…

1) A Cyber Attack Would Divert Economic Blame Away From Banks And Government

The Federal Reserve created the powder keg atmosphere within our financial system that we experience today using artificially low interest rates which allowed fiat money to be fed into sure-loss housing loans and toxic debt derivatives. The credit crisis and housing collapse NEVER could have occurred without the direct aid of central bankers. International lenders like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs knowingly issued these toxic derivatives into the system while betting against them on the open market in an outright act of fiscal sabotage on numerous countries from Greece to the United States. Ratings agencies ignored the blatant dangers inherent in the derivatives market and gave toxic securities coveted AAA status. The SEC, which is supposed to stand guard against this brand of corruption, instead looked the other way, rarely if ever investigating whistleblower complaints against the “Too Big Too Fails”.

When the American economy collapses (and it will) under the intense weight of this criminality on every level of the market process, the public will come after the banks and those politicians who helped them – unless a scapegoat is offered as a distraction. A “cyber attack” on our banking system would give perfect cover for the banksters, allowing them to blame the collapse (which was going to happen anyway) on Iranian “terrorists”. With their new victim status, international banks can then step in as the wounded but valiant “saviors” of the global financial system, centralizing even more power into fewer hands, issuing their new world reserve currency (the SDR) in the wake of a disintegrating dollar, focusing regulatory control within the IMF, all while the foolish populace chases after Muslim boogeymen.

2) A Cyber Attack Gives Pretext For War

The argument for preemption against Iran over a nuclear weapons program that has never been proven to exist is simply ineffective and childish. Globalists are beginning to realize that they have overplayed the “expert” card, and dropping a guy in a suit in front of a camera to tell Americans who to bomb is not quite working out like it did a decade ago. Why not? Because ten years ago Americans were still reeling from 9/11. Globalist think tanks like the Washington Institute For Near East Policy now openly call for new attacks to be fabricated (false flag attacks) in order to frighten the American people into supporting a new war against Iran:

 

Read the Rest

Financial 9/11: Following the Money Trail to who done it

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Commentary

FOLLOW THE MONEY, RIGHT? We have covered a lot of this in the past, but this is pretty good! Share it!

Could Sandy postpone the 2012 election?

October 31, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

If it happens – count on Chris Christie and Mayor Doomberg to be the ones to do it.

WASHINGTON (AP) – One week before a close election, superstorm Sandy has confounded the presidential race, halted early voting in many areas and led some to ponder whether the election might even be postponed.

It could take days to restore electricity to more than 8 million homes and businesses that lost power when the storm pummeled the East Coast. That means it’s possible power could still be out in parts of some states on Election Day next Tuesday – a major problem for precincts that rely on electronic voting machines.

But as the storm breached the coast, even some of those intimately involved in the election seemed in the dark about what options are available to cope with the storm. Asked Monday whether President Barack Obama had the power to reschedule the election, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he wasn’t sure.

Some questions and answers about what’s possible and not when it comes to reworking Election Day.

 

(AP) This photo taken Oct. 30, 2012, shows a utility crew working on damaged power lines in the…
Full Image

Q. Could the Nov. 6 election be changed?

A. Yes, but it’s highly unlikely, and it’s not up to the president. Congress sets the date for the presidential election – the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, every fourth year. Congress could act within the next week to change the date, but that would be tough because lawmakers are on recess and back home in their districts campaigning for re-election. Plus, it’s likely that would mean changing the date for the entire country, not just those affected by the storm. What’s more, Congress only selects the date for federal races, so changing the date would wreak havoc for state and local elections also scheduled for Nov. 6. States might have to hold two separate days of voting, which could bust state budgets.

Q. What about pushing back the election just in some states?

A. It’s possible, but the legal issues get tricky. States, by and large, are in charge of their own elections. Each state has its own laws dealing with what to do if an emergency jeopardizes voting and who can make the call. Federal law says that if a state fails to conduct an election for federal races on the day Congress chooses, the state legislature can pick a later date. But state and federal laws don’t always jive perfectly. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has said his state’s laws don’t grant him authority to reschedule the presidential election.

Q. Have elections ever been postponed before?

 

(AP) This Oct. 29, 2012 file photo shows people standing in line to vote during early voting for…
Full Image

A. Yes, but not on the presidential level. New York City was holding its mayoral primary when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, and the city rescheduled the election. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor postponed municipal elections in New Orleans after elections officials said polling places wouldn’t be ready.

Q. Other than rescheduling the election, can anything else be done?

A. Voting hours could be extended at various locations. In places where electronic voting machines are in use, paper ballots could be used instead. Some areas also might choose to move polling locations if existing ones are damaged, inaccessible or won’t have power on Election Day.

Q. Would those options create any other problems?

A. Lots. If poll hours are extended, under a 2002 law passed by Congress in response to the disputed 2000 presidential election, any voters who show up outside of regular hours must use provisional ballots, which are counted later and could be challenged. Sandy’s impact was felt in some of the most competitive states in the presidential race, including Virginia and Ohio. The more provisional ballots that are cast, the greater the chances are that the winner won’t be known until days or even weeks after the election.

There’s another issue if poll hours are extended in some areas – such as counties with the worst storm damage – and not in others. That could prompt lawsuits under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, said Edward Foley, an election law expert at The Ohio State University.

Relocating polling places is also risky because it could drive down turnout, said Neil Malhotra, a political economist at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. “If you disrupt their routine and the polling place they’ve always been going to, even if you don’t move it very far, they vote less,” he said.

Q. What is the federal government doing to help?

A. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s administrator, Craig Fugate, said Monday he anticipated the storm’s impact could linger into next week and affect the election. He said FEMA would look at what support it could provide to states before the election. “This will be led by the states,” he said.

U.S. nuclear plant declares “alert”: NRC

October 30, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

NEW YORK – Exelon Corp declared an “alert” at its New Jersey Oyster Creek nuclear power plant due to a record storm surge, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday, warning that a further rise in water levels could force operators to use emergency water supplies from a fire hose to cool spent uranium fuel rods.

The alert — the second lowest of four NRC action levels — came after water levels at the plant rose by more than 6.5 feet (2 metres), potentially affecting the pumps that circulate water through the plant, an NRC spokesman said.

Those pumps are not essential since the plant is shut for planned refuelling at the moment. However a further rise to 7 feet could submerge the service water pump motor that is used to cool the water in the spent fuel pool.

Full Article

The Jack Blood Show – October 29 2012

October 29, 2012 by  
Filed under Archive

Bloodtober 29th 2012: Jack Blood welcomes James Corbett for his monthly installment…. news is slow so we get into philosophy, reality, and discuss “survival” in light of Hurricane Sandy…. More on James @ www.corbettreport.com/

Martin Sheen: Romney is stupid, arrogant

October 29, 2012 by  
Filed under Americas

Martin Sheen is thoroughly unimpressed with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“He is, in essence, a very arrogant, very successful businessman [who] believes in unreined free enterprise,” the “West Wing” star recently told The Huffington Post. “He doesn’t have a clue what 99 percent of the people are going through. He’s never lived on that level. He’s never had to compete for a job or face eviction or struggle to get a college loan. He’s a guy that the old phrase applies to: ‘He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.’”

Full Article

Next Page »

jbroku