Monday, March 31, 2014

You need to go to college for that???

260,000 graduates in minimum wage jobs

By Emily Jane Fox

If you thought paying tens of thousands of dollars for a college education guaranteed a high-paying job, think again.

About 260,000 people who had a college or professional degree made at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Things may be looking up a little, though -- it's the smallest number since 2008. The worst year was 2010, when the number skyrocketed to 327,000.

Despite the recent improvement, the number of workers with college degrees is still more than double what it was in 2005, prior to the Great Recession.

While an improving economy might play a role in graduates snagging better-paying jobs, other less-encouraging factors might also be at play.

A total of 21 states, including New Jersey, New York and Connecticut recently, have higher minimum wage floors than the federal level of $7.25 per hour

Experts point to shifts in the post-recession labor market as the reason for so many college graduates in low-paying jobs.

"The only jobs that we're growing are low-wage jobs, and at the same time, wages across occupations, especially in low-wage jobs, are declining," said Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a staff attorney at the worker advocacy group National Employment Law Project.

Some 58% of the jobs created during the recent economic recovery have been low-wage positions like retail and food prep workers, according to a 2012 NELP report. These low-wage jobs had a median hourly wage of $13.83 or less.

At the same time, median household income has also dropped by more than $4,000 since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

This has fed the growing number of college educated workers protesting for higher pay.

Debbra Alexis, a 27-year-old Victoria's Secret employee with a bachelor's degree in health sciences, gathered more than 800 signatures in support of her campaign for higher pay at her New York City store. The store, part of L Brands (LB), ended up giving across-the-board raises of about $1 to $2 per hour to all workers in the Herald Square store.

A group of Kaplan tutors in New York City also formed a union to bargain for better wages.

And fast food worker Bobby Bingham, who got a bachelor's degree from University of Missouri in Kansas City, works four part-time low-wage jobs just to barely scrape by...

Read the rest here:

Sebelius Has No Comment After Hearing Oklahoma's Opposition To ObamaCare...

Artist who was payed $400k by government for camel sculpture helped raise 4.2 million for Obama campaign...

Exclusive: U.S. Taxpayers To Spend $400,000 For A Camel Sculpture In Pakistan

A camel staring at the eye of a needle would decorate a new American embassy — in a country where the average income yearly is $1,250.

Aram Roston

The State Department is planning to spend $400,000 in taxpayer funds to buy a sculpture for the new American embassy being built in Islamabad, Pakistan, according to contracting records.

The work, by noted American artist John Baldessari, depicts a life-size white camel made of fiberglass staring in puzzlement at the eye of an oversize shiny needle — a not-so-subtle play on the New Testament phrase about the difficulty the wealthy have in entering the kingdom of heaven.

Officials explained the decision to purchase the piece of art, titled “Camel Contemplating Needle,” in a four-page document justifying a “sole source” procurement. “This artist’s product is uniquely qualified,” the document explains. “Public art which will be presented in the new embassy should reflect the values of a predominantly Islamist country,” it says. (Like the Bible, the Qur’an uses the metaphor of a camel passing through the eye of a needle.)

Read the rest if you can stand it:

The real reason why we are buying the camel. It is political crony payback time...

President Obama's Reelection Campaign Could Receive $4.2M Boost From Artists John Baldessari, Frank Gehry And More

The Huffington Post | By Katherine Brooks Posted: 09/11/2012

President Obama demonstrated that he still has a knack for mobilizing members of the art world this week.

According to The Los Angeles Times, a group of artists led by big names such as John Baldessari, Ed Ruscha, Japer Johns and Ellsworth Kelly have announced they are creating a portfolio of limited edition prints and other works that will be sold to raise money for the president's campaign.

Nineteen artists in total offered up their talents for the portfolio, which was created in collaboration with an LA-based art workshop and publishing collective Gemini G.E.L. The finished portfolio will be sold for $28,000, a sum that will be donated directly to Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Don't think the team stopped at only one portfolio, however -- 150 are now on sale, amounting to a hefty potential fundraising fete of $4.2 million, reports The LA Times...


Flight 370 reality check...

Flight 370 reality check: A Boeing 777 doesn't disappear unless governments want it to disappear

by Mike Adams

As the conventional news coverage of Flight 370 becomes increasingly delusional and detached from reality, for the sake of all those families and loved ones still suffering I thought it important to publish a reality check that can help bring the discussion back to some common sense.

Let's cover five indisputable facts about governments, radar and aircraft:

Fact #1) Every modern nation tracks air traffic with military radar systems

All the key nations involved in Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 run military radar systems 24/7. This includes Malaysia and India, of course. These radar systems are operated for purposes of national defense, making sure each nation can identify aircraft entering its air space.

If you don't believe that military-grade radar systems can track the altitude, direction and speed of a Boeing 777, then you don't believe in radar at all.

Fact #2) Every modern nation runs civilian air traffic control "passive" radar systems that work even without aircraft transponders

Beyond the military radar, modern nations also run air traffic control radar systems which work in both "active" (transponder) modes and "passive" mode (requiring no transponder). Although civilian air traffic control systems are generally not as powerful or accurate as military systems, they are nonetheless fully capable of detecting and tracking a Boeing 777.

In fact, as any air traffic controller will tell you, their radar systems are fully capable of tracking flocks of birds and other airborne objects which are far smaller than a Boeing 777.

Fact #3) A Boeing 777 has a massive radar signature

Unless equipped with some sort of exotic technology we've never heard of -- like a radar "invisibility cloak" borrowed from the Klingons of Star Trek -- a Boeing 777 has a massive radar signature. The cylindrical fuselage, curved wings and surface controls (flaps, ailerons, rudder) all reflect radar waves with very high efficiency. A commercial Boeing aircraft is not a stealth bomber.

The explanation that this Boeing 777 "vanished" from radar simply doesn't hold water. And if the explanation is that "the pilot flew the aircraft at very low elevation to evade radar," then it makes no sense that the pilot would carry out this complex evasion for 4-7 hours and then plunge the aircraft into the Indian Ocean.

Furthermore, a suicidal pilot has no need to evade radar in the first place! If he wanted to crash the plane, he could have done it immediately after takeoff, or at any point during the first few minutes of flight. There is no need to evade radar if you wish to consciously crash the aircraft.

Fact #4) Boeing 777 aircraft cannot survive a collision with the ocean and remain intact

One of the most ridiculous theories currently being floated around the mainstream media -- and written by journalists who apparently have no education in fundamental physics or flight mechanics -- is that Flight 370 "crashed" into the Indian Ocean and somehow magically remained fully intact!

Although it's comforting to think that airplanes are made of incredibly strong steel that can withstand high-velocity impacts with bodies of water, the far more sobering truth is that aircraft are flimsy structures made primarily of aluminum. Aircraft are not rigid; they flex and bend, even during flight. If you've ever watched the wings during flight, you've no doubt noticed that they have a surprisingly wide range of movement, almost as if the wings are flapping. An aircraft fuselage moves, bends, expands and compresses due to changes in temperature, ambient pressure and structural stress.

A large commercial aircraft that crashes into water simply cannot remain intact. While there are some miraculous water landings where skilled pilots were able to "land" aircraft on water thanks to near-stall speeds, flaps and amazing flying skills, a full-speed crash into water can never result in the aircraft remaining fully intact. The nose, wings, fuselage and tail would all be torn apart by impact with a body of water.

Even many attempted "water landings" still result in huge structural failures of the aircraft, as seen in this photo of a relatively gentle water landing of a flight headed for Bali:

An actual crash into water would produce a massive amount of debris, including seats, bodies and other debris easy to spot from satellite imagery or rescue searches.

Fact #5) A vanishing of Flight 370 would have taken the cooperation of governments

Here's the most astonishing fact of all: because of all the facts stated above, the vanishing of Flight 370 must have required intentional planning and action from at least one government (and possibly more). Somebody is covering up the truth of what happened to MH370, and it looks almost certain that the Malaysian government is part of this cover-up, as I previously reported.

The mainstream media is extremely reluctant to ever report on any sort of government cover-up, preferring to pretend that governments are always transparent and honest with the people of the world. Although such an idea is utterly laughable, it remains the default position of the conventional media. That's why the media prefers to run with other theories such as "pilot suicide" or "flight accident," neither of which withstand scrutiny of the facts. (Case in point: If it crashed into the ocean, the black boxes would have been transmitting their location for weeks now, and they would be easy to find.)

World governments routinely lie and deceive the public, of course. As a simple example of that, the U.S. government has now been exposed as spying on all the other governments of the world with an above-top-secret NSA spy program revealed by Edward Snowden. Before his revelations, anyone suggesting the government was "listening to your phone calls" was immediately called a crackpot by the clueless conventional media. Now, of course, we all have come to realize that the NSA really is recording all your phone calls, text messages, social media posts and financial transactions. This is no longer a secret. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's business as usual at the highest levels of government. And yes, it's wildly illegal, but it goes on nonetheless.

That's why the idea that a government "couldn't possibly have lied about Flight 370" is preposterous. Of course a government could lie about Flight 370. It is far harder for any government to tell the truth than to lie, in fact. And the government of Malaysia no more adheres to truth and transparency than the U.S. government, the Russian government or even the government of China. All governments routinely lie to the public almost by default. To expect a government to tell you the truth about anything is to live in fantasy land.

But if you are crazy enough to believe that governments never lie, then I'm happy to report to you that Obamacare now has 6 million enrollees who have all paid their insurance premiums, the national debt of the USA is rapidly shrinking by the hour, nobody in Washington D.C. ever abuses power, the gun-running conspiracy by California Democratic Senator Leland Yee never happened and your tax dollars are always put to a positive purpose for the betterment of society.


Flight 370 most likely did not crash; it was almost certainly taken over (possibly by remote control) and flown to a destination with all passengers alive and the aircraft in one piece.

What happens from there is anyone's guess, but the most likely use of such a stolen aircraft is to turn it into a massive airborne weapons delivery system to be outfitted with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Believe me when I say this is the real scenario being discussed behind closed doors at the Pentagon. The "pilot suicide" explanation is merely the sucker's version of events for public consumption.

Learn more:

Remember this when you drink your next Diet Coke...

Diet soda, aspartame linked to premature deaths in women

by Mike Adams

A decade-long study of 60,000 women has confirmed that drinking diet soda sweetened with aspartame is linked with a 30 percent increase in heart attack risk and a 50 percent increase in death risk.

The findings, presented at the American College of Cardiology(1), have already been partially swept under the rug with the false explanation that diet drinks don't necessarily cause these risks but are instead merely correlated with them. "Women who toss back too many diet sodas may be trying to make up for unhealthy habits," claims an article on CNBC,(2) while citing no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. Keep in mind that any time a synthetic vitamin is correlated with increased mortality, the entire scientific community immediately describes those synthetic vitamins as "causing" death. Correlation is causation only when industry-funded scientists say it is.

Aspartame is a neurotoxin
What scientists refuse to explore -- even when the data clearly show a strong death risk association -- is that aspartame is a neurotoxin. The reason why women who drink diet soda have a 50 percent increased death risk is, of course, far more likely to be caused by what's in the diet soda rather than some lifestyle choice.

Aspartame, after all, is made from the feces of genetically engineered bacteria. It is not a natural sugar but rather a chemical compound created in an industrial lab. Used in diet sodas, it breaks down into a number of chemical compounds including formaldehyde and methanol. During digestion, the formaldehyde is oxidized into formic acid, a chemical known to cause toxicity in mammalian biology. Formic acid is also secreted by ants as part of their "chemical weapons" arsenal.

Aspartame linked to long list of neurological problems
Aspartame denialists try to pretend that all this formaldehyde, methanol and formic acid has no effect on human health. Their argument is identical to that of GMO denialists: "GMOs are harmless!" It's even the same argument as mercury denialists: "Mercury is harmless!"

Why, then, is aspartame so frequently linked to blurred vision, headaches and neurological problems when repeatedly consumed in the form of diet drinks? In fact, there are over 90 side effects linked to aspartame consumption, including headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, rashes, depression, irritability, insomnia, hearing loss, vision problems, loss of taste vertigo and memory loss.

Soda companies and misinformed doctors all try to pretend none of these side effects are real -- that people are all imagining headaches, blurred vision, numbness, insomnia and so on. That's how unethical the soda industry is: they poison their own customers with a neurotoxic chemical, then call them delusional when they suffer neurological side effects.

If you drink diet soda, you are murdering yourself
The bottom line in all this? If you drink diet soda, you are essentially murdering yourself. Call it "slow suicide."

There are a thousand beverages healthier than diet sodas: tea, fruit juice, mineral water, raw almond milk... even non-diet sodas are better for you than diet sodas! (And diet sodas have been conclusively proven to have no effect whatsoever on weight loss. So drinking them is a useless diet gesture to begin with.)

If for some reason you are still drinking diet soda, find a healthier beverage and stop poisoning yourself to death.

Learn more:

"The questions that Americans need to ask themselves are: Do we really want a governmental structure that not only sends our nation down the dark-side road of assassination, torture, coups, indefinite detention, and the like but also, at the same time, converts the person we have elected president to be an official liar to the world?"

America’s Liar in Chief
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Everyone is familiar with where America’s Cold War national-security state apparatus has led our nation: down the dark road of assassinations, torture, indefinite detention, coups, surveillance, regime-change operations, secrecy, tribunals, and other dark-side practices that are inherent to communist and other totalitarian regimes.

But how many Americans ever give thought to the fact that the national-security state apparatus has also converted the duly elected president of the United States into an official liar?

From the first day he enters office, the president’s integrity is compromised. That because of the doctrines of “covert activity” and “plausible deniability” that are an inherent part of national-security state operations.

With the addition of the national-security branch of the federal government, the U.S. government effectively got broken into two dual governmental systems.

One system, the one we learn about in our high school civics classes, is the standard one — a federal system divided into three branches of government, where laws are debated openly, trials are held in open court with juries, public officials are elected, and there is transparency in what the government is doing.

The other system operates below the radar screen. It consists of the military, the CIA, and the NSA, whose officials are not elected. Everything revolves around the concept of “national security.” Operations are conducted in secret. They include regime change operations, in which the national security state ousts foreign rulers from power, either through the funding of opposition groups, assassination, invasion, or coups.

Many of these operations are conducted in secret, so as to disguise the role of the U.S. government in the operation. That’s what makes them “covert.” The president’s role is then to falsely deny that the U.S. government is behind the operation, thereby maintaining the covert aspect of the operation.

This has been the case since the advent of the national-security state. For example, during the Eisenhower administration, a CIA spy plane illegally flying over the Soviet Union on a surveillance mission was shot down.

Ike’s job was to lie to the Soviets, the American people, and the world. He told everyone that the plane was just a weather plane that had flown off course. He felt safe in lying because Powers had been told to commit suicide if his plane was ever shot down.

The Soviets undoubtedly smiled when they heard Ike’s weather-plane explanation. That’s because Powers had not committed suicide and was in the custody of Soviet officials when Ike was performing his role as America’s liar in chief. As a result of Ike’s national-security state lie, the Soviets cancelled a high-level summit between Eisenhower and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, which many CIA officials were happy about anyway.

The situation was similar with his successor, John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy assumed the presidency, the CIA presented him with its plan to invade Cuba and oust Fidel Castro from power, a plan that had already been organized under Eisenhower. Under the CIA’s plan, the invasion was ostensibly to be undertaken by Cuban exiles. The role of the U.S. government was supposed to be kept secret. That meant, of course, that one of Kennedy’s first jobs as president would be to lie to the Cuban people, to Americans, and to the world about the U.S. government’s role in the invasion.

As we know, Kennedy ended up telling the truth about the U.S. role in the operation and personally took responsibility for the debacle.

In 1962, the Pentagon got into the act. It presented Kennedy with Operation Northwoods, a covert operation that would involve terrorist attacks on American citizens, both at Guantanamo Bay and here in the United States. There would also be hijackings of American planes. The acts were to be undertaken by secret agents of the U.S. national security state and falsely blamed on Cuban communist agents.

Kennedy’s job under Operation Northwoods was to be the nation’s liar in chief. He would falsely declare to the world that America had been attacked by Cuban communists and, therefore, that he had no choice but to invade Cuba and effect regime change there.

To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods and the role that it had for him to be America’s liar in chief.

It’s been the same with the CIA’s operations throughout its history. The CIA keeps its role secret and the president falsely backs it up with false statements. The CIA’s coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, all of which destroyed the democratic systems in those countries, come to mind. It isn’t until decades later that secret files are opened and the Americans living at that time are able to see what was actually taking place at the time.

Today, it’s impossible to know the extent to which the national-security state, especially the CIA, is involved in fomenting trouble in places like Ukraine and Venezuela with the aim of replacing a democratically elected president with a pro-U.S. dictator, as the CIA has done in countries like Iran, Guatemala, and Chile. Under its long-established modus, the CIA’s role in such operations would be kept secret. The role of President Obama would be to falsely deny that the U.S. government is engaged in such operations.

One thing is for sure: When President Obama denies U.S. involvement in such countries, he might well be telling the truth but no one believes him anyway. That’s because everyone knows that it’s the job of the president under America’s national-security state system to lie about any U.S. involvement in such matters.

The questions that Americans need to ask themselves are: Do we really want a governmental structure that not only sends our nation down the dark-side road of assassination, torture, coups, indefinite detention, and the like but also, at the same time, converts the person we have elected president to be an official liar to the world? It seems to me that when one’s governmental system causes the duly elected president to immediately abandon his integrity by becoming an official liar in chief, that’s reason enough to question such a system.


So, let's raise the minimum wage...


OOPS!!! This just in, man not cause of climate changes...

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate
By S. Fred Singer

The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

Watch for it: We may be on the threshold of a tipping point in climate history. No, I’m not talking about a tipping point in the sense that the Earth will be covered with ice or become hellishly hot. I’m talking about a tipping point in our views of what controls the climate -- whether it’s mainly humans or whether it’s mainly natural. It makes an enormous difference in climate policy: Do we try to mitigate, at huge cost, or do we merely adapt to natural changes -- as our ancestors did for many millennia?

Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly -- almost overnight. One was in Cosmology, where the “Steady State” theory of the Universe was replaced by the “Big Bang.” This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the “microwave background radiation,” which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely get more.

The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. After being denounced by the Science Establishment, the hypothesis of Alfred Wegener, initially based on approximate relations between South America and Africa, was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of “sea-floor spreading.”

These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests -- and they did not involve the public and politicians. But climate is a different animal: The financial stakes are huge -- in the trillions of dollars, and affect energy policy, and indeed the economic wellbeing of every inhabitant of the developed and developing world. For example, the conversion into ethanol fuel of a substantial portion of the US corn crop raised the price of tortillas in Mexico and caused food riots.

Nevertheless, I believe the time is right for a paradigm shift on climate. For one, there has been no warming now for some 15 years -- in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases. Climate models have not come up with any accepted explanation. This disparity, of course, throws great doubt about any future warming derived from these same models, and indeed also about policies that are being advocated -- principally, the mitigation and control of Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Next year, in Paris, the UN will try to reconstitute the basic features of the (1997-2012) Kyoto Protocol -- an international treaty of participating nations to limit their emissions of CO2. They may succeed -- unless the current paradigm changes.

We can already see the pressure building up for such a treaty. The big guns of international science are actively promoting climate scares. The Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences have published a joint major report, containing no new science but advocating a “need for action.” The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the largest scientific organization in the United States, is promoting the same policy, but without a shred of science in their slick pamphlet. Even the once-respected Scientific American magazine has gotten into the act and openly advocates such policies.

All of these Establishment groups, it seems, have a keen eye open for government funding -- not only for research but also the actions that go with such policies. They all accept the climate science as propagated by the three volumes of the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Volume #1, dealing with physical science, was published in Sept 2013; volumes 2 and 3, dealing with impacts and mitigation, will be published in March and April of 2014.

But now, for the first time, we have NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) as a counter to the IPCC, as an independent voice, a second opinion, if you will -- something that was advocated by the IAC (InterAcademy Council on Science). We now have a credible number of studies, which the IPCC chose to ignore in reaching their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NIPCC reports were also published in September 2013 (Physical Science), and in March and April of 2014 (Biological Impacts and Societal Impacts).

The NIPCC, in particular its Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) of Vol 1, looks critically at the evidence that the IPCC uses to back up their claim of AGW. NIPCC notes that the evidence keeps changing over time. The first IPCC report (1990) used an improbable statistical method to suggest that the warming of the early part of the 20th century was due to human-produced GH gases; no one believes this anymore.

The second assessment report of 1996, which led to the infamous 1997 Kyoto Protocol, manufactured the so-called “HotSpot,” a region of increased warming trend, with a maximum in the equatorial troposphere. That evidence has also disappeared: a detailed analysis (published in Nature 1996) showed that the hHotspot doesn’t even exist. In addition, the assumption that it constitutes a “fingerprint” for AGW is in error.

As a result of these two failed attempts to establish some kind of evidence for AGW, the third IPCC report (2001) latched on to the so-called “Hockeystick” graph, which claimed that only the 20th century showed unusual warming during the past 1000 years. However, further scrutiny demonstrated that the Hockeystick was also manufactured -- based on faulty data, erroneous statistical methods, and an inappropriate calibration method. Even purely random data fed into the algorithm would produce a hockeystick.

In its most recent AR5 of 2013, the IPCC has dropped all previous pieces of evidence and instead concentrates on trying to prove that the reported surface warming between 1978 and 2000 agrees with a warming predicted by climate models. This so-called proof turns out to be a weak reed indeed. The reported warming applies only to surface (land-based) weather stations and is not seen in any other data set; the weather satellite data that measure atmospheric temperature show no significant trend -- neither do proxy data (from analysis of tree rings, ocean/lake sediments, stalagmites, etc)

It can therefore be argued that there has been no appreciable human-caused warming in the 20th century at all -- and that the warming effects of rising GH-gas content of the atmosphere have been quite insignificant. See also

But what about future global temperatures? Opinions differ sharply -- all the way from another “Little Ice Age” (a calamity, in my opinion) to a resumption of warming (aided by the “missing heat” that some alarmists are sure is hiding somewhere). Personally, I don’t do forecasts since I know too little about the Sun’s interior; I simply try to understand and explain the past climate. But if pressed, I would go with historic cycles, like the observed 1000-1500-yr cycle; it suggests a modest warming over the next few centuries, perhaps in ‘fits and starts’ -- unlike computer models that yield a steady increase in temperature from a steady increase of GH-gas levels.

Will nations accept any treaties emanating from the 2015 Paris Conference? So far, only Western Europe seems to be keen on ratifying -- and even there, doubts are developing. Eastern Europe is definitely against any new Protocol, as are Japan, Australia, and Canada. And what about the Chinese, the world’s largest emitters of CO2? They gain a competitive advantage if their commercial competitors accept the Treaty’s restrictions, which raise their cost of energy.

The United States may be in a transition mode -- and that’s where a paradigm shift could really make a global difference. According to the latest Gallup poll, the US public ranks Global Warming almost at the bottom of twenty issues, mostly concerned with economics. The White House, however, seems to be gung-ho for climate alarmism. President Obama is planning new climate initiatives, based on advice from his Science Adviser, John Holdren, an erstwhile disciple of “Population Bomb” Paul Ehrlich. John Podesta has come aboard as counselor and special assistant to the President to push climate initiatives. And of course, the rest of the Administration is in tune with the White House.

Secretary of State John Kerry considers AGW the greatest challenge to US security -- in spite of having his plate full of foreign-policy problems: the Iran nuclear negotiations, the Syrian civil war, a developing Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Arab-Israel ‘peace’ negotiations, and the Russian annexation of Crimea. This, of course, is the same John Kerry, who as a US Senator in 1997 voted for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against the likes of a Kyoto Protocol.

In mid-2014, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will issue its opinion on the EPA’s mis-guided and unscientific efforts to limit or even abolish the use of coal for electric generation. If SCOTUS can become aware of the NIPCC conclusions, they will surely decide against EPA and therefore the WH. Such an event may become the trigger for a cataclysmic paradigm shift in US policy on energy and climate. The November 2014 elections could tip the balance and finally kill the myth of Global Warming catastrophes in the US and throughout the world.

NIPCC Conclusions in Brief

Backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies, are in striking contrast to the IPCC’s alarmist predictions:

**Climate data tell us that the human impact on Earth’s climate is very small and that any warming due to GH gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.
**The net impacts of modestly rising temperatures and higher carbon-dioxide levels on plants, animals, wildlife, and human welfare have been positive so far and are likely to continue to be positive.
**The costs of trying to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions vastly exceed the benefits. Annual cost per US household would run to some $3,900; would destroy millions of jobs.
**In light of the new science and economics of climate change, thousands of laws passed at the height of the global warming scare need to be re-evaluated, modified, or repealed.


Prison vs School: The Tour...

OOPS!!! If the climate doesn't kill you, the climate Nazis will...

Liberal Fascist Calls For Global Warming Skeptics to be Arrested

Unhinged Gawker journo wants critics thrown in gulags for thought crime of questioning establishment

Paul Joseph Watson

The thinly-veiled totalitarian bent of the unhinged left has reared its ugly head once again with a demented rant by Gawker’s Adam Weinstein which calls for thought criminals who question man-made global warming to be arrested and thrown in prison.

“We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars,” blathers Weinstein, before claiming that man-made climate change kills 150,000 people a year.

Weinstein cites the example of six Italian seismologists who were convicted of manslaughter in 2009 after they failed to connect a series of tremors the week before to a subsequent earthquake that killed 309 people, arguing that public figures who openly express the thought crime of questioning the scientific establishment should face similar punishment.

“Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics,” barks Weinstein.

Demanding that, “malcontents must be punished and stopped,” Weinstein asserts that disagreeing with the content of scientific journals which promote man-made climate change is not covered by the First Amendment, arguing that skeptics be “punished for your self-serving malice”.

What’s next? Perhaps opponents of Obamacare are the cause of illness and death for uninsured poor people. Maybe they too should be thrown in a thought crime gulag for questioning Dear Leader?

Weinstein’s screed emerged just days before a major United Nations report released today which warns of doomsday-level consequences if humanity doesn’t immediately relinquish the bounty of freedom, happiness and prosperity which has been associated with CO2 emissions for some 250 years. The fact that climate scientists have been caught time and time again spectacularly overexaggerating previous dire proclamations hasn’t discouraged them from doubling down on their insanity.

Indeed, today probably marks the point when global warming alarmism went truly psychotic, with headlines such as this in major newspapers like the UK’s Independent which scream, ‘The Apocalypse is Coming: War, famine and disease are on way’.

Last week, Professor Richard Tol demanded that his name be removed from the IPCC report after he complained that its ‘sky is falling’ tone made it sound like “the four horsemen of the apocalypse”.

Commentators reacted to Weinstein’s Gawker piece by savaging its inherently undemocratic and fascistic tone.

“It’s good to have that on the record at such a popular website. Liberals who are that soaked in the ideology of catastrophic man-caused global warming are fascists,” wrote Jim Lakely, adding, “Our fascist overlords are clever, and will probably set up work camps in which the undesirables will work as Obamacare facilitators. No thanks. I’m an old-school dissident. I choose breaking rocks.”

PJ Media’s Rick Moran labeled Weinstein an “authoritarian douchebag” and a “sneering elitist,” noting, “People with ideas like Weinstein’s are the reason other people are buying guns. This should not be seen in any way as a direct personal threat against Weinstein. But he has to understand that when liberals talk like this, they are the ones threatening others. They are the ones who would take away what the Constitution guarantees. They are the ones that many people think they need protecting from.”

While control freaks like Weinstein will continue to spew doomsday rhetoric about man-made activity killing the planet, the only real relationship between earth’s temperature and human behavior is the fact that the longer it remains stoically flat – with no actual global warming for over 17 years – the more desperate global warming alarmists become in attempting to silence critics of their religion.


History stuff: Russia invades Finland...

The Soviet Union Invades Finland

By Bionic Mosquito

The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II, by Viktor Suvorov

I continue with my detailed review of this book; for all posts in this series, see here.

Many point to the difficulties of this Soviet invasion of Finland as evidence of the lack of capability of the Soviet military; according to Suvorov, and given the winter conditions and the elaborate defenses established, it was one of the most impressive offensive showings of the war. Stalin demonstrated that he would pay any price to achieve his objectives. I will touch further on this controversy at the end of this post.

The story, and controversy, will revolve around the Mannerheim Line – a line of Finnish defenses established to repel any Soviet invasion through the Karelian Isthmus. Starting shortly after the end of the Great War, the Finnish Army began work on fortifications on the isthmus – Finland having just won independence from Russia.

This activity increased significantly after 1929, with a solid line of fortifications known as the Mannerheim Line, named for the Commander-in-Chief who had won the war of independence in 1918. (P. 136)

It was this territory that Stalin demanded from Finland:

In October of 1939, immediately after the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, Stalin’s diplomats addressed the government of Finland, demanding the cession of the Karelian Isthmus. (P. 136)

Stalin offered two-for-one in terms of raw acreage – a trade of land for land. While offering double the acreage in exchange, in terms of strategic significance Stalin might as well have asked for all of Finland:

The Karelian Isthmus is a direct gateway to the capital of Finland, the largest ports and most populated regions. (P. 136)

Of course, the offer was not accepted. But this was not the end of Stalin’s plans. He also prepared a second step – a communist revolution in Finland. In October 1939, Stalin established within the 106th Rifle Division of the Red Army a group of Finnish Communists, then living in the Soviet Union; this division could then be declared the “national army of Finland” at the appropriate time. (P. 137)

A communist national government was also prepared, one to be sent to Helsinki in accordance with “the will of the Finnish people.” Otto Kuusinen, a Soviet intelligence officer, was appointed head of this government. (P. 137)

Stalin issued an order to crush Finland. For an attack, the Soviets needed a pretext. As if on demand, on November 26, 1939, seven artillery shells allegedly flew in from the Finnish side and exploded on the Soviet side, killing three privates and one junior officer. (P 137)

Finland had no artillery near the border, and declared immediate willingness for an investigation by neutral third parties. Stalin did not wait. On November 30, after a brief but intense artillery firing, Soviet troops crossed into Finnish territory. (P. 138)

Radio Moscow declared that the Finnish people rose up against capitalists and the Red Army was heading forward to assist the uprising. Units of the Red Army occupied the small village of Terioki. Immediately Kuusinen’s “government” arrived from Moscow and went to work. (P. 138)

The Mannerheim Line was not located on the immediate border, but deeper in Finnish territory behind the “security pale.” The space in between was filled with granite boulders and concrete blocks. The intent was to slow down an invading army, such that those manning the true defensive line had appropriate warning of the coming attack.

Suvorov describes a typical situation in this security pale, involving Finnish snipers:

…a column of Soviet tanks, motorized infantry, and artillery is moving along a forest road. To their left and to their right there is nowhere to go – impassable woods, packed with land mines. Ahead of them is a bridge. The Soviet demolition experts check for mines and come back reporting that the way is clear. The first tanks begin to crawl onto the bridge – and together with the bridge they fly up into the air: packs of dynamite had been inserted into the supporting beams of the bridge during its construction; they are undetectable, and even if they had been discovered, any attempt to diffuse them would have triggered an explosion. (P. 139)

The Soviet line is immobilized, and the Finnish snipers begin their work. They hit Soviet officers and tow-truck drivers. They fire, and then disappear into silence…until they fire again. Such Finnish tactics caused the Soviet Army to require two weeks to pass through this security pale, “with a broken morale and without ammunition, fuel, or supplies.” (P. 139)

The Soviet Army finally reached the Mannerheim Line. Suvorov describes it as “a brilliantly camouflaged defense structure, well integrated into the surroundings….” After suffering more than 125,000 killed or missing and over 250,000 wounded or ill, the Soviet Army finally broke through the line on March 12, 1940; the war ended the next day. The war lasted 105 days. (P. 140)

As just one provided example of the magnitude of Finnish defenses, Suvorov describes the strength of one pillbox:

The net weight of the ammunition used to shell one pillbox #0031 was 132,836 kilograms. (P. 143)

In another case, after firing more than 200 tons of ammunition, the pillbox – while damaged – remained functional.

Many military historians claim that this episode is evidence of the inability of the Soviet Army to wage effective war. Suvorov disagrees, describing the episode as one that demonstrates “tremendous strength.”

First of all, it is necessary to keep in mind that the Red Army acted in conditions that no Army had previously faced. It was conducting an attack in an average temperature of 21 to 24 degrees Celsius below zero…. Stalin ordered the army to act in impossible conditions, and the Red Army did the impossible. (P. 140)

The Finns, of course, fought in the same conditions. Suvorov points out the advantage of having the home field. He describes the fortifications, but of more importance (at least to me) is his description of the living conditions for the Finnish troops:

Behind these rows of barricades were concrete casements. Each major defensive construction stored ammunition and fuel, contained warm sleeping quarters, a restroom, a kitchen, a dining room, and had running water and electricity. Communication lines, command posts, hospitals – all were below ground, under concrete, in the woods, hidden in the snow, all in warmth. (P. 140)

The Finnish soldiers and snipers could catch a break from the cold. The Soviets could not. It may not sound like much, but I have never spent 105 days (and nights) outside in the elements at 21 – 24 degrees Celsius below zero. The Finnish troops after a few hours or even a few days on patrol, came into the warmth, and had a decent meal. The Soviet troops, after a few such days in the elements, only could look forward to an unknowable number of more such days – into an unending horizon of unbearable cold.

But try attacking under these conditions. Try to amputate a leg when beyond the thin cloth wall of the hospital tent the temperature is minus 40, and inside it is minus 30. (P. 141)

Boulders, hidden under the snow, ripped tank tracks and broke the rollers. Of the 105 days, only 25 days were suitable for flying. During the winter, darkness, while not permanent, consumed the greatest portion of each day. (P. 141)

Suvorov claims that “Military experts from all countries of the world unanimously agreed that no army, taking any amount of time, could break through the Mannerheim Line.” (P. 136) There is no footnote for this claim, and in checking other sources there appears to be significant disagreement. For example, Wikipedia:

The weakness of the line is illustrated by the fact, that the amount of concrete used in the whole Mannerheim Line—14,520 cubic meters or 513,000 cubic feet (14,500 m3)—is slightly less than the amount used in the Helsinki Opera House (15,500 cubic meters or 547,000 cubic feet). The much shorter VT-line used almost 400,000 cubic meters (14,000,000 cubic feet) of concrete.

This is also not footnoted.

From a customer review of “The Mannerheim Line 1920-39: Finnish Fortifications of the Winter War”:

The next section [of the book] discusses field fortifications in the Mannerheim Line (trenches, wooden bunkers and obstacles) and the author makes good points that the Finnish defenses were poorly suited to stop Soviet armor. Obstacles such as anti-tank ditches were not always covered by fire and the Finns exaggerated the ability of large rocks to stop Soviet tanks. Worse, the Finnish anti-tank defenses were extremely weak and relied on a small number of Bofors 37-mm guns but many bunkers had nothing more than a machinegun, which enabled Soviet tanks to drive right up to them and fire into the gun ports.

Suvorov sees things much differently. If the attack was such a failure, why did Stalin’s court reporters not face execution for reporting the poor performance?

…the first and loudest reports of the Red Army’s poor performance in Finland came in newspapers funded by Stalin. Stalin’s court poet, Alexander Tvardovsky, suddenly began speaking of the “infamous war.” For some reason, he was not executed. For some reason, he was awarded Stalin’s praises. (P. 144)

Was this the story Stalin wanted to get out? Given the overall ruthless demeanor of the man, one must suspect so.

The Baltic countries got the message; they understood that resistance was futile:

…Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, surrendered to Stalin without a fight and became Republics of the Soviet Union. The governments and military leadership of these countries had carefully watched the war in Finland and drew from their observations a frightening, but correct conclusion: the Red Army was capable of carrying out impossible orders, and it would not be stopped by any number of casualties. (P. 144, emphasis added)

The Soviet Army learned many valuable lessons about fighting in such inhumane cold, lessons put to good use against the German invasion of 1941-42.

Whatever one concludes about the performance of the Red Army in this war, it seems to me the following cannot be denied:

From the actions in Finland, there could be only one logical conclusion: nothing is impossible for the Red Army. (P. 144)

Stalin demonstrated that he would spare no effort to achieve an objective; I envision a man who sees his fellow Soviet citizens as meat being sent to a grinder, and he would send as many men as necessary into the grinder in order to meet his objectives. Concerns about internal political blowback were non-existent; such was the thoroughness of Stalin’s internal security state.

Stalin would do anything to achieve his objectives. Even if one disagrees with Suvorov’s military conclusions, this message rings loud and true.


Abraham Lincoln’s Terrible War...

"I will assume what has never in fact occurred, namely, that a state system has come into existence by every adult male and female freely agreeing, in advance of its creation, to be bound by a contract to subject themselves to prescribed rules and procedures. But if such an arrangement can be generated by voluntary agreement – by contract – why may it not also be modified or terminated by a subsequent agreement? If we can voluntarily create such a system, why may we not also voluntarily end it?"

Secession and the Law

By Butler Shaffer

I am amazed at the absence of reasoning found in the responses of many lawyers, law professors, political philosophers, and media opiners on the topic of political secession. As with political discussions generally, debate on this issue originates from either an individualistic or collectivist perspective. Those whose basic premises are aligned with institutional interests, and who regard such entities as ends in themselves, superior to the interests of individuals, tend to reject the rightful authority of men and women to alter or dismantle these institutions. If individuals are looked upon as being subservient to the interests of the state, those who share this opinion find it easy to treat secession as an illegal undertaking.

The Achilles heel in this line of thinking is found in its contradiction with the modern theoretical foundations of political systems. For centuries, the state acquired its “legitimacy” from a mythical “social contract” by which the governed consent to live in accordance with rules created by their alleged “agents.” That no evidence exists for any state having been brought into being by a contract among those to be ruled, has not diminished the use of the fiction. Political systems have been created and sustained by violence; by the conquest – not the consent – of the governed.

While I do not recognize a “social contract” as the origins of the state, I am quite willing to use the statists’ fabrication of such a transaction against them. By their nature, contracts are agreements voluntarily entered into by two or more persons to exchange claims to the ownership of property interests. Courts often refer to this voluntary nature as “mutual assent.” When one is forced, through threat of violence, to part with some property interest – as occurs when a street-mugger takes money from another at gun-point – a crime, not a contract, has taken place.

For purposes of addressing the statists’ arguments re secession, I will assume what has never in fact occurred, namely, that a state system has come into existence by every adult male and female freely agreeing, in advance of its creation, to be bound by a contract to subject themselves to prescribed rules and procedures. But if such an arrangement can be generated by voluntary agreement – by contract – why may it not also be modified or terminated by a subsequent agreement? If we can voluntarily create such a system, why may we not also voluntarily end it?

Implicit in the argument that it is illegal to dismantle a political structure allegedly created by some contract, is the unexplained assumption that the entity thus produced acquires rights that supersede the interests of the contracting parties. What is the reasoning that allows a tool to acquire a superiority of purpose and control over its creators? By what thinking does the Frankenstein monster become master over its producer?

Furthermore, had such a contract been entered into, who would be bound by it? If a majority of the population had consented to this arrangement, how could a minority – who did not agreed to be so bound – be obligated under a contract principle? And under what reasoning could any subsequent persons – including the children of those who had contracted as well as any subsequent residents – be bound?

Suppose that the Amalgamated Widget Company and I mutually agree to enter into a contract by which I will make my services available to the company in exchange for which they will pay me an agreed-upon salary. Suppose, further, that after ten years of working for Amalgamated, I decide to go to work for another firm. If Amalgamated wants me to stay, and cannot otherwise persuade me to do so, would it be “illegal” for me to work elsewhere? Would the company have a legal right to compel me to continue working for it? Such a conclusion is implicit in the statists’ rejection of the right to secede.

When questions of secession are approached not in terms of consistency with some abstract, philosophic principle, but as a matter of realpolitik, it becomes evident who the real parties in interest are. It is not the system, the tool that advances the claim of its primacy, but those who have taken control of the instrument – or who were responsible for its creation in the first place – in order to use it to control others to advance their private purposes. The “cui bono” principle applies in this setting as much as it does elsewhere in human behavior: “who benefits,” not only from the creation of systems by which we organize ourselves, but in interpreting the words we employ in defining the scope of what such systems may do.

When we attach ourselves so strongly to an abstraction that our minds have created, that we identify our very being with it; it becomes difficult for us to examine how such an attachment might contribute to the problems ensuing from our actions. To what extent, in other words, does our thinking contribute to the difficulties we experience in our institutionalized world?

Whether we are considering questions in the realm of religion, science, law, or other subjects, we encounter a truth that few people are willing to consider: no system of thought can be self-validating. As Gregory Bateson emphasized, intellectual respect for any belief system cannot depend upon internal assertions, but must be analyzed from outside the system; to be tested by a metasystem (which, in turn, must be validated by yet another metasystem, ad infinitum). Neither religion, nor science, nor any philosophic beliefs, nor legal maxims, can self-justify itself. One finds an illustration of this idea in the old story of the man who is explaining to his son the structure of the universe, whose vastness, he tells him, rests on the back of a turtle. “But upon what does this turtle rest?,” the boy asks. “Upon another turtle,” the father responds. “But, again, what supports this turtle?,” the bewildered lad inquires. “Look,” said he father, “it’s turtles all the way down!”

This endless regression is present in every system of thought, including the politico-legal system under question here. One of the first questions I ask my first-year students is this: “does the U.S. Constitution have any validity? And if so, why? Upon what basis does the government presume to rule your life?” This is one of those questions that few of us are ever encouraged to ask, leaving most of us to accept the political control of our lives with the same resignation we would the forces of gravity. Most of my students appear dumbfounded that such a question is even asked, particularly in a law school where the legitimacy of the Constitution is taken as a given. While the preamble presumes to speak for “We the People,” and Article V provides for the calling of a “Convention for proposing Amendments,” at no point is mention made of the right of people to secede, to withdraw from the system thus created.

By what metasystem might the question of the justifiability of the Constitution – and, with it, the entire political structure of the United States – be analyzed? If it cannot be validated by its own self-serving language, to what standard might we turn? One possibility is the Declaration of Independence, a document that created no political institution, but provided the criteria by which any such bodies might be judged. Philosophic or religious texts might also be useful, but given connections presumed to exist between these two instruments, I will use the Declaration for purposes of comparison.

The Declaration – heavily influenced by the thinking of such persons as John Locke – rationalizes the relations between individuals and political systems on a contract theory. Individuals being free, by nature, to protect their lives and property – but not to aggress or steal from others – may join together to form agencies to provide such protection – but with the same limitations vis-à-vis their neighbors. Should the political system, thus produced, exceed its permitted boundaries, it is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” it, and to create a new system to promote such legitimate ends. The Declaration clearly expresses the rights to “abolish” or to secede from a government that violates the individual rights that transcend the powers of the state.

One can read through the Constitution for words that provide such precision in thought, but will not find it. In the 1857 words of Lord Macaulay, “Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor,” one finds the essence of state power in America. One provision in the Constitution that contains faint echoes of the sentiments of the Declaration is the Ninth Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The logical implications of such words would lead thoughtful minds to acknowledge what the passage portends: the rights of human beings are of such infinite dimensions as to not be capable of verbalization. The Ninth Amendment was intended as a reminder of this fact.

If the spirit of the Declaration was thus to be incorporated into the Constitution by this Amendment, one would expect hundreds or even thousands of cases to have arisen under it, and to have affirmed an expansive defense of the individual when confronted by the state. Such has not been the case. Only a handful of cases has arisen under the Ninth Amendment. This has contributed to the twisting of the thinking that places individual liberty above all interests of the state; thus creating a default-mode mindset that whatever “rights” people enjoy come from, and are “given” by, the Constitution. As a result of such intellectual corruption, it is commonplace for people to conclude that, if a purported “right” cannot be found in the specific language (aka as “strict construction”) of the Constitution, it does not exist!

It is on the basis of such thinking that politicians, judges, and other statists assert that “secession” is “illegal.” If the Constitution does not specifically provide for this remedy, it does not exist; it is unlawful to pursue it. That such a proposition negates not only the Declaration of Independence, but the “social contract” theory upon which the state depends for bamboozling the public, is conveniently ignored by the statists. Many even go so far as to argue that the Civil War proved the illegality of secession, a conclusion that disregards the American colonials seceding from their then-present British government in a Revolutionary War aided by the ideas and spirit in the Declaration of Independence.

“Secession” is not a legal question, any more than it is a “scientific,” or “technological,” or “medical,” or even a “mathematics” issue. It is, rather, a proposition that cannot be intelligently explored, or acted upon, within the confines of the system from which secessionists seek to withdraw. It is, in other words, a philosophical question; one that requires recourse to deeply-held principled beliefs. Just as those nineteenth century libertarians who sought to abolish slavery had to rest their arguments on metasystems of thought that transcended constitutional, statutory, and other formal legal standards; the secession question cannot be answered by the political authorities who control, for their benefit, the coercive machinery that continues to grind down, loot, and destroy those who seek to liberate themselves from its inhumane practices.

From what extra-legal thinking can thoughtful minds find the inspiration and questioning with which to move outside the rigidly maintained boundaries of legalism? When we recall that the post-World War II Nuremberg defendants sought to excuse their murderous conduct with the plea that the acts they performed were not only allowed, but mandated by German law, we ought to be skeptical of allowing any system humans have created to be the judges of its own validity.

Whether mankind is to survive, or bring about its own extinction, will depend largely on the premises that underlie our social organizations. Will they exist as voluntary, cooperative systems through which individuals can mutually achieve their respective interests; or will they continue to function as herd-oriented collectives that allow the few to benefit at the expense of the many? The answers to such questions are to be found only within our individual thinking. Secession does not begin at the ballot box, or in courtrooms, or in signing petitions, but in the same realm where you lost your independence: within your mind, and your willingness to identify with conflict-ridden abstractions.


Sunday, March 30, 2014

"All the foregoing is evidence that Americans are witnessing (often mutely) the rapid establishment of a federal police force built upon the foundation of formerly free local law enforcement and equipped with technology, tactics, and weapons of immense power."

Why Is Homeland Security Paying to Put Cities Under Surveillance?
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

The drive to use of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants to convert local law enforcement into heavily armed battalions of a nationwide standing army under the command of federal officers marches on.

A quick survey of some of the police departments being outfitted by the federal government will expose the extent of the coast to coast effort to obliterate local accountability of law enforcement and to make those officers dependent on the largesse of their federal benefactors.

First, the Santa Monica, California, Police Department received nearly $800,000 from DHS days ago. A March 28 Santa Monica Mirror story on the “donation” reveals the earmarks for the funds.

Officially approved as part of the City Council’s consent calendar agenda at its Tuesday meeting, the grant money would, according to City staff, be used “to purchase equipment and training that supports regional homeland security goals.”...

“Funds were requested to purchase equipment and training that supports regional homeland security goals, specifically an automated license plate reading system for the Police Department, terrorism liaison officer training, hazardous material (HazMat) training and equipment, urban search and rescue (USAR) training and equipment and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) training and equipment for the Fire Department,” City staff stated.

Notice the mention made of surveillance equipment (license plate tracking system), terrorism, and urban riot preparedness. Hardly the bailiwick of a local police department.

Next, the headline of a story out of Wisconsin is enough to invoke the ire of constitutionalists in the Badger State: “State cops can track residents' cellphones.”

The story under that headline, from the Fond du Lac Reporter, demonstrates the immense capacity of cops to violate the Fourth Amendment:

Police in Wisconsin have at least two devices that secretly track cellphone locations in real time to target suspects or missing persons — technology that simultaneously mines data from hundreds or thousands of unsuspecting people nearby.

Such sophisticated surveillance equipment doesn’t come cheap. The Reporter writes:

The suitcase-sized Stingray masquerades as a cell tower to trick cellphones into connecting to it. It can show police phones within a mile or more, depending on terrain. Records show the DOJ Stingray cost more than $150,000, and the DOJ and Milwaukee police both purchased upgrade packages that topped $100,000.

In fairness, it’s not just Wisconsin law enforcement using this technology to track citizens. As noted by the Reporter:

An investigation by USA TODAY and Gannett media around the country found at least 25 police departments outside Wisconsin own a Stingray. More than 30 other agencies refused to say whether they own one.

Tracking cellphones without warrants is just the beginning of the monitoring in Milwaukee. The Fox TV channel in Milwaukee reports that the city is being equipped with surveillance cameras mounted on buildings and in other locations. Why do the nearly 600,000 residents of Wisconsin’s largest city need to be under the watchful eye of government? Common Council President Michael J. Murphy explained:

It is now quite commonplace in business and commercial districts across the U.S. and the world to have mounted surveillance cameras monitoring activity, because they have proven very effective in helping to deter crime and also helping to solve crimes.

Really? Consider this report published by The New American in January covering a similar deployment of surveillance cameras in Houston, Texas, and Evanston, Illinois:

Perhaps citizens [of Houston] should overlook their elected leaders’ acceptance of such federal largesse, given that the 900 or so surveillance cameras already in place have had such a favorable effect on crime rates in the city.

Not so much.

... From [local CBS affiliate] KHOU: “Officials say data is not kept to determine if the cameras are driving down crime.”

If the cameras aren’t being used to reduce crime, just what are they being used for?

“We also know from experience and from recent events that the government will inevitably abuse its use of personal information attained by spying on us. Houston needs to re-think and reject this proposal,” [regional director Amin] Alehashem [of the Texas Civil Rights Project-Houston] said in his press release.

Precisely. These cameras — thousands upon thousands attached to poles and buildings from coast to coast — are not about crime reduction, but about liberty reduction.

Residents of Evanston, Illinois, seem to see the surveillance that way, too.

Over 100 citizens of this Chicago suburb have signed petitions requesting that the city council publicize all the information regarding a proposal to add “3.7 miles of surveillance cameras” along city streets.

Evanston’s plan to expand its surveillance capabilities has a couple of things in common with the Houston program.

First, there is the lack of evidence that the cameras make residents safer. Consider this report published ... in a local news blog:

Evanston resident Bobby Burns, who is collecting signatures online and in person in the neighborhood around the high school, told Patch he believes the city council does not have enough research to back up the surveillance camera proposal.

“If these cameras are really about student safety, there should be credible data that clearly supports the need,” he wrote in an e-mail. “If this is about youth homicides, protecting senior citizens, or keeping an eye on police [officers], let’s respect the importance of those issues and discuss them individually with care and consideration.”

So, just like the cameras in Houston, the cameras in Evanston (population 75,430) don’t seem to reduce crime or make anyone safer.

They are likewise unlikely to make Milwaukee safer, either.

Why the move to constant monitoring, then?

In Logan, Utah, the police took money from the feds to keep their communications secret, scrambling them so as not to be detectable by civilians. reports:

The Logan City Police Department has officially received grant money allowing them to purchase software that will encrypt scanner radio traffic in high-risk situations.

The police department received $26,812 from the Utah Department of Homeland Security, enough to put encryption software on 30 police radios.

According to Asst. Police Chief Jeff Curtis, about half of those radios will go to police officers who are assigned to the SWAT team. The others will be spread out among administrators, negotiators, select paramedics and dispatch.

It seems that if local police were determined to protect and serve the citizens of Logan, they would be best served by allowing those citizens access to information regarding crime. To keep such communications secret is not only contrary to peace and order, but to principles of local control over law enforcement, as well.

Finally, St. Louis citizens will soon be subject to surveillance by local police equipped with DHS-provided facial recognition software. The story in KMOV quotes a local official justifying the acceptance of the federally funded technology:

“If someone robs a bank and cameras capture that face we then take that picture, put it into a computer system through a scanning system and that goes through the existing mug shot data basis looking for known criminals that would match that picture,” he said. “It's no different than a detective or a victim going through binders of pictures looking for a match of that individual.”

In fact, it is significantly different. Mug shot binders are full of photos taken by police after a person has been arrested. Cameras equipped with facial recognition software will record the faces of everyone who comes within the scope of their lenses without regard to warrants or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Unlike mugshots, the pictures of the faces of people living in or visiting St. Louis will be recorded just in case they are ever needed. This is a search and seizure made in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and it should concern the nearly 3,000,000 residents of the metropolitan area, as well as the millions of tourists who visit the city annually.

All the foregoing is evidence that Americans are witnessing (often mutely) the rapid establishment of a federal police force built upon the foundation of formerly free local law enforcement and equipped with technology, tactics, and weapons of immense power.


Malloy continues to destroy jobs in Connecticut: " Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs: it only outlaws them."

Connecticut Raises Minimum Wage to $10.10
Written by Bob Adelmann

In a remarkable display of hubris and economic ignorance, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy proudly announced on Thursday that his state is the first to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour:

This is just a step in moving people in the right direction.

We will be lifting people out of poverty in the state of Connecticut. Increasing the minimum wage is not just good for workers, it’s also good for business.

What the new law will really do as it is phased in over the next three years is move people out of the state, just as they have been for the last two decades. More than 10 percent of Connecticut’s population — including small business owners who currently employ half of all workers in the state — have moved away to states such as Florida (no income tax) and Texas (no income tax).

That reality has yet to register with Malloy, however, nor with Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey, who helped push through the legislation: "Raising the minimum wage helps people who need it the most, is good for the economy, and is the right thing to do."

Wrong on all counts. When Bob Funk, the head of Express Employment Professionals, quizzed 1,213 small business owners from around the country how they would act if the minimum wage were raised nationally (as President Obama wants), he learned that one out of five of them would lay off some of their employees, while two in five said they would reduce hiring in the future. Half of them said they would be forced to raise their prices to cover the increased labor costs.

Just the thing to stimulate the economy in Connecticut.

There was one voice of reason speaking out against the raise: Patrick O’Neill, a spokesman for the House Republican minority:

[This law] isn’t going to lift anyone out of poverty.

In Bridgeport, the state’s largest city, there is a 50 percent unemployment rate among teens ages 16-19. If they can’t get a job at $8.70 an hour [the state’s previous minimum wage], what will it be like when the rate goes up?

This is just going to cause employers who create jobs in the state to hire even fewer people.

Connecticut really ought to be in much better economic and financial shape. After all, it lies on the corridor between New York City and Boston. It is well-connected by rail and highway. There’s a high concentration of executive talent living there, many in financial services. But, as Forbes magazine reported, business owners looking to start a new business are moving elsewhere.

Before making that decision, they note first that Connecticut ranks at the bottom of all states in annual growth. They have been at or near the bottom long before the start of the Great Recession. In the decade before the crisis hit, the number of small businesses in Connecticut declined by 2.2 percent while the average across the country showed a 10 percent increase. In that 10-year period, only Ohio and West Virginia did worse than Connecticut.

Governor Malloy believes that the way to achieve growth is through raising taxes. In 2011, he signed into law a $1.8 billion tax hike, the biggest in the state’s history. And yet, for some reason, the economy didn’t rebound.

A potential small business owner looking at Connecticut would also note that the state’s unfunded pension liabilities are awful — almost twice (per capita) those of California, which often contests for bottom ranking in most polls.

He will also note that, taken together, the taxes levied on his potential new business are numerous and onerous. There is the individual income tax which used to be 7.5 percent but was raised to 9 percent temporarily in 2009. There is the state’s corporate income tax and the state’s unemployment insurance tax.

He would look at the latest report from the American Legislative Exchange Council, Rich States, Poor States, which ranks all 50 states on both current economic performance and anticipated future performance. On the first list, Connecticut ranks #46, while on the second it ranks #43.

He might ask how present business owners perceive the value they are receiving for the all the taxes they pay. He would learn that “70 percent of [them] believe the value they receive for their tax dollars is extremely low considering the amount they pay in taxes.”

If he hasn’t decided by this point to look elsewhere, a prospective new business owner looking to locate in Connecticut will discover that any amount left behind, after taxes, when he dies, will be taxed again by the state if not looted first in the probate court. According to Forbes, “Connecticut’s probate court system seems to have gained a reputation for loading unnecessary costs on estates and sometimes arbitrarily nullifying wills, a practice that’s hard to distinguish from looting.”

The negative impact of raising the minimum wage on the economy is entirely predictable. When commenting on the anti-economic growth impact of the minimum wage, Professor Murray Rothbard wrote in 1995:

In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum age law: it is compulsory unemployment, period.

The law says it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars per hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence there will be a large amount of unemployment.

Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs: it only outlaws them.

With his latest declaration that raising the minimum wage in Connecticut will cure all ills, lift people out of poverty, and stimulate business, Governor Malloy appears instead to be determined to keep Connecticut at the bottom of the rankings and discourage precisely those people who could in fact do that: new small business owner looking for a place to locate.


Breaks my heart...

MSNBC is in serious trouble


This is the story of MSNBC in a nutshell: It rose to prominence on its criticism of George W. Bush, peaked during Barack Obama's historic 2008 campaign, and, by criticizing Republicans and championing liberal causes, sustained its viewership in the years that followed.

Until now.

MSNBC suffered harder loses in 2013 -- in terms of both viewership and revenue -- than either of its competitors at Fox News and CNN, according to Nielsen data featured in a new Pew Research report. Prime-time viewership declined by a staggering 24 percent (nearly twice the loss sustained by CNN and four-times that sustained by Fox News). Daytime viewership fell by 15 percent, even as it rose at both of the other networks.

On the revenue side, MSNBC was projected to decline by 2 percent, while both CNN and Fox News were projected to experience growth of 2 percent and 5 percent, respectively. MSNBC was expected to bring in $475 million in revenue: less than half what CNN will make and roughly one-quarter of what Fox News will make...

Read the rest here:

Another shooting at a Dollar store in AL, Gunman was taken out by a single bullet from a citizen carrying a gun. The Constitution saves lives!

Obama imposes sanctions against America...

The US Atlantic Coastline Goes On High Alert To Cover Up The Economic Collapse...

"Let’s hope we don’t see this one make a cameo appearance somewhere with “Allahu Akbar” painted on the tail."

Actual photo of Flight 370 clone at Tel Aviv airport:


This was found on This Hebrew forum. It was promptly removed and cannot be found there anymore;(but that does not work with the web, heh.) When translated, other people ridicule the poster for taking a picture in a forbidden area.

The Malaysia airlines logo has been removed from the tail, but the general paint scheme remains.

Let’s hope we don’t see this one make a cameo appearance somewhere with “Allahu Akbar” painted on the tail. I have confirmed that it arrived at Tel Aviv with a blank white tail, which was repainted before it left America.

Plane history: It was first leased by Malaysia airlines. Then purchased by GA Telesis. Then, FIVE FULL YEARS before the absolute MINIMUM life span, was scheduled to be scrapped for parts (makes no sense at all, it could have flown for at least 10 more years), and then for some mysterious reason it showed up in France, only to end up in Tel Aviv. This is where it all gets odd – WHY would it be slated for scrapping in America while still far too new, only to end up in Israel just sitting there? Most probably this plane was indeed purchased for the reason most people suspect and the repainted tail was an inconvenience. WHY pull it from the forum it posted on if this picture was meaningless?



Let me toss out a possible scenario here, one that fits all of the available information.

1. Israel either electronically hijacks Flight MH370, or bribes the pilot to fly the plane off course and wander around being picked up by military radar and seen by witnesses on the ground to make it obvious the plane was diverted and not the victim of a simple crash.

2. Then the real flight 370 is hidden or ditched someplace (like the South Indian Ocean) where it was not supposed to be found.

3. Israel has had an identical 777 in Malaysian livery since last November, plenty of time for any "special" modifications to be made to the plane, including the installation of remote controls and possibly a nuclear weapon.

4. The specific aircraft in Tel Aviv is a Boeing 777-2H6/ER, with an even longer range than the missing MH370 777-200ER.

5. The media keeps the story of MH370 constantly in front of everyone (even though they have nothing new to report) so that the image of a 777 in Malaysian livery is on everyone's mind.

6. Israel flies (by remote control) the second 777 non-stop from Tel Aviv towards an airport in a major US city. Because the plane is very large it is easy to see and recognize from the ground. On approach, the 777 veers off from the flight path and flies low over the target area to make sure it is spotted and recognized (mistakenly) as the missing Flight 370.

7. The Israeli 777 then activates its payload, possibly a nuclear weapon.

8. The corporate media blames Iran for the mushroom cloud. Or, if the 777 flies towards Washington DC, they might even try to frame Russia for it.

The plane does not even have to actually hit a target like DC or New York, but could be "intercepted", detonating the nuclear weapon high in the sky miles out to the Atlantic, making for great photos and videos but causing little real damage on the ground.

Now then, a moment of common sense. Why would Iran DO such a stupid and reckless thing, even if they had a nuclear weapon, knowing that retaliation would be instant and devastating? Why would anyone do such a thing? The answer is that they would not. If this scenario in fact happens, there is no question it is another false-flag attack, like Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, like the Lavon affair, like the attack on the USS Cole, like 9-11, to trick us into hating the designated invasion target.


The Pentagon, The CIA, Vietnam and JFK...

Watch This Reaction: Putin Laughs Right In This Journalist's Face...

This is what the so called revolution in Ukraine is all about...

Western Looting Of Ukraine Has Begun

Paul Craig Roberts

It is now apparent that the “Maiden protests” in Kiev were in actuality a Washington organized coup against the elected democratic government. The purpose of the coup is to put NATO military bases on Ukraine’s border with Russia and to impose an IMF austerity program that serves as cover for Western financial interests to loot the country. The sincere idealistic protesters who took to the streets without being paid were the gullible dupes of the plot to destroy their country.

Politically Ukraine is an untenable aggregation of Ukrainian and Russian territory, because traditional Russian territories were stuck into the borders of the Ukraine Soviet Republic by Lenin and Khrushchev. The Crimea, stuck into Ukraine by Khrushchev, has already departed and rejoined Russia. Unless some autonomy is granted to them, Russian areas in eastern and southern Ukraine might also depart and return to Russia. If the animosity displayed toward the Russian speaking population by the stooge government in Kiev continues, more defections to Russia are likely.

The Washington-imposed coup faces other possible difficulties from what seems to be a growing conflict between the well-organized Right Sector and the Washington-imposed stooges. If armed conflict between these two groups were to occur, Washington might conclude that it needs to send help to its stooges. The appearance of US/NATO troops in Ukraine would create pressure on Putin to occupy the remaining Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

Before the political and geographical issues are settled, the Western looting of Ukraine has already begun. The Western media, doesn’t tell any more truth about IMF “rescue packages” than it does about anything else. The media reports, and many Ukrainians believe, that the IMF is going to rescue Ukraine financially by giving the country billions of dollars.

Ukraine will never see one dollar of the IMF money. What the IMF is going to do is to substitute Ukrainian indebtedness to the IMF for Ukrainian indebtedness to Western banks. The IMF will hand over the money to the Western banks, and the Western banks will reduce Ukraine’s indebtedness by the amount of IMF money. Instead of being indebted to the banks, Ukraine will now be indebted to the IMF.

Now the looting can begin. The IMF loan brings new conditions and imposes austerity on the Ukrainian people so that the Ukraine government can gather up the money with which to repay the IMF. The IMF conditions that will be imposed on the struggling Ukraine population will consist of severe reductions in old-age pensions, in government services, in government employment, and in subsidies for basic consumer purchases such as natural gas. Already low living standards will plummet. In addition, Ukrainian public assets and Ukrainian owned private industries will have to be sold off to Western purchasers.

Additionally, Ukraine will have to float its currency. In a futile effort to protect its currency’s value from being driven very low (and consequently import prices very high) by speculators ganging up on the currency and short-selling it, Ukraine will borrow more money with which to support its currency in the foreign exchange market. Of course, the currency speculators will end up with the borrowed money, leaving Ukraine much deeper in debt than currently.

The corruption involved is legendary, so the direct result of the gullible Maiden protesters will be lower Ukrainian living standards, more corruption, loss of sovereignty over the country’s economic policy, and the transfer of Ukrainian public and private property to Western interests.

If Ukraine also falls into NATO’s clutches, Ukraine will also find itself in a military alliance against Russia and find itself targeted by Russian missiles. This will be a tragedy for Ukraine and Russia as Ukrainians have relatives in Russia and Russians have relatives in Ukraine. The two countries have essentially been one for 200 years. To have them torn apart by Western looting and Washington’s drive for world hegemony is a terrible shame and a great crime.

The gullible dupes who participated in the orchestrated Maiden protests will rue it for the rest of their lives.

When the protests began, I described what the consequences would be and said that I
would explain the looting process. It is not necessary for me to do so. Professor Michel Chossudovsky has explained the IMF looting process along with much history here:

One final word. Despite unequivocal evidence of one country after another being looted by the West, governments of indebted countries continue to sign up for IMF programs. Why do governments of countries continue to agree to the foreign looting of their populations? The only answer is that they are paid. The corruption that is descending upon Ukraine will make the former regime look honest.


Saturday, March 29, 2014

Another False-Flag attack on the way???

US forces on nuclear “false flag” high alert: Duff

Press TV

The United States is on alert and has deployed military assets to defend the Atlantic coastline from New York to Charleston from attack by a cruise type missile or low flying aircraft.

Heightened security measures began with Israel’s increasing threats against Iran but increased with the mysterious disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370.

Sources at the highest levels of the US military and intelligence community cite the possibility of a terror bombing, even using nuclear weapons, most likely to be submarine launched. This is what is being defended against.

However, the plot, we have been informed, was to include a seemingly hijacked airliner which would be blamed on Iranians, as stated by Joel Rosenberg while speaking with Greta van Susteren on Fox News, March 18th. Rosenberg claimed the Iranians hijacked the plane to attack Israel.

The US, however, believes someone other than Iran is planning an attack, on the US, not Israel, and planning to blame Iran.

Yesterday, investigative journalist Chris Bollyn made a startling discovery:

“According to reports from plane-spotters, Israel has an identical Malaysia Airlines
Boeing 777-200 in storage in Tel Aviv since November 2013. The only visible difference between the missing plane and the one in Tel Aviv would be its serial number. What do the Israelis have planned with the twin Malaysia Airlines plane?
By using the twin aircraft they have in storage, the terror masterminds may have a sinister plan for the missing plane to seemingly reappear in a false-flag atrocity. Public awareness of the twin plane in Tel Aviv, therefore, could prevent the evil plot from going ahead.”

After Bollyn’s detailed and well supported story was published, a full scale public relations “counter-offensive” was launched by Tel Aviv.

However, US sources say this effort has backfired, indicating that if an Israeli role in the missing plane had never been considered before, it certainly is now. One highly placed source stated:

“In light of Israeli efforts to get Jonathan Pollard released including overt blackmail, the current ‘bottoming out’ of relations between Israel and the Obama administration have created a very dangerous situation. Israel may well do anything.”


On March 25, 2014, President Obama addressed the Nuclear Security Summit at The Hague, Netherlands. 53 heads of state were in attendance.

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel did not attend. This is the 3rd Nuclear Security Summit that Israel has boycotted thus far.

During the closing press conference, Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had just finished congratulating Iran on its cooperation, lauding the United States for a diplomatic success. Rutte made the following announcement while standing next to President Obama:

“…progress is being made. Take Iran. I spoke with President Rouhani in Davos at the World Economic Forum in January. We have now interim accords. The fact that I was able -- the first Dutch leader in over 30, 40 years who spoke with an Iranian leader, President Rouhani -- was possible because of the interim accords, and it seems that it is holding. America provides leadership there.”

Then President Obama spoke:

“I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan”

Normally such a warning would seem less ominous but these are not “normal times.”


These assets include AWAC (Airborne Warning and Control) aircraft, AEGIS missile defense naval assets and JLENS aerostat mounted cruise missile defense systems.
It isn’t unusual for AEGIS ships to be offshore. It has been a standard procedure to use AEGIS to defend both New York and Washington since the “procedural failures” of NORAD on 9/11. However, AEGIS assets that had previously been assigned to provide the actual capability of Israel’s vaunted “Iron Dome” missile defense system are no longer “on station.”

This move signals one or more of the following strategic policy “adjustments” on the part of the US:

• The threat of a preemptive attack against Israel by Iran is considered nonexistent.
• Withdrawal of “Iron Dome” assets gives the US needed leverage during renewed Palestinian talks
• The US recognizes the dangerous relationship between extremist factions in both Israel and the US capable of actions, including nuclear terrorism that would be to the extreme detriment of both nations


In 2010, Israeli historian, Martin van Creveld, stated that Israel was ready to use nuclear weapons against capitals around the world if “the Jewish State” were threatened.

Creveld, an advocate of Israel’s withdrawal to 1967 borders and a respected educator and pragmatist wasn’t issuing a threat. He may well have been informing the world, in his own way, of a “capability.”

Four days ago, the Israeli Foreign Ministry shut down all embassies around the world on the basis of a pay dispute with a trade union.

While this may well be true, others “less trusting” cite the long-time rumor that Israel has stored nuclear weapons in all her embassies.

“SNM” stands for “Special Nuclear Material.” Nuclear weapons give off, not only high energy photons but SNM is now detectable by satellite based sensors even if stored inside a shielded container.

Sources indicate that “SNM” has been detected at Israeli embassies and consular facilities. There is, in fact, a “war plan” that includes simultaneous assaults on the worldwide embassy/consular facilities of a TBD (To Be Determined) nation in case of “special circumstances.”

Though no specific mention of Israel is made, the infamous “Samson Option,” Israel’s plan to “take down the world” if threatened and the cryptic statements of Creveld come to mind.

Thus, with the mysterious closure of Israeli facilities around the world, facilities conspiracy theorists and perhaps “others” believe may contain “doomsday” nuclear weapons, other factors build a realistic threat mosaic:

• Israel’s wild conspiracy claims of Iran’s role in the Flight 370 hijacking
• US raising DEFCON threat levels to those not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Israel’s increased threats of preemptive attacks on Iran
• Calls by GOP congressman Duncan Hunter and others for a nuclear attack on Iran by the US
• The removal of over 70% of US nuclear weapons command personnel for “misconduct”


Assailed from every side, Israel has had the opportunity to exercise both intelligent restraint and diplomatic capability in response to unprecedented worldwide condemnation.

Yet the choice has been to exercise every imaginable option to, not only increase scorn and isolation but to seem as hostile and irresponsible as possible.
One can only wonder if such policies are intended more to unify Jews behind suicidal Israeli blunders than support a “Jewish state.”


From Mike Rivero


Let me toss out a possible scenario here, one that fits all of the available information.

1. Israel either electronically hijacks Flight MH370, or bribes the pilot to fly the plane off course and wander around being picked up by military radar and seen by witnesses on the ground to make it obvious the plane was diverted and not the victim of a simple crash.

2. Then the real flight 370 is hidden or ditched someplace (like the South Indian Ocean) where it was not supposed to be found.

3. Israel has had an identical 777 in Malaysian livery since last November, plenty of time for any "special" modifications to be made to the plane, including the installation of remote controls and possibly a nuclear weapon.

4. The specific aircraft in Tel Aviv is a Boeing 777-2H6/ER, with an even longer range than the missing MH370 777-200ER.

5. The media keeps the story of MH370 constantly in front of everyone (even though they have nothing new to report) so that the image of a 777 in Malaysian livery is on everyone's mind.

6. Israel flies (by remote control) the second 777 non-stop from Tel Aviv towards an airport in a major US city. Because the plane is very large it is easy to see and recognize from the ground. On approach, the 777 veers off from the flight path and flies low over the target area to make sure it is spotted and recognized (mistakenly) as the missing Flight 370.

7. The Israeli 777 then activates its payload, possibly a nuclear weapon.

8. The corporate media blames Iran for the mushroom cloud. Or, if the 777 flies towards Washington DC, they might even try to frame Russia for it.

The plane does not even have to actually hit a target like DC or New York, but could be "intercepted", detonating the nuclear weapon high in the sky miles out to the Atlantic, making for great photos and videos but causing little real damage on the ground.

Now then, a moment of common sense. Why would Iran DO such a stupid and reckless thing, even if they had a nuclear weapon, knowing that retaliation would be instant and devastating? Why would anyone do such a thing? The answer is that they would not. If this scenario in fact happens, there is no question it is another false-flag attack, like Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, like the Lavon affair, like the attack on the USS Cole, like 9-11, to trick us into hating the designated invasion target.