Gramercy Images News

A Financial Novelty weblog

Archive for the ‘government’ tag

Government Thugs, Terrorists and 93 Treasonous Senators

with one comment

by Szandor Blestman

There is just too much going on to remain still now, isn’t there? Things are getting way too interesting to ignore. I have a little time on the weekends so I thought I’d take the time to write a short commentary on a couple of recent developments. I don’t need to tell you that something is wrong, we all know something is very wrong. The system has failed us. The problem is, those in charge of the system refuse to change the system. They keep failing. They have no new or effective ideas. They also refuse to listen to the grievances of the many. They refuse to be accountable.

It seems that once again the government is showing its true colors. They have but one trick up their sleeve, only one thing they do real well, and it’s not roads. The government is force. It is violence. Government as an organization cannot handle anything without violence or the threat of violence. They are the mob. They are the definition of immorality. It should not be surprising when they become violent. Indeed, it is often surprising when they remain peaceful.

It should be no surprise to anyone that many of the Occupy (fill in the blank) movements have been broken up in a violent fashion by the police. Many of them were likely chomping at the bit to get in there and “knock some heads together.” They’ve been wanting to get in there and show these peaceful protestors what for. This goes to show that it is not the common folk that need to be feared. They are not engaging in mob violence. It is the government agents that use violence, and indeed it is shown time and again that they are usually the ones that initiate the violence.

I really don’t know for sure why this is. It is my conjecture that this is because violent type people are attracted to jobs that will give them free reign to express that violence. They are not going to think about whether what they’re doing is right or wrong. They’re not going to be thinking about the oath they may have taken to the Constitution. They are simply going to obey orders without question. In fact, I believe that those in charge of these organizations purposely recruit people with personality types that are easy to mold into obedient robotic types who don’t mind just following orders.

The police should be protecting the people of the United States, not the politicians. It is at least partially because they have this enforcement arm that the politicians are able to avoid accountability for the mistakes they make. For the most part the politicians control the police and have great influence in terms of the judicial system. It would be a wonderful thing to start seeing the police refuse in mass to carry out orders from their superiors that instruct them to carry out violence against common folk merely trying to voice their legitimate grievances and have them legitimately addressed.

This nation is supposedly engaged in a war on terror. I’m afraid the people of this nation are losing badly. It seems to me that the terrorists have taken over government agencies. I am personally far more terrified of what the government has done and continues to do to destroy our way of life than anything any extremist criminal can do. I know there are many others who share this point of view with me. Government agencies are engaging in violence, not ordinary people. Government agencies use coercion and threats in their interactions with others, not ordinary people on the streets or ordinary businesses on Main Street. The federal government, on the other hand, seems to be winning the war as those in power gather more power to themselves at the cost of individual freedom. It seems to me that anyone who questions the federal government and demands accountability, particularly in a peaceful manner, terrify government officials and can therefore be considered terrorists by said officials.

With the police and the justice system behind them, the senators in Washington, DC have decided they can once again circumvent the US Constitution by passing yet another bill that violates individual rights spelled out in the first ten amendments. Whether or not this bill will become a law is yet to be seen, but judging by the 93 to 7 vote for the bill it would be surprising if the house votes against it. When a bill is passed with such overwhelming numbers one can be fairly certain that there is tremendous pressure being applied by the powers that be who control our congress. This certainly isn’t because of political pressure from the people, many of whom have voiced their concern against this bill. I am talking about S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.

This bill authorizes the entire United States of America to be defined as a war zone due to the war on terror and allows for the indefinite jailing of United States citizens without trial or due process of law. Senators will, of course, argue this point, but as usual the language used in the bill is so ambiguous that it will allow for many different interpretations. It is also understood by many, especially those of us who have had to deal with the justice system in some way or another, that laws are often enforced due to the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. The very fact that there could have been any kind of controversy should invalidate that law and cause it to be rewritten in a more straight forward manner.

In my opinion, this Constitution of this nation was set up to limit the scope of government and should be the supreme law of the land. People who question the authority of government should not be considered terrorists, they should be considered concerned individuals trying to hold elected officials accountable to following the law. It was thrown out long ago. It was well hidden from the public long ago, but it is becoming harder and harder for even the most zealous government worshipper to deny. The limited republic set up by our founding fathers after having fought so hard against a powerful, tyrannical, empirical monarchy has been lost. It is now a fascist, corporate controlled oligarchy because the people have no power to enforce the Constitution.

I don’t believe that speaking out against government or its policies is treason. I don’t believe that pointing out its mistakes and ineptitude is treason. I believe that acting against the best interests of the people of a nation that you are supposed to represent is tantamount to treason. I believe that passing laws that usurp power and suppress the supreme law of the land is treasonous. I believe that a senator should be smart enough to know when a bill is unconstitutional. If we had an enforcement arm that could make sure the supreme law of the land is never violated than the 93 senators who voted for S 1867 could be arrested and put on trial for treason. If we had that kind of power, in my humble opinion, several unconstitutional laws passed in the past decade or so would never have even been introduced, we would still enjoy our individual freedoms, and we would enjoy a much greater sense of security in this nation.

I believe there will be difficult times ahead, but I have confidence we will overcome these hardships and come out better on the other side. The important thing is to remain peaceful, as difficult as that might seem. The important thing is to take care of each other because, god knows, the government is not going to take care of us. Sometimes it seems to me that the government wants to eliminate us. Mankind is striving to improve itself and will not be denied. Keep envisioning peaceful change. Keep refusing to engage in violent behavior. The ordinary people hold the moral high ground. The promise of freedom that this nation was built upon has yet to be fully realized. I’d like to think that it is our destiny to achieve a society that provides the liberty we deserve and our forefathers fought to obtain.

My archived articles are available at Please visit there and make a donation to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled “The Ouijiers” by Matthew Wayne.

There is just too much going on to remain still now, isn’t there? Things are getting way too interesting to ignore. I have a little time on the weekends so I thought I’d take the time to write a short commentary on a couple of recent developments. I don’t need to tell you that something is wrong, we all know something is very wrong. The system has failed us. The problem is, those in charge of the system refuse to change the system. They keep failing. They have no new or effective ideas. They also refuse to listen to the grievances of the many. They refuse to be accountable.

Government Thugs, Terrorists and 93 Treasonous Senators

[We Are the Watchers]

‘Young Turks’ Host Cenk Uygur Explains Hidden Traps of Online Piracy Act

without comments

I don’t think many people are seeing a MAJOR loophole in this. Government finds site they don’t like say wiki leaks, Government comments on site with link to a site with pirated content, Government legally gets rid of site. With this bill ANY site the government doesn’t like or the top corporations don’t like can be wiped off of the internet legally allowing the government to stop the spread of information they don’t like or for corporations to make themselves the only companies on the internet.


<a href=""><img src="" alt="Play" style="border:0px;" /></a>

Scary Facts About Stop Online Piracy Act

[Unhypnotize Forum]

Written by testudoetlepus

December 1st, 2011 at 5:38 pm

Treason From Within

without comments

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

– Cicero, 42 B.C.E.”

[Apocalypse Wave. Having a Blast At The End Of The World.]

| Gramercy Images |

Life After An EMP Attack

without comments

Most Americans do not know this, but a single EMP attack could potentially wipe out most of the electronics in the United States and instantly send this nation back to the 1800s.  If a nuclear bomb was exploded high enough in the atmosphere over the middle part of the country, the electromagnetic pulse would fry electronic devices from coast to coast.  The damage would be millions of times worse than 9/11.  Just imagine a world where nobody has power, most cars will not start, the Internet has been fried, the financial system is offline indefinitely, nobody can make any phone calls and virtually all commerce across the entire country is brought to a complete stop.  A nation that does not know how to live without technology would be almost entirely stripped of it at that point.  Yes, this could really happen.  An EMP attack is America’s “Achilles heel”, and everyone around the world knows it.  It is only a matter of time before someone uses an EMP weapon against us, and at this point we are pretty much completely unprepared.

The sad thing is that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars hunting down “terrorists” in caves on the other side of the globe and we have been told that because of “national security” it is necessary for our private areas to be touched before we are allowed to get on an airplane, but our government is doing essentially nothing to address what is perhaps our biggest security vulnerability.

What would you and your neighbors do if the power went out and it did not ever come back on?

What would you do if an EMP attack happened in the middle of the winter and you suddenly were not able to heat your home any longer?

What would you do if all the electronics in your car got fried and you simply could not drive anywhere?

What would you do if all the supermarkets in your area shut down because food could not be transported across the country anymore?

What would you do if you were suddenly unable to call your family and friends for help?

What would you do if you were suddenly unable to get the medicine that you needed?

What would you do if your debit cards and credit cards simply did not work any longer and you could not get any of your money out of the bank?

What would you do if all of these things happened all at once?

A single EMP attack would be the worst disaster that the United States has ever seen by far.

An electromagnetic pulse could potentially fry the vast majority of all the microchips in the United States.  In an instant, nearly all of our electronic devices would be rendered useless.

Yes, the federal government knows all about this.  The following excerpt is from an April 2008 report by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack….

“The consequences of lack of food, heat (or air conditioning), water, waste disposal, medical, police, fire fighting support, and effective civil authority would threaten society itself.”

Most of us have become completely and totally dependent on electricity and technology.  Without it, most of us would be in huge trouble.

The following is how an article in the Wall Street Journal described the potential consequences of an EMP attack….

No American would necessarily die in the initial attack, but what comes next is potentially catastrophic. The pulse would wipe out most electronics and telecommunications, including the power grid. Millions could die for want of modern medical care or even of starvation since farmers wouldn’t be able to harvest crops and distributors wouldn’t be able to get food to supermarkets. Commissioner Lowell Wood calls EMP attack a “giant continental time machine” that would move us back more than a century in technology to the late 1800s.

It wouldn’t be so bad if we had the knowledge and the infrastructure to live the way that they did back in the 1800s, but today that is simply not the case.

Dr. William Graham was Ronald Reagan’s science adviser and the chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack.  Dr. Graham believes that in the event of a large scale EMP attack, the vast majority of Americans would either freeze, starve or die from disease.

According to Graham, in the aftermath of an EMP attack life in America “would probably be something that you might imagine life to be like around the late 1800s but with several times the population we had in those days, and without the ability of the country to support and sustain all those people.”

Would you be able to survive?

All of those big bank accounts may never be able to be recovered after an EMP attack.  Your money might be instantly fried out of existence.

The following is what Graham believes would happen to the financial system in the event of an EMP attack….

“Most financial records are stored electronically. ATMs, which depend upon both power and telecommunications, would not be available; banks, which try to back up records but in general aren’t strongly aware of the EMP problem, would face the problem of unprotected storage and computer systems”

This is the danger of having a financial system that is so dependent on technology.  We may wake up one day and find that all the money is gone.

But if an EMP attack actually happened, the biggest concern for most of us would be trying to figure out how to survive.

The president of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, is convinced that a single EMP attack could result in the deaths of the vast majority of the population of the United States….

“Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead, because we can’t support a population of the present size in urban centers and the like without electricity”

Are you starting to get a feel for the scope of the problem?

The sad thing is that so much could be done to protect this country from an EMP attack.

Right now, most vital U.S. military infrastructure has at least some protection from an EMP attack.

But the general population has been left completely and totally vulnerable.

It has been estimated that the entire power grid could potentially be protected for about 20 billion dollars.  Considering the fact that we have spent over 400 billion dollars in Afghanistan, I think that we could afford it.

We have spent our national security dollars very, very badly and someday it is going to come back to bite us in the rear end.

Right now, other nations around the world are working feverishly to develop EMP weapons.  The following is from a statement by Dr. Peter Vincent Pry to the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on March 8th, 2005….

Russian and Chinese military scientists in open source writings describe the basic principles of nuclear weapons designed specifically to generate an enhanced-EMP effect, that they term “Super-EMP” weapons. “Super-EMP” weapons, according to these foreign open source writings, can destroy even the best protected U.S. military and civilian electronic systems.

But it is not just Russia and China that have been developing “Super-EMP” weapons.  According to Newsmax, it is believed that North Korea may have tested a “Super-EMP” weapon back in 2009….

North Korea’s last round of tests, conducted in May 2009, appear to have included a “super-EMP” weapon, capable of emitting enough gamma rays to disable the electric power grid across most of the lower 48 states

Remember, all it would take is one strategically placed EMP attack to wipe out this nation.

But an EMP weapon is not the only danger that can produce this type of effect.  The truth is that a really bad geomagnetic storm could also potentially produce almost as much damage.

This is something that everyone knows is one of our biggest vulnerabilities and it is something that we can make preparations for.

Yet the Bush administration and the Obama administration have just stood there and have done nothing.

Our idiocy is astounding.

General Eugene Habiger, the former head of U. S. Strategic Command, has said the following about the possibility of an EMP attack in the future….

“It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.”

Remember, this is something that could cause millions times more damage than 9/11 did.

Instead of molesting old ladies at airports and chasing goat herders around the mountains of Afghanistan, perhaps we should be addressing our largest security vulnerabilities.

But that would require using some common sense.  Sadly, common sense seems to be in very short supply in Washington D.C. these days.

So if the government is not going to do anything about it, that means that it is up to you to prepare yourself and your family.  This world is becoming very unstable and disasters can strike at any time.

We all saw what happened after Hurricane Katrina.  The government response was a nightmare.  An EMP attack would be millions of times worse and the federal government probably would not even be able to get you and your family any assistance.

You would truly be on your own.

So are you ready?

This is yet another reason why the number of preppers in the United States is exploding.  A lot of people can see how the world is changing and they understand that the federal government is not going to come through for them when the chips are down.

An EMP attack could end life as we know it at any time.

It is a glaring security vulnerability and the entire world knows that it is there.

I hope that you are getting ready, because the government certainly is not.


Life After An EMP Attack: No Power, No Food, No Transportation, No Banking And No Internet

[The American Dream]

Written by testudoetlepus

September 20th, 2011 at 4:43 pm

Japanese Media Blackout of Words: MOX, Plutonium, and Meltdown

without comments

David McNeill: Who’s telling the truth on the Fukushima meltdown?, CNN …

MOX * Plutonium * Meltdown

One of the more striking aspects of the local media coverage of Fukushima was the missing word — “meltdown.” It seemed reasonable to speculate, from March 11-15, that this is precisely what happened. One reason was the repeated news of cesium dispersed in the atmosphere on March 12. […]

“There was a blackout in the media of the word,” he says in an interview this month with the Foreign Correspondents’ Club magazine, “No.1 Shimbun.” In April the head of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Takashi Sawada, also said that fuel rods in reactors 1 and 3 had melted. Yet, it took over two months for newspapers and TV here to begin using the word. […]

We might also cite the example of MOX fuel and plutonium, a substance so toxic “that a teaspoon-sized cube of it would suffice to kill 10 million people,” in Reactor 3 at Fukushima.

Newspaper and TV reports in Japan essentially banished the words from their reports

Japanese media blackout of words: MOX, plutonium, and meltdown

[Energy News]

Written by testudoetlepus

June 15th, 2011 at 3:35 pm

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

without comments

Preface: This handy set of rules covers most of the games which disinformation artists play on the Internet (and offline). When you know the tricks, you’ll be able to spot the games. Even if you’ve read this list before, you might be surprised at how useful it is to brush up on these tricks.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Postscript: I don’t know who wrote these rules, so I don’t know who to credit.


[Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation]


Written by testudoetlepus

May 25th, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Japanese Government Finally Divulges What It Has Been Hiding: SPEEDI Radiation Simulations from March 12

without comments

(UPDATE) The earliest simulation was done at 4:00PM on March 11, assuming the leak of radioactive materials started at 4:00PM. (To see the simulation, go to the bottom of the post.)

Now, after more than 50 days and after so much contamination of soil, water, air and ocean with radioactive iodine, cesium, strontium, plutonium, americium, curium, among other yet to be disclosed nuclides that have exposed the residents in Japan to heightened internal and external radiations, the Japanese government simply dumps the SPEEDI simulation data on the Ministry of Education’s website.

What is, really, the point of telling us now? To say… what? They’re sorry that they didn’t tell you about the simulation when the radioactive materials were coming at 10,000 terabecquerels/hour and they knew it but were afraid people would freak out? I suppose the people in the administration and in the government would rather have a significant increase in cancer and other illnesses several decades down the line, because by that time they may be no longer in the government or no longer in this world.

The SPEEDI simulation data is here (in Japanese only):

The earliest simulation that has been disclosed at the site is the simulation done on March 12 for the period from 3:00AM March 12 to 3:00AM March 13. The simulation assumed the accident of the Reactor 1. At 2:48AM on March 12, the pressure inside the Pressure Vessel of the Reactor 1 rose significantly, so whoever was in charge of SPEEDI did conduct a simulation assuming the Reactor 1 would blow. Looking at the simulation, it is clear that they assumed the wind direction to be offshore (west by northwest), and most of the radioactive materials would blow over the Pacific Ocean.

However, by the next simulation for 10:00AM to 8:00PM on March 12, the prevailing wind direction forecast shifted over time from northwest to east by southeast to south, resulting in the simulation that forecasts wide dispersion of radioactive iodine inland. The simulation chart below is the internal radiation exposure at the thyroid gland of a 1-year old by inhaling radioactive iodine:

After the Reactor 1 blew up, they even created the simulation for wider area, which shows they predicted the rapid expansion of the radioactive materials well north of Minami-Soma City and reaching Soma City (0ver 40 kilometers away from Fukushima I Nuke Plant), on a prevailing strong wind from the south. This is the simulation chart for the air radiation level, from 6:00PM to 8:00PM on March 12:

Prompt disclosure of such simulations could have made a huge difference. If the initial simulation when the pressure got high in the Reactor 1 of Fukushima I Nuke Plant had been disclosed, then the people in the immediate vicinity of the plant could have evacuated in a more orderly way instead of in a panic after the Reactor 1 blew up.

Professor Toshiso Kosako, who quit the job as the PM’s special advisor in protest of the government response to the Fukushima I accident, said in his resignation statement that there was another program called WSPEEDI, which can cover much wider area (“several thousand kilometers”, according to Professor Kosako). WSPEEDI can probably cover the entire Japan (except for outlying islands).

The Japanese government is still sitting on WSPEEDI simulations, if any exists as Professor Kosako says.


THE EARLIEST SIMULATION DONE WAS AT 4:00PM ON MARCH 11, and that simulation is posted at the Nuclear Safety Agency’s site, not at Ministry of Education site. It assumes a minor accident (because they only forecast noble gas to spread) at the Reactor 1. The simulation chart is the air radiation level from 4:00 PM to 5:00PM on March 11:

Japanese Government Finally Divulges What It Has Been Hiding: SPEEDI Radiation Simulations from March 12


Written by testudoetlepus

May 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm

A Preemptive Strike by Sunstein?

without comments

A Preemptive Strike by Sunstein? Open Thread

© Miri WTPOTUS 2011

A scholarly paper published January 15, 2008, by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of Harvard Law School, addresses “conspiracy theories” and what governments can do about them. One might be forgiven for wondering why “governments” should think that they ought to do anything about them. Or perhaps I should say, why someone who now works in OUR government thinks the government should do anything about what free people think. This is, after all, the United States of America, founded upon the idea of freedom of speech, and by implication, of thoughts and beliefs, no matter how esoteric or wild. However, Sunstein and his co-author write,

Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law.

This, presumably, is their justification for believing that sometimes a government must intervene.

Considering that “birthers” were nearly immediately labeled ”conspiracy theorists” by Obama supporters, members of his campaign (later his administration), and most of the mainstream media, and considering that they were (and are) derided, in Alinsky fashion, as mentally impaired beings, it might be instructive to ask whether Sunstein’s goal with this paper was to advise how to counter conspiracy theories promulgated by Islamic terrorists overseas or whether Sunstein’s goal was to launch a preemptive strike against those who might, very shortly, question whether or not presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama II is a natural born citizen of the United States, as his admittedly fictional autobiography suggests.

(An aside: The analysis linked in my previous sentence, itself links to a 2008 NY Times story by Janny Scott, who is currently in the news as the author of a new book about Obama’s (alleged) mother, which was previewed recently in NY Times magazine and discussed in Business Insider. You may want to read both of Janny’s articles to compare and contrast, and for perspective on the likelihood that the new book from this Obama apologist will differ in tone and accuracy from her older Obama book review. Look for a quote by Cass Sunstein on page 3 of the book review.)

Sunstein and Vermeule define a conspiracy theory as

an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.

While taking care to state that conspiracy theories that are supported in fact, meaning that there truly IS a conspiracy, shouldn’t be “undermined,” they warn that

… the mechanisms that account for conspiracy theories overlap with those that account for false and dangerous beliefs of all sorts, including those that fuel anger and hatred.

Now consider the labels that have been put on Tea Partiers by politicians, Obama supporters, and many in the media who falsely call Tea Partiers violent, racist, even potential domestic terrorists. Consider also those who argue that if Obama, the first (alleged) “black” president, should be proved ineligible, then we may have riots the streets, such as we saw after the murder of MLK. Keeping these considerations in mind, now imagine the possibility that this administration might justify taking action against “conspiracy theorists” because “false and dangerous beliefs” could “fuel anger and hatred.”

One particularly interesting contention these authors make, in light of the extreme lack of objectivity currently displayed by our mainstream media when they cover Barack Hussein Obama II [emphasis added]:

In a closed society, secrets are not difficult to keep, and distrust of official accounts makes a great deal of sense. In such societies, conspiracy theories are both more likely to be true and harder to show to be false in light of available information. But when the press is free, and when checks and balances are in force, government cannot easily keep its conspiracies hidden for long. … Much depends on the background state of knowledge producing institutions. If those institutions are generally trustworthy, in part because they are embedded in an open society with a well-functioning marketplace of ideas and free flow of information, then conspiracy theories will generally (which is not to say always) be unjustified. On the other hand, individuals in societies with systematically malfunctioning or skewed institutions of knowledge – say, individuals who live in an authoritarian regime lacking a free press – may have good reason to distrust all or most of the official denials they hear.

Ask yourself whether we still have a free and open press, an objective press that is trustworthy and not skewed, a press with checks and balances. We the People “have good reason to distrust.”

These are Sunstein and Vermeule’s suggestions for “possible” governmental responses to “conspiracy theories” [emphasis added]:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses:

(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.

(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.

(5 Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.

Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.

However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

My admittedly kneejerk responses to these alternatives:

(1) Ban conspiracy theories? Not possible in the US, at least not yet. How would this be accomplished? Censorship of the media and the Internet? Orwellian thought control? Speech control? Mind control?

(2) Tax those who promulgate conspiracy theories? Can you imagine? This is a twofer for Marxist, thought-control Nazis–TAX them into submission while you make them submit!

(3) Counterspeech. Okay, if you grant that the government even has the Constitutional authority to spend the taxpayers money to combat “conspiracy theories”, then this might pass muster because at least it doesn’t infringe upon OUR free speech, free thought, or free beliefs (with an emphasis on “free”, meaning not subject to taxation). Counterspeech is what the Founders envisioned, when they wrote the Constitution. A marketplace of ideas, although I doubt any of them ever considered that our government might use our money to counter our own speech.

(4) Hire “credible private parties” to provide the counterspeech? Ponder this one, peeps. Are We the People paying for the asshats (h/t Pam Geller) at FactCheck, Media Matters, and obot war-rooms, where bogus bloggers set out to use Alinsky tactics against us–we who want only for our candidates to prove eligibility, under the Constitution, to serve us, not to rule us, as POTUS? Is our government, is this administration, already taking Sunstein’s suggestions to heart? How do we find out if we are paying for this astroturfed “counterspeech”, which has been so readily apparent to all of us since 2008?

(5) Informal communication with “credible private parties” to ask them to “help?” Can you say, Journo-list? Paid for by We the People? In this country, the government is (or is supposed to be) The People, which means that if taxpayer dollars are going towards such efforts, then we are paying for governmental attacks against ourselves! Again, how do we find out?

Sunstein and his co-author present this scenario:

If Albert and Barbara say that the CIA was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, Cynthia might not contradict them publicly and might even appear to share their judgment — not because she believes that judgment to be correct, but because she does not want to face their hostility or lose their good opinion.

This is what Obama’s true believers try to accomplish when they label and denigrate anyone who merely wants Obama to prove his eligibility. They call them “birthers”, ridicule them, call them kooks, mentally challenged, ignorant. Or worse–racist bigots. Hostility? You better believe it.

Here’s an amazing suggestion, straight from these authors:

Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action. … In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities.

Yes, they might, and they may already have. Have you ever suspected, over the past few years, that this happens right now? Some bloggers believe that they have proof that this indeed occurs, because they have traced the IP#’s of commenters to government agencies and government computers.

Reading between the lines of Sunstein’s research paper, I believe it’s “justified” to ask whether the Obama administration took Sunstein’s “main policy idea” and put it into practice. If so, then We the People may likely pay for bureaucrats to engage in “counterspeech and marshall arguments” against us. We may pay, directly or indirectly, for ”credible private parties to engage in counterspeech” (FactCheck, Media Matters, Snopes, public relations firms, progressive operatives who appear on CNN, FOX, CNBC, MSNBC and call into talk radio show, minions who write op-eds and letters to the editor, or “obots” who comment on blogs). Or we may merely pay for ”informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to “help.” Did we pay for the secret meetings wherein someone organized media groups like Journo-list? We certainly paid for those organizing phone conferences between administration staffers and the NEA, which aimed to recruit artists to “help” promote the Obama agenda.

According to Wikipedia, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs , which is currently headed by none other than Cass Sunstein, “develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in the areas of information technology, information policy, privacy, and statistical policy.”

Could the policies Sunstein develops and oversees in the area of “information policy” include developing policies for debunking “conspiracy theories”? If so, it’s PROPAGANDA. Where in the U.S. Constitution is our government authorized to use taxpayer money to engage in PROPAGANDA against the people of this country?

But ARE they using our money? How do We the People find out whether or not our tax dollars are being spent against us? There has already been at least one example of this administration issuing a contract “for the development of Persona Management Software which would help the usercreate and manage a variety of distinct fake profiles online [emphasis added].” While this is software intended for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, who can assure us that, once developed, it won’t be used within the United States as well?

What say you? This is an open thread, so feel free to add your two cents about this subject or anything else on your mind.

h/t CanaGuy at Free Republic, who recently reminded me of this paper by Sunstein. We’ve written about or commented about Sunstein often, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for example. While Sunstein’s research paper has been analyzed on other blogs, as well as here, I thought it worth discussing yet again, because of what’s happened to Tea Partiers and so-called “birthers” at the hands of the complicit media and Obama’s supporters.

A Preemptive Strike by Sunstein? Open Thread

[We the People of the United States]

“The Government Doesn’t Care If You’re Going To Have A Few Extra Cases of Cancer”

without comments

Citizen Monitors Keep A Wary Eye On Radiation And Government, Forbes blog of Jeff McMahon, April 20, 2011:

… [Don] Curry, 72, works for the Desert Research Institute’s Community Environmental Monitoring Program [recording data and collecting air filters], …

Scientists from the Desert Research Institute, an arm of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, analyze the filters and data…

The Department of Energy funds the program, but Curry can vouch for the numerical data because he collects it himself. …

“The government doesn’t care if you’re going to have a few extra cases of cancer,” Curry said. “It’s like they’re saying, ‘We’re going to take that hill—we’re going to have 50 percent casualties, but get your butt up that hill.’” …

Read the report here.

See the Community Environmental Monitoring Program’s Preliminary Air Sampling Results here.

CEMP Contact Page:

U.S. Department of Energy
Nevada Operations Office
Office of Public Affairs and Information
P.O. Box 98518
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518
Phone (702) 295-3521
Fax (702) 295-0154


Desert Research Institute
755 East Flamingo Road
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Phone (702) 862-5419
Fax (702) 862-5326

“The government doesn’t care if you’re going to have a few extra cases of cancer” says worker for monitoring program funded by US Dept. of Energy

[Energy News]

Written by testudoetlepus

April 20th, 2011 at 9:22 pm

Bernie Madoff Would Like A Little Credit For All Of His Non-Ponzi Achievements In Life

without comments

Bernie Madoff recently called New York reporter Steve Fishman collect, from prison. Berns had rebuffed Fishman’s previous attempts to chat but apparently had been feeling like there were a few things he wanted to get off his chest and in print, for all the haters to see. Lately, you see, the Ponzi Master is feeling a bit misunderstood. Angry. Cheated. He takes the blame for what he did (though he thinks the banks that enabled him should take a little themselves) and admits that Ruth is pretty ticked off with him of late. That’s not what’s getting his goat though. What he’s feeling miffed about these days is the fact that okay, yes, he ran a multi-billion dollar scam that had some pretty serious consequences. Fine. But what about all those years he was doing things by the book? People rightfully thought he was pretty great then but do we ever hear about that? No! All we hear is monster this and criminal that. What gives?

“Does anybody want to hear that I had a successful business and did all these wonderful things for the industry?” Bernie continued. “And got all these awards? And so did my family? I did all of this during the legitimate years. No. You don’t read any of that.”

I mean really! It’s incredible; funny, really, if you think about it, how running a $67 billion Ponzi scheme and ruining thousands of lives (millions if you count all Mets fans) will really make people forget about what a great guy you were. It’s like, what the hell? No one talks anymore about how Mussolini made the trains run or time, or about how Hitler built those wonderful autobahns, or about how at one time, Institutional Investor thought Berns was, I don’t want to say a hero, but okay, fine, a hero. No, it’s all the other stuff.

An Interview With Bernie Madoff [NYM]

Bernie Madoff Would Like A Little Credit For All Of His Non-Ponzi Achievements In Life


Written by testudoetlepus

February 28th, 2011 at 6:56 pm