Daily Archives: April 16, 2007

Racist German army simulates blacks for target practice

AP | Apr 15, 2007

Of course, such racism is the worst kind of stupidity and evil, but in case you missed the real point here, they are training their soldiers to come over here to the US to be EU/UN “peacekeepers” and we should ALL be upset about that. That is the whole reason for this type of training, to get the European “Rapid Reaction” troops ready to pounce on America once the New World Order is in full swing, to enforce the global government system.

If you don’t like it, then stop supporting any aspect of the New World Order, period. That includes the Perpetual War, the torture, the CFR and UN globalism, the surveillance society, the cashless society, the National ID (global actually), biometrics, FEMA camps, gun control, the North American Union (SPP), the open borders, the GM crops, water fluoridation, the electronic voting machines, exporting jobs and manufacturing abroad, the child-takeover, the toxic vaccines, the microchip implants and the horrid list just goes on and on and on.

What needs to happen in America is simply this: abandon identification with political parties and race, identify yourself as a patritotic American who believes in and will defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights against all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC. Open your eyes and ears to the truth and free yourself from the Right/Left paradigm. Then, the way to really get to the root of it all is to expose 9/11 as an inside job, ordered by the globalist international elite aristocracy as a pretext to get all the above into place. If you don’t understand this fundamental fact, then you don’t understand anything.

PW

Al Sharpton said he was outraged that Germans were “depicting blacks as target practice.”

A German army instructor ordered a soldier to envision himself in New York City facing hostile blacks while firing his machine gun, a video that aired Saturday on national television showed.

The president of the Bronx, the New York City borough that the army instructor referred to in his directions to the soldier, demanded an apology from the German military and said the clip “indicates that bias and assumptions and racism is alive and well around the world.”

Coming after scandals involving photos of German soldiers posing with skulls in Afghanistan and the abuse of recruits by instructors, the video seemed likely to raise more questions about training practices in Germany’s conscript army.

The Defense Ministry said the video was shot in July 2006 at barracks in the northern town of Rendsburg and that the army has been aware of it since January.

“We are currently investigating the incident,” said Florian Naggies, a spokesman for the army and Defense Ministry.

He did not identify the instructor or the soldier.

The clip shows an instructor and a soldier in camouflage uniforms in a forest. The instructor tells the soldier, “You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother in the worst ways. … Act.”

The soldier fires his machine gun several times and yells an obscenity several times in English. The instructor then tells the soldier to curse even louder.

In New York, Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. said whoever was responsible for the video should be disciplined.

“We need to put to rest the prejudices and the hate that is allowed … to be perpetuated so easily and cheaply,” said Carrion, who is of Puerto Rican descent.

“The German government obviously has work to do to correct something that is insidious … Clearly these folks don’t know anything about African Americans or the Bronx,” he said.

Carrion, who just returned from a trip to Germany to promote Bronx tourism, said he would be willing to go back to talk to people in the German military about his borough.

“If we can get a delegation of German military officials to come or government officials, I will host them,” he added. “I’ll take them around the Bronx.”

The Rev. Al Sharpton said he was outraged that Germans were “depicting blacks as target practice.”

Professor: Bashing Bush Got Me on Watch List; Suggests NSA Might Have Taken Him Off

blog.wired.com | Apr 10, 2007

On Monday, Professor Mark Graber, a contributor to the Balkin legal blog, posted a first person account from Professor Walter F. Murphy, a distinguished emeritus Princeton professor of Constitutional law, who was initially denied a boarding pass when trying to fly in March and was told by an airline employee that he was likely on a Transportation Security Administration watch list due to having criticized the administration. I questioned the conclusion that he was actually on a list and then spoke with both American Airlines and the TSA.

In an interview Tuesday, Professor Murphy discusses what happened, his anger at being told that an Administration headed by draft avoiders considers him a threat, and the possibility that he was quickly removed from the watch list because the NSA overheard his phone calls complaining about his situation.

Murphy flew from his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico on March 1 to start a trip to Princeton, New Jersey, but when he tried to check-in curbside, he was told he couldn’t.

When I asked the curbside attendant why, he said, “You cant have a boarding pass.” I had tried to do this online but thought I must have hit the wrong key or something.

“You are on the terrorist watch list so you have to go inside and talk to a clerk,” he said.

The airline clerk was very polite, and I gave him my Marine I.D., and he looked at that and said, “Let me see what I can do. Do you mind if I take this to the TSA agent.”

One of them, I don’t remember which one, asked me, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying for that.”  I said “No, but I did give a speech criticizing George Bush,” and he said, “That will do it.”

10 minutes later, which felt like ten years, he came back and I was given a boarding pass.

One of the two said they [TSA] will ransack my luggage. I have no problem with people going through the luggage; I have to be on that plane too.  I don’t like all the security but I know it is necessary.

Being told he was on a government watch list infuriated Murphy, and while on his trip, he told many people about it in conversation, but waited more than a month to publicize it.

I waited to go public until I could chuckle at the irony because I was furious and I didn’t want to explode.

I’m outraged, When my war came up I didn’t turn away. I went to war [ed. note: the Korean War] and was wounded and won the Bronze Star and to be accused of being disloyal by people who artfully dodged fighting their generation’s war…

I can respect conscientious dissenters to the Vietnam War, but neither Bush nor Cheney though the war was unjust, I don’t know how to describe the feeling. Kafka would have loved this scenario.

How to Get Off a Government Watch List

Wired | Apr 16, 2007 

If you aren’t a Senator who can call up the head of Homeland Security, or a high-powered nun whose boss who can ring up Karl Rove, working free from government watch lists will be a tedious and not-very transparent process.

The first rule for most people in getting off a watch list is to accept that you are not on a list.

Most likely, if you are being singled out at the airport for extra scrutiny, or your credit report says you might match a Treasury list, you are the victim of a bad matching algorithm or a vague watch-list entry for some other person.

For instance, men named Robert Johnson across the country have been logging extra hours at airports because there’s no way for the airlines to know, without an I.D. check, which Robert Johnson is the one the government is looking for.

The signs you are being snagged by a watch list include the repeated inability to print out a boarding pass at home or through a kiosk; being pulled aside repeatedly for extra questioning and scrutiny of your luggage; not being able to open a bank account or get a mortgage, despite fine credit.

If you only occasionally get an SSSS on your boarding pass, you likely aren’t on a watch list — you’ve just been elected for random screening, or for buying a one-way ticket. (Real Americans fly roundtrip.)

Once you think you are either on, or the collateral damage of, a watch list, you need to figure out which one got you.

If your problem is domestic- or international-travel-related, you can try the Department of Homeland Security’s new online redress system, called the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, reintroduced in February. (The old one was so badly designed that Congress opened an investigation). After filling out the form with details, a stymied traveler will need to submit copies of identification documents. You can file online, or submit a version by fax, mail or e-mail.

If DHS determines your name is matching incorrectly to a watch-list entry, it may add you to a white list that gets you through airport security without the extra scrutiny.

If you’re attempting to shake free of a list you are actually on, it can only be done by the agency that put you on the list in the first place. DHS may forward your complaint to the Terrorist Screening Center, which runs the master watch list, but the department won’t tell you which agency blacklisted you.

DHS spokesman Darrin Kayser says the new system demonstrates the government’s determination to stop inconveniencing Americans.

“The program exhibits our commitment to an efficient and safe travel experience by offering a seamless redress policy that differentiates between legitimate travelers and those who wish to do us harm,” Kayser said.

If you find you can’t get a credit card or a mortgage or an apartment lease, you can get a copy of your credit report from AnnualCreditReport.com (you’re entitled to a free copy from each of the three major credit bureaus once a year). Look to see if there is an OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) alert on the report. If there is, and you’re not actually on the list — which is public — contact the credit bureau, the Fair Trade Commission, advocacy groups and the media. There’s no clear legal recourse, but shame can work wonders with big companies.

Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise says individuals on the OFAC list can challenge the designation, and that OFAC offers detailed guidance on how companies can comply with the list.

“OFAC has and will continue to work with credit bureaus and reporting agencies to help them ensure the accuracy of their reporting on the OFAC list,” Millerwise said in an e-mail. “We’re actively thinking about ways to help them improve their processes.”

If you’re on one of the secret government watch lists, the feds say you have to find the agency that nominated you to the list, and appeal through that agency’s ombudsman, privacy officer or Inspector General. The Terrorist Screening Center maintains the master “unified terrorist watch list” (which you can’t see), but says it is only the keeper, not the creator, of the list. Nevertheless, in 2005 the center removed 31 entries, based on complaints forwarded to it by watch-list-using agencies, according to a recent Congressional report.

For foreigners having a tough time getting a visa, such as Abbas Kiarostami, an Iranian director widely considered to be the world’s greatest living filmmaker … good luck. Redress rules do not apply.

U.S. Watch Lists Sow Frustration and Fear

Wired | Apr 16, 2007
 
‘Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying for that.’

For years, Elizabeth Kushigian never had a problem flying back-and-forth to Costa Rica, where she runs a local micro-lending nonprofit. But in 2004, she suddenly found it impossible to re-enter the United States without being ordered into a special isolation room at Miami International Airport. There, she’d wait for extra scrutiny.

“I was in the line where you come in and stamp your passport, and each time they would scan the passport and look at (the) screen and stiffen,” Kushigian says. “I was on some sort of list. I don’t know why; it could have been because of something I did in the ’60s and in the early 1980s, I did some civil disobedience on behalf of El Salvador.”

Kushigian is just a member of a growing club of American citizens whose lives have been touched by a slew of government watch lists proliferating with little oversight or redress mechanisms since the 9/11 attacks.

Containing, by some estimates, hundreds of thousands of names submitted by dozens of agencies, the lists have not only snagged people like Kushigian — who wind up on them for mysterious reasons — they’ve also stigmatized and inconvenienced thousands of others whose names happen to be similar to an entry on the list.

The issue returned to national debate last week after one of the nation’s most respected constitutional law professors was told by an airline official that he’d been placed on a watch list for his criticism of the president, a claim that U.S. officials deny.

Kushigian’s hassles at the airport ranged from minor delays to full-blown interrogations. The second time she was pulled aside at the border, officials with the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement demanded to know how she could afford to travel on her salary. When she explained that she’d inherited money from her father, they peppered her with questions about what his factory used to make, and what charities he donated to.

“It was unnerving sitting in that little room even for a short period of time, Kushigian says. “You get a sense of what people who are not senators and not citizens go through.”

Kushigian tried to figure out why she’d been targeted by filing a Freedom of Information Act request, but learned nothing. Then she turned to her elected representatives in Massachusetts, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, who himself was famously fingered by a watch list in 2004. Eventually Kennedy’s office sent along a letter signed by the head of Immigration and Customs, which said in part: “With respect to Mrs. Kushigian’s specific situation, we are pleased to report that action has been taken in order that she not be subjected to automatic special attention when arriving at U.S. Ports-of-Entry.”

Kushigian was one of the lucky ones: Winning even a tacit acknowledgement that she was on a list is a rare victory over the federal homeland security bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of travelers have applied to get help from the Transportation Security Administration, which now has three lists: a no-fly list of persons considered too dangerous to be allowed on a plane or cruise ship; a selectee list of people who must undergo extra screening to fly; and a white list of persons who have names similar to those on the other lists, but who are not threats.

The last publicly reported tally of the no-fly and selectee lists in October 2006 put the combined number of names at 119,000. The current number is a closely guarded secret, but Homeland Security officials announced earlier this year that it cut the no-fly list in half after hand-reviewing the names, which are submitted by a hodgepodge of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Despite that, last month constitutional scholar Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Princeton University, found himself unable to check in curbside at a New Mexico airport. A check-in clerk with American Airlines told him it was because he was on a “terrorist watch list,” Murphy says.

“One of them, I don’t remember which one, asked me, ‘Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying for that,'” recalls Murphy. “I said, ‘No, but I did give a speech criticizing George Bush,’ and he said, ‘That will do it.'”

Incensed at the thought that the administration was using an anti-terrorism measure for political purposes, Murphy publicized his run-in through a prominent law blog, Balkinization. His accusations lit up the comment boards on several influential websites.

Consumers snapping up carbon credits to allay their guilt over greenhouse gases

San Francisco Chronicle | Apr 15, 2007

gw-inquisition1

Paying to absolve the sin of emissions

When Cal Broomhead drove to the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone last summer on vacation, he felt pretty bad about the carbon dioxide emissions from his Volvo station wagon.

So he paid $100 to a company that then subsidized a wind energy project that generates electricity without producing greenhouses gases. Broomhead was told his contribution made up for a year of driving about 12,000 miles as well as his household’s annual use of electricity and natural gas.

In the new vernacular, Broomhead and his family were “carbon neutral.”

“It makes me feel good. It means I’m walking my talk,” he said.

A new green fever is sweeping the nation, much of it fueled by worry over global warming. Broomhead and tens of thousands of others are using Internet calculators to determine their “carbon footprint” and then paying to “offset” that damage.

Still to be determined is whether carbon offsets are the new commodity that will truly help the environment — or merely salve the consciences of people who don’t want to give up the luxury of big cars, jet travel, overheated homes, blazing lights and gluttonous appliances.

More than four dozen companies worldwide sell carbon offsets, the credits for cutting emissions through green energy projects. And although many seek independent experts who verify that the money is used to cut greenhouse gases, the businesses are unregulated by the government and lack even voluntary standards. That opens the door to fraud and mismanagement, critics say.

Denis Hayes, who coordinated the first Earth Day in 1970, doesn’t see harm in individuals buying carbon credits. But it could be like trying to absolve sins by buying indulgences, he said.

“I find it slightly offensive that somebody who literally goes on two safaris a year, drives a Rolls-Royce, has at least three houses, and offsets his carbon emissions for $85 can brag about it,” he said. “It’s doing some good, but it doesn’t in any way compensate for his impact on global warming.”

Broomhead, 56, agrees. He has decided to purchase offsets only after taking other steps to lower emissions, such as replacing incandescent lightbulbs and inefficient appliances. Broomhead, who manages the energy and climate program for San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, has also put solar panels on his house in the Glen Park neighborhood.

Studies show that at the present rate, global citizens will produce 2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide over the next 50 years. At least 642 billion tons must be cut to stabilize Earth’s greenhouse gas levels and escape the most extreme effects of global warming — melting ice fields, rising sea levels, widespread extinctions of species, and extreme weather like drought, heat waves and hurricanes.

Much of that responsibility falls to U.S. residents, who on average put out 21 tons a year of greenhouse gas emissions per person. By comparison, the global average is 4.5 tons per person, according to a 2006 report prepared by environmental consultant Trexler Climate and Energy Services.

In response, individuals, businesses and institutions are lining up to turn a carbon deficit into a carbon credit and win environmental grace. Even the opulent Academy Awards ceremony claimed carbon neutrality, and the Earth Day Network, which is organizing Earth Day events across the nation, is weighing ways to offset emissions from world’s greenest of celebrations on and around April 22.

This is how it works:

More than 40 profit and nonprofit companies offer online calculators where people can tabulate the greenhouse gas emissions that they cause. By plugging in annual use of kilowatt hours and therms of natural gas, along with miles of car and airplane travel, they get their estimated tonnage. Some calculators take into consideration recycling and other good deeds.

The calculators take the estimated tonnage and charge $10 per ton of carbon dioxide. An individual can produce 1 ton of emission, for example, by flying 2,000 miles in an airplane or driving 1,900 miles in a midsize car.

With the money, the company buys carbon offsets from projects worldwide such as new wind farms, or conversion of cow manure to electricity-producing biogas fuels, or installation of new efficiency measures at power plants. The projects must have the effect of reducing, or offsetting, emissions by either preventing more greenhouses gases from going to the atmosphere or absorbing gases already there.

In the United States, the buying and selling of carbon offsets by individuals and businesses has created a voluntary carbon market. It’s voluntary because the government has not joined the 163 countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that mandates the reduction of greenhouse gases. There are also no federal regulations that require U.S. utilities and businesses to “cap” and reduce emissions.

It’s different in Europe, where the European Parliament has required mandatory cuts, creating a true regulatory carbon market. There, businesses that cut their emissions to below legal caps have a saleable commodity. They can sell their credits to businesses that can’t sufficiently reduce emissions.

Transactions in the European Union’s cap-and-trade carbon market jumped from $11 billion in 2005 to $30 billion in 2007, according to figures from the World Bank and Point Carbon, an industry analyst.

Some experts predict that carbon offsets will be the world’s biggest commodity market in the next 10 years.

Offsets have taken on new significance in this country with the Supreme Court’s ruling two weeks ago that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The decision opens the way for lawsuits that demand federal regulation.

Congress is considering limits on greenhouse gases, possibly by taxing companies that produce them or establishing cap-and-cut systems.

Oregon is already regulating carbon dioxide, and California is on its way to implementing new laws that require 25 percent cuts in greenhouse gases by 2020. Northeastern states are also putting caps in place.

Portland, Ore.-based Climate Trust, the nation’s largest supplier of carbon offsets to regulated businesses, got started a decade ago when Oregon passed its landmark law requiring new power plants to reduce or offset carbon dioxide emissions, stimulating that state’s participation in the regulatory carbon market.

Climate Trust also works in the voluntary market because it sells to individuals and businesses that just want to find ways to help reduce emissions.

Mike Burnett, executive director of Climate Trust, agrees with Broomhead and Hayes: People should take other energy-reducing steps before buying offsets, he said.

“You cut waste, invest in efficiency, select renewable choices from your utility, and then offset the rest,” he said.

He believes in a carbon market and what it could do to help slow global warming.

“Offsets are a way for us to address the climate challenge at the lowest possible cost to society,” Burnett said.

The size of the voluntary carbon market can only be guessed at, but its growth appears phenomenal, said Ricardo Bayon, an industry analyst at Ecosystem Marketplace in Mill Valley. Between 10 million and 20 million tons of carbon dioxide offsets were traded yearly in 2005 and 2006, his group estimates.

“We think it could be nearer to 100 million tons this year,” Bayon said.

While the absence of standards, transparency and uniform certification pose problems, many environmental groups endorse the idea. Personal footprint calculations can help make people aware how much pollution they cause, and changing those behaviors can make a difference, they say.

People should also be cautious about what they spend money on, experts agree. Likewise, the carbon companies need to be diligent about researching projects they subsidize and determining how much good those projects will do, said Hayes, the original Earth Day organizer.

There are groups out there that “plant a sapling for $2, not water it, not fertilize it, and figure out how much carbon dioxide it would absorb over 50 years,” he said.

Providers such as Climate Trust, NativeEnergy, Sustainable Travel International and MyClimate agree that to count as a carbon offset, a project’s reduction of global warming gas must be real, permanent, verifiable and truly “additional,” a term from the Kyoto Protocol. The projects must be in addition to a business-as-usual scenario. If a business is reducing emissions to comply with a law, or getting credit for the reductions elsewhere, or if the reductions would have occurred without any extra funding, it wouldn’t count as a carbon offset.

RELATED

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZU2pVfbQI]

The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 1 of 10)

United Nations Wants NYPD Officers for Peacekeeping

Fox NY | Apr 12,  2007

The U.N. peacekeeping department said 321 American police officers are currently involved in missions abroad
 
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Wednesday whether some of the city’s police officers could be deployed with U.N. peacekeeping missions.

Recruiting police for the U.N.’s 16 peacekeeping missions around the globe has been historically challenging.

“New York City has one of the most diversified police forces around and I think the secretary-general would like to explore possibilities,” U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said before the meeting. “Getting police to join peacekeeping operations is one of the high priorities for the U.N.”

Bloomberg left the meeting without speaking to reporters. Stu Loeser, the mayor’s spokesman, said his office had no comment.

New York City has recently fallen short of its police recruiting goals so it’s unclear if it would have any officers to spare for international peacekeeping.

The U.N. peacekeeping department said 321 American police officers are currently involved in missions abroad, primarily training local police. Of those, 225 are in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia, and others are in Haiti, Liberia and Sudan.

Bob Dole promises no ‘witch hunt’ on troops’ care

The Olympian | Apr 14, 2007

Injured soldiers returning home for medical treatment face an unacceptable maze of paperwork and bureaucracy, leaders of a presidential commission on veterans’ health care said Saturday.

At their first public hearing, members pledged to work quickly to find solutions rather than assign blame.

“This is not going to be a witch hunt,” said former GOP Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, one of the heads of the Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors.

Dole noted that at least nine congressional committees are investigating veterans’ health care problems after the disclosures in February of squalid conditions and poor outpatient treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

Donna Shalala, health and human services secretary under President Clinton, said the commission planned a report by late July that would be pragmatic and “solution-driven.”

“Our timeline for action is very short,” she said. As a result, she said commissioners may not be able to visit every military hospital and Veterans Affairs Department clinic to examine conditions.

Shalala said the commission would set up a Web site and telephone hot line and encourage veterans to express their concerns.

Vet: ‘I constantly had to re-explain’

The commission heard from three of its members who experienced problems after they or their spouses were injured in Iraq.

Jose Ramos, a student at George Mason University in Virginia, lost an arm during combat in 2004. He praised the medical care at Walter Reed — once he could get an appointment.

He described having to wait four hours after a scheduled appointment to get in, as well as rescheduling follow-up visits.

“I constantly had to re-explain my symptoms and medical history. It was like starting all over again every time I had an appointment,” Ramos said.

Navigating the VA system was just as bad, Ramos said. “The VA system, much like the military medical outprocessing system, is a labyrinth of offices and paperwork that no one seems to want to help with.”

Tammy Edwards said the commission’s final report would recommend ways to alleviate burdens on families. In 2005, her husband, a U.S. Army staff sergeant, was severely burned in Iraq when a 500-pound bomb exploded under his vehicle.

Spouses, other relatives must take up the burden

Spouses often most drop everything to provide care, and parents and grandparents frequently change their way of life because of the burdens, Edwards said.

“I have watched several marriages fall apart because the spouses did not receive the emotional support necessary to help them through such a challenging time,” Edwards said.

When President Bush named Dole and Shalala to head the panel, he said the nation has “a moral obligation to provide the best possible care and treatment to the men and women who served our country.”

In recent days, an independent review found that money problems and Pentagon neglect could be blamed for numerous problems found at Walter Reed, including poor outpatient care and haphazard follow-up.