ADE-651 Magic Wand Bomb Detector Is a Fraud

ADE-651 Magic Wand Bomb Detector Is a Fraud, Probably Killed Hundreds

Jim McCormick  promised his ADE-651 wand could identify anything, including bombs, simply by waving it around with the right RFID card inside. Yeah, totally fake, and now he's in prison. Too bad Iraq already spent $85 million on them.

Literally, the $40,000 (apiece) devices did absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. Experts think the insides contained nothing more than a dumb RFID card. Powered by nothing. Nope, not even a power supply. Just some snake oil, if that. $85 million!

Kaptur vs Tiny Tim

Keiser Report №12: Wall Street Blood Suckers

"LaRouche in 2008" · Don't Pass the Bailout!

Pseudologia Fantastica - Obama & State of the Union

The Capitalist Conspiracy

Rating Bernanke's Performance

Why America and China will Clash

By Gideon Rachman
Published: January 18 2010 19:54 | Last updated: January 18 2010 19:54

Google’s clash with China is about much more than the fate of a single, powerful firm. The company’s decision to pull out of China, unless the government there changes its policies on censorship, is a harbinger of increasingly stormy relations between the US and China.

Read more

Keiser Report №11

John Stossel: Crony Capitalism

Ron Paul: State of the Republic Address

Competing Currencies

Keiser Report №10. Killer Bs...

Liquidity vs. Solvency

THE AMERICAN SUCKER

Predictive Fiction of F. Pohl

Bob Chapman On Radio Liberty Jan 18 2010

A First Look: The AIG Cover-up & Health Care

Old People Get Ready Two: "Young People Boogaloo"!

Why Government Is Good

Papa Doc and Baby Doc

Obama: Tantamount to Treason

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
January 4, 2010

---

I lay the crucial existential issue of the moment on the table, here and now.

---

Whatever President Barack Obama may believe he is doing, matters have now reached the point at which his conduct in the matter of so-called "health-care legislation" must be condemned as tantamount to treason. Which is to say that his present actions are of the character, in effect, of an attempted destruction of our United States, in favor of the efforts of that manifest enemy of our republic's constitution which is the British monarchy.
As in the provisions of that monstrous assault on our Federal Constitution embodied in provisions of the so- called "health care," draft legislation pushed through the Senate, President Obama and his accomplices have pushed through clearly anti-constitutional legislation which, if adopted, would become a mass-murderous form of national practice against our citizenry, which would probably result in massive wrongful deaths among our citizens before a due-process nullification of implicitly criminal forms of law could be remedied.
The presented evidence indicates that the intention of that monarchy is to reduce the world's population, rapidly, from a presently estimable level of about 6.7 billions living souls, to less than 2 billions.
Already, with the present stage of the British campaign against China, the clearly manifest intention of the present British monarchy is to destroy, one by one, the principal nation-state powers, including the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, whose continued existence would be a serious impediment to the realization of the criminal intentions of the present British monarchy, whose policy would be mass murderous crimes against humanity vastly beyond those perpetrated by the war-time Adolf Hitler tyranny.
Those who should be witting in this matter, who could resist such clearly anti-constitutional, immoral proceedings must be warned that they will probably be held accountable for the wrong which they are working to enable.
In the relevant circumstances at hand, more than sufficient reason for the impeachment of President Barack Obama has been presented by the combined actions and expressed intent of President Obama's actions up to this point in time in the ongoing proceedings.
The time for wishy-washy vacillation by those who would be our patriots has ended. Our republic is already faced with an existential threat expressed by the actions and avowed further intentions of this President. Some one must put that clear issue clearly on the table. I am doing so now, herewith.

Iran can be bombed says General Petraeus

The US military commander for the Middle East and the Gulf region has confirmed that the United States has developed contingency plans to deal with Iran's nuclear facilities

  Read more

George W. Obama: After his first year, Obama shows his true face

By Nat Hentoff  

Tuesday, January 12th 2010 at 3:33pm

What a disappointment a year makes.

Before President Obama, it was grimly accurate to write, as I often did in the Voice, that George W. Bush came into the presidency with no discernible background in constitutional civil liberties or any acquaintance with the Constitution itself. Accordingly, he turned the "war on terror" over to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—ardent believers that the Constitution presents grave obstacles in a time of global jihad.
But now, Bush's successor—who actually taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago—is continuing much of the Bush-Cheney parallel government and, in some cases, is going much further in disregarding our laws and the international treaties we've signed.
On January 22, 2009, the apostle of "change we can believe in" proclaimed: "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of my presidency." But four months into his first year in command, Obama instructed his attorney general, Eric Holder, to present in a case, Jewel v. National Security Agency, a claim of presidential "sovereign immunity" that not even Dick Cheney had the arrant chutzpah to propose.
Five customers of AT&T had tried to go to court and charge that the government's omnipresent spy, the NSA, had been given by AT&T private information from their phone bills and e-mails. In a first, the Obama administration countered—says Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation, representing these citizens stripped of their privacy—that "the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violated federal surveillance statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the Wiretap Act."
It is one thing, as the Bush regime did, to spy on us without going to court for a warrant, but to maintain that the executive branch can never even be charged with wholly disregarding our rule of law is, as a number of lawyers said, "breathtaking."
On the other hand, to his credit, Obama's very first executive orders in January included the ending of the CIA "renditions"—kidnapping terrorism suspects off the streets in Europe and elsewhere and sending them for interrogation to countries known to torture prisoners. However, in August, the administration admitted that the CIA would continue to send such manacled suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation.
Why send them to a foreign prison if they're not going to be tortured to extract information for the CIA? Oh, the U.S. would get "guarantees" from these nations that the prisoners would not be tortured. That's the same old cozening song that Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush used to sing robotically.
President Obama also solemnly pledged to have "the most open administration in American history." Nonetheless, his Justice Department lawyers have already invoked "state secrets" to prevent cases brought by victims of the CIA renditions from being heard.
In February, in a lawsuit brought by five graduates of CIA "black sites" before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, one of the judges, visibly surprised at hearing the new "change" president invoking "state secrets," asked the government lawyer, Douglas Letter, "The change in administration has no bearing on this?"
The answer: "No, your honor." This demand for closing this case before it can be heard had, he said, been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration, [and] these are authorized positions."
Said the torture graduates' ACLU lawyer, Ben Wizner: "Much is at stake in this case. If the CIA's overboard secrecy claims prevail, torture victims will be denied their say in court solely on the basis of an affidavit submitted by their torturers."
Barack Obama a torturer? Not exactly. In this particular case, the torture policy had been set by George W. Bush. President Obama is just agreeing with his predecessor. Does that make Obama complicit in these acts of torture? You decide.
What is clear, beyond a doubt—and not only in "rendition" cases, but in other Obama validations of what Dick Cheney called the necessary "dark side" of the previous administration—has been stated by Jameel Jaffer. Head of the ACLU's National Security Project, he is the co-author of the definitive evidence of the Bush-Cheney war crimes that Obama is shielding, Administration of Torture (Columbia University Press).
After the obedient Holder rang the "state secrets" closing bell in the San Francisco case, Jaffer described the link between the Bush and Obama presidencies: "The Bush administration constructed a legal framework for torture, but the Obama administration is constructing a legal framework for impunity."
It's become an Obama trademark: reversing a vigorous position he had previously taken, as when he signed into law the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act that, as a senator, he had vowed to filibuster as a protest against their destruction of the Fourth Amendment. And now he's done it again. His government is free to spy on us at will.
For another example of the many Obamas, the shifting president had supported the release of photographs of Bush-era soldier abuses of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had approved the publication of these "intensive interrogations.") But Obama changed his mind, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates flat-out censored the photos. Not surprisingly, the Roberts Supreme Court agreed with Gates and Obama and overruled the Second Circuit.
In a December 5 editorial, The New York Times helped explain why Obama—who doesn't want to "look backward" at Bush cruelties—changed his mind: "The photos are of direct relevance to the ongoing national debate about accountability for the Bush-era abuses. No doubt their release would help drive home the cruelty of stress positions, mock executions, hooding, and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' used against detainees and make it harder for officials to assert that improper conduct was aberrational than the predictable result of policies set at high levels."
Barack Obama may well go down in history as the President of Impunity for Bush, Cheney, and, in time, himself, for continuing the CIA "renditions."
But he will also be long remembered as the President of Permanent Detention. At the Supreme Court in 1987, in U.S. v. Salerno, Justice Thurgood Marshall, strenuously dissenting, warned: "Throughout the world today there are men, women, and children interned indefinitely, awaiting trials which may never come or which may be a mockery of the word, because their governments believe them to be 'dangerous.' Our Constitution . . . can shelter us forever against the dangers of such unchecked power."
Not forever. The Obama government is working to assure that its purchase of the supermax prison, the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois, will be the permanent forced residence of certain Guantánamo terrorism suspects who can't be tried in our regular courtrooms because—gasp—they have been tortured, preventing the admission of "incriminating" statements they have made or—"state secrets" again!—a due process trial "would compromise sensitive sources and methods."
Like torture.
I increasingly wonder whose Constitution Barack Obama was teaching at the University of Chicago. China's? North Korea's? Robert Mugabe's? Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer, whose byline I never miss on the Internet, asks: "What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people?"
You may not be surprised to learn that my next book—to be published by Cato Institute, where I'm now a senior fellow—will be titled, Is This America?
I often disagree with ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero—though I'm almost always in synch with his lawyers in the field—but Romero is right about Obama creating "Gitmo North": "While the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of innocent until proved guilty and the right to confront one's accusers. . . . The Obama administration's announcement contradicts everything the president has said about the need for America to return to leading with its values. American values do not contemplate disregarding our Constitution and skirting the criminal justice system."
If Dick Cheney were a gentleman, instead of continuing to criticize this president, he would congratulate him on his faithful allegiance to many signature policies of the Bush-Cheney transformation of America.
But never let it be said that President Obama is neglecting the patriotic education of America's young. On December 13, Clint Boulton reported on eweek.com, "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Berkeley's Samuelson Clinic have sued the Department of Justice and five other government organizations (including the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) for cloaking their policies for using Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks to investigate citizens in criminal and other matters. [The plaintiffs] want to know exactly how, and what kinds of information, the feds are accessing from users' social networking profiles."
Maybe Dick Cheney can ask Barack to confirm him as a friend on Facebook.
Charlie Savage, the Times ace reporter of constitutional violations, chillingly shows how Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin got to the core of the consequences of our "yes, we can" president by predicting that "Mr. Obama's ratifications of the basic outlines of the surveillance and detention policies he inherited would reverberate for generations. By bestowing bipartisan acceptance on them," Mr. Balkin said, "Mr. Obama is consolidating them as entrenched features of government."
Do Congressional Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi give a damn about this historic legacy of the Obama administration that they cluelessly help to nurture by providing lockstep Democratic majorities for?

Do you give a damn?

MOVE YOUR MONEY

Keiser Report №8

Global Warming: The Social Construction of a Quasi-Reality?

For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

How an old Bush can ruin a good lunch

This video may not be suitable for minors.

Swearing on the Bible - George Carlin

Ron Paul: Why the Fed Likes Independence

Judge Napolitano: Criminal Geithner / AIG Deal ?

A Call to the People of the World to Support Iceland Against the Financial Blackmail of the British and Dutch Governments and the IMF

Birgitta Jónsdóttir
www.tarpley.net
January 6, 2010

Birgitta Jónsdóttir is the leader of The Movement

 

[Note: Birgitta Jónsdóttir is the leader of The Movement, a group within the Icelandic Parliament which has emerged from the mass struggle of Icelanders against the financial blackmail brought to bear against their country by the governments in London and The Hague, with the backing of the IMF, in the wake of the insolvency of three large Icelandic banks in the midst of the Lehman Brothers-AIG world financial panic of September-October2008. Birgitta Jónsdóttir is a courageous leader in the fight for national sovereignty, independence, dignity, and the economic well-being and future of her country.]

Read more

Obama Flubs His First Bay Of Pigs Moment As Terror Moles Escape Purge

Webster G. Tarpley
www.tarpley.net
January 5, 2010

Washington DC , January 5, 2010 — Obama’s speech this afternoon was an incongruous performance. On the one hand, he angrily detailed a catastrophic breakdown in US intelligence procedures leading to the near-massacre of hundreds of airline passengers in the skies over Detroit on Christmas Day. On the other hand, there was no purge of the corrupt, complicit, and incompetent officials who had made this incident possible. No firings were announced. No heads rolled. The rogue network or invisible government of treasonous and subversive moles inside the US government which is behind the Detroit incident, and so many other incidents, remained untouched once again.

Read more

12% juvenile inmates report sex abuse

January 08, 2010 12:20 PM

By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

 

A new study found that about 12 percent of minors held in detention facilities across the country have suffered sexual victimization, either at the hands of other minors being held or staffers.
The first-of-its-kind study showed also showed that minors in private and government facilities were three to four times more likely to be victims of sexual abuse than adult inmates, a surprising revelation, said Allen Beck, chief of the federal Corrections Statistics Program at the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Orange County Juvenile Hall.

 

KEVIN SULLIVAN, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

"The difference in large is in staff misconduct," Beck said. "We did find a very high rate of staff misconduct, something we haven't reported or found before."
Included in the study was Orange County Juvenile Hall, a 434-bed facility located in the city of Orange that houses male and female minors. Of the 28 minors who completed the survey in the county facility, four percent – only one person -- reported sexual victimization. That's well below the national average.
The Orange County Probation Department, which oversees security in the facility, tries to stress the importance of ethics to probation officers, and discourages them from being alone with the minors, said Jeff Corp, public information officer for the department.
"If anything does occur and is brought to our attention, it's investigated and forwarded to the sheriff's department," Corp said.
Other facilities rated much higher, including 13 detention centers where nearly 1 out of 3 inmates reported abuse.
About 10 percent of reported incidents involved facility staffers, and nearly all of those complaints were against female staffers.
The study, "Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reporter by Youth, 2008-09" was done to comply with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, and it was the first study to look at juvenile detention facilities, Beck said.
According to the study, about 26,550 juveniles are held in state, private or local facilities, of which more than 9,000 were included in the study.
The study identified 13 facilities were about one of every 10 inmates reported abuse, including Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility in Indiana; Corsicana Residential Treatment Center in Texas; Backbone Mountain Youth Center in Swanton, Md.; Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, N.C.; Cresson Secure Treatment Unit in Pennsylvania; and the Culpeper Juvenile Correctional Center, Long Term, in Mitchells, Va.; Victory Field Correctional Academy in Vernon, Texas; Indianapolis Juvenile Correctional Facility; Shawono Center in Grayling, Mich.; Woodland Hills Youth Development Center in Nashville, Tenn.; L.E. Rader Center in Sand Springs, Okla.; Bon Air Juvenile Correctional Center in Virginia; New Jersey Training School in Monroe Township, N.J.
Of the 12 percent of minors that reported sexual abuse, about two-thirds said the act included force or coercion, Beck said.
The study also found that the longer the minor is in the facility, the more likely he or she is to report staff misconduct. "Relationships develop between youth and staff, inmates and staff," Beck said. "Those in time become improper."
That was the case in one of the most recent cases involving a probation officer and an underage inmate. In 2006, a 27-year-old Santa Fe Springs woman turned herself in after being charged with four misdemeanor counts of child annoyance. Elizabeth Gomez Nieto allegedly wrote letters to an underage inmate. She was one of two officers suspected of abusing an underage inmate there in 2006.
Female staff members -- particularly those under 30 years old who have been employed at the facility for less than six months -- are most likely to be involved, Beck said.
"Sometimes they involve contact that is unwanted," Beck said. "It may even involve consensual contact with youth, sometimes initiated by the minor, but it will still be illegal."
Those two cases are the most recent that have been investigated at the Orange County facility involving probation officers, Corp said.
In Sept. 2009, authorities also looked into allegations that an inmate was pinned down and assaulted by a 14- and 15-year-old inmate.
The study did not just include forcible rape, Beck said, but any type of unwanted, illegal or inappropriate sexual conduct.
The report will be forwarded to a prison rape review panel, Beck said.

Care homes forcing elderly to have feeding tubes fitted

Thousands of dementia sufferers told they must have surgery to gain entry

• Sarah Boseley, health editor
• The Guardian, Wednesday 6 January 2010
• Article history

Many care homes will not take a patient until they have a feeding tube fitted. Photograph: Frank Baron

Thousands of elderly people are being forced to have tubes fitted so they can be artificially fed if they want to be admitted to a care home, a major report warns today.
There is no evidence that tube feeding prolongs life, and it deprives patients of the pleasure and social contact involved in normal eating and drinking, says a Royal College of Physicians working group which recommends that artificial nutrition should only be used as a last resort.
The report found that many care homes across the country are making it a condition of residence that people, often in the advanced stages of dementia, have a tube fitted into their abdomen.
"This is an invasive procedure with a risk, so it should not be undertaken lightly," said Dr Rodney Burnham, chair of the working group. "One of the concerns we had was that we felt in many places there were cases where this was done without proper thought.
"This is a widespread problem. Many care homes say they will not take a patient until they have had a gastrostomy. There is no reason for them to do that. They should have nursing support."
With time and care, elderly people with swallowing difficulties can be helped to eat and drink normally, says the report.
Produced with the help of the British Society of Gastroenterology, the report aims to guide healthcare professionals, who are sometimes at odds over the merits and ethics of the situation. There is a misguided belief, it says, that tube feeding keeps patients alive longer. But the evidence does not support this.
A recent national confidential inquiry into patient outcomes and death (NCEPOD) investigation found 19% of those undergoing the procedure had it fitted inappropriately. "They described it as futile," said Burnham. Almost half of those who died (43%) did so within a week.
While a nasal tube is safer than a device fitted in the abdomen, a so-called PEG, the best option for patients is normal feeding wherever possible. "'Nil by mouth' should be a last resort," says the report.
It calls for agreement between the patient, relatives and healthcare professionals about the aims of artificial feeding. "Such decisions should never be based on the convenience of staff or carers. Nor should artificial feeding ever be required as a criterion for admission to any institution providing care," says the college.
All trusts and care homes should ensure there are enough staff to help those with difficulties take longer to eat, especially at meal times. "People in the later stages of dementia have complex end-of-life needs and it is vital that the use of artificial nutrition or hydration not be used in place of good quality care tailored to their specific needs," said Neil Hunt, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Society, which believes that "the quality of life should be considered a priority over length of life in the later stages of dementia".
The numbers of people in the community fitted with tubes for artificial feeding has risen steeply. One survey showed a growth of 11.6% between 2006 and 2007.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "The use of intrusive interventions, such as tube feeding, is a clinical decision and should only be used when necessary, based on the circumstances of the person concerned, and with their or their representative's agreement. We would expect services to allow maximum choice and control wherever possible and to respect people's dignity and human rights right up to the end of life."

Keiser Report №7

The Mainstream Media is Not For You [?]

Chatting Up Courtney

Orthodox Christmas Enlightens Hearts

Partition of Pakistan

YEMEN: Connect the Dots...

A NEW DOLLAR ?

Devolution USA

CrossTalk: 2010 Crystal Ball

January 1, 2010 Still Report - Money and DEBT

Inside and Outside the Box