Latest:

Sep 2, 2010

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

Last Updated: September 2, 2010


If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.
Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center .
_________


More: Scientists Forced To Revise Arctic Sea Ice Projections Upwards



Media warming to public's disbelief

STUDIES FIND IMMIGRANTS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, CEOs BAD FOR IT

Good find by UNDERNEWS:


Giovanni Peri, Federal Reserve Bank, San Francisco - The effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy can be studied by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers. Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

Immigration in recent decades has significantly increased the presence of foreign-born workers in the United States. The impact of these immigrants on the U.S. economy is hotly debated. Some stories in the popular press suggest that immigrants diminish the job opportunities of workers born in the United States. Others portray immigrants as filling essential jobs that are shunned by other workers. Economists who have analyzed local labor markets have mostly failed to find large effects of immigrants on employment and wages of U.S.-born workers (see Borjas 2006; Card 2001, 2007, 2009; and Card and Lewis 2007).

This Economic Letter summarizes recent research examining the impact of immigrants on the broader U.S. economy. . . Consistent with previous research, the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States. Second, at the state level, the presence of immigrants is associated with increased output per worker. This effect emerges in the medium to long run as businesses adjust their physical capital, that is, equipment and structures, to take advantage of the labor supplied by new immigrants. However, in the short run, when businesses have not fully adjusted their productive capacity, immigrants reduce the capital intensity of the economy. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average hours per worker and a reduction in skills per worker as measured by the share of college-educated workers in a state. These two effects have opposite and roughly equal effect on labor productivity.
Institute for Policy Studies - Month after month, the headlines have pounded home a remarkably consistent message: Corporate executives, here in the Great Recession, are suffering, too.

Corporate executives, in reality, are not suffering at all. Their pay, to be sure, dipped on average in 2009 from 2008 levels, just as their pay in 2008, the first Great Recession year, dipped somewhat from 2007. But executive pay overall remains far above inflation adjusted levels of years past. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, CEO pay in 2009 more than doubled the CEO pay average for the decade of the 1990s, more than quadrupled the CEO pay average for the 1980s, and ran approximately eight times the CEO average for all the decades of the mid-20th century.

American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s. Back in those years, precious few top executives made over 30 times what their workers made. In 2009, we calculate in the 17th annual Executive Excess, CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged 263 times the average compensation of American workers. CEOs are clearly not hurting.

But they are causing others to needlessly hurt — by cutting jobs to feather their own already comfortable executive nests. In 2009, the CEOs who slashed their payrolls the deepest took home 42 percent more compensation than the year’s chief executive pay average for S&P 500 companies. Most careful analysts of the high-finance meltdown that ushered in the Great Recession have concluded that excessive executive compensation played a prime causal role. Outrageously high rewards gave executives an incentive to behave outrageously, to take the sorts of reckless risks that would eventually endanger our entire economy.

(Audio) Interview to former ISI General Hamid Gul - September 1, 2010

By Bonnie Faulkner on Guns & Butter


Check it out. The guy is an eminent insider to the AfPak behind-the-scenes from decades.
He called B/S on the official crackpot conspiracy theory on 9/11 & Bin Laden from day 1.


Here he speaks again about 9/11, Bin Laden, geopolitics in the area, etc.   
____________


Background: Not from the above interview, but on the man....
Fars News Agency | March 3, 2010

TEHRAN – Former Director of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence Organization General Hamid Gol blamed the US for creating and training different extremist and terrorist groups in the region, saying Washington is seeking to destabilize the region, specially Iran, through the measure.

“The US intelligence agencies pursued just one goal by forming Rigi’s group which was provoking unrests and instability in Iran,” Gol told FNA on Wednesday.

Abdolmalek Rigi’s US-backed notorious terrorist group, Jundollah, whose main stronghold is in Pakistan, is responsible for carrying out several cases of kidnapping, drug-trafficking and killing innocent people in Sistan-Balouchestan province in southeastern Iran.

Iran announced last week that it had arrested Abdolmalek Rigi when he was traveling to Bishkek to meet a high-ranking US official at a nearby military base to discuss new terrorist attacks on Iranian territory.

Referring to the plots and attempts of the US and its European allies against Iran, Gol reiterated that the very aim of them is to weaken Iran’s independence and impair the relations between Tehran and Islamabad.

He also advised the Pakistani government to elude the plots hatched by the US for dominating and infiltrating the region.

In remarks broadcast on Iran’s state-run TV, Rigi confessed that the United States offered to provide him with military aid to wage an insurgency against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“After Obama was elected, the Americans contacted us and they met me in Pakistan. They met us after (Iranian forces’) clashes with my group around March 17 in (the southeastern city of) Saharan and he (the US agent) said that Americans had requested a meeting,” Rigi said.

“They (Americans) said they would cooperate with us and would give me military equipment, arms and machine guns,” Rigi stated, adding, “They also promised to give us a base along the border with Afghanistan next to Iran.”

The Jundollah’s ringleader then revealed the US plot to support all the anti-Iran terrorist groups, saying, “One of the CIA officers said that it was too difficult for us to attack Iran militarily, but we plan to give aid and support to all anti-Iran groups that have the capability to wage war and create difficulty for Iran’s (Islamic) system.”

The Jundollah group has claimed responsibility for numerous terrorist attacks in Iran. The group has carried out mass murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, acts of sabotage and bombings. They have targeted civilians and government officials, as well as all ranks of Iran’s military.

In their latest attack on October 18, the group killed more than 40 Iranians, among them 15 members of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) – including top commanders – and several tribal elders in the country’s southeastern border city of Sambas.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hamid Gul: The man who knows too much

Rediff News Bureau | December 09, 2008

Mumbai's 26/11 has all the makings of a watershed in world history. As a fallout, the United States is reportedly using its unmatched diplomatic clout to get the United Nations to brand four people as terrorists.

And, surprise, surprise, all the four have links to Pakistan's dreaded spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.

One of them, pictured alongside, is retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief whose name has over the years been associated to terrorist activity in the world in general and South Asia in particular. From instigating violence in Kashmir to warning Osama bin Laden of an impending US missile strike to former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto's [Images] assassination, Gul's name has cropped up in all the wrong places.

Just why is the general considered among the most dangerous men in the world?

Originally from Sarghoda in Pakistani Punjab, he was General Zia-ul Haq's blue-eyed boy; the then Pakistan dictator nominated Gul ISI chief in March 1987. Gul was apparently no slouch in battle; he is a winner of the Sitara e Jurat, Islamabad's [Images] third highest military honour, awarded to him for his services in the 1965 war with India.

Before he became the ISI's boss, Gul was one of the biggest supporters of -- and a Central Intelligence Agency collaborator in -- the long Afghan struggle against the erstwhile Soviet Union. Probably because of that, then CIA station chief Milt Bearden viewed him as a US ally. Bearden, in a book he co-authored, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB, later admitted that Gul eventually turned against America.

Why does he matter to India?

Gul is credited with being the brain behind Pakistan's proxy wars with India, first in the Punjab, and then in Kashmir. He is referred to as a godfather of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayiba, which India believes carried out 26/11 and numerous other terror attacks in India.

According to counter-terrorism expert B Raman, Gul told Benazir Bhutto when she became prime minister: 'Madam, keeping Punjab destabilised is equivalent to the Pakistan army [Images] having an extra division at no cost to the taxpayers.'

The Washington Post reported earlier this week in the 26/11 aftermath, Gul is among the people that India wants Pakistan to hand over.

The never-short-of-a-harsh-retort general dismissed the latest allegations in conversation with The Washington Post: 'They (India) are saying these boys were village boys trained to be killers. How can this be believed? Village boys don't know anything about a 5-star hotel. They would not know how to use the toilet.'

Why does he matter to the US?

Gul is also called the godfather of the Taliban [Images]. He denies that charge too.

He told rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt in an earlier interview: "You can't create the Taliban, it was a spontaneous body."

He said he "didn't create the Taliban. This is an Ahmed Rashid (journalist and author of a book on the Taliban) saying. I was a friend of (Gulbuddin) Hekmatyar, (Burhanuddin) Rabbani and many Northern Alliance leaders like (assassinated Northern Alliance leader) Ahmed Shah Masood. I was trying to broker peace between them in my individual capacity. They are wonderful people but very difficult to deal with."

In August 2003, Gul was quoted as saying, 'The Muslim world must stand united to confront the US in its so-called war against terror which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped.'

But there are many anti-American individuals in the Islamic world. What's special about Gul?

Gul is believed to be the man who tipped off bin Laden in August 1998 that the US was tracking the Saudi's satellite phone to launch a missile attack on him. Counter-terrorism expert and former US government adviser Richard Clarke later told The New Yorker: 'I have reason to believe that a retired head of the ISI was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda [Images] that an attack was coming.'

Gul was also part of the Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, a charity for the reconstruction of Afghanistan that was later alleged to have planned to give bin Laden and Al Qaeda the know-how to make a nuclear bomb.

In 2004, sections of the US media was also abuzz that Gul was 'bin Laden's master planner' in the 9/11 plot.

Gul, on his part, maintains 9/11 is America's own creation. He told Sheela Bhatt: "To slap sanctions on Afghanistan they (the US) started spreading baseless allegations against Osama (bin Laden)."

So, what happens to Gul now?

As evidenced by his advanced knowledge of the missile strike on bin Laden, the man has friends in very high places. And he has survived much longer than the people he once served -- like Benazir Bhutto (who accused him of trying to kill her), Zia-ul Haq. Gul is hale and hearty though a former protege, a man who goes by the name of Pervez Musharraf [Images], has been buried on the outskirts of relevance.

Like all spymasters Gul knows secrets too deep, too buried in the haze and maze of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If India can smoke him out, it will be a major triumph. But that seems highly unlikely. The general is much too powerful for the Pakistan army to agree to its extradition.

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

 by Stephen Lendman
September 01, 2010


This article reviews the historical roots and America's current Continuity of Government authority, initially planned and developed by Ronald Reagan. More on that below.

On March 1, 2002, Washington Post writers Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt headlined, "Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret," saying:

"President Bush has dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time longstanding plans to ensure survival of federal rule after a catastrophic attack on the nation's capital."

Shortly after 9/11, a classified "Continuity of Operations Plan" (aka "continuity of government") was implemented. Legal documents were then drafted, creating a shadow government in case of a catastrophe, George Bush saying:

"We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. Until this country has routed out terrorists wherever they hid, we're not safe."

In other words, the plan, like the "war on terror," is open-ended, in violation of the Constitution's Separation of Powers, the document George Bush called "just a goddamn piece of paper," and governed accordingly throughout his tenure, a practice Obama continues. More on that below.

On April 4, 2007, the Bush administration issued a combined White House/Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Security/Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20, extending for one year the 9/11 emergency for the sixth time, and establishing Continuity of Government (COG) procedures under Catastrophic Emergency conditions, defined as:

"any incident (such as a terrorist attack), regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

COG is then defined as:

"a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency."

The combined directive gave the president and DHS unprecedented police state powers to declare martial law without congressional approval, and be able to rule extrajudicially, free from constitutional constrains. It also let the vice-president assume dictatorial powers, George Bush left a figurehead by clever wording, saying:

NSPD 51 "shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions."

Related to this was Dick Cheney's 2005 "Contingency Plan" in case of another 9/11 type attack, authorizing preemptive measures, including war, against suspected terrorists, individuals and/or sponsor states, depending on who's designated.

COG authority is renewed annually. Thus, on September 10, 2009, the White House extended the Bush administration's 9/11 national emergency, a press release saying:

"CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERRORIST ATTACKS

Consistent with sections 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2009. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency the former President declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress."

On September 14, 1982, Ronald Reagan's (secret) National Security Decision Directive/NSDD 55 established a National Program Office (NPO), tasked with ensuring the federal government's survive in case of a national emergency, specifically a nuclear attack.

Reporting to Vice President Bush, NPO developed and coordinated secret plans with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), CIA, and Departments of State and Defense to maintain large underground bunkers, high-tech software, and procedures to let government function under emergency conditions - originally in case of nuclear attack, now terrorist ones or any "emergency," including natural disasters.

In 1988, Reagan's Executive Order 12656 authorized a COG response, including full-scale militarization in case of a "national security emergency," defined as:

"Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

The policy remained largely in place under GHW Bush's April 1990 National Security Directive (NSD) 37, June 1992 NSD 69 (both titled Enduring Constitutional Government), and Bill Clinton's October 1998 Presidential Decision Directive/National Security Council (PDD/NSC) 67, titled Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations, stating:

It "relates to enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations (COOP) planning, and continuity of government (COG) operations....to ensure survival of a constitutional form of government and the continuity of essential Federal functions."

The earlier notion of "enduring" or "continuity" of government became changing it extrajudicially under George Bush, ideas secretly plotted in the 1980s and 1990s by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other neocon extremists (so-called Project 908), implemented on 9/11.

According to the 9/11 Commission, it was without elaboration, but consider what followed - an array of police state actions by Executive Orders (EOs), National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, legislation, and other disturbing measures, targeting designated domestic and foreign adversaries, dissent, civil liberties, human rights, and other democratic freedoms, including an assault on the Bill of Rights. What followed included:

-- the October 8, 2001 Executive Order (EO) 13228 establishing two Executive agencies: the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) "to develop and implement a national strategy to coordinate federal, state, and local counterterrorism efforts to secure the country from and respond to terrorist threats or attacks;" and the Homeland Security Council (HSC) "to advise the President on homeland security matters, mirroring the role the National Security Council (NSC) plays in national security;"

-- the October 2001 USA Patriot Act, eroding First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections, including free association, due process, freedom from illegal searches and seizures, and privacy; the crime of "domestic terrorism" was also established, thereafter targeting animal and environmental activists and other US citizens; in February 2010, Obama extended the law with little notice;

-- the November 2001 Military Order Number 1, authorizing the president to capture, kidnap or otherwise arrest non-citizens (and later citizens) anywhere in the world for any reason, and detain them indefinitely without charge, evidence, due process or judicial fairness protections of law;

-- in April 2002, the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established, militarizing the homeland for the first time, authorizing federal troops in American communities in case of emergencies, including terrorist attacks and civil unrest;

-- the November 2002 Homeland Security Act (HSA), creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), combining previously separate federal agencies under one authority to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies and give Washington new police state powers; the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is its largest investigative and enforcement arm, targeting suspected criminal and terrorist threats, including undocumented immigrants by their presence, treating them repressively like common criminals;

-- the October 2006 Military Commissions Act authorized torture and sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), detain them indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other legal protections;

-- in October 2006, provisions in Sections 333 and 1076 of the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Act amended the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting federal or National Guard troops use for law enforcement unless congressionally authorized in emergencies like an insurrection; now the president can claim a public emergency, declare martial law, suspend the Constitution, and deploy military forces on US streets, including to suppress dissent;

-- extrajudicial domestic surveillance became institutionalized;

-- a vast, secret offshore gulag was established, besides the few known ones at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and Afghanistan;

-- indefinite preventive detentions were authorized for persons who can't be prosecuted, yet are claimed (without evidence) to endanger America;

-- torture became official policy;

-- In January 2009, HR 645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act was introduced, referred to committee, but thus far not passed "To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations," six in major regions, modeled on Guantanamo, militarizing FEMA to run them; and

-- various other measures were enacted, hardening repressive domestic rule, heading for extrajudicial martial law to quell expected or ongoing civil disturbances.

Historical Roots of COG Authority

COG roots go back to the June 1947 National Security Act (as amended) that merged the Departments of War and Navy into the National Military Establishment (NME), including a separate Department of the Air Force headed by a Secretary of Defense - in August 1949, NME renamed the Department of Defense.

NSA also established the CIA, National Security Resources Board (NSRB), and National Security Council (NSC) to advise the president on domestic, foreign, and military policies at the onset of the Cold War.

In the early 1950s, Truman approved construction of a massive 200,000 square foot underground facility along the Maryland - Pennsylvania border, 65 miles north of Washington. Officially called the Alternate Joint Communications Center (Site-R at Raven Rock), it was one of 96 Federal Relocation Centers (or Federal Relocation Arc) around the nation's capital for government and Pentagon use in case of nuclear war.

Later, they became the "backbone" for COG operations, where Cheney and other top officials went after (or perhaps hours before) 9/11.

On December 1, 1950, Truman's EO 10186 established the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA) within the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), to oversee federal emergency planning.

On December 16, 1950, EO 10193 created the Office of Defense Mobilization (ODM), to mobilize civilians, industries, and government agencies to defend the nation in an emergency. Other measures followed to establish procedures under emergency conditions if the country was attacked.

On April 17, 1952, Truman's EO 10346 ordered the FCDA to coordinate "continuity" plans within the federal government in case of nuclear war.

On July 1, 1958, Reorganization Plan No. 1 merged the FCDA and ODM into the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization (OCDM), to ensure continuation of essential government and industry functions under national emergency conditions.

On October 28, 1969, Nixon's EO 11490 directed government officials to ensure the continuation of "essential functions" in case of an emergency. It also directed department heads to develop succession of office plans, overseen by the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) - called a thin line between government and dictatorship, according to some.

In 1970, future Reagan administration FEMA head, Louis O. Giuffrida, advocated martial law in case of mass civil unrest, specifically recommending placing millions of "American negroes" in "assembly centers or relocation camps."

On May 5, 1972, the Office of Civil Defense (OCD) became the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA) to "provide preparedness assistance planning in all areas of civil defense and natural disasters."

In March 1976, The Progressive published an article about Mount Weather, a secret underground facility, 50 miles north of Washington, to house a parallel executive branch ready to take over government under emergency conditions.

On April 1, 1979, FEMA was established to oversee federal planning for natural disasters, including nuclear and terrorist attacks. Purportedly to help victims, it, in fact, serves federal authorities, including administering continuity measures if needed. Its Office of National Continuity Programs (NCP) is the "Lead Agent for the Federal Executive Branch on matters concerning continuity of national operations under the gravest of conditions."

Measures in the 1980s and 1990s were reviewed above. On May 8, 2001 (four months before 9/11), George Bush established the Office of National Preparedness under FEMA - empowering Dick Cheney to oversee a "coordinated national effort" to integrate Washington's response to a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack.

On 9/11, from 9:45 - 9:56AM EDT, NSC counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke activated COG, ordering all federal agencies "to activate an alternative command post, an alternative headquarters outside of Washington, DC, and to staff it as soon as possible."

In addition, key officials went to secure locations, including Dick Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and other Republican and Democrat leaders, after which a "shadow government" was formed, perhaps still in ready to be reactivated under emergency conditions.

On July 27, 2009, The New York Times reported that its activation remained intact under Obama, saying:

White House officials draw "no distance between their own policies and those left behind by the Bush administration." The White House said only that current policy is "settled." The full article can be accessed through the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us/politics/28continuity.html?_r=1&em

A Final Comment

Under the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, the Vice President becomes Chief Executive if a President dies, followed by the House Speaker, Senate President Pro Tempore, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and 11 other cabinet officers in line of succession according to when their office was established, Secretary of Homeland Security the newest in 2001.

Key is who's empowered, not inaugurated - authority given Dick Cheney under George Bush's NSPD 51 as explained above. Most worrisome is if COG subverts constitutional protections, ends democratic freedoms, and makes America another banana republic ruled by wealthy, unelected, despotic, corrupted elites - a status largely descriptive of present day conditions.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at
sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

IMF Sees G7 Net Debt At 200% Of GDP By 2030; 441% By 2050


From ZeroHedge:


The IMF has issued a series of papers today whose sole purpose is to assuage fears that the world is headed for a sovereign default driven inferno, authored by Carlo Cottarelli and two other staffers, which concludes that markets currently "significantly overestimate" the risk of sovereign debt default in the advanced economies. The idea for the papers, according to Cottarelli, was born out of a "sense of frustration" after talking to two financial market analysts in Europe who had "no focus on numbers, but more a feeling, a sensation things are going bad and would continue to go bad." Well, actually the numbers are there, and as the IMF itself concludes G7, debt to GDP for the G7 countries which is currently 77%, will reach 200% by 2030 and 441% by 2050. But since the IMF paper is only focusing on a few months into the future, it may very well be right. In the meantime, we will stick with Morgan Stanley's recent analysis on the topic by Arnaud Mares, which concluded that sovereign defaults will happen, and likely in dramatic numbers, the only question is how.
While the bulk of the paper is nothing but a validation that the author has never read any of the works of Reinhart and Rogoff, the only relevant chart is the one below.
And yes, the very author who says, there is no need to worry about sovereign defaults, adds the following: "Under the current and future pressures on public finances—large primary gaps and rising health care and pension spending—public debt would spiral out of control in the absence of fiscal adjustment" and hilariously adds: "The surge in debt in this scenario, however, does not even take into account the possible negative  feedback effects that higher debt could have on interest rates and economic growth."
The bold section, as opposed to the several hundred of other superfluous pages, also explains why the IMF has recently expanded its key credit facility to have virtually no borrowing cap.
But aside from all of that, the "sense of frustration" or "feeling" if you will, that "things are going bad and would continue to go bad" is certainly soothed.
In other words if one takes Jim O'Neills perpetual hockeystick projection for G7 GDP which the Goldman analysis likely sees at about $200 trillion by 2050, then associated debt will be about $1 quadrillion. Congress: have fun with that debt ceiling.
Those who wish to join the group of lemmings with a castrated feeling of frustration and imminent dread, should read the IMF papers:
and there is a third one that completes today's Koolaid trifecta, but we are too hyponotized looking at the to S&P flatline to look for it.
AttachmentSize
Long-Term Trends in Public Finances in the G-7 Economies.pdf505.75 KB

Interview with CIA Veteran Michael Scheuer - 'Only the Taliban Are Not Corrupt'

By Marc Hujer
SpiegelAugust 31, 2010

The CIA is alleged to have been paying an aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for information. Former CIA officer Michael Scheuer spoke to SPIEGEL about why fighting corruption in Afghanistan is all but impossible.
SPIEGEL: The CIA is alleged to have paid Mohammed Zia Salehi, an aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, for information. Has the CIA damaged the Americans' credibility?
Michael Scheuer: That's absolutely good recruitment. I think you recruit whoever gives you access to a target. It might be someone who is a terrorist or it might be someone who's a corrupt official. I think any other intelligence agency would be delighted to have someone to give them information about what Karzai is thinking because he's such a dishonest man.
SPIEGEL: The US now has to face accusations that it is financing the very corruption it is promising to fight.
Scheuer: Not really. President Obama knew about this. His intelligence advisors knew about this. If he's smart I'm sure the president would want to have somebody close to Karzai to know what's going on. The US government and other governments are lying when they say that they can clean up corruption and win the war.
SPIEGEL: Is Washington being energetic enough in trying to fight corruption?
Scheuer: We're really not in a position to push these people. Who's going to replace them? There isn't anyone less corrupt. Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban.
SPIEGEL: Salehi, a high-ranking member of Afghanistan's National Security Council, has allegedly been on the CIA payroll for years. Do you think he will be put on trial?
Scheuer: I would think that there's not going to be a trial. Salehi knows so much about what goes on in that government and what's been stolen and who's doing the stealing, that if he got on a witness seat, it might as well be Karzai himself.

Interview conducted by Marc Hujer