USGS: Magnitude-6.0 quake off Northern Calif coast

(02-04) 13:08 PST Petrolia, Calif. (AP) –


A magnitude-6.0 earthquake has struck off the coast of Humboldt County, but officials say there are no immediate reports of major damage or injury.



The U.S. Geological Survey reports that the temblor hit at 12:20 p.m. about 35 miles northwest of the community of Petrolia and nearly 50 miles west of Eureka. The shaking was felt up to the Oregon border and as far south as Sonoma County.
County spokesman Phil Smith-Hanes says he felt a rolling sensation, but the movement didn’t feel as severe as the magnitude-6.5 quake that struck the same area Jan. 9. That quake left more than $40 million of damage in the area and caused one major injury.
Eureka Fire Chief Eric Smith says crews are checking on structures damaged in the previous earthquake to make sure they’re secure.

So much for the Swine flu epidemic: National website and helpline are shut down

Daily Mail
Thursday, February 4, 2010

The National Pandemic Flu Service will be stood down in response to the ’steady reduction’ in the number of cases of swine flu, it was announced today.

In what will be interpreted as a sign that the outbreak in Britain is largely over, the flu hotline and website will be switched off on February 11.

Cases have been falling steadily and most people who have become ill have suffered relatively mild illness, although Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has warned against complacency.

Health Minister Gillian Merron said the NPFS could be re-activated in seven days should it be needed.

People who suspect they have swine flu will be directed to their GP instead of the antiviral collection points from next week, she added.

In a written ministerial statement to MPs, Ms Merron said: ‘The Department is today announcing the decision to stand down the NPFS with effect from 1am on February 11 2010.

Full story here.

Public’s Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism

Energy Concerns Fall, Deficit Concerns Rise

As Barack Obama begins his second year in office, the public’s priorities for the president and Congress remain much as they were one year ago. Strengthening the nation’s economy andimproving the job situation continue to top the list. And, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, defending the country from future terrorist attacks also remains a top priority. 

At the same time, the public has shifted the emphasis it assigns to two major policy issues: dealing with the nation’s energy problem and reducing the budget deficit. About half (49%) say that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority, down from 60% a year ago. At the same time, there has been a modest rise in the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority, from 53% to 60%.

Other policy priorities show little change from a year ago. For example, despite the ongoing debate over health care reform, about as many now call reducing health care costs a top priority (57%) as did so in early 2009 (59%). In fact, the percentage rating health care costs a top priority is lower now than it was in both 2008 (69%) and 2007 (68%).

In addition, the percentage placing top priority on providing health insurance to the uninsured stands at 49%. That is little changed from a year ago and off its high of 61% in January 2001. Notably, there is now a wider partisan gap in opinion about this issue than for any of the other 20 issues in the survey: fully 75% of Democrats rate providing health insurance to the uninsured as a top priority compared with just 26% of Republicans.

More than six-in-ten Americans say securing the Social Security system (66%) and securing the Medicare system (63%) should be top priorities for Obama and Congress. About as many (65%) say that improving the educational system should be a top policy priority. For all three items, public evaluations are not significantly different than they were one year ago.

In the wake of the financial crisis, the public does not place increased financial regulation among its top policy priorities. Fewer than half (45%) say stricter regulation of financial institutions should be a top priority for the president and Congress.

Budget Deficit and Energy

The priority given to reducing the budget deficit has risen seven points over the last year; in early 2009, 53% of the public called deficit reduction a top priority compared with 60% in the current survey. Both Republicans (+10 points) and Democrats (+8 points) have become more likely to say this is a top priority.

Emphasis on the budget deficit has increased since 2002, when it reached a low ebb following several years of budget surpluses (from 1998 to 2001 the question was worded “paying off the national debt”). Currently, the priority given to reducing the budget deficit is not significantly higher than it was in 2008 (58% top priority) or 1997 (60% top priority) and it lags slightly behind the high of 65% in December 1994.

In the past two years, there has been no difference between the priority Republicans and Democrats place on reducing the budget deficit. In the current survey, a single point separates Republicans (61% top priority) from Democrats (60% top priority). In 2009, partisans were equally close in their views. This is a dramatic change from much of the previous decade. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats expressed far more concern than Republicans over the deficit. The opposite was true in 1997, when Bill Clinton was in office. At that time significantly more Republicans than Democrats said reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority.

Six-in-ten independents say this should be a top priority, matching the views of Republicans and Democrats. Independents’ concern over the budget deficit has been stable over the past three years.

While concern over the budget deficit has gone up, the percentage giving priority to dealing with the nation’s energy problem has declined significantly – and this decline has taken place among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. In the current survey, 49% rate energy a top priority, down 11 points from 60% in 2009. In the late 2000s, about six-in-ten consistently gave top priority to dealing with the nation’s energy problem. The current number is more in line with views from the early years of that decade, when the percentage that said dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority ranged from the low-to-mid 40s.

Global Warming and the Environment

Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.

Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.

Jobs, Economy and Terrorism Defense

Strengthening the nation’s economy, improving the job situation and defending the country from future terrorist attacks are far-and-away the top three policy priorities for the public. No other item comes within 14 points. Last year, both the economy and jobs edged ahead of defending the nation against terrorism as top priorities. In 2008, the economy and terrorism defense were virtually tied atop the priority list, while somewhat fewer people expressed concern over jobs. In 2006 and 2007, the public was more concerned about terrorism than it was about economic issues.

Improving the job situation has moved to the top of the list only recently. For much of the past decade, the percent of the public calling the job situation a top priority fluctuated in the 60s and trailed the economy. It spiked to 82% in 2009 and stands at 81% in the current survey.

There are no major differences in how Republicans, Democrats and independents prioritize strengthening the economy. Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans and independents to rate improving the job situation as a top priority. And Republicans are slightly more inclined than Democrats and independents to give top priority to defending the country from future terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, at least 75% of all groups give top priority to these issues, and partisan differences are generally modest when compared to differences over other policy priorities.

Dueling Partisan Agendas

Despite general partisan agreement on the importance of improving the job situation, strengthening the economy and protecting the country, large differences exist between Republicans and Democrats on other leading issues.

Republicans and Democrats take starkly different positions on the importance of providing health insurance to the uninsured; 75% of Democrats call this a top priority compared with 26% of Republicans. The 49-point gap in opinion is the largest for any of the 21 issues tested. Health insurance also was the most political divisive issue a year ago, though the gap was smaller at 38 points. In the current survey, 41% of independents call providing health insurance to the uninsured a top priority.

Democrats also are far more likely than Republicans to put a top priority on dealing with global warming, the problems of poor and needy people, protecting the environment, reducing health care costs and improving the educational system. In each case, Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to consider each of these issues top priorities.

Republicans, by contrast, place more emphasis than do Democrats on strengthening the military, dealing with illegal immigration, and reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. Here again, the gaps in opinion are relatively large, with Republicans being about 20 points more likely than Democrats to call each of these issues top priorities.

The gap between Republicans and Democrats on reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington has widened this year; 45% of Republicans say this should be a top priority compared with 27% of Democrats. In 2009, Republicans (37%) were somewhat more likely than Democrats (30%) to call reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests a top priority. And in 2007, the partisan balance was reversed with more Democrats (44%) calling this a top priority than Republicans (28%).

Reducing the budget deficit and reducing federal income taxes for the middle class are two points of partisan agreement. Almost the same percentage of Republicans and Democrats call these issues top priorities.

State of the Union Address

With Obama’s State of the Union address set for Jan. 27, 39% say that this year’s address will be more important than past years’ addresses, while 45% think it will be about as important as previous State of the Union addresses. Just 9% say it will be less important. At 39%, the public assigns greater importance to Obama’s address than they did to the last three State of the Union speeches given by former President George W. Bush. Nonetheless, fewer see Obama’s upcoming address as more important than said that about Bush’s State of the Union addresses in 2002 and 2003.

In January 2002, 54% said that Bush’s State of the Union was more important than in previous years. Opinion was similar a year later in January 2003. The percentage saying that Obama’s State of the Union address is more important than in previous years is much greater than it was for former President Clinton’s speeches in 1999 and 2000.

About half of Democrats (54%) say that Obama’s State of the Union address will be more important than speeches in past years. Republicans and independents are less inclined to take this view: 30% of Republicans and 32% of independents say it will be more important, while pluralities of both groups say it will be about as important as past addresses (49% of independents say this, as do 47% of Republicans).

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a national sample of 1,504 adults living in the continental United States, 18 years of age or older, from January 6-10, 2010 (1,000 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 504 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 201 who had no landline telephone). Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2009 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The sample is also weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2009 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

ABOUT THE CENTER

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

All of the Center’s research and reports are collaborative products based on the input and analysis of the entire Center staff consisting of:

Andrew Kohut, Director
Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research
Carroll Doherty and Michael Dimock, Associate Directors
Michael Remez, Senior Writer
Robert Suls, Shawn Neidorf, Leah Christian, Jocelyn Kiley and Alec Tyson, Research Associates
Jacob Poushter, Research Assistant

EWG Study Finds Hundreds of Pollutants in Nation’s Drinking Water

E. Huff
Natural News
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released yet another report indicting the nation’s drinking water supplies are being highly contaminated with pollutants. An analysis of 20 million water quality tests performed between 2004 and 2009 revealed that many local and regional water supplies are tainted with up to 316 different toxic chemicals, many of which are unregulated by current federal standards.

Of the over 300 pollutants found, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set safe maximum limits for only 114 of them, leaving the remaining 64 percent unrecognized as pollutants and unregulated by toxin laws. A few of these chemicals include perchlorate, a toxic component of rocket fuel; freon and radon, two chemical refrigerants; acetone; and metolachlor, a weed killer.

Nearly 10,000 American communities comprised of roughly 132 million people are receiving over 200 unregulated chemicals in their water supplies. Experts question the long-term safety of ingesting such tainted water, citing the fact that even existing federal laws about regulated chemicals suggest that tap water is unsafe for long-term ingestion. Health officials admit that current acceptable water contamination limits render water unsafe to drink.

Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research at EWG, notes that federal guidelines have failed to keep up with the growing number of toxic contaminants being found in drinking water. Utility companies, she says, are doing their best to purify water and make it safe to drink, but federal laws must be amended to include new chemicals in order to protect water supplies from unnecessary contamination.

Because many of the chemicals being found in water are unregulated and essentially permitted at any level, water utilities concerned about removing them spend more than $4 billion a year on chemicals designed to remove them from water. Only $207 million, or five percent of that amount, is spent protecting water sources from being contaminated in the first place.

Almost all of the unregulated chemicals being found in water are a result of discharge from agricultural pesticides and fertilizers, industrial pollutant runoff, and other wastewater treatment residue that makes its way into aquifers, reservoirs and groundwater supplies. Since there are virtually no laws in place to protect water supplies from these contaminants, industry is essentially permitted to discharge this waste with no consequence.

Experts believe that a federal restructuring of contaminant guidelines would go far to prevent water supply contamination, saving water utilities billions of dollars in treatment costs and maintaining the integrity of water supplies nationwide.

Sources for this story include: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/pressr…

Perry Calls Fed Shutdown Of Gun Show “Harassment”

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 25, 2010

In the video below, Texas governor Rick Perry talks with Richard Reeves about the close down of the Texas Gun Shows.

Perry claims to be an advocate states’ right and has told us he is opposed to the federal government meddling in local affairs and yet he has little to say about the BATFE colluding with the Austin Police to shut down what was in fact an entirely legal gun show. Perry tells Reeves he thinks it was wrong for the feds to have leaned on the property owner HEB and forced Darwin Boedeker of Texas Gun Shows out of business.

Instead of defending a business owner against illegal federal intrusion (under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution) the governor tells Boedeker he should find another venue. Rick Perry does not address the behavior off the Austin Police or the absurd allegation parroted by the local media that citizens need paperwork to sell firearms in the state. Texas does not have a law requiring such paperwork and that is why the APD leaned on HEB in order to get the business shut down.

In response to a question by Reeves, Perry explains that if Mr. Boedecker moves his business to another venue and the police shut him down again he will consider it harassment. He does not specify what he will do if this happens.

He claims there is a lot of “he said, she said” involved in the dispute and he does not know what the facts are. The facts in the case are evident and not difficult to understand.

Is it possible the governor of Texas is ignorant of the laws in his state and also the Commerce Clause under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution? In addition, is it possible Perry is ignorant of the terms under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986? The law states that individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence (including parking lots) are not subjected to federal regulation. The law makes it obvious (in addition to the Commerce Clause) that the federal government has no jurisdiction in Texas or anywhere else when it comes to gun sales between private individuals who are not registered gun dealers.

It should be obvious by now that the BATFE colluded with the Austin cops to violate the law and target Darwin Boedeker. It is Rick Perry’s responsibility to protect his constituents from such federal racketeering.

The Austin Police are using color of law to deny Texans their right to buy and sell firearms. They have used the local media to spin the issue and disingenuously claim that the police are only interested in preventing illegal aliens and felons from purchasing firearms.

In fact, the law in Texas does not state that it is the responsibility of the seller to discover if a buyer is a criminal or from Mexico or any other country. The APD, at the behest of the federal government and the radical anti-Second Amendment Obama administration and the Justice Department under the leadership of the notorious gun-grabber Eric Holder, is engaged in Mafia-like criminal behavior.

Darwin Boedeker and Texas Gun Shows did not commit any crimes. The private and legal buying and selling of firearms allegedly taking place in the parking lot outside the venue is legal under Texas law and certainly not the responsibility of Boedeker and Texas Gun Shows. The “public nuisance” aspect of the APD complaint about gun sales is a red herring designed to divert attention from the real issue — the federal government’s attempt to shut down gun shows across the nation and keep relentless pressure on the Second Amendment and law-abiding Americans.

Perry’s neglect and cavalier comments need to become an election issue. He obviously does not feel that the state of Texas should protect its citizens from a wanton and predatory federal government determined to disarm the American public and deny them their right to own firearms under the Second Amendment.

The people of Texas only have one viable candidate for governor — Debra Medina, who 

From Freedom To Slavery: 100 Years Of American Life

 “Slavery can only be abolished by raising the character of the people who compose the nation; and that can be done only by showing them a higher one.”

Maria Weston Chapman (1806–1885)

Note: The following is a letter sent by our webmaster to the subscribers of the Sorcha Faal that we thought should be shared with everyone.

Hello Folks,

I’ve gotten a lot of emails from many of you asking for more information about what is happening with ‘free’ media and rather than write individual replies I’ll just do this one so everyone can be kept up to date.

For those of you who may have joined this list in the past month here is what I had written previously:

What the future holds for you is already being planned and in 2010 you’ll begin to see it implemented, and it goes basically like this…

1.) Introduce a new communication medium that has the appearance to the public of being ‘free’. (Radio-1920-30’s/Television-1940-50’s/Internet-1990-2000’s)

2.) Use this new communication medium to destroy the previous society’s means of obtaining news and information. (Radio destroyed mass public gatherings and tens of thousands of newspapers/Television     destroyed mass influence of Radio, further destroyed newspapers/Internet destroys EVERYTHING and becomes the SINGLE SOURCE of news, information, music, entertainment)

3.) Upon the destruction of each previous communication medium establish greater control by consolidating into global government controlled outlets. (Just 7 corporations control 98% of the news and entertainment media.)

4.) Once accepted by an easily duped public, and the ‘free’ concept of a new communication medium is firmly established, begin rapid destruction of all opposition by the introduction of paid services for content. From ‘free’ Radio to paid Internet-Satellite Radio/ From ‘free’ Television to ‘paid’ Cable Television/From ‘free’ Internet to paid Internet subscriptions for content.

Since writing this too you ‘way back then’ (last month actually) here’s what has been happening:

Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, one of the United States largest radio broadcasters, files for bankruptcy

New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers

Free broadcast TV may go way of the VHS tape

Google to limit free news access

Air America to File for Bankruptcy

These are but the ‘trickle’ through the ‘dam’ of what is going to be a ‘flood’ of ‘free’ media changes creating more restrictions and controls to be put on what you will be allowed to know, and from whom you are allowed to know it from…and it gets worse!

Now in order for you to fully know how worse it is going to get, you have to first remember what it was like…and there is no better example for you to understand this than the eighth-grade final exam given in 1895 to 13-year-old students from Salina, Kansas…see how many you can answer:

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.

2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.

3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.

4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of do, lie, lay and run.

5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.

6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of Punctuation.

7-10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts. Per buy, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?

4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?

5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.

6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.

7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?

8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.

9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?

10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.

2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.

3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.

5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.

6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?

8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

The 13-year-old students who passed this exam went on to higher educational levels where the classical languages (Latin and Greek) were REQUIRED subjects. In 1900 every single high-school, collage and university in America required at least 2 years of classical language study, but do you know why?

Firstly because they were considered an obvious requirement for educated people. Latin, for instance, trains your mind and memory. Unraveling a Latin sentence is an excellent exercise in thought, a real intellectual puzzle, and a good introduction to logical thinking. Secondly because without one knowing the classical languages they would have no independent way to verify the entire history of the modern world as ALL OF IT is written in either Latin or Greek.

How many of you know either one of these classical languages?  Why don’t you? Because they have been DELIBERATELY taken out of the curriculum of your schools to keep you from knowing some of the most basic truths of whom you are and why you are here!

But guess what? What has been done to you, your children and your grandchildren, the elite classes WOULD NEVER DO to their children. Why do you think they send their children to private schools in the first place? SO THEY WILL KNOW MORE THAN YOU CAN EVER KNOW SO THEY CAN ALWAYS BE YOUR MASTERS!

One example (and there are many of them) is the Groton School, an elite private, Episcopal, college preparatory boarding school located in Groton, Massachusetts, US.  It enrolls approximately 350 boys and girls, from the eighth through twelfth grades. Groton is a portal to power whose graduates trod a well-worn path to the US State Department and the CIA…here’s just part of the curriculum for their students….

“The curriculum in the 2nd and 3rd Forms challenges students across the intellectual spectrum and encourages students to immerse themselves in the basic disciplines. The definition of “basic disciplines” includes at least two years’ study of a classical language, Latin or Greek, in the belief that this exposure will provide an ability to analyze carefully and to synthesize various expressions of thought.”

Now at this point you may be thinking that even though Latin and Greek have been taken away from you at least your children and grandchildren will always be able to read you own historical documents. You’ve thought wrong!!!

With very little exception, the entirety of all of America’s historical documents were written in Latin and English using what is called the cursive style of writing. Cursive is any style of handwriting that is designed for writing notes and letters quickly by hand.

In the Arabic, Latin, and Cyrillic writing systems, the letters in a word are connected, making a word one single complex stroke. In fact, the word comes from the Latin cursivus, meaning “flowing”. Cursive is considered distinct from the so-called “printing” (what you’re reading now) or “block letter” style of handwriting, in which the letters of a word are unconnected, and from “print-writing”.

And the most important thing about cursive writing you need to know RIGHT NOW is that it is due to become extinct because the vast majority of American schools are no longer teaching it to their students!

Even worse is that under President Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” over $77 Billion was given to US schools with a ‘mandate’ to totally eradicate the teaching of cursive writing in every classroom as it has been deemed ‘outmoded’ for the 21st Century American Economy where the computer will be ‘king’.

So here’s what we have folks…for the past 100 years there has been a deliberate plan to de-educate the American people and deny them the ability of knowing the truth behind their history by not allowing them to be taught the very languages they need to understand what has been handed down to them and is their right to know. 

For these past 100 years the elite classes have separated their educational system from that of the publics and continue to teach their children subjects forbidden to those of the ‘lower’ classes.  For these past 100 years the ability of Americans to know the truth of what is happening in their country and in world has been severely limited by the destruction of ‘free’ media to that of ‘pay to know’ and thus disenfranchising those without the ability to pay from knowing the truth.

Any way you want to look at this folks is fine, but make no mistake about it….for the past 100 years you have seen the deliberate establishment of what is called a two-tier society….one of masters and slaves….which one do you belong to?

Now this is where the Sisters of Sorcha Faal come in as they not only know the classical languages they also know the ‘game plan’ of these elites and are able (should you avail yourselves of their knowledge) to both keep you informed and educated at the same time so that you can be as prepared and as knowledgeable as those elite classes who really think they rule over you.

For those of you who are new to reading Sorcha Faal reports it must be understood that their primary purpose is to stimulate those thought processes in your own mind that your ‘enemies’ are also seeking to destroy.  Where the elitist propaganda media seeks to always use the lowest common denominator so as to leave you in a position of never daring to ever question their authority, the Sisters of Sorcha Faal drive right to the core of the issue literally ‘exploding’ the perceived meaning into each of its constituent pieces so that when lain before you you’ll be able to see the ‘clear truth’ for yourself without anyone telling you.

But I’m here to remind you once again that in this war for your minds (and make no mistake about this being a war because it is) you absolutely must become a participant in it. And your first duty is to help those who are protecting you. The best way you can help right now is to go the Sisters latest appeal (see below) and give what you can so they can keep working for you.

For those of you who have already given (and too few mind you) Thank You.  For those of you who haven’t given I can only warn you that unless you begin to help those who are helping you you’re going to wake up one day and find nothing but the trash that passes for news as your only resource for knowledge.

So do what you can to help out folks, and (hopefully) we’ll talk again next month.

Police beat 18-year-old violinist over Mt. Dew bottle

David Edwards and Gavin Dahl

Raw Story

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Pittsburgh police have reassigned three plainclothes officers to uniformed duty pending an investigation into the beating of an 18-year-old student.

A police report indicates that officers became interested in Jordan Miles when they suspected he had a gun in his coat. After beating Miles in the head with a closed fist, the officers discovered the object was a Mountain Dew bottle.

Miles, a violinist and honor student who attends the prestigious Creative and Performing Arts High School, says he resisted arrest because he thought the men were trying to abduct him and didn’t identify themselves as police.

The student is black, and the three officers are white. Police and the family’s attorney aren’t commenting on whether race was a factor, according to the Associated Press.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports, “Miles suffered a swollen face, hair ripped from his scalp and a twig jabbed through his gum during the incident.”

Download Video

Glenn Beck For Dummies

Beck is a fake revolutionary who has hijacked the freedom movement and is being used to lead conservatives and libertarians down the rabbit hole

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 25, 2010

Glenn Beck is being characterized by the establishment as the leader of the freedom movement and yet a closer analysis of his ideology reveals that Beck is nothing more than a fake revolutionary who has supported and is pushing policies that are diametrically opposed to those embraced by true constitutionalists.

Beck and Fox News have hijacked the patriot movement and are leading conservatives and libertarians down a meaningless partisan rabbit hole in a clear attempt to neutralize genuine opposition to the big government agenda of the Obama administration.

It is important to stress that we are not picking a fight with Glenn Beck or Fox News in general as a crude effort to garner attention. Glenn Beck routinely attacks real libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and those who would define themselves as constitutionalists. We are constantly forced to rebut his smears against people in the freedom movement while Beck claims to be one of us.

Indeed, Judge Andrew Napolitano, who also appears on Fox News, is an example of a real constitutionalist and we are in full agreement with his views.

As the video below illustrates, despite the fact that Beck claims to be “a Libertarian at heart,” he has publicly supported programs and legislation that are universally abhorred by the vast majority of libertarians, such as the banker bailout and the USA Patriot Act.

Beck has also been aggressively pushing for new taxes in order to pay for the bailout that he supported. On December 4, he appeared on fellow neo-con Bill O’Reilly’s show to promotea 2 percent VAT tax to be adopted that would go directly to pay down the national debt.

While lending support to the Tea Party movement out of one side of his mouth, out of the other Beck is promoting the exact thing they are protesting against – more taxes.

Beck is not a real libertarian, he is a performing circus act who is being positioned as a clown to discredit issues that the genuine freedom movement embraces, such as exposing the fact that man-made global warming is a fraud.

Certainly, on several issues Beck jives with populist sentiment, but on all the major fronts – war, the patriot act, warrantless spying, the bailout, and new taxes, he is nothing more than a shill for big government.

Beck’s agenda is to put out a dual message – to discredit and polarize the conservative movement to the benefit of the two party monopoly. His bizarre and clownish antics of fake crying, which were proven to be staged when Beck replicated them on demand for a GQ photo shoot, are doing nothing but reinforcing the stereotype that the freedom movement is extreme and unbalanced.

Beck’s entire 9/12 project has nothing to do with uniting America and everything to do with reinforcing neo-conservative rhetoric about how we should relinquish our rights and accept the police state because terrorists want to attack us and Saddam Hussein had WMD’s and yellowcake.

During his Monday September 22 2008 TV broadcast, Beck expressed his vehement support for the bailout, stating, “The $700 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only I believe necessary, it is also not nearly enough.” However, as soon as Bush left office and Obama picked up the baton and continued the same financial policy, he changed his tune and routinely attacked the bailout as an example of how socialism was taking over America.

The bailout was bad news for America under Bush just as it is under Obama, both were merely performing a transfer of wealth from America to offshore banks and giving the Federal Reserve total dictatorial control over the economy, but Beck only opposed it when Bush was out of office, proving that his opinions are not wedded to right or wrong, but to which puppet is in the White House.

A host of mainline conservative talking heads opposed the banker bailout, as did the majority of the American people, but Beck went on television and publicly supported it. This is irreconcilable with Beck being “a libertarian at heart” as he claims.

In addition, Beck aggressively attacked Ron Paul and his supporters during the election campaign when it looked like the Texan Congressman might have a real chance of winning the nomination. Beck implied that Ron Paul supporters were domestic terrorists and should be dealt with by the U.S. Army, but later tried to side with Ron Paul supporters when the infamous and discredited MIAC report echoed his own talking point that people who support Ron Paul were dangerous.

The smear came during a November 2007 show when Beck was on CNN. Alongside ex-Marxist David Horowitz, Beck demonized Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive. When asked about the issue, Ron Paul dismissed Beck as “pretty discourteous” and a “demagogue”.

Beck has also worked with government propagandists Popular Mechanics in an effort to “debunk” the existence of internment camps in America. Beck’s hit piece consisted of setting up a straw man argument while ignoring the manifestly provable evidence that such facilities exist and that they are admittedly being prepared to house citizens during times of civil unrest.

Beck has ceaselessly attacked 9/11 truthers as dangerous extremists, echoing precisely talking points put out by Obama information czar Cass Sunstein. Just last week Beck said on his nationally syndicated radio show that there are 9/11 truth activists in the White House and they threaten the life of Obama. The fact that Beck is repeating White House talking points to demonize political adversaries of the administration proves that his image as an anti-establishment guru is a manufactured fraud.

Beck has been a vehement cheerleader for the wars of aggression launched since 9/11 and in addition called for Iran to be attacked, claiming that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing a “second holocaust.” Once again, these political opinions stand completely contrary to libertarian principles, which follow the founding fathers’ view that an expansionist aggressive foreign policy is bad for America.

Beck has attacked Obama for unraveling the Bush war machine, when in fact Obama has done everything in his power to expand Bush’s wars, beefing the campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan while removing a token amount of troops from Iraq and replacing them with an even greater number of contractors.

By attacking Obama for being different to Bush, when in reality he offers no change whatsoever, Beck keeps people locked in the left-right paradigm and ensures that instead of coming to the realization that the whole system is rigged, they will merely vote in another puppet for the new world order in 2012.

Beck is the perfect example of controlled opposition, he is there to co-opt and ensure the Tea Parties are under control and that they never focus on taking on the real power behind the American economy – the Federal Reserve.

Glenn Beck is a fake revolutionary whose job it is to lead conservatives and libertarians away from uniting behind the real issues, while absorbing the successes of the patriot movement and in turn discrediting it by way of his clownish antics and easily derided mannerisms. He is part of a wider approach on behalf of Fox News to become a beacon for freedom movement and then act as a steam valve for its issues, deluding people into thinking their interests are being represented when in reality they are merely being sucked up and spewed out as something entirely misrepresentative.

It is vital that we alert the freedom movement to the fact that Beck is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and one must only scratch beneath the surface to discover that his true political standpoint is the complete opposite of that embraced by true constitutionalists. If we continue to let Beck and Fox News pose as our leaders the entire movement will crash and burn because we will be allowing the foxes to guard the henhouse.

Investigate Pachauri now

Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
Monday, January 25th, 2010

The IPCC and its deeply conflicted chairman are starting to smell very badly, and not just because of Climategate:

The chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hasused bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion’s share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers…

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 – an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

Humbled – but not humble. In fact, Pachauri was at first suspiciously determined to defend this preposterous error, based on a wild and unsubstantiated claim by a single scientist in a telephone interview, and to smear the scientists and critics who pointed it out. Remember his initial responses:

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as “voodoo science” lacking peer review.

And again:

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

Even more suspiciously, Pachauri’s TERI employed the very scientist whose airy claim in 1999 had started the whole Himalayan scare:

The Carnegie money was … acknowledged by TERI in a press release, issued on January 15, just before the glacier scandal became public, in which Pachauri repeated the claims of imminent glacial melt… The same release also quoted Dr Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist who, back in 1999, made the now discredited claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. He now heads Pachauri’s glaciology unit at TERI which sought the grants and which is carrying out the glacier research.

Critics point out that Hasnain, of all people, should have known the claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was bogus because he was meant to be a leading glaciologist specialising in the Himalayas.

In fact, and making this scandal even worse, is the admission that the IPCC deliberately included the Himalayan claim in its 2007 report for political purposes, despite knowing it was suspect at best:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action..”.

And let’s not forget which warmist dupe – and wannabe UN secretary general – has also tipped Pachauri’s TERI another $1 million of taxpayers’ funds:

Australian Prime Minister Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd announced $1 million contribution to The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) …

When wild and baseless scares are pushed by a man who makes serious money from them, it’s time to call in the auditors. Pachauri may be innocent of any wrong doing, but only a fool would be blind to the danger of corruption when so many millions are being thrown at pushers of the warming faith.

Question: could the Nobel Prize be withdrawn from the IPCC if more such revelations come to light?

Full article here 

SEC mulled national security status for AIG details

Reuters
Monday, January 25th, 2010

U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve’s bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.

The request to keep the details secret were made by the New York Federal Reserve — a regulator that helped orchestrate the bailout — and by the giant insurer itself, according to the emails.

The emails from early last year reveal that officials at the New York Fed were only comfortable with AIG submitting a critical bailout-related document to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after getting assurances from the regulatory agency that “special security procedures” would be used to handle the document.

The SEC, according to an email sent by a New York Fed lawyer on January 13, 2009, agreed to limit the number of SEC employees who would review the document to just two and keep the document locked in a safe while the SEC considered AIG’s confidentiality request.

Full article here