Richard Branson (shown), chairman of Virgin Group Ltd., has offered a $25-million prize for the best solution for ending so-called global warming using geoengineering (also called climate engineering), which is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system.
The goal is to “find true breakthroughs and hopefully create new ways of attacking the climate change problem,” Branson said in an interview.
Sir Richard Branson, who was knighted by Prince Charles in 2000 for his “services to entrepreneurship,” founded such firms as Virgin Atlantic Airways and Virgin Mobile, and with an estimated net worth of $4.9 billion is the seventh-richest citizen of the United Kingdom.
During the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in late June 2012, The New American’s foreign correspondent, Alex Newman, asked Branson what he wanted from Rio+20; he called for planetary carbon taxes and global treaties, supposedly to protect the environment. In a press conference after the day’s events, he reiterated his support for such power-grabbing schemes while lobbying against new oil drilling.
What sorts of climatic engineering might scientists propose who are hoping to claim Branson’s prize? A Bloomberg report on this topic quoted David Titley, a professor in Pennsylvania State University’s department of meteorology, who admitted that tinkering with the earth’s climate may carry more risk than efforts to reduce carbon emissions — the “solution” usually proposed by those who assert that climate change is the result of mankind’s activities.
“Climate intervention involves techniques that are of high and unknown risk,” said Titley. “The risks for mitigation and adaptation are understood and manageable.”
The Bloomberg report noted: “Some proposals are uncontroversial, such as using charcoal to lock carbon dioxide into soil or scattering carbon-absorbing gemstones.”
However, other proposals seem quite bizarre, considering how environmentalists usually are so wary of any human activity that impacts our climate. The report continues:
Other ideas to cool the planet have scientists worried about unintended consequences. There are proposals, untested at scale and with uncertain costs, to block the sun’s rays with airborne particles or seed the oceans with carbon-absorbing iron. That they’re even being considered reveals both frustration over government inaction and skepticism that policy alone will solve the problem.
Those who complain of “government inaction” in the face of climate change that is by all likelihood the result of naturally occurring cycles might do well to recall the story of King Canute, who ruled Denmark, Norway, and England almost a thousand years ago.
According to the story (which may be apocryphal), Canute tired of the flattery poured on him by his courtiers and intended to teach them a lesson about the human limitations of kings. According to one account written by Henry of Huntingdon (the author of a history of England, the Historia Anglorum), Canute set his throne by the seashore and commanded the incoming tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet, wrote Henry, “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’” Canute then hung his gold crown on a crucifix and never wore it again, “to the honor of God the almighty King.”
However, those who insist that governments take action to reduce climate change obviously do not understand that climate has always changed and always will, since such change is a natural phenomenon, as surely as the rising tides that King Canute demonstrated are impossible to stop.
Bloomberg quoted one such individual, Mark Maslin, a fellow at the U.K.’s Royal Geographical Society, who said: “For the last 20 to 30 years, governments, at the back of their minds, have assumed that mitigation is the main way forward. However, asserted Maslin, researchers now realize that the planet needs “other urgent ways of dealing with CO2.”
Those who reject the theory that climate change, usually described as “global warming,” is anthropogenic (caused by human activity) are often branded as “climate deniers,” even though their ranks include many highly qualified and respected scientists in fields such as meteorology. One such individual, Anthony Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist and the author of In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Change, wrote an article for the Washington Times on June 10 about “incessant ad hominem attacks” constantly directed at that those on his side of the debate. He observed:
We witnessed this just recently with Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva’s [D-Ariz.] attack on several prominent atmospheric scientists who dare to defy the authoritarian “consensus” on climate. These veteran scientists include MIT emeritus atmospheric-science professor Richard Lindzen and climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer.
Sadar noted that Alan Carlin, a retired senior Environmental Protection Agency analyst who had challenged the Obama administration’s faulty climate science, in his new book Environmentalism Gone Mad, wrote that those pushing the “global warming doctrine” have almost always “refused to openly debate the scientific issues raised by skeptics but instead derided them or questioned their motives or sources of funding.”
In that book, noted Sadar, Carlin pointed out that the “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” hypothesis, which asserts that rising carbon-dioxide concentrations will dramatically increase average global temperatures, “does not satisfy the scientific method” largely because observed reality has not matched predictions. He asks the reader to consider that, aside from the one surface temperature analysis just released in the journal Science, numerous temperature measurements have revealed that the globe has experienced a relative flatlining of temperatures for nearly two decades, despite man’s best efforts “to stay alive and comfortable with carbon-based fuels.”
As we write, the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change is taking place in Washington, D.C. Organized by the Heartland Institute, the conference is sponsored by several conservative organizations including the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the John Locke Foundation. This year’s theme is “The New Science and Economics of Climate Change.” Among the conference’s keynote speakers are William Harper, professor of Physics at Princeton University, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
Speaking on June 11, Inhofe told attendees that he agreed with former French President Jacques Chirac’s statement that global warming “is the first component of authentic global governance.”
“The United Nations is the reason that this all came along. We all know that,” Inhofe said.
“They want independence. They don’t want to be accountable to anybody, to the United States or any other country,” the senator continued, explaining that global climate change policies would give the United Nations its own funding source and make it unaccountable to its member countries.
Inhofe also said that the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol is “about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide,” and if bureaucrats control carbon emissions, “you control life.”
(NaturalNews) In recent months, before the charitable medical organization Doctors Without Borders was in the news for having one of its clinics bombed in Afghanistan, reports noted that the group was opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive 12-nation “free trade” treaty that is on the cusp of finally being approved by all parties.
The trade pact, which involves the U.S., Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim countries, is high on President Obama’s final term “to-do list,” as his administration has been negotiating it for the past five years.
As Natural News has previously reported, we are opposed to the deal because: 1) it would likely ban GMO labeling laws in the U.S. and 11 other countries; and 2) it would permit the marketing of dangerous Big Pharma drugs to Americans.
Open and public opposition
Doctors Without Borders says it opposed the TPP because it will make the import and export of cheaper generic medications nearly impossible, feeding Big Pharma and thereby raising the cost of care for millions of people.
“But right now the U.S. government is advocating for trade terms with eleven other Pacific Rim nations that could restrict access to generic medicines, making life-saving treatments unaffordable to millions,” the group says on its website.
“Damaging intellectual property rules in the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) would give pharmaceutical companies longer monopolies over brand name drugs. Companies would be able to charge high prices for longer periods of time. And it would be much harder for generic companies to produce cheaper drugs that are vital to people’s health,” the group added.
Did the organization just get punished for this stance in Afghanistan? That’s a question posed by The Anti Media news and information site’s Claire Bernish.
“Harsh criticism and skepticism surround what is being labeled an errant U.S. bombardment of a hospital in Kunduz that left 22 people dead — many of them volunteers with Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders, the humanitarian aid agency) — but doubt lingers about the vague official story for a reason,” she reports.
Many Afghans and others on the ground in Kunduz questioned the bombing, noting that the accuracy of U.S. targeting and weapons systems is quite good — good enough, even, to target an enemy in a moving vehicle. So how could the U.S. have mistakenly bombed a hospital containing personnel belonging to a respected Nobel Prize-winning organization that is openly opposed to one of President Obama’s political priorities?
Christopher Stokes, the director of Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) called the strike a war crime and said that “relying only on an internal investigation by a party to the conflict would be wholly insufficient,” The Guardian reported.
As reported by The Washington Post, Hamdullah Danishi, the acting governor of Kunduz, said, “The hospital campus was 100% used by the Taliban. The hospital has a vast garden, and the Taliban were there. We tolerated their firing for some time.”
But Stokes did not accept that. He said: “Not a single member of our staff reported any fighting inside the MSF hospital compound prior to the U.S. airstrike…”
What’s more, Stokes and others on the scene said that the attack took place over a prolonged period of time, and it just happened to coincide both with the reaching of an agreement among the TPP’s 12 nations and a Taliban attack on the city of Kunduz (which Afghan forces eventually beat back).
“In the case of MSF, a massive treaty cum trade deal involving U.S. interests in another part of the world from the tragedy in Kunduz can offer, perhaps, insight which might otherwise seem unrelated,” Bernish wrote. “As it turns out, MSF have been particularly vocal critics of the impending Trans-Pacific Partnership — and their criticism hasn’t gone unnoticed.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/051637_Doctors_Without_Borders_Obama_TPP.html#ixzz3pCV8wMIJ
DOJ Wants to Arrest You for Terrorism for Not Liking Them Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-government-cage-liking/#tibKi4ROowxqbJkM.99
source: Larken Rose
Propagandists for the U.S. ruling class—I mean, “spokespersons for the United States government”—usually choose their words carefully, trying to use insinuation to demonize their opponents, euphemisms to deify themselves, and other spin and lies to make freedom sound bad and authoritarian power sound good. But they’re not usually stupid enough to come right out and say, “war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength” (see George Orwell’s “1984”). In most cases, to see their true agenda, you need to read between the lines. Sometimes, however, their totalitarian mentality is put on display for all to see.
Consider, for example, this CNN article, talking about how the DOJ wants to shift its focus more to domestic “terror groups.”
Just so we’re clear, I’m a voluntaryist myself, who believes in the non-aggression principle. I abhor actual assault, murder and terrorism (which, as it happens, is committed by agents of “government” far more often than by anyone else). So if someone is actually harming or endangering innocents, I hope someone stops them, using whatever it takes. Whether or not the aggressor, or the protector, wears a badge is totally morally irrelevant. Ain’t I just an extreme, dangerous kook? Anyway, back to the story.
The CNN article starts by quoting “government” officials saying that “domestic terror groups” are a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda. Well, since those (sometimes fictional) groups are no threat at all to America, that isn’t saying much. Then the article explains how, according to Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, the DOJ has a new plan “that will coordinate the investigation and prosecution of anti-government and hate groups.” That’s already a strange thing to say, since neither being anti-“government” nor hating someone is actually a crime. But wait. It gets worse.
Carlin is then quoted as claiming that “a number of violent attacks or plots against the U.S.” were motivated by “anti-government views, racism, bigotry and anarchy, and other despicable beliefs.” Of course, that wording was chosen to: 1) make people think that not liking the federal “government” means that you must be a racist and a bigot, and; 2) make people think that it’s “despicable” to not want to be ruled by a bunch of power-happy parasites.
The only specific example given of this supposed “anti-government” violence was the shooting of two cops in Las Vegas by Jerad and Amanda Miller back in mid 2014. Curiously, just after that happened, when I tried to find out more about those supposed “anti-government extremists,” I couldn’t find anyone who knew them. In fact, despite having about 4,000 Facebook “friends” at the time—most of them anarchists—I had no shared “friends” with the two. Gee, what are the odds?
But then comes the most amazing part of the article. The feds already declare certain groups (like ISIS and al Qaeda) to be “terror organizations,” and prosecute people for supporting such groups. But there is no equivalent law allowing the feds to prosecute “white supremacists,” the KKK, or “anti-government extremists.” So, according to the CNN article, those poor federal control freaks are forced to “find more concrete charges to lock them up.” Since “domestic terrorism” is not an actual crime, in and of itself, “domestic terror groups or actors must be prosecuted with firearms or explosives offenses, hate crimes or murder.”
Wow. Those poor federal persecutors, complaining about not being able to cage people for thinking things or associating with certain groups or ideas. What is the world coming to when you can’t lock someone up until they’ve actually threatened or tried to hurt someone? Apparently we need a Federal Department of Thought Police to protect us. Of course, given their twisted Orwellian terminology, I would absolutely count as an “anti-government extremist,” which means I’m one of those people (as are many readers of The Free Thought Project, no doubt) whom the DOJ really wishes they could lock up just for thinking things and saying things. I am openly and proudly anti-“government,” precisely because “government” is always pro-aggression, anti-freedom and anti-justice. I guess that makes me an “enemy of the people” who must be destroyed by any means necessary.
It is quite clear from Carlin’s comments that the fascists at the DOJ are not content to only go after people who actually harm (or try to harm) others. No, if you don’t like being ruled, if you think violent aggression is bad even when it’s “legal,” if you think all human interaction should be peaceful and voluntary, then you are despicable and dangerous, and the DOJ will be looking for new excuses to lock you up. Good to know
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says that cell phone video recordings of police officers are interfering with the officers’ ability to do their jobs … and that is why the murder numbers are rising for his city.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says that cell phone video recordings of police officers are interfering with the officers’ ability to do their jobs … and that is why the murder numbers are rising for his city.
Emanuel blamed the higher murder rate on “the chilling effects of high-profile protests against police brutality and officers’ fear of cell phone videos of their actions going viral.”
Last week, at a meeting of elected officials and top law enforcement officials, Emanuel said, “We have allowed our police department to get fetal and it is having a direct consequence.” He then added, “They have pulled back from the ability to interdict … they don’t want to be a news story themselves, they don’t want their career ended early, and it’s having an impact.”
It’s an interesting claim from a mayor whose city was dubbed the “murder capital” of the nation back in 2012, long before the rise of viral police brutality videos and the popularization of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Last month, statistics were released by the FBI showing that Chicago had 411 killings, more than New York’s 333 murders and Los Angeles’ 260 murders. This is despite the fact that Chicago has a smaller population than both of those cities do.
U.S. and Afghan troops did in fact break through a locked gate outside of a Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) clinic last week in Kunduz, Afghanistan, where 22 patients and staff were killed in a U.S. military bombing days earlier, a Department of Defense official admitted Monday.
Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis said the soldiers who forced open the gate did not believe the charity hospital was still occupied and that they plan to “make it right and make sure that that gate is repaired.”
But MSF’s response to the gate crash showed the medical charity had different concerns—including the troops’ intentions on the site.
Common Dreams needs you today!
“Their unannounced and forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear for the MSF team,” a spokesperson for the group told Agence France-Presse last week. Moreover, the break-in occurred “despite an agreement made between MSF and the joint investigation team that MSF would be given notice before each step of the procedure,” she said.
Although the Pentagon admitted fault in the gate-crashing incident, it maintained its most recent position that the October 3 bombing was targeting Taliban militants using the charity hospital as a hideout. MSF has consistently denied those claims and called for an independent investigation into the attack, which it says occurred even though fighters on both sides were aware of the clinic’s exact GPS coordinates. The medical charity recently launched a petition calling on President Barack Obama to consent to an inquiry by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC), “the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.”
“Respect for the laws of war is what protects our staff and patients in conflict zones throughout the world,” Jason Cone, executive director of MSF-USA, said last week. “There must be an independent and impartial investigation to establish the facts of this horrific attack on our hospital.”
More than a dozen U.S. states have now completely decriminalized the act of possessing marijuana and both Colorado and Washington have made it legal to possess, sell, transport and cultivate the plant. But soon it may be legalized across the entire country following a decision Thursday by the federal government.
In a historic and significant moment in American history, last November, Colorado became the first US state to legalize marijuana for recreational use. The impact of the decision could soon ripple across the entire country with vast opportunities to educate millions on the top health benefits of marijuana.
With the passage of I-502 in the 2012 Washington State election, marijuana also became legal in Washington–not just for medical use, but also for recreational use–and Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont have all decriminalized marijuana.
Consumption and sale of marijuana is still illegal in all other states, though some cities and towns have passed local laws decriminalizing it or making it a low priority for law enforcement officers.
There are also movements in many states to legalize pot, including legalization bills introduced in many other states.
For other states to mimic the systems in Colorado and Washington, they will first have to get legalization laws on their ballots or in their state houses, which could post a challenge, he said.
After Washington state and Colorado passed laws in November 2012 legalizing the consumption and sale of marijuana for adults over 18, lawmakers in both states waited to see whether the federal government would continue to prosecute pot crimes under federal statutes in their states.
Both Colorado and Washington have been working to set up regulatory systems in order to license and tax marijuana growers and retail sellers, but have been wary of whether federal prosecutors would come after them for doing so. They are the first states to legalize pot, and therefore to go through the process of trying to set up a regulatory system.
Ruling Signals The End is Near For Marijuana Prohibition
Last Thursday, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prosecute marijuana crimes that were legal under state law, a move that could signal the end of the country’s longtime prohibition on pot is nearing. “It certainly appears to be potentially the beginning of the end,” said Paul Armantano, deputy director of the pot lobby group NORML.
The memo sent to states Thursday by the DOJ said that as long as states set up comprehensive regulations governing marijuana, there would be no need for the federal government to step in, a decision that will save the Justice Department from having to use its limited resources on prosecuting individuals for growing or smoking marijuana.
“This memo appears to be sending the message to states regarding marijuana prohibition that is a recognition that a majority of the public and in some states majority of lawmakers no longer want to continue down the road of illegal cannabis, and would rather experiment with different regulatory schemes of license and retail sale of cannabis,” Armantano said.
In 2011 the federal government decreed that marijuana had no accepted medical use use and should remain classified as a highly dangerous drug like heroin. Accepting and promoting the powerful health benefits of marijuana would instantly cut huge profits geared towards cancer treatment and the U.S. would have to admit it imprisons the population for no cause. Nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States are for marijuana.
According to MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition “…there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values,” Cowan notes.
While Colorado and Washington have not yet set up their regulatory systems, both states will likely sell licenses to farmers who want to grow marijuana as well as to manufacturing plants and retail sellers. The marijuana will also likely be taxed at each stage of its growth, processing, and sale.
“In both Colorado and Washington, legalization was done by citizens with no participation by elected representatives until they had to pass laws to comply with the initiative. In other initiative states I would expect such measures – I would expect a new one in California, for instance – and roughly half the states permit this and the rest don’t.
“In the states that do have initiatives I expect efforts to get it on the ballot. The other half it will be much tougher. It’s hard to get elected representatives to do this,” Collins said.
Armantano is more optimistic about the spread of legalized pot. He compared the DOJ’s announcement to the federal government’s actions toward the end of alcohol prohibition in America a century ago, when states decided to stop following the federal ban on alcohol sales and the federal government said it would not step in and prosecute crimes.
“For first time we now have clear message from fed government saying they will not stand in way of states that wish to implement alternative regulatory schemes in lieu of federal prohibition,” Armantano said.
He predicted that within the next one to three years, five or six other states may join Colorado and Washington in legalizing the drug, setting the stage for the rest of the country to follow.
The Age of Deception is Ending
In 2003, the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services filed for, and was awarded a patent on cannabinoids. The reason? Because research into cannabinoids allowed pharmaceutical companies to acquire practical knowledge on one of the most powerful antioxidants and neuroprotectants known to the natural world.
The U.S. Patent 6630507 was specifically initiated when researchers found that cannabinoids had specific antioxidant properties making them useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.
Besides the top 10 health benefits below, findings published in the journalPLoS ONE, researchers have now have now discovered that marijuana-like chemicals trigger receptors on human immune cells that can directly inhibit a type of human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) found in late-stage AIDS.
Recent studies have even shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia, a disease many other studies have inconsistently found it causing.
Top 10 Health Benefits of Marijuana
Cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animalsÃ‚Â and also kill cancer cells. Western governments have known this for a long time yet they continued to suppress the information so that cannabis prohibition and the profits generated by the drug industry proliferated.
THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.
2. Tourette’s Syndrome
Tourette’s syndrome is a neurological condition characterized by uncontrollable facial grimaces, tics, and involuntary grunts, snorts and shouts.
Dr. Kirsten Mueller-Vahl of the Hanover Medical College in Germany led a team that investigated the effects of chemicals called cannabinols in 12 adult Tourette’s patients. A single dose of the cannabinol produced a significant reduction in symptoms for several hours compared to placebo, the researchers reported.
Marijuana is a muscle relaxant and has “antispasmodic” qualities that have proven to be a very effective treatment for seizures. There are actually countless cases of people suffering from seizures that have only been able to function better through the use of marijuana.
Since medicinal marijuana was legalized in California, doctors have reported that they have been able to treat more than 300,000 cases of migraines that conventional medicine couldn’t through marijuana.
Marijuana’s treatment of glaucoma has been one of the best documented. There isn’t a single valid study that exists that disproves marijuana’s very powerful and popular effects on glaucoma patients.
6. Multiple Sclerosis
Marijuana’s effects on multiple sclerosis patients became better documented when former talk-show host, Montel Williams began to use pot to treat his MS. Marijuana works to stop the neurological effects and muscle spasms that come from the fatal disease.
7. ADD and ADHD
A well documented USC study done about a year ago showed that marijuana is not only a perfect alternative for Ritalin but treats the disorder without any of the negative side effects of the pharmaceutical.
8. IBS and Crohn’s
Marijuana has shown that it can help with symptoms of the chronic diseases as it stops nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.
Despite what you may have heard about marijuana’s effects on the brain, the Scripps Institute, in 2006, proved that the THC found in marijuana works to prevent Alzheimer’s by blocking the deposits in the brain that cause the disease.
10. Premenstrual Syndrome
Just like marijuana is used to treat IBS, it can be used to treat the cramps and discomfort that causes PMS symptoms. Using marijuana for PMS actually goes all the way back to Queen Victoria.
Mounting Evidence Suggests Raw Cannabis is Best
Cannabinoids can prevent cancer, reduce heart attacks by 66% and insulin dependent diabetes by 58%. Cannabis clinician Dr. William Courtney recommends drinking 4 – 8 ounces of raw flower and leaf juice from any Hemp plant, 5 mg of Cannabidiol (CBD) per kg of body weight, a salad of Hemp seed sprouts and 50 mg of THC taken in 5 daily doses.
Why raw? Heat destroys certain enzymes and nutrients in plants. Incorporating raw cannabis allows for a greater availability of those elements. Those who require large amounts of cannabinoids without the psychoactive effects need to look no further than raw cannabis. In this capacity, it can be used at 60 times more tolerance than if it were heated.
Raw cannabis is considered by many experts as a dietary essential. As a powerful anti-inflammatory and antioxidant, raw cannabis may be right u there with garlic and tumeric.
Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
The federal government will announce a new plan requiring anyone buying a drone to register the device with the U.S. Department of Transportation, NBC news has learned.
The government has been concerned about the rise in close calls between unmanned drones and aircraft flying into and out of some of the nation’s biggest airports. The plan is expected to be announced Monday.
In July, there was a dangerously close encounter between a drone and a passenger jet with 159 people aboard setting up to land at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The unmanned aerial vehicle was just 100 feet away from the passenger jet at an altitude of 1,700 feet; normal safe separation distance is between aircraft is at least 1,000 feet.
Private drones were also blamed for hampering aerial firefighting efforts over a California blaze in July.
Firefighting aircraft trying to attack the fast-moving blaze in the Cajon Pass had to leave the area for around 20 minutes over safety concerns, officials said. The fire swept over a busy freeway and torched 20 vehicles.
Under the plan, the government would work with the drone industry to set up a structure for registering the drones, and the regulations could be in place by Christmas.
Last week, the Federal Aviation Administration proposed a $1.9 million fine against Chicago drone company SkyPan, which was alleged to have flown dozens of unauthorized flights over Chicago and New York since 2012
source :washingtons blog
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that U.S. drone policy is insane.
But one story told by the main drone whistleblowing reporter – Jeremy Scahill – shows just how insane it really is.
Specifically, Scahill explained today that Americans target TALL people in Afghanistan and other countries … assuming that tall men must be Arabs or “foreign fighters.”
In one instance, the U.S. targeted for drone assassination a man who they thought was unusually tall. In reality, he was a normal-size man … who happened to be surrounded by children.
The U.S. killed the man and all of the children (other than perhaps a single survivor):
Hillary Clinton celebrated the opening of the first Planned Parenthood clinic in America 99 years ago, when the U.S.’s largest abortion provider began its long career in the open pursuit of eugenics.
The Democrat 2016 candidate tweeted out her congratulations and support of the organization that is currently under several congressional investigations following the release of videos exposing its apparent practices of harvesting the body parts of unborn babies for sale:
As pro-life group Live Action notes, Margaret Sanger — Planned Parenthood’s founder – held firmly to eugenics – the philosophy that the human race can be improved by controlled and selective breeding. Sanger promoted the sterilization and use of birth control for those – mainly minorities – with qualities she considered less desirable for the human race.
Sanger’s philosophy has continued to this day. The Guttmacher Institute reported black women are five times more likely to undergo an abortion than white women. Similarly, last year, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Office released a report that revealed more black babies are aborted than are born in that city. Yet New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio pledged to partner with Planned Parenthood to expand his city’s abortion businesses and to wipe out pro-life pregnancy centers.
Additionally, a study released last year demonstrates the obvious racial disparity where abortion is concerned in the United States. Dr. James Studnicki at the University of North Carolina and his colleagues found that for whites, abortions in 2008 contributed to 59% of total years of potential life lost while, for blacks, abortions contributed 76% of the same. The researchers concluded that “induced abortion is the overwhelmingly predominant contributing cause of preventable potential lives lost in North Carolina,” and blacks are disproportionately affected.
Clinton, however, and feminists of her generation cling to Sanger’s elevation of birth control as somewhat of a “sacrament” of the feminist movement. Sanger wrote:
We now know that there never can be a free humanity until woman is freed from ignorance, and we know, too, that woman can never call herself free until she is mistress of her own body. Just so long as man dictates and controls the standards of sex morality, just so long will man control the world.
Birth control is the first important step woman must take toward the goal of her freedom. It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal. It is the first step they must both take toward human emancipation.
More recently, however, black pro-life leaders and Republican members of Congress have demanded that Sanger’s bust be removed from a “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery where it is displayed.
In a letter sent to the director of the gallery, Ministers Taking a Stand, led by president Bishop E.W. Jackson, stated:
Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well-documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
In an interview with Breitbart News, Jackson said his group received a response from the gallery that referred to Sanger as a person who struggled for justice because she tried to make birth control and reproductive freedom available to poor women.
“We responded back that this was not Sanger’s motivation,” Jackson asserted. “Her motivation was stopping people whom she considered ‘defective’ from having what she would call ‘defective children.’
May Even Be More Widespread Than BEFORE the War STARTED
The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were also the most expensive wars in American history.
And yet – as the New York Times reports – the Taliban are as widespread and strong now as they were before we launched the war:
The Taliban insurgency has spread through more of Afghanistan than at any point since 2001, according to data compiled by the United Nations as well as interviews with numerous local officials in areas under threat.
The United Nations data suggests that the tempo of the insurgency has increased in many parts of the country where there had been little Taliban presence in the past, including some areas in the north with scant Pashtun populations.
“We have had fighting in 13 provinces of Afghanistan over the past six months, simultaneously,” President Ashraf Ghani said this month in response to criticism after the fall of Kunduz.
In all, 27 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces had some districts where the threat level was rated high or extreme.
Indeed, the strength of the Taliban may conceivably now be even higher than in 2001. Specifically, the Times notes:
The data [was] compiled in early September — even before the latest surge in violence in northern Afghanistan ….
And way back in 2012, Spiegel noted, that the Taliban was “stronger than EVER.”
So why did we launch the Afghanistan war?
After all, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden.
There might have been other reasons …
Postscript: It’s not just Afghanistan … recent U.S. wars have not gone well.