Scientists Weaponize Bird Flu, Consider Releasing Results to Create Bioweapon

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
November 22, 2011

It sounds like something out of a bizarre science fiction comic book, but scientists have weaponized the H5N1 bird flu virus, and are actually considering releasing the research.

The experiments, which involved mutating the virus a total of 5 times, made the strain highly contagious between ferrets — the very animal model used to study human flu infection.

Of course many scientists are now warning that if such research was made public it could result in the construction of deadly bioweapons.

Making the virus highly contagious could result in widespread infection. The H5N1 virus has been infecting birds and other animals in recent years, though it has also infected around 500 people.

The reason that it has not become an epidemic is due to the fact that affected humans are usually not very contagious. Therefore, altering the virus to become highly contagious is quite possibly the deadliest tweak which could be done.

It seems that these scientists are just asking for the new weaponized bird flu virus to infect the public. 

Bioterrorism fears arise as scientists push to release weaponized bird flu research

Dr. Thomas Inglesby, a bioterrorism expert and director of the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, notes that it is simply a bad idea for scientists to militarize bird flu, let alone publish the results:

‘It’s just a bad idea for scientists to turn a lethal virus into a lethal and highly contagious virus. And it’s a second bad idea for them to publish how they did it so others can copy it,’ says Inglesby.

So far no scientific journal has published the findings, and Inglesby hopes that none of them will. Virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands is responsible for weaponizing the virus and presenting the findings at a flu conference held in Malta. He has recently come under attack by an organization known as the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, a committee of independent experts on biological research.

Ron Fouchier says that mutating the virus to become highly contagious is shocking enough, but the fact that some scientists are now pushing for the release of the research is beyond outlandish.

It seems apparent that these scientists have zero regard for public health.

New Food Bill in New Zealand Takes Away Human Right to Grow Food

InvestmentWatch
November 23, 2011

I was shocked to learn from a friend on the weekend that a new Food Bill is being brought in here in New Zealand. The new bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food.

I find two aspects of this bill alarming. The first is the scope and impact the new bill has, and secondly that it has all happened so quietly. There has been VERY little media coverage, on a bill which promises to jeopardise the future food security of the country.

I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO, which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org (I have no connection with this website)

Here are some snippets:

- It turns a human right (to grow food and share it) into a government-authorised privilege that can be summarily revoked.

- It makes it illegal to distribute “food” without authorisation, and it defines “food” in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).

- By controlling seeds, the bill takes the power to grow food away from the public and puts it in the hands of seed companies. That power may be abused.

- Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for “cottage industries”, and such authorisation can be denied.

- Under the Food Bill, Police acting as Food Safety Officers can raid premises without a warrant, using all equipment they deem necessary – including guns (Clause 265 – 1).

- Members of the private sector can also be Food Safety Officers, as at Clause 243. So Monsanto employees can raid premises – including marae – backed up by armed police.

- The Bill gives Food Safety Officers immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.

- The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another.

- The bill would undermine the efforts of many people to become more self-sufficient within their local communities.

- Seed banks and seed-sharing networks could be shut down if they could not obtain authorisation. Loss of seed variety would make it more difficult to grow one’s own food.

- Home-grown food and some or all seed could not be bartered on a scale or frequency necessary to feed people in communities where commercially available food has become unaffordable or unavailable (for example due to economic collapse).

- Restrictions on the trade of food and seed would quickly lead to the permanent loss of heirloom strains, as well as a general lowering of plant diversity in agriculture.

- Organic producers of heirloom foods could lose market share to big-money agribusiness outfits, leading to an increase in the consumption of nutrient-poor and GE foods.

Iran Arrests 12 CIA Agents 'Planning Attacks'

Courtesy of news.sky.com

Iran claims to have arrested 12 CIA agents and accused them of planning to strike at Iranian interests.

IRNA state media quoted an influential politician as saying that the agents were working in collusion with Israel.

Parviz Sorouri, who sits on the powerful foreign policy and national security committee, said the spy network aimed to damage Iran's security, military and nuclear sectors.

"The US and Zionist regime's espionage apparatuses were trying to damage Iran both from inside and outside with a heavy blow, using regional intelligence services," said Sorouri.

"Fortunately, with swift reaction by the Iranian intelligence department, the actions failed to bear fruit."

The lawmaker did not specify the nationality of the alleged agents, nor when or where they they had been arrested.

IAEA Report On Iran

:: Iran has not suspended enrichment related activities
:: Concern over a 'clandestine nuclear supply network'
:: Development of nuclear explosive device 'may be ongoing'

Iran periodically announces the capture or execution of what it claims are US or Israeli spies, and often no further information is released.

This current announcement follows the uncovering of an alleged CIA spy ring in Lebanon by Iran's ally, Hizbollah.

Fierce clashes between Iran and the West over its nuclear capabilities are commonplace; assassins, mystery bombs and late-night kidnappings have all been part of the escalating tension.

Last November, a nuclear worker was killed after a magnetic mine was attached to his car in Tehran, while a bomb killed 17 people at an ammunition depot near the capital earlier this month.

Iran's nuclear ambitions were thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks following the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on the "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme".

This prompted Israel to announce further action and the country's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu promised air strikes on Tehran as a result.

While Iran continues to deny its nuclear programme is a military one, Western countries remain unconvinced.

Earlier this month, the UK announced its plans to move in line with US policy, and break all ties with Iranian banks - including the Central Bank of Iran.

US Warship Moves To Syrian Coast as Tensions Mount

France proposes NATO military intervention

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, November 24, 2011

The aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush has moved to the Syrian coast amidst reports that a no fly zone is about to be imposed over the country as the U.S. Embassy in Damascus orders its citizens to leave “immediately,” while France has proposed a formal NATO military intervention.

“Probably the most damning evidence that the “western world” is about to do the unthinkable and invade Syria, and in the process force Iran to retaliate, is the weekly naval update from Stratfor, which always has some very interesting if always controversial view on geopolitics, where we find that for the first time in many months, CVN 77 George H.W. Bush has left its traditional theater of operations just off the Straits of Hormuz, a critical choke point, where it traditionally accompanies the Stennis, and has parked… right next to Syria,” reports Zero Hedge.

Publicly, officials are claiming that the George H.W. Bush carrier strike group is “on its way home” after being located in the Middle East for the past five months, but a specific date for the warship’s return has not been given.

According to a report in the Virginian-Pilot, the aircraft carrier will “conduct a range of operations and help maintain maritime security,” before it heads home.

As we reported yesterday, European sources quoted in Kuwait’s al Rai daily suggest that Arab states are set to impose a no fly zone over the country with the aid of Turkish jet fighters and U.S. logistical support. In modern parlence the term “no fly zone” is a euphemism for a bombing campaign, as we saw with Libya.

Although France has expressed its opposition to a no fly zone, foreign minister Alain Juppe met with Syrian National Council leader Burhan Ghalioun in Paris yesterday to assure him that NATO powers are looking at using “international troops” to “create a secure zone for civilians” by means of “humanitarian corridors, or humanitarian zones”.

Tensions also escalated yesterday after the U.S. Embassy in Damascus urged its citizens to leave Syria “immediately,” while Turkey’s foreign ministry told its citizens to avoid traveling through the country on their return home from Saudi Arabia.

“The U.S. Embassy continues to urge U.S. citizens in Syria to depart immediately while commercial transportation is available,” said a statement issued to the American community in Syria Wednesday and posted on the Embassy’s website. “The number of airlines serving Syria has decreased significantly since the summer, while many of those airlines remaining have reduced their number of flights.”

The Obama administration quietly pulled Ambassador Robert Ford from the country last month and has indicated he will not return.

Attacking Syria could represent an end run around creating a justification for a military assault on Iran for Israel and the United States because Iran has vowed to defend its ally. However, China and Russia have aggressively opposed any action, with Russia last week moving its warships into Syrian territorial waters – a tactic designed to discourage any NATO-led attack.

Polls have shown that the majority of Americans oppose military intervention in Syria, with just 12 per cent favoring any kind of conflict.

CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT.

Russia Arms Syria With Missiles To Defend Against NATO Attack

Warns it will not tolerate western powers crossing a “red line”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, November 24, 2011

We now know what those six Russian warships that reportedly entered Syrian territorial waters last week were carrying. Aside from representing a show of strength to discourage NATO powers from launching a military attack, on board were Russian technical experts ready to help Damascus set up a sophisticated missile defense system sold to them by Moscow.

“Russian warships that have reached waters off Syria in recent days were carrying, among other things, Russian technical advisors who will help the Syrians set up an array of S-300 missiles Damascus has received in recent weeks, a report in the London-based Arabic language Al Quds-Al Arabi said Thursday. Citing sources in Syria and Russia, the paper said that Moscow sees a Western attack on Syria as a “red line” that it will not tolerate,”reports Arutz Sheva.

The S-300 missiles, which according to the report will be used to “deflect a possible attack by NATO or the U.S. and EU,” are long range surface-to-air missiles developed by Russia in 1979 for the purpose of protecting large industrial and military bases from enemy attack aircraft and cruise missiles.

The system is widely regarded as one of the most powerful anti-aircraft arrays in modern warfare, having the ability to track up to 100 targets and engage 12 at any one time. Russia recently tried to sell the same system to Iran but the transaction was halted after pressure from the U.S. and Israel.

Arming Syria with such a proficient means of aerial defense would obviously not bode well for any prospective “no fly zone” being planned by western powers. Reports have been circulating this weekthat fighter jets from Turkey and other Arab states would soon enter Syrian airspace under “humanitarian” pretenses with logistical aid from the United States.

“Along with the missiles, the report says that Russia has installed advanced radar systems in all key Syrian military and industrial installations. The radar system also covers areas north and south of Syria, where it will be able to detect movement of troops or aircraft towards the Syrian border. The radar targets include much of Israel, as well as the Incirlik military base in Turkey, which is used by NATO,” states the report.

French foreign minister Alain Juppé yesterday assured Syrian opposition forces that NATO powers are planning to launch a military intervention by imposing “humanitarian corridors or humanitarian zones” in the name of protecting civilians from the alleged abuses of the al-Assad regime.

The prospect of air strikes being launched under a “humanitarian” banner are seen as increasingly likely given the fact that the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush has been moved to the Syrian coast in recent days having left its traditional theater of operations just off the Straits of Hormuz.

Tensions also escalated yesterday after the U.S. Embassy in Damascus urged its citizens to leave Syria “immediately,” while Turkey’s foreign ministry told its citizens to avoid traveling through the country on their return home from Saudi Arabia.

As we have previously noted, attacking Syria could merely be an entrée for an assault on Iran because Tehran has promised to defend its ally.

What Does the Super Committee’s Failure Mean For Obama’s Reelection Campaign?

By: William Galston

Courtesy of rollingstone.com

Three questions emerge from the collapse of the super committee. First and least, what will be the immediate political fall-out? Second, will there be other occasions to put broad fiscal issues on the table, or are we condemned to inaction until 2013? And finally, how should President Obama respond?

On the first question, Americans were more inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for this summer’s debt ceiling fiasco, and the early returns suggest that this trend is continuing with regard to the super committee. A Quinnipiac survey released November 21 showed than 44 percent of voters blamed Republicans for the super committee’s failure, versus 38 percent who blamed Obama and the Democrats. Independents broke along similar lines, 44 to 35 percent.

Not all the news was good for Democrats, however: 49 percent of voters favored an agreement based on spending cuts only (the Republican position) versus 39 percent who wanted some tax increases in the mix as well. Independents felt the same way, by a narrower 45 to 41 margin.

Voters with college degrees favored a mix of tax increases and spending cuts (52-41), as did voters from households with annual incomes of $100,000 or more (49-43). By contrast, voters without college degrees opposed tax increases by a margin of more than 20 points, as did more than 50 percent of all voters with household incomes under $100,000. 

In short, the Democratic position is supported by upscale professionals, while the Republican position commands the lion’s share of a downscale, less educated populist coalition. This raises an intriguing question: What happens if the Republicans select as their presidential nominee a man without noticeable populist appeal to oppose an incumbent who has run poorly among them since the beginning of his quest for the presidency?

The failed budget negotiations may not be the end of the matter, however, because two scenarios could bring the parties back to the table. In the first place, the prospect of an additional $600 billion in defense cuts dismays many Republicans and not a few Democrats, including Obama’s outspoken Secretary of Defense. But the majority of congressional Democrats prefer sequestration to the alternatives, and Obama has strongly suggested that he won’t go along with the unraveling of automatic cuts. If the president is prepared to hang tough, in other words, he may spark a conflict between pro-defense and anti-tax Republicans. (Making matters even more interesting, many Republicans are both.) By using the defense cuts trigger as leverage, the president might be able to force budget negotiations involving a different, more flexible group of participants.

There’s also another, grimmer route back to the bargaining table, of course: The market could force the hands of the politicians. The events of the past six months have further weakened international confidence in U.S. governing institutions. Political risk analysis is something Americans used to do about foreign countries; now it’s something foreign analysts do about ours. It’s not hard to imagine a sequence of downgrades and shifts by foreign investors away from the dollar that could make continued partisan gridlock appear increasingly unaffordable. To be sure, some Republicans might hold out in the belief that a collapsing economy would assure victory in November. But that’s risky and would prove counterproductive if persuadable voters came to believe that Republicans were rooting for economic failure.

So in the face of all this, what should Obama do? He will be tempted to put the fiscal debate in neutral and run his 2012 campaign against Republican obstructionism. No doubt his political advisors will be telling him to preserve bright lines and sharp contrasts between himself and his Republican opponent in key areas such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and taxes.

This is the default position, and it could help Obama narrowly prevail next November. But the president should ask himself what a victory gained on this basis would be worth: What would he be able to accomplish in a second term? After all, his first term has shown that neither political party can impose its will on the other. Unless he were to win a victory as large as FDR in 1936 or LBJ in 1964 (and there’s no prospect of that), his second-term choices reduce to two: continuing gridlock or a new formula for doing the people’s business across party lines.

To that end, the alternative—higher risk, higher reward—strategy is for Obama to offer a much more specific program than he has up to now, making clear how he would combine stimulus over the next year or two with a plan to place the budget on a sustainable course by the end of the decade. That would mean organizing his 2012 State of the Union and budget proposal around two issues—bold new measures to spur consumption and job creation, coupled with a long-term budget plan that combines the best features of the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin plans. 

This may sound like unconvincing boiler-plate: What bold new growth measures? Well, here’s an idea ripped from an article by Adam Posen:

Central banks and governments can engage in forms of coordinated action that will target the burden of past debts that is hanging over the global economy. In the United States, that means resolving the distressed mortgage debt that is weakening our financial system and reducing labor mobility, thereby constraining not only our growth but also our ability to grow. It is time for the Federal Reserve and elected officials to jointly tackle that housing debt.

Posen is the latest in a lengthening list of leading economists across the ideological spectrum to finger mortgage debt as the core of our failure to recover and grow briskly enough to bring down unemployment. If elites can’t figure out how to fix this problem, average Americans will pay the price. Conversely, nothing would do more to benefit working Americans. Is the president prepared to take the lead? And if he does, will anyone follow?

William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic. 

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailout...

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailout...

By: Matt Taibbi

Courtesy of rollingstone.com

Had a quick piece of news I wanted to call attention to, in light of the recent developments at Zuccotti Park. For all of those who say the protesters have it wrong, and don’t really have a cause worth causing public unrest over, consider this story, sent to me by a friend on the Hill.

Last week, a federal judge in Mississippi sentenced a mother of two named Anita McLemore to three years in federal prison for lying on a government application in order to obtain food stamps.

Apparently in this country you become ineligible to eat if you have a record of criminal drug offenses. States have the option of opting out of that federal ban, but Mississippi is not one of those states. Since McLemore had four drug convictions in her past, she was ineligible to receive food stamps, so she lied about her past in order to feed her two children.

The total "cost" of her fraud was $4,367. She has paid the money back. But paying the money back was not enough for federal Judge Henry Wingate.

Wingate had the option of sentencing McLemore according to federal guidelines, which would have left her with a term of two months to eight months, followed by probation. Not good enough! Wingate was so outraged by McLemore’s fraud that he decided to serve her up the deluxe vacation, using another federal statute that permitted him to give her up to five years.

He ultimately gave her three years, saying, "The defendant's criminal record is simply abominable …. She has been the beneficiary of government generosity in state court."

Compare this court decision to the fraud settlements on Wall Street. Like McLemore, fraud defendants like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank have "been the beneficiary of government generosity." Goldman got $12.9 billion just through the AIG bailout. Citigroup got $45 billion, plus hundreds of billions in government guarantees.

All of these companies have been repeatedly dragged into court for fraud, and not one individual defendant has ever been forced to give back anything like a significant portion of his ill-gotten gains. The closest we've come is in a fraud case involving Citi, in which a pair of executives, Gary Crittenden and Arthur Tildesley, were fined the token amounts of $100,000 and $80,000, respectively, for lying to shareholders about the extent of Citi’s debt.

Neither man was forced to admit to intentional fraud. Both got to keep their jobs.

Anita McLemore, meanwhile, lied to feed her children, gave back every penny of her "fraud" when she got caught, and is now going to do three years in prison. Explain that, Eric Holder!

Here’s another thing that boggles my mind: You get busted for drugs in this country, and it turns out you can make yourself ineligible to receive food stamps.

But you can be a serial fraud offender like Citigroup, which has repeatedly been dragged into court for the same offenses and has repeatedly ignored court injunctions to abstain from fraud, and this does not make you ineligible to receive $45 billion in bailouts and other forms of federal assistance.

This is the reason why all of these settlements allowing banks to walk away without "admissions of wrongdoing" are particularly insidious. A normal person, once he gets a felony conviction, immediately begins to lose his rights as a citizen.

But white-collar criminals of the type we’ve seen in recent years on Wall Street – both the individuals and the corporate "citizens" – do not suffer these ramifications. They commit crimes without real consequence, allowing them to retain access to the full smorgasbord of subsidies and financial welfare programs that, let’s face it, are the source of most of their profits.

Why, I wonder, does a bank that has committed fraud multiple times get to retain access to the Federal Reserve discount window? Why should Citigroup and Goldman Sachs get to keep their status as Primary Dealers of U.S. government debt? Are there not enough banks without extensive histories of fraud and malfeasance that can be awarded these de facto subsidies?

Euro on ‘Death Watch’ After Investors Spurn German Bonds

By: John Melloy
Executive Producer, Fast Money & Halftime

Courtesy of cnbc.com

Investors began to fear the worst for the euro after unusually weak demand at an auction for bonds from Germany, the region’s largest economy. One analyst went so far as to put the currency on a “death watch.”

AP

Germany sold just 60 percent of the 6 billion euros in 10-year bunds it brought to auction, about the weakest demand seen for the country’s debt in the currency’s 16-year history, economists said. The rejection of debt from Europe’s safe harbor marks a new stage for the crisis.

“No bunds wanted equals no Euros wanted equals the Euro death watch,” wrote Mark Steele, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets. “We have seen many poor German auctions. This is not the issue. The issue is how badly the euro is doing after the weak auction.”

The euro [EUR=X  1.3364    0.0021  (+0.16%)   ] fell more than 1 percent against the dollar to a 7-week low against the Greenback. The currency threatened to break through the October lows that came amid the height of turmoil in Italy and Greece. Both countries would go on to install new Technocrat leaders, lifting confidence in the currency briefly.

Euro / US Dollar FX... (EUR=X) 1.3364     0.0021  (+0.16%%) Exchange

The European Financial Stability Facility does not give the European Central Bank the same firepower or freedom of the Federal Reserve, which it utilized in the aftermath of the U.S. credit crisis with two rounds of massive purchases ofTreasurys (QE) . Germany has been reluctant to follow the Fed’s lead and buy up other countries bad debt because of fear over inflation.

German Chancellor “Merkel has been opposed to using the ECB as a monetizer of debt,” said Dennis Gartman of The Gartman Letter. “Germany doesn’t even like to think in these terms, but they may not have a choice.”

Recent reports have hinted at different workarounds of the euro treaty being discussed to effectively replicate quantitative easing in Europe. One option discussed was for the ECB to lend money to the IMF, which in turn would buy the toxic debt before it could spread to yet another country.

“It’s too late for a bazooka,” said Mitchell Goldberg, president of ClientFirst Strategy. “Now we need inter-continental ballistic missiles. This is getting worse very quickly.”

Investors had kept buying German bonds as they fled crisis after crisis in the region: first in Ireland, then in Greece and Italy, and now in Spain and Belgium. But Wednesday, 10-year bunds dropped significantly after the failed auction, pushing the yields above 2.05 percent, but perhaps more importantly above the U.S. treasury with the same maturity for the first time since early October.

“We are seeing the end of the euro currency as we know it,” said Brian Stutland of Stutland Volatility Group. “I don't see a single thing that causes the euro to rally other than the Fed announcing a ‘QE3’ in which they buy euro foreign debt.”