NSA Spying and Search Engine “Tracking Technologies”

It’s not Okay if the NSA Spies on us, but it’s okay when Google does…

By Ming Chun Tang

Global Research, January 19, 2014

Region: USA

Theme: Intelligence, Police State & Civil Rights

One of the defining stories of 2013 was, without doubt, Edward Snowden’s revelations of the mass spying conducted by the NSA, GCHQ and various other government intelligence agencies from around the world.

Aside from justifiable outrage, the revelations very rightly sparked intense debate over the appropriate role of government in the lives of everyday citizens, certainly at least in the United States, if not to the same extent in Britain. A large part of the issue surrounded the interception of personal data held by internet companies such as Google, Yahoo and Facebook by the American NSA and British GCHQ agencies both overtly through PRISM and covertly from fibre-optic cables, and the logic behind the indiscriminate collection of personal data under the alibi of “national security” and “counter-terrorism” is flimsy at best. Yet the key question that we have failed to ask ourselves, and indeed that government spying itself has distracted us from, is how we handed over our own data to the internet companies whose services we use in the first place.
The search engine DuckDuckGo (which I use and strongly recommend) describes the process more succinctly than I could, but I’ll put it into words anyway: Google records your searches and sends your search term, browser and computer information to any site whose link you click on, allowing them to identify you and track you. This data is then used to build a profile of you for the purpose of targeted ads, which can also be used to charge you higher prices. That, in a nutshell, is what the NSA and GCHQ have been obtaining from Google. Facebook operates in a similar way and, incidentally, is facing a class action lawsuit as a result: it tracks the links you click on, the posts you “like” and even the contents of your private messages to profile you, before selling this data to data aggregators and advertisers.

As I’m writing this piece on WordPress, Abine’s DoNotTrackMe Firefox add-on (which I also use and recommend) indicates that there are seven trackers on the “new post” page I have open, all of which it’s blocked: Optimizely, Quantcast, WordPress stats, Gravity, Qualaroo, Kiss Metrics and Google Analytics. A shocking twelve trackers are blocked on the home page of The Guardian, and Google Analytics is even operating on the home page of my college, Hamilton College. Clearly, Google and Facebook, while certainly the best-known and the most visible, aren’t the only companies “mining” our data, and the obscurity of these tracking companies (how many of them have we honestly heard of?!) makes their covert activities all the more concerning.

Mind you, DuckDuckGo was launched in 2008, five years before we learned all about government spying. The tracking and profiling carried out by internet companies such as Google and Facebook have been known since these websites were first launched, yet it was only when we learned from Edward Snowden that our governments were using this information to spy on us that we became upset.

Why the double standard that we hold corporations and governments to? What gives corporations the divine right to collect and sell our data in the interests of profit while governments have no such right? Such is the absurdity of our concept of liberty: only government can pose any conceivable threat to our freedoms, we think, and so we quietly accept the terms and conditions that allow Google and Facebook to spam us with targeted ads and subject us to price discrimination, but we squeal whenever the government gets its hands on our data, whatever it does with it. Or is it because the NSA never gave us a list of “terms and conditions”?
It’s important that we remember in the age of mass government online surveillance that it is not simply the NSA and GCHQ, but also Google, Facebook and the various other companies that track and profile us and mine and sell our data that have brought about “the end of online privacy”. The sad reality we have today is that the business model of the websites many of us use today is such that, while providing their services without charging us a fee (I refrain here from using the word “free”), they mine and sell our information to maximize revenue and hence profits. Corporations like Google are, in the words of Yasha Levine, specialists in “for-profit intelligence“. As a recent Observer editorial summed it up:

“Lured by “free” services on the internet, we click through to a digital emporium where we sacrifice our privacy. Every click, message and electronic trail is mined for profit. Every digital stroke makes money for them. The more time that you spend, the more money they make. There is little they don’t know, almost nowhere they can’t follow and nothing they can’t tell about your digital life.”

Let’s not allow the spectre of government surveillance to distract us from that fact.

On a closing note, DuckDuckGo offers a toolkit for blocking trackers. Whether it’s Google, the tracking companies or the NSA we’re concerned about, it might be just what we need.

Ming Chun Tang is a freelance writer and student at Hamilton College (New York). He blogs at http://clearingtherubble.wordpress.com/.

Democrats, Republicans Back Obama’s Police State Spying

                                                                   

By Patrick Martin

Global Research, January 20, 2014

World Socialist Web Site

Region: USA

Theme: Police State & Civil Rights

The response of the US political establishment to President Obama’s adamant defense of illegal spying by the National Security Agency demonstrates that there is no constituency for the defense of democratic and constitutional rights within the US ruling elite.
In comments to the press immediately after the speech, as well as in appearances on the Sunday morning television interview programs, leading congressional Democrats and Republicans, as well as former intelligence officials, were unanimous in supporting both Obama’s speech and the NSA’s operations.
Three so-called critics of NSA spying, Democratic senators Mark Udall, Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, issued a joint statement hailing Obama’s speech as “a major milestone in our longstanding efforts to reform the National Security Agency’s bulk collection program,” as though the cosmetic gestures towards civil liberties represented genuine concessions.
The most adamant defenders of the NSA programs, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, appeared together on the NBC program “Meet the Press” to support the NSA and launch a McCarthyite smear campaign against Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who exposed the illegal mass spying. (See, “Apologists for NSA redouble witch-hunt of Edward Snowden”.)
Rogers praised the speech, saying, “I thought the most important victory was the president standing up and saying, ‘Hey, the program did not have abuses. This wasn’t sinister. It wasn’t a rogue agency. It was legal and proper.’”
Feinstein chimed in: “What the president has said is that he wanted to maintain the capability of the program. That, as Chairman Rogers said, it has not been abused or misused. And it is carried out by very strictly vetted and professional people.”
Retired General Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA and later the CIA, appeared on Fox News Sunday and hailed the speech as “the most robust defense of why we conduct intelligence and how we conduct intelligence that the president has made since he’s been in office.” He dismissed the alterations Obama proposed in the surveillance programs as insignificant.
Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democratic “critic” of NSA spying, appearing alongside Hayden, offered the most cynical take on Obama’s speech, saying his pledge not to target foreign heads of states allied with the US was merely an effort to assist these governments politically.
“We have relationships with all the intelligence services among our allies,” he said. “There is a growing and I think erroneous feeling in other countries that somehow the United States was in, tapping all of them. And I think this was probably a way of helping some of our allies say, it’s OK for us to cooperate with United States.”
Hayden added that similar considerations were at work in relation to domestic public opinion. Obama has “embraced” the methods of his predecessor, George W. Bush, he told host Chris Wallace, but can’t openly say so because he claimed to oppose such methods in the past.
“He’s got a political problem,” Hayden said. “I don’t mean to trivialize it, because in a democracy, political problems are very serious. He needs consent of the governed. He’s willing to shave points off of flexibility and administrative burdens and oversight. But the objective, Chris, is to keep on doing what he’s doing.”
The two leading US daily newspapers also backed the Obama speech in editorials that accepted without question the administration’s claims that the data collected on every American citizen and most of the world’s population is not to be used for purposes of political profiling or police repression.
The editorial in the New York Times echoed the approach of the Senate Democratic “critics,” claiming that Obama had admitted that popular opposition to mass surveillance was justified and that he “announced important new restrictions on the collection of information about ordinary Americans.”
The editorial added the mild and pro forma criticism that “even as Mr. Obama spoke eloquently of the need to balance the nation’s security with personal privacy and civil liberties, many of his reforms were frustratingly short on specifics and vague on implementation.”
The Washington Post made a similar criticism of the vagueness of Obama’s proposed reforms, while praising his “productive tone” and “usefully balanced view”—i.e., his combining lip service to civil liberties with a continuation of the massive buildup of the surveillance state.
Obama’s 45-minute speech Friday to a hand-picked audience at the US Department of Justice conceded nothing to the mass opposition to NSA spying. Most importantly, the one-time constitutional lawyer made no mention of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, whose language explicitly bans arbitrary searches and seizures.
Neither the political pundits on the TV talk shows nor the newspaper editorialists made any reference to constitutionality of the mass spying. It is a question of complete indifference to these mouthpieces for big business.
The text of the Fourth Amendment reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The operations of the NSA are the antithesis of this. The NSA systematically collects personal information on every single American, without “probable cause” of any kind, without “particularly” describing what is to be seized, and without a warrant of any kind.
A federal district judge in Washington DC, Richard Leon, described the activity of the NSA as “almost Orwellian” and ruled that the program for collecting the metadata of telephone calls—only a tiny fraction of the state surveillance operation—was in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Obama administration is appealing this ruling, but Obama made no reference to it in his remarks.
The vast trove of personal information collected and stored in government computer banks provides the basis for assembling political dossiers on every American, detailing the structure of every political organization in the country and generating lists of those to be arrested when the authorities decide to give the order. It is the scaffolding for the establishment of a police state.

Russia Warns US-China-Japan Pacific War “Just Weeks Away”

truther January 20, 2014

An “urgent” report issued today to the General Staff from the highly secretive Deputy Defense Minister General Pavel Popov is warning that war can be expected to erupt between the Pacific Powers of the United States, Peoples Republic of China and the State of Japan “within weeks” due to a power struggle currently “exploding” within the Communist Party of China (CPC).

According to this report, the recent decision by Chinese leader Xi Jinping to prosecute retired security tsar Zhou Yongkang’s son Zhou Bin for corruption is the “leading impetus” that has lead to a fracturing of loyalties in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) between those advocating immediate strikes against Japan and those cautioning a more strategic and diplomatic course of action in a number of territorial disputes between these two nations.

Zhou Yongkang [photo top left with Xi Jinping], this report says, is a retired senior leader of the CPC and “no small fish” from the province of Sichuan where he was once the top official and headed the “petroleum mafia,” the once-impregnable fortresses of the big state-owned oil giants, which have deep military connections; and ruled the state security establishment under former Chinese leader Hu Jintao.

Since assuming power in November 2012, this report continues, President Xi Jinping began a largely secret war against Zhou Yongkang, but which broke into the open last year with the prosecution of Yongkang’s protégé and Central Politburo Member Bo Xilai who was sentenced to life imprisonment last September (2013) for corruption.

Because of President Xi Jinping’s fears of Zhou Yongkang, Russian military analysts in this report state, this past week he promoted as the new commander of the strategically important Beijing Garrison General Pan Liangshi, a veteran military commander with expertise in anti-terror maneuvers, and yet another move to consolidate his grip of the armed forces.

General Popov, however, in his report warns the General Staff that President Xi Jinping’s moves against Zhou Yongkang, and for his consolidation of control over the PLA, are “too little and too late” as Chinese military forces still loyal to the former Security Minister are even now planning “deliberate and provocative” actions against Japan and threatening military force against the Philippines in order to start a Pacific War they believe will unseat the President Xi Jinping.

One such provocative action against the United States by PLA forces loyal to Zhou Yongkang cited by General Popov in this report lists a 5 December 2013 confrontation in the South China Sea between Chinese and US naval warships that nearly led to conflict and which President Xi Jinping was unaware of until protests against China were lodged by the US State Department.

Even worse, this report says, was the warning issued to Japan earlier today by PLA factions loyal to Zhou Yongkang that a “firm response” could be expected if Japan attacks Chinese ships, should Tokyo decide to take provocative action on the Senkaku Islands issue.

As Japanese military drills and deployments into the South China Sea area increase, General Popov further notes in his report, the stern words issued by Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera (who was overseeing the drills, and who vowed to protect the territory around the islands, which Japan considers to be its own) yesterday should not go unheeded, and who said:

“We can never overlook China’s repeated entries into our territorial waters. In addition to diplomatic efforts, we will cooperate with the Coast Guard to securely defend our territory and waters around the Senkaku islands.”

Even though China requires large food imports from the US, Brazil, Argentina and Australia to feed its growing middle class and urbanized elite, this report says, nevertheless a Chinese-Japanese war could break out over matters Westerners deem inconsequential.

And, according to this report, it would be a coalition war, and it could be big, bad, and long. The US-Japan alliance might appear solid in the early going, obscuring subterranean fractures within the alliance. Yet transpacific unity might dissipate should the struggle wear on and American resolve flag — exposing these fissures, all matters worth clarifying, General Popov warns, in allied circles now, “before things turn ugly.”

With China saying to America that they’re so serious about this conflict that they’re prepared to take the risks of being provocative in order to persuade the Obama regime to take seriously that they want to change the current order, but with no one truly knowing who speaks for the PLA, this report warns that even though the United States military remains the world’s most fearsome fighting force, unbeatable on a one-on-one basis, it could very well find itself in a protracted war that could end in nuclear Armageddon.

China is keenly aware of that fact too, this report concludes, so rather than orienting itself towards a total war it cannot win, China’s military strategy serves a smaller, but shrewder purpose — pushing the United States out of China’s backyard, a move that matches both President Xi Jinping’s and Zhou Yongkang’s goals too, no matter who wins out in this power struggle.

The Psychology of Being a “Non-Conspiracy Theorist”

truther January 20, 2014

Bernie Suarez

There is a brand of people amongst us. They have no name but they exist. They are everywhere, at work, at home, at school, and in the streets, stores, and shopping malls. It is highly unlikely to not know someone who belongs in this category. It’s the so called non-conspiracy theorists. You know, the guy who tries to terminate conversations by alleging that you are nothing more than a “conspiracy theorist” and the information you share is false or not believable. Yes, that guy. Let’s meet face to face with your typical non-conspiracy theorist. We all know them, they often are the ones who hold the “conspiracy” verbal accusation as a valid logically defined argument in and of itself. The logic works like this:

Conspiracy theorist says: “You are claiming that fire alone can cause a building to self-implode, descend at freefall speed into its own footprint? That’s physically impossible, what about Newton’s Laws and laws of thermal dynamics and such? “

Non-conspiracy theorist says: “No, you are wrong because you are a conspiracy theorist.”

And with that, often the non-conspiracy theorist will walk away. What’s happening? They had nothing to elaborate on, so the non-conspiracy theorist – whose thinking is engineered and controlled by government, mainstream media and Hollywood entertainment – resorted to a socially engineered answer. For this reason it is fascinating to explore the mindset and psychology of the individuals who take this position in place of a logical stance.

Core defect and twisted meanings

By definition, conspiracy means a group of two or more people secretly plotting (or conspiring) a harmful (or evil) deed against another person(s). This behavior is part of human nature. Humans have been conspiring against each other since the beginning of time. There was a never a time in world history when such an elementary behavior (of conspiring against an enemy) did not exist. Can you find a period in history when a certain human emotional trait or action didn’t exist? Was there a time when the human genome didn’t express jealousy, game playing, free trading, rage, or happiness? As odd or ridiculous as this may sound, non-conspiracists unknowingly subscribe to this logic. If evidence points to a conspired crime, why not treat it as such? Why demonize the very concept of conspiring? This is a core defect in the thought process of non-conspiracy theorists. You can easily identify them by their speech.

What the non-conspiracy theorist doesn’t see is that the battlefield is right before them and they have outsourced all critical thought and action to a government thinking service known as mass media. Like being on the football field while the ball is in play, without realizing what is happening. You see people waving at you in the stands to get out of the way, but you don’t understand what they are saying so you continue walking on the field with your headset on. Likewise, non-conspiracy theorists perceive all logic and reason arguments and warnings made by the conspiracy theorist as noise. They don’t understand the warning and so they continue living and carrying on with what they are doing. Like the person on the field not understanding the warning being communicated by those in the stands, non-conspiracy theorists cannot receive the basic signals of logic and reason.

The headsets adding to the confusion is like the TV and mainstream media news. Since they themselves refuse to look at the evidence, they put their faith in the government and in the mass corporate establishment to safely guide them in their reality. They gain a sense of psychological protection from this overall system. Since the information being believed is almost always artificial they need to hear their own opinions repeated to them by the voices on TV so they can confirm (and re-confirm) their own belief system to themselves to be legitimate. At no point will the non-conspiracy theorist plan a day of research or dedicate a few hours every once in a while to research the topic or put any thought into issues.

Information and world problems are but one category in a shelf of categories that make up their lives. The non-conspiracy theorist ignores that government has always implemented social engineering and mass mind control on the general public. In order for the non-conspiracy theorist to confidently walk away from someone who challenges their belief system with scientific facts, they need to have a sustained comfort and assurance that what government and mainstream media is saying is true.

Maintaining the non-conspiracy delusion

The non-conspiracy theorist is thus profoundly psychologically interconnected with today’s mass mind control paradigm. They are a species representing a full byproduct of 21st-century social engineering. The doctrine of this type of social engineering programs its believers to believe that when government and media accuses someone of “conspiracies” then this accusation is cause for someone being considered diseased. The symptoms being paranoia. But paranoia is based on systematized delusions and delusions are based on false beliefs. A proper exploring of meanings brings us back to proving what is true or false. We come full circle and the spin is over. Non-conspiracy theorists don’t realize they dwell in this circle of misapplied words, never exploring the meanings or doing the work to determine what is true and what is provable.

Non-conspiracy theorists therefore wake up every morning and reach for the mental orientation map known as mainstream media news. Without it they would be disoriented, as they would not know what to believe. They actually believe that if anyone was guilty of wrongdoing at the highest level of government someone would speak out every time and everyone would know about it. They ignore that state secrets are the norm and government operations are conducted in secret. They ignore the consequences each individual at the government and military level faces for blowing the whistle. Despite these consequences many individuals at government level still risk it all and do blow the whistle on government. Despite all this, the idea of maintaining State secrecy is a myth to non-conspiracy theorists. The idea that government would do something immoral, nefarious or criminal is a fiction as well to the non-conspiracy theorist.

The history of war, corruption, tyranny and fascism is incidental, coincidental, insignificant and irrelevant to the non-conspiracy theorist. None of these should be used to gauge the events of our times since history is a thing of the past. Non-conspiracy theorists choose not to connect the historical dots. According to them, there is nothing to learn from the history of tyranny and totalitarianism. Anyone attempting to connect the dots is likely a conspiracy theorist. This goes hand in hand with the logic defect we discussed earlier. As the earlier case of the conspiracy theorist having his scientific arguments debunked by virtue of simply being diseased with the accusation of conspiracy theorist. Note, the non-conspiracy theorists use the name as a loaded, proven concept with power to permanently label someone diseased. In this case, attempting to connect the dots automatically tags you as a conspiracy theorist.

As far as non-conspiracy theorists are concerned, all critical thought is deferred to the authorities. The scientists do their work and then report the facts to the government and mainstream media who carefully announce to the masses what they should know. Any scientists who speak out and claim to have evidence contradicting government claims must first be endorsed and approved by the mainstream media and government. Without this approval the scientists are marginalized no matter how large their numbers are. Without these ridiculous rules the delusion of being a non-conspiracy theorists cannot be maintained. This is the psychology of tyranny. Tyranny and totalitarianism cannot be implemented without mass mind control. This dangerous group-think mentality will ignore all warning signs to help continue advancing the agenda. And so the non-conspiracy theorist is the most important instrument for maintaining control of the masses. Without these non-conspiracy theorist vessels of the global empire, the plan would not be possible.

It is quite possible that years from now the concept of conspiracy will return back to where it belongs right next to other concepts like jealousy, laughter, love, stealing, fighting, friendship, hatred and other human expressions that define who we are. By then perhaps being a friendship theorist, a stealing theorist or a jealousy theorist will be the new propaganda bogey monster term. Or perhaps years from now we will be sick and tired of this vicious cycle of physical and mental slavery. Perhaps people will truly have enough of the control system and will have abolished it by then.

Standing by truth

I am thrilled to be considered a “conspiracy theorist” by those still controlled by the social engineering experiments of the last one hundred or so years. We are proof that humans are able to critically think on their own and prefer to be free. We are the embodiment of the resistance, we never run from challenges and debates, we recreated the media and are responsible for the progressive death of the mainstream media. We choose to give humanity a voice outside of the socially engineered control system. We rely on firsthand accounts, physical evidence consistent with natural laws, factual documents, common sense, high probability, and forensic scientific evidence before jumping to conclusions. We do not rely on name calling to give strength to our position and we stand as a reminder that the human mind will never be completely contained. Unraveling the reality we face became normal for us at some point and the information the non-conspiracy theorists consider scary is common news to those of us name called “conspiracy theorists”.

In order to be considered a conspiracy theorist by the non-conspiracy theorists you must believe that government is corrupt. Believing that others are corrupt does not get you the title automatically. The list of what qualifies someone as a conspiracy theorist has been changing rapidly and today is determined by mainstream media and government in real time. Today, only government and mainstream media gets to decide who qualifies as a conspiracy theorist. The thought process of the non-conspiracy theorist is thus predictable and automated because the agenda being followed by government and mass media is predictable. The mindset is: no research required if Associated Press, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN or NPR doesn’t agree to report it, then all other sources must be false. This shines a light into the thought process of non-conspiracy theorists.

Impact on humanity

How creepy does all this sound? We often take for granted the thought process required to make someone believe how they believe and the (mainstream media believing) non-conspiracy theorist mentality is quietly as culpable for the condition of the world today as the individuals who actually carry out the crimes that have put us where we are. Little to no effort is put by non-conspiracy theorists to learn about their own social mindsets, social engineering, group-think, and government propaganda and mind-control history.

The non-conspiracy theorists are thus arguably indirectly ushering in many of the religious and cultural prophesies of the end times and the predictions of the doomsday prophets. They are proving to be key vessels in the events that are to come. They have already carved their mark in history as supporters of the global empire. Everyone who has played a role in supporting the global empire of the U.S. has already left their mark. Let’s all wait and see how this mental defect will play itself out and what role these non-conspiracy theorists will play in ushering in the final pieces of the global government. Will they be rewarded? Will they support the extermination of all critical thinkers? Will it turn out the non-conspiracy theorists were expressing an alternate DNA or is this idea too far out? Will it turn out they were all part of a larger experiment? Will the final waking up process or critical mass be stomped out by this core of non-conspiracy theorists who blindly believe government-programmed lies? Or will they be responsible for delaying critical mass by a certain amount of time.

These and many other questions will be answered in the next few years/decades. Let us not forget the layers of defective logic and blind faith in government required to be considered a non-conspiracy theorist. It sounds bizarre but it’s true. It’s been said that in times of mass deceit that telling the truth is a revolutionary act; this has never been more apparent. Want to make an impact on others? Want to be a giant among men? Then tell the truth and watch the sheep run. There is so much deceit in today’s world that if you blindly reverse everything government and mainstream media says, just by default you would be closer to truth than if you believed even some of what they say.

Remember the non-conspiracy theorist who says “someone would have spoken out”? We’ve all heard this excuse. Of course, someone always does speak out; only they call those who speak out, no matter how high in government they are, conspiracy theorists, instead of someone who is speaking out or blowing the whistle. It’s time to memorialize the web of non-logic that qualifies a non-conspiracy theorist and not take for granted what these individuals mean to our battle for freedom and what key role they will play in the final lockdown of what was once a beacon for freedom throughout the world. Even as each of us carries on every day it’s difficult to fathom how the average person you come across who is a non-conspiracy theorist is having such a massive impact on millions of people globally and the direction of humanity as a whole including the overall survival of the human race.

___________

Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists.

Did Obama Try to Cause an EMP Attack on America?

Sunday, January 19, 2014 21:20

(Before It's News)

 

SOURCE
‘This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” -2 Timothy 3:1
For more on this see: 
Nuke Commander Purge: Another 34 Missile Launch Officers Terminated By Air Force
“Obama Ousts Top Officers After Nuke Explodes In Ocean Instead Of Charleston”
Will USA Be Nuked From Within As A Crisis to Promote “New World Order?” Update on Missing Nukes

frothnblither

The $23 Trillion Credit Bubble In China Is Starting To Collapse – Global Financial Crisis Next?

By Michael Snyder, on January 20th, 2014

 

Did you know that financial institutions all over the world are warning that we could see a "mega default" on a very prominent high-yield investment product in China on January 31st?  We are being told that this could lead to a cascading collapse of the shadow banking system in China which could potentially result in "sky-high interest rates" and "a precipitous plunge in credit".  In other words, it could be a "Lehman Brothers moment" for Asia.  And since the global financial system is more interconnected today than ever before, that would be very bad news for the United States as well.  Since Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, the level of private domestic credit in China has risen from $9 trillion to an astounding $23 trillion.  That is an increase of $14 trillion in just a little bit more than 5 years.  Much of that "hot money" has flowed into stocks, bonds and real estate in the United States.  So what do you think is going to happen when that bubble collapses?
The bubble of private debt that we have seen inflate in China since the Lehman crisis is unlike anything that the world has ever seen.  Never before has so much private debt been accumulated in such a short period of time.  All of this debt has helped fuel tremendous economic growth in China, but now a whole bunch of Chinese companies are realizing that they have gotten in way, way over their heads.  In fact, it is being projected that Chinese companies will pay out the equivalent of approximately a trillion dollars in interest payments this year alone.  That is more than twice the amount that the U.S. government will pay in interest in 2014.
Over the past several years, the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England have all been criticized for creating too much money.  But the truth is that what has been happening in China surpasses all of their efforts combined.  You can see an incredible chart which graphically illustrates this point right here.  As the Telegraph pointed out a while back, the Chinese have essentially "replicated the entire U.S. commercial banking system" in just five years...

Overall credit has jumped from $9 trillion to $23 trillion since the Lehman crisis. "They have replicated the entire U.S. commercial banking system in five years," she said.
The ratio of credit to GDP has jumped by 75 percentage points to 200pc of GDP, compared to roughly 40 points in the US over five years leading up to the subprime bubble, or in Japan before the Nikkei bubble burst in 1990. "This is beyond anything we have ever seen before in a large economy. We don't know how this will play out. The next six months will be crucial," she said.

As with all other things in the financial world, what goes up must eventually come down.
And right now January 31st is shaping up to be a particularly important day for the Chinese financial system.  The following is from a Reuters article...

The trust firm responsible for a troubled high-yield investment product sold through China's largest banks has warned investors they may not be repaid when the 3 billion-yuan ($496 million)product matures on Jan. 31, state media reported on Friday.
Investors are closely watching the case to see if it will shatter assumptions that the government and state-owned banks will always protect investors from losses on risky off-balance-sheet investment products sold through a murky shadow banking system.

If there is a major default on January 31st, the effects could ripple throughout the entire Chinese financial system very rapidly.  A recent Forbes article explained why this is the case...

A WMP default, whether relating to Liansheng or Zhenfu, could devastate the Chinese banking system and the larger economy as well.  In short, China’s growth since the end of 2008 has been dependent on ultra-loose credit first channeled through state banks, like ICBC and Construction Bank, and then through the WMPs, which permitted the state banks to avoid credit risk.  Any disruption in the flow of cash from investors to dodgy borrowers through WMPs would rock China with sky-high interest rates or a precipitous plunge in credit, probably both.  The result?  The best outcome would be decades of misery, what we saw in Japan after its bubble burst in the early 1990s.

The big underlying problem is the fact that private debt and the money supply have both been growing far too rapidly in China.  According to Forbes, M2 in China increased by 13.6 percent last year...

And at the same time China’s money supply and credit are still expanding.  Last year, the closely watched M2 increased by only 13.6%, down from 2012’s 13.8% growth.  Optimists say China is getting its credit addiction under control, but that’s not correct.  In fact, credit expanded by at least 20% last year as money poured into new channels not measured by traditional statistics.

Overall, M2 in China is up by about 1000 percent since 1999.  That is absolutely insane.
And of course China is not the only place in the world where financial trouble signs are erupting.  Things in Europe just keep getting worse, and we have just learned that the largest bank in Germany just suffered " a surprise fourth-quarter loss"...

Deutsche Bank shares tumbled on Monday following a surprise fourth-quarter loss due to a steep drop in debt trading revenues and heavy litigation and restructuring costs that prompted the bank to warn of a challenging 2014.
Germany's biggest bank said revenue at its important debt-trading division, fell 31 percent in the quarter, a much bigger drop than at U.S. rivals, which have also suffered from sluggish fixed-income trading.

If current trends continue, many other big banks will soon be experiencing a "bond headache" as well.  At this point, Treasury Bond sentiment is about the lowest that it has been in about 20 years.  Investors overwhelmingly believe that yields are heading higher.
If that does indeed turn out to be the case, interest rates throughout our economy are going to be rising, economic activity will start slowing down significantly and it could set up the "nightmare scenario" that I keep talking about.
But I am not the only one talking about it.
In fact, the World Economic Forum is warning about the exact same thing...

Fiscal crises triggered by ballooning debt levels in advanced economies pose the biggest threat to the global economy in 2014, a report by the World Economic Forum has warned.
Ahead of next week's WEF annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the forum's annual assessment of global dangers said high levels of debt in advanced economies, including Japan and America, could lead to an investor backlash.
This would create a "vicious cycle" of ballooning interest payments, rising debt piles and investor doubt that would force interest rates up further.

So will a default event in China on January 31st be the next "Lehman Brothers moment" or will it be something else?
In the end, it doesn't really matter.  The truth is that what has been going on in the global financial system is completely and totally unsustainable, and it is inevitable that it is all going to come horribly crashing down at some point during the next few years.
It is just a matter of time.

If He Was Around Today, Thomas Jefferson Would Be Considered A Tea Party Extremist

By Michael Snyder, on January 20th, 2014

 

Thomas Jefferson was radically anti-tax, pro-gun and anti-central bank.  He loved precious metals, he openly acknowledged a “Creator” and he wanted to add an amendment to the Constitution which would ban the federal government from going into debt.  If he was around today, he would be considered a “nutjob”, an “extremist”, a “fascist” and even a “potential terrorist“.  But of course Jefferson was none of those things.  Rather, Jefferson was a great thinker, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President.  Below, I have shared a list of 13 famous Jefferson quotes (13 for the 13 colonies that originally founded America) that show just how far America has fallen away from our founding principles.  I think that most of you will be very shocked when you read this list…
#1 “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
#2 “If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.”
#3 “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
#4 “I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”
#5 “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
#6 “And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity in the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
#7 “Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
#8 “It is said that our paper is as good as silver, because we may have silver for it at the bank where it issues. This is not true. One, two, or three persons might have it; but a general application would soon exhaust their vaults, and leave a ruinous proportion of their paper in its intrinsic worthless form.”
#9 “The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated.”
#10 “That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied.”
#11 “Certainly no nation ever before abandoned to the avarice and jugglings of private individuals to regulate according to their own interests, the quantum of circulating medium for the nation — to inflate, by deluges of paper, the nominal prices of property, and then to buy up that property at 1s. in the pound, having first withdrawn the floating medium which might endanger a competition in purchase. Yet this is what has been done, and will be done, unless stayed by the protecting hand of the legislature. The evil has been produced by the error of their sanction of this ruinous machinery of banks; and justice, wisdom, duty, all require that they should interpose and arrest it before the schemes of plunder and spoliation desolate the country.”
#12 “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.”
#13 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Sadly, great statesmen like Thomas Jefferson are in very short supply today.
At this point, most of our politicians are millionaires that have totally sold out to the elite.
And if “another Thomas Jefferson” did show up on the national political stage today, he would be treated like garbage.  The amount of abuse that is heaped on those considered to be “Tea Party extremists” these days is absolutely staggering.  The following are just a few recent examples that demonstrate this…
-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said the following during a radio interview last Friday: “Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
-An article that recently appeared on a prominent liberal news websites had this striking headline: “Frankly, Koch Brothers Deserve the Death Penalty“.
-Professor Terrence Moore recently explained that it is now common practice for textbooks across the United States to use the term “fascist” for all “right-wing extremist groups”: “In the margin of the teachers edition, the teacher is instructed to explain the term ‘fascist’ to the students and to point out that the term ‘fascist’ is now applied to all right-wing extremist groups.”
The sad truth is that Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have a prayer of making it to the White House today.
In fact, he would probably be blackballed by both major political parties.
America is in decline, and it is not because the principles that this nation was founded upon have failed.
Rather, one of the primary reasons why America is falling apart is because we have rejected the principles that were handed down to us by men like Jefferson.
Shame on us.

Obama: Pot No More Dangerous Than Alcohol

1.19.2014

Rip Curl

"barry the bone" hehe bet he didn't "inhale" 2

Former pothead Barack Obama says marijuana in no different from cigarettes and no "more dangerous than alcohol."
In a lengthy article published in the New Yorker, the president downplays the danger of marijuana as nothing more than a "bad habit," despite numerous reports that the drug is far more dangerous than once thought.
While many people think cannabis is harmless, a report published in June shows it is 20 times more carcinogenic to smoke than tobacco. The drug is also "strongly associated" with suppression of the immune system and heart disease, if taken for long enough, the report found.
But following public opinion (leading from behind, as usual), the president said legalization of pot in Washington state and Colorado could leven ead to legalization of cocaine and methamphetamine.
"As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," Mr. Obama says in the interview. "I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”
Obama also cried racism (again) saying the poor and minorities face stiffer penalties for smoking marijuana in states where it is still illegal. He suggests that the legalization trend should spread,  "because it's important for a society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
As for coke and meth, the president waxed philosophical.
"I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues," Obama said. "If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, 'Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka.'
"Are we open to that? If somebody says, 'We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth.' Are we OK with that?"

New Math Suggests Zombies Won't Kill Us All

By Lex Berko
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/new-math-suggests-zombies-wont-kill-us-all

Scene from Night of the Living Dead. Still via Wikipedia

If physics is for understanding the mechanics of the TARDIS, apparently math is for understanding the zombie apocalypse.
In a paper published on the arXiv pre-print server, Caitlyn Witkowski of Bryant University and Brian Blais of Brown University attempt to mathematically model the zombie plague as it appears in movies. Their work expands on that of Philip Munz of Carleton University, who in 2009 drafted a similar paper called “When Zombies Attack!: Mathematical Modeling of an Outbreak of Zombie Infection.”
Munz relied on the traditional SIR model of infectious disease, where SIR refers to three subpopulations of people during an epidemic: susceptible and infected individuals, and those removed from the susceptible group. However, Witkowski and Blais argue that Munz's modeling of the removed group (R) was incorrect. Instead, they developed a new model for groups removed from infection, one at least partially based on—what else?—zombie movies.

This graph from the paper, based off of the team's Night of the
Living Dead model, shows that as an epidemic progresses, the
infected grow while eventually those susceptible to infection
disappear. But not everyone who's susceptible ends up infected.

“One serious consequence of this term [R] is that there is no permanently removed subpopulation,” they write. “In their model, zombies never truly die.” But as anyone who has watched a zombie movie can attest, zombies can and do die. Chop off their heads or axe their brains, they remain “mortal,” though obviously not in the conventional sense.
This is key, the authors write, because Munz's model suggests humans can never win. "The assumption that the removed population will inevitably recycle into the zombie subpopulation implies that the zombie subpopulation will always win, while the other two subpopulations will always be diminished, regardless of parameters," they write. "We have found that this assumption does not match any depiction of zombies in the popular culture, so the conclusions from models with this assumption should be suspect."
Essentially, they're arguing that people (or zombies) can be removed from the equation. Not every zombie comes back to life to infect more people, a conclusion supported by real-world evidence. "Further, there is no analog to this 'recycling' terms in real-world diseases, thus limiting the application of the Munz et. al. (2009) model to only entertainment purposes," they write.
Witkowski and Blais' new equations are based on hours of meticulous film viewing, during which they catalogued the zombies on screen. Based on this binge-watching, they claim there are two basic modes of zombie infection, represented respectively by the films Night of the Living Dead and Shaun of the Dead. In the former, everyone who dies becomes a zombie, whether or not they’ve been in physical contact with the undead. In the latter, death doesn’t necessarily lead to zombification. Rather, only those who have been infected become brain-eaters.
Academic studies of zombies are more common than you might think. In fact, on a personal note, I took a class in 2009 about zombies as part of my undergraduate degree—it involved lots of Wednesday evenings spent watching Romero films and writing papers on The Walking Dead. But Witkowski and Blais suggest their paper is not just an intellectual exercise, but that this has some real world value as well.
The importance of the paper, they say, is twofold. One, by using an “entertaining example” to lure people in, Witkowski and Blais can teach readers about certain complicated mathematical topics. Second, and perhaps more important, is the idea that studying fictional representations of epidemics can assist in analyzing and planning for real world illness as well.
Using the SIR model and Google-supplied influenza data, they confirm that the same processes they underwent to study zombies—Bayesian parameter estimation, Markov chain Monte Carlo methods—can be used to illuminate the spread of the flu or other real afflictions.
So on your next repeat viewing of Night of the Living Dead, just remember: it’s not just a stark and disturbing movie about the rising of the undead, but perhaps a learning experience regarding how disease works.
@heyiamlex

By Lex Berko  Tags: zombies, mathematical modeling, Epidemics, math, health, disease

CIA Targeted Assassinations by Induced Heart Attack and Cancer

The 1975 Church Committee hearings

By Global Research News

Global Research, January 20, 2014

Signs of the Times 16 December 2010

Theme: Intelligence, Police State & Civil Rights

Published in 2010 by Signs of the Times, first posted on GR on June 27, 2013
by Press Core

In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack. This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark. Once in the body the poison would melt and be absorbed into the blood and cause a heart attack! The poison was developed to be undetectable by modern autopsy procedures.
Can you give a person cancer?
If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings!
In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells; 13 of them died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of the details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Fort Detrick Maryland (origin of the HIV/AIDS virus, the Avian Flu virus and the Swine Flu / A-H1N1 virus), Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes.  After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.
Is death by heart attack, burst aneurysm, of cerebral hemorrhage a “natural cause”? Not if government agencies have found a way to influence your heart rate, blood pressure, or vascular dilatation. Neurological research has found that the brain has specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack. In this way, high profile leaders of political parties who are prone to heart attacks can be killed off before they cause any trouble. Jack Ruby died of cancer a few weeks after his conviction for murder had been overruled in appeals court and he was ordered to stand trial outside of Dallas – thus allowing him to speak freely if he so desired. There was little hesitancy in Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald in order to prevent him from talking, so there is no reason to suspect that any more consideration would have been shown Jack Ruby if he had posed a threat to people in the US government who had conspired to murder the president of the United States – John F Kennedy.
Matt Simmons, an oil industry expert, was assassinated for turning whistle blower over the Obama administration coverup of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Investment banker Matt Simmons, who died suddenly, was an energy industry insider and presidential adviser whose profile soared when he wrote that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil and world production is peaking. Simmons, 67, died at his vacation home in Maine. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning “with heart disease as a contributing factor.”
His 2005 best-selling book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, brought him a wider audience. The book argued that Saudi Arabia vastly overstated the size of its oil reserves and that the world was on the verge of a severe oil shortage as the largest oil fields become depleted. This revelation is backed up by Iran. Iran knows the Middle East oil supply is quickly drying up and for that reason it is now focusing on building nuclear reactors. Once the oil runs out Iran will be the only country in the Middle East that will be energy self-sufficient. All of the other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia will become Third World impoverished states.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was also assassinated. He was found dead in the detention center at The Hague tribunal. Mr Milosevic faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged central role in the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during the 1990s. He also faced genocide charges over the 1992-95 Bosnia war, in which 100,000 people died.
Milosevic wrote a letter one day before his death claiming he was being poisoned to death in jail. An autopsy verified his claim as it showed that Milosevic’s body contained a drug that rendered his usual medication for high blood pressure and his heart condition ineffective, causing the heart attack that led to his death.
Former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson told reporters that he saw documents in 1992 that discussed assassinating Milosevic by means of a staged car accident, where the driver would be blinded by a flash of light and remote controlled brake failure enacted to cause the crash. This exact same technique was utilized for real in the murder of Princess Diana.
If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO.
Why NATO?
Because, though the ICTY (or ‘Hague Tribunal’) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO. NATO appointed the prosecutors, and the judges who ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO. It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO. NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him.
In March 2002, Milosevic presented the NATO controlled Hague tribunal with FBI documents proving that both the United States government and NATO provided financial and military support for Al-Qaeda to aid the Kosovo Liberation Army in its war against Serbia. This didn’t go down too well at the Pentagon and the White House, who at the time were trying to sell a war on terror and gearing up to justify invading Iraq.
During Milosevic’s trial for war crimes NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak. Evidence presented in the court showed that NATO’s claim was a hoax. This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999 (the carpet bombing were done by the United States Air Force -authorized by then president Bill and Hillary Clinton). Then NATO claimed that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians. However, NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces. The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up the genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while Bill Clinton was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But the Hague tribunal showed these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well.
Milosevic made several speeches in which he discussed how a group of shadowy internationalists had caused the chaos in the Balkans because it was the next step on the road to a “new world order.”
During a February 2000 Serbian Congressional speech, Milosevic stated,

“Small Serbia and people in it have demonstrated that resistance is possible. Applied at a broader level, it was organized primarily as a moral and political rebellion against tyranny, hegemony, monopolism, generating hatred, fear and new forms of violence and revenge against champions of freedom among nations and people, such a resistance would stop the escalation of modern time inquisition. Uranium bombs, computer manipulations, drug-addicted young assassins and bribed of blackmailed domestic thugs, promoted to the allies of the new world order, these are the instruments of inquisition which have surpassed, in their cruelty and cynicism, all previous forms of revengeful violence committed against the mankind in the past.”

Evidence linking Milosevic to genocides like Srebrenica, in which 7,000 Muslims died, was proven to be fraudulent. In fact, Srebrenica was a ‘UN safe zone’, yet just like Rwanda, UN peacekeepers deliberately withdrew and allowed the massacre to unfold, then blamed Milosevic. Milosevic’s exposure of UN involvement in the Srebrenica massacre was another reason why tribunal transcripts were heavily edited and censored by NATO, and another contributing factor for NATO to murder him while he was in their custody.NATO’s Hague Tribunal was clearly a kangaroo court whose sole purpose was to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic – to prevent his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody would begin to look into the mountain of evidence that showed that it was NATO leaders (particularly US president Bill Clinton) who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Yugoslavia.
So many people have been done in by cancer at a convenient time in history that it is now time to ask the question “who is assassinating people by giving their target cancer or inducing a massive heart attack”? Who ordered the hits and why?
Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.
Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.
Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.
Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.

CIA secret weapon of assassination Heart Attack Gun, Declassified 1975 New World Order Report

The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target. The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes.
A former CIA agent disclosed that the darts were made of a frozen form of the liquid poison. She disclosed that the dart would melt within the target and would only leave a very tiny red dot at the entry point – the same type of small entrance wound that was found during the autopsy of John F Kennedy.For over 50 years assassinations have been carried out so skillfully as to leave the impression that the victims died from natural causes. Details of some of the techniques used to achieve this were brought to light in 1961 when professional KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinskiy defected to the West and revealed that he had successfully performed two such missions. In 1957 he killed Ukrainian emigré writer Lev Rebet in Munich with a poison vapor gun which left the victim dead of an apparent heart attack. In 1959, the same type of weapon was used on Ukrainian emigré leader Stepan Bandera, although Bandera’s death was never fully accepted as having been from natural causes.
Among the witnesses, important people and conspirators who might have been eliminated by induced heart attack and cancer are: Jack Rudy (died of a stroke due to an undiagnosed form of aggressive cancer, just weeks after he agreed to testify before Congress about the JFK assassination), Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover, Earlene Roberts (Oswald’s land-lady), Marlyn Monroe, Slobodan Milosevic, Kenneth Lay (former CEO of ENRON – the largest political campaign contributor of George W Bush and Dick Cheney), Matt Simmons, Mark Pittman (a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings. Pittman fought to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny), Elizabeth Edwards (suddenly diagnosed with cancer while her husband was campaigning against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States.
During a campaign speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2007, Edwards called the War on Terrorism a slogan that was created for political reasons and that it wasn’t a plan to make the United States safe. He went further to compare it to a bumper sticker and that it had damaged the US’s alliances and standing in the world.), … enter here the names of every politically outspoken person, whistle blower or witness who died unexpectedly of a heart attack or who quickly died of an incurable cancer.