Marine Involved In Haditha Massacre To Serve No Time

Marine Involved In Haditha Massacre To Serve No Time ‎

Associated Press

January 24, 2012 CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) — A Marine sergeant who led a squad that killed 24 unarmed Iraqis will spend no time in confinement, despite a military judge's recommendation Tuesday that he spend three months in the brig. Military judge Lt. Col. David Jones said his hands were tied by a plea agreement that prevents any jail time for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich. Wuterich pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty as part of a deal with prosecutors. The minor charge carried a maximum sentence of 90 days, which is what Jones recommended. But because of the way the military system works, the terms of the deal with prosecutors weren't known to the judge until after he made his sentencing recommendation in court on Tuesday. Prosecutors asked Jones to give Wuterich the maximum sentence of three months confinement, a reduction in rank and forfeiture of two-thirds of his pay. They said his knee-jerk reaction of sending the squad to assault nearby homes without positively identifying the threat went against his training and led to the deaths of the 10 women and children. "That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shooting first, ask questions later," Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan told the court. The judge said he would recommend that Wuterich's rank be reduced to private. He said he decided not to dock his pay because he is the divorced father of three young daughters with sole custody. Wuterich has acknowledged ordering his squad to "shoot first, ask questions later" after a roadside bomb took the life of a fellow Marine, but he said he did not shoot any of the 10 women and children killed in nearby homes that he stormed with his men. "The truth is: I never fired my weapon at any women or children that day," Wuterich told military judge Lt. Col. David Jones, who recommended the sentence that must be approved by the commander of Marine Corps Forces Central Command. The surprise contention by Wuterich contradicts prosecutors who implicated him in 19 of the 24 deaths. It also counters testimony from a former squad mate who said he joined Wuterich in firing in a dark back bedroom where a woman and children were killed. Defense attorney Neal Puckett said Wuterich has lived under the cloud of being labeled a killer who carried out a massacre in Iraq. Lawyers also said he has been exonerated of directly causing the deaths of civilians in the two homes and insisted his only intent was to protect his Marines, calling it "honorable and noble." "The appropriate punishment in this case, your honor, is no punishment," Puckett said. Wuterich, 31, told the court that his guilty plea should not suggest that he believes his men behaved badly or that they acted in any way that was dishonorable to their country. He said he ordered his men to "shoot first, ask questions later" so they would not hesitate in attacking the enemy, but he never intended to harm any civilians. The plea deal that halted Wuterich's manslaughter trial has sparked outrage in Iraq, where many said it proves the United States does not hold its military accountable for its actions. In Iraq, residents of the Euphrates river town of Haditha were angered by the fact that not one of the eight Marines initially charged will be convicted of manslaughter. A survivor of the killings, Awis Fahmi Hussein, showed his scars from being hit by a bullet in the back. "I was expecting that the American judiciary would sentence this person to life in prison and that he would appear and confess in front of the whole world that he committed this crime, so that America could show itself as democratic and fair," he said. In his statement, Wuterich also addressed family members of the Iraqi victims, saying there were no words to ease their pain. "I wish to assure you that on that day, it was never my intention to harm you or your families. I know that you are the real victims of Nov. 19, 2005," he said. Associated Press writers Barbara Surk and Mazin Yahya in Baghdad, Elliot Spagat in San Diego and Raquel Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Can solar power help shipping go green?

24 January 2012 Last updated at 00:31 GMT  

 BBC

Can solar power help shipping go green?

 

"I think in 50 to 100 years, all ships will have solar sails”

Robert Dane Solar Sailor

 

By Katie Hunt Business reporter, BBC News, Hong Kong

 

Solar Birdie, which ferries passengers to a golf course on one of Hong Kong's outlying islands, comes into dock

From a distance, the yellow-and-blue ferry docking at the pier resembles the scores of other vessels that hop between Hong Kong's outlying islands and the peninsula every day.

But a closer look as passengers disembark, reveals a grid of gleaming solar panels on the ferry's roof and, instead of the usual throbbing engine noise, there is a barely audible buzz.

The Solar Eagle and three similar vessels shuttle golfers to tee off on an 18-hole island course. Together they form the world's first hybrid powered ferry fleet and a commercial proving ground for technology that could transform the future of marine travel.
The technology, similar to that used in hybrid cars, has been developed by an Australian company called Solar Sailor.
Electricity created by the solar panels and stored in a battery powers the engine while the vessel comes in and out of the harbour. Once out in the open ocean and a faster clip is required, the diesel kicks in.

One of the fleet, the Solar Albatross, sports two sails covered in solar panels that can be raised to harness both the sun and the wind to further reduce reliance on fossil fuel.

Robert Dane, Solar Sailor's founder, says that the technology offers ship owners huge fuel savings and has the potential to be used on all types of vessels from humble ferries and luxury super-yachts to bulk carriers shipping iron ore and navy patrol ships.
"I think in 50 to 100 years, all ships will have solar sails," he says.
"It just makes so much sense. You're out there on the water and there's so much light bouncing around and there's a lot more energy in the wind than in the sun."
Teething problems Three of the ferries began operation in 2010 and the Solar Albatross began carrying passengers last year. The solar-sail technology is also in use in two ferries in Shanghai and Sydney.

 

Solar panels help power the world's first fleet of hybrid ferries in Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Jockey Club, which runs the golf course on Kau Sai Chau island, says its has seen "significant fuel savings" but was still monitoring the overall performance of the ferries.
Mr Dane says that on the golf course-run, the hybrid technology saves 8% or 17% on the fuel bill, depending on the route taken. However, repair and maintenance costs have been more than anticipated.
"The Jockey Club is a new operator so there's a learning curve for them and the new technology," he says.
Despite the teething problems, Mr Dane is confident of future sales.
He says he is in the "early stages" of discussions with the operators of Hong Kong's iconic star ferry, which has been shuttling across Victoria Harbour since 1880, about fitting solar panels on one of their vessels.

 

Solar Albatross in Hong Kong with solar sails raised

 

And in Australia, he hopes to clinch deals this year with the operator of a river ferry and install the technology on two ocean research vessels.
There are other solar-powered ships in operation such as the catamaran Turanor PlanetSolar, which is circumnavigating the globe exclusively by harnessing the power of the sun. However, Mr Dane says the technology developed by his company is the most commercially tested.
More ambitiously, Mr Dane says the company will soon announce a trial with an Australian mining company to attach a 40m (130ft) tall solar sail to a newly built bulk carrier that will ship iron ore and other raw materials to China.

 

Solar Sailor is in talks with an Australian mining company about installing a solar sail on a bulk carrier that transports iron ore and other raw materials

He likens the sail to a "giant windmill blade" that would be covered in solar panels and fold down into the vessel when it is docking and transferring cargo.
By harnessing the wind, the company estimates that the giant sail could shave 20% to 40%, or around A$3m (£2m; $3.1m), off a ship's annual fuel bill when travelling at 16 knots (18mph), with the solar panels contributing an extra 3% to 6% saving.
"The systems were are installing are worth around A$6 million and therefore the return of investment would be a couple of years at the current oil price," he says.
"It's not a matter of if we're going to do it, it's a matter of how - right now we are working out the details."
Green oceans If, as Mr Dane hopes, the technology is adopted more widely, it also has the potential to clean up the shipping industry, which environmental campaigners claim emits more greenhouse gases than commercial aviation.
Roughly 50,000 ships carry 90% of the world's trade cargo, and these ships tend to burn a heavily polluting oil known as bunker fuel.

 

The Solar Albatross ferry, in part powered by two solar sails, comes into dock with sails lowered

 

"It's like tar, you have to heat it up to make it liquid so it will flow," says Mr Dane.
"These incredibly powerful engines run on incredibly cheap but dirty fuel so what we can do in the short-term is to ensure they use less fuel."
The industry has proved hard for governments to regulate as it does not fall into one jurisdiction, however the United Nations International Maritime Organization has recently introduced new regulations on fuel efficiency and sulphur emissions that could drive demand for Solar Sailor's technology.
Mr Dane is optimistic about the company's future even though after more than a decade of doing business it has yet to turn a profit.
He says the company will in future focus on areas less affected the global economic downturn such as defence, with plans afoot to use the technology in unmanned ocean vehicles that could replace navy patrol boats.
"We know (our technology) works. We know the return on investment but there's been factors outside our control like the economic environment that have inhibited what we are doing," Mr Dane says.
"We think we're at a very exciting point with regards to profitability and one of the projects (we're working on) will make us incredibly profitable in 2012."

All About PIPA and SOPA, the Bills That Want to Censor Your Internet

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are two bills that sound like they have a mildly positive aim but, in reality, have serious potential to negatively change the internet as we know it. While the Obama administration has come out against SOPA, effectively shelving it indefinitely, the very similar PIPA bill is still alive and well. Both SOPA and PIPA put power in the hands of the entertainment industry to censor sites that allegedly "engage in, enable or facilitate" copyright infringement. This language is vague enough to target sites you use every day, like Facebook and Google, making these bills a serious problem. Here's what you need to know about the bills and what you can do about them.

What Are SOPA and PIPA All ABout, and Why Should I Care?

The idea behind these bills sounds reasonable. They came about in order to try and snuff out piracy online, as the entertainment industry is obviously not excited that many people are downloading their products without payment or permission. The issue is, however, that it doesn't really matter whether you're in support of piracy, against it, or just don't care. The methods are ineffective. Here's what they are and why they're problematic.
SOPA and PIPA were initially designed to do two things. The first was to make it possible for companies to block the domain names of web sites that are simply capable of, or seem to encourage copyright infringement. This would have been bad for everyone because such a measure doesn't actually prevent piracy. The reason that blocking a domain name isn't effective is because any blocked site can still be accessed via its numeric IP address. For example, if lifehacker.com were blocked, you could still find it by visiting a number-based address. In fact, before the bills were even supposed to come to a vote, tools were created to automatically route domain names to their IP addresses to completely render this measure of SOPA and PIPA useless. As a result, the IP-blocking provisions have been removed from both bills.
The other, still-active measure present in the SOPA and PIPA bills would allow rights holders to cut of the source of funding of any potentially infringing web site. This means any other companies doing business with this site would have to stop. Whether that means advertising, links in search engines, or any other listings would have to be removed.
There is, however, an important difference between SOPA and PIPA. SOPA targeted any site that contributed to copyright infringement, even if it was simply facilitating the act by providing a tool that could be used for illegal purposes (regardless of intention). PIPA, on the other hand, requires the targeted site to have no significant use beyond copyright infringement. Basically, PIPA can only be used to censor a site if it's more likely to be a source of illegal content than not. This is still problematic because a tool designed to accept user-generated content is, to some extent, at the whims of its users. If infringing content is found, rights holders already have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to help them request the legal removal of that content. They also have the ability to sue infringers for damages, as we've previously seen with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) when they, for example, sued a 12-year-old for downloading music. SOPA and PIPA provide a means to censor the tool that provided a means for the infringing content to exist on the internet rather than the content itself. This puts a lot of power in the hands of rights holders and has significant potential for abuse.
This is, of course, our interpretation of these bills. Because we love the internet and oppose censorship, we have an obvious bias. While we believe the right thing to do is to oppose these bills, you should make an informed decision on your own. For more information, please read the exact content of both the SOPA and PIPA bills.

What Can I Do About SOPA and PIPA?

Currently Twitter, Google, Reddit, Kickstarter, Tumblr, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL, eBay, Zynga, Facebook, and several other sites have spoken out in opposition of SOPA and PIPA. In fact, many sites are censoring their logos (e.g. Google) or completely taking down their sites (e.g. Wikipedia) in protest on January 18th, 2012. There is incredible opposition to these bills because they don't just affect users like you, or small startups, but even very large companies with a large stake in the great things the internet and modern technology have to offer. If you'd like to join in your protest, there are a few things you can do. First, call your congressperson on the phone. This is especially important if you live in a state with SOPA and/or PIPA supports or sponsors. Nonetheless, if your congresspeople do not support these bills you should still contact them to voice your support for their position.
Second, get the word out. Post this article, the American Censorship Day web site, or any other information about SOPA/PIPA on your social media accounts. Send emails to friends and family. If you oppose the bill, help others to understand why you believe they should oppose and encourage them to read more so they can make an informed choice.

Let's End the Fight and Start a Discussion

Finally, if you know a supporter or person in favor of SOPA and/or PIPA, have an open discussion. Myself and many others believe that the root of this problem stems from a lack of communication on both sides. Despite what my articles may suggest, I'm not a supporter of piracy. I do believe there is a compromise that both sides can reach with enough discussion, education, and understanding. It's important to remember that both the supporters and opposers of SOPA and PIPA have legitimate concerns. This should not be a fight but rather a cooperative discussion to find a solution. Whichever side you're on, please encourage a conversation that will move us towards change that is good for everyone rather than extreme measures that won't help anyone.

Is the design of big cruise ships flawed?

 BBC NEWS

Is the design of big cruise ships flawed?

The capsizing of the Costa Concordia has raised many questions about the safety of modern cruise ships. 

They have doubled in weight over the past decade, they sit higher in the water and are flatter underneath to enable them to enter more harbours. To the untrained eye they look top heavy, and with up to 6,000 people on board, they look difficult to evacuate quickly. But is that the case?

One maritime union, Nautilus International, thinks the regulations need looking at. It has been warning for some time that something like this might happen.

Look at this quote, which raises the spectre of the Titanic.

"The grounding of a cruise ship carrying more than 4,000 passengers and crew two weeks into the Titanic centenary year should serve as a wake-up call to the shipping industry and those who regulate it. Attention needs to be paid to existing evacuation systems and more innovative systems for abandonment."

The evacuation of the Costa Concordia didn't go well. The fact that the ship listed so quickly and so far meant they couldn't launch all the lifeboats. Passengers have complained of chaos, confused staff - some of whom didn't speak their language - and the fact they hadn't been taken through a drill.

The International Maritime Organization, which regulates ship safety across the world, sets the rules on evacuating ships and providing drills for new passengers.

Here is what they sent me:

Regulation 19: Emergency training and drills.

• 1 This regulation applies to all ships.
• 2 Familiarity with safety installations and practice musters.
• 2.1 Every crew member with assigned emergency duties shall be familiar with these duties before the voyage begins.
• 2.2 On a ship engaged on a voyage where passengers are scheduled to be on board for more than 24h, musters of the passengers shall take place within 24h after their embarkation. Passengers shall be instructed in the use of the life jackets and the action to take in an emergency.

Effectively, the company has 24 hours to take you through a drill once you are on board. The Costa Concordia was only a few hours into its voyage. Some people arriving back at Heathrow started flashing their drill cards around. They had been scheduled for a rehearsal on Saturday afternoon, by which time the ship was lying on its side.

I suspect, in the light of this accident, all cruise companies will now make sure they drill passengers before they set sail.

But what about the time it took to get everyone off?

Regulation III/21.1.3: All survival craft required to provide for abandonment by the total number of persons on board shall be capable of being launched with their full complement of persons and equipment within a period of 30 min from the time the abandon ship signal is given after all persons have been assembled, with life jackets donned.

In practice, this means all passengers and crew are ordered to lifeboat stations first and then, when everyone is mustered, the captain orders abandon ship. So Coast Guards test to see if ships can load the boats and place them in the water within 30 minutes. 

Regulations also state that a ship's systems should last for at least three hours because that is how long it is expected to take to completely abandon a large ship.

It took a good five hours to get most passengers off the ship. One former sea captain I spoke to had some sympathy with the crew in this situation. Once the ship was listing heavily, he told me, and the lifeboats were sitting on what had become the top of the boat, everyone just had to leave the ship any way they could.

The regulations work to the principle that the ship itself is the best lifeboat, and is designed to be able to limp back to port in most situations.

Prof Philip Wilson at the University of Southampton specialises in ship dynamics and we spoke alongside his 29ft (9m) testing tank. 

"Modern ships are safe as they can possibly be," he told me.

"The centre of buoyancy is in the right place... instinctively it doesn't look right but it is in fact very, very stable, the beam of the boat being very large."

We have also heard a lot about watertight compartments since the Costa Concordia went down. The theory is that if one side of the hull is breached, the other side can be flooded to keep the ship upright. The big question is then, why didn't it work in this case? The truth is we won't know until the investigation is finished.

But Prof Wilson wasn't too surprised, saying: "Every ship will sink if you make the hole big enough."

Latest underwater images reveal previously unseen damage to the hull of the ship

He added, however, that something was "puzzling" him.

The hole in the hull is sticking out of the water. It should be under the sea, because that is where the water came rushing in. In other words, the ship seems to be lying on the wrong side.

"We're working on information that's incomplete so we don't know really what's happened. Potentially of course, the crew could have been pumping water to bring the ship upright, and maybe took too much water on board."

What many people are keen to stress is that cruise ships are still among the safest ways to travel. Companies emphasise that training and regulations are rigorous and that this kind of accident is very rare. But no-one argues that there isn't room for improvement.

The International Maritime Organization has not had a lot to say on this accident so far, but it has released a statement, and once again, it revives memories of the Titanic.

"IMO must not take this accident lightly," it says.

"We should seriously consider the lessons to be learnt and, if necessary, re-examine the regulations on the safety of large passenger ships in the light of the findings of the casualty investigation. In the centenary year of the Titanic, we have once again been reminded of the risks involved in maritime activities."

"human rights shouldn’t be a recipe for national suicide."

Israeli High Court okays Citizenship Law, legalizing racial discrimination of Arabs

Noam Sheizaf

January 12, 2012 According to the 2003 law, Arab citizens of Israel who marry Palestinians will have to emigrate in order to live with their spouses. Israeli Arab MK Ahmed Tibi famously said that "Israel is indeed a Jewish-democratic state: it is democratic for Jews and Jewish for all the rest." This rings truer than ever after Israel’s High Court of Justice rejected yesterday (again) the petitions against the Citizenship Law, one of the first measures to make racial discrimination against the Arab minority not just common practice, but part of Israel’s legal codex. The High Court rejected the petitions against the Citizenship Law in a split, 6-5 decision. The incoming head of the High Court, Justice Asher Grunis, wrote in the decision that "human rights shouldn’t be a recipe for national suicide." You can read the full verdict here [Hebrew, PDF]. Justice Edmond Levy, a religious and somewhat conservative judge, harshly criticized Grunis for his language, claiming he misled the public as to the nature of the citizenship law. The Citizenship Law, which technically is a temporary order, came into effect in 2003. It determines that Palestinian non-citizens who marry Israeli citizens will not be eligible for Israeli residency or citizenship. The couple will only be able to unite outside the borders of Israel. The practical meaning of the law is that Arab citizens of Israel who marry Palestinian non-citizens – something that happens quite often, since these are members of the same nation, and sometimes of the same communities – won’t be able to live with their wives or husbands. If they want to unite, they will have to leave the country. By doing so, the law achieves two (racist) objectives against members of the Arab minority: (a) it prevents non-Jews from entering the country and applying for permanent residency or citizenship and (b) it makes it harder for Israeli Arab citizens to build families in their own community or in their own country, thus encouraging them to leave Israel. Arab Palestinians comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population. It is important to note that it is not the right of the non-citizen wife or husband that is being violated (since the state has no legal obligation towards them), but that of the citizen, who should enjoy the possibility to form a family and live with his loved one in his own community. When the citizenship law came into effect, during the second Intifada, a security pretext was used to justify it, claiming that Palestinian terrorists could use marriage to become Israeli citizens. Yet this argument doesn’t hold: even without the law, the security establishment can veto any demand for citizenship or residency. It’s clear – and the public debate around the law doesn’t even try to conceal this fact – that "demographic" issues were the real motive for the legislation, and more specifically, the desire to limit, and ultimately even reduce, the number of non-Jewish citizens in the state. Until the citizenship order, the only major piece of Israeli legislation that made a clear distinction between Arabs and Jews was the Law of Return, which makes it possible for Jews to immigrate to Israel and become citizens instantly, while non-Jews aren’t allowed to do so, even if their families originally hailed from this land. The 2003 law marks perhaps a new era, in which discrimination against the Arab minority is not only a common practice – for example, in the prevention of Palestinians from buying or building on state land, through the use of state agencies such as the JNF – but an explicit part of the body of laws that apply to the citizens of the state. The new Nakba Law, which allows the state to penalize institutions that commemorate the Palestinian national disaster of 1948, is further evidence of this fact. The High Court also rejected petitions against the Nakab bill, just last week.

Secret Presidential Chemtrail Budget Uncovered

Exposed: Secret Presidential Chemtrail Budget Uncovered – Congress Exceeds Billions To Spray Populace Like Roaches

—The Budget Obama Didn’t Want You To Know About

The Intel Hub
Shepard Ambellas & Avalon
March 30, 2011
© 2011 All Rights Reserved

Geoengineering has now been defined as: “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.” – The Royal Society 2009
Recently, the question has been asked, What In the World Are They Spraying? The documentary with the same name answers many of those questions.
The question the world is now asking is “Who in the World Is Spraying Us?”

The World is Now Demanding Answers and Accountability…

As an introduction to this article, we will first cover information to familiarize the uninformed readers as to the core facts and information so that a more complete understanding is possible, given this complex issue.
A recent report by CBS Atlanta detailed how some local citizens are outraged that such “crimes against humanity” are being carried out right before our eyes in secret.
In the report Sen. Johnny Isakson was interviewed on the subject of chemtrails saying quote:

“That is a theory that some people have, but there is no evidence this is happening. This is not happening.”

It looks as if members of the government’s upper echelon and even members of the Senate will go to extreme lengths to suppress this vital information from reaching the American people.
Not to mention they signed off on the multi-billion dollar per year budgets in an economic crisis, with little to no transparency to the public.
Support The Intel Hub – Berkey Light Water Filters, Storable Food, and More(Ad)
In regards to aerosol spraying into the earth’s atmosphere, a recent update to data assembled by The Carnicom Institute reveals the chemicals used and their respective levels of concentration. The toxic levels that are being used in these aerosols goes beyond shocking – it would appear that these levels are indeed criminal by EPA Standards.

An Updated Look at Aerosol Toxins – Part 1
By Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri –
Copyright © 2011 – All Rights Reserved
February 3, 2011
(Excerpt from Report)

A new preliminary draft report by ArizonaSkyWatch shows dramatic increases in heavy metals that simply do not belong in our air. NOTE: The level of Manganese is so shockingly high that ArizonaSkyWatch also included additional information about it (see below). This report will be posted online shortly.
This is only a preliminary overview of Arizona Air Particulates.

2010 Air Particulates
These figures indicate how many times they are over the allowable toxic limit:

Aluminum: 15.8
Antimony: 63.3
Arsenic: 418
Barium: 5.3
Cadmium: 6.0
Chromium: 6.4
Copper: 9.0
Iron: 43.5
Lead: 15.7
Manganese: 513.8
Nickel: 10.7
Zinc: 7.5
Additional Research & Videos are at the CaliforniaSkyWatch.com & theAgricultureDefenseCoalition.org.

Interestingly enough, Monsanto has just released an Aluminum Resistant Seed which is Genetically Modified to tolerate Aluminum in high levels in the soil. Is this a coincidence, or do they know something?

“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” – Henry Kissinger

See also: Henry Kissinger National Security Study Memorandum 200

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Richard Haass- Club of Rome

Another famous quote;

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. - Thomas Jefferson

LINKS FOR CURRENT SOURCES
David Keith GeoEngineering
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)

Purpose

The Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) exists to accelerate the innovative development and evaluation of science and technology to address carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and their environmental consequences.
The non-profit research fund focuses on early-stage innovative research where relatively small and timely grants can significantly advance understanding, especially of the viability and scalability of proposals to address global warming.
Funded research projects are intended to produce peer-reviewed scholarly articles in recognized professional scientific and technical journals. Any intellectual property that may be generated in the course of such research resides with the researchers or their institutions.

Grants for research are provided to the University of Calgary from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds.

The activities of the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research fall outside the scope of activities of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. FICER is not a Foundation project and has no relationship with it.
The fund has supported research in a wide range of areas. Some examples include:
• understanding carbon dioxide emissions associated with international trade in goods and services;
• developing technologies to capture carbon dioxide out of the air; and
• climate modeling to understand possible environmental consequences of solar radiation management.

Image: Lawrence Livermore National Library

Report On GeoEngineering

A select group of diabolic oligarch globalists and their puppet cronies embedded within the United States government are now involved in what some would say are crimes against humanity. These tyrants will stop at nothing to usher their hush, hush global aerosol agenda into full swing.

According to a report prepared for the Air Force titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the WeatherBy 2025” the U.S. Air Force wants to fully control the weather on earth by the year 2025.

Far surpassing even the most horrific act of terror (real or staged), posing as literal gods, these globalists will stop at nothing to control the world by not only controlling the fraudulent banking systems but by owning the weather through a process (blanket term) calledGeoengineering.
According to globalist sponsored reports, our planet is in a constant state of threat and is being bombarded with radioactive solar rays increasing planetary temperatures due to human carbon emissions.
However, vast bodies of research now show that that is not the case and that global warming is a another globalist myth, a ponzi scheme to collect a Carbon Tax worldwide, benefitting the very same group behind the curtain.
The myth the global warming “Carbon Tax” pushers have been spouting apparently can only be  fixed by spraying deadly toxins in an aerosol particulate form into the earths atmosphere via large sprayer converted aircraft specifically assigned to perform Geoengineering tasks.

Aerosol sprays (slang: Chemtrails) are filled with a variety of chemical and metal compounds and are known to be very hazardous to human, plant, and animal health worldwide. This danger to plant and human and animal health has been documented in films such as “What In the World Are They Spraying” by Michael Murphy & G. Edward Griffin, who have also appeared on the Intel Hub Radio Show with Shepard Ambellas.

Ultimately, this issue was originally a matter for the EPA to rule over considering that they have the authority to sanction geoengineering activities under the National Environmental Policy ACT of 1969. However, documents such as the report to the chairman, Committee of Science and Technology, House of Representatives – “Climate Change” – Sept. 2010, U.S. Gov. Accountability Office which was submitted to all members of congress in 2010 attempt to put control into the hands of even a smaller group of people.
This report clearly is slanted and leans to take control away from the EPA along with other regulatory provisions such as; the Endangered Species ACT, and the Conformity Provision in the Clean Air ACT – total Geoengineering dis-info submitted to members of the Congress and other government branches alike.

The source of most of the dis-info is Obama’s White House Science Czar John P. Holdren. The following was written on USGCRP letterhead;

“January 2011,
Members of Congress:
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council, I am transmitting a copy of Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011. The report describes the activities and plans of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) established under the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990. The USGCRP coordinates and integrates scientific research on climate and global change and is supported by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. government. This Fiscal Year 2011 edition of Our Changing Planet highlights recent advances and progress made by participating agencies and includes budget information on each agency’s contribution.
This report describes a program in transition. In accordance with the GCRA, the USGCRP agencies requested guidance from the National Research Council on how to best meet the changing needs of the nation to understand climate change and respond to its impacts, and the NRC responded with a 2009 report entitled “Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate Change”. In accord with that report’s recommendations, the USGCRP is undergoing a strategic realignment that will ensure that the science produced is maximally useful for decision makers at all scales. As described in the new edition of Our Changing Planet, the program going forward will place greater emphasis on impacts, vulnerabilities, and on understanding the options for adapting to the changing climate. The program will also continue its long-standing support for activities that contribute to a better understanding of the Earth system, including observations, research, and predictive modeling.
All of these focuses will be reflected in the USGCRP’s new strategic plan and its National Climate Assessment.
The USGCRP is committed to its mission to build a knowledge base that informs human responses to global change through coordinated and integrated federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support. I appreciate the close cooperation of the participating agencies, and I look forward to working with the Congress in the continued development and implementation of this essential national program.
Sincerely,
John P. Holdren Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Assistant to the President for Science and Technology” – Our Changing Planet
Even more disturbing then that is the fact that your so called representatives have been approving yearly geoengineering budgets in the upwards of billions of dollars per year (as outlined in the document “Our Changing Planet – The US Global Change Research Program for the Fiscal Year of 2011, which is a supplement to the Presidents Budget for 2011, much of which is unaccounted for and not even included in the budget possible signifying even a more nefarious plot involving some black budget.

Back tracking to the year 2001,  President elect George W. Bush established the (CCRI) Climate Change Research Initiative. A year later it was made public that the USGCRP or United States Global Change Research program and the CCRI both would become what is known as the (CCSP) Climate Change Science Program. Now, under the Obama Administration the legacy continues to move forward as the USGCRP.

Geoengineering Regions

A report entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” released in 2009, documents how the USGCRP divided the US into nine regions similar to FEMA regions. Also tucked into the report was the statement “A central finding of the report was that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced” – Source: Our Changing Planet.
The document goes on to mention the devastating effects of climate change, including the effect on crops, human health and livestock.
But the most startling fact in the document is the actual budget itself, a mere 2.7 billion for 2011 alone (not including many costs) 24% higher than 2010’s budget.
The Global Change Research ACT of 1990, SEC. 102, Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences states;

a) ESTABLISHMENT.–The President, through the Council, shall establish a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences. The Committee shall carry out Council functions under section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651) relating to global change research, for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal global change research efforts.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.–The Committee shall consist of at least one representative from–

1. the National Science Foundation;
2. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
3. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
4. the Environmental Protection Agency;
5. the Department of Energy;
6. the Department of State;
7. the Department of Defense;
8. the Department of the Interior;
9. the Department of Agriculture;
10. the Department of Transportation;
11. the Office of Management and Budget;
12. the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
13. the Council on Environmental Quality;
14. the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; and
15. such other agencies and departments of the United States as the President or the Chairman of the Council considers appropriate.
Such representatives shall be high ranking officials of their agency or department, wherever possible the head of the portion of that agency or department that is most relevant to the purpose of the title described in section 101(b).
(c) CHAIRPERSON.–The Chairman of the Council, in consultation with the Committee, biennially shall select one of the Committee members to serve as Chairperson. The Chairperson shall be knowledgeable and experienced with regard to the administration of scientific research programs, and shall be a representative of an agency that contributes substantially, in terms of scientific research capability and budget, to the Program.
(d) SUPPORT PERSONNEL.–An Executive Secretary shall be appointed by the Chairperson of the
Committee, with the approval of the Committee. The Executive Secretary shall be a permanent employee of one of the agencies or departments represented on the Committee, and shall remain in the employ of such agency or department. The Chairman of the Council shall have the authority to make personnel decisions regarding any employees detailed to the Council for purposes of working on business of the Committee pursuant to section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651).
(e) FUNCTIONS RELATIVE TO GLOBAL CHANGE.–The Council, through the Committee, shall be responsible for planning and coordinating the Program. In carrying out this responsibility, the Committee shall–
1. serve as the forum for developing the Plan and for overseeing its implementation;
2. improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities;
3. provide budgetary advice as specified in section 105;
4. work with academic, State, industry, and other groups conducting global change research, to
provide for periodic public and peer review of the Program;
5. cooperate with the Secretary of State in– (A) providing representation at international meetings and conferences on global change research in which the United States participates; and
(B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United States with programs of other nations and with international global change research activities such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program;
6. consult with actual and potential users of the results of the Program to ensure that such results are useful in developing national and international policy responses to global change; and
7. report at least annually to the President and the Congress, through the Chairman of the Council, on Federal global change research priorities, policies, and programs.”
The following is a list of the members included in the Subcommittee on Global Change Research;

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH
Made up of the following members:

• Thomas Karl -Department of Commerce Chair
• Thomas Armstrong - Department of the Interior Vice Chair, Adaptation Research
• Mike Freilich - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Vice Chair, Integrated Observations
• Timothy Killeen - National Science Foundation Vice Chair, Strategic Planning
• William Breed -U.S. Agency for International Development
• John Balbus - Department of Health and Human Services
• William Hohenstein - Department of Agriculture
• Jack Kaye - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Chester Koblinsky - Department of Commerce
• Linda Lawson - Department of Transportation
• Leonard Hirsch - Smithsonian Institution
• Anna Palmisano - Department of Energy

A description of the subcommittee on (p.2) Our Changing Planet Reads;

“The USGCRP is directed by the Subcommittee for Global Change Research (SGCR), which falls under the National Science and Technology Council. The SGCR comprises representatives from 13 departments and agencies and is led by a Chair from one of the participating agencies (currently from the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]). In order to align the program’s governance with the needs, Vice- Chairs have been identified for Strategic Planning, Integrated Observations, and Adaptation Research. Additional vice-chairs will be identified as needed. The program is supported by the USGCRP Integration and Coordination Office and conducts many of its activities through interagency working groups that plan and implement research and crosscutting activities, such as communications, decision support, and information and data concerns. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work closely with the SGCR, the Integration and Coordination Office, and the interagency working groups to establish research priorities and funding plans to ensure that the program is aligned with national priorities, reflects agency planning, and meets the requirements of the GCRA. “

The Subcommittee in question has now supplied the President with a supplement to the fiscal budget for 2011, which was presented to members of congress in January of 2011 on behalf of the National Science and Technology Policy – Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, John P. Holdren.
The (USGCRP) brings together a total of 13 different agencies and merges them into one single agency program that has been in the works science 1988 or prior.
In 1990 the USGCRP received generous congressional support under (GCRA P.L. 101-606). It is no mystery that aerosol spraying operations have been ongoing since the early 1990’s. Prior to 1990 one could enjoy a true clear blue sky, a figment of the past in 2011 – where none are to be found.

Airship Proposed for Chemtrail Spraying

So just how deep does the geoengineering/terraforming rabbit hole go? The Intel Hub was able to obtain a copy of the final report prepared by the University of Calgary under contract by Aurora Flight Sciences titled “Geoengineering cost analysis.”
In the report there is smoking gun evidence of the entire geoengineering saga from the secret bases, to the payload, to what type of aircraft or “airship” will be the most cost effective to spread toxic particulates throughout the earths atmosphere.
The final report also included budgets for different applications for aerosol dispersal within the atmosphere.

“Existing aircraft are evaluated based on cost of acquisition and operations. An in-depth new aircraft design study and cost analysis was conducted to determine the cost of developing and operating a dedicated geoengineering airplane type. Similarly, an airship design study and cost analysis was conducted. Finally a survey of non-aircraft systems was conducted to determine how their costs compare to aircraft and airships.
Yearly costs of 1M tonne geoengineering operations for all the systems examined are presented in Figure 2. Some systems are easily written off due to extremely high costs. Rocket based systems are not cost competitive due to the large number of launches required and the impact of occasional rocket failures on required fleet size. A system based on 16Σ” naval Mark 7 guns was analyzed and compared to previous work by the National Research Council.4 This system requires large numbers of shots increasing projectile costs and driving yearly costs over $100B. Gun costs become more competitive if the projectile payload fraction can be increased from about 10% for a standard shell to 50%. With this and a few improvements over the 1940-era Mark 7 gun yearly costs are still in the $20B range….The primary vehicles examined to lift particulate to stratospheric altitudes and disperse them at a predetermined release rate are airplanes and airships; rockets and other non- aircraft methods such as guns and suspended pipes are also surveyed.” –Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.5)

“Geoengineering may provide a means to create a time buffer against catastrophic cli- mate change while long-term emissions reduction actions take effect. One approach is to disperse sulfur compounds at high altitude to reduce the effective solar flux entering the atmosphere. This report will evaluate the means of delivering sufficient mass of this or similar material to affect climate change on a global scale. The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management (SRM). This study does notexamine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final Report (p.6)

Operational Costs – Not Including Payload

The report mentions how payload costs are not included in the estimate nor are the base/facility costs and continues on (p.8) to say;

“This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft operations, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also examined….For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized.” – Aurora Flight Sciences: Geoengineering Final report Yearly cost estimates from different dispersal methods ranged from over 1 billion dollars a year all the way up to rocket dispersed aerosol in the upper atmosphere at the cost of over 100 billion dollars per year.

GeoEngineering Research 2011

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” – Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.
Note: Websites/News Agencies are welcome to post 50% of this article linking back to us. Or contact us to post in full.

UPDATE – March 31st, 2011

•  Aluminum resistant gene patent # 7582809
•  Patent granted on September 1, 2009
•  Patent developed at the Robert W. Holley Center for Agricultural Health at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.
•  Leon Kochian and Jurandir Vieira de Magallhaes are the primary inventors/ researchers
•  Patent assigned to US Department of Agriculture and Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research
•  According to Cornell University Chronicle Online, the research project was supported in part by the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program, the Generation Challenge Program, the National Science Foundation and the USDA.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a contributor to both the McKnight Foundation and the Generation Challenge Program.
http://www.mcknight.org/international/cropresearch.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/molecular-breeding-platform-aims-to-enhance-plant-breeding-090901.aspx
Hundreds of Rain and Snow Tests HAVE BEEN DONE!
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/htm/tests.html

Update 4/23/2011 – Amazing Chemtrail Pictures Taken In Phoenix Arizona

Taken 4/22/11 west of Phoenix, AZ suburbs.


From: Tim White
Subject: CHEMTRAILS-my phone call to PATRICK MINNIS of NASA
To: “Rosalind Peterson”
Received: Monday, July 27, 2009, 1:41 PM
I had the distinct DISpleasure of talking to this NASA/CIA/NOAA/NCAR/EPA mouthpiece and fool Patrick Minnis back in May of ’99 when his name first started to come out as the debunker for us CHEMTRAIL WHISTLEBLOWERS.He started to give me his standard bullshit when I told him “STOP RIGHT THERE YOU LYING SACK OF SH%#@” ! I happen to be ex Air Force,a Viet Nam Vet who is VERY familiar with aircraft and I take extreme resentment of you not only lying to me but to all of your victims who are clueless and also insulting my intelligence. Your bulls%$# will NOT work on me so don’t continue. I will do my utmost to expose you and this whole program for what it is. I know a lot more than you realize so why don’t you jamb it and pass the message along to your buddies at that other 3 letter agency at Langley across the way from you”. His next question to me was “What group are you with”? I answer “I’m not with any group. I’m independant of any group. Why do I have to be in a group to have enough balls and initiative to call you as an outraged individual,as a Concerned Citizen”? He responded,”Well,well,a Conceerrned Citttizenn huh….hmmmm? You just don’t want to hear the facts do you? All you conspiracy theorists are all alike-you are all ignorant. Just run your mouths with no facts. I think you’re the problem”. My response,”I sure hope that you’re proud of yourself and all your Project Paperclip Nazi buddies should be too because this IS Nazis at work so take your lies and shove them Minnis,I’m done with you”!CLICK. Gee,that son of a bitch hung up on me! What cheek! I guess he didn’t want to hear anymore,do ya suppose?
Tim White, Viet Nam Vet(USAF)
Concerned Citizen,Researcher,Investigator,Whistleblower
==========================================
NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails are Real-91 viewswww.mail.archive.com/WeatherShapingChemtrailsarereal
NASA: S-L-O-W To Spit Out The Truth
by Lisa Guliani
In the June 17, 2002 issue of the American Free Press newspaper, a bold headline caught my attention: “NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails”. What?? Could it be? Do I dare believe my eyes? NASA is confirming that chemtrails are real? Naturally, I had to read this article written by Mike Blair.
You betcha, the good ole boys at NASA are FINALLY admitting what many of us already know and have been saying for quite some time – that chemtrails are not only REAL, but are also wreaking their deleterious effects on weather conditions. Well, whaddaya know? It must be a holiday or something. Gee, maybe if they REALLY try, they will even come across with the truth about HAARP someday in this lifetime. I can only dream.
If we assume the “glass-is-half-full” attitude, we might say that this sloooow admission is “progress” since governmental agencies have notoriously denied the existence of chemtrails despite Representative Dennis Kucinich legitimizing them in House Resolution 2977 as a form of “exotic weaponry” back in October, 2001. Sometimes I think if Jesus came down off the cross and declared that chemtrails are real, there would still be some moron to argue with Him about it. Duh.
The American Free Press article further states that NASA researchers (in all their wisdom, I’m sure) have even “concluded that this POLLUTION can create cirrus clouds.” Did you read that, folks? NASA called chemtrails POLLUTION. Ahhh, maybe next time they’ll grow a ball and call it just what it is – POISON. Moreover, NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia went on to say that these artificially created cirrus clouds “have an impact on climate because they spread over large areas and effectively trap sunlight”. Woohoo!! NASA began this latest bit of “research” after the events of 9/11/2001, so ten months of “study” and NASA has managed to officially connect the first dot or two. Bravo, fellas. It’s nice to see ya catching up with the rest of us – finally.
Blair’s article continues on to say NASA “came to its startling conclusions while conducting research while all NON-MILITARY aircraft were grounded” in the initial days following the events of September 11th. First of all, “startling conclusions?” Why is NASA startled at all? NASA has known about chemtrails all along. After all, isn’t it NASA that obtained and holds the U.S. patent numbered 3813875? Why, YES, it is!!! Gee, maybe they forgot or something, ya think? They procured this patent in 1974. It is linked with a program that utilizes BARIUM for the purpose of creating ion clouds in our atmosphere. Fancy that. But NASA is “startled” to conclude that chemtrails are affecting our climate, eh?
According to AFP, Patrick Minnis, a senior researcher at Langley, stated that the man-made “cirrus clouds are already having an impact on climate, increasing temperatures on regional levels as much as two to five percent.” Hmmm … I wonder how long it will take my chemtrail debunker knuckledraggers to smear and eat their own? Think they’ll be calling Minnis a kooky conspiracy theorist anytime soon? We’ll see, won’t we?

Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know

Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know

 

Are we raising the stupidest generation in American history?  The statistics that you are about to read below are incredibly shocking.  They indicate that U.S. high school students are basically as dumb as a rock.  As you read the rest of this article, you will be absolutely amazed at the things that U.S. high school students do not know.  At this point, it is really hard to argue that the U.S. education system is a success.  Our children are spoiled and lazy, our schools do not challenge them and students in Europe and in Asia routinely outperform our students very badly on standardized tests.  In particular, schools in America do an incredibly poor job of teaching our students subjects such as history, economics and geography that are necessary for understanding the things that are taking place in our world today.  For example, according to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find Iraq on a map of the world.  According to that same survey, 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can't even find the state of New York on a map.  If our students cannot even find Iraq and New York on a map, what hope is there that they will be able to think critically about the important world events of our day?

Sadly, almost every survey or study about high school students that gets done shows that most of our students are not even receiving a basic education.

For example, the following comes from an article posted on MSNBC....

Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress — called the Nation's Report Card — showed solid academic performance in American history.

So only 13 percent of our high school seniors are proficient in history?

That doesn't sound good.

So what does that mean exactly?

Well, there have been some other surveys and studies that have quizzed U.S. high school students about specific historical facts.

The following are some of the absolutely amazing results of a study conducted a few years ago by Common Core....

*Only 43 percent of all U.S. high school students knew that the Civil War was fought some time between 1850 and 1900.

*More than a quarter of all U.S. high school students thought that Christopher Columbus made his famous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean after the year 1750.

*Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  (This is a topic that I touched on yesterday).

*Only 60 percent of all U.S. students knew that World War I was fought some time between 1900 and 1950.

Even more shocking were the results of a survey of Oklahoma high school students conducted back in 2009.  The following is a list of the questions that were asked and the percentage of students that answered correctly....

What is the supreme law of the land? 28 percent

What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? 26 percent

What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress? 27 percent

How many justices are there on the Supreme Court? 10 percent

Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? 14 percent

What ocean is on the east coast of the United States? 61 percent

What are the two major political parties in the United States? 43 percent

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years? 11 percent

Who was the first President of the United States? 23 percent

Who is in charge of the executive branch? 29 percent

Some have criticized the survey results above because they came from a telephone survey, but the truth is that they are not some sort of an anomaly.  Many other surveys have produced similar results.  It doesn't take a genius to realize that a large percentage of our high school students are as dumb as a rock.

The following is from an article written by reporter Mark Morford in which he described his conversations with a longtime Oakland high school teacher that was nearing retirement....

It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.
Now, you may think he's merely a curmudgeon, a tired old teacher who stopped caring long ago. Not true. Teaching is his life. He says he loves his students, loves education and learning and watching young minds awaken. Problem is, he is seeing much less of it.

Later on in that same article, Morford tells us that the high school teacher even admitted that very few of his students even know how to put a sentence together....

It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.

It is not that our students do not have the capacity to be great.

It is just that they have learned to be incredibly lazy and our schools do not challenge them at all.

One study found that 55 percent of all U.S. high school students spend 3 hours or less per week preparing for class.

Other nations require their students to work far longer and far harder.

And they get much better results.

Today, American 15-year-olds do not even rank in the top half of all advanced nations when it comes to math or science literacy.

So how do we expect to compete if this continues?

If we would just challenge our students and require more out of them we could do so much better.  What most public schools are doing right now simply does not work.  The following is from a report that John Stossel did a few years ago entitled "Stupid In America"....

I talked with 18-year-old Dorian Cain in South Carolina, who was still struggling to read a single sentence in a first-grade level book when I met him. Although his public schools had spent nearly $100,000 on him over 12 years, he still couldn't read.
So "20/20" sent Dorian to a private learning center, Sylvan, to see if teachers there could teach Dorian to read when the South Carolina public schools failed to.
Using computers and workbooks, Dorian's reading went up two grade levels -- after just 72 hours of instruction.
His mother, Gena Cain, is thrilled with Dorian's progress but disappointed with his public schools. "With Sylvan, it's a huge improvement. And they're doing what they're supposed to do. They're on point. But I can't say the same for the public schools," she said.

It absolutely amazes me how millions upon millions of our students can get all the way through high school without ever learning how to read, write or speak at a functional level.

Instead of producing the leaders of tomorrow, our education system is producing a bunch of sheep that are trained to take orders and that are pretty good at taking multiple choice tests.

If you want to get really depressed about the future of America, just watch some of the Jaywalking segments that Jay Leno does.  Yes, it is funny to watch as he demonstrates how little Americans actually know about world events.  But it is also a sign of how far our education system has fallen.

If Americans cannot even answer basic factual questions about our own government, then how in the world will anyone ever be able to persuade them to think critically about the Federal Reserve, the economic crisis or about our corrupt political system?

Our children are the future of this nation, and right now that future is looking quite bleak.

So what do all of you think about the U.S. education system?  Do any of you have any education horror stories to share?  Do you believe that our schools have rapidly gone downhill?  Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts below....

Honeybee Deaths Linked To Seed Insecticide Exposure

Researchers: Honeybee Deaths Linked To Seed Insecticide Exposure

 

Thu Jan 12 19:25

Honeybee populations have been in serious decline for years, and Purdue University scientists may have identified one of the factors that cause bee deaths around agricultural fields.

Analyses of bees found dead in and around hives from several apiaries over two years in Indiana showed the presence of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are commonly used to coat corn and soybean seeds before planting. The research showed that those insecticides were present at high concentrations in waste talc that is exhausted from farm machinery during planting.

 

Honey Bees

Credit: Wikipedia

The insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam were also consistently found at low levels in soil - up to two years after treated seed was planted - on nearby dandelion flowers and in corn pollen gathered by the bees, according to the findings released in the journal PLoS One this month.

"We know that these insecticides are highly toxic to bees; we found them in each sample of dead and dying bees," said Christian Krupke, associate professor of entomology and a co-author of the findings.

The United States is losing about one-third of its honeybee hives each year, according to Greg Hunt, a Purdue professor of behavioral genetics, honeybee specialist and co-author of the findings. Hunt said no one factor is to blame, though scientists believe that others such as mites and insecticides are all working against the bees, which are important for pollinating food crops and wild plants.

"It’s like death by a thousand cuts for these bees," Hunt said.

Krupke and Hunt received reports that bee deaths in 2010 and 2011 were occurring at planting time in hives near agricultural fields. Toxicological screenings performed by Brian Eitzer, a co-author of the study from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, for an array of pesticides showed that the neonicotinoids used to treat corn and soybean seed were present in each sample of affected bees. Krupke said other bees at those hives exhibited tremors, uncoordinated movement and convulsions, all signs of insecticide poisoning.

Seeds of most annual crops are coated in neonicotinoid insecticides for protection after planting. All corn seed and about half of all soybean seed is treated. The coatings are sticky, and in order to keep seeds flowing freely in the vacuum systems used in planters, they are mixed with talc. Excess talc used in the process is released during planting and routine planter cleaning procedures.

"Given the rates of corn planting and talc usage, we are blowing large amounts of contaminated talc into the environment. The dust is quite light and appears to be quite mobile," Krupke said.

Krupke said the corn pollen that bees were bringing back to hives later in the year tested positive for neonicotinoids at levels roughly below 100 parts per billion.

"That's enough to kill bees if sufficient amounts are consumed, but it is not acutely toxic," he said.

On the other hand, the exhausted talc showed extremely high levels of the insecticides - up to about 700,000 times the lethal contact dose for a bee.

"Whatever was on the seed was being exhausted into the environment," Krupke said. "This material is so concentrated that even small amounts landing on flowering plants around a field can kill foragers or be transported to the hive in contaminated pollen. This might be why we found these insecticides in pollen that the bees had collected and brought back to their hives."

Krupke suggested that efforts could be made to limit or eliminate talc emissions during planting.

"That's the first target for corrective action," he said. "It stands out as being an enormous source of potential environmental contamination, not just for honeybees, but for any insects living in or near these fields. The fact that these compounds can persist for months or years means that plants growing in these soils can take up these compounds in leaf tissue or pollen."

Although corn and soybean production does not require insect pollinators, that is not the case for most plants that provide food. Krupke said protecting bees benefits agriculture since most fruit, nut and vegetable crop plants depend upon honeybees for pollination. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the value of honeybees to commercial agriculture at $15 billion to $20 billion annually.

Hunt said he would continue to study the sublethal effects of neonicotinoids. He said for bees that do not die from the insecticide there could be other effects, such as loss of homing ability or less resistance to disease or mites.

"I think we need to stop and try to understand the risks associated with these insecticides," Hunt said.

The North American Pollinator Protection Campaign and the USDA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative funded the research.


Contacts and sources:
Brian Wallheimer
Purdue University