Today, 100-years ago, the "unsinkable" "Titanic", accompanied by an ostentatious display of fanfare, departed from the English port city, Southampton, on its ill-fated "maiden voyage". Why so many words enclosed by quotation marks? Read on - and watch - and you shall see.
Last month, I blogged about the social amnesia of the collective that followed the SS Eastland disaster, where close to 1,000 people (wiping out 22 entire families) died within a span of 6-minutes, when the packed-to-the-gills, top-heavy streamlined ship tipped over in the Chicago River, merely 3-years after the sinking of the "Titanic". Well, it appears the deep-seated corruption that contributed to the Eastland horror show that dreadful morning, played an even bigger role on April 15, 1912 when 1,507 people lost their lives. Only, we certainly didn't forget this tragedy. Every single American over 6-years old can tell you exactly what happened that sorrowful day in history. Or, can they?
The following film is based on extensive research and includes evidence of both British and American inquiries, the eyewitness reports of survivors, newspapers of the day, photographs, film and radio broadcasts. The views and opinions are based on evidence and legitimate inference.
What you are about to see is a reconstruction of events behind the disaster and the reasons for it.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Today, 100-years ago, the "unsinkable" "Titanic", accompanied by an ostentatious display of fanfare, departed from the English port city, Southampton, on its ill-fated "maiden voyage". Why so many words enclosed by quotation marks? Read on - and watch - and you shall see.
Sunday, April 06, 2014
What's the deception? The U.N. asserts that anthropogenic carbon dioxide influences atmospheric CO2 levels which in turn raises global temperatures, however, evidence from ice cores clearly shows the opposite: that increased CO2 levels follow increased temperatures by a few centuries, approximately 400 years. In other words, CO2 levels respond to changes in temperature, and not the way the IPCC summary --for policy makers and press--on climate change claims.
The Great Man Made Global Warming Swindle May Finally Come to an End.
Will Anthropogenic Global Warming Change to Anthropogenic Chilling?
Climate Change Reconsidered II Biological Impacts
The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
Saturday, April 05, 2014
The IRS ruled that virtual currency, such as Bitcoin (BTC), is not considered currency, but property for U.S. federal tax purposes. In other words, it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.
“The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is aware that “virtual currency” may be used to pay for goods or services, or held for investment. Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value. In some environments,it operates like “real” currency-- i.e., the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender, circulates, and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance -- but it does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.General tax principles that apply to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Among other things, this means that:
Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as “convertible” virtual currency. Bitcoin is one example of a convertible virtual currency. Bitcoin can be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars, Euros, and other real or virtual currencies. For a more comprehensive description of convertible virtual currencies to date, see Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Guidance on the Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies (FIN-2013-G001, March 18, 2013)
- Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
- Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
- The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer.
- A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.
What the IRS Bitcoin Tax Guidelines Mean For You
Are the IRS Capital Asset Rules Realistic for Small Transactions?
Fiat Link - watch the world's currencies flow into BTC in real time.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
On Thursday, Mississippi is scheduled to execute the first woman, Michelle Byrom, 57, in the state since 1944, even though her son, Edward Byrom Jr., repeatedly confessed to the killing that she is slated to die for — evidence the jury did not hear because her defense attorneys--their first capital murder trial-- never admitted the confession letters into evidence. Ms. Byrom was a lifelong victim of abuse, both as a child and in the marriage that ended in her husband’s death. Not to mention, at the time of her husband's death, Ms. Byrom was in the hospital for double pneumonia while on mind-altering drugs.
“As I sat on my bed, tears of rage flowing, remembering my childhood my anger kept building and building, and I went to my car, got the 9mm, and walked to his room, peeked in, and he was asleep. I walked about 2 steps in the door, and screamed, and shut my eyes, when I heard him move, I started firing.” -- Edward Byrom JrDespite corroborating evidence supporting the son's confessions such as the gunpowder found on his hands, Byrom Jr. pinned the murder plot on his mother after prosecutors convinced him to take a plea deal in exchange for a reduced sentence.
“When they got me here, I gave them a bullshit story after another, trying to save my own ass, but when David Smith started questioning me, and told me what happened, I was so scared, confused, and high, I just started spitting the first thought out, which turned into this big conspiracy thing, for money, which was all BS, that's why I had so many different stories,"--Edward Byrom Jr.So authorities allege that Byrom Jr., his mother and his friend, Joey Gillis, colluded to kill Byrom Sr, in order for Michelle Byrom to collect on her husband’s life insurance policy. However, both Byrom Jr. and friend, Joey Gillis--accused of pulling the trigger despite the gun powder residue on Byrom Jr.'s hand-- walk free today.
The only certainty here is that Michelle Byrom did not have competent attorneys nor did she get a fair trial, the case in so many people who have been executed or who await their execution.
“I have attempted to conjure up in my imagination a more egregious case of ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of a capital case. I cannot."--Judge Jess Dickinson
Friday, March 14, 2014
“ In this day and age of well-known NSA spying, everyone keeps saying that the only way to be safe is to use SSL/TLS, commonly known as "browsing with https://".
The sad reality is that HTTPS does virtually nothing to protect you from the prying eyes of alphabet soup agencies - or anybody else with enough knowledge about how these supposedly "secure" connections actually work.
It's true that connecting to web sites with SSL will certainly prevent "script kiddies" and other more winky opponents from eavesdropping on your surfing or otherwise interfering in your affairs. But as for the Real Bad Guys, forget it...
We shall begin by taking a brief dive down the rabbit hole of SSL, hopefully in a way that will make sense to even the least technically inclined among us.
This issue is, after all, so extremely important that I think everyone needs to understand what is really going on, and how web security actually works, without needing a PhD in cryptography, computer science, or engineering!
Our story begins with a little e-mail I received the other day. The basic message can be found here:
Microsoft Security Advisory (2880823)
Of course, the idea that Microsoft of all companies is warning me about security is kind of laughable, so I didn't pay much attention. Nevertheless, there was this little voice in the back of my mind that kept pestering me, so I decided to dig in and see what all the hoopla was about... or indeed if any hoopla was even warranted.
“Microsoft is announcing a policy change to the Microsoft Root Certificate Program. The new policy will no longer allow root certificate authorities to issue X.509 certificates using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm for the purposes of SSL and code signing after January 1, 2016. Using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm in digital certificates could allow an attacker to spoof content, perform phishing attacks, or perform man-in-the-middle attacks.Okay, so that's probably like trying to read a foreign language to most people. Even I didn't understand exactly how these hashing algorithms were used with SSL. So, I started digging. What I found nearly floored me:
Microsoft recommends that certificate authorities no longer sign newly generated certificates using the SHA-1 hashing algorithm and begin migrating to SHA-2. Microsoft also recommends that customers replace their SHA-1 certificates with SHA-2 certificates at the earliest opportunity. Please see the Suggested Actions section of this advisory for more information.
MD5 considered harmful today: Creating a rogue CA certificate
Now, if you thought the M$ advisory was confusing, take a peek at the above link.
WOW! That's wild.
In summary, way back in 2008, some smart people figured out a way to make themselves a Fake SSL Certificate Authority, and they accomplished this feat by using a weakness in the MD5 hashing algorithm. [...]
First, let's define some terms - hopefully in Plain English:
SSL Web Site Certificate
This is a digital certificate, with a digital signature, that verifies that a website is who they say they are. When you connect to a web site using SSL (HTTPS), your browser says, "Papers, please!" The remote site then sends the SSL Web Site Certificate to your browser. Your browser then verifies the authenticity of this "passport". Once verified, encrypted communications ensue. The point of the SSL Web Site Certificate is that under no circumstances should anyone else be able to create a valid, signed certificate for a web site that they do not own and operate. In order to obtain an SSL Web Site Cert, you must verify by varied means that you are the owner and operator of the web site involved. So, using HTTPS is not only for encryption of communications, but also a way to verify that the site you are communicating with is the Real Thing, and not an imposter. And of course you must pay for the certificate!
Certificate Authority (CA) Root Certificate
This is also a digital certificate, with a digital signature... But in this case, this certificate can be used to create and digitally sign normal SSL Web Site Certificates. This is the kind of certificate that a CA (Certificate Authority) has. These certificates also get passed to browser makers, and are then included in your web browser. This is so that when your browser receives an SSL Web Site cert, it can use the CA Root Certificate to verify that the Web Site Cert is in fact valid.
Certificate Authority (CA)
A CA is the kind of web site from which you would buy a valid, secure SSL Web Site Certificate to use for HTTPS on your site. For example: Verisign.com, RapidSSL.com, Geotrust.com, etc. are Certificate Authorities. They have CA Root Certificates for generating and signing valid SSL Web Site Certificates.
It's helpful to understand that with all these certificates, there is a "chain of command". SSL Web Site Certificates are validated and authenticated using CA Root Certificates. CA Root Certificates are validated with yet higher-authority certificates, all the way up the pyramid to The One Great Root Certificate, which is like the God of Certificates. Thus, each lower-ranking certificate is verified up the chain of command. This all happens behind the scenes, and you have no idea it's occurring.
Piece of cake, right?
Now, where do these hash algorithms like MD5, SHA-1, and SHA-2 come into play?
All certificates contain information, like:
This information is verified before a certificate is issued. Once verified, a hash of the data is generated. This hash acts as the digital signature for the certificate. The only thing you really need to understand about hash algorithms is that what is supposed to happen is this:
- Web site domain (www.mysite.com)
- Site location (country, state, etc.)
- Site owner info (company name)
- Period of validity
- Data of any length (30 characters, 3000 characters, 40MB, whatever) is passed into the hash algorithm
- The hash algorithm chops up the data and mathematically processes it, thereby spitting out a signature – or digital fingerprint – of the data
- The hash of no two chunks of data should ever be the same – just as the fingerprints of no two people should ever be the same
- The hash output is always the same size, regardless of the size of the input data (just like a fingerprint – no matter the size of the person)
Right. There is such a thing as a “hash collision”. This is when you have 2 hashes that are identical, but they were generated from different data. That’s like if you and your neighbor suddenly had the same thumbprint. OOPS!Links:
Now, think about that for a minute... If the police were using these hashes, or thumbprints, to verify your identity, they might mistake you for your neighbor, or your neighbor for you, if you "had the same thumbprint". If they did no other checking, and just relied on that thumbprint, they might very well "authenticate" your identities completely incorrectly. BIG OOPS!
This is exactly what happened with the MD5 SSL attack outlined at the above link.
These smarty-pants people were able to carefully buy a valid SSL Web Site Certificate from RapidSSL in 2008. Before they did that, they created their own CA Root Certificate in such a way that the hash (fingerprint) of their valid, just-purchased Web Site Cert was identical to the hash of the FAKE CA Root Certificate that they created out of thin air.
Since RapidSSL had just said, "Dudes, this Web Site Certificate fingerprint is valid!", and since this was the same fingerprint on the fake CA Root Cert, the forged CA Root Certificate becomes valid.
Now, recall that a CA Root Certificate - as long as it has a valid hash/fingerpint that will validate up the "chain of authority" - can be used to generate a valid SSL Web Site Certificate for any web site in the world... And neither you, nor RapidSSL, nor your browser will ever know that anything is amiss.
Why is this a problem? For starters, consider a man-in-the-middle attack.
You want to go to https://www.gmail.com. But some "hackers" have used another type of hack to insert their server between you and Gmail. Normally, this would not be possible, because you're using HTTPS! You're SAFE!
As far as anyone knows, you are connected to gmail.com over HTTPS. But in reality, what's happening is this:
In other words, SSL / HTTPS means that the connection between your browser and the destination server at the URL you're visiting is supposed to be encrypted. But due to the fact the certain types of SSL certificates (which help handle the encryption) can be forged, an attacker could set up their fake server that pretends to the be the real destination server, and thus insert themselves in the middle of the connection. When that is done, the attacker has control over the connection and the data, and can thus decrypt your data, manipulate it, and/or pass it on to the real intended destination server.
- You try to connect to https://www.gmail.com
- The attacker diverts your request (perhaps using DNS cache poisoning or some other such attack) to a fake server
- Since Attacker's Server contains a falsely generated, perfectly valid SSL Web Site Certificate using the tricks outlined above, your browser doesn't know any better. Everything appears to be legit.
- You begin doing e-mail, but all your data is actually going encrypted to Attacker's Server, being decrypted and recorded/modified, and then Attacker's Server then passes the data on to the real https://www.gmail.com (using Gmail's actual, valid SSL cert).
- You have absolutely no clue that your "secure" communications are not secure in the least!
Now, isn't that a daisy?
"But wait!" you say. "Isn't it therefore good for Microsoft to recommend changing the hash function to SHA-256 if SHA-1 has the same potential problem as MD5 did back in 2008?"
An excellent question! Unfortunately, yes and no. Even if you, as a web site owner, change your SSL Web Site Certificate from one that is signed using SHA-1 to a new cert that is signed using SHA-2, you are still unsafe.
Because all it takes is for ONE Certificate Authority to use a "weak" hash algorithm, and someone who is up to no good can generate a forged CA Root Certificate. Once they have that, they can generate as many SSL Web Site Certs as they want - using any hashing algorithm they please - including a fake-yet-valid cert that they can use to impersonate your "secure" site!
In other words, the weakness in the hashing algorithm is just the tip of the iceberg. Due to the hierarchical "chain of authority" in the whole certificate system, if anyone manages to create a false CA Root Cert, they are more or less god in terms of creating false SSL Web Site Certs.
Thus, in order for Microsoft's words to have an effect, there must not be ANY Certificate Authority (Web Site Cert issuer) in the whole world that still uses SHA-1. In order for the "security" to actually be more secure, everyone must upgrade right now. But this isn't going to happen.
Now, if that isn't bad enough, think about all the NSA spying. Think about how many people said, "Naw, man, I just surf using HTTPS, and I'm totally safe!"
You think so?
I don't. You know why? Well, you should, by now... But there's more!
Guess who invented the SHA-1 hash algorithm in 1995?
Guess who invented SHA-2 in 2001?
So, why should all the Certificate Authorities switch from the NSA's SHA-1 to the NSA's SHA-2? Why, because the NSA created it the way they did for a reason!
SHA-1 already has been theoretically breached, and there are a few indications that SHA-2 isn't quite as super-duper-safe as everyone thinks.
Imagine you are the NSA. You want to spy on everyone, everyone's grandmother, the grandmothers' cats, and the mice that are currently being digested inside the cats. SSL is kind of a problem... It can use pretty annoying encryption. Well, hell! No problem. Just compromise the "certificate authority chain" by forging one little CA Root Certificate, and blammo! You can eavesdrop and man-in-the-middle anybody you darn well please, SSL or not!
Web sites over SSL? No problem.
E-mail over SSL? No problem.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: There never was security or privacy on the internet, there is no security or privacy on the internet now, and most likely there never will be. Not unless some very big changes are made...
And do you know why all this (and much, much more) is possible?
Because just like you, I had no knowledge of the gaping holes in SSL. Awareness of this and many other issues - technological, political, psychological, social, etc. - is absolutely essential.
Otherwise, frankly, we're screwed.
Fake SSL certificates deployed across the internet
The Most Dangerous Code in the World: Validating SSL Certificates in Non-Browser Software
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the CAFR, reports the the scope and size of government investment wealth, which is, despite what you're told, immense.
In America, there are over 230,000 individual government corporations (230,000 investing in corporations) and each of these must file a CAFR. This source document, the CAFR, is a requirement of law for every government corporation. This investment wealth is NOT reported to the people. In other words, it is not reported on the Budget report which is the dumbed-down version of the CAFR--the same report with a lot less information. The government utilizes creative accounting: How do we turn an asset into a liability? It's a presentation through creative accounting to show there is no money when in fact, billions of dollars exist in that local government.
So what exactly is the CAFR, aside from the fact it's a giant investment scheme to extract the wealth of the nation?
It's a set of U.S. government financial statements comprising the financial report of a state, municipal or other government entity that compiles the accounting requirements promulgated by what is called the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), which is a private nongovernmental association. They provide the standards for the content that’s in that report called the CAFR. Every CAFR is audited by an external accounting firm of certified public accountants (CPA).
You see, by law, corporations must earn profits for their shareholders of which government is the main shareholder. It’s a HUGE conflict of interest, because, by law, governments must act on behalf of corporate profit, NOT, we the people.
For example, according to the Military CAFR, they have over a trillion dollars in the military pension funds. That’s larger than the amount of cash circulating (M1) in the U.S., yet, what is government doing? They're slashing the military benefits of American military families, including pensions .
CAFR School with Clint Richardson:
CAFR School One
CAFR School Two
CAFR School Three
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Anymore, it's always the same: peaceful "democratic" protests, in country after country, against supposedly undemocratic and unresponsive governments that are--wait for it--democratically elected by the people, which eventually turn violent. But are these events really orchestrated silent coups--or attempted coups-- disguised as domestic current events? Ted Snider of Anti-War.com seems to think so.
There is no doubt that the American government has been providing arms, money and logistical support to Al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Mali, Bosnia, etc.– and related Muslim terrorists in Chechnya, Iran, and many other countries. That's right. We're funding extremest elements within the broader population of targeted nations in order to destabilize targeted nations, ultimately leading, not to a democratic leader in power, but, instead, radicals in power who most definitely do not support a democratic government In other words, the genuine protestors, of which there are many, are merely pawns in a chess game played by much more powerful interests and geopolitical forces.
But as the American media continues to mischaracterize the ongoing protests and downplay "the radical ultra-nationalist character of some protesters" not to mention the western leaders (U.S. and EU) continued support of these anti-government protesters--thus, rationalizing what they're doing--we the taxpayers remain blinded to the silent coups that are taking place right under our noses.
A New Cold War? Ukraine Violence Escalates, Leaked Tape Suggests U.S. Was Plotting Coup
“I mean that. I mean that Moscow—look at it through Moscow’s eyes. Since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the U.S.-led West has been on a steady march toward post-Soviet Russia, began with the expansion of NATO in the 1990s under Clinton. Bush then further expanded NATO all the way to Russia’s borders. Then came the funding of what are euphemistically called NGOs, but they are political action groups, funded by the West, operating inside Russia. Then came the decision to build missile defense installations along Russia’s borders, allegedly against Iran, a country which has neither nuclear weapons nor any missiles to deliver them with. Then comes American military outpost in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which led to the war of 2008, and now the West is at the gates of Ukraine. So, that’s the picture as Moscow sees it. And it’s rational. It’s reasonable. It’s hard to deny.
But as for the immediate crisis, let’s ask ourselves this: Who precipitated this crisis? The American media says it was Putin and the very bad, though democratically elected, president of Ukraine, Yanukovych. But it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, "You must choose between Europe and Russia." That was an ultimatum to Yanukovych. Remember—wasn’t reported here—at that moment, what did the much-despised Putin say? He said, "Why? Why does Ukraine have to choose? We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with you, the West. Let’s make it a tripartite package to Ukraine." And it was rejected in Washington and in Brussels. That precipitated the protests in the streets.
And since then, the dynamic that any of us who have ever witnessed these kinds of struggles in the streets unfolded, as extremists have taken control of the movement from the so-called moderate Ukrainian leaders. I mean, the moderate Ukrainian leaders, with whom the Western foreign ministers are traveling to Kiev to talk, they’ve lost control of the situation. By the way, people ask—excuse me—is it a revolution? Is it a revolution? A much abused word, but one sign of a revolution is the first victims of revolution are the moderates. And then it becomes a struggle between the extreme forces on either side. And that’s what we’re witnessing. -- Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
A 1967 interview with Miles Copeland Jr., a famed CIA Agent who helped the Agency stage a coup in Syria in 1949, which could easily apply today
The UN Says the Ukrainian People Must Decide their Fate, NATO Wants Something Else
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Trillion Dollar Fraud Investigation and High Profile Financial Services Executives Dropping Like Flies.
In addition to the OPEC covering Wall Street Journal reporter, David Bird, who went missing on January 10, 2014, within two weeks, at least seven high profile financial executives have died under mysterious circumstances.
On January 26, 2014, Tim Dickenson, a U.K.-based communications director at Swiss Re AG, died The circumstances surrounding his death are undisclosed.
That same day, William Broeksmit, a former senior manager at Deutsche Bank--under investigation for potentially rigging the Foreign Exchange markets-- with close ties to co-Chief Executive Anshu Jain, was found hanging in his home, from an apparent suicide.
The next day, January 27, 2014, 51-year old Karl Slym, handpicked by Ratan Tata to revive the fortunes of Tata Motors in India, died in Bangkok on Sunday in a freak accident at the hotel where he was staying. Police said he may have committed suicide.
The next day, January 28, 2014, Gabriel Magee, a 39-year-old senior manager at JP Morgan’s European headquarters, jumped 500ft from the top of the bank’s headquarters in central London on January 27, landing on an adjacent 9 story roof.
The next day, January 29, 2014, Mike Dueker, the chief economist at Russell Investments, fell down a 50 foot embankment in what police described as a suicide.
“Mike Dueker, the chief economist at Russell Investments, was found dead at the side of a highway that leads to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington state, according to the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department. He was 50.Then, on February 3, 2014, 37-year old, JP Morgan Global Equities Trading Executive, Ryan Henry Crane, was found dead. Crane, who oversaw the trade platforms had close working ties to the aforementioned deceased Gabriel Magee of JP Morgan's London office. The cause of death will be determined when a toxicology report is completed in about six weeks.
He may have jumped over a 4-foot (1.2-meter) fence before falling down a 40- to 50-foot embankment, Pierce County Detective Ed Troyer said yesterday. He said the death appeared to be a suicide.
Soon after, on February 7, 2014, Richard Talley, 57, founder of American Title Services in Centennial, Colorado, was found dead after apparently shooting himself seven or eight times in the head and chest with a nail gun. Suicide? Really? That ranks up there with strangling oneself as Veritas Capital Founder Robert B. McKeon --who later purchased DynCorp, the private military contractor with a history of child trafficking--apparently accomplished.
So what's going on, here? Were these men killed because they knew too much? Did they flip during prosecution investigation? Thus, assassinated to prevent insider testimony concerning the colossal multi-trillion dollar fraud in the global financial casino ? Or did they all just decide to kill themselves after reading the writing on the wall?
Thursday, February 06, 2014
In the documentary below, former Conservative MP, Michael Portillo pushes his body to the brink of death in an investigation into the science of execution. At the very beginning he states, "If the state's going to kill people, you want to do it as humanely as possible, I think most people agree on that." I'm not so sure. From my very limited perspective, I think the man who invented the lethal injection protocol, Dr. Jay Chapman's response, "My basic attitude is so they suffer a little pain, who cares?" might just be the attitude shared by most.
Of course, as I've stated repeatedly, I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances, but if the state insists upon executing people, the least they could do is spare the doomed individual as much pain as possible. As I have also stated many times before, I think the lethal injection protocol is, as they say in the film "torture disguised as a medical procedure." And that's whether they carry it with two or three drugs. I mean, just imagine not getting enough of the drug that is supposed to cause unconsciousness, before getting the paralyzing drug (most likely used for aesthetic reasons) that renders you unable to signal your distress, followed by a heart-stopping drug, which "feels like a fire traveling through the vein to the heart.” The chance of this occurring is extremely high because it is administered by ill-trained staff. After all, doctors and nurses are supposedly bound by the "Hippocratic Oath" or take a pledge to do no harm.
It's not just a lack of expertise that contribute to the controversy over lethal injection; it's the second drug in the cocktail: pancuronium bromide, the paralyzing agent Carol Weihrer, who has testified in 15 court cases against lethal injection, knows all too well the pain this drug can cause. During a routine eye operation, in which she was given anesthesia and then pancuronium bromide, the anesthesia failed to work, leaving her fully aware of the excruciating pain as the pancuronium bromide coursed through her veins, but unable to tell anyone or move. She said if felt like "ignited jet fuel going through your body feeling like you're absolutely on fire." Carol believes that most executed inmates go through the same experience as she did. She states that the anesthetic used in the lethal injection protocol is "short-acting, five minute version" and that that lethal injection "takes between 10-12 minutes on a good day." In other words, the inmate is put out for a couple of minutes, and then conscious, thus feels the pancuronium bromide painfully charge through their veins without being able to alert anyone and dies from suffocation before their heart is stopped.
Monday, February 03, 2014
“Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."--Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President. 18 Dec. 1840
|CCA houses over 80,000 inmates in |
more than 60 facilities across the US.
The only people experiencing consequences from this "war" are the poor, not the ones who profit/benefit most from the drug trade: the banksters who launder the money and profit immensely!
Then President Reagan’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 fueled the prison boom, bringing in a lot more profit because it allowed privately owned corporations to build and operate prisons. Today, it's a $50 billion industry, with prison quotas that push lawmakers to fill 90% of the beds! Not only that, the criminalization of Americans is profitable to these corporations because they equip them with essentially free labor...slave labor.
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group [previously Wackenhut], the two largest private prison companies in this country, push for criminal justice legislation, including mandatory minimum sentences such as California’s three-strikes law “that increase the number of inmates who enter and stay in prison.” ITPI reported that CCA and GEO Group have also contributed to legislation like "Arizona Senate Bill 1070, requiring law enforcement to arrest anyone who cannot prove they entered the country legally when asked.”
Tulia Texas is a prime example. Undercover narcotics officer, Tom Coleman arrested 46 people - nearly all of them black - on charges of being cocaine dealers, sending many of them to prison for a total of 750 years. as part of a $500 million effort to fight the war on drugs in rural America
As the following documentary points out, one of the main achievments of the "War on Drugs" is "profiting from the felonization of sick people.
Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program
The Hidden History of ALEC and Prison Labor
School to Prison Pipeline
Ill-Gotten Gains, The Rockefeller War on Drugs