Fluoride conspiracists at it again ~ By Phil Elmore

This study, like those before it, is weak. The correlation found between fluoride and IQ levels is not causation. The study's gross flaws are evident even in the raw data it presents, much less the unwarranted conclusions true believers have made from it. Reporting this study uncritically or, worse, as grounds to sound alarm, is nothing but more fluoride fear-mongering. If water fluoridation truly does have long-term health benefits, no one is served by making the case using "evidence" as poor as this.

Once again, Phil Elmore felt the need to debunk another fluoride-in-the-water conspiracy theory, thanks to a column in WorldNetDaily.com by Michael Carl (the article is linked below). And knowing Phil, he's surely prepared to be deluged in email that will probably not be very kind. Conspiracy theorists tend to not take it very well when people debunk their theories. Neither do people that believe in global warming, but that is a whole other story.

Fluoride conspiracists at it again

PHIL ELMORE

By Phil Elmore

January 06, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I did not want to address this topic again. I really didn't. When a reader e-mailed me a link to Michael Carl's recent article in WorldNetDaily, however, I knew I would have to march once more unto the breach. Specifically, I must once again address the topic of fluoride conspiracy theories, about which I have written twice previously in Technocracy.

I first debunked popular conspiracies concerning the fluoride in Americans' drinking water in July of last year. In that column I forwarded the apparently bold notion that fluoride is not, in fact, a Nazi-era, brain-softening, mind-control industrial waste toxin poured indiscriminately into our water supplies by New World Order operatives bent on controlling the masses. Mail exhorting me to swallow large quantities of concentrated poison began to pour in (no doubt illustrating the devotion of conspiracy theorists to science, reason and logic). I addressed this and a conspiracy website's "open letter" to me in a follow-up article in August, entitled "Fluoride fear-mongers."

In that column, I spoke of the mission statement of Technocracy, a column devoted to identifying the many ways in which technology affects your life and especially your liberty. To this end, I frequently advise you of technology whose application or misuse may be cause for concern. For such warnings to have meaning, however, it is my responsibility to tell you when I believe a given technology or technological application is being vilified – being marketed as a consumable product by conspiracy theorists, who package fear in order to profit from its sale. This was my conclusion, again, regarding fluoride fear-mongering. While we may debate whether it is the appropriate role of government to add, remove, or regulate any chemical in public water supplies (my columns have not addressed this), the alarmism peddled over water fluoridation is nothing less than hysteria. This hysteria is groundless, yet it is girded by junk science and heralded falsely as scientific fact.

Michael Carl reported on Monday that "Research shows fluoride is IQ-killer for children." He based this conclusion on a Chinese study, touted as the strongest of a series of studies from "China, India, Iran and Mexico," of 512 children in two Chinese cities. Commentary on the study, as recounted in Carl's piece, came primarily from Paul Connett, Ph.D., director of the Fluoride Action Network (an agitator group devoted to conspiracy theories about fluoride). Carl also quoted Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an environmental activist who sits on the advisory board of the very same organization. Setting aside this biased presentation, there are very serious flaws in the study itself – flaws which should preclude definitive conclusions of causality as Carl has made in his article.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Is Obama getting Web 'kill switch'?

Okay, now I am starting to get freaked out. It is getting difficult keeping all of these cyber-security agencies straight. Some are part of the Dept. of Defense, and some are part of Homeland Security within the National Security Agency (NSA). While I was reading this column, I noticed that the story's author, Michael Carl, didn't provide very many links. I surfed around in google.com, and added a few of the links myself where appropriate. This way, you can do some of your own surfing as you read this, and hopefully eliminate some confusion as to what is going on here.

I need to reiterate what I had written earlier this morning when posting Joseph Farah's column, "Should president have Net 'kill switch'?":

I have to agree with Joseph that it is doubtful that there would be any national security scenario that would provide a good "excuse" to hit the "kill switch." I guess Senator Joe Lieberman must not be aware of US-CERT (United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team) under Dept. of Homeland Security. I think they have the cyber-security threats under control, and there would be absolutely NO reason for anyone to need to hit the "Kill Switch" button. Well, not unless.... ummm... they wanted to cut off all communication so that people wouldn't be able to find out what is going on in a "national emergency." In other words, as Joseph talks about, it's a 1st Amendment issue ONLY.

And now, I'm not honestly so sure that the concern for the 1st Amendment is truly an issue. Under key elements of the legislation (See #5) in one of the articles I read, it says the following:

Creation of a responsible framework, developed in coordination with the private sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. The President must notify Congress in advance before exercising these emergency powers. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat and will expire after 30 days unless the President extends them. The bill authorizes no new surveillance authorities and does not authorize the government to ‘take over’ private networks.

The "kill switch" - emergency measures, in other words - is apparently supposed to be limited in order to minimize disruption to the Net. So, maybe the uproar about this legislation being a threat to the 1st Amendment isn't completely warranted. However, the amount of money to pay for cyber-security and the additional growth of the government (Big Brother) is greatly concerning. And I must admit, there is always the possibility that at some point of time, all of these new cyber-security agencies could become a threat to our freedom at some point in time. Just sayin'...

The newly operational status of the Cyber Command also is driving concern about the federal government's interest in taking control of the Internet. CNET News reported last August concern over a federal takeover of the Internet was fueled by the introduction of a Senate bill that would give President Obama the authority to take command of the system – or prevent private computers from having access.

The fury over possible federal control of the Internet has not abated, according to a report by Federal News Radio's Tom Temin and Amy Morris.

Temin and Morris say the bill proposed by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Delaware Sen. Tom Carper would give the president authority to shut down the Internet in the event of a cyber attack. The shutdown actions would be done through the Department of Homeland Security.

Plan cites security to ramp up government control over Internet

Posted: June 17, 2010 ~ 8:37 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Congress is proposing a tighter grip by the government on the Internet, with a new "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010" that would, among other things, give the president a "kill switch" on the Web, critics charge.

Officials with Judicial Watch, a government-watchdog group that investigates and prosecutes government misbehavior, said the plan simply is "keeping with the big-government script" of the Obama administration.

The organization said the bill would grant the federal government "absolute power" to shut down Internet activity and allow the president to take it over in the name of "national security."

The proposal essentially would require broadband providers, search engines and software firms to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" within the Department of Homeland Security.

Punishment would await offenders.

Judicial Watch said the alarming plan would give the government the power to force private companies to participate in "information sharing" with the government and allow authorities to monitor the "security status" of private websites and others.

"Yet another new government agency (National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications) will be created to police the industry and any company that 'relies on' the Internet, the telephone system or any other component of the 'information infrastructure' will be subject to its command," the organization said.

"The new (National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications) will have no less than two deputy directors and liaison officers to the Defense, Justice and Commerce departments as well as the director of national intelligence."

Judicial Watch also said arming the president with an Internet "kill switch" easily could be misused to silence free speech "under the pretext of a national emergency." (emphasis added by me)

There already is an organization set up to manage such situations and it includes personnel from the National Security Agency, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and policymakers (politicians), according to a report from WND columnist Andrea Shea King.

The administration agency, dubbed CYBERCOM, is set up within the Department of Defense and reports it is both a defense and an offense in that it can engage in preemptive "strikes" intended to disrupt threats, she reported.

Big Brother in 1984

At a site called "Tech 1984 - Where Technology and Big Brother Collide," a commentator suggested: "Even though the primary purpose of CYBERCOM is to protect government and military networks, there is incredible pressure to extend that 'protection' to civilian and business networks as well. In fact, the second-highest official at the Pentagon, William Lynn III, deputy secretary of defense, recently announced that the Department of Defense might start a protective program for civilian networks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated the same thing in June 2009."

The new legislative proposal comes at the same time the Federal Communications Commission still is attempting to act on a policy called "net neutrality." CNET Networks reported in April that a federal court ruled that the FCC could not act on net neutrality, but the court decision hasn't stopped the push for that agenda as the FCC is still attempting to regulate the Internet using federal rules used to control phone lines.

A government systems analyst who publishes the Tech 1984 site and prefers to use the pseudonym Winston, a name borrowed from Winston Smith from George Orwell's "1984," said the newly activated Cyber Command was proposed last year by Defense Secretary William Gates as a means to protect the military's vast Internet network from attacks by outside or hostile forces.

"Winston" is a confidential source with connections to the cybersecurity industry.

Director Maj. Gen. Steven Smith said in a statement posted on the Army's site that the new agency will be responsible for defending Army information networks from threats around the globe.

"The mission for (the Cyber Command) is to direct the operation and defense of all Army networks, and, on order, conduct full-spectrum operations in support of our combatant commanders and coalition partners," Smith said.

Smith said the new unit will use existing Army and Defense resources and bring together parts of the 9th Signal Command, the First Information Operations Command and the Intelligence and Security Command.

However, Winston, the analyst, believes the new move will be aimed at civilian computer networks. Winston bases his assessment on a recent statement made by Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn.

"The best-laid defenses on military networks will matter little unless our civilian critical infrastructure is also protected. Critical infrastructure will certainly be targeted in a military conflict," Lynn stated.

"The Department of Homeland Security appropriately has the lead to protect the dot-gov and dot-mil domains. The Defense Department plays an important supporting role in this mission, and has direct responsibility for securing defense-industry networks," Lynn added.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Tea parties targeted for disruption by anarchists?

After reading this story, I discovered a major flaw. I believe that you will also find that there is no way that the anonymous blog poster could be an anarchist. Truth be told, the anonymous blogger would have to be an extreme leftist, which is on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum from anarchists. The blogger was labeled as an anarchist only because the blog where the note was posted is a on site for anarchists, called "Infoshop News." In other words, the entire substance of this story - based on the title - just went South. If anyone will try to disrupt the Tea Parties, it will be the enemy of the Tea Party Movement, the Progressives and Socialists on the Left side of the political spectrum.

The note accuses tea party activists of malicious intent.

"The tea-party movement will say these programs must be gotten rid of because hard-working taxpayers cannot afford to pay for these things especially when the economy is in a depression," the author claims.

Under no circumstances should opponents ignore the tea parties, the note warns.

"This is the worst option because without anyone opposing them they could easily gain power," the author wrote.

Blog posting making the rounds on Internet suggests trouble brewing

By Michael Carl

Posted: April 05, 2010 ~ 9:23 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

It's a note by an anonymous blogger, but it's making the rounds on the Internet because it urges citizens to disrupt April 15 tea-party rallies from the inside.

"Organize counter-protests against the tea party demonstrations, same time, same place," the message states. "This is probably the best option. We need to get in the streets on April 15th and show the tea-party movement that there are lots of people out there who oppose their agenda."

The tea parties are a general assortment of people with issues ranging from opposition to high taxes to concern over massive government expansion through President Obama's socialist-type health care program and industry bailouts. If there's a common factor, it's opposition to Washington's agenda and a promotion of individual rights and responsibilities.

The note posted on an anarchist blog urges the nation's anarchists to carry out demonstrations to break up tea-party rallies.

The writer calls the tea parties "a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers." (Emphasis my own)

The message warns of consequences if the tea party movement is not derailed.

"If the tea-party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future. If the tea-party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc," the note said. (Emphasis my own)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

New stealth jet tipping strategic balance

From WorldNetDaily

Key to be 'if the Russians are able to build enough of them'

By Michael Carl

Posted: February 09, 2010 ~ 9:49 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A new fighter jet has completed a 45-minute test flight, giving Russia a boost in its effort to obtain a fifth-generation craft that can avoid radar detection with stealth technology and still perform at high levels.

The test of the Sukhoi-manufactured T-50 fighter plane just days ago raises new questions for Russia's neighbors who may be worried about strategic advantages.

The Economist magazine's former Moscow correspondent Edward Lucas said the balance of power now will depend on Russia's productivity.

"There's no doubt that the Russians have the technological know-how to build new state of the art planes," Lucas said, "They showed that by having the 45-minute test.

"The key to whether the new plane will make a difference is if the Russians are able to build enough of them to make a difference," Lucas said.

Retired Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan says Prime Minister Vladimir Putin "is extremely interested in redeveloping Russia's industrial capacity."

"Russia's major exports to other countries have always been military hardware," Ryan said. "With the Migs they showed they could build planes. Their interest in reasserting their capability is important here."

The plane has a maximum speed of 1,305 miles per hour and a maximum range of about 3,500 miles. It uses stealth technology to reduce its "signature."

READ FULL STORY >

Forum 'chatter' hyping imminent attack on U.S.

From WorldNetDaily

E-mails have included photos of CIA headquarters

By Michael Carl

Posted: February 05, 2010 ~ 11:50 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Terrorists actively are discussing another attack on the United States that could come within the next three to six months, and they even have included photographs of some government targets in their e-mails, including the Langley, Va., headquarters of the CIA.

The Middle East Media Research Institute confirms that the Al-Falluja jihadist forum has been discussing which American sites would make the best targets, referencing not only the CIA headquarters building but also the White House.

The top blogger has been urging attacks on the U.S. in an attempt to force American troops out of Iraq sooner than planned.

Likewise, the National Terror Alert Center is reporting al-Qaida is planning another attack within that time frame.

"There is no reason that the threats shouldn't be taken seriously," said a terrorism expert, who spoke with WND on condition of anonymity.

Also, Steven Emerson, a counter-terrorism expert and founder of the Investigative Project of Terrorism, said the nation should be taking such "chatter" – comments on blogs and in e-mail – seriously.

"Certainly these threats should be taken seriously. One jihadist blogger will talk about making an attack and other jihadists will read the blog post and be encouraged to plan ... an attack. The blogs will encourage other jihadists," Emerson said.

READ FULL STORY >

Shopping malls seen as potential terror targets

From WorldNetDaily

They are 'constantly packed with people, with uncontrolled entry' By Michael Carl Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 8:05 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily Al-Qaida is putting America's shopping malls and other soft targets in its bull's-eye, according to counter-terror experts. Bruce Hoffman, who authored a study at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service, says in a report published in the Washington Post that al-Qaida continues to be a threat because of its networking ability. "For a terrorist movement supposedly on its last legs, al-Qaida late last month launched two separate attacks less than a week apart – one failed and one successful – triggering the most extensive review of U.S. national security policies since 2001. Al-Qaida's newfound vitality is the product of a fresh strategy that plays to its networking strength and compensates for its numerical weakness," the report said. Hoffman added that attrition is part of al-Qaida's strategy, which is where diversifying the targets comes into play. "Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan-born U.S. resident [was] arrested in New York last September and charged with plotting a 'Mumbai on the Hudson' suicide terrorist operation. But while al-Qaida is finding new ways to exploit our weaknesses, we are stuck in a pattern of belated responses, rather than anticipating its moves and developing preemptive strategies," the report said. Hoffman's work, and a study released by Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs regarding chemical and biological weapons and their use, are the reasons American Thinker editor J. R. Dunn believes malls may be the new targets of choice for terrorists. "We need only consider the darkest days of the Iraqi terror campaign of 2006-2007 to grasp how the jihadis view marketplaces. Scarcely a week went by without another Iraqi marketplace bombing, with casualties largely consisting of women and children, mounting from the dozens to the hundreds," Dunn wrote. "We need only add the fact that the mall in many ways symbolizes the United States to people across the world, acting as kind of American Horn of Plenty, to see the inevitability of the threat. Such attacks will come, and they will be ugly," Dunn said. Doug Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network said reports that al-Qaida is seeking to diversify target selection and may even attack American malls are accurate. Information from the Joint Terrorism Task Force verifies terror networks operating in the U.S. believe malls are a legitimate terrorist target, he said. "Note that an attack on a mall would be an attack on our economy and could likely cause a downturn in shopping, etc.," Hagmann said. He said the most likely method would be through a biological weapon. "Anthrax or other aerosolized weapon in a HVAC, for example makes perfect sense," Hagmann said, adding, "The United States will likely see an increase in attacks in 2010." American Enterprise Institute terrorism analyst Michael Rubin uses Israel as a model to assert that a mall attack is the next logical step. "If you consider Israel the canary in the coal mine, it can show the progression of targets as security gets beefed up. Terrorists attacking Israel once targeted airplanes and airports but, not being successful, moved onto softer targets: shopping malls, restaurants, and buses," Rubin said. Rubin also said that in the terrorist mindset, malls are perfect targets. "What terrorists want is headlines. Dead women and children make headlines. Unfortunately, the report is probably right," Rubin said. However, CounterrrorismBlog.org's Aaron Mannes believes the threat is minimal. "Let us assume al-Qaida can smuggle a number of experienced operatives here (no small task – sure one got through on Christmas, but he wasn't a top operative and the more people in play the greater the possibility of detection.) do they want to use these guys attacking a shopping mall? A higher-profile target would seem in order," Mannes said. But that doesn't make a mall attack impossible. READ FULL STORY >

Army-sponsored report suggests new 'police force'

From WorldNetDaily

Domestic agents could be used in 'shaping an environment before a conflict' By Michael Carl Posted: January 20, 2010 ~ 9:16 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment "Stabilization Police Force" that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict" and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency. But civil libertarians are worried just exactly what the force would do, domestically or overseas. Page 16 of the 213-page report says the new elite unit's purpose depends on where it is and who would be in command. "The answer to this question (about its purpose) depends on the situation into which an SPF might be inserted. The SPF could be used for missions such as: shaping an environment before a conflict; law enforcement duties in an active conflict environment; or security, stability, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations after a conflict. It could operate as an independent entity under a U.S. ambassador or a U.N. Senior Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), or as a force element reporting to a Joint Task Force (JTF) commander," the report states. The purpose statement doesn't say where the new unit would be deployed. However, Rand Corporation report co-author Terry Kelly said the Army-commissioned study primarily focuses on a force that would be sent overseas. "The unit is supposed to deploy to places like Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe even places like Haiti where there's a tremendous disaster," Kelly said. "Really, the purpose would be to help our military forces or whoever is in charge of maintaining stability to catch terrorists or prevent major criminals from operating," he added. Mark Taylor, a private investigator and intelligence analyst with experience in Iraq, says he can't see the purpose for such a force. "With regard to overseas missions, there is the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. If they need assistance, you have private military contractors such as XE and DynaCorp," Taylor said. "In my case, the company I worked for moved in, did the mission and left. Period. In the case of a federal bureaucracy, you will fund it and it will do nothing but grow into a bureaucratic nightmare," Taylor said. Taylor believes the additional force would just add to the confusion in any overseas situation. "In addition the military and private contractor options, there are always the United Nations blue helmets, for whatever good they do. A federal police force would amount to nothing more than another colored helmet," Taylor said. Taylor's comments about the U.N. point to the command structure of the overseas force. One of the statements in the report says the unit could serve under a U. S. foreign service officer or under U.N. authority. Kelly admits the U.N. connection. READ FULL STORY >