Friday, January 03, 2014

Bird Flu Subtype Re-Emerges In Hong Kong

"Novel" virus outbreak very likely created at illegal Kobe University lab by insane "virologists" Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Ron Fouchier and Teridah Ernala-Ginting; Kawaoka and Fouchier now hiding in Amsterdam, Ernala-Ginting missing and unable to return to Indonesia where she faces questioning in theft of Indonesian H5N1: This weaponized virus has nothing to do with birds and everything to do with killing as many humans as possible in the shortest period of time  - it MUST be treated as highly pathogenic and contagious 


Editor's note:  There is no such thing as a "mild form" of any of these weaponized corona viruses and should all be treated as deadly.


An elderly man has contracted a mild form of bird flu in the first case of its type for four years, Hong Kong officials said on Monday.

"We are now investigating a confirmed human case of influenza A H9N2, affecting a man aged 86," said Leung Ting-hung, controller of the city's Centre for Health Protection.

H9N2 is an avian flu subtype that mainly affects ducks and chickens but can also pass to humans, causing mild symptoms.

Since 1999 Hong Kong has reported seven such cases with the last one reported in 2009, Leung said.

The man, who lives in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen bordering Hong Kong, was diagnosed with the disease after returning to Hong Kong on Saturday.

He is now in stable condition in an isolation ward.

"As the temperature is cooler in recent weeks, we expect there may be other cases of avian influenza being detected," Leung said.

Last Thursday, the city reported the first death from the more serious H7N9 strain of bird flu.

The male victim had returned from Shenzhen, as had a woman who contracted Hong Kong's first reported case of H7N9. She is still in hospital in stable condition.

Scientists have warned that avian flu could potentially cause a pandemic if it mutates into a form easily transmissible between humans.

- AFP/nf

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Why Aren’t Big Bankers in Jail? - Why Ask Why, Say Their Enablers In Fraud MSM/Financial Press

"Mainstream media" will all burn along with their corporate criminal banker masters

By Janine Jackson

The man in charge of a bank that engaged in massive mortgage fraud chatted with a corporate media host (CNBC Squawk on the Street, 7/12/13) about the fact that virtually none of those who enriched themselves while eviscerating the life savings of many blameless people, derailing the US economy along the way, have faced criminal prosecution: 
Jim Cramer: Shouldn't they have indicted somebody who actually did bad things in banking?

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon: I think if someone did something wrong, they should go to jail.

Cramer: Well, who did? Who went to jail?

Dimon: One of the great things about America, failure is not illegal or wrong. You can't just say it failed. But I do think America looked at the crisis—and this is too bad—and there was no, anywhere, Old Testament justice. What they saw is people got overpaid—and some of these people lost all their money, their reputation, all that. If someone did something wrong, they should pay. You've got to be specific. Did they do something wrong, or you just don't like the fact that they failed? You make investments. They don't always pay off. It doesn't mean you're a criminal.

Cramer: Right. 
Granted, Cramer is no one's idea of a serious interrogator of the financial system (FAIR Blog, 3/13/09). But much journalism on the question of criminal prosecution of industry leaders amounts to similar apologia.

While there have been substantive inquiries into the wrongdoing of investment banks and auditors, those calling for jail time are often dismissed as irrational, driven by "blood lust" (Washington Post, 9/12/13), "anger" (Chicago Tribune, 11/30/13) or "vengeance" (Washington Post, 11/18/13).

We're told such calls come from the margins: That no "financial industry types" have been jailed is "a recurring theme among Occupy Wall Street protesters and some Democratic politicians" (Christian Science Monitor, 10/11/11) or "the Occupy Wall Street crowd" (New York Times, 3/1/13). 
People who believe bankers should go to jail are deflecting blame—from the people.
"The real scandal," explained the Washington Post's Charles Lane ("Banks Aren't the Bad Guys," 11/18/13), was "Americans' shared, erroneous belief in ever-rising housing prices and corresponding mania to profit from them."

And maybe they need to move on: "This all happened a really long time ago. What-ever happened to the statute of limitations?" the Washington Post (11/19/13) asked itself in a recent Q&A.

Above all, to advocate prosecution is to be simple-minded, to believe that "public revulsion indicates likely culpability" (Bloomberg Businessweek, 5/12/11) and to "reduce complex historical processes to the machinations of an evil few" (Washington Post, 11/18/13).

Wiser heads must prevail. "The meltdown was multi-causal," concluded Businessweek's Roger Lowenstein. "That explanation will be unsatisfying to armchair prosecutors, but it has the virtue of answering the complex nature of the bubble." 
"You're entitled to wonder whether any of the highly paid executives who helped kindle the disaster will ever see jail time," allowed the New York Times' Joe Nocera (2/25/11). 
"The harder question, though, is whether anybody should."

What the soft-headed among us don't recognize, evidently, is that "blowing up your company isn't necessarily a crime," as the Christian Science Monitor (10/11/11) put it. "America doesn't criminalize bad business decisions," wrote the Washington Post (9/12/13). Or, from Businessweek (5/12/11): "In the American legal system, people who merely act badly or unwisely do not do time."

But some have no trouble pointing to actual crimes in the crisis. "Issuing a mortgage that is known to be based on false information and then selling it in the secondary market is fraud and punishable by time in jail," economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 9/13/13) noted, citing the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. "Packaging loans into mortgage backed securities that an investment bank has good reason to believe are based on false information is also fraud and punishable by time in jail." 
Former federal bailout inspector Neil Barofsky agrees we're not talking about a perhaps lamentable but inactionable "culture." Asked by NPR (7/26/13) about the no-actual-crime "narrative," Barofsky answered: "No. I think that there was a tremendous amount of fraud."

Certainly the problem extends beyond the actions of a few bigwigs. But people who say jailing industry executives should be the sole response exist only in pundits' minds.

William Black, who advocates prison for industry executives (Moyers & Company, 9/17/13), pointed to structural reasons for a lack of prosecutions, including regulatory agencies' abandonment of key functions since the 1980s' Savings & Loan scandal. "When the regulators ceased making criminal referrals—which had nothing to with an end of crime, obviously; it just had to do with a refusal to be involved in the prosecutorial effort anymore—they doomed us to a disaster where we would not succeed."

Others say revolving-door relationships between banks and their government watchdogs contribute to settlements that are too generous to serve as deterrents (LittleSis, 10/23/13). Even the historic $13 billion JP Morgan settlement winds up being less than meets the eye, as much of the fine is tax-deductible, $4 billion of it is part of an earlier settlement and much of the rest will take the form of mortgage relief that will help the bank in the long run (Salon, 11/20/13). 

But imprisoning people wouldn't be effective, we're told. "Higher capital requirements may not satisfy blood lust the way a CEO in chains would," wrote the Washington Post (9/12/13), "but they're going to do a lot more."

While economists like George Akerlof and James Galbraith (Washington's Blog, 11/4/10;, 1/22/13) argue that the failure to punish responsible leaders creates incentives for more economic crimes, The Economist (5/13/13) warns that "stricter liability has its drawbacks. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates that penalise bankruptcy…are not known for their vibrant start-up cultures."

"Real life criminals bear little resemblance to those seen in films," The Economist reports; "although the bosses may create or perpetuate a culture in which those lower down in the ranks feel entitled or expected to abandon morality, there is seldom a chain of emails or other direct instructions that actually advocates wrongdoing."

This notion that without a smoking email "bosses" have committed no real crime ("no matter how much a basic sense of fairness makes a person wish it were so"—Washington Post, 9/12/13) ignores what we know about corporate crime. Executives routinely "push down" the details of decision-making to avoid the appearance of culpability. This doesn't mean that grievous wrongs are not committed for which those executives are ultimately responsible. If the current legal system is inadequate to properly address crimes of this nature, that's a problem, not an answer. But many press accounts seem more intent on explaining why what CEOs did wasn't a crime than on asking whether it should be.

Indeed, it sometimes seems, as when Nocera (2/25/11) refers to "aficionados of financial crises," that "why haven't bankers gone to jail?" is a sort of parlor game for the corporate press. Of course, it's easier to see it that way when you erase the victims. Many accounts contain nary a mention of homeowners wrongly foreclosed on, communities disrupted, hard-earned savings lost. As economist Joseph Stiglitz (Daily Finance, 10/22/10) put it: "These are not just white-collar crimes or little accidents. There were victims. That's the point. There were victims all over the world." (That's why, Stiglitz said, we ought to "actually put many of these guys in prison.")

An unscientific assessment suggests that those outlets that acknowledge that "Wall Street's wrongdoing was about more than a dollar cost—it was about the widespread human suffering that remains with us today" (San Francisco Chronicle, 11/21/13) are less likely to dismiss the idea of putting some of the wrongdoers behind bars.

SIDEBAR: An Unarrestable Class? 

Calls for executives of malfeasant financial institutions to be jailed shouldn't be seen as endorsements of the US prison system, but demands that the powerful abide by the same laws as everyone else—that there not be what Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi (2/28/13) called "an arrestable class and an unarrestable class."

Taibbi was reporting the devastating news that there'd be no jail time or individual fines for anyone in charge at HSBC, despite the bank's decades of money laundering for Mexico's violent Sinoloa drug cartel, along with groups linked to Al-Qaeda and Russian gangs, among others.

"Even worse" than the decision, Taibbi wrote, was Justice Department prosecutor Lanny Breuer's justification: "Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would certainly have lost its banking license in the US, the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

The New York Times' Ben Protess (3/1/13) called this "tirade at Rolling Stone" part of the heat Breuer was taking for "not throwing Wall Street executives behind bars." (He's "somewhat bruised," by the criticism, readers were told; "In short, it has been grueling.")

What some in the media appear or pretend not to see is that the outrage is not just that the Justice Department, in the Times' words, "stopped short of indicting HSBC," but that this occurred in a country in which a homeless man got life in prison for serving as middleman in a $10 marijuana sale.

In "A Living Death: Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses," the ACLU reports on 3,278 people—a majority of them black, many poor, many struggling with mental illness or drug problems—who can expect to die in prison for crimes like carrying drugs for an abusive boyfriend, stealing a $159 jacket or possessing a crack pipe.

It'd be hard to go from reading about that to a claim that in the US "people who merely act badly or unwisely do not do time." But the undercoverage of the ACLU report made such a jarring juxtaposition unlikely.—J.J.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


War From Above : Domestic Drones Patrolling The Skies Of America

Americans may shoot down these Satanic machines utilizing the Deadly Force laws of their respective States:  The CIA is once again operating illegally in CONUS

By Richard Hugus

Drone aircraft, which we first heard of as weapons of war used by the United States in foreign lands, are now poised for a full-scale invasion of the skies above the US itself. On December 30, 2013 the US Federal Aviation Administration announced its choices for drone testing in six states around the country — Alaska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Texas and Virginia. 
These six states may in turn do their testing in more than one location, For example, according to the Anchorage Daily News, drone testing centered in Alaska at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks will be called “the ‘Pan-Pacific Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Range Complex.’ 
It includes six flight ranges in Alaska, four in Hawaii and three in Oregon.” According to the Honolulu Star Advertiser “the Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawaii island, the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai and even the island of Niihau have been included in discussions of places where the testing could occur.”

According to the East Oregonian, drone testing is likely to involve a former military base in Pendleton, Port of Tillamook, and Warm Springs. Likewise, the New York operation will be run from the former Griffiss Air Force base in Rome, NY and, according to the Cape Cod Times, will also include the former Otis Air Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Times reports that “the Cape site had the support of the state’s congressional delegation, a statewide military asset commission and business leaders” and that “among the institutions involved in the bid are Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Rochester Institute of Technology.” 
What this story reveals is the creation of a huge web of DoD-connected Universities, businesses, corporations, defense contractors, and former and current Pentagon facilities spread all over the country. Included in this web are the many and various chambers of commerce, their boosters in the press, and numerous comprador “officials” anxious to bring federal money into their districts, at the expense of all the other people who live in them. Almost no news coverage has appeared that would imply the FAA decision was anything but a boon for the economy and the advent of a wonderful and inevitable new technology. 
There is little news about the down side to hosting drones in all these areas of the country, each with a populace that has simply not been consulted. Drones first came to our attention at the beginning of “the war on terror.” We learned of them first as weapons for highly illegal, cowardly, and indiscriminate “targeted killings” in foreign lands? 
These weapons have murdered countless innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia pursuant to “kill lists” drawn up every week by the CIA and Pentagon, and approved by the White House.

These weapons fulfill the US Air Force’s fantasy of “death from above,” carried out by pilots working in the security and comfort of US bases who, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, destroy supposed enemies from computer consoles as if it were a video game. The cowardliness of wars of aggression being conducted against innocent people in dirt-poor lands by unseen “UAV pilots” in air-conditioned offices thousands of miles away cannot be over-emphasized. This is what unmanned aircraft have brought so far to the reputation of the United States – a new low in the entire universe of human ethics. Murder abroad is but the advance of capitalism at home. Wedding parties in Afghanistan have been decimated so that Amazon can deliver cds and smart phones to our door by drone. 
Nor is there news about the introduction of drones domestically as yet another assault on privacy and the human right to be free from surveillance. Domestic law enforcement agencies are just as anxious to spy on the US population and target people they call criminals as the Pentagon and CIA have been to spy on the rest of the world and kill people they call terrorists. It isn’t enough that our phones and computers have been turned by the NSA into astounding instruments of surveillance, that everything we say and do on these instruments is being harvested and stored, and that surveillance cameras are mounted at almost every business and public space. 
Now the national security state wants to have remote-controlled cameras videotaping us full-time from the sky. The police hope to have drones able to fire “non-lethal weapons” at people they deem to be involved in criminal activity so that they too can play God. Without question, non-lethal weapons will soon become lethal weapons and the US will be trying and executing citizens at home as it has done elsewhere without even a hint of due process. 
The domestic military bases which are being revived by this brave new technology originally went out of business because there was nothing for them to do in the fulfillment of their original purpose – defending the country. Otis Air Base, now called “Joint Base Cape Cod”, is a case in point. 
It used to patrol the skies for Russian aircraft along the northeast coast and ended up being a disaster for the community in which it was situated because it polluted the local groundwater and sole-source drinking water aquifer with millions of gallons of dumped jet fuel and cleaning solvents. 

It sent fighter jets to intercept the two planes hijacked to New York on September 11, 2001, but ended up being part of a ploy to let those planes actually reach the twin towers before they got there. This base and many others have been parasites on the communities around them. They will continue in that role in their new incarnation as hosts to drone spying and drone warfare. The war has come home. The people orchestrating this war – the global elite — have no particular allegiance to the United States. From their point of view, its land and its people must be brought under control, just like everywhere else. How sad it is to see the scramble to welcome them.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Going Behind The Scenes Of Russia's Terrorist Blasts

Obama's murdering CIA, Saudi apostate mercenaries behind bombings


Two deadly bomb blasts in Russia on Sunday and Monday, just days ahead of New Year, have thrown once more into bold relief the scourge of terrorism in this country.

The two terrorist operations hit Russia’s southern city of Volgograd in a 24-hour interval. More than 30 people were reported dead and nearly 70 injured.

The blasts which struck near a cozy tourism center have set alarm bells ringing for Russian President Vladimir Putin and security forces.

In the wake of the attacks, Putin has ordered security to be tightened across the nation as well as extra police deployed on the streets of Volgograd.

"The abomination of the crime that was committed here in Volgograd needs no extra commentary," said Putin, adding, "No matter how the criminals may justify their actions, there is no justification for crimes committed against civilians, especially against women and children."

CIA/Saudis responsible for bombings
Following the emergence of separatist movements in North Caucasus in the early 1990s and specifically since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union up to the end of the century, Russia faced sporadic attacks by separatists in the autonomous republics of Dagestan and Chechnya.

Over the past 20 years, nearly all bombings carried out in subways or other public places in Russia have been attributed to the separatists. However, only in few cases, the perpetrators of such terrorist acts have been identified.

When Putin came to power in 2000, he sought to calm down Moscow by persuading a group of Chechens and Dagestanis to cooperate with the Russian government. In the meantime, he purged influential Chechen figures Dzhokhar Dudayev and Aslan Maskhadov in a bid to uproot separatist movements. These two policies proved to be successful to a great extent, but they failed to root out dissent for good. 

The recent bombings are significant from two aspects:

1.The bombings were carried out just days ahead of the upcoming Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. The attacks had been apparently planned to intimidate athletes who intend to vie in the games.

In July last year, Leader of the Chechen group Caucasus Emirate Doku Umarov released a video statement in which he threatened to unleash “maximum force” to disrupt the Sochi games.

2. Both bombings hit the city of Volgograd which is located outside North Caucasus and whose Muslim population is not extremist. Therefore, anti-Putin activists plan to push the crisis to the Volga River Muslim-dominated republics like Tatarstan and Bashkortostan which have experienced terrorist activities in recent years.

Unlike the Muslim-dominated autonomous republics in North Caucasus, the Volga River republics which are mainly populated by Muslims, have scarcely shown inclination for separatism in recent years.

Who are behind these terrorist operations?

Anti-Russia opposition groups in North Caucasus are likely to have carried out the bombings, but this possibility must not be ruled out that Saudi intelligence services – already cooperating with Takfiri and al-Qaeda militants in Syria – might have teamed up with Caucasian opposition to carry out these terrorist operations.

Saudi Arabia has been the main supporter of Salafi and extremist groups like al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Both of these terrorist groups are in touch with Caucasian militants fighting against the Syrian government. Al-Nusra and ISIL might have designed the Volgograd attacks in a bid to influence Russia’s Syria policy ahead of the January 22 peace conference on Syria in Switzerland. These terrorist acts could be interpreted as Saudi Arabia’s policy for ratcheting up pressure on the Russian government.

In December 2013, several terrorist operations were carried out in Iran’s southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan. Saudi Arabia sent its intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan to Moscow in order to cause division between Iran and Russia on Syria. After its failure, Riyadh, by financing terrorist operations, intends to ratchet up the costs for Moscow and Tehran for supporting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

The perpetrators of the two terrorist attacks in Russia, no matter their affiliation, will not realize their objectives and these bombings will only lead to the imposition of tighter security restrictions on ordinary people, particularly Muslims.

Moreover, President Putin will become more determined to move ahead with the policy he has adopted vis-à-vis Syria because the Russian government, which was from the outset worried about the empowerment of extremist groups in Syria and their cooperation with extremist Wahhabis in North Caucasus, is now further convinced to consider Syria as a national issue.

Another point is that carrying out blind terrorist operations and killing innocents who have had no role in Syria and North Caucasus will only cause more hatred against those who have not committed these acts, but are paying for being followers of the same religion as the perpetrators claim to be. Islam outlaws such savage acts under any pretext.

Terrorist attacks similar to what happened in Russia underscore the need for the identification of the behind-the-scene supporters of terrorists operating in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Caucasus. The region is unlikely to see calm as long as the supporters of terrorists are not confronted decisively.


A researcher, documentary producer, and a frequent contributor to Press TV, Hassan Beheshtipour was born on June 22, 1961 in Tehran. He received his BA in Trade Economics from Tehran University. His research topics span from US and Russian foreign policy to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. Beheshtipour is currently busy with research on the 1979 US embassy takeover in Tehran. More Press TV articles by this author

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.




The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.