Survival Ready Blog, Outdoor Survival Gear & Skills, Preppers, Survival Gear, kits
  • Home
  • About
    • Team & Contributors
  • Survival Skills
    • Wilderness Survival
    • Hunting, Trapping & Fishing >
      • Hunting
      • Trapping
      • Fishing >
        • Improvised Fishing Gear
    • Fire Making >
      • How to Light A Fire
      • 101 Ways to Start A Fire
    • Water Sourcing >
      • Water Storing & Filtering
    • Shelter Building
    • First Aid
    • Psychology Of Survival
    • Urban Survival
    • Financial Survival
    • Self Defense >
      • Self Defense in Real Life
      • Self Defense For Women
      • Crime Prevention Series
  • Survival Gear
    • Battle Proven Bug-out Bag Gear
    • Outdoor Survival Gear
    • Homemade Survival Kits
    • Survival Knives
    • 101 Uses for Paracord
    • Survival Gear Reviews
    • Crisis Tested Bug-out Bag
  • Survival Kits
    • Disaster Preparedness Kit
    • Best Wilderness Survival Kits Gear
    • Emergency Food Storage
    • Emergency Survival Kits
    • Emergency Preparedness Kit
    • Survival Kit List
    • Urban Survival Kit
    • Military Survival Kits
  • Prepping
    • Blackout Preparedness
    • Emergency Preparedness
    • Gardening
    • DIY
    • Homesteading >
      • Food Preservation >
        • Canning Food
        • Canning Meat
        • Canning Soft Fruits and Berries
        • Canning Fish
    • Off Grid Living
    • Home Security & Defense
  • Products

Has New York become a sitting duck?

1/8/2015

0 Comments

 
January 8, 2015
Posted by: Jon Dougherty
Picture
In the aftermath of the Islamic terrorist attack in Paris, France, on Wednesday — an attack that left 12 journalists and cops dead — cities throughout the world are increasing alert levels especially those in Western nations, according to a number of reports.

However, the terrorists’ crown-jewel target, New York City, has become more and more vulnerable under the leadership of Mayor Bill de Blasio. For example, his dismantling of a special operations unit of police officers that conducted surveillance and investigations of the city’s and metropolitan area’s mosques has left the Big Apple arguably as vulnerable as it was on Sept. 10, 2001.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) surveillance unit, that had gathered and analyzed intelligence on Muslim communities throughout the area, including mosques in New Jersey, wasn’t disbanded until de Blasio took power. During the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his tough-as-nails police commissioner, Ray Kelly, even after an enormous amount of political pressure from Muslim groups and left-wing organizations, such as the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the surveillance program continued.

The NYPD’s anti-terrorism united known as the Zone Assessment Unit was created with the help of members of the federal intelligence community following the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks. The police commissioner at that time, veteran cop Bernard Kerik, was honest about its existence and its overall role in preventing another 9-11 attack by monitoring Muslim-owned business and mosques across the New York region. It was successful in uncovering a number of suspects including wealthy Muslims who were illegally transferring money to the coffers of terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and others. Unfortunately, it also was a favorite target protests and civil lawsuits.

As a result of the firestorm created by the coalition formed by the ACLU, CAIR, most news organizations, and others, the NYPD and the New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio issued a statement in April 2014 that said:

“The Zone Assessment Unit, previously referred to as the demographics unit, has been largely inactive since January. Recently, as part of an ongoing assessment of Intelligence Bureau operations, personnel assigned to the Zone Assessment Unit were reassigned to other duties within the Intelligence Bureau. Understanding certain local demographics can be a useful factor when assessing information regarding potential threats coming to the attention of the New York City Police Department, it has been determined that much of the same information previously gathered by the Zone Assessment Unit may be obtained through direct outreach by the NYPD to the communities concerned.”

“Our administration has promised the people of New York a police force that keeps our city safe, but that is also respectful and fair. This reform is a critical step forward in easing tensions between the police and the communities they serve, so that our cops and our citizens can help one another go after the real bad guys,” Mayor de Blasio (not very popular with members of the NYPD) said in a statement at the time.


Read Full Story Here


0 Comments

United Nations Urges Prosecution of U.S. Officials Following CIA Report Revelations

12/10/2014

0 Comments

 
By Aaron Nelson from the Antimedia.org

The United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are calling for justice after the US Senate Intelligence Committee released a torture report detailing the CIA’s use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. Human rights groups from around the world are demanding the prosecution of U.S. officials listed in the report.

“As a matter of international law, the US is legally obliged to bring those responsible to justice,” the UN’s Ben Emmerso said in a statement issued in Geneva. “The US Attorney General is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges against those responsible.

Picture
Torture is an international crime and U.S. officials may be prosecuted by any country they travel to. Even after seeing the report, the Justice Department said it will not seek charges. The report “shows the repeated claims that harsh measures were needed to protect Americans are fiction,” said Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth.

“It is now time to take action. The individuals responsible for the criminal conspiracy revealed in today’s report must be brought to justice, and must face criminal penalties commensurate with the gravity of their crimes.” said the UN’s Ben Emmerso.

Should these U.S. officials who tortured be held accountable for breaking international law? Absolutely! Will they be held accountable? Doubtful. Instead of prosecuting torturers, Obama prosecuted the guy who revealed the program.

I’ll leave you with what Glenn Greenwald had to say in his article on The Intercept.


"One of the worst myths official Washington and its establishment media have told itself about the torture debate is that the controversy is limited to three cases of waterboarding at Guantánamo and a handful of bad Republican actors. In fact, a wide array of torture techniques were approved at the highest levels of the U.S. Government and then systematically employed in lawless US prisons around the world – at Bagram (including during the Obama presidency), CIA black sites, even to US citizens on US soil. So systematic was the torture regime that a 2008 Senate report concluded that the criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of the torture mentality imposed by official Washington.

American torture was not confined to a handful of aberrational cases or techniques, nor was it the work of rogue CIA agents. It was an officially sanctioned, worldwide regime of torture that had the acquiescence, if not explicit approval, of the top members of both political parties in Congress. It was motivated by far more than interrogation. The evidence for all of this is conclusive and overwhelming. And the American media bears much of the blame, as theyrefused for years even to use the word “torture” to describe any of this (even as they called these same techniques “torture” when used by American adversaries), a shameful and cowardly abdication that continues literally to this day in many of the most influential outlets."


– Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept




Read Full Antimedia.org Stoty Here

0 Comments

Ebola - Fear, Lies and The Evidence

11/29/2014

0 Comments

 
Just about everything we've been told about Ebola since the beginning of the outbreak in west Africa, is wrong. 

The means of transmission, the incubation period, its persistence on surfaces, available treatment methods have all been systematically misrepresented. That's an extreme claim, and extreme claims must bear the burden proof, so let's take a look at the evidence. Read Full Story Here

“In Air Transmission of Ebola The corporate media, the CDC and other "authorities" have repeatedly insisted that Ebola can only be contracted by direct contact with an infected person or their bodily fluids and that it does not and cannot not spread through the air.


This is false, and the U.S. government has known that it's false for quite some time now.
Picture
This 1995 study conducted by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRID), entitled "Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus" clearly warned of Ebola's ability to spread through the air.

The abstract concluded by saying:

The abstract concluded by saying:

Demonstration of fatal aerosol transmission of this virus in monkeys reinforces the importance of taking appropriate precautions to prevent its potential aerosol transmission to humans.

(Cached version here:https://archive.today/gQe5S)
In 2010 a study entitled "The survival of filoviruses in liquids, on solid substrates and in a dynamic aerosol" was conducted by the British government's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Full doc here). The study found that Ebola Zaire can be viable at infectious levels in aerosols for at least an hour and half at temperatures just above freezing. They also discovered that in that same temperature range, Ebola could persist on glass and plastic surfaces for over three weeks and on glass surfaces for at least 50 days. Previous research conducted at FSU had established that Ebola could live on surfaces for at least 6 days.

The fact that temperature plays such a key role in the durability of the virus could have significant implications for containment in colder climates.
0 Comments

Grand jury decision in Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown… no indictment

11/24/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson Not Indicted In Michael Brown Shooting
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reports:

CLAYTON, Mo. -- A grand jury has decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson for killing 18-year-old Michael Brown, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch announced Monday.

The Aug. 9 death of Brown, who was unarmed, sparked massive demonstrations in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson and a national conversation on race and law enforcement. Activists had predicted a new wave of demonstrations if Wilson was not indicted -- not only in Ferguson, but in the greater St. Louis region and in other cities across the country.

McCulloch's office had said he would release full transcripts of the grand jury proceedings if the panel decided not to indict the police officer. McCulloch's office took an unusual approach to the grand jury process by simply presenting the panel with all the evidence but not recommending any specific charges against Wilson.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. Read more here.

0 Comments

Obama Threatens Amnesty Executive Action Before New Congress Sworn

11/10/2014

0 Comments

 
U.S. President Barack Obama defended his plan to use executive powers to implement some immigration reforms, saying in an interview broadcast on Sunday he had waited long enough for Congress to act.Obama told congressional leaders on Friday he would try to ease some restrictions on undocumented immigrants, despite warnings from Republican leaders that such actions would "poison the well" or would be "a red flag in front of a bull".

The meeting came after Obama's Democratic Party was punished in midterm elections on Tuesday. Republicans seized the U.S. Senate and kept a majority in the House of Representatives, in what Obama said was a message from voters who held him responsible for how Washington worked, or didn't.

In an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation," Obama said he had watched while the U.S. Senate produced a bipartisan immigration reform bill, only to have it not taken up by House Republican Speaker John Boehner.

Obama said he had told Boehner if he could not get it done by year's end, the White House was going to have to take steps to improve the system.

"Everybody agrees the immigration system's broken. And we've been talking about it for years now in terms of fixing it," Obama said in the interview, according to a CBS transcript.

U.S. borders needed to be secure, the legal immigration system needed to be more efficient and there needed to be a path to legal status for the 11 million undocumented immigrants.

"We don't have the capacity to deport 11 million people -- everybody agrees on that," he said.

Obama insisted he was not telling Republicans they had run out of time or trying to circumvent them.

"The minute they pass a bill that addresses the problems with immigration reform, I will sign it and it supersedes whatever actions I take," Obama said in the interview.

"And I'm encouraging them to do so ... on parallel track we're going to be implementing an executive action.

"But if in fact a bill gets passed, nobody's going to be happier than me to sign it, because that means it will be permanent rather than temporary."

Without any changes, the government will continue to misallocate resources, deport people who should not be deported and not deport those who are dangerous, he said.

Any unilateral action promises to draw the ire of Republicans in Congress. U.S. Senator John Barrasso, the No. 4 Republican in the Senate, told Reuters on Friday members of Congress had told Obama that would be a "toxic decision".

"It will hurt cooperation on every issue," Barrasso told "Fox News Sunday".

"What the president does over the next two months is going to set the tone for the next two years."

Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said on ABC's "This Week" he hoped Obama would delay action "and have a real comprehensive discussion about what's possible, because a great deal is possible on immigration reform."


© 2014 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Read Full Story Here 
0 Comments

Putin Blatantly Calls Out the US Government’s Destructive Foreign Policy

11/9/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Joseph Lemieux 

(TheAntiMedia) The backdoor assertions from foreign countries are out the window. These countries are now speaking openly about their displeasure with the United States’ destructive foreign policy. 


Vladimir Putin, on the 25th of October, executed his speech within the Valdai Discussion Club in front of fellow world leaders, openly discussing the United States failed foreign policy. We will go into some excerpts from his speech, and examine the validity of his claims, and worries.
“What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.”

Has the US Governments actions created an imbalance in the international community’s stability? This very well may be true! Just to name a few we have the War on Terror as a whole, War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, US Intervention in Libya, and US intervention is Syria. These are just the face of our conflicts, this does not account for the drone warsin various country’s or the proxy wars we may be unaware of.

“The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.”

The US Government has done exactly these things. Take a look at Libya and Syria with use of force to remove a regime we don’t agree with. What about our spying apparatus the NSA, how has that been used? We do know that the NSA was spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone, an ally of the United States, and for what? Possibly dirt to make sure any plan we had, with the idea of Germany’s involvement, would happen! Are we spying on even more allied nations in the hopes of having leverage to blackmail?

“In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?”

The supply of weapons to ISIL in the beginning was widely contested, and highly ignored by media, but that’s not the case anymore. Reports continue to come out with the proof that US Government weapons continually end up in the hands of ISIL, whether it be intentional, or unintentional, those weapons are the US Governments responsibility. We are fighting a war with people we are still giving weapons too, that seems like a conflict of interest, unless your a war profiteer that is!

“As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.”

Putin brings up Afghanistan, and the drug trade, so how much weight does this actually carry? It seems like his accusation comes to hold water quite well. Afghanistan currently produces 90% of the worlds heroin, and we are occupying that nation. Does this mean the US Government is the largest supplier of heroin in the world? I don’t know if I can make that claim, but then again the devils in the details right?

Read Full Story Here

0 Comments

AFTER FEIGNING LOVE FOR EGYPTIAN DEMOCRACY, U.S. BACK TO OPENLY SUPPORTING TYRANNY

10/4/2014

0 Comments

 
BY GLENN GREENWALD From The Intercept

It is, of course, very difficult to choose the single most extreme episode of misleading American media propaganda, but if forced to do so, coverage of the February, 2011 Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt would be an excellent candidate. For weeks, U.S. media outlets openly positioned themselves on the side of the demonstrators, depicting the upheaval as a Manichean battle between the evil despot Hosni Mubarak’s “three decades of iron rule” and the hordes of ordinary, oppressed Egyptians inspirationally yearning for American-style freedom and democracy.

Almost completely missing from this feel-good morality play was the terribly unpleasant fact that Mubarak was one of the U.S. Government’s longest and closest allies and that his “three decades of iron rule” — featuring murder, torture and indefinite detention for dissidents — were enabled in multiple ways by American support.

Throughout Mubarak’s rule, the U.S. fed his regime an average of $2 billion each year, most of which was military aid. The tear gas cannisters shot at protesters by Mubarak’s police bore “Made in U.S.A.” labels. A 2009 diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks noted that “Egyptian democracy and human rights efforts … are being stymied” but described the benefits received by U.S. from support for the regime: “Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace.” Another 2009 cable put it more bluntly: “the Egyptians appear more willing to confront the Iranian surrogates and to work closely with Israel.”
Picture
That same year, Hillary Clinton pronounced: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.” Another WikiLeaks cable, anticipating the first meeting between Obama and Mubarak in 2009, emphasized that “the Administration wants to restore the sense of warmth that has traditionally characterized the U.S.-Egyptian partnership” and that “the Egyptians want the visit to demonstrate that Egypt remains America’s ‘indispensible [sic] Arab ally.’” The cable dryly noted that “[intelligence] Chief Omar Soliman and Interior Minister al-Adly keep the domestic beasts at bay, and Mubarak is not one to lose sleep over their tactics.” The Obama administration supported Mubarak right up to the point where his demise was inevitable, and even then, plotted to replace him with Soliman: an equally loyal and even more brutal autocrat, most appreciated in Washington circles for helpfully torturing people on behalf of the Americans.

During the gushing coverage of the Tahrir protests, Americans were told almost none of this (just as most Arab Spring coverage generally omitted long-standing U.S. support for most of the targeted tyrants in the region). Instead, they were led to believe that the U.S. political class was squarely on the side of democracy and freedom in Egypt, heralding Obama’s statement that Egyptians have made clear that “nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.”


Read Full Story Here
0 Comments

Politico: Holder Perfectly Timed Resignation to Make Way for Successor

9/27/2014

0 Comments

 
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Picture
Attorney General Eric Holder's resignation on Thursday had everything to do with timing, and came as a "quit-now or never-quit moment," a former Obama administration official told Politico Magazine.

Holder, who had reportedly been discussing his departure for 18 months with President Barack Obama and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, announced his resignation on Thursday, saying he'll remain on duty until a new attorney general is confirmed.

He's been under pressure to retire not only from political forces dissatisfied with his record, particularly when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal, but by his wife, a physician concerned about a recent health scare. 

But Holder's timing was perfect, given the chance that Republicans could take over the Senate after the November election. By leaving now, confirmation hearings are certain to be held under a Senate that is still controlled by Democrats.

Had he waited, Obama could have had much more difficulty confirming Holder's successor, the former official said. 

"You didn’t want confirmation hearings in 2015 if the Republicans control the Senate," the official said. "So if he didn’t do it now, there was no way he could ever do it.”

Holder told Obama his resignation plans over the Labor Day holidays, reports Politico, and Obama did not push back, although he faces a long confirmation battle to replace Holder.

This way, Obama has time to pick and vet Holder's successor and push him through during the post-election, lame-duck session after the midterm elections.

Holder, the nation's first African-American attorney general, is also leaving office on a high point after his trip to Ferguson, Mo., during the riots following the shooting death of an unarmed teenager.

But while the trip was well-received, Holder has been a polarizing figure politically, including being the first sitting Cabinet member to be found in contempt of Congress.

And Republicans are not sorry to see him go.

"I welcome the news that Eric Holder will step down as Attorney General,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, in an email to Politico. “From Operation Fast and Furious to his misleading testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Department’s dealings with members of the media and his refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups, Mr. Holder has consistently played partisan politics with many of the important issues facing the Justice Department.”

But Holder will leave a hole in the Obama administration, particularly when it comes to race relations, as the outgoing attorney general often said things that Obama would not say.

“He’s a race man,” said Charles Ogletree, a longtime friend of Holder’s and mentor to Obama and his wife, Michelle, when they were Harvard Law students back in the 1980s.

"He’s gone farther and deeper into some issues of race than the White House would like, but I know he has the president’s well-wishes," said Ogletree. "It’s clear [Obama and Holder] believe in the same things.”

Holder has also become a close friend of Obama, even to the point of vacationing with the president and his family on Martha's Vineyard. Their wives are also close friends.

Read Full Story Here

0 Comments

THE SECRET GOVERNMENT RULEBOOK FOR LABELING YOU A TERRORIST

7/27/2014

0 Comments

 
BY JEREMY SCAHILL AND RYAN DEVEREAUX
From: The Intercept

"The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases—though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed … could cause significant harm to national security.”
Picture
Because the government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,” individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.

“Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” says Hina Shamsi, the head of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.” Shamsi, who reviewed the document, added, “These criteria should never have been kept secret.”"

The rulebook, which The Intercept is publishing in full, was developed behind closed doors by representatives of the nation’s intelligence, military, and law-enforcement establishment, including the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI. Emblazoned with the crests of 19 agencies, it offers the most complete and revealing look into the secret history of the government’s terror list policies to date. It reveals a confounding and convoluted system filled with exceptions to its own rules, and it relies on the elastic concept of “reasonable suspicion” as a standard for determining whether someone is a possible threat. 


Read Full Story
0 Comments
    Picture

    Archives

    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014

    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Politics
    Society
    US News
    World

    Picture

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.