The Era Of Widespread Biometric Indentification And Microchip Implants Is Here

 

Michael Snyder
Activist Post
Are you ready to have your veins scanned every time you use your bank account? Are you ready to use a "digital tattoo" or a microchip implant to unlock your telephone? Once upon a time we read about such technologies in science fiction novels, but now they are here. The era of widespread biometric identification and microchip implants is upon us, and it is going to change the way that we live.
Proponents of these new technologies say that they will make our private information and our bank accounts much more secure.  But there are others that warn that these kinds of "Big Brother technologies" will set the stage for even more government intrusion into our lives. In the wrong hands, such technologies could prove to be an absolute nightmare.
Barclays has just announced that it is going to become the first major bank in the Western world to use vein scanning technology to control access to bank accounts. There will even be a biometric reader that customers plug into their computers at home...

Barclays is launching a vein scanner for customers as it steps up use of biometric recognition technology to combat banking fraud.

The bank has teamed up with Japanese technology firm Hitachi to develop a biometric reader that scans a customer's finger to access accounts, instead of using a password or PIN.

The biometric reader, which plugs into a customer’s computer at home, uses infrared lights to scan blood flow in a person’s finger. The user must then scan the same finger a second time to confirm a transaction. Each “vein profile” will be stored on a SIM card inside the device.

Vein recognition technology is used by some banks in Japan and elsewhere at ATM machines, but Barclays said it is the first bank globally to use it for significant account transactions.

But Barclays is not the only one that is making a big move into biometric identification.
Online retailing behemoth Alibaba is going to start using fingerprint scanning in an attempt to make their transactions more secure...

Alibaba, the giant Chinese online retailer, is integrating fingerprint scanning into its Alipay Wallet app. Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer of the iPhone and iPad, threw nearly $5 million at Norway’s NEXT Biometrics, which develops fingerprint scanning technology, back in May. And earlier this month it took a 10% stake for $2 million in AirSig, a Taiwanese company that uses smartphones’ built-in gyroscopes to track air handwriting. The company says AirSig provides three-factor authentication: your signature, your phone, and the way you sign with a flourish in mid-air.

It is only a matter of time before more banks, online retailers and major websites start using this kind of technology.  We live at a time when theft on the Internet threatens to spiral out of control, and big corporations are going to be continually looking for answers.
Cell phone security is another area of great concern these days.  If someone can get a hold of your phone and unlock it, that person can potentially do all sorts of damage.
So Motorola has developed a "digital tattoo" that will be used to ensure that only the owner of a phone is able to unlock it.  The following is how Motorola described these new digital tattoos...

Made of super thin, flexible materials, based on VivaLnk’s eSkinTM technology, each digital tattoo is designed to unlock your phone with just a touch of your Moto X to the tattoo, no passwords required. The nickel-sized tattoo is adhesive, lasts for five days, and is made to stay on through showering, swimming, and vigorous activities like jogging. And it’s beautiful—with a shimmering, intricate design.

It’s another step in making it easier to unlock your phone on the go and keep your personal information safe. An average user takes 2.3 seconds to unlock their phone and does this about 39 times a day—a process that some people find so inconvenient that they do not lock their phones at all. Using NFC technology, digital tattoos make it faster to safely unlock your phone anywhere without having to enter a password.

And below I have posted the video that Motorola shared on YouTube about these tattoos...

Pretty bizarre stuff, eh?
But others are taking cell phone security to even greater extremes.
For example, some people were actually implanting themselves with microchips in anticipation of the release of the iPhone 6 on September 9th...

With a wave of his left hand, Ben Slater can open his front door, turn on the lights and will soon be able to start his car. Without even a touch he can link to databases containing limitless information, including personal details such as names, addresses and health records.

The digital advertising director has joined a small number of Australians who have inserted microchips into their skin to be at the cutting edge of the next stage of the evolution of technology.

Slater was prompted to be implanted in anticipation of the iPhone 6 release on September 9.

The conjecture among pundits and fans worldwide over what chief executive Tim Cook will reveal is building.

At present the iPhone cannot read microchip implants. However, Mr Slater believes the new version will have that capability. His confidence is now lodged between his thumb and forefinger.

Of course this kind of thing is not new.  People have been getting implanted with microchips for years.  If you doubt this, just do an Internet search for "biohackers" and see what you find.
But it is starting to become more mainstream, and there are already some thinkers that are quite eager to use such technology for very authoritarian purposes.
For example, one prominent philosopher recently suggested that we should use implantable microchips to prevent anyone that is "deemed unworthy" from becoming a parent...

Although he admits it “sounds blatantly authoritarian” and “violates just about every core value we possess in a free society,” a noted transhumanist author has said a world government body should forcibly sterilize anyone “deemed unworthy” of parenthood by using implanted microchips.

Constitutional attorney and civil liberties expert John W. Whitehead, founder of The Rutherford Institute, warned LifeSiteNews earlier this year that political officials would long to use this seminal technology.

In an article for Wired.com today, philosopher Zoltan Istvan wrote that the notion first crossed his mind when he heard a blonde nurse say, “with 10,000 kids dying everyday around the world from starvation, you'd think we'd put birth control in the water.”

After careful thought, in an effort to “give hundreds of millions of future kids a better life, I cautiously endorse the idea of licensing parents,” Istvan wrote today.

You might be tempted to think that this is crazy talk.
But the truth is that this kind of technology is already being developed.
In a previous article, I quoted a news article which discussed how billionaire Bill Gates is funding the development of a birth control microchip that "acts as a contraceptive for 16 years"…

Helped along by one of the world’s most notable billionaires, a U.S. firm is developing a tiny implant that acts as a contraceptive for 16 years — and can be turned on or off using a remote control.

The birth control microchip, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would hold nearly two decades worth of a hormone commonly used in contraceptives and dispense 30 micrograms a day, according to a report from the MIT Technology Review.

The new birth control, which is set to begin preclinical testing next year with hopes of putting it on shelves in 2018, can be implanted in the buttocks, upper arm or abdomen.

Yes, I know that a lot of the things that I have talked about in this article sound really weird.
But the reality of the matter is that technology is changing at an exponential rate, and our world is going to get crazier and crazier as time goes by.
Are you ready for what comes next?
This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse Blog.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

The Era Of Widespread Biometric Indentification And Microchip Implants Is Here
Activist
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:44:00 GMT

House Benghazi panel to hold first hearing next week | WashingtonExaminer.com | TERrafirmaUSA

House Benghazi panel to hold first hearing next week | WashingtonExaminer.com | TERrafirmaUSA

BY SEAN LENGELL | SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 | 3:02 PM

TOPICS: CONGRESS BENGHAZI PENNAVE STATE DEPARTMENT HOUSE REPUBLICANS TREY GOWDY HOUSE DEMOCRATS BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE


A new special committee chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy created to investigate the 2012 terrorist...

A new special committee created to investigate the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, will hold its first public hearing next week, the panel announced Monday.

The hearing will focus on the implementation of security recommendations made by the State Department's Accountability Review Board that was set up to investigate the surroundings that led to the attacks.

The review board issued almost 30 recommendations in late 2012 after concluding that "systemic” State Department failures led to inadequate security at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

Details of the hearing, including a witness list and on what day it will take place, haven't been announced.

The Republican-run House voted in May to create a select committee to investigate the Obama administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Senate Democrats blocked a similar effort in the upper chamber.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

Most Democrats view the panel as nothing more than Republican grandstanding since five other House committees — most notably the Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. — already have investigated the attacks.

The 12-member panel, which includes seven Republicans and five Democrats, is chaired by Rep.Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. The top Democrat is Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland.

IRS Will Levy Penalties of up to $12,240 for Uninsured Americans | Fix This Nation .com

IRS Will Levy Penalties of up to $12,240 for Uninsured Americans | Fix This Nation .com
July 25, 2014


Ostensibly, Obamacare was created to help Americans without health insurance. The purpose – as stated – was to get everyone in America insured. To lighten the burden on taxpayers (ha!). To cut through the endless bureaucracy of the healthcare system by putting the infallible government in charge. Because, of course, nothing can be done right when greedy health insurance companies are running the show. We must depend on our benevolent leaders to make sure everything is fair for all Americans.

Well, reports released Thursday by the IRS show just how fair the system is going to be to those people who fail to get insured by 2015. According to the IRS, individuals who aren’t insured by the time taxes roll around next year will be fined a maximum of $2,448. Take a moment and let that number sink in before we hit you with the whopper. Sitting down? Okay. A family of five can be fined up to $12,240 if they do not get health insurance this year. Wow, that should really get the economy moving!

Never mind the fact that the IRS is being increasingly exposed as an immoral, unethical wing of the Obama administration, playing out his agenda as they look for right-wing organizations to audit. And never mind that these penalties are meant only for the rich – incomes above $244,800 for individuals and $1.2 million for those families of five. That’s a smokescreen. The point here isn’t the dollar amount but the percentage. A fine of $3,000 may not be that tough to swallow for someone making mid-six figures, but a 1% fine of annual income hits those making less money exceptionally hard.


Many middle class individuals and families look forward to tax time because they count on the refunds they receive to make it through the year. Those refunds can be used to catch up on bills, save up for a vacation, or put money aside for a nice Christmas. When, instead, the money flows in the other direction and these people have to pay the government a fine for being uninsured, you’re going to see a lot of unhappy Americans.

Remember the Bush incentives? The $300 middle-class Americans got in the mid-2000s? That $300 might not have seemed like much to those with high-paying careers, but they meant the world to families just scraping by. The dems claim to be the party of the poor – and the voters certainly seem to buy it – but these insurance penalties show otherwise.

Of course, a D.C. circuit court this week ruled that the tax incentives inherent in Obamacare may not be applicable in the 34 states still using the federal exchange. So, unless this ruling is overturned or more states create their own exchanges, it’s possible that these fines will never actually materialize. Still, the mere fact that the federal government is planning to penalize those who can’t afford health insurance paints a clear picture of an administration out of control. Let’s hope voters see the truth as they consider the 2016 election.

- See more at: http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/irs-will-levy-penalties-of-up-to-12240-for-uninsured-americans/#sthash.Det4t5wk.dpuf

Turmeric Smoothie Recipe Makes A Delicious & Powerful Antioxidant | Collective-Evolution

Turmeric Smoothie Recipe Makes A Delicious & Powerful Antioxidant | Collective-Evolution

10 Uses for Vinegar | Healthy Holistic LivingHealthy Holistic Living

10 Uses for Vinegar | Healthy Holistic LivingHealthy Holistic Living

NASA Witness Sees Guys Walk Over to Viking lander on Mars! : Truth Frequency Radio | TERrafirmaUSA

NASA Witness Sees Guys Walk Over to Viking lander on Mars! : Truth Frequency Radio | TERrafirmaUSA

The History of Wall Street’s Unspoken Relationship to Nazi Germany: Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again : Truth Frequency Radio

The History of Wall Street’s Unspoken Relationship to Nazi Germany: Dragon Teeth to Be Planted All Over Europe Again : Truth Frequency Radio
Truth Frequency Radio
Sep 01, 2014

By Yuriy Rubtsov
Strategic Culture Foundation

Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state.

Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amok Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge.

It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was supported by the United States. The US penetration was significant, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as several large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, etc.

Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for theNational Socialist German Workers’ Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations from Fritz Thyssen’s group including the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in the Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors.

British business and banking interests also started to channel donations to the Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German ChancellorFranz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The US was also represented at this meeting. Both Dulles brothers were present. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world.

It is worth noting, that during the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, the two immensely powerful Dulles brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.

The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into Germany and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome».

The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – was formally announced to the party’s faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to develop capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted to himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for its airplane factories, which were slated to produce Germany’s military aircraft.

In turn, Germany received a large number of patents from several American companies including Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the “Junkers-87″ dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out, the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.

What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany?

The goal was to direct Hitler to the East involving a German invasion of Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East and ruthless ‘Germanization’ as his two ultimate foreign policy objectives.

For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which in Hitler eyes was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler considered as SlavicUntermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent “Jewish revolutionaries”. These people were not “Germanizable” in his eyes; only the soil was.

The US and Britain, which were firmly opposed to the rise of Communism in the Soviet Union, tacitly endorsed Hitler’s “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East, as initially stated in Mein Kampf:


“We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we primarily point to Russia and the border states”

In turn, the policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against a background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American business interests with Nazi Germany.

In October 1930, Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes named the World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations.

In March 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland which had been demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty.

In March 1938 Austria was annexed.

The West did not react.

Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation Green was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938.

While Hitler signed the Munich agreement along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini, the operation to invade Czechoslovakia prevailed. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for the military annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which had been part of Lithuania since 1923.

In March 1939, Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig agreement. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany.

But Memel and Danzig were not the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was fully aware that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1.

With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But these talks were to reveal that the Western partners were reluctant to hinder Hitler’s expansionary policy to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the Soviets.

When Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed their finger at both the Soviet Union and Germany which signed the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany Non-Aggression Pact which triggered the war.

In the wake of World War II, neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about these historical events. They signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war, without acknowledging who was behind Nazi Germany? The political and financial elites of the United States, Great Britain and France were directly involved in fostering Nazi regime. They incited Hitler to move east.

The West has never recognized its responsibility for supporting Hitler’s regime.

In today’s context, it has does its utmost to prevent Russia’s return on the world stage as a leading actor.

Today it is fostering the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of our very eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.

Russia is demonized and provoked into direct confrontation with a view to triggering its involvement in Ukraine’s internal conflict.

While the Kiev junta is not “in the same league” as Germany’s Nazi regime, history shows that the ulcer of Nazism combined with the thrust of Russophobia is gaining momentum. And sooner or later it may be beyond the control of those who encouraged it in the first place.

The slogan “Ukraine above all” sounds very much like a remake of Nazi Germany’s “Deutschland über alles”, (Germany above all). “Ukraine above all” is being used to justify the crimes committed by Ukraine forces in Novorossiya.

Edited by Global Research

Two CA Judges Censured for Having Sex in Chambers | Truth Revolt

Two CA Judges Censured for Having Sex in Chambers | Truth Revolt 9.3.2014 Sarah Fisher


A state judicial commission said on Tuesday that two California judges have been censured for having sex in their respective chambers. One judge had sex with his clerk, the other had sex with multiple women. The events are separate as the judges are in separate courts and are located in difference parts of the state.

One judge was from Orange County.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Scott Steiner was censured by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for engaging in sexual activity in his chambers on multiple occasions with women. The commission called it "the height of irresponsible and improper" behavior.

"It reflects an utter disrespect for the dignity and decorum of the court, and is seriously at odds with a judge’s duty to avoid conduct that tarnishes the esteem of the judicial office in the public’s eye," the commission said in a written order.

The other judge was in Kern County.

The commission also censured Kern County Superior Court Judge Cory Woodward, who it said carried on an intimate affair with his court clerk from July of 2012 until May of last year, engaging in sexual activity with her in his chambers and in public places.

The commission said Woodward passed notes of a sexual nature to the clerk during court proceedings and lied about the relationship when confronted by his presiding judges in a bid to block her transfer.

"Judge Woodward cooperated fully with the Commission’s inquiry. As the Commission recognized, he expressed great remorse and contrition," Meyer, who also represented Woodward, said in a separate statement. "He has apologized and appreciates the thorough review of the Commission in this matter.”

Both judges will be allowed to remain on the bench.

Nation's Poor Remain Hungry as Wall Street Feasts | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Nation's Poor Remain Hungry as Wall Street Feasts | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Published on
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
by Common Dreams
Persistent rates of food insecurity reveal vast inequities of so-called "economic recovery" in US, say anti-poverty advocates
by Nadia Prupis, staff writer



ALIVE Food Bank Distribution in Alexandria VA (Photo: Bread for the World)

Critics and anti-poverty advocates are questioning the so-called economic recovery as a USDA study (PDF) published Wednesday revealed that while the nation's wealthiest enjoyed record gains, nearly 50 million Americans continue to struggled with food insecurity in 2013.

According to the government figures, while a majority of people who were not always able to afford food last year were adults, 16 million children also went hungry at times, with 360,000 households reporting that their kids skipped meals or did not eat for an entire day because there was not enough money.

Joel Berg, executive director of the NYC Coalition Against Hunger, said the country's widespread hunger problem is deeply connected to the government's pro-corporation, anti-worker policies. "A country that combines massive hunger with record Wall Street markets is so derailed we can't even find our tracks anymore," Berg said. "These startling numbers prove there has been no true economic recovery for tens of millions of struggling U.S. families."

Overall, food insecurity is 35 percent higher than in 2007, before the recession began. In 2013, the average food-secure household spent 30 percent more on food than the average food-insecure household of the same size.

"Too many people at the top don't understand the difference between Wall Street and Main Street," Berg told Common Dreams. Corporations resettling overseas to avoid paying higher taxes in the U.S.—as exemplified by Burger King's recent merger with Canadian food chain Tim Horton's—is "supremely unpatriotic," Berg said. Asked whether government officials are willfully ignoring hunger statistics, Berg said, simply and emphatically, "Yes."

The research comes shortly after the Harvard School of Public Health released a studyshowing that the healthy diet gap between rich and poor Americans doubled between 1999 and 2010. That study, published earlier this week, found that differences in diet are directly related to both cost and access, as low-income people are more likely to live in "food deserts" — areas that have few to no grocery stores selling healthy produce, forcing families who cannot afford to travel outside of their neighborhoods to rely on corner stores selling boxed and processed food.

“The overall improvement in diet quality is encouraging, but the widening gap related to income and education presents a serious challenge to our society as a whole,” said the study's senior author, Walter Willett, professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition at HSPH.

Of all the food-insecure households that participated in the 2013 survey, 62 percent received assistance from federal food and nutrition assistance programs. "It is vital to note that this new data was collected before most of the recent SNAP (food stamps) cuts kicked in," Berg wrote in a press release for the coalition. "Given the pain measured in these numbers, I can only imagine that next year's report, which will include the impact of the recent cuts, will more formally document the mass suffering we are already seeing on the ground from coast to coast."

The Food Research and Action Center also noted that the "severe" food insecurity rate was 5.6 percent in 2013, compared to 4.1 percent in 2007 before the recession.

"Hunger continues to plague too many Americans," said FRAC president Jim Weill. "We can end hunger in this country, but that takes political will. It is up to our nation’s leaders – Congress, the President, state and local officials – to make sure that workers can earn family supporting wages, and that income supports and nutrition assistance programs reach more people in need and provide more adequate benefits. That means strengthening, not cutting or limiting nutrition programs."

Fast food workers in 150 cities across the U.S. on Thursday will launch strikes and sit-ins to demand a $15 minimum wage, the right to organize in the workplace, and an end to wage theft, a move that the coalition supports. "It's appalling that the people who grow our food and serve our food can't afford to eat," Berg said.

The day of action is being organized by employees of McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and KFC, who are expected to be joined by thousands of home healthcare providers, with an end goal of building a movement of low-wage workers.

"Sometimes things have to bottom out... before people wake up," Berg said. "I think that waking up is happening now."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

FOCUS | Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal

FOCUS | Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal



Obama Makes Bushism the New Normal
By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
03 September 14

n a lot of ways, we’re worse off today than we were under George W. Bush.

Back then, Bush’s extremist assault on civil liberties, human rights and other core American values in the name of fighting terror felt like an aberration.

The expectation was that those policies would be quickly reversed, discredited — and explicitly outlawed — once he was no longer in power.

Instead, under President Barack Obama, they’ve become institutionalized.

There will be no snapping back to a pre-Bush-era respect for basic human dignity and civil rights. Thanks to Obama, it’s going to be a hard, long fight.

In some cases, Obama has set even darker precedents than his predecessor. Massively invasive bulk surveillance of Americans and others has been expanded, not constrained. This president secretly condemns people to death without any checks or balances, and shrugs as his errant drones massacre innocent civilians. Whistleblowers and journalists who expose national security wrongdoing face unprecedented criminal prosecution.

In a few cases, Obama publicly distanced himself from Bush/Cheney excesses, but to little effect. He forswore torture, and promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. But by actively covering up what happened in the U.S.’s torture chambers, and by refusing to hold the torturers and their political masters in any way accountable, he has done nothing to make sure that the next time a perceived emergency comes up, it won’t all happen again. And Gitmo, which he treated as a political rather than moral issue, is still very much open for business.

To his credit, Obama is not driven, like Bush and Dick Cheney were, to involve us in massive land wars. And he inherited a mess full of no-win scenarios. But he chose to extend a dead-end war in Afghanistan for two years — and 1,300 American lives — based on political optics rather than military strategy. And he is blind to reality in the Middle East; cleaving to the belief that airstrikes and fealty to Israel are viable long-term strategies, and ignoring the fact that his counter-terrorism policies actually create more terrorists than they destroy.

In retrospect, what the country needed was a radical break from the Bush/Cheney national security policies: A reestablishment of American moral integrity; a rejection of decision-making based on fear (of terrorism, or of political blowback); a reassertion of the international laws of war; and a national reckoning.

Instead, the hopes for any change are slim. Obama has eroded the credibility of any future promises of expansive reform in the area of national security. And, in any case, no such promises are forthcoming: Congressional response to the recent disclosures has been narrowly focused and prone to loopholes; the current leadership of both political parties — and their likeliest standard-bearers in 2016 — aren’t expressing any outrage at all.

As surely — if not as enthusiastically — as his predecessor, Obama has succumbed to the powerful systemic pressures that serve the needs of the military-intelligence-industrial complex. Secrecy is rampant. Politics drives policy. There is no accountability. Congressional and judicial oversight have become a bitter joke. And the elite press gets tighter and tighter with those to whom it should be adversarial.

That, in short, is where I find myself today, as I take up my blogging cudgel again, at The Intercept.

Those of you familiar with my White House Watch column on washingtonpost.com (it ran from early 2004 to mid-2009) may remember my attempt to organize the data stream about the White House, with intelligence and voice.

Reading copiously is one approach. Even in a flawed press climate, a pretty compelling picture emerges when you connect the dots. I’ll be doing that relentlessly, and with a particular focus on the areas that concern me the most. Among them: National security issues and whistleblowing; the collapse of oversight; media failure; political exploitation of fear; torture; the corrupting influence of money; and the moral bankruptcy of the major political parties.

I also want to spend a lot of time exploring issues related to privacy policy in an era of ubiquitous data. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s primary and most admirable goal was to spark a national conversation about surveillance and privacy. But the conversations that have ensued have been relatively narrow and muted.

I’ll be doing original reporting — from the Snowden archive, and elsewhere. I’ll be asking lots of questions. And I intend to serve as a megaphone for sometimes insufficiently heard people who have great ideas — and who have a track record of being proven correct over time, rather than, say, consistently wrong. (Nominees welcome!)

And I’ll be depending on readers to do it all. There’s so much more to keep track of than there was even five years ago — heck, keeping abreast of Twitter lately has been nearly a full-time job — so I’ll need help finding the newest, the most intriguing, the best and the worst. There will be new ways for informed readers to make important contributions to the discussion.

Most significantly, this is a work in progress. The principal goal that seems to be emerging at First Look Media — the umbrella organization financed by Pierre Omidyar that publishes The Intercept — is experimentation in the pursuit of accountability.

If you have ideas on how I can do any of this better (from the micro to the macro; story topics to software) I want to hear them. Post a comment; email me at dan.froomkin@theintercept.com; or use our open-source whistleblower submission system, SecureDrop. I’ll try to be transparent about what I’m thinking, and what I’m doing.

The blog will have a handful of regular features — at least one of which will be familiar to White House Watch readers. Cartoon Watch will be back, because political cartoonists, as a group, remain our most incisive truth-tellers. I’ll also have an Open Book feature, to call attention to great accountability reporting books; and we’ll play around with the concept of Frequently Unanswered Questions (FUQ).