Posts Tagged The Intel Hub
By Alex Thomas
June 25, 2012
In yet another absurd series of exchanges between a DEA agent and a sitting Congressman, the top DEA agent in America refused to say that crack or heroin are worse for someones health than marijuana.
The exchange, filmed during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on June 20th, took place between Colorado Democratic Rep. Jared Polis and Drug Enforcement Agency administrator Michele Leonhart.
This is a must watch video that explains how the Patriot Act and the NDAA have suspended the Constitution and brought about the death of freedom in America.
The Intel Hub
By Ralph Epperson
March 17, 2012
In part 1, I explained that members of Pres. Bill Clinton’s Administration started pressuring “Fannie Mae and local banks” to “expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.”
I pointed out that no banker would make a loan when he knew that the bank would not get paid back by the party taking out the mortgage.
All banks are in the business of loaning out money only when the borrower has the ability to make his payments. So, why then would a BANKER make any loan like this?
The answer has to be:
They were promised bailouts, in that they would be reimbursed by someone else.
The local banker was promised that THEY WOULD BE REIMBURSED BY FANNIE MAE …..
And Fannie Mae would be re-imbursed by the Federal Government …..
And the Federal Government would be reimbursed by the Federal Reserve …..
And the Federal Reserve would be reimbursed by THE TAXPAYERS!!!
And guess what ………. this is exactly what happened!
……… on BORROWED MONEY ……….. called THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!
In article # 3, I shall discuss this process. Stay tuned.
Source: The Intel Hub
The Intel Hub
By Ralph Epperson
March 10, 2012
Some of you might remember the Mickey Rooney movies wherein he would gather his gang around, and say something like: “Hey, gang, let’s plan a party!!” Or “a dance,” or “a circus.”
But just a few years ago, Bill Clinton gathered his gang around and said: “Hey gang, let’s plan a Recession!!”
Because that’s exactly what they did, at least according to the New York Times of September 30, 1999. The article stated:
“Fannie Mae, the biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the [Bill] Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.
In addition, banks have been pressuring Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so called “subprime borrowers.”
That means that the Clinton Administration and his gang were “planning a Recession.”
But the gang had a problem: no banker would make loans to those who didn’t have the means to pay them back. If any banker made too many of these loans, they would go bankrupt.
They bankers would need a “BAILOUT” if these borrowers did what they were expected to do: NOT PAY THE LOANS BACK!!!
[This is PART ONE of a multiple part article. Stay tuned for PART TWO in a couple of days.]
Source: The Intel Hub
The Intel Hub
By Tony Muga
March 17, 2012
Intel Hub Note: The Plumegate scandal has not gotten near enough coverage in both the alternative and corporate controlled media. Please send this article as well as our first two articles on Plumegate to your favorite alternative media news outlets.
- BLOCKBUSTER! FOIA Documents Reveal NRC Cover-Up, Deception Over Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
- ‘Plume-Gate’ Shocker: Media Silence Raises Troubling Questions
‘You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.’ ~Ayn Rand
Digging through the NRC FOIA documents is a Herculean task considering that there are literally thousands of pages that must be carefully sifted through.
What is revealed therein however, is well worth the trouble, for a veil is drawn back upon so doing, a window that allows a view into a multi-agency cover-up.
The tentacles of this cover-up stretch as far as the White House, indications of which can be found throughout the transcriptions and emails.
For Obama, this election cycle can’t be over soon enough; for the GOP…why are they not using Plume-Gate as a tool with which to unseat their democratic rival?
It should be noted that a disclaimer, found on page one of the FOIA documents, states:
‘Except for the marked redactions for FOIA withholding, this transcript has not been edited or otherwise reviewed for accuracy by participants or the NRC. It may contain typographical mistakes or other transcription errors.’
All italicization is done by the Author of this article for emphasis on key points.
Also, keep in mind some of the participants are aware they are being recorded and that transcripts can be sought after and made available at a later date under the Freedom of Information Act.
You Can’t Handle a Worse-Case-Scenario!
Mike: Rob, this is (inaudible). I have a question for you. This request for doses in California projected with, I guess worst-case assumptions, is that correct? (inaudible.)
Mr. Lewis: I believe the doses that we saw from DITTRA represented a source term of 100 percent of the (inaudible).
Mike: Okay. And where—is this information being considered for releasing publicly, like we do with the press release?
Mr. Lewis: Which information are you speaking about?
Mike: I’m talking about these projected dose models, the models that you—the ones that you are doing and coordinating with other agencies, is there some thought about releasing that publicly?
Mr. Lewis: We have not had that discussion at this time.
Mike: And don’t take that as a suggestion to (inaudible). I’m just curious as to how we came upon doing that with our press release, and then, are we advocating that for any future press releases here for doses in the U.S.?
Mr. Dorman: Mike, this Dan. No. No, we’re not planning any press release with this information. This was a projection that we were requested to run. Separate from our being requested to run that, we got this DOE briefing package that had this other DITTRA run in it, and we’re not—I don’t know what prompted theirs or all of the assumptions that went into theirs, but it obviously caught our attention and we are looking to get what we think would be more realistic projections. Other questions?
Ms. Howe: Dan, just one comment, and Rob. This is Linda Howe in Region IV [four]. Rob, I can talk with you offline about some background information for California. The DITTRA and DOE runs for California may have been prompted by queries from the state, because the state has been conducting interagency conference call, and DOE, EPA, HHS, has been part of those calls. Our regional state liaison officer is also monitoring that, but there is some background that is politically sensitive that I can share with you offline.
Speaking Highly of DOE.
Male Participant: And we ought to giving assistance—we ought to be giving the experts, not—
Male Participant: On the other side of this is DOE is pushing to have a contingent of DOE people join Chuck. Chuck is saying, “I don’t need that kind of help just yet.” So that’s an issue that—
Male Participant: Yes, because if he sends a contingent of DOE people, we are going to have to send a contingent of wranglers to—
Male Participant: And Chuck knows that very well.
Working on worse-case-models? Cease and Desist!
Mr. McDermott: Josh, this is Brian McDermott.
Josh: Hey, Brian, real quick. I’m giving you from the chairman a cease and desist on the modeling that we started to attempt to do yesterday with the MACS code to get all the way to the U.S.
Mr. McDermott: Okay.
Josh: We don’t need to pursue—we would like to stop pursuing that. We don’t need to do that anymore.
Mr. McDermott: Okay.
Mr. McDermott: I copy.
Josh: All right. We’ll follow up—I can follow up more after the call.
Mr. McDermott: Okay. Yeah, I’d like to understand. Thank you.
Josh: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We are being recorded; don’t talk about the California thing.
Brian: Did we ever get the—I’m trying to think of what the best term is, the—everything—everything (inaudible) scenario back from—I thought that was one we were going to ask NARAC to run once they had time.
Male Participant: Are you talking about the doses they saw all the way out in California?
Male Participant: Yeah. That is going to be run by Research in Sandia, but they are not going to be able to do it until later today.
Brian: Oh, okay.
Male Participant: Sounds like they had to modify the code first in order to do that run.
Male Participant: had to modify the MAC code. They—NARAC did do their evaluation of—using our source term, and they—they were calculating doses, particularly for children—thyroid doses of (inaudible) after—that the one year dose, assuming some very conservative assumptions about ingestion, and (inaudible) practices.
Male Participant: Historical data. And convert those doses using the same update techniques. And they have some calculations—they hadn’t shown them to be (inaudible), but they are showing millirem range doses, like one to 10 millirem.
Male Participant: (inaudible)
Male Participant: For the actual deposits. So we think there is some extreme conservatism in the DITTRA numbers, and we will know more once Research does their (inaudible).
Privately, we know all about Chernobyl.
Male Participant: We know about Chernobyl. And if we were to have (inaudible) where we are today, and U.S. citizens in the Ukraine, what would we have told them? We’ve got the benefit of knowing everything there is to know about Chernobyl. How far out would we (inaudible)? Would that be roughly consistent with the recommendation we would have made then?
[2nd] Male Participant: We haven’t looked at that aspect of it. We are looking at—we are actually looking at the deposition (inaudible) function.
I’m sorry, is this press release not good enough for you?
Mr. Castleman: Rob, this is Pat Castleman. Could we get—could the commission offices get copies of the dose projections and plume models that supported the press release and the recommendation that American citizens evacuate out to 50 miles?
Mr. Lewis: Well, you have it on the press release. Do you want something more than that?
Mr. Castleman: Yeah, more than that. That’s kind of sketchy information, so we can explain to, you know, the commissioner, so that (inaudible) currently informed.
California is one hot topic!
Dan: Yes. A couple of the data points that I think you are waiting for we don’t quite have yet. There is aerial monitoring—aerial measurement system from DOE. They did do the flight. We got that initial data package within the last hour, but I think there was—I think that (inaudible) to get that data. The other piece looking at the projections to California, Research is working with Sandia. Sandia needs to modify the code, because the code only goes out to 1,000 miles, so we expect—we are hoping later today to get that worked out and get them to start getting some runs to support.
Mr. Lewis: Okay. Good morning. I will cover four things that occupied most of the protective measures team time last night. First, there was a flight by NARAC last night, and the flight landed roughly after midnight. And the data became just available to us about an hour ago, so we’re in the process of obtaining and analyzing the data from (inaudible). We also are working—there was a request coming from last night—before last evening’s shift to develop projections for doses in California. And that is—has been in process. We will need to –in order to do that, we will need to engage with—we already have engaged with the Office of Research. We are looking to engage further with Sandia to make some modifications to the (inaudible) to effectuate those dose estimates in California. In conjunction with that,there was a DITTRA and NARAC dose estimate that was done for California that we obtained as part of the DOE briefing package. And those estimating what we believe to be very high doses to children, and a thyroid (inaudible) dosage.
Controlling the flow.
Male Participant: That would be helpful, because if NEI is looking for the background we’re not going to find it in a press release.
Male Participant: Well, they have that.
Male Participant: They want to know what was behind—
Male Participant: Are we protecting the—
Male Participant: Yes. NEI wants to know what’s behind—they want to know what’s behind it, so that they can be—
Male Participant: Are we prepared to share the whole thing with them?
Male Participant: No.
Female Participant: If we share it with NEI, we need to share it with the world. Okay? They’re a member of the public, as well, right?
Male Participant: Well, if they—you know, there’s a –you have the discretion in the releases—you are correct, that once you hand it to NEI, you have no basis to withhold it from anyone. But you do have the discretion to decide who you initially give it to.
AND MOMENTS LATER…
Male Participant: We’re getting there. That’s where it started. Is there a problem with handing it? Yes, there is. Okay. Are we willing to take them through the entire explanation?
Female Participant: Sure.
Male Participant: And they can sit there scribbling on the other end and recreate the document that we would have handed them anyhow. But we never handed them a document.
Female Participant: The short answer—
Male Participant: Done that before.
Female Participant: But the short answer to them is that the public doesn’t know what percentage of core damage (inaudible). We did not on purpose put that in the press release, because it’s a little alarming. I felt as the team director if we put in that it was hypothetical unit, you’ll see it in the press. That’s the best information.
A word about redaction: I understand redaction of documents when it comes to protecting national security, state secrets, black-ops projects, and/or even trade or design secrets of private corporations.
But when it comes to old GE reactor designs, especially the BWR Mark I reactors, experts admit they are old technology with questionable design and questionable safety records.
Why are we redacting ANYTHING at all? It would be like redacting documents from General Motors pertaining to the old Corvair: the dangerous automobile that Ralph Nadar fought to have removed from U.S. highways back in the ‘70s.
Afraid someone will copy your steering wheel design that impales drivers in low speed accidents?
The point here is: no need to hide failed technology…no one wants it. Are military secrets involved? Is National Security at stake?
I can find NO reason why the transcripts should not be available in their entirety.
A word about sound quality: I have only listened to one tape recording of conversations so I am unable to speak to the veracity of the inaudible (inaudible) sections but I will say this: for a country that spends BILLIONS on surveillance each year, why can’t we get a decent recording of the NRC phone conversations?
Do we need to upgrade microphones? Should I recommend a Rode-NT 1 with phantom power?
Much like the radiation monitoring equipment in the U.S., systems which might later be used to incriminate someone are often left under budget and under equipped.
A word about TEPCO, NISA (Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency) and the Japanese government: To be fair, the documents show that Japanese authorities were, from the start, less than forthright with the NRC about the conditions of the reactors.
Even if the NRC, DOE, DHS or White House had a policy of full disclosure (don’t laugh, I’m being hypothetical here), TEPCO and others were doing their best to cover-up the severity of the meltdowns and the condition of the plants…some delay of information was inevitable.
Nonetheless, considering our knowledge of Chernobyl, who needs TEPCO or NISA to tell us that the fallout from Fukushima will follow the Jetstream from West to East and eventually make landfall in North America?
Next in this series: Information dissemination, talking points and further evidence of the cover-up…