jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (30 posts)

Obama News Balackout

  1. American View profile image61
    American Viewposted 5 years ago

    I found thia news article and was wondering if its true. I was hoping it was not fro if Obama did order a blackout, this would be the most damming evidence that he does not care about what happens to Americans. I called a friend that works for FAA and confirmed the no-fly ban but said it did not state why. mWhat also ssikes me in the article is the OPPD does not deny this has happened, they just say they disagree with the "terminology" that the FAAE used. So that indicates there was some kind of incident there, whether or not if it is as serious as the FAAE says. The conclusion one can have after reading between the lines is that Obama or someone in his administration has definatly ordered a blacout on this story. Another mistake in Obamas term as President.  After you read the article WHat do you think, Blackout or no blackout?

    A shocking report prepared by Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAAE) on information provided to them by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that the Obama regime has ordered a “total and complete” news blackout relating to any information regarding the near catastrophic meltdown of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant located in Nebraska. 

    According to this report, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant suffered a “catastrophic loss of cooling” to one of its idle spent fuel rod pools on 7 June after this plant was deluged with water caused by the historic flooding of the Missouri River which resulted in a fire causing the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to issue a “no-fly ban” over the area.

    Located about 20 minutes outside downtown Omaha, the largest city in Nebraska, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant is owned by Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) who on their website denies their plant is at a “Level 4” emergency by stating: “This terminology is not accurate, and is not how emergencies at nuclear power plants are classified.”

    Russian atomic scientists in this FAAE report, however, say that this OPPD statement is an “outright falsehood” as all nuclear plants in the world operate under the guidelines of the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) which clearly states the “events” occurring at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant do, indeed, put it in the “Level 4” emergency category of an “accident with local consequences” thus making this one of the worst nuclear accidents in US history.

    Though this report confirms independent readings in the United States of “negligible release of nuclear gasses” related to this accident it warns that by the Obama regimes censoring of this event for “political purposes” it risks a “serious blowback” from the American public should they gain knowledge of this being hidden from them.

    Interesting to note about this event was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chief, Gregory B. Jaczko, blasting the Obama regime just days before the near meltdown of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant by declaring that “the policy of not enforcing most fire code violations at dozens of nuclear plants is “unacceptable” and has tied the hands of NRC inspectors.”

    This report further notes that the “cover-up” of this nuclear disaster by President Obama is being based on his “fantasy” of creating so-called green jobs which he (strangely) includes nuclear power into as his efforts to bankrupt the US coal industry proceed at a record breaking pace.

    Unknown to the American people about Obama’s “war” on the US coal industry is it’s estimated to cost them over a 60% increase in their electricity bills by 2014 and cause over 250,000 jobs to be lost in an already beleaguered economy.

    More ominous for those American people whose lives depend on the coal industry that is being deliberately destroyed is the Obama regime’s  massive “security exercise” currently ongoing in the major coal mining States of Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, and as we can read about, in part, as reported by InfoWars.Com:

    “If you’re still living under the delusion that the TSA is just restricted to airports then think again. A joint VIPR “security exercise” involving military personnel has Transportation Security Administration workers covering 5,000 miles and three states, illustrating once again how the TSA is turning into a literal occupying army for domestic repression in America.

    The TSA, in alliance with a whole host of federal, state, local agencies as well as military personnel, is currently conducting a massive “security exercise” throughout Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia.

    “The participating teams are composed of a variety of TSA assets including federal air marshals, canine teams, inspectors and bomb appraisal officers. They will be joined by state and local law enforcement officials to supplement existing resources, provide detection and response capabilities. The exercise will utilize multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams,” reports the Marietta Times.

    Although the exercise is couched in serious rhetoric about preparedness, it relates to “no specific threat” and the details are nebulous to say the least and seems to revolve around little else than testing out high-tech surveillance equipment and reminding Americans who their bosses are.”

    Obama’s fears of the American people turning against nuclear power, should its true dangers be known, appear to be valid as both Germany and Italy (whose people, unlike the Americans, have been told the truth) have turned against it after the disaster in Japan and vowed to close all of their atomic plants. 

    Perhaps even more sadly for the American people is this report stating that the Obama regime is “walking in lockstep” with Japan in their attempts to keep the truth of nuclear accidents from their citizens; which in the case of the Japanese can only be labeled as horrific as new evidence points to them knowing within hours of the Great Tsunami that their atomic reactors had melted down, but have only today ordered an evacuation of pregnant women from what are called “radiation hotspots.”   

    With a country that some scientists are now warning may soon become uninhabitable due to radiation damage, and with reports of mutant rabbits and radioactive whales now being reported, one wonders if in knowing the truth the American people would really want to follow Japan’s “example” instead of those people in Germany and Italy?

    But, with an already documented 35% increase in the infant mortality rate for American mothers living in the western coastal regions of the US caused by radiation blowing onto them from Japan being ignored by these people there doesn’t seem to be much hope for them.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      what's a "Balackout"?

  2. TMMason profile image76
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    I would take alex Jones and info-wars with a grain of salt till I could verify anything he and they claim with other sources.

    But hey, you never know with the American News media.

    I have seen this story on a number of sites, but they all seem to source the same russian news site... so?...

  3. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Sorcha Faal... Internet Hoax Queen Courtesy of One David Booth.
    Posturing as a scientists associated with the Russian Academy of Science, this newcomer raised many eyebrows"

    ...She's said alot of things....
    Check it out and see:

    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sorchafa … ar08.shtml

  4. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Found another one:

    "Who is Sorcha Faal?

    Sorcha Faal & Russian Intelligence: Is There a Connection?

    The reports have been circulating on the internet for more a month. A “complete media blackout” ordered by the United States to prevent American's from learning of a torpedo attack by North Korea upon the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. The Gulf Oil Spill was planned.

    The platform which was built by South Korea's Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd, is said to have been attacked by a North Korean vessel named the Dai Hong Dan.

    The report, which is said to have been circulating in the Kremlin, intimates that two days before the assault, the ship left Havana harbor in Cuba, to damage the economy of South Korea and the Gulf coast of the United States.

    According to the secret report, the oil rig was not only fired upon by torpedoes, but sustained damaged by a suicide attack by a SSC Sang-o Class Mini Submarine, which detonated directly underneath the platform.

    These reports are frightening, horrific, and are sufficient to justify war. They are also completely false.

    For several years, similar terrible reports of impending nuclear war, imminent attacks upon the United States by Russia and massive cosmic explosions near the South Pole.

    Despite the fact that these dire warnings relate to diverse catastrophes, they all have one thing in common: they begin with the words “By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Russian Subscribers”...


    2 reports on 2 different stories circulating about a media blackout by: 1. the United States, and 2. Obama

    What are the odds?

  5. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Unknown to the American people about Obama’s “war” on the US coal industry is it’s estimated to cost them over a 60% increase in their electricity bills by 2014 and cause over 250,000 jobs to be lost in an already beleaguered economy."

    This is not true.

    I knew it AV....which one are you? Or are you all one?

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      If you read the first paragraph, I stated "I found this articl I do not know if its true" SO dont accuse me of anything in the article. I wazs just looking for a response of do you think its real or not. Funny I saw a Weather report on CNN this Morning briefly stating about the fact that the water will rise some more this week adding to the problems at the Nebraska Power Plant. They did not say anything else and I went to CNN website and could not find a story on the subject. So before you blame of attempt to name call, something you saif you did not do in another thread with me,m be sure of the facts

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry--I say what I say for a reason. Something is way too  familiar with you.
        Coming on here real nice-like...posting some tame, nicey threads...lots of em, and then BAM!

        The Obama-Bashing begins.
        And I assume it will be non-stop, insinuating, really vile stuff.

        Go for it....I won't buy it. No big deal, you don't buy me either.

        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this


          You are looking for something that is not there. There is no BAM. No Batman here. LOL Anyway, I am not here to insult anyone. In fact if you recall I apologized to you in another thread when you thought I was attacking you when that was not the intention of what I wrote. We all say what we say for a reason. I do not bash anyone, no vile here. If you want that you need to find another hubber.. If you have read my hubs and threads you will see I am an independent and tell it like it is. I use facts based on Gov reports like the CBO. I call everyone on the carpet when they are not doing something to better America. On both the right and left. I have attacked Gingrich, Palin. Romney, Paul just to name a few. Having said that if someone posts an inacrate statement I will correct them. and again, if you read my hubs and threads I have given credit on the few things he deserved and correct those who bash him with wrong facts.

    2. TMMason profile image76
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that one, the coal industy, is. He said it himself, "under my energy plan cost would neccesarily have to skyrocket." The coal industy has taken some mighty heavy hits from the admin lately and more are coming.

      http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama- … s-of-jobs/

      http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/05 … 34833.html

      http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010 … ama-admin/

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If that's true, it is deserved. They have been "hitting" us for centuries!

        1. TMMason profile image76
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This is a blatent attempt to push us into green energy which does not work and is unfiesable, and will be for the next 70 years or more. Adnd we see it, deny it all you want, Chris.

          1. American View profile image61
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank You TMM.

          2. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I want green energy! I'm sick of coal oil and gas having the monopoly.
            And they have stood it the way of any change--Time for them to share. Even if it cuts into their deep, dirty pockets.

            1. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Green is good but even the experts agree Green energy might be able to supply a vrey small amout of energy overall

    3. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As I said facts, if you do not believe what Obama wants to do with the coal industry, here nit from his own mouth in an interview. Notice how he stuuters in the beginning because he knows he was called on the carpet for saying it.
      President Obama's jobs council will make its first recommendations today on lifting hiring and strengthening the economy. Too bad the message doesn't seem to be reaching the Administration's regulators, in particular the Environmental Protection Agency.
      The EPA is currently conducting a campaign against coal-fired power and one of its most destructive weapons is a pending regulation to limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants like dioxins or acid gases that power plants emit. The 946-page rule mandates that utilities install "maximum achievable control technology" under the Clean Air Act—and even by the EPA's lowball estimates, it is the most expensive rule in the agency's history.
      In 1990, Congress gave the EPA discretion to decide if mercury regulation is "necessary and appropriate," and the Clinton Administration did so in its final days. The Bush Administration created a modest mercury program, only to have it overturned by an appeals court on technical grounds in its final days. The case was still in litigation when Mr. Obama took office, and his appointees used the opening to strafe the power industry, proposing a much more stringent rule.
      The EPA issued the utility rule in March, with only 60 days for public comment. Basic administrative practice usually affords between 120 and 180 days, especially for complex or costly regulations of this scale. The proposal was obviously rushed, with numerous errors like overstating U.S. mercury emissions by a factor of 1,000. The word in Washington is that the openly politicized process unsettled even the EPA's career staff.
      The agency estimates that the utility rule will cost $10.9 billion annually but will yield as much as $140 billion in total health and environmental benefits. Sounds like a deal. But most of those alleged benefits are indirect—i.e., not from the mercury reductions that the rule is supposed to be for. Rather, they come from pollutants ("airborne particles") that the EPA already regulates under other parts of the Clean Air Act. A good analogy is a corporation double-counting revenue.
      According to the EPA's own numbers, every dollar in direct benefits costs $1,847. The reason is that electric generation—yes, even demon coal—results in negligible quantities of air pollutants like mercury. And mercury is on the decline: In 2005, the entire U.S. coal fleet emitted 26% less than the EPA predicted.
      The real goal of the EPA's rule is to shut down fossil fuel electric power in the name of climate change. The consensus estimate in the private sector is that the utility rule and eight others on the EPA docket will force the retirement of 60 out of the country's current 340 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. Reliability downgrades will hit the South and Midwest where coal energy is concentrated. American Electric Power recently announced that the rules will force it to shut down five plants in West Virginia and Ohio, a quarter of its coal fleet.
      The power industry estimates that the true costs of the utility rule will far exceed the EPA estimates, which of course will be passed to consumers and businesses as higher prices. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, normally a White House union ally, says the rule will destroy 50,000 jobs and another 200,000 down the supply chain. That's more jobs lost than if Boeing went bust.
      Astonishingly, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claimed in March that the utility rule is "expected to create jobs," because it will "increase demand for pollution control technology" and "new workers will be needed to install, operate, and maintain" it. In other words, the government should harm an industry and force it to ruin working assets so maybe other people can clean up the mess.
      Such theories help explain why the economic recovery and job creation are far weaker than they ought to be, but the good news is that even many Democrats are beginning to push back against the EPA's willful damage. The least Congress can do is force the EPA to delay the final utility rule to allow for more public debate, though a better option would be to junk it.

  6. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "his efforts to bankrupt the US coal industry proceed at a record breaking pace."

    THIS is how you know it's a Koch-S*cker article.

    Dis-Info, and lies.

    1. Hugh Williamson profile image91
      Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In old time elections, they would spread a falsehood by having pairs of party people go into large office buildings, then ride the elevators up and down a few times, while they loudly discussed some blatant lie about an opponent.

      Today, we have the internet forums.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No sh*t!

  7. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago

    The Internet is a great resource for educating, informing, and transcending borders. That’s why it is also polluted with blatant lies, misinformation, and half-truths intentionally designed to sway, mislead and confuse readers. Anyone who voluntarily duplicates, or circulates, any extreme and possibly untrue propaganda without verifying its accuracy before hand is, knowingly or unknowingly, a dupe aiding and abetting the polluters.

  8. Hugh Williamson profile image91
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    "Sorry--I say what I say for a reason. Something is way too  familiar with you.
    Coming on here real nice-like...posting some tame, nicey threads...lots of em, and then BAM!"

    ZZ Top?

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe....definitely the name...always has to be something "patriotic" involved.

  9. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    Here is a link to New York Times article!
    Does not look like much of a Black-out to me?


    or disaster for that matter?

    1. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and one of their Kochsters or Bibi'ers or Murdoch'ers spun it out of control into an "Obama is the Devil Rant".

      They have no morals, no decency, no sense of honesty or integrity.

      It is war, and they play to win.

    2. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      Blackout means you are not told the truth. NY times,contolled by Dem stock holders, only printed that because the story was starting to come out. Here is another article that came out today. I like the part when asked about an evacutation plan they were told to go to facebook. That is near the end of the article

      After several calls to various offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers I was not able to get any information or documentation on a current safety plan for flooding occurring at the Level 4 Nuclear Accident in Fort Calhoun Nebraska.

      With mounting concerns for Public Safety and the continued flooding at the Plant, the USACE notified me that they do not currently have a plan in regards to public safety, possible release of radiation into the waterways or for the threat of additional risks or safety in regards to further breaches with the Level 4 Nuclear threat still unresolved.

      Fort Calhoun’s single reactor has been shut down since April for refueling. The plant had already been operating under a heightened level of alert because of nearby flooding on the Missouri River, and now with last week’s fire in an electrical switch room last Tuesday’s, the intermittent interruption of the cooling system for a pool holding spent nuclear fuel at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant leaves residents unsettled.

      With conflicting reports from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner saying power was restored to the first pump in about two hours, the utility, the Omaha Public Power District, which operates the plant said it took only one hour.

      With a population of 20,639 within 10 miles of Fort Calhoun; and nearby area’s the population within 50 miles was 953,410. The closest major city is Omaha, with a population of 408,958, whose center is less than 18 miles (29 km) from the plant.

      Many families and citizen are asking for some kind of emergency action and response from from Lt. Colonel Antwerp and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who are in control of Flood levels from dams and spillways along the area.

      UPDATE as of 2:42PM EDT – Paul Johnston of the Joint information HUB with USACE left a message that there is no emergency plan with the Flooding at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant with the current flooding or plans to advert floodwaters away and it is not there responsiblity, it is Omaha Power District. Kyla from the same office did offer a better solution she directed me to their FACEBOOK Page – Operation Mighty MO, so is that were we are keeping the Nations Emergency Response Plans and Public Safety now?

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi AV. 
        “Blackout” means that a news story has been suppressed, as in “buried”, “hidden”, or unreported due to censorship.  Apparently, there is no evidence of a blackout, which must not sit well with the conspiracy theorists. 
        For decades, the ownership of the paper has been controled by the family of fourth-generation publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., currently chairman of the board of its holding company, The New York Times Company.

        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Quill, This indident occured June 7th and has been surpress till 2 days ago when the Russians made it publoic. There was quick denials but since there are slowly stories coming out but still not giving full discloser because the were told not to. Thats blacking out a story, or maybe surpressing is a better term for some.
          I was not questioning who owns the times, I was staing a report which can be verified by checking the site and financial records that are public that congressman have to report. The Dems hold a tremendous amount of media stock and can influence a story. So do Repubs have interests in media stocks as well
          As recent political fiascoes involving Rep. Anthony Weiner and ex-Sen. John Edwards have shown, the power of the press carries weight, especially in Washington. Careers of high-rising politicos can be buried or propelled to new heights in a matter of minutes by the media.

          But many members of Congress actually have a vested interest -- beyond just their political careers -- in the performance of the same organizations that are supposed to be their watchdogs, a Center for Responsive Politics investigation indicates.

          About 60 U.S. senators and representatives, or their spouses, hold assets in at least 19 different news organizations or media conglomerates, according to the Center's analysis of federal personal financial disclosure documents.

          At least seven congressmen have media investments worth a minimum of $100,000, and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) leads the pack with his family's multi-million-dollar holdings in multiple media companies, including a significant investment in News Corp.

          The latest casualty of a sex scandal, Weiner (D-N.Y.), who has dominated the news cycle ever since he tweeted a picture of his crotch three weeks ago, is one of the congressmen to own stock in a news company.
          Weiner owns New York Times' assets valued between $10,000 and $15,000, according to his 2009 personal financial disclosure report, the most recent available. (Members are only required to list the value of their assets in broad ranges.) The Times has been reporting on the congressman's scandal with multiple stories and blog posts each day.

          Many members of Congress and editorial boards of news organizations have also asked Weiner to step down.

          And although the Times has not shown its support for Weiner in any way, congressmen's interest in media investments should be questioned, said Kevin Smith, chairman of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists.

          "If congressmen are investing in the New York Times, does that filter into the newsroom? What happens is that it does raise red flags."

          Edwards, a former senator and presidential candidate who was recently indicted on six counts of campaign finance violations, may also still have holdings in media companies.

          Edwards has previously reported investments in Comcast and Viacom, two of the biggest media conglomerates, according to his 2004 disclosure report from his time as a U.S. senator. He also disclosed holdings in GateHouse Media, which owns nearly 500 publications nationwide, when he announced his presidential bid during the 2008 election cycle.

          Gannett Co., Walt Disney (which owns ABC), News Corp., CBS, Washington Post, Thomas Reuters and E.W. Scripps Co. are some of the other news organizations in which members of Congress invest.

          Robin Pence, spokeswoman for Gannett, which owns 82 newspapers (including USA Today) and 23 television stations, says that the company has never looked into whether any members of Congress hold the company's stock.

          They include Kerry, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Reps. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rick Berg (R-N.D.) and James Renacci (R-Ohio).

          Such investments could be problematic depending on the congressmen's motives -- are they politically strategic or financially strategic decisions?
          And with such a large number of politicians having holdings in the media, questions behind their motives will undoubtedly be raised.

          "Either they are all going to the same investment strategist, or they have some sort of game plan," Smith said.

          We contacted the offices of more than a dozen politicians who reported owning stock in media companies. Many did not return messages, and some stated that they were not allowed to comment on their congressmen's personal investments.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hi AV,
            Don’t think for a second that I am opposed to the points you are trying to make. I’m not.

            That’s true. I only pointed your error. You did not question who owns the times, you  STATED the times was “controlled by Dem stock holders,” which is a distortion of the truth. You do yourself a disservice when you create the impression among your readers than your comments are untrue.

            Owning stock in the NY Times does not buy editorial influence.  One who researches the paper’s equity structure will discover this in a New York minute. The stock is divided into classes cleverly designed to keep editorial control beyond the reach of investors. To imply that a congressman has influence with a news outlet on the grounds that he bought stock in the company on the open market is ludicrous. If you have proof a congressman has influenced at a newspapers then state your facts and not innuendo.

            Good practice requires writers to use quotation marks and to cite the original source when using words that are not their own. You do neither.  This makes it impossible to separate your errors from those you are copying.  For example, you claim

            An accurate report would identify who was told not to fully disclose the story and by whom, and it would reveal the source of the information. I hope you will share these three items with us.
            I am not your enemy, AV, only a friend who is trying to point out a few errors.

  10. recommend1 profile image72
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    I am always suspicious when errors produce words like balackout, or Barrack Osama or Balack Osama.  Especially when accompanied by a total bull@hit story, this suspicion grows when the story is clearly and completely debunked and the OP goes blabbering on regardless as though the original lie was never exposed.  It screams ploticical shill to me.  misspelling intended.

  11. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    AV, if the green industry is only capable of producing a small amount of enegy overall, why are the oil and coal industries spending so much money and time fighting it? Why are they buying up technology and keeping it away from those who might be able to use it to clean up our environment? If it represented no danger to their profits, I doubt they would be spending millions of dollars to stop it.

    If they have no need to fear this and simply enjoy wasting money, I feel they have no need of the billions of dollars in subsidies tax payers are force to pay for. These subsidies allow them to spend billions buying legislation and representatives and according to you and others like TM, they have no need to do so. If there is no threat to their record profits why spend billions fighting and imaginary foe?