WTC 7: Examining the Evidence of 9/11

 Examining


We are going to present a compilation here of material regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 on September 11, 2001.



Many have argued that the World Trade Center disaster was actually the result of a controlled demolition project planned well in advance by parties unknown. Much of the focus on the disaster that day has been centered on Towers 1 and 2, which were struck by aircraft. It has also been argued by many, that the damage from the aircraft and ensuing fires would not have been sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse at nearly free-fall speed. There is compelling evidence to support the idea that the planes could not have brought down the towers, but perhaps the most compelling is that WTC7 was never struck by a plane at all, and yet that building too also collapsed in a way that seems to defy any explanation other than a controlled demolition.

But let's start by looking at the official explanation first. Could fire be the reason that Building 7 collapsed, as we have been told by government officials? It seems rather unlikely, considering that it has never happened before, or since. Yet on 9/11, we are told that three steel buildings were brought down primarily by fire. And again, one of those buildings was not even hit by a plane loaded with fuel.

This is a picture of the fires still burning in WTC7 in the late afternoon of September 11.

Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.

In 1975, World Trade Center Tower 1 also burned on several floors, for several hours, with no modernized fire suppression system or fire-proofing material in place, but did not collapse.


Of course, these towering infernos were not struck by aircraft and were not struck by the debris of the Twin Towers as they collapsed. So let's have a look now at what sort of damage a building can suffer and still remain standing.

This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.

For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and the building was no more.

The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.

Relatively small fires, comparatively far less structural damage than others, yet WTC7 still fell, uniformly, into a nice neat pile.

Even when buildings do happen to collapse, perhaps after an earthquake, they do not implode. Here are some images of what happens when critical supports in a building fail.

Even when specialists spend months planning and spend weeks placing huge amounts of explosives all throughout a building, it is still a difficult task to bring down a building in it's own footprint. There are no guarantees, as these videos show. Demolitions gone wrong, click here, here, and here to see them.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex first explained the collapse of Building 7 saying he gave the order to "pull it." This is a term often used in demolitions, meaning to pull down the building.


Strangely, given the subsequent information you will read here in a moment which has been kown for years, Secretary of State John Kerry also explained the destruction as a controlled demolition rather than an unexpected collapse. 

There is a very serious problem with that explanation though. Fire departments are not trained or equipped for demolitions operations. Fire trucks do not carry explosives, firefighters do not knock down buildings. Even for the world's leading specialists a demolition of that scale is not something that could be done in a matter of hours in a damaged and burning skyscraper. The only explanation could be that the explosives were set, before 9/11.

Silverstein later tried to revise the meaning of his statement, saying that he meant "pull it" as in to pull the rescue effort, and to pull out the firefighters in the building. The only problem with that, is that there were no firefighters in the building according to FEMA, because there was no water available to carry out interior firefighting operations. This video clip corroborates that. That clip also alludes to previous knowledge of impending collapse.

How did anyone know the building was going to collapse before it actually did? Why wasn't it predicted that other, more badly damaged buildings were going to fall, even though they never did? What were the telltale signs that Building 7 was going to collapse?

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

Why did the BBC report that the building had collapsed, 20 minutes before it actually did?


In this video clip, you will hear someone declare that the building ia about to "blow up" as you hear what sounds like explosives going off in the background. Odd choice of words. Blow up. And who told them it was going to blow up?


Perhaps the sounds of bombs going off was a clue, but bombs had been going off all day. Something that was completely overlooked by the media and has never been explained.


But perhaps the most chilling account of bombs in WTC 7 comes from Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. That fateful morning he raced to the Office of Emergency Management located in WTC7, to find it eerily empty, except for New York City's corporate counsel Michael Hess. An explosion trapped the two inside the building. Keep in mind that what he talks about here in the following interview happened before either of the Twin Towers fell, and therefore before the collapses had done any damage to Building 7.


Unfortunately, Barry Jennings will never be able to testify on record about what he saw that day. He died, for unknown reasons, just days before the NIST report on 9/11 was released in 2008. One of the film makers who interviewed Jennings for the film Loose Change hired an investigator to find out more about Jennings' mysterious death. All that he found was Jennings' home empty, and up for sale. He then returned the money to the man who hired him, and told the filmmaker to never contact him again. This only added to the mystery. A commenter at a website claimed to be Jennings' son, and claimed his father had died of leukemia, but the identity of the commenter has never been verified.

Hess publicly corroborated important elements of Jennings' account.


This video examines the collapse of WTC7 and some elements of the NIST report.


If that video was a little too technical for you, don't worry. Most of us are not engineers. There are plenty of real experts out there though, thousands of them, who disagree with the government's findings. This video summarizes the details of the WTC 7 collapse in terms we can all understand.

John Kerry Admits WTC7 Was Controlled Demolition (VIDEO)

It seems clear, enough from much of the video evidence presented and testimony from people who were there, that the World Trade Center building number 7 was brought down intentionally through controlled demolitions.

Some have claimed that towers 1 & 2 were also brought down deliberately with controlled demolition, arguing that the plane strikes alone were not sufficient to bring them down in the fashion in which we all saw them collapse. Keep in mind however, that no plane struck building 7 on 9/11.

Also keep in mind that the demolition of a building takes weeks, even months of preparation and planning. This is not something that can be accomplished in a matter of a few hours, and this is not something that first-responders are trained or equipped to accomplish. The fire department doesn't have tons of explosives laying around, just in case they have to bring down an unstable skyscraper. Assuming too of course, that the building actually was unstable at all.

What John Kerry is admitting to here, is that 9/11 was planned in advance by parties unknown who had direct access to set demolitions explosives throughout WTC7.



He is not the first politician to come forward and make a statement which undermines the "official" narrative of what happened on 9/11. For years we heard all about the heroism aboard Flight 93. They even made a movie about it. Anyone who questioned how an airliner could simply disappear into a small ditch in a field in Pennsylvania was laughed off as a conspiracy nut. Even to this day, most people don't realize that Dick Cheney himself has publicly admitted that he ordered Flight 93 be shot down. Whether that was the right call to make is debatable, but the fact remains that we were lied to about what happened to Flight 93.

Flight 93 Shot Down by Dick Cheney

Armed Clerk Foils Liquor Store Robbery

Being a veteran of four combat tours in Iraq, as well as being a prison guard and a private investigator, this liquor store clerk is no stranger to danger. But at the end of the day, it was his right to bear arms that saved the day.

Check out the video as this quick-thinking clerk turns the tables on the belligerent burglar.

USMC Hacked by Pro-Syrians

via: ZeroHedge

Following President Obama's decision to pass the blame buck to Congress (and its oh-so-great track record of making decisions), the Syrian Electronic Army has struck again. This time right at the heart of the matter - defacing the "Marines.com" website. As The Independent reports, the US Marines received a message calling for support from their "brothers, the Syrian army soldiers" – in the form of a web attack changing the homepage of the official Marines recruitment site to a page entitled "“Hacked by SEA." The message also stated, "Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al-Qaida insurgents," which seems to fit with many of their perspectives as we have noted previously. Full text and screenshot below...

Full text:

"This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA"

This will not be the last of the SEA though, as the BBC interviewed the hackers (via email) and a spokesman said the SEA had "many surprises" to come. He added: "Military intervention in Syria has many consequences and will affect the whole world. Our main mission is to spread truth about Syria and what is really happening."

Is Earth Getting Bigger?

If this is true, then it must also be true that the Earth is hollow. If the Earth is hollow, is it possible that there is life on the inside?


Do a little reading on the subject at this link:

Mind Blowing Research Suggests That Earth Could Actually Be Hollow

Kerry's Speech On Syria, War Appears Imminent

Commentary courtesy of J. Marselus VanWagner


It seems clear enough that if the missiles are not already in the air, a U.S. strike on Syria is imminent. The following is Secretary Kerry's full speech from today, with editorial commentary inserted among the full transcript. 

Well, for the last several days, President Obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in Syria. And today, I want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.

We were also told that proof of yellow-cake and an Iraqi nuclear program were "undeniable." We were led to believe that Colin Powell brought some special and secret evidence to the UN behind closed doors, which the American public was not privy to. That was all a lie.

In this instance, we already have reason to doubt the veracity of the claim that chemical weapons were used because in March we were told the same thing, that Syria had used chemicals on civilians. Yet those reports proved to be unfounded.

Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria

Kerry also starts off his speech by trying to take the moral high-ground, speaking of killing innocent civilians, while Bradley Manning rots in prison for revealing America's own moral depravity.

Collateral Murder: A Wikileaks Video of An Iraq War Atrocity

Notice too, the strategic time frame of his conviction, and his credibility among the political right destroyed by his being outed as an alleged transsexual.

And while Kerry speaks of the evils of chemical weapons, let us also not ignore the effects of American weapons systems, particularly with our use of depleted uranium munitions. Besides, at the end of the day once can hardly discern the moral righteousness of killing innocents with one weapon over another, dead is dead, and suffering is suffering.

Syrian Troops Fire On Civilians (WARNING: Graphic Video)

Syrian Rebels Behead Catholic Priest (WARNING: Graphic Video)

So while Kerry tries to make the case for America taking some moral high ground here in choosing sides, in a conflict that has indeed brought so much suffering to the people of Syria, let's also keep in mind exactly who we are going to be supporting.

Syrian Rebel Cannibalizes Corpse of Government Soldier (WARNING: Graphic Video)

The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.

There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.

And there is a reason why, no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.

If it happened, if chemicals weapons were actually used, then it certainly is cause for some concern. It is certainly possible, even likely that a chemical attack did take place.

But should it be of enough concern for the United States to act unilaterally against another sovereign state and embroil ourselves in yet another global conflict, acting as the world policeman, without even knowing which side is responsible? The consequences of US meddling are less justified than our other misadventures in the past, and the consequences are likely to be fare more severe this time around.

This time, Russia is unlikely to sit idly by and has made stern warnings to the US in recent days. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that US intervention would have "extremely dangerous" consequences, and that unilateral military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law.”

Russia has not even acknowledged that a chemical attack even took place. Russian President Putin told British Prime Minister Cameron  in a telephone call that there was no evidence a chemical attack took place, much less who might have been responsible if it did.

Russia is not the only concern though. Syria has warned that if they are attacked by the United States, they will respond with an attack on Israel, in a coalition along with Lebanon, Iran, and surprisingly enough, Iraq as well. Which is really the nail in the coffin for our utter failure in a nine year war in Iraq. Not to mention the explosive potential for the conflict to suddenly flashover into WWIII.

Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.

As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing, while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.

Sure, tugging at the heartstrings never hurts when spinning war propaganda. Dead babies and the obligations of the parent are always excellent tools to incite knee-jerk reaction. But no one seemed very concerned when we armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

Again, Kerry tries to take the moral high road here while ignoring America's own history of atrocities and outright lies. He shames Americans into supporting a new war, without actually providing any proof, essentially telling us that seeking facts is morally bankrupt.

The videos he talks about above which he "can't get out of his head" are not proof of anything. If they were, we should have acted back in March. Either these videos were "fabricated" as he puts it, or perhaps it was the US backed opposition who were responsible then, as it is possible they are now.

Videos Show Aftermath of Possible Syrian Chemical Attack in March

So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

This all may be true. It's quite possible that a chemical attack did take place. But just because Assad's government forces have the capacity to launch such an attack, it is hardly in their interests to do so. It is certainly not worth world condemnation and attack by the United States, simply to clear out a neighborhood in their own capital city. It also give the rebel an excuse to abandon calls for peace talks in Geneva.

But could the rebels launch a chemical attack?

It's quite possible. Most of the Syrian rebels are foreign-born fighters, not Syrians. So whoever has been funding and arming this invasion of mercenaries are the ones who are actually responsible for the entire civil war there. The rebel army is essentially an agent provocateur to begin with, and therefore certainly quite likely to use a false-flag attack to advance their mission.They are not freedom fighters, they are a proxy force being used to carry out a plan that has been in the works since 9/11, and even before.

General Wesley Clark Says 'War on Terror' Was Planned (VIDEO)

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

Most of the rebel Army have come from, or through Libya since our bombing campaign and proxy war there.

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

A U.S. weapons shipment bound for Syrian rebels was caught by officials in Lebanon back in February 2012. That might have been a major embarrassment if the news ever made it to prime time. But of course you will never see news like that on your mainstream news channel, who are more obsessed with pop culture than real news. And for those that did hear something about it, they have probably long since forgotten about it. You certainly won't hear John Kerry talking about how we have been arming this terrorist Army of Al-Qaeda affiliates and Muslim fanatics to topple the legitimate, sovereign, secular government of Syria.

It should also be mentioned here, that Americans have already been found embedded with and fighting alongside rebel forces in Syria. 

Americans Now Fighting Alongside Rebels in Syria (VIDEO)

With such support, it is certainly quite possible that the rebels got their hands on chemical weapons. Using them to attack Assad's forces directly would be a relatively ineffective "checkers" sort of move, while using such weapons in a false-flag attack would be a much more brilliant chess-move in order to draw the US into the war directly.

The attack on the CIA information station in Benghazi was likely a casualty of our proxy service in arming Syrian rebels, and perhaps even chemical weapons specifically. 

Back in January a hacker broke into the computer system of British defence contractor Britam. A document discovered in the hacked download revealed a US-plan, facilitated by Qatar to use Britam's mercenaries to carry out a false-flag chemical attack in Syria using Russian-made chemical weapons exported  from Libya. 

Now given all of this information, the possibility that opposition forces might also have chemical weapons, is very strong.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the UN. While some have questioned whether a chemical attack actually happened back in March, the UN has determined not only was the attack with sarin gas real, but that it was the rebels who carried out the attack. Not the Syrian government.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up.

Who is covering what up, we may never know, and most likely not in time to stop us from going to war. We have been promised "that information" many times before.

At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.

Wait, WHAT?!!!

So not only has Kerry and the Obama administration already rushed to judgement without so much as an investigation, but the investigation under way does not even try to figure out who is even actually responsible?!

No wonder Assad won't let inspectors in. What's the point? No matter what they find or don't find, the US (and mot likely Britain) are going to do as they please regardless. How is it in Assad's interest to allow inspections whether or not his government used chemicals, if the US is just going to say that he did use them? Even if chemical weapons were used by the rebels, any evidence of chemicals will only be used against the Syrian government. This is essentially like the US demanding that the UN be allowed in to put Assad's fingerprints on the murder weapon.

I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story.

So John Kerry seriously expects to call a "time-out" in the middle of a fight to the death, as if this whole situation were child's play.

Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systemically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons.

It is in their interest to hide evidence that could be used against them falsely, for one thing. But as we have already established, what difference does it make what the inspectors find if they can never determine who is responsible?

In fact, the regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late, and it’s too late to be credible. Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators — together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods — only further weakens the regime’s credibility.

And that my friends, means that the order has already been given. War is imminent and the strikes by US Naval and air-power will commence in days, if not hours.It makes no difference what the facts are or who actually responsible. It makes no difference that America failed to act when the rebels used chemical weapons.

At President Obama’s direction, I’ve spent many hours over the last few days on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. President Obama has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

Thank you.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC.

Just one question please Secretary Kerry. Can you spell hypocrite?

Also see:

'Mail Online' False-Flag Chemicak Attack Article Vanishes

 

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Housing Authority Bans Little Girl's Garden

4 Year Old’s Veggie Garden Must Go Says USDA Subcontractor

by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
(Be sure to follow link to source for more info and updates.)

With each passing day, it seems the United States of America, “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” is becoming more and more like the Communist Russia I learned about in elementary school where people weren’t allowed to grow their own food unless the State “allowed” it.

In this latest crackdown on citizens simply trying to provide for themselves using the most basic of skills – gardening – the USDA’s Rural Development Agency is forbidding Rosie, an industrious 4-year old girl in South Dakota from using a small, unused area outside her subsidized housing unit to grow green vegetables.

Rosie’s mother, Mary (names changed to protect the child’s identity), is single and severely disabled. She and her daughter live on a fixed income disability payment of $628/month. The garden vegetables growing just outside her backdoor lovingly tended by Rosie provide a fresh and healthy addition to their diet that they could not otherwise easily afford.

Rosie started the garden in May 2013, but now the property management company has ordered the garden be removed this week!

The reason?

The property management company claims that gardening goes against the rules set by the USDA’s Rural Development Agency which forbids residents to have structures of any kind within landscaped areas. It seems to me that the practice of growing vegetables by the most needy in our society would take precedence over landscaping, wouldn’t you agree?

I wonder if the USDA plans to establish “rules” about breathing air in subsidized areas too?

The Federal bureaucracy seems to think that it owns those individuals who receive any sort of government assistance and that their behavior is completely within its jurisdiction to control no matter how ridiculous or blatantly un-American the power-tripping “rules” they decide to put in place may be.

Think this is an isolated case?  It’s not.  I write regularly on this blog about these outrageous situations where ordinary citizens are bullied by out of control bureaucrats, the most recent being a Mother in Maine who was harassed and threatened by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for feeding her healthy, robust 3 month old son homemade goat milk formula instead of horribly unhealthy commercial formula from the store laced with rancid vegetable oils and GMOs!

What You Can Do Now to Help Rosie

It is truly unfathomable that our country has degenerated to the point where a person can no longer garden without permission from bureaucratic thugs who get paid with our hard earned tax dollars to think up these rules –  not laws - rules that have never been voted on by the elected representatives of the citizens expected to abide by those rules.

If you recall, this is exactly the sort of authoritarian insanity that started the American Revolutionary War (tea party anyone?).

Tell the USDA where it can put its “rules” against gardening by those living in rural, subsidized areas.
You can either sign the petition to save Rosie’s garden by clicking here or send an outraged letter directly to Elsie Meeks, State Director for South Dakota, USDA Rural Development Agency.

Sample Email to USDA

You can copy/paste the email template below to send directly from your email provider. Template provided courtesy of Kitchen Gardeners International, the source of this story.

To: elsie.meeks@sd.usda.gov
Cc: kevin.strickler@sd.usda.gov, trace.davids@sd.usda.gov

Subject: Allow USDA-subsidized housing residents to grow vegetable gardens

Message body:

Dear Director Meeks,
I urge you to make a loud and clear statement to all the property management companies your agency contracts that USDA-subsidized residents have the right to keep their own vegetable gardens provided that these gardens are actively maintained. Vegetable gardens grow healthy and affordable foods as well as a sense of community. Rather than preventing low-income and disabled residents from providing for themselves, we should be doing everything we can to encourage them. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,
(Your name, your town, your state)



Also see:

Fat Tax: The Socio-Economics of Obesity

Principal Forces Students to Kneel Before Him

A San Bernadino, California elementary school administrator will apparently not face any sort of disciplinary proceedings by the district school board after enacting a policy which forced students to kneel with hands at their sides. While the policy has now been suspended, it appears that the district and the superintendent didn't actually see anything wrong with mass humiliation of young students.

The enforced practice has been described as "a positive way to enforce safety" and "a positive behavior intervention." You read that right, kneeling before authority is now considered to be positive behavior by the educators molding the minds of your children. 

The abhorrent practice only came to light after several students causally mentioned it to parents. One parent chose to act and began handing out flyers to inform other parents.

School officials maintain that the policy was only meant to keep order among students, and was used as a dismissal method mostly after recess time, and sometimes before beginning a class. Yet this is not something we would even see in an American prison, except perhaps Guantanamo Bay.

As a former school secretary, I can tell you that subtle and not-so-subtle submission tactics take place all the time. It's part of the public school system fabric - which is why it was mostly openly discussed - because it really does seem normal for the school officials enacting those standards. But notice that parents didn't receive a mass notification to begin with? It took enough children casually mentioning it before one parent finally spread the word.

So, there's going to be a meeting for parents to discuss different safety options. That way, parents can choose which way they want the little human resources to submit to authority. I want to emphasize that choice, a common tactic to get children to behave, is going to be used on the parents! Why does there have to be some kind of ritual at all?

-Activist Post

It seems now clearer than ever that schools are no longer an institution of learning, but rather a node of indoctrination.

This news was also reported at:

CBS Los Angeles.

And now a music video:

Honey, the Baby Is On Fire Again, It's Your Turn to Put Him Out

In a rare medical condition, a three-month old baby boy from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu keeps catching fire spontaneously. The bizarre incident has stunned local doctors, and spooked the villagers who blame paranormal forces for the phenomenon, local media report.
 
Rahul, second son of farmhands Karnan and Rajeshwari from Villupuram village, seemed as healthy and normal as any other baby at birth. But since then, the baby reportedly burst into flames at least four times, beginning when he was just nine days old.

In the latest incident, the baby suffered extensive burns and is being treated at Kilpauk Medical College hospital in Chennai, the state’s capital. According to Rahul's parents, each time the child caught fire spontaneously and there was no source of fire in the vicinity.

Doctors at KMC, where the baby was admitted Thursday, blame a rare medical condition called spontaneous human combustion, or SHC, for the infant’s predicament. Rahul catches fire repeatedly because his body emits combustible gas and fluids through skin pores, the doctors told the Times of India.

There is no cure for the condition, and the baby is currently being treated for extensive burn injuries at the hospital’s neonatal unit.

Read more at: International Business Times

Was Cop Wrong to Hit 8-Year Old In Face?

There has been outrage over a YouTube video which surfaced recently, which appears to show a Eugene, Oregon police officer striking an 8-year old boy in the face.

While there is a wealth of videos out there showing very serious misconduct and unwarranted violence by these shielded government agents, this video does not seem to warrant the outrage being shown by the public. While it certainly does run contrary to our moral senses that a grown man, an armed man and a stranger should hit a child in the face, we should try to understand that the police do have a job to do that is often a difficult one. A job where sometimes what is necessary is not always what we would like to see, or admit that we might have to do the same if we were in their shoes.

In this instance, the officer claims the boy bit him. The video was filmed with a lagging digital camera in a cellphone, so it is difficult to catch the few moments in question, whether he did bite the officer, or to get a sense of how hard the officer actually hit him. Or even if he really did hit him for that matter, though it does appear so. What the video does show however is that the officer was being calm and professional, not in any rage of any sort, and even waved at the camera before the apparent bite and strike. This would seem to run in accordance with his claim. If the boy did bite him, then the officer was justified to respond.

The only other issue at hand might be whether the officer was justified in taking the boy in the first place. This is, of course, another very serious concern when we as a society have seen so many terrible examples of a child being taken away for very little cause and winding up abused, or even murdered while in state custody or in a foster home. So while the officer may have been justified to strike the child after being bitten, it would be far less justified if the officer was there acting on what amounts to a kidnapping order by a local CPS office. This does not appear to be the case either though.

Reports indicate that the boy was illiterate, did not attend school, and was living in a bus. Furthermore, he had been living with a woman for years despite a court order awarding custody to his father. So this was not so much the state taking custody, as enforcing the rights of the father, which is all too rare it seems these days.

All in all, it appears that this is actually an example of how public outcry against the police is not always justified. (Even as public outcry seems to be severely lacking in other instances where it should appear.)

Finally now, here is the video to judge for yourself:

Warrantless Search of Apartment Complex

For any patriot adherent of the United States Constitution, this image will stand as a chilling testament to the reality of the police state we now live in.

Not only is this search being conducted without a warrant, but they may enter your residence randomly even if you are not at home.

Boston Bombing Script Rewritten Yet Again

In an exclusive report by the BBC, the prime suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing are now being painted as right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists, rather then devout Muslims.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev had right-wing extremist literature

One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings was in possession of right-wing American literature in the run-up to the attack, BBC Panorama has learnt.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev subscribed to publications espousing white supremacy and government conspiracy theories.

He also had reading material on mass killings.

Until now the Tsarnaev brothers were widely perceived as just self-styled radical jihadists.

Panorama has spent months speaking exclusively with friends of the bombers to try to understand the roots of their radicalisation.

'Government conspiracies'

The programme discovered that Tamerlan Tsarnaev possessed articles which argued that both 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing were government conspiracies.

Another in his possession was about "the rape of our gun rights".

Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that "Hitler had a point".

Tamerlan Tsarnaev also had literature which explored what motivated mass killings and noted how the perpetrators murdered and maimed calmly.

There was also material about US drones killing civilians, and about the plight of those still imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

Read more from: BBC News

The article then goes on to label them as "Muslim by convenience" and essentially tries to justify the incongruous elements of this new version of the story with the one that has been spun thus far.

To anyone who has been paying attention to the facts, and lack thereof, this is a blatant piece of propaganda meant to vilify those who are not in-step with the official version of modern history. Truth-seeking conspiracy theorists and America-loving Constitutionalists are meant to be seen now as a threat, as terrorists, by those who only get their information from mainstream news sources and government handouts. 

CLICK HERE to read more about the unsettling facts surrounding the Boston Marathon Bombing. 

Boy Claims Anti-Gun Mayor Opened Fire After Sex Advances Rebuffed

The Inguistr reports:

Marcus Hook, PA — A member of the Michael Bloomberg-sponsored gun control organization “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” has been arrested and charged in connection with a handgun incident at his home.

James Schiliro, a.k.a. Jay Schiliro, the mayor of Marcus Hook, a small town in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, faces charges of official oppression, reckless endangerment, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, and furnishing a minor with alcohol.

(More at source)

The 38-year old Republican reportedly ordered a police officer to deliver the 20-year old young man to his home, and then allegedly told the minor that he had ordered police to stay away from the house for the rest of the night. It is further alleged that he plied the youth with alcohol, brandished numerous firearms, told the boy he was "going to be a hostage" and fired a shot from a 9mm pistol, when the youth refused the mayor's sexual advances.

Further coverage available at:

The Mental Recession, NY

The Half-Ton Woman Accused of Murder (Documentary)

On 18 March 2008 a two-year-old boy was beaten to death in a Texan border town. His aunt, Mayra Rosales, was the only one with him at the time and was charged with his murder. But was this really possible?

Mayra weighed nearly 500 kg, was bed-ridden and totally immobile. So why was she confessing to a heinous crime she seemingly could not have committed?

This incredible film follows the many twists and turns in the case with intimate interviews with Mayra, her family, and the investigators, lawyers and doctors involved.

Caution. Some viewers may find the imagery in this video disturbing.

Racial Profiling or Just Bad Police Work?

This post courtesy of Station.6.Underground

The oppression of the modern police-state against the people is something that can't be understated, and seems to only get worse by the day here in America. From criminal cops, to incompetent cops, to flat out bad policy which the police are there to enforce,  it's little wonder that there are more and more Americans who are fed up and speaking out.

Unfortunately, there is a racial dynamic to these problems as well. There are racist people people in our society and therefore it should come as no surprise that a certain amount of that will make it into police forces. But racism and bigotry are not necessarily synonymous either. Racial profiling is not necessarily born of some inherent hatred of people with different levels of melanin. It has been argued by some that, statistically speaking, black people are more dangerous than white people. Even within the black community, a black person is far more likely to be killed by another black person.

To look at it another way, if you happen to be driving a Honda Accord, the police may "profile" you based on the car you are driving. They may give you a little closer scrutiny in a routine traffic stop, ask a few more questions, be a bit more insistent, based on the fact that the Accord is the most frequently stolen car in America. It's not the job of the police to harass Honda owners though simply because they didn't choose to buy American. Which is why a whole host of other factors should go into the formulation of deciding whether or not there is something suspicious going on.

They are probably not as likely to be so suspicious of a woman driving a Accord with two kids in the car on a Sunday afternoon, as they would be of a teenager who was stopped in the middle of the night for driving without the headlights on. It also doesn't rule out the possibility that a mother of two might be driving a stolen Ford around town on a Sunday afternoon either. So from these examples we can see that while profiling may have some basis in general context when an officer conducts an investigation, it is not applicable as the entire basis of an interaction with police. It's just bad police work to be overly focused on any particular profile, all moral considerations aside. This is one good reason why profiling should not be the basis of policy as it is now in places in places like New York City.

An Inside Look at NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy

Mayor Bloomberg Defends Race Comments on Stop-and-Frisk


While the crap-storm swirls around the racial element of the deluded Mayor's policy and his comments, the core truth of the matter gets completely left out. The race-card has trumped the real flaw in the policy. That flaw is the blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The problem is not that the NYPD is stopping and frisking minorities. The problem is that they are stopping and frisking anyone without probable cause or a warrant. The problem is that there is a policy in place that would even allow people to be stopped simply on the basis of their skin color in the first place.

The debate over percentages and numbers is beside the point. If this despicable policy were not in place, then the police could not be stopping and harassing minorities or anyone else. The problem is not that minorities are being targeted by this policy, the problem is the policy itself. While white people may not be stopped as frequently, you can be sure that a white kid low-riding his pants, wearing hip-hop duds and listening to Immortal Technique is just as likely to be harassed by the NYPD. People with tattoos, people with piercings, people living in high crime areas, people driving Honda Accords may all be targeted without actual cause.

Of course, this is not just a NY thing. Black folk often feel that they are being targeted because of their race alone. Sometimes their complaint has some validity. Often times though, it doesn't. Take this case of a man who was arrested for DUI, even though he wasn't drunk.

Sober Man DUI: Arizona Driver Blows 0.000, Gets Penalized

The 64-year old black man was arrested, thrown into the back of a police vehicle and had his car impounded, even though he was not drunk at all. The officer disagreed with the breathalyzer device and decided to make the arrest anyway based on the fact that Jessie Thornton had bloodshot eyes. Keep in mind that alcohol doesn't always cause bloodshot eyes, and that it is just as illegal to drive under the influence of substances like marijuana as it is to drive drunk. Thornton admits his eyes may have looked bloodshot, but says that may have been due to a late night swim at a fitness center.

Mr. Thornton doesn't see a flaw in the law though, and he doesn't complain that the officer was just incompetent and unable to tell the difference between a DUI and a man who just climbed out of a swimming poor. Instead, he believes the officer was a racist.

“It was driving while black,” he said, adding: “I just don’t want any of this to happen to somebody else.”

Was the officer really a racist though? Was he really profiling the driver? It's possible, but there is no real reason to believe that based on the information which Mr. Thornton himself shared with the media in that article. So outside of that, either the officer was utterly incompetent, or he was just a cop harassing a citizen. A bully, which is more often than not the fact of the matter. Those same two options stand in this following case, where a white woman was arrested for being drunk, when she was actually the designated driver and had not touched a drop of alcohol that night.

Heather Squires was arrested for DUI without drinking a drop of alcohol

In short, police are not the spokespersons for "white people" and are not a standing army to protect whites from blacks. It's time we take a step back from the racial issues and take a good hard look at what is happening to our country. All of us, black, white, and all the rest across the board are being targeted by a fascist police-state. We are not so different at all really, we the people that is, and we have a common enemy. Tyranny.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

-attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the sloth of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Also see:

Papers Please (Checkpoint Video)

Papers Please Incident Makes Cops Looks Like Gestapo

Activists Being Framed With Child Porn

A disturbing trend is unfolding where some entity is attempting to frame prominent anti-establishment activists and alternative media organizations with child pornography.

These activists are being sent emails with malicious attachments containing images of child porn in a seeming attempt to discredit them or set them up for arrest.

Read more and see vids at: Activist Post

Budgeting for Poverty With McDonald's and Visa

This article courtesy Minimum Wage Workers Union of America


McDonald's and Visa have come together in a new initiative which purports to show low-wage workers how to survive, and even thrive financially on their meager earnings.

At their new Practical Money Skills for Life™ website you can find a pdf file sample budget, ostensibly designed to be a framework for workers to use in order to successfully manage their income while working at McDonald's.


It is certainly a good idea to have a budget, to practice good financial techniques, to minimize spending and the like, but no budget will solve the problem of not having enough money to meet the most basic living expenses. This core truth is completely overlooked by McDonald's and their collaborator. This then sets the stage for victim-blaming, rather than making a factual presentation. The premise they present here, is that if a worker is having financial troubles it is the worker's own fault.

The introductory video is immediately condescending to the viewer/worker and assumes that you lack the elementary concepts of basic addition and subtraction arithmetic, or even common sense. While some workers may be woefully uneducated and lacking in life experience, it appears that the true ignorance here rests with the creators of the fast-food giant's presentation.

As an example, almost any worker knows full well that taking a pay-day loan is financially unsound, being both risky and costly. What the creators of the video ignore is that a worker does not need to be taught this point as a lesson, as if it were some great revelation bestowed by a benevolent corporation out of sheer good will. The worker who does take such a costly risk by taking out a pay-day loan does it out of necessity, not stupidity. The payday loan industry thrives on the desperation of the poor, not on people who ant some extra spending money.

The video also encourages the viewer to get direct-deposit for their paycheck, and to have a bank account, in order to save on check-cashing fees. But again we see that the creators have ignored the reality of the situation for many of their workers. Some financial institutions will not let a person with poor credit have an account. Low-wage workers are, of course, more likely than most to have a poor credit rating. In other instances, a bank or credit union may not be easily accessible in their neighborhood or along their travel routes. Banks often require a large minimum balance, leaving substantial funds inaccessible to the depositor.
But most important of all perhaps, is that bank accounts are riddled with costly pitfalls. Visa check-cards exacerbate those dangers to workers who are subject to an array of hidden maintenance, access, and penalty fees.

For many people it is not only easier, but actually wiser to just spend a few dollars to cash their paycheck at a local supermarket, or check-cashing store. In this instance, a former McDonald's worker has been forced to sue for her right to be paid in legal tender, after her employer refused to pay her in any form other than a fee-laden debit card like those issued by Visa.



Even with the best financial practices, no human mistakes, and no unforeseen emergencies, a person still needs enough money to meet basic expenses. A sound budget will never work without enough money to put into that budget in the first place. So let's have a look at what McDonald's sees as a reasonable budget for a worker to, as they put it, "have almost anything you want as long as you plan ahead and save for it."

Right at the start, McDonald's is admitting that a full-time worker at one of their restaurants does not earn enough to support themselves. Their budget demands from you that you get a second job, if you are lucky enough to find one at all, much less one that is compatible with your full-time and often irregular hours at one of their establishments. If you can't get a second job, for whatever reason, the full-time low-wage worker will be forced to go on welfare, or get at least some sort of public assistance.

What this means is that taxpayers are subsidizing the labor expenses of major corporations like McDonald's. We the taxpayers are now forced to pay a contribution in order to make sure that McDonald's workers actually show up for work in the first place, and that the worker is fed, clothed and healthy enough to perform their task. While these corporations reap billion dollar profits, and the CEO of McDonald's makes about $5,000 an hour, the taxpayers are forced to pay a share of their business expenses. In 2012, Wal-Mart workers were forced to rely on $2.6 billion in taxpayer relief. That directly translates into $2.6B in additional profits for the Walton family, who are more wealthy then the bottom 40% of all Americans combined.

Now let's go ahead and take a look at the person who winds up actually being lucky enough to have two jobs, and is in turn forced to pay taxes to help support the worker standing next to them who works only one full-time job. This budget projects a net monthly income of $2,060. Based on the 2012 IRS tax liability tables, a minimum wage worker earning $7.25 an hour would have to work 76 hours per week in order to have a net monthly income of $2,060. So much for the notion that poor people are lazy. This is essentially two full-time jobs, especially since employers won't usually let a worker hit the 40 hour mark in a week, for fear of having to pay an overtime wage.

This obviously leaves no time for continuing education, and precious few hours to spend with family or trying to raise your children. Contrary to the popular notion, teens do not make up the majority of minimum-wage workers. Roughly 90% are over the age of 20, and about 30% of minimum wage workers are trying to raise a family on that budget. 

But surely a person working two full time jobs, nearly 80 hours a week, must be living fairly well, right? Well, let's have a look at budgeted expenses.

The first line item in that section is savings. Anyone who can afford to save, must actually have an income that exceeds the rest of their expenses. Saving for the future is not only good advice, but absolutely necessary in order to build any sort of future It is even necessary to simply offset an array of inflationary factors which have undermined the American worker since our heydey in the 1950's.

90% of Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard

Unfortunately, this budget is actually completely impractical and that $100 figure is completely unrealistic.

Looking at the next item we see how unrealistic it actually is. $600 for rent is unheard of in most parts of the country. The average rent last year in the US was $1,048 monthly. In New York, it is over $3,000 a month. One might suggest getting a roommate to split the rent, but then again we might also assume that this budget is actually written out for two people working at McDonald's full time, and who decided to move in together to share the bills because they couldn't find a second full-time job for themselves. So even with a roomate or spouse also working full time, this budget is still not practical, as we shall further see. 

(It could also be noted here that forced cohabitation can set someone up for all sorts of costly and life-damaging problems. Roomates can be an annoyance when they interfere with necessary sleep, but you are also vulnerable to thievery, fraud, and even being named as a criminal conspirator if they use the residence as part of an illicit enterprise. This socioeconomic dynamic has also pushed unwed couples to cohabitate prematurely, leaving them trying to force a frustrating and volatile relationship work out of simple economic necessity. This of course, is at the root of so many instances of domestic violence. Problems like these can wind up costing a worker for court fees, time missed from work, and more.)

Their budget does account for a car payment, but that figure is unrealistically low for the actual cost of operating a car. Insurance alone would easily double that figure, not to mention gasoline, maintenance, and repairs. Our own research has shown that the expense for basic auto transportation is roughly $500 a month. Public transportation may not give a significant reduction in transportation costs, and is not often available in many areas.

The next item combines home and car insurance into one item. Renters insurance is an excellent idea, and protects against all sorts of mishaps, like losing everything you own in a fire, or to a break in, but it is not really something that most low-wage workers can actually afford. Insurance for a homeowner is far more expensive than their figure, but we can assume that most people who work at McDonald's do not, and probably never will own their own home. They should not have even included car insurance there, but even for liability only that figure is very low, especially for younger drivers, or someone who may have had an accident. If you are making payments though, you need full coverage, which would be many time more per month than what they have calculated for.

For health insurance they have posted an absolutely absurd figure of $20 per month. Over-the-counter medicine to treat the flu would cost you more than that. McDonald's own basic plan for a single person with no children is $61 a month, with a maximum annual payout of $2000. (See: pdf) The plan also requires you pay a deductible and a single co-pay is $20. That $20 is, as you see, all they have budget for here, but not the actual cost of the insurance. Hardly sound financial advice from these supposed experts who worked on this project with them.

They must also assume that you live in Hawaii where it is practically 75-degrees year-round, because this budget allot for $0 in heating (or air-conditioning) expenses.

Cable and phone at $100 a month. This is possible, but you would not be able to afford a cellphone which is a nice convenience that can actually save you money and is indispensable in an emergency. Someone who is working 76 hours a week would probably choose to have a cellphone and eliminate television entertainment for the few hours that they are actually at home. They can just sit and stare at a wall until they fall asleep.

Their calculation for electric is not entirely unreasonable, but will vary widely from region to region and in different rental units. If there is electric heating for example, that figure could easily be two or three times as much per month. That would obviously wipe out their "other" category instantly. 

At the end of the McDonald's budget we see they have allotted for $27 a day in spending money. Perhaps they expect workers to take all of their meals where they work, as the budget has not accounted for any food or grocery expenses. The health consequences alone would be devastating for a worker who made fast-food the staple of their diet, but $27 a day is not really enough for that anyway. The average cost in the US for a Big Mac value meal is $6.64, though it is often several dollars more in metro areas like NY. This would leave you with about $7 for gas, and nothing to feed your family. You also wouldn't have money for garbage bags, light bulbs, toothpaste, aspirin, haircuts, deodorant. You also wouldn't have money to do laundry, but you don't have a budget to buy clothes anyway, so go ahead an just wear that stinky McDonald's uniform without any underwear on, every single day.

For a much more practical and realistic budget, please see:

Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage

You can sign a petition at:

Low Pay Is Not Okay

"What if George hadn't gotten out of his truck?"

The question was posed by a spokesman for George Zimmerman, who was recently acquitted of murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman happened upon the scene of a serious motor vehicle crash last Wednesday and jumped into action. He grabbed a fire extinguisher from his truck and then, along with another motorist, rescued a family from their flipped-over SUV.

Read more at:

Daily Caller

Orlando Sentinel

Supreme Court Rules Drug Companies Can't Be Sued

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.

Read more at: Whiteout Press

Supreme Court vs. The People: 5-to-4 Does It Again

...In other words, a drug company that kills or maims us by pushing drugs on us through the corrupt health care system and is beholden to profit only, stands protected in law. Yet, these same drug companies fund medical training and "made to order" research, as well as, exert extensive influence on FDA drug approval process. They wine and dine doctors and pay them consultant fees to ghost write on their behalf and become their front-line sales force. We the people take the risks with our lives...

See the full article at: HuffPost Politics


See additional coverage at: Natural News

JP Morgan to Hire 100,000 Strong Army

Hiring Mission

JPMorgan Chase leads the charge to employ 100,000 U.S. military veterans by 2020.

By Jeanne Cotroneo Darrow

NYSE Euronext U.S. Trading News July 2013 #constantcontact http://t.co/mpEoxbF9KN about 15 hours ago Follow Us:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Youtube

nyse.com

More than 1 million service members are projected to transition out of the military by 2016 — a statistic that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) considers an opportunity. In 2011, with 10 other private sector companies, the company launched the 100,000 Jobs Mission, with a goal of hiring 100,000 veterans by 2020. In just two years, 64,628 transitioning U.S. service members and military veterans had found jobs through the program.

What began with 11 companies — JPMorgan Chase plus AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T); Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc. (NYSE: BR); Cisco Systems Inc.; Cushman & Wakefield Inc.; EMC Corp. (NYSE: EMC); Iron Mountain Inc. (NYSE: IRM); Modis; NCR Corp. (NYSE: NCR); Universal Health Services Inc. (NYSE: UHS); and Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) — has grown to 102 companies and evolved into a stable, ongoing initiative to hire veterans and share best practices. We checked in with Maureen Casey, managing director, Military and Veterans Affairs at JPMorgan Chase, about the program’s successes and why more companies should get involved.

Red more at link:

 http://nysebigstage.com/articles/jpmveterans?cid=p_outbrain

Also see:

Breadlines and Foodstamps