[Hmmm...I seem to recollect that a week or so ago I posed the question of whether the facts now seperately asserted in the item below were true, and an idiot poseur named Jerry Turkey, or something similar, went to great and amusing lengths to attack me personally over it - not the facts I raised, but my temerity in asking the question! So, Jerry Gobbledegook, here's your chance to spring to the defence of your presumed paymasters in the chemical industry again - although this time you can try your hand at launching venomous personal attacks at Sturat H. Rodman, instead. I'm sure, based on your previous performance, that you'll do your best to obscure or evade the points he makes clearly here.

This is from Jeff Rense's Sightings On The Radio web site at Sightings.com]

Corporate America Under Siege: The Undelared State of Emergency
By Stuart H. Rodman
12-2-99

Picture this bleak future, Americans with no civil liberties. No right to free speech. No right to question your government. Newly-enacted Y2k related legislation places limits on free speech and on your right to access vital information obtained from corporations-even when your safety and well being is affected. What are they trying to hide?

Corporate America Under Siege: The Undeclared State of Emergency By Stuart H. Rodman 12-2-99

Suppose you found corporate documents which say that your company has a chemical plant that could send a poisonous, billowing cloud of lethal byproducts hovering over your neighborhood killing thousands of people instantly and leaving the survivors blinded, with scarred lungs, cancers, and otherwise maimed for life. And, what if you also discovered that the government already knows about this but that it is now a federal crime to tell anyone else what you discovered! Even if you survive the pending calamity, your life will be ruined by your own government, just for trying to save others. Sound like fiction? It's not. It is as real as a heart attack. Recent legislation enacted by Congress creates just such a possibility. Consider the following:

Under provisions of the recently enacted Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, Public Law 106-40, you could be fined up to a million dollars a year for speaking ill about a corporate chemical plant! In a posting from "Roleigh's Lodge", Roleigh Martin's prominent Y2k related internet site, observer Scott Secor offers this caution to "covered persons" and researchers,

Whether you are or not, you better keep your mouth shut about chemical plants. You can be fined $5000 per facility per mouth off, up to a total of $1 million/year. Speech restrictions will be in effect until Aug. 5, 2000, at which time a decision will be made on the restoration of democracy."

It's true! The new law provides that hazardous materials produced or stored in these plants, which most Americans live within five miles of, must be reported to the Environmental Protection Agency in the form of an "Off Site Consequences Analysis" (OCA). This report details the worst case scenario for the plant in the event of a Y2k related computer failure. What we don't know could hurt us. A chemical discharge in Bhopal India killed 2,000 people within just a few miles of a Union Carbide plant in 1984. The U.S. General Accounting Office says that most of the 66,000 such plants in the U.S. are susceptible to the Y2K computer problem but still are not ready for the Year 2000.

Despite the harsh realities, if you have actually have seen the OCA report and divulge any of its contents to the public, you become a "covered researcher" and could be fined up to a million dollars a year per incident. These reports must be pretty scary. The good news? People without access to the facts are still free to speak at will. Only those who speak the truth are placed outside the law! There's more.

Imagine that you heard that utility companies around the country might fail next year and that 26 million Americans may be forced to survive without winter heating, drinking water or sanitation. Did you think that as a citizen you had the right to know details about how this information might affect you or your loved ones? Think again! According to Congress, not so if the information concerns the Y2k computer glitch.

The Year 2000 Readiness and Information Disclosure Act, Public Law 105-271, places public utility companies in a position whereby the truth about their Y2k preparations is no longer accountable to ordinary citizens. This new federal law makes Year 2000 information exempt from release even under the Freedom of Information Act! That's what a citizen action group in San Diego discovered when they attempted to use the act to resolve questions raised in the media about the readiness status of local drinking water utilities.

"Five communities within a seventy mile radius of my home were recently revealed by the U.S. Navy as being likely to experience a 'probable total failure' in essential services this winter because of Y2k.", says Mark Snyder, a local San Diego resident and Vice President of the San Diego Y2k Citizen's Action Group.

Local concerns about the preparedness status of utilities were heightened last summer with the release of the Navy's "Master Utility List", an internal working document maintained by the Navy to keep tabs on the availability of civilian infrastructure near their installations around the country. The spreadsheets produced for this study revealed that because of Y2k, essential services in 128 cities affecting 26 million Americans were at risk for some level of failure this winter including water, gas, or electric services. Other cities also targeted for trouble in the report included New York City, Miami, Orlando, and Clearwater, Florida among dozens of other.

"We just want to know the truth about the County's essential services so we can prepare ourselves and our loved ones properly", says Snyder. "Even after the spreadsheets were made public though, our local authorities denied that there were any problems."

In fact, although acknowledging that the spreadsheets were authentic, Naval officials explained that the dire predictions were the result of missing data and not a final conclusion. It appears that the civilian authorities in 44 of the 128 cities surveyed by the Navy had refused to answer questions posed by Navy auditors even when only 6 months remained before the immovable deadline of January 1, 2000.

Snyder explained, "San Diego is a Navy town. We just can't understand why our local utility representatives would not be more forthcoming when approached by them. It makes us wonder if there is something horrible that they are holding back."

Snyder's concerns seem well founded. Recent studies of Year 2000 preparedness by the government's General Accounting Office found that the distribution of drinking water and waste removal is highly susceptible to the Y2k computer problem and to the availability of electricity from the power grid. However, the Y2k status of water districts throughout the country is not coordinated by any outside public agencies and the status of the municipal districts is mostly unknown.

Snyder adds, "making matter worse is the fact barely one third of the electric utility companies on the grid have allowed their Y2k plans to be audited by anyone outside their own industry. They tell us they're ready but many of their systems have been exempted from testing just because their vendors say the new parts are great. When independent laboratories examined the problem though, they report that many similar deliveries fail up to fifty percent of the time. We feel there is plenty to worry about."

A Siege Mentality

In an effort to find the truth, Snyder's group sought relief under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They were soon to be stunned however. Although the Navy seemed more than eager to accommodate the group's desire for the details regarding information affecting their community, they were unable to do so because the Act had been quietly modified to make information about utility preparedness none of the group's business!

The newly enacted Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act (Public Law 105-271), modifies the FOIA which was originally enacted to provide citizen's with a vital tool for maintaining the nation's system of checks and balances. The new law reads, in part,

"Except with the express consent or permission of the provider of information described in paragraph (1), any year 2000 statements or other such information provided by a party in response to a special year 2000 data gathering request made under this subsection- (A) shall be exempt from disclosure under subsection (b)(4) of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, commonly known as the ``Freedom of Information Act''; (B) shall not be disclosed to any third party"

Citizen's rights are rarely suspended in a time of peace. However, the corporate special interests have used their muscle in Congress to assure that secrets about their Y2k readiness plans remain well beyond the level of ordinary public scrutiny. Despite public claims to the contrary, things may be so bad for them in fact that they felt it necessary to lean upon Congress to create an undeclared, defacto state of National Emergency.

Will the new millennium bring with it the last days of civil liberties? The latest congressional actions seem to express our government's greater duty to promote the agenda of corporations then to preserve and protect citizen's rights. San Diego's Y2K Action Group may have already had a taste of the future. For now at least though, they may still have recourse from President Clinton in the form of an audit by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. While most of us regard the Y2k computer problem as a technology issue, it seems the virus has suddenly mutated itself and has now become the bug that ate our civil liberties.

About the Author

Stuart's reports on the developing Y2k story have been heard nationwide on radio appearances including Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell, Sightings on the Radio, The Laura Lee Show, and Common Sense with Jim Bell.

Stuart is a Y2k Activist with a background in the IT profession. He holds an M.S. Degree from Portland State University and has been a featured panelist and community advocate for the White House Council on Year 2000 Conversion's "Community Conversations" initiative.

Stuart's book "The Last Days of Power? The True Story" is available for immediate delivery from thesurvivalstore.com

Contact Stuart from www.stuarthrodman.com Or email to: jrodman527@aol.com voice: 813 748-9958

[ENDS] SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE This Site Served by TheHostPros

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 03, 1999

Answers

It's gonna get ugly!!

-- Z (Z@Z.Z), December 03, 1999.

This takes the notion of nondisclosure to appalling new levels.

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), December 03, 1999.

The First Ammendment to the Constitution was supposedly to protect free speech and the press (including pamphleteering). However, it was IMMEDIATELY gutted. Some of the first, precedent-setting restrictions (violation of the Ammendment by government) were due to the Christian moralist wacko busybodies in the name of "public decency". Laws against blasphemy, swearing, lewdness in speech and action, and even promulgation of material about birth control. Also, somehow "commercial speech" was defined and excluded. These were the feet in the door. The Ammendment says nothing about exceptions for the "public good". What part of "no law" don't YOU and your leaders understand? (Note -- this applies the SECOND AMMENDMENT and others as well. You Christian a*hole busybodies were the start of it all, and now you lament the fall of this country -- when YOU fricking started it.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 03, 1999.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all our toxic chemicals WILL escape into the environment, sooner or later, after a collapse. Whole regions could become like the "Forbidden Zone" in The Planet Of The Apes picture.

So much for mining the ruins to restart civilization.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), December 03, 1999.

Don't forget Kosky's advice: "Call your local utilities."

:-(

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), December 03, 1999.

There was a whistelblower protection act. What happened to that? (Did the members of Congress receive inducements to change that?)

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 03, 1999.

Lets play connect the dots. No information on readyness, no laws to protect those who try to let everyone know of eminent danger,no information alowed out by the corperations and million doller fines for those who say anything. It's going to be HELLON ont EARTH people. Compliant is just another word for not ready.

-- (freeman@interx.net), December 03, 1999.

A,

What person(s) or event stung you so bad as to cause you to go into a ballistic rant against all Christians across all the ages? Your reaction seems to be way out of proportion. What gives?

Sincerely,

Tim

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), December 03, 1999.

All,

On another thread about chemical plants in New Jersey, it stated something to the effect that they all refused to reveal rediness disclosure.

-- maid upname (noid@ihope.com), December 03, 1999.

TM, nothing other than Christianity is essentially anti-here-and-now-life, and an indication of the general stupidty and gullibility of the human race. Along with Islam. As far as I'm concerned, all religions are STUPID, and the more devout a person, they wackier they are. Observe! Look! See! The reason I rag on Christianity is that is the prevalent religion in the U.S., and has done the most to interfere with my life, directly and indirectly. Maybe, as I alluded to above, if Christians would mind their own frickin' business -- stop being such moral fascists and busybdies and using the state to enforce their anti-life view, maybe I would be quiet.

Re anti-life -- yes, you are, the more "devout" you are. Most religious wackos don't even know the history of their own religion -- the origin of the "body-soul" dichotomny, etc. They are just brainwashed into it by their parents and institutions. Sheeple. Get off my back, out of my butt!

Interesting -- to me -- aside: The first of of the ten commandments says "... you shall have no other gods before me." Kind of gives you a clue that there were other gods, and that your "God" is a jealous a*hole. If you're a believer...

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 04, 1999.

A,

I'm not ashamed to say that I serve the Lord Jesus Christ, but I'm not really offended by what you say. I agree with you that much of the oppression and injustice that this world has seen has been done in the name of God and religion. History is littered with thousands of instances of it (Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, The Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, etc.), and for those things there will never be an excuse. Therefore, I can understand somewhat where you're coming from.

You seem to be a rare bird! It's not to often that I run across a true atheist (if you claim to be that). Because of that, I think that there is more hope for you than most, because you're honest about what you believe, and aren't afraid to take a stand...which cannot be said of millions who "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk". It is an admirable quality to have.

But I have too say as well that the man who was the most violent opponent of the Christian faith was changed by God into it's greatest spokesman...the Apostle Paul.

Sincerely,

Tim

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), December 04, 1999.

[Hmmm...I seem to recollect that a week or so ago I posed the question of whether the facts now seperately asserted in the item below were true, and an idiot poseur named Jerry Turkey, or something similar, went to great and amusing lengths to attack me personally over it - not the facts I raised, but my temerity in asking the question! So, Jerry Gobbledegook, here's your chance to spring to the defence of your presumed paymasters in the chemical industry again - although this time you can try your hand at launching venomous personal attacks at Sturat H. Rodman, instead. I'm sure, based on your previous performance, that you'll do your best to obscure or evade the points he makes clearly here.... So, now I'm Jerry Turkey, or Jerry Gobbledegook, an "idiot poseur" under the control of my "presumed paymasters" in the chemical industry.

As anyone who read the previous thread knows, I did not attempt to "obscure or evade" the points you raised. Instead, I pointed out, with references to the text of the law and to EPA's explanation of the law, exactly where you were wrong about it. I also provided links to several web sites that provide the information you deemed to be a secret for many chemical facilities, and provided a method for everyone to secure the information on off-site consequences for facilities in their area.

Anyone can go to the thread and verify these facts for themselves.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=001qVD

You, on the other hand, babbled about unnamed sources that appeared on a radio talk show. So, now that you've revealed your sources, let's look at the key statement you're hanging you hat on.

"In a posting from "Roleigh's Lodge", Roleigh Martin's prominent Y2k related internet site, observer Scott Secor offers this caution to "covered persons" and researchers...

"Despite the harsh realities, if you have actually have seen the OCA report and divulge any of its contents to the public, you become a "covered researcher" and could be fined up to a million dollars a year per incident. These reports must be pretty scary."

Roleigh Martin's web site has a lot of good information on it. He is to be commended for providing a forum where people can get information about Y2K that has not been censored or sanitized by "the powers that be". This doesn't mean that anything posted on his web site by anyone should be believed as the total truth.

Most researchers, especially those who intend to sell the results of their "research" to the public, would probably try to confirm statements made in such a forum before repeating them in a published article.

Scott Secor is a well-known commentator on matters relating to Y2K. I've had several exchanges with him on other forums, and I believe he would never knowingly make any statements about a serious subject like this that he did not sincerely believe to be true. However, in this case he is flat-out wrong.

A covered researcher is someone who has received the OCA information from the EPA, not just "anyone" who has seen an OCA. To quote EPA's own words"

"A covered researcher may not disseminate any portion of the OCA materials received from EPA under the qualified researcher provision of the Act or any statewide or national ranking of identified facilities derived from those materials."

This means that any employee of a chemical company, is free to give to any members of the public, any information about the off-site consequences analysis that they may have possession of, without having to worry about breaking any law or facing any fines.

Stuart H. Rodman is wrong. Scott Secor is wrong. This is not a "venomous personal attack", just a simple statement of fact, backed up with verifiable sources.

It's an easy mistake to make. Much of the press coverage of this law has been wrong on the same point. However, there's no excuse for you, once proof of the true facts has been made available to you, to continue spreading the misinformation that you are.

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), December 04, 1999.