Wednesday, 2. May 2012 by Sibel EdmondsIn this startling new memoir, Sibel Edmonds—the most classified woman in U.S. history—takes us on a surreal journey that begins with the secretive FBI and down the dark halls of a feckless Congress to a stonewalling judiciary and finally, to the national security whistleblowers movement she spearheaded. Having lived under Middle East dictatorships, Edmonds knows firsthand what can happen when government is allowed to operate in secret. Hers is a sobering perspective that combines painful experience with a rallying cry for the public’s right to know and to hold the lawbreakers accountable. With U.S. citizens increasingly stripped of their rights in a calibrated media blackout, Edmonds’ story is a wake-up call for all Americans who, willingly or unwillingly, traded liberty for illusive security in the wake of 9/11.
You can visit the Classified Woman website here: http://classifiedwoman.com
Praise for “Classified Woman”
What I find so remarkable is Sibel’s persistence in trying every avenue and possible outlet in trying to get the truth out. When going up the chain of command in the executive branch and Inspector General internal mechanisms for investigating fraud, waste, and abuse went nowhere, she sought judicial remedy by filing lawsuits only to be improperly gagged by “state secrecy privilege”. Along the way she also sought congressional assistance, testified to the 9-11 Commission, and engaged with various media and other non-governmental organizations. It’s somewhat ironic that Sibel herself demonstrated such enormous energy and passion throughout this decade quite the opposite of the “boiling frog” idiom she uses for her website as a warning to others. If her book can inspire readers to summon even 1/100th of the determination and resolve she has modeled, there’s hope for us!-- Coleen Rowley Retired FBI Agent & Time Magazine Person of the Year, 2002
Boiling Frogs posts are part of the My Yahoo! SnapShots. Kudos to BradBlog for helping to bring her forward ( even if he does push warmism )
The FBI's post-9/11 translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, 'the most gagged woman in history of the U.S.,' finally tells all in a new memoir described by author/activist David Swanson as 'a masterpiece'...
NY Times Op-Ed Warns Unaccountable Super-PACS Likely to Be Used for Voter Suppression in 2012
How Bad Science Becomes Common Knowledge
The case for being skeptical of catastrophic warming–and, more broadly, many popular scientific assertions–has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It is based on knowledge of the mechanism by which new scientific ideas are evaluated and spread by non-experts, who are prone to choose winners and losers on the basis of congenial political ideology rather than scientific merit.
Fortunately, the ideological monopoly of the global warming campaign in climatology is inherently unstable. Many of the still large number of real scientists in cognate fields can’t help but notice what has become of “climatology” research. It is thus inevitable that this campaign will suffer periodic break-downs in its attempt to foist claims of scientific “consensus” on the public, as a recent letter from 16 sceintists to the Wall Street Journal attests.
Climatology Establishment Smears Scientific Critics
Responding to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by 16 scientists who reject global warming catastrophism (discussed here), 38 academic climatologists have offered their counterargument, which amounts to 1) disagreeing with the 16 scientists’ factual claims about the climate and 2) claiming that since most of the scientists are not climatologists, their claims are uninformed.
Both points are wrong.
.....The climatologists’ faulty arguments point to the lie in their claim that their critics are unqualified to comment. The members of the climatology establishment are united, not by some ultra-sophisticated understanding of the climate, but by their participation in a pseudoscientific campaign that finances, guides, and virtually defines the field of climatology—a field that superior scientists have generally avoided or been shut out from. This is exactly the sort of field that needs to be challenged by better scientists from related fields—which is what the Wall Street Journal piece did.