Sunday, March 29, 2015



Another AGW fabrication bites the dust. Hey, hey, hey!

Recall last year and the year before and the year before that one, the cultish adherents of AGW started spinning that warming = cooling. Which made zero sense!
So imagine my absolute non surprise this chilly, below normal temperature, first week of spring gone and done morning, to read this news?

Global Warming/AGW DOES NOT CAUSE extreme winters

Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of (global warming AGW) climate change. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology have shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability

Repeated cold snaps led to temperatures far below freezing across the eastern (central) United States (and Canada & parts of Europe etc...) in the past two winters. Parts of the Niagara Falls froze, and ice floes formed on Lake Michigan. Pictures of icy, snow-covered cities made their way around the world, raising the question of whether (Global warming/AGW) climate change could be responsible for these extreme events.

Temperature range will decrease

Scientists at ETH Zurich and at the California Institute of Technology, led by Tapio Schneider, professor of climate dynamics at ETH Zurich, have come to a different conclusion. They used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of temperature fluctuations will decrease as the climate warms. So not only will cold snaps become rarer simply because the climate is warming. Additionally, their frequency will be reduced because fluctuations about the warming mean temperature also become smaller, the scientists wrote in the latest issue of the Journal of Climate.

Temperature fluctuations or extremes should lessen. And cold snaps will become more rare because of global temperature equalization according to AGW/Global warming theory. That is not what is happening, at all!


State Universities Cutting Back Services After Minimum Wage Hike...

Time to ban airplanes, I guess...

Psychiatric medications found in home of Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz, who underwent 18 months of psychiatric 'treatment'

by Mike Adams

Just as Natural News publicly predicted in a widely-circulated article entitled Germanwings jetliner catastrophe: The first antidepressant drug-induced mass murder of the skies?, psychiatric drugs have now been located and identified by law enforcement authorities searching the home of the murder-suicide co-pilot.

As the Straits Times now reports:

Investigators made the discovery in a search of the home of Andreas Lubitz in the western city of Duesseldorf and seized a number "of medicines for the treatment of psychological illness", Welt am Sonntag weekly said.

"The 27-year-old has been treated by several neurologists and psychiatrists," it quoted an unidentified high-ranking investigator as saying, in excerpts released ahead of Sunday's edition...

The same story goes on to report:

On Friday they said searches of his homes netted "medical documents that suggest an existing illness and appropriate medical treatment"...

In today's global system of pharma-dominated health care, so-called "appropriate medical treatments" for depression consist almost entirely of mind-altering medications which have been repeatedly linked to mass school shootings.

"The police found antidepressants during a search of his apartment here on Thursday," reports The New York Times, further confirming that the SSRI drug link to Lubitz.

A Reuters story also explains, "German newspaper Welt am Sonntag quoted a senior investigator as saying the 27-year-old "was treated by several neurologists and psychiatrists", adding that a number of medications had been found in his Duesseldorf apartment."

18 months of psychiatric "treatment" on medications, but still allowed to fly

According to the Daily Mail, Lubitz "...reportedly received a year and half of psychiatric treatment and was at one point recommended to be examined by a doctor before flying."

As I noted in a previous Natural News article, SSRI drugs are considered so dangerous by the FAA that U.S. pilots are not allowed to fly commercial or private airplanes if they are currently taking antidepressant medications. (The FAA knows SSRI drugs can make pilots suicidal.)

It now appears Andreas Lubitz was attempting to hide his psychiatric treatment and medications from authorities, and he may have stopped taking SSRI drugs in order to pass a urine test or blood test.

"[T]he other possible explanations for Lubitz's actions are that he may have stopped taking his medication so it would not be detected in any medical tests..." reports the Daily Mail. Other behavior demonstrates by Lubitz is also consistent with this idea, such as his tearing up of doctors' notes to avoid submitting them to his employer.

"Regularly collected a prescription from the pharmacy"

Also from the Daily Mail:

He reportedly received a year and half of psychiatric treatment and was at one point recommended to be examined by a doctor before flying. But, incredibly, he passed his psychological assessments and was later considered fit to fly.

German police are now investigating whether Lubitz had stopped taking any medication he was on and have questioned chemists at the Apotheke am Breidenplatz close to Lubitz's Dusseldorf flat.

Lubitz regularly collected a prescription from the pharmacy, MailOnline understands. A chemist at the Apotheke confirmed she had spoken to the police but declined to offer any details.

As with all such stories, there will be enormous pressure exerted on the mainstream media by the pharmaceutical industry to downplay any link between SSRI drugs and this mass murder tragedy. But given the repeated pattern of mass murder carried out by people who are either currently taking SSRI drugs or have recently quit taking them, we must ask the obvious question: Can psychiatric meds transform a normal person into a mass murderer?

Until society honestly asks this question, many more people might unnecessarily die from acts of violence which are induced by psychiatric medications.

Learn more about the dangers of psychiatric medications at

And learn about how psychiatric drugs are killing our soldiers at

Learn more:

Saturday, March 28, 2015


Climate Change Alarmists Are Getting Desperate
By Chris Rossini

As I've mentioned before, I believe "climate change" is the honeypot for the left, just like "the war on terror" is the honeypot for the right.

Both rest on perceived fear. Once Americans give in to that fear, anything and everything can be used as a pretext for more government power to protect you from terrorists, or from the Earth coming to an end.

Climate change has been a much harder sell though...Much harder.

First, climate change purportedly rests on science. Well, Americans are about as interested in climate science as they are in economics. With that being the case, the lapdog media has been trying to give examples that Mr. Joe American can understand.

There's the claim that free birth control would curb climate change, or (please hold your laughter) that climate change fueled the Syrian conflict, or that climate change will turn women into prostitutes.

None of these 'real world' warnings seem to be working either. Americans aren't buying it. In fact (and for once I'm going to credit Mr. Joe American) a new poll by Gallup shows that American fear of global warming has dropped to levels not seen since 1989. That's pretty impressive, considering the constant bombardment of propaganda.

So appeals to "science" never had a chance, and "real world" warnings haven't moved the needle either. What's left?

How about the fear of God?

It looks like the alarmists will at least give it a try.

Yesterday, and today, the shameless mainstream media has been peddling a story of an Episcopal Bishop who says that denying climate change is "sinful." Perhaps the Bishop got the idea from Pious Paul Krugman who last year said, "You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so — this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin)."

So individuals, who use their own minds, to come to their own conclusions, are "sinful" if the conclusions don't jive with Al Gore's view of the world?

This is desperation.

Climate change alarmists are clearly running out of straws.


No more war...

Yemen Exploding: Is The Stage Set for the Big War?

By Ron Paul

Rapid changes are occurring in Yemen. Ever since United States had to leave its military base there, other powers have been lining up to benefit from the chaos. It has been revealed that Saudi Arabia has commenced bombing targets in Yemen. Egypt has announced its support for the Saudi effort. I am quite confident that this support is in compliance with our instructions to our puppet leader now in charge in Egypt. The current president of Yemen, Hadi, a leader who took over after the Arab Spring revolution, has been removed from power. He is said to have escaped to Saudi Arabia, and those who are now in charge in Yemen will most likely kill him if he returns.

Yemen has been instrumental in the US effort to fight al-Qaeda in the region. Unsuccessfully, I might add. The Houthis who have deposed Hadi are said to get their support from Iran and are now likely the strongest political force in the country. But they will not have an easy time of it. Too much is at stake for the United States and Saudi Arabia. We don’t read much about the Saudi Air Force being involved in military conflict, but the seriousness of the situation has prompted them to do exactly that. There are also reports that 150,000 or more troops are massed near the borders of Yemen for a probable invasion. It is assumed that other Arab nations will be involved, along with Egypt. One report said that it appears the country is “sliding toward a civil war.” I would suggest that it’s past sliding toward the civil war, and, rather, is involved deeply in a civil war that is now spreading outside its own borders.

The neoconservatives, I am sure, will blame everything on Iran. And it’s likely Iran may have been involved in giving some type of support to the Shia that now are on the verge of taking over the country. But one must ask, “How does this compare to the support the United States has given to over 100 countries in recent years, with a major portion going to the Middle East?” There’s a big difference between a country becoming involved in a crisis next door and a country getting involved 6000 miles away.

It looks like the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, a military dictator who was deposed in the Arab Spring revolution, is now aligned with the Shia Houthis who are supported by Iran. This will not be tolerated by the United States, and we can expect the US to provide indirect military assistance to those who are prepared to invade Yemen and install a US friendly dictator.

Foreign forces’ bombs and occupation will serve to unify the citizens of Yemen despite their other differences. As a matter of fact, it’s been our presence in this country for more than a decade that has been an aggravating factor. The fact that al-Qaeda type rebel forces have done well in the various countries in recent years is because they gain support from the local people with the promise that the foreign invaders will be expelled. This certainly is true when it comes to the type of support that the people give, tacit or otherwise, to the very ruthless ISIS forces. It amazes me how these ragtag rebels can out-fight and outfox various countries whose forces are larger and better armed. The so-called rebels find that their promise to expel the invaders is a strong motivating factor to gain support for the military resistance. The catch-22 is that the more we or any other nation try to subdue a foreign country, the stronger the opposition becomes.

This new expansion of the war in Yemen is a bad sign. The situation could easily worsen, involve many countries, and last for a long time to come. The stage for the “Big War” may well be set and we will be hearing a lot more about Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula in the coming months. If this war gets out of hand, I would expect that the benefits of $45 per barrel of oil will soon end. There is no doubt in my mind that the American people — financially and for security reasons — would be better served if we just came home and avoided these nonsensical military interventions that are carried out in behalf of various special interests that control our foreign policy.


Friday, March 27, 2015

The Global Warming War - Official Trailer

Vitamin C better than vaccines...

Vitamin C outperforms vaccines

by: Jonathan Landsman

The idea of a "silver bullet" that can cure humankind of a broad variety of the diseases that plague it, from cancer to measles to the flu, has long been a dream of patient and physician alike. What if that silver bullet were to come not in the form of the latest risky vaccinations but in the form of a vitamin supplement?

That's exactly the conclusion that can be drawn after a review of the benefits of vitamin C found in the work of Dr. Frederick Klenner.

Conventional medicine refuses to recognize a proven medical truth

Dr. Klenner's findings of vitamin C and its incredible ability to cure everything from polio to multiple sclerosis to reactions from venomous snake bites can be found in the papers and other writings he authored across the span of three decades. His documented success stories fly in the face of conventional medicine, which calls for risky (invasive) medical treatments like the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Based on Dr. Klenner's years of study, it appears vitamin C acts as an anti-infective agent and reducing agent, as well as an anti-clotting agent, an oxidizing agent, and an antihistamine. Let's take a look at some benefits of vitamin C in Dr. Klenner's years of medical research.

Are you looking for real solutions for infectious diseases, cancer, cardiovascular issues, hormone imbalances or heavy metal toxicity? Learn from the best integrative medical doctors, oncologists and naturopaths in the world. Subscribe to the 'INNER CIRCLE' - which contains over 275 audio/video programs featuring the best cancer tests and natural protocols; learn how to eliminate infectious diseases without toxic drugs plus the best diet and detoxification programs.

Polio gets cured with vitamin C therapy

While others before him had theorized that vitamin C could play a role in lessening the effects of polio, it was Dr. Klenner who first gave polio patients doses equivalent to 10s of thousands of milligrams of vitamin C - every day.

While Dr. Klenner had presented a briefing of his findings on vitamin C and polio back in 1949 at the Annual Session of the American Medical Association, babies, children and adults continued to be crippled or killed by the virus as others in the medical field gave his findings little notice.

Klenner recommended giving the vitamin C dosage intravenously, but noted that the intramuscular route could also be satisfactory. He administered at least 350 mg per kg of body weight - a dosage equivalent to 25,000 to 30,000 mg for an adult.

According to Dr. Klenner, massive ascorbate treatment cured every case of 60 polio patients under his care. None had paralysis and all were well just three days after treatment. Again, Dr. Klenner reported his findings, this time in the Southern Medicine and Surgery journal. Again, few in the medical community took notice.

Boost immune function and eliminate disease symptoms naturally. Subscribe to the 'INNER CIRCLE' - which contains over 275 audio/video programs featuring the best cancer tests and natural protocols; learn how to eliminate infectious diseases without toxic drugs plus the best diet and detoxification programs.

Vitamin c provides great results for shingles

Dr. Klenner's success with the use of vitamin C to combat a number of infections and toxic invaders is astounding, including his published work with eight patients with shingles. Each person was given 2,000 to 3,000 mg of vitamin C injection every 12 hours, in addition to 1,000 mg in fruit juice given orally every two hours.

Seven of the eight patients reported complete relief of pain associated with shingles within two hours of receiving the first vitamin C injection. Overall, the patients received from five to seven injections of vitamin C. Blisters associated with the virus began healing quickly, and were completely gone within the first 72 hours.

Dr. Klenner's observations are supported by findings of other researchers as well, both before and after he had published his work. An earlier study reported success with 14 shingles patients receiving vitamin C injections. In a 1950 report, shingles completely disappeared in an astounding 327 out of 327 patients - just 72 hours after they had received vitamin C injections.

Can vitamin C help with other viruses?

Dr. Klenner's work did not stop with shingles or polio. A long list of illnesses, including pneumonia, hepatitis, measles, mumps, diptheria and the flu, among many others, were cured with the use of vitamin C therapy.

The key to vitamin C's effectiveness is the practice of giving enough, for a long enough period of time. While some chronic viral conditions may not resolve promptly, research has yet to identify an acute viral condition that vitamin C did not eradicate quickly - other than in patients with severe tissue damage and those near death.

For example, in pneumonia patients, Dr. Klenner recommended at least 1,000 mg. of vitamin C intravenously every 6 to 12 hours for mild cases, with children receiving 500 mg. Most patients showed complete clinical and x-ray resolution of the illness after just three to seven injections.

Benefits of vitamin C can also be seen in viral hepatitis patients. Patients were able to resume normal activities in just two to four days after receiving 500 to 700 mg per kg of body weight, taken orally. That dosage equates to about 30 grams - every 24 hours - in orange juice.

These are just a few examples of the many times Dr. Klenner and other researchers have used vitamin C to help patients get rid of viruses.

How to protect yourself from disease by building lifelong immunity

In a lifetime of work, Dr. Klenner voiced his recommendation that any person, whether combating an illness or not, should not rely on the small recommended dosage for vitamin C. Such levels are only useful in warding off acute scurvy; they do not address a chronic vitamin C deficiency made worse by stress, environmental impurities and infectious organisms.

In addition to treating disease, Dr. Klenner stood by his recommended daily preventive doses of 10,000 to 15,000 mg/day. For parents with children, he recommended dosages of their age in vitamin C grams, where 1 year equals 1,000 mg.

That means a four-year-old would be receiving 4,000 mg/day or a nine-year-old would receive 9,000 mg per day, with a leveling off of 10,000 mg per day for older children. Even these recommendations could be altered, however. Dr. Klenner is quoted as instructing patients to take enough vitamin C to remain symptom free with the expectation that the amount could vary.

It's worth noting that even at very high levels, no negative side effects have been reported with vitamin C dosages. Reversing disease symptoms with vitamin C can help the human body to establish "lifelong immunity" which vaccines (and many other toxic drugs) fail to accomplish.

Learn more:

"Face it; liberty is gone."

The republic is dead, and a storm is coming

Ron Lee

“Wake up, America,” people cry. “Have hope, faith, and heart that the republic can survive,” others proclaim. Honestly, I don’t know why everyone can’t face the reality that it’s dead already; the dream, the great experiment of America, has failed. While the idea of an American republic has been kept alive to assuage the masses, the reality is it was taken from us years ago while we slept.

Face it; liberty is gone. Freedom exists now only in the ideology of the Constitution, not in the practice of “democracy” and a U.S. government that rules us with tens of thousands of “laws” that yoke us to an indentured servitude of paying for its spending spree. Those in government have completely usurped the power of the people, all under the guise of protecting the people from, well, themselves. That’s because, left to their own devices, the people would choose to do things that are bad for their bodies or maybe even good for their bodies, but bad for corporate profit bottom lines — lobbyist corporations, the bedfellows of government. The people, however, should have the absolute freedom to do, say, eat, be or think whatever they want; but they don’t, because Big Bro says, “no.” And that’s that. No more republic.

So where is the outrage? Where are the people fighting the overthrow of their God-given liberties? Where are the true patriots? Nowhere. They’re still talking about preparing for action while not even realizing the game is already over; the past inaction all these years has assured the king’s victory.

But, what if it weren’t over? What would be the threshold that government would have to cross to make the people rise to take back their Creator-given rights?

During a “Support Rural America Sheriffs’ Event” a while back, six sheriffs told their stories and imparted upon the constitutionally patriotic attendees that they would stand for the peoples’ constitutional rights. As I was listening, I found myself inspired to hope for the future by their stories. Then an analogy sprang to mind…

What if the people were like Israel, fighting against others who didn’t believe they should even exist — the people just wanting to be free and left alone, to have a country that is theirs.

The U.S. government is like Iran. It has grown ever powerful and believes it is because of it that the world is different today. It believes that the people shouldn’t freely have a country to call their own, and it is doing everything it can to make sure they don’t. In fact, it is building the potential to nuke the people’s constitutional rights once and for all and has plans to sell off their lands. The people, as intended, would cease to exist.

The Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs, those who are in positions of power that truly believe in the constitutional republic, are likened to the international community that has protected the people all these years. They believe that you have to work within the confines of the government itself (“play by Iran’s rules”) in order to make a difference. They believe the courts aren’t corrupted beyond belief; they believe government still believes it is accountable. But they are wrong. And because of these beliefs they refuse to draw that line and truly support the people.

Right now, you could say I am like Benjamin Netanyahu. I am asking: “Where is the red line in the sand? What line does the government cross before we act? Dare I say before we revolt?” The question is, of course, moot, as the republic is gone already and the question was answered before it was asked: There is no line. We are ruled now by an elite few who can simply create law through executive order and administrative processes. We the people are slaves to our own insecurity while clinging to old ideologies long gone.

God bless America. You were loved.



What the Crash of the German Plane Tells Us

Laurence M. Vance

You have just as much of a chance of being killed by your pilot as by a terrorist on your plane. Perhaps the TSA should subject all of the pilots to a psychological evaluation before every flight and let all of us passengers just walk on the plane.


“We don’t trust the American-led coalition in combating ISIS,” said Naeem al-Uboudi...

The US Role in Iraq

By Bionic Mosquito

I think the New York Times has made a mistake: 3 Shiite Militias Quit Iraqi Siege of ISIS Over U.S. Air Role.

Why would Shiite militias, fighting against ISIS alongside the Americans, quit because the Americans are helping in the fight? Either The New York Times is wrong (typical) or the editors at The New York Times accidently let some truth get out (implausible, but has occasionally been known to happen).

Either way, it is a mistake.

Anyway, I have rambled enough; here is a sampling (emphasis added):

“We don’t trust the American-led coalition in combating ISIS,” said Naeem al-Uboudi, the spokesman for Asaib Ahl al-Haq, one of the three groups which said they would withdraw from the front line around Tikrit. “In the past they have targeted our security forces and dropped aid to ISIS by mistake,” he said.

Hakim al-Zamily, one of the leaders of the Sadr group, said his group had warned it would pull out of the Tikrit fight if the Americans were brought in. “We don’t trust the Americans, they have targeted our forces many times in so-called mistakes,” he said.

Mr. Sadr, whose troops fought bitter battles against the Americans during much of the Iraq war, said his group was pulling out because, in his words, “the participation of the so-called international alliance is to protect ISIS, on the one hand, and to confiscate the achievements of the Iraqis, on the other hand.”

Like I said, either way The New York Times has made a mistake.


Thursday, March 26, 2015


College protests today, not what they used to be...

What today’s college activism is all about

And the revolt against the empire

by Jon Rappoport

“Major pysops often contain the element of diversion. That is, the agents and propagandists are taking attention away from something they want to fall down the memory hole. This is particularly true when the thing-to-be forgotten was once a huge threat to the establishment. That thing must fade into oblivion. It must never surface again. So the people who could make it surface again are led into multiple distractions: substitutes for the real thing.”(The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

In the 1960s, there was a fearful and terrible thing called college activism.

It was fearful and terrible for the US war machine, during the Vietnam disaster.

From that moment, the establishment decided: this must never happen again.

Flash forward to today. Political movements on college campuses—many of them funded by college cash—are all about anything and everything EXCEPT a revolt against:

The State;

The war machine;

Destructive mega-corporations.

This is no accident.

It’s a large op.

A diversionary op.

Student groups on campuses are pitted against each other as they battle for college funding.

Students operate under a cloud of government loans so huge they have to preoccupy themselves with a future in which they are basically debtors, trying to pay off the $$.

As a result of multiple Globalist treaties (e.g., NAFTA, GATT, and the upcoming TPP), the job market in the US is deeply depressed. Therefore, debtor students have to focus on strategies for landing employment after graduation.

Millions of students are inevitably wrapped up in college courses which, in one form or another, are bankrolled by corporate and government money.

The subliminal message: don’t rock the boat; don’t bite the hand that feeds you; don’t revolt against The Machine.

“Here are some approved issues about which you are permitted to protest. Go to it. But don’t step outside the line.”

On top of all this, corporate and government money, which drives the agendas of many college teaching departments, results in curriculum slanted toward officially approved ideas, concepts, paradigms. The result? Students are programmed within narrow parameters.

The good news is: it’s darkest before the dawn.

There are students around the world who can see through all this insanity. They know their education and their college experience are being tilted, slanted, directed, and reduced.

They can imagine something else.

They’re at an age where shoot-for-the-moon still has vivid meaning.

A locked-down society isn’t their dream.

They can turn the op around and begin investigating their own colleges and universities. They can follow the money and find out where it’s coming from. They can expose their schools as arms of the Corporate State. They can support those few professors who buck the tide.

In my previous article, I strongly suggested a target: Monsanto.

That mega-corp has its hands and money deep in the entrails of many colleges. The corruption is foul. It can be rooted out.

Life is never what it seems to be, unless the order of the day is Surrender. There are always new roads and new possibilities.

Most people don’t want to know about that. But some do.

They’re the rebels against the empire.


Monsanto Lackey Refuses Glyphosate Beverage...

"Those tamper proof doors were installed after 9-11, to prevent attacks on the pilots. But in this case it served to protect a mad pilot."

The Failure of Government Regulations: On the Deliberate Crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 and a Chilling Thought for All of Us

Robert Wenzel

Investigators are now of the opinion that the co-pilot of the Germanwings airliner that crashed in the French Alps killing all 150 people aboard appears to have brought the A320 Airbus down deliberately, the Marseille prosecutor said today.

German Andreas Lubitz, 28, left in sole control of the Airbus A320 after the captain left the cockpit, refused to re-open the door and operated a control that sent the plane into its final, fatal descent, the prosecutor told a news conference.

Here is what caught my eye about recent reports:

"The guy outside [the captain] is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer," an investigator described only as a senior French military official told the New York Times, citing the recordings. "And then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer."

"You can hear he is trying to smash the door down," the investigator added.

Those tamper proof doors were installed after 9-11, to prevent attacks on the pilots. But in this case it served to protect a mad pilot.

Bottom line: It is impossible to create a completely safe and secure world. Government regulations will never do it. Having tamper proof doors in planes is probably a good idea in most cases, in this case it wasn't.

The idea that government can solve all problems is a myth. Which brings me to government created nuclear weapons. Stephen L. Carter writes:

[The crash of Flight 9525] stands as a chilling reminder of how difficult it is to harden our systems entirely against attack. The human factor is always a variable for which we cannot fully account. Eric Schlosser, in his book “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety,” tells us how planners agonized for decades over how to prevent a crazed individual from stealing or detonating a nuclear weapon. Even if guarded against outsiders, the systems couldn’t be completely protected against insiders. His chilling conclusion is that the problem was never really solved: We’ve just been lucky.
And there should be no comfort in the fact that these weapons are controlled by individuals who are in the first place government trained killers. Governments need to be shrunk everywhere and in every sector but especially in sectors where a mad man can do nuclear level destruction.


Lew Rockwell on the China-Led Bank and Why It is Good for America and the World...

Minimum wage problems...

MORE MADNESS As a Result of Higher Minimum Wage Laws: Lower Take Home Pay for Some
Robert Wenzel

When you start regulating the economy, you never know what kind of twists and turns will occur.

The situation Bay Area lefty interventionists have created, beyond problems in the childcare sector and in Oakland's Chinatown, with their minimum wage hikes, is resulting in some surprising negative effects. Michael Saltsman at WSJ reports;

The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, half of what San Francisco’s wage floor will be set at by 2018 after a series of increases that begin in May. Nationally, Congress phased in the last 40% increase to $7.25 over a three-year period; in Oakland, an almost-identical 36% increase happened overnight on March 1...

In Oakland, local restaurants are raising prices by as much as 20%, with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that “some of the city’s top restaurateurs fear they will lose customers to higher prices.” Thanks to a quirk in California law that prohibits full-service restaurants from counting tips as income, other operators—who were forced to give their best-paid employees a raise—are rethinking their business model by eliminating tips as they raise prices.

Ironically, this change in compensation practices has reduced the take-home pay for some of the employees it was supposed to help: At the Oakland restaurant Homestead, the East Bay Express reported that servers are taking “a substantial pay cut,” earning a flat wage of $18 to $24 an hour and no tips instead of the $35 to $55 an hour they were accustomed to earning when tips were included.



Global warming scare tactics aren’t working
by Ben Bullard

Americans are far more concerned about drinking polluted water than they are about policy initiatives to combat global warming and/or climate change, deforestation and species extinction — and they’re steadily losing interest in environmental frights of every stripe.

That’s according to the most recent iteration of Gallup’s annual Environment survey, which finds concern over “global warming” or “climate change” trailing concern over every other major environmental policy issue.

The survey found that 32 percent of Americans surveyed indicated a “great deal” of concern over the threat of “global warming or climate change,” down from 34 percent last year. Across five other categories ranging from “pollution of drinking water” to “the loss of tropical rain forests,” the percentage of Americans who worry a “great deal” has declined across the board since the 2014 survey:

Unsurprisingly, people appear to care more about environmental issues that have a demonstrable and immediate impact on their quality of life — what Gallup describes as “proximate threats” — far more than hypothetical scenarios of long-term environmental decline and abstract projections.

“Despite ups and downs from year to year in the percentage worried about the various issues, the rank order of the environmental problems has remained fairly consistent over the decades,” the survey summary states. “Americans express greater concern over more proximate threats — including pollution of drinking water, as well as pollution of rivers, lakes and reservoirs, and air pollution — than they do about longer-term threats such as global warming, the loss of rain forests, and plant and animal extinction.”

Gallup doesn’t attempt to stir the pot when it comes to policy initiatives, but it does make a general observation about the disconnect between the small number of fervid environmentalists advancing a far-reaching U.S. policy and the much greater number of workaday Americans who take a more pragmatic view of environmental risks.

The primary focus of the environmental movement has shifted toward long-term threats like global warming — issues about which Americans tend to worry less than about more immediate threats like pollution. Importantly, even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989.

A final factor is the politicization of environmental issues. This is exemplified by the sharp political polarization in views of global warming.

Republicans are predictably less concerned overall about perceived threats to the environment than are Democrats.

“[A]lthough concern about environmental issues is lower among both Republicans and Democrats since 2000, it is down more among Republicans,” Gallup reports. “Across the six issues measured in 2000 and 2015, the percentage of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who worry ‘a great deal’ is down an average of 20 percentage points, compared with an average 10-point decline for Democrats and Democratic leaners.”

Read more on Gallup’s 2015 Environment survey here.


Give me liberty...

Resurrecting the spirit of Patrick Henry
by Bob Livingston

Two hundred and forty years ago this week, Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech to the Second Virginia Convention, which was meeting at St. John’s Church to avoid interference from Virginia Governor John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, and his Royal Marines.

On March 23, 1775, in proposing to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county, Henry addressed the assembly with these words:

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Now read it again and substitute the words “British” and “Great Britain” with federal government and the words “armies,” “fleets” and “navies” with federal agencies and their armed enforcers and reckon whether our situation is eerily similar.


The Gestapo is alive and well in Obama’s America...

The Empire Lives...For Now

Big and growing bigger...

How Big Is Government in the United States?

By Robert Higgs

How big is government in the United States? The answer depends on the concept used to define its size. Although many such concepts are available, and several are used from time to time, by far the most common measure, especially in studies by economists, is total government spending (G) as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Using official data available at the online repository maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and data available online for the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts, I have calculated that for the five-year period 2010-14, this measure of the size of government—including all levels of government, not simply the federal government, and all types of spending, not simply purchases of currently produced goods and services—was 35.8 percent.

On reflection, however, one might well wonder why G has been “normalized” so often by measuring it relative to GDP. One reason this practice is questionable is that GDP includes a large part—equal in recent years to about 10 percent of the total—known as the capital consumption allowance. This is an estimate of the amount of spending that was required simply to maintain the value ofthe nation’s capital stock as it depreciated because of wear and tear and obsolescence. Given that GDP is defined to include only “final” goods and services, it is questionable that expenditures made solely to maintain the capital stock should be included at all, rather than excluded as “intermediate goods,” as a large volume of the economy’s total output is already excluded (e.g., steel sold the manufacturers of machinery, wheat sold to flour mills).

One way around this difficulty is to measure G not relative to GDP, but relative to net national product, which, except for a statistical discrepancy, is the same as the accounting concept known as national income (NI). Using NI as the denominator, for the same period 2010-14, we find that size of government in the United States was 41.4 percent. This figure, however, may still give a misleading impression of the relative size of government because NI includes elements that are more or less remote from the economic affairs of individual households.

After some adjustments to NI, including several deductions (e.g., for contributions to government social insurance) and several additions (e.g., for personal income receipts on assets), we arrive at the accounting concept designated personal income (PI), which, because the foregoing deductions and additions have been almost offsetting, has been approximately the same as NI in recent years. From the total PI, individuals pay taxes, spend a portion (designated personal consumption, C), and save the rest. PI is the income concept that accords most closely with ordinary people’s notion of their income.

Personal consumption outlays, which currently amount to about 95 percent of disposable (that is, after-tax) personal income, are an arguably superior denominator for the measurement of the relative size of government. If we use it as such, we find, for the same period 2010-14, a figure of 52.2 percent. Thus, by a more meaningful measure, total government spending is equivalent not to a little more than a third of the economy (G/GDP) nor to a little more than four-tenths of it (G/NI), but rather to a little more than half of the part of the economy that affords immediate satisfaction to consumers (C/PI)...

Read the rest here:

How did the war with Russia workk out for Napoleon and Hitler???

NATO Is Marching Towards Russia, and They Have No Idea What Awaits Them

America is fully aware that the way to draw Russia into a conflict is to push forward towards Russia's borders. In time, Russia will be forced to defend its right to exist, and when this happens, western powers will not know what hit them

Stanislav Mishin

American politicians in particular and European politicians in general are some of the most ignorant fools when the issue comes to anything outside their own borders. When it comes to Russia, it is an engima wrapped in a mystery... but only because, dear readers, no one has every bothered to try to understand Russians and the Russian world view.

One important historical fact about Russia is that Russia is a unique civilizational empire built upon defense not offense. What this means is that historically, Russia does not start the wars, or series of wars (though it may strike first in a confrontation that is punctuated by a series of wars). In Russian history, Russian leaders, since Russia's baptism to Orthodoxy, have tried hard to avoid war with our neighbors, though just about every time this has failed. In parallel, as much as we do not like war, and in Orthodoxy killing in combat is still a sin as we do not have the heresy of Just War, we are very very good at killing and destroying. A paradox, but it is the reality.

This was so profound that in the summer of 1914, the Tsar Nicholas II, when war was eminent, even haulted mobilization to try and defuse the situation one more time and talk the Austrians and Germans out of what would become the great tragedy of early 20th century.

The problems with modern, and in truth historical, Western politicos is that these guys are absolute fools with no understanding of the Russian psyche and are sure to be the cause of WW3, be it intentional or accidental. They are projecting their psyche onto Russians.

What this means is that they are projecting a typical negative reinforcement mentality. Europe and the US are societies built on constant aggression towards neighbors. Aggression like that is staved by building up a credible large counter force of allies and blocks, which causes fear of defeat and deescalation...your typical European balance of forces approach.

Russia is a defensive empire, that is, most wars or series of wars were not started by Russians but by enemies attacking or massing on Russia's borders. After 800 years of almost non-stop aggression by Europeans, Russia does not tolerate any enemy massing on her borders in what appears as a preparation for invasion or the creation of large scales basing areas as would be a US neo-con dominated Ukraine.This is also coupled with the Russian approach of not abandoning Russians (ethnic or cultural) and allies, as opposed to Anglo society where back stabbing allies when the opportunity to earn exists, is a prized skill.

As such, this is a spiral approach. Any escalation by the foreigners will lead to a direct escalation by Russia and not deescalation. Balance of power does not work when Russia feels her survival threatened. Enough of an enemy escalation in the hope of forcing Russia to back off will generate an exact opposite effect in generating a first strike and total war, as Russia feels her life and existence is threatened by the enemy.

Nothing like putting Russian society in a threatened siege mentality to force the individual chaotic Russian nature to crystallize into one direction: total destruction of the threat and the states that generate it.

Russia's army may be only 1 million but the ready reserve is over 20 million with a follow capability of total mobilization of over 40 more million, and maybe more if one starts counting female combatants and one should.

Last time the factories were run by children, old people and women. Now with massive automation, even more of society is freed up to fight. Since Russian civilization is not just land but a cultural idea/philosophy it generates an absolute fanatical loyalty. This is a loyalty to a culture that allows the temporary surrender of land for time in the understanding that this will then be used, combined with non-stop partisan warfare, to grind down the invader and decimate him deep in the Russian interior, before marching on his cities and burning them to the ground in revenge.

Europe needs to find some German or Romanian veterans and ask them how much fun they had. Mamal Kurgan, the highest hill in Volgograd (Stalingrad) a 1,5 km sq area had 35,000 identifiable bodies on it, half of them German, after 4 months of fighting. That is more than both sides lost on the beaches of Normandy. In WW2 the Germans were on average having 1 soldier killed every 30 seconds. Figure 3-4 times as many wounded.

The present serving armies of NATO would be used up in 3-4 months. That would amount to almost a million and a half dead and wounded.

NATO would collapse. Greeks would refuse to fight. Serbs would be a war in the middle of all this. Cypriots would refuse to fight. Turkey would likely also refuse to die in a war they could only lose from. Bulgaria would probably have a revolution. Romania and Italy and Spain and Portugal would not long suffer heavy casualties before their unpopular governments were overthrown. France more than likely also. US couldn't fully concentrate their army as they would have to release their grip on all other sectors which in turn would be blowing up.

As for a second front, that is, if America was to invade the Russian far east, well, outside of grabbing Sakhalin and Vladivastok and Khabarovsk, all of which will cost hundreds of thousands of corpses, a US invasion force would be faced with a march of 3,000 km, or about 1,800 miles to the nearest major oil fields and forced to cover a land area larger than the continental United States, in wilderness terrain, with Russian partisans and the very cold Siberian winter (8 months long) filling the corpse lists on a daily basis. In other words, outside of a temporary land grab, nothing to fear.

Also if things got bad China would step in knowing they are next on the hit list, and thus Siberia would be fairly safe from US forces.

The reality, Americans, Germans, and foolish Poles, is, Russians will fight and 152 million people will fight to the end, not because Putin sits in power, or because we fear the enemy, but because love of Russia, the very idea of Russia, will drive fanatical, well trained and armed with advanced weaponry resistance. Russians will fight regardless of who sits the throne, because we are not fighting for the leader but for Christ and for Russia, the land He gave us as the Third Rome. What exactly will you be fighting for?


The new Murder, Inc.

How The US Government and US Military Became Murder, Inc.

By Paul Craig Roberts

Andrew Cockburn has written a must-read book. The title is Kill Chain: The Rise Of The High-Tech Assassins. The title could just as well be: How the US Government and US Military Became Murder, Inc.

The US military no longer does war. It does assassinations, usually of the wrong people. The main victims of the US assassination policy are women, children, village elders, weddings, funerals, and occasionally US soldiers mistaken for Taliban by US surveillance operating with the visual acuity of the definition of legal blindness.

Cockburn tells the story of how the human element has been displaced by remote control killing guided by misinterpretation of unclear images on screens collected by surveillance drones and sensors thousands of miles away. Cockburn shows that the “all-seeing” drone surveillance system is an operational failure but is supported by defense contractors because of its high profitability and by the military brass because general officers, with the exception of General Paul Van Ripper, are brainwashed in the belief that the revolution in military affairs means that high-tech devices replace the human element. Cockburn demonstrates that this belief is immune to all evidence to the contrary. The US military has now reached the point that Secretary of Defense Hagel deactivated both the A-10 close support fighter and the U-2 spy plane in favor of the operationally failed unmanned Global Hawk System. With the A-10 and U-2 went the last platforms for providing a human eye on what is happening on the ground.

The surveillance/sensor technology cannot see human footprints in the snow. Consequently, the drone technology concluded that a mountain top was free of enemy and sent a detachment of unsuspecting SEALS to be shot up. Still insisting no enemy present, a second group of SEALS were sent to be shot up, and then a detachment of Army Rangers. Finally, an A-10 pilot flew over the scene and reported the enemy’s presence in force.

By 2012 even the US Air Force, which had been blindly committed to the unmanned drone system, had experienced more failure than could any longer be explained away. The Air Force admitted that the 50-year old U-2 could fly higher and in bad weather and take better pictures than the expensive Global Hawk System and declared the Global Hawk system scrapped.

The decision was supported by the 2011 report from the Pentagon’s test office that the drone system was “not operationally effective.” Among its numerous drawbacks was its inability to carry out assigned missions 75% of the time. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress that in addition to the system’s unacceptable failure rate, the drone system “has fundamentally priced itself out of our ability to afford it.”

As Cockburn reports: “It made no difference. Congress, led by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon and Democratic Congressman Jim Moran (whose northern Virginia district hosts the headquarters of both Northrop and Raytheon) effortless brushed aside these pleas, forcing the Air Force to keep buying the unwanted drone.”

Cockburn provides numerous examples of the utter failure of the unmanned revolution ushered in by unrealistic dreamers, such as Andrew Marshall, John Foster, William Perry, and David Deptula, who have done much harm to the US military and American taxpayers. The failure stories are legion and sad. Almost always the victims are the innocent going about their everyday affairs.

The book opens with the story of three vehicles crammed with people from the same village heading to Kabul. Some were students returning to school in Kabul, some were shopkeepers heading to the capital to buy supplies, others were unemployed men on their way to Iran seeking work, and some were women bringing gifts for relatives. This collection of ordinary people, represented on screens by vague images, was willfully mistaken, as the reproduced conversations between drone operators and assassins show, for a senior Taliban commander leading forces to attack a US Special Forces patrol. The innocent civilians were blown to smithereens.

The second chapter tells of the So Tri, an indigenous people in the remote wilderness of southeastern Laos who were bombed for nine years because the stupid American military sowed their environment with sensors that called down bombs when human presence was detected. High-tech warfare misidentified the villagers with Viet Cong moving through jungle routes.

One heartbreaking story follows another. If surveillance suspects the presence of a High Value Target in a restaurant, regardless of nominal restrictions on the number of innocents who can be murdered as the “collateral damage” part of the strike, the entire restaurant and all within are destroyed by a hellfire missile. Remember that the Israelis denounce terrorists for exploding suicide vests inside Israeli restaurants. What the US military does is even worse.

On other occasions the US assassinates an underling of a High Value Target on theassumption that the Target will attend the funeral which is obliterated from the air whether the Target is present or not.

As the murders are indiscriminate, the US military defines all males killed to be valid targets. Generally, the US will not admit the deaths of non-Targets, and some US officials have declared there to be no such deaths. Blatant and obvious lies issue without shame in order to protect the “operationally ineffective” and very expensive high-tech production runs that mean billions of taxpayer dollars for the military/security complex and comfortable 7-figure employment salaries with contractors after retirement for the military brass.

When you read this book you will weep for your country ruled as it is by completely immoral and inhumane monsters. But Cockburn’s book is not without humor. He tells the story of Marine Lt. General Paul Van Riper, the scourge of the Unmanned Revolution in Military affairs, who repeatedly expressed contempt for the scientifically unsupported theories of unmanned war. To humiliate Gen. Ripper with a defeat in a massive war game as leader of the enemy Red force against the high-tech American Blue force, he was called out of retirement to participate in a war game stacked against him.

The Blue force armored with a massive database (Operational Net Assessment) and overflowing with acronyms was almost instantly wiped out by General Ripper. He sank the entire aircraft carrier fleet and the entire Blue force army went down with it. The war was over. The 21st century US high-tech, effects-based military was locked into a preset vision and was beaten hands down by a maverick Marine general with inferior forces.

The Joint Forces Command turned purple with rage. Gen. Ripper was informed that the outcome of the war game was unacceptable and would not stand. The sunken fleet magically re-floated, the dead army was resurrected, and the war was again on, only this time restriction after restriction was placed on the Red force. Ripper was not allowed to shoot down the Blue force’s troop transports. Ripper was ordered to turn on all of the Red force’s radars so that the Red forces could be easily located and destroyed. Umpires ruled, despite the facts, that all of Ripper’s missile strikes were intercepted. Victory was declared for high-tech war. Ripper’s report on the total defeat of the Blue force, its unwarranted resurrection, and the rigged outcome was promptly classified so that no one could read it.

The highly profitable Revolution in Military Affairs had to be protected at all costs along with the reputations of the incompetent generals that comprise today’s high command.

The infantile behavior of the US military compelled to create a victory for its high-tech, but legally blind, surveillance warfare demonstrates how far removed from the ability to conduct real warfare the US military is. What the US military has done in Afghanistan and Iraq is to create far more enemies than it has killed. Every time high-tech killing murders a village gathering, a wedding or funeral, or villagers on the way to the capital, which is often, the US creates hundreds more enemies. This is why after 14 years of killing in Afghanistan, the Taliban now control most of the country. This is why Islamist warriors have carved a new country out of Syria and Iraq despite eight years of American sacrifice in Iraq estimated by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes to have cost Americans a minimum of $3 trillion. The total failure of the American way of war is obvious to all, but the system rolls on autonomously.

The Revolution in Military Affairs has decapitated the US military, which no longer has the knowledge or ability or human tools to conduct war. If the crazed Russophobic US generals get their way and end up in confrontation with Russia, the American forces will be destroyed. The humiliation of this defeat will cause Washington to take the war nuclear.

Here is Stanislav Mishin’s view of what awaits the foolish West.


"Central banks’ multi-trillion-dollar monetary injections, zero-interest-rate policies, negative interest rates, negative bond yields, and the colossal scale of cheap money that artificially pumped up equity markets and fueled the investment capital/private equity group/hedge fund gambling binge, are unprecedented in the History of the World. And, when the Greatest Speculative Bubble on Earth bursts, it will be the shock heard and felt throughout the world — for generations."

Your Money, Your Life

By Gerald Celente

There has been nothing like this in the History of the World.

In full view of the public, and at their expense, governments loot treasuries to enrich those responsible for committing the highest of economic crimes and the most horrific of misdemeanors.

First there was TARP. As a pretext to stem equity-market turmoil following Lehman Brothers’ collapse in September 2008, President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program just one month later. That allowed the US Treasury to insure up to $700 billion of “troubled assets,” a.k.a., White Shoe Boy lingo for covering the massive bad bets and criminal acts made by big banks and Wall Street high rollers.

Shortly after, newly elected President Barack Obama sold the nation his $900 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The largest such plan in American history, Obama said “Four hundred thousand men and women are gonna go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our faulty dams and levees, bringing critical broadband connections to businesses and homes in nearly every community in America, upgrade mass transit (and) build high-speed rail lines that will improve travel and commerce throughout our nation.”

The only “roads” the nearly $1 trillion repaired was Wall Street. Concurrently, the US Federal Reserve ratcheted down interest rates to record lows and launched unprecedented Quantitative Easing policies that fueled a boom on Wall Street at the cost of Main Street. The Dow soared from 8,000 in 2009 to 18,000 in 2014, while an estimated 95 percent of the income gains went to America’s wealthiest 1 percent. Yet, during that same period, Gross Domestic Product has plodded along at 2.2 percent on average, never hitting the “escape velocity” Washington keeps touting and the financial press keeps selling.

Following the Fed’s plan, Japan’s Abenomic money-pumping scheme, announced in December 2012, has achieved similar results. The Nikkei recently hit 15-year highs while Japan’s GDP fluctuates between sharp declines and meek growth.

Now, the European Central Bank has begun a QE program that will inject $1.3 trillion into the financial system over the next 16 months — and more if deemed necessary. The end result, as with the US and Japan, will be the same. The record low interest rates and flow of cheap and easy money will temporarily boost equity markets while eurozone economies fluctuate between moderate growth and deepening recession.

Among the biggest losers is the general public, with no place to put its savings, especially with more European banks charging customers negative interest rates to hold their money. And, with bonds paying negative yields, insurance companies that sell products and annuities and invest that money in government and corporate bonds — with the expectation that the return on bonds is greater than what they will have to pay to the insured — has now been destroyed.

In anticipation of European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s QE plan, which he admits is “unconventional,” investors (high-stake gamblers) already have pumped some $36 billion into European equity markets. Meanwhile, for the man on the street, he has just seen his purchasing power dramatically decline as the euro continues its freefall from $1.39 last March to a recent low of $1.04 — and with forecasts to hit near or below parity with the dollar in the not-too-distant future.

Breaking Point 2.0

Central banks’ multi-trillion-dollar monetary injections, zero-interest-rate policies, negative interest rates, negative bond yields, and the colossal scale of cheap money that artificially pumped up equity markets and fueled the investment capital/private equity group/hedge fund gambling binge, are unprecedented in the History of the World. And, when the Greatest Speculative Bubble on Earth bursts, it will be the shock heard and felt throughout the world — for generations.


"...government spying is not normal to the Constitution."

Amendment by Consent

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Here is a short pop quiz.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress earlier this month about the parameters of the secret negotiations between the United States and Iran over nuclear weapons and economic sanctions, how did he know what the negotiators were considering? Israel is not a party to those negotiations, yet the prime minister presented them in detail.

When Hillary Clinton learned that a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives had subpoenaed her emails as secretary of state and she promptly destroyed half of them — about 33,000 — how did she know she could get away with it? Destruction of evidence, particularly government records, constitutes the crime of obstruction of justice.

When Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of both the CIA and the NSA in the George W. Bush administration and the architect of the government’s massive suspicionless spying program, was recently publicly challenged to deny that the feds have the ability to turn on your computer, cellphone or mobile device in your home and elsewhere, and use your own devices to spy on you, why did he remain silent? The audience at the venue where he was challenged rationally concluded that his silence was his consent.

And when two judges were recently confronted with transcripts of conversations between known drug dealers — transcripts obtained without search warrants — and they asked the police who obtained them to explain their sources, how is it that the cops could refuse to answer? The government has the same obligation to tell the truth in a courtroom as any litigant, and in a criminal case, the government must establish that its acquisition of all of its evidence was lawful.

The common themes here are government spying and lawlessness. We now know that the Israelis spied on Secretary of State John Kerry, and so Netanyahu knew of what he spoke. We know that the Clintons believe there is a set of laws for them and another for the rest of us, and so Mrs. Clinton could credibly believe that her deception and destruction would go unpunished.

We know that the NSA can listen to all we say if we are near enough to a device it can turn on. (Quick: How close are you as you read this to an electronic device that the NSA can access and use as a listening device?) And we also know that the feds gave secret roadside listening devices to about 50 local police departments, which acquired them generally without the public consent of elected officials in return for oaths not to reveal the source of the hardware. It came from the secret budget of the CIA, which is prohibited by law from spying in the U.S.

What’s going on here?

What’s going on here is government’s fixation on spying and lying. Think about it: The Israeli Mossad was spying on Kerry while the CIA was spying on the Mossad. Hillary Clinton thought she could destroy her emails just because she is Hillary Clinton, yet she forgot that the administration of which she was an integral part dispatched the NSA to spy on everyone, including her. And though it might not voluntarily release the emails she thought she destroyed, the NSA surely has them. The police have no hesitation about engaging in the same warrantless surveillance as the feds. And when Hayden revealed a cat-like smile on his face when challenged about the feds in our bedrooms, and the 10,000 folks in the audience did not reveal outrage, you know that government spying is so endemic today that it is almost the new normal.

Yet, government spying is not normal to the Constitution. Its essence — government fishing nets, the indiscriminate deployment of government resources to see what they can bring in, government interference with personal privacy without suspicion or probable cause — was rejected by the Framers and remains expressly rejected by the Fourth Amendment today.

For our liberty to survive in this fearful post-9/11 world, the government’s lawless behavior must be rejected not just by the words of dead people, but by the deeds of we the living. When the president violates the Constitution and the Congress and courts do nothing to stop him, we have effectively amended the Constitution with a wink and a nod — by consent, if you will. Its guarantees of liberty are only guarantees if the people in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping honor them as guarantees and believe and behave as such because the Constitution means what it says.

Where is the outrage? If you knew the feds were virtually present in your bedroom or your automobile, and your representatives in Congress did nothing about it, would you buy the nonsense that you should have nothing to hide? Would you send those weaklings back to Congress? Or would you say to a lawless government, as the Founders did to the British, “Thou shalt not enter here”? Does the Constitution mean what it says in bad times as well as in good times?

These are not academic questions. They address the most important issue of our day. For nothing will destroy our personal liberties more effectively than the government refusing to honor them and Americans sheepishly accepting that. And without freedom, what are we?


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

"The conspiracy is the fairy tale they’ve been telling the American people." It's all part of the plan, folks...

Let’s Stop Living In Fairy Land: “This Is Training To Condition The Public To Accept Military On The Streets”

Mac Slavo

The United States military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies are planning a two-months long exercise later this year. The government claims this is an effort to protect the American people, but Alex Jones has a different take.

In the following video Jones provides extensive documentation sourced over the last twenty years. The evidence is clear… and frightening.

The exercises taking place this summer in states like Texas, Utah and California are designed not for the protection of Americans, but rather, the intimidation of an entire nation. Members of the military and law enforcement are being desensitized to deployments on U.S. soil and the public is being conditioned to accept soldiers on every street corner as normal.

Sounds like a conspiracy, right?

The real conspiracy is the story we’re being told by “official” sources.

We are not attacking the military… we are exposing and attacking the policy of turning the military into a police state tool, which has been going on covertly behind the scenes for decades and is now coming to a head.

This is training to condition the public to accept military on the streets.

I was already given the information by Army PsyOps… and why do you think PsyOps was upset? Because they understand PsyOps are being run against the American people… And these are not PsyOps to free Vietnam or to arm people in other countries… these are PsyOps to take our freedoms… and it’s damn treason.

And let’s stop living in a fairy land…

You are being conditioned… you are being prepared to accept this.. and it’s not just here… all over the western world tyranny is being established.

I’m not saying that the military is going to invade Texas this summer and take over… It’s being done to condition the military and the police that it’s all normal so in the future it can be incrementally phased in…

Remember, the most PsyOp’d people are those inside the government… they keep you compartmentalized… they keep you in the dark and feed you crap.

And now they’re there telling you ‘there’s no militarization.. there’s no plan… there’s nothing going on.’

Militaries are always used to bring in tyranny.

Who can deny that Obama just dissolved the border without any Congressional authority?

Who can deny they’re shutting down the power plants with no Congressional authority under carbon taxes?

Who can deny the FCC just seized control of the internet?

Who can deny they’re getting EAS alerts on their phones from the President?

Who can deny the internet kill switch Obama has?

Who can deny they put our military under NATO command?

Who can deny that by every yardstick we’re losing our freedom?

The conspiracy is the fairy tale they’ve been telling the American people.


The tax scam...

The Tried-and-True Blueprint for Raising Taxes

by Charles Hugh-Smith

As the global economy slides into recession and the U.S. economy catches a cold, the blueprint for raising taxes will be dusted off in every state.

The blueprint for raising taxes in the modern era was first established in 1913 when the federal government instituted permanent income taxes. Prior to 1913, income taxes were viewed as wartime emergency measures to raise money for the immensely costly prosecution of war.

Here’s the blueprint for raising taxes:

1. Declare the tax is an emergency measure.

2. Start the tax out at a low rate to minimize resistance.

3. Levy the tax only on the wealthy to play the “it’s only fair” card.

4. During some late-night session when the public isn’t looking, make the tax permanent by burying the provision deep inside some popular and/or complicated legislation.

5. Raise the tax rate in response to deficits, i.e. “we need more money.”

6. Gradually expand the base by reducing the qualification level from “wealthy” to “well-off” and eventually to everyone.

7. Gradually reduce deductions and exemptions to pittances.

8. Auction off exemptions for the super-wealthy via campaign contributions.


Civil forfeiture...

Forfeiting Property Rights in the Name of Fighting Crime?
Written by Jack Kenny

May 22, 2013 started out as a peaceful, quiet day for Carole Hinders, the proprietor for nearly 40 years of Mrs. Lady’s Mexican Food in Spirit Lake, Iowa. She had just finished breakfast with her grandchildren and was about to start a crossword puzzle when there came a knock on the door. She opened it and found two men standing there with some news about her bank account.

“It was two IRS agents who then told me that they had closed my business bank account and had seized all my money which was almost $33,000 dollars,” Hinders said. Hinders does not take credit cards at her restaurant and, unwilling for security reasons to let cash receipts accumulate, she was accustomed to making frequent cash deposits at her bank. That left her vulnerable to a government-created “Catch-22.” Congress in 1970 passed the Bank Secrecy Act, requiring banks to report transactions of $10,000 or more to assist government investigators in the tracking down of foreign or drug-related money-laundering operations.

In the mid-’80s, Congress made it a felony to break down deposits into smaller amounts in order to evade the reporting requirement, a crime called “structuring.” So if you deposit $10,000 or more, you’re a suspect. If you make a series of deposits of less than $10,000, you could be a felon. But in the practice known as civil asset forfeiture, the government may keep your property without charging, much less convicting, you of any crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in which the loss of property is contingent on the owner’s conviction of a crime, in civil forfeiture it is the property itself that is “accused” of involvement in criminal activity, and it is up to the owner to prove the taking was wrong. Or in the words of attorney Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice (IJ), the legal assistance group representing Hinders, “Welcome to the down-is-up and white-is-black world of civil forfeiture.”

Standing Justice “on Its Head”

“Civil forfeiture turns the principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head,” said former IJ attorney Larry Salzman. “Once the property is taken, it’s up to you to prove your own innocence to get it back in expensive litigation with the federal government.” Meanwhile, the owner has to find ways to survive without the money — or car, or house or business — the government has seen fit to confiscate.

“I had to scramble, I had to borrow, I had to beg, I had to put money on my credit card, things I’d never done before,” said Hinders, insisting she had done nothing wrong. “How can I be committing a crime by depositing money I worked for and deposited in my own bank account?” she asked. “In 30 years of banking with the same bank, no one’s ever mentioned that I was making my deposits wrong.”

The irony of the Bank Secrecy Act is that it sounds like something to protect the privacy of your bank account. On the contrary, it is to keep secret from you whatever reports your bank may be making to the government about your financial transactions. Not only are banks required to report anything that looks suspicious, but they are also forbidden to tell customers that they’ve informed the government about their accounts. “Bank personnel found to have neglected their duties to report suspicious customer behavior can also be criminally charged and sent to prison,” wrote libertarian blogger and Washington Post columnist Radley Balko. That creates an incentive for the bank to over-report by construing broadly what constitutes “suspicious activity.”

“The problem, of course, is that when you force banks to cast such a wide net, they’re going to report a lot of people who have done nothing wrong,” Balko wrote. “And some of those people are going to find themselves in legal trouble.”

Seizing “Criminal” Buildings

Most Americans would, like Hinders, find the sudden forfeiture of $33,000 a significant burden to bear. But it is a mere pittance compared to some of the grander seizures and attempts at forfeiture made by law-enforcement officials ever since the “war on drugs” became a profit-making enterprise for federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies. In the mid-1990s, the state of New Hampshire pursued civil forfeiture of a Bedford house, then appraised at around $300,000, because one of the residents had purchased a small amount of marijuana from a police informant who had come calling on him. At his criminal trial, the defendant was found not guilty after his lawyer argued the sale was a police entrapment scheme. Yet the state continued with forfeiture proceedings, claiming the house was the site of an illegal drug sale, whether or not the resident was guilty of a crime. After the case drew negative publicity, the state’s attorney general quietly abandoned the attempted seizure.

A federal lawsuit against a motel in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, shows both how profitable civil forfeiture can be for police departments and how devastating it can be to property owners. Russ Caswell in 2012 found himself faced with the loss of the motel his father built in 1955 and that had become the source of income that would fund the retirement of Caswell and his wife, Pat. But because about 30 of the motel’s customers had been arrested on drug charges over a period of nearly 20 years, Tewksbury police teamed up with federal prosecutors in an effort to seize the motel, worth an estimated $1.5 million, and sell it. Under the federal “equitable sharing” program, the Tewksbury Police Department would get 80 percent of the proceeds, while the “feds” would keep the remaining 20 percent. “Equitable sharing,” apparently, means what belongs to the government is the government’s and what’s yours is the government’s, too.

The implications of this lawsuit should send shivers down the spine of anyone with the slightest respect for the right of privacy and a wholesome revulsion against a world in which “Big Brother” is always watching. A motel or hotel owner can’t possibly be aware of what is going on in all of the rooms all the time. The Caswells have installed security cameras on the grounds and, noted columnist George Will in writing about the case, “they photocopy customers’ identifications and record their license plates and they turn the information over to the police, who have never asked the Caswells to do more.”

So what’s next? Will hotel and motel owners feel obliged to install cameras in the rooms and report their findings to police in order to avoid the risk of having their property buildings confiscated for being the site of criminal activity? Are they doing that already? Who knows, if the cameras are hidden?

Because the government actions are against inanimate objects, the lawsuits often have odd titles — such as United States of America v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts. A similar case bore the equally strange moniker, United States v. 2601 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Calif. That case involved an effort by the federal government and the city of Anaheim to seize a building housing two medical marijuana dispensaries, despite the fact that the dispensaries are legal under California law. In what has rightly been called an “end run” around the state law, Anaheim sought the assistance of national law enforcement, since marijuana for medical or any other use is still contraband under federal law. The owner of the building, Tony Jalali, stood to lose his entire commercial building, in which he had invested his life savings, though he was never charged with any wrongdoing. He merely rented part of the space to parties engaged in activities legal under state law. Again the “equitable sharing” provided a powerful incentive for Anaheim to go after the building since the local police would receive 80 percent of the estimated $1.5 million to be gained from the sale of the property.

Jalali was one of the lucky ones among the victims of civil forfeiture — if being forced to wage a year-long fight in federal court against the U.S. Department of Justice just to keep one’s own rightful property can be counted as good fortune. In October 2013, the government agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the government gave up the right to file the case and threaten the property again.

More Than 400 Federal Forfeiture Statutes

Civil forfeiture as a law-enforcement tool is not a novel idea, though its use has been vastly expanded in recent decades. U.S. forfeiture laws were enacted at the beginning of the Republic, and their pedigree can be traced to the British Navigation Acts of the mid-17th century, during the period of England’s rapid expansion as a maritime power. The laws gave British ships a monopoly on the carrying of imports to and exports from “the sceptered isle,” with foreign ships seized, along with their cargo, and forfeited to the British crown, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the owners.

Civil forfeiture became part of American law when the first U.S. Congress passed laws to aid in the collection of customs duties, which in that small-government era accounted for about 80 to 90 percent of federal revenues. The Supreme Court upheld forfeiture laws, finding them necessary for enforcing admiralty, piracy, and customs laws, when alleged violators could not be reached, often because they were overseas. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in a 19th-century forfeiture case, the “vessel which commits the aggression is treated as the offender, as the guilty instrument or thing to which the forfeiture attaches, without any reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner.” Story, however, held that such forfeitures were justified when they arise “from the necessity of the case, as the only adequate means of suppressing the offence or wrong, or insuring an indemnity to the injured party.”

Forfeitures increased during the Civil War and again during Prohibition, with the seizure of automobiles and other vehicles used in the transportation of liquor. But it was the second Prohibition, commonly called the “war on drugs,” that gave rise to today’s widespread taking of allegedly “guilty” properties from their lawful owners. Congress in 1984 amended the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 to create the Assets Forfeiture Fund, with the proceeds from the seizure and sale of forfeited properties to go to the Department of Justice and other federal law-enforcement agencies, instead of going into the general fund. Many states followed the federal example, amending their statutes to give state and local law-enforcement agencies a share of forfeiture proceeds. Today law-enforcement agencies in 42 states receive some or all of the civil forfeiture proceeds they seize.

And the “equitable sharing” feature of today’s forfeiture laws makes it profitable for local law enforcement to call on the added resources of the federal government to increase the bounty taken and enjoy the return of 80 percent of the money raised by seizing suspect properties.

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 made “a number of modest reforms,” wrote Bullock of the Institute for Justice, “but it did not change how forfeiture proceeds are distributed or otherwise ameliorate the profit incentive law enforcement agencies have in civil forfeiture.” In the institute’s brief historical recounting of civil forfeiture, entitled “Policing for Profit,” Bullock wrote:

No longer is civil forfeiture tied to the practical difficulties of obtaining personal jurisdiction over an individual. Released from its historical limitation as a necessary means of enforcing admiralty and customs laws, the forfeiture power has instead become a commonly used weapon in the government’s crime-fighting arsenal. And Congress and the states have expanded its application even beyond alleged drug violations to include a plethora of crimes at the federal and state levels. Today, there are more than 400 federal forfeiture statutes relating to a number of federal crimes, and all states have statutory provisions for some form of asset forfeiture.

Looting With Loretta

The Washington Post reported last September that the value of properties taken in civil asset forfeitures by the federal Department of Justice during a five-year period nearly doubled in an inflation-adjusted dollar count, from $508 million in 2008 to $1.1 billion in 2013. The seizures come in amounts both large and small, noted Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

“The government takes your cash — $1,000, $500, whatever it is,” Paul said in a February 4 interview on Fox News, announcing he would vote against the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee for attorney general, because of her support for civil forfeiture. “This program predominantly has targeted black individuals, poor individuals, Hispanic individuals,” Paul said. “I wish [Lynch] had a little more concern for people who live in poverty before taking their stuff.”

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) raised the issue with Lynch during her confirmation hearing with the Senate Judiciary ­Committee:

Senator Lee: Do you think it’s fundamentally just and fair for the government to be able to seize property from a citizen without having to prove that the citizen was guilty of any crime, and based solely on a showing that there was probable cause that that property was in some way used in connection with a crime?

Attorney Lynch: Senator, I believe that civil forfeiture — civil and criminal forfeiture — are very important tools of the Department of Justice, as well as our state and local counterparts through state laws, in essentially managing or taking care of the first order of business, which is to take the profit out of criminal activity. With respect to civil forfeiture, certainly as implemented by the Department of Justice, it is done pursuant to supervision by a court, it is done pursuant to court order, and I believe the protections are there.

While civil forfeiture may be taking the profit out of crime in some cases, in others it is taking the livelihood away from law-abiding individuals and businesses. As U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Lynch handled the case against Bi-County Distributors, a family-owned Long Island company that sells cigarettes and candy to convenience stores. Because many of its customers pay in cash, Bi-County, like Mrs. Lady’s restaurant in Iowa, made frequent bank deposits of less than $10,000 and came under suspicion of structuring. In the spring of 2012, the IRS, working with Lynch’s office, took hold of the company’s bank account.

“Without so much as a criminal charge,” wrote Adam Bates for the libertarian Cato Institute, “the federal government emptied the account, totaling $446,651.11.” According to the Institute of Justice, the Hirsch brothers, owners of the business, were denied a prompt hearing, a violation of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. Since the case generated a good deal of negative publicity, it was perhaps no coincidence that the money was returned just one week before Lynch’s confirmation hearing in January, nearly three years after it was taken.

“The Hirsch brothers and their business survived, but just how many law-abiding small businesses can afford to give the government a 33-month, interest-free loan of nearly half a million dollars?” Bates asked. No one knows the answer to that, of course, nor do we know how many other small business owners have had their money confiscated, though innocent of any wrongdoing. In an editorial entitled “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal observed: “Ms. Lynch’s office is a major forfeiture operation, bringing in more than $113 million in civil actions from 123 cases between 2011 and 2013, according to the Justice Department.”

The FAIR Act

Civil forfeiture actions often violate one or more constitutionally protected rights, including the Fourth Amendment right to be free of “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no one will be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” When hundreds of thousands of dollars are seized or properties worth millions are taken, there might also be violations of the Eighth Amendment ban on excessive fines, even if the owner of the accused property should eventually be convicted of some criminal offense.

Senator Paul and Representative Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) have sponsored legislation entitled the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act. The bill would take the profit out of civil asset seizures by abolishing the Equitable Sharing Program that distributes the proceeds among local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies. That, say the sponsors, encourages police to seize property under federal law, which requires less evidence than most state laws do. The bill would also require “clear and convincing evidence,” rather than the current requirement of a mere preponderance of evidence, that the property qualifies for forfeiture. It would also require clear and convincing evidence that the owner of the accused property is responsible for the allegedly criminal use of it. The bill would limit forfeiture for “structuring” to only when the owner “knowingly” sought to avoid bank reports of “funds not derived from a legitimate source.” And it would require courts in forfeiture cases to provide legal representation to all who can’t afford it.

“The FAIR Act would provide essential protections for innocent property owners who have for decades lost their cash, cars, homes and other property without being convicted of or even charged with a crime,” said Bullock. “This legislation would also go a long way toward stopping the perverse practice of policing for profit.”

Paul and Walberg introduced the bill in the last session of Congress, but it went nowhere. It may take an aroused citizenry to awaken Congress to the dangers of a liberty-crushing strategy for fighting crime that representatives and senators have repeatedly endorsed and authorized. Innocent victims of civil forfeiture would be well and justly served if their countrymen showed the same fighting spirit Carole Hinders expressed at her restaurant in Iowa. “I decided to fight this because, I didn’t do anything wrong,” she said. “At least they should have to prove that I did something wrong before they took my money. And I want to stand up for it because I don’t want it to go on.”