Pages

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

"The best thing the American people could do today is dismantle, not reform, the national-security state apparatus. That’s a key to restoring a balanced, harmonious, peaceful, moral, free, and prosperous society to our land."

Engendering Crises to Justify the National Security State
by Jacob G. Hornberger


The latest issue of Time magazine, one of the very models of the mainstream press, says it all: “NATO’s Back in Business, Thanks to Russia’s Threat to Ukraine.” The basic theme of the article is that we should be thankful that NATO didn’t go out of business when the Cold War ended. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the article suggests, proves that keeping NATO in existence was a wise decision.

What a crock.

When the Cold War ended in 1989, it caught a lot of people flatfooted, especially the three main branches of the national-security state (NSS) apparatus: the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. The Soviet Union’s unilateral decision to release control over Eastern Europe and the Balkan countries was the last thing that the NSS expected. After some 50 years of ever-increasing budgets, power, and influence, the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA naturally assumed that this process was going to continue forever.

It wasn’t until after World War II that the national-security state apparatus became a part of America’s governmental system. The justification? To wage a “Cold War” against the Soviet Union, which had been America’s World War II partner and ally. Unless we adopt this totalitarian-like apparatus, the argument went, the United States would fall to the communists, who were supposedly everywhere, including under everyone’s bed.

Thanks to the national-security state, America became a nation that very much resembled the totalitarian nation that it was opposing in the Cold War: militarism, empire, foreign military bases, enormous standing army, military industrial complex, regime change operations, assassinations, torture, foreign interventions, containment, indefinite detention without trial, MKULTRA, NATO, and more. Despite the fact that this apparatus fundamentally altered America’s governmental system and the American way of life, it was adopted without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment.

When the Cold War ended in 1989, the NSS went into a panic. Many people were talking about a “peace dividend,” which would entail major cutbacks in military spending. Libertarians were calling for a total dismantling of the NSS. After all, since the Cold War was the justification for this new-fangled, alien way of life that had fundamentally altered American life and America’s governmental structure, then why shouldn’t it be dismantled once the justification was gone?

Immediately, the NSS started coming up with all sorts of new justifications for its existence, such as the drug war, helping to spread “capitalism,” and the vicissitudes of an “unsafe world.”

But the NSS did more than come up with new justifications for its continued existence. It also engaged in a parallel-track strategy to convince people that the NSS was still vitally necessary after all.

One track involved going into the Middle East and poking as many hornets’ nests as possible. The resulting crises could then be used as the excuse for maintaining the NSS’s existence.

They didn’t dally. Soon after the Cold War ended, there was the Persian Gulf intervention against the NSS’s former partner and ally Saddam Hussein, the intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage treatment plants knowing what effect that would have on the health of the Iraqi people, the brutal sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children were “worth it,” the no-fly zones that killed more Iraqis, the support of brutal Middle East dictators, the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands, and the unconditional military and financial support to the Israeli government.

The strategy worked. Over time, such actions produced such deep anger and hatred toward the United States that there were terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in 1993, the USS Cole, the U.S. Embassies in East Africa, and the 9/11 attacks, followed by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Gitmo, rendition, torture, indefinite detention, kidnappings, drone assassinations, followed by the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, the near terrorist attack in Detroit, and many more. It was a perpetual crisis machine.

What was the response of the NSS to all this? The response was: “This shows how you need us more than ever. The terrorists are coming to get us, just like the communists were coming to get us during the Cold War. Just continue to increase our budgets and expand our power and influence. The war on terrorism is going to last much longer than the war on communism.”

The other track involved keeping NATO, which the national-security state brought into existence during the Cold War to protect Western Europe from a Soviet attack, in existence rather than simply dismantling it. Even worse, it also involved having NATO expand eastward by incorporating the nations that had once been members of the Soviet Empire, thereby violating a promise that the United States had expressly made to Russia that such an expansion would not take place.

The expansion got NATO, whose members included Germany, the nation that invaded Russia twice in the 20th century, wreaking death and destruction on a massive level in WWI and WWII, closer and closer to Russia’s borders. At the same time, NATO was proposing the installation of missile systems within Eastern Europe, systems that were obviously directed toward Russia. Finally, NATO’s expansion reached Ukraine, which NATO wanted to make the newest member of its alliance. That would place NATO, including Germany, right on Russia’s border.

How could the NATO expansion not produce a crisis with Russia? The crisis was inevitable. What were the chances that Russia would passively and meekly let NATO, including Germany, come up to Russia’s borders with troops and missiles? What were the chances that Russia would subject its longtime military bases in Crimea to NATO control?

The answer is: No chance. The Pentagon, CIA, and NSA had to realize that Russia would ultimately push back. And now that Russia has pushed back, we have the national-security state and NATO, backed by their acolytes in the U.S. mainstream press, exclaiming: “We’re innocent! We were just minding our own business, just like we were before the 9/11 attacks. It’s those aggressive (communist) Russians who are responsible for this crisis. Thank goodness you have the NSS and NATO to protect America and the world from Russian (communist) aggression.”

To better understand how the Ukraine crisis came into existence, ask yourself this: What would be the reaction of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, if Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Mexico were to join together in a renewed Warsaw Pact which included Russian military bases, troops, and missiles in those countries directed toward the United States?

I’ll tell you what their reaction would be: They’d be screaming like banshees about how the communists are coming to get us again, just like they did when the Cubans and Soviets installed defensive missiles in Cuba in 1962 to deter another unprovoked attack on that island nation by the U.S. national-security state.

Moreover, the NSS would be doing exactly what Putin has done with Crimea. The Pentagon and the CIA would be invading and conquering Cuba, capturing or killing Fidel Castro (a communist), making all of Cuba (not just Guantanamo Bay) a dependent member of the U.S. Empire, and replacing Castro’s primitive surveillance system over the Cuban people with a state-of-the art NSA surveillance system.

The best thing the American people could have ever done is not having embraced the totalitarian-type apparatus known as the national-security state. In the name of fighting communism, it caused America to abandon its founding principles and ideals of liberty and limited government and turned America toward dark side practices that characterize communist and other totalitarian regimes.

The next-best thing the American people could have done is having dismantled the national-security state apparatus at the end of the Cold War.

The best thing the American people could do today is dismantle, not reform, the national-security state apparatus. That’s a key to restoring a balanced, harmonious, peaceful, moral, free, and prosperous society to our land.

Link:
http://fff.org/2014/04/22/engendering-crises-to-justify-the-national-security-state/

SKYSCRAPER in CHINA Catches FIRE But Does NOT COLLAPSE Unlike 9/11...

"Secessionism and nationalism are growth stocks today. Centralization and globalization are yesterday."

Nationalism is the Natural Enemy of Empires, and It Seems on the Rise Almost Everywhere
By Patrick Buchanan


With Vladimir Putin having bloodlessly annexed Crimea and hinting that his army might cross the border to protect the Russians of East Ukraine, Washington is abuzz with talk of dispatching U.S. troops to Eastern Europe.

But unless we have lost our minds, we are not going to fight Russia over territory no president ever regarded as vital to us.

Indeed, should Putin annex Eastern and Southern Ukraine all the way to Odessa, he would simply be restoring to Russian rule what had belonged to her from Washington's inaugural in 1789 to George H. W. Bush's inaugural in 1989.

This is not an argument for ignoring Russia's conduct.

But it is an argument for assessing what is vital and what is not, what threatens us and what does not, and what is the real deterrent to any re-establishment of the Soviet Empire.

Before we start sending troops back to Europe, as we did 65 years ago under Harry Truman, let us ask ourselves: Was it really the U.S. Army, which never crossed the Elbe or engaged in battle with the Red Army, that brought down the Soviet Empire and dissolved the Soviet Union?

No. What liberated the nations of Eastern Europe and the USSR was the determined will of these peoples to be free to decide their own destinies and create, or re-create, nations based on their own history, language, culture and ethnic identity?

Nationalism brought down the empire. And Mikhail Gorbachev let these nations go because Russia was weary of maintaining a coercive empire and because Russia, too, wanted to be part of the free world.

While Putin may want the Russians of Ukraine and Belarus back inside a Greater Russia, does anyone think he wants Rumanians, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs or Slovaks back under Moscow's rule?

Putin knows that his own popularity, near 80 percent, is due directly to his being seen as a nationalist willing to stand up to the Americans and their claim to be sole architects of the New World Order.

And it is nationalism, not a NATO full of freeloaders, that is America's great ally in this post-Cold War world.

It was nationalism that liberated the captive nations, broke apart the Soviet Union, split Czechoslovakia in two and divided Yugoslavia into seven countries.

Nationalism drove the Chechens to try to break from Moscow, the Abkhazians and South Ossetians to secede from Georgia, and the Crimeans to say good-bye to Kiev. And as nationalism tore apart the Soviet Empire and USSR, nationalism will prevent their recreation.

Should Putin invade and annex all of Ukraine, not just Crimea and the East where Russians are in a majority, his country would face the same resistance from occupied Western Ukraine Russia faces today in Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya. Putin knows that.

But if Eastern Ukraine in the May election should indicate a will to secede and join Russia, or become a separate autonomous state, why would we automatically oppose that? Are we not ourselves the proud descendants of the secessionists of '76?

If we can view with diffidence the drive by Scotland to secede from England, Catalonia to secede from Spain, Venice to secede from Italy, and Flanders to secede from Belgium, why would the secession of the Donbass from Ukraine be a problem for us, if done democratically?

Nationalism is the natural enemy of empires, and it seems on the rise almost everywhere.

An assertion of Chinese nationalism — Beijing's claim to islands Japan has occupied for over a century — has caused a resurgence of a Japanese nationalism dormant since World War II. Japan's nationalist resurgence has caused a rise in anti-Japanese nationalism in Korea.

China's great adversary today is Asian nationalism.

India resents China's hold on territories taken in a war half a century ago and China's growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

China's claims in the South China Sea have revived anti-Chinese nationalism in Vietnam and the Philippines. In Western China, Uighurs have resorted to violence and even terror to break Xinjiang off from China, which they hope to convert into their own East Turkestan.

Kurdish nationalism, an ally of America in Desert Storm, is today a threat to the unity of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Elections for the European Parliament in May are almost certain to see gains for the Ukip in England, Marine Le Pen's National Front in France, Geert Wilders Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, and other nationalist parties that have lately arisen across Europe.

These parties in a way echo Putin. Where he wants Ukraine to stay out of the EU, they want their countries to get out of the EU.

Secessionism and nationalism are growth stocks today. Centralization and globalization are yesterday.

A new world is coming. And while perhaps unwelcome news for the transnational elites championing such causes as climate change and battling global economic inequality, it is hard to see any great threat in all this to the true interests of the American people.


Link:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/nationalism-is-natural-enemy-of-empires.html

Earh Day. Really???

Earth Day, 45th Edition

Written by Bob Adelmann


On nearly every calendar Tuesday, April 22, 2014 is denoted as “Earth Day," putting it into the same category as “Presidents' Day” or “Independence Day.” Indeed, some consider it the most holy of secular celebrations, the culmination of more than four decades of indoctrination of the theme that it’s moral to force people to go green.

In a burst of excessive enthusiasm, Margaret Mead, a cultural anthropologist icon and agreeable participant in several marriages as well as romantic relationships with other women, once wrote:

Earth Day is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space.

Earth Day draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way ... by using the vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the Earth.

Unfortunately for Mead, the vernal Equinox actually occurred this year on March 20, showing vividly her confusion not only about astronomy but also about religion, science, and the proper role of government.

The original founder of Earth Day was an unprepossessing soul, John McConnell, who was also a Christian who took his religion seriously. His faith taught him that believers had a responsibility to take care of the Earth as stewards, and he often quoted from Psalm 115:16: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.”

In October, 1969 he proposed a global holiday to celebrate the Earth at the national UNESCO Conference in San Francisco, perhaps not realizing that his idea would be coopted by former Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, who turned the idea into a movement to promote his environmental agenda. Once he realized that his idea had been seized by internationalists, McConnell quickly distanced himself from them, noting in particular that “John McConnell is not associated with ... self-proclaimed Earthday founder Senator Gaylord Nelson.”

The first “teach-in” by Nelson took place on April 22, 1970 with the help of green activist Denis Hayes. This year the “holy” secular Earth Day will likely be celebrated in more than 190 countries around the world — making it, according to Hayes, “the largest secular holiday in the world, celebrated by more than a billion people every year.”

Various theories are extant about why April 22 instead of March 20, including trying to set the date during spring break, avoiding true religious holidays such as Easter and Passover, while honoring green believers. One of them, conservationist (not an “environmentalist” by today’s definition) John Muir, was born the day before, 132 years earlier, on April 21, 1838.

Perhaps more conveniently, April 22, 1970 was the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin, the first totalitarian to inflict his own view of Earth Day onto the hapless citizens of the Soviet Union. Called a “subbotnik,” the first day of enforced cleaning of streets and public parks occurred on April 12, 1919.

So infused is the Earth Day message into the culture that economist Steven Landsburg wrote about it in his book The Armchair Economist, complaining that his four-year-old daughter was being subjected in public school to the indoctrination without proof. Here’s Landsburg:

At the age of four, my daughter earned her second diploma. When she was two, she graduated with the highest possible honors from the Toddler Room at her nursery school in Colorado. Two years later she graduated from the preschool of the Jewish Community Center, where she matriculated on our return to New York State.

At the graduation ceremony, titled Friends of the Earth, I was lectured by four- and five-year-olds on the importance of safe energy sources, mass transportation, and recycling. The recurring mantra was "With privilege comes responsibility" as in "With the privilege of living on this planet comes the responsibility to care for it."

Of course, Thomas Jefferson thought that life on this planet was more an inalienable right than a privilege, but then he had never been to preschool.

After attempting to open the mind of his daughter’s teacher about the indoctrination she was feeding his daughter, Landsburg realized that he was not dealing with rational thinking, but with a religious ideology that ignored facts that countered the faith. Landsburg explained:

The hallmark of science is a commitment to follow arguments to their logical conclusions; the hallmark of certain kinds of religion is a slick appeal to logic followed by a hasty retreat if it points in an unexpected direction.

Environmentalists can quote reams of statistics on the importance of trees and then jump to the conclusion that recycling paper is a good idea. But the opposite conclusion makes equal sense…

This suggests that environmentalists — at least the ones I have met — have no real interest in maintaining the tree population. If they did, they would seriously inquire into the long-term effects of recycling.

I suspect that they don't want to do that because their real concern is with the ritual of recycling itself, not with its consequences. The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse. (Emphasis added.)

Earth Day this year on Tuesday, April 22, is the 45th celebration of the marriage of worship of the Earth and the state.


Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18092-earth-day-45th-edition

Taxes??? What taxes???

Obama Calls for Highest Sustained Taxation in U.S. History

By Terence P. Jeffrey


In the budget proposal he presented to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called for what would be the highest level of sustained taxation ever imposed on the American people, according to the analysis published last week by the Congressional Budget Office.

Under Obama’s proposal, taxes would rise from 17.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2014 to 19.2 percent in 2024. During the ten years from 2015 to 2024, federal taxation would average 18.7 percent GDP.

America has never been subjected to a ten-year stretch of taxation at that level...

Read the rest here:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-calls-highest-sustained-taxation-us-history

“They are collecting data on our children,” said Mary Finney in a statement. “Now, with Common Core there is such a large amount of information and data collected on children. People don’t realize it. We don’t want to sound like we’re wearing tin-foil hats, but they want to track our kids from kindergarten through college.”

Why are the cops punishing Common Core opponents?

Robby Soave


A school district asked the police to prohibit certain students from setting foot on school property because their parents had privacy concerns about Common Core-aligned standardized testing, and wished to opt their kids out.

The incident happened at Marietta City Schools in Marietta, Georgia. The Finney family didn’t want their three children — in third grade, fifth grade and ninth grade — to participate in the state-mandated Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests, partly because of the vast amounts of data the government is collecting about their children, and partly because they think the tests don’t serve a compelling educational interest, according to The Marietta Daily Journal.

Their sentiments are shared by a growing number of parents around the country, who increasingly see standardized tests as a costly bureaucratic tool that allows the government to gather personal information about kids. Criticisms of the tests are closely linked to criticisms of Common Core, the new national education curriculum standards that are fiercely opposed by both conservative grassroots and teachers unions.

“They are collecting data on our children,” said Mary Finney in a statement. “Now, with Common Core there is such a large amount of information and data collected on children. People don’t realize it. We don’t want to sound like we’re wearing tin-foil hats, but they want to track our kids from kindergarten through college.”

The Finney family attempted to opt out of the tests, but administrators were unsure whether they were legally permitted to do so.

And then — at West Side Elementary School — a police officer barred the Finneys from setting foot on school property.

If the kids weren’t going to take the tests, their presence at school was a “kind of trespassing thing,” according to the officer.

Administrators sent an email to the parents advising them that their children would also be barred from attending school on CRCT makeup test days.

Randy Weiner, a school board chairman, said he would not force the kids to take the tests, although he found it hard to sympathize with their position.

“Generally speaking, if it were my kids who simply were stressed out about taking the CRCT, I would tell them to get with the program and that they would be taking the CRCT today,” he said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for the school district did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/21/why-are-the-cops-punishing-common-core-opponents/#ixzz2zc4oaePS

Two peas in a pod...

Bush and Obama Are Both Evil Men

Michael S. Rozeff


e·vil
ˈēvəl/
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious

Singling out the last two presidents as evil is not to let other U.S. government officials, past and present, off the hook. It is only to focus on recent, visible and incontrovertible instances of evil deeds done by evil men.

Bush lied the U.S. into a vicious and aggressive war against Iraq. He’s responsible for a huge number of deaths and injuries.

Obama attacked Libya based on lies. Hoping to destroy the Syrian military by a bombing campaign, he lied about the gas attack in August 2013. Obama constantly lies.

Bush and Obama are wicked men, corrupt men, vicious men who have done profoundly malevolent deeds.

The U.S. government and its presstitute media have become so pervasively corrupt that the wickedness of one branch goes unnoticed by the others, or if noticed then unmentioned, and if mentioned then uncorrected by the other branches. The wickedness of one branch is far more likely to be joined in and approved of by the other branches than it is to be criticized, investigated and stopped.

Every day some U.S. government official, and usually many of them, propose, endorse or instigate some malicious act or law. Only a few days ago, the Congress unanimously passed a measure forbidding a visa to an Iranian diplomat who had been appointed as its U.N. representative. What term other than malevolent better describes such a despicable, vindictive, vengeful and vile act?

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/bush-and-obama-are-both-evil-men/

"Indeed, there can no longer be any doubt that militarized police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens."

The Bundy Paradigm: Will You Be a Rebel, Revolutionary or a Slave?

By John W. Whitehead

Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government.

Few conflicts are ever black and white, and the Bundy situation, with its abundance of gray areas, is no exception. Yet the question is not whether Cliven Bundy and his supporters are domestic terrorists, as Harry Reid claims, or patriots, or something in between. Nor is it a question of whether the Nevada rancher is illegally grazing his cattle on federal land or whether that land should rightfully belong to the government. Nor is it even a question of who’s winning the showdown because if such altercations end in bloodshed, everyone loses.

What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” As I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there’s a subtext to this incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow.

The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an uprising for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray.

One year later, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama issued its infamous reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism.” According to these reports, an extremist is defined as anyone who subscribes to a particular political viewpoint. Rightwing extremists, for example, are broadly defined in the report as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

Equally disconcerting, the reports use the words “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably. In other words, voicing what the government would consider to be extremist viewpoints is tantamount to being a terrorist. Under such a definition, I could very well be considered a terrorist. So too could John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of these men protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed and would be prime targets under this document.

All that we have been subjected to in recent years—living under the shadow of NSA spying; motorists strip searched and anally probed on the side of the road; innocent Americans spied upon while going about their daily business in schools and stores; homeowners having their doors kicked in by militarized SWAT teams serving routine warrants—illustrates how the government deals with people it views as potential “extremists”: with heavy-handed tactics designed to intimidate the populace into submission and discourage anyone from stepping out of line or challenging the status quo.

When law enforcement officials—not just the police, but every agent of the government entrusted with enforcing laws, from the president on down—are allowed to discard the law when convenient, and the only ones having to obey the law are the citizenry and not the enforcers, then the law becomes only a tool to punish us, rather than binding and controlling the government, as it was intended.

This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Indeed, there can no longer be any doubt that militarized police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.

That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry. Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist?

To make matters worse, a recent scientific study by Princeton researchers confirms that the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy, in which “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy.”

So if average Americans, having largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, then where does that leave them?

To some, the choice is clear. As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.”

Unfortunately, the intrepid, revolutionary American spirit that stood up to the British, blazed paths to the western territories, and prevailed despite a civil war, multiple world wars, and various economic depressions has taken quite a beating in recent years. Nevertheless, the time is coming when each American will have to decide: will you be a slave, rebel or revolutionary?

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/john-w-whitehead/will-you-be-a-rebel-a-revolutionary-or-a-slave/

"Freedom is not complicated."

No Room for Statism in the Libertarian Tent

By Scott Lazarowitz

While many people are arguing over what libertarianism is, or spending a lot of time searching for a missing Malaysian airliner which may very well have been abducted by aliens, or arguing over Ukraine or whether Vladimir Putin is this or that, I would prefer to discuss Elizabeth Warren’s “consumer protection” bureau. But because the “libertarianism” argument seems to be such a hot-button issue at this time, I instead want to add my two-cents worth on that issue.

And I don’t even want to discuss this “humanitarian libertarian” vs. “brutalist libertarian” controversy, started by Jeff Tucker. I rather want to address certain self-described “libertarians” who are not libertarians but statists.

But briefly, Robert Wenzel is right that libertarianism doesn’t involve social activism and doesn’t specifically address racism, sexism, etc., because libertarianism is really just the promotion of liberty, the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership of the individual. As Lew Rockwell wrote, libertarianism “begins with and logically builds upon the principle of self-ownership. In the society it calls for, no one may initiate physical force against anyone else.”

And in my view, the advocacy of liberty and non-aggression naturally goes with the philosophy of individualism. Individualism goes hand-in-hand with the concept of self-ownership. The individual owns one’s own life, including one’s person, one’s labor and one’s justly-acquired property. This is in contrast to collectivism in which the group or the community shares in ownership rights of the individual, and is a way of life which has been very thoroughly enmeshed with the State.

So for example, when purported libertarians go on to say that “we” need to get involved in Ukraine, they are really referring to getting the U.S. government involved. The State. In contrast, the libertarian answer to that is: If you and your fellow worrywarts are so motivated to intervene in Ukraine or elsewhere, then you go do that. You hire fighters, mercenaries and so on, and you and your fellow concerned people pay for it. That’s the libertarian solution. To compel your neighbors to do extra labor to serve your agenda, via taxation-thefts, is very un-libertarian, quite frankly.

Those who really want governments and their police forces or militaries to intervene, or for government bureaucrats to impose their will onto the private matters of others, are not libertarians. They are statists, pure and simple.

Here is another example. There is the ongoing case of statist doctors seizing a child’s medical treatment and getting the State to take custody of the child away from her parents.

As I understand this case, the child was being treated for an actual medical condition, Mitochondrial Disease. But because of particular circumstances in which her doctor suggested she be taken to a different hospital, the doctors at the new hospital discontinued treatment of her Mitochondrial Disease without approval of her regular doctors and diagnosed her as having a psychological problem and imposed an unnecessary psychiatric treatment on her. They attempted to make her fit into their own ideology of “behavior modification,” despite her actual medical condition.

The parents, however, said no to the new doctors’ change of course and attempted to take her out of the new hospital. At that point, the doctors had security guards block all exits and they threatened legal action against the parents. The doctors then called on the state government’s Department of Children and Families to seize custody of the child away from the parents.

Now, that is what has happened because our current statist society empowers doctors and government bureaucrats to act criminally against innocent people.

In contrast, in a libertarian society, when rejecting the new doctors’ change of treatment after their child had been treated by experts in metabolic disorders, the parents would simply say that they do not approve of that change in treatment and they would take their child out of that hospital. And that’s it.

In a truly libertarian society, had the doctors done the aforementioned acts to this family, those doctors would be seen as having engaged in criminal acts of child abduction, false imprisonment, and child endangerment. This is particularly the case now as the child’s condition has deteriorated severely.

Unfortunately, in our current statist society, medical doctors are put up on a pedestal and held in high esteem, regardless how incompetent, criminally negligent, and reckless they might be. Their false and undeserved automatic prestige is protected by the State. It is not based on actual conduct or accomplishment.

But with all their State-protected privileges, are today’s doctors no longer promoting “an apple a day keeps the doctor away,” because keeping oneself nutritionally fit really can keep the doctor away? The infiltration of government bureaucracy into medical care might be an explanation of that. The corruption of medical-State privilege has created a huge racket. ObamaCare and its intended replacement “single payer” is another racket. But perhaps doctors do not seem to be promoting nutritional health as a means of prevention of illnesses, either consciously or unwittingly, because the incentive to promote self-care and prevention has been very much inhibited by the State’s promotion of establishment medicine as an apparatus of and by and for its own ends, and to protect and foster the pharmaceutical industry.

In a truly free, libertarian society, there would be no medical racket protected by a State, and there would be no medical licensure or regulations. The licensure only protects bad doctors in the same way that teachers’ tenure protects bad teachers. In a libertarian society the good doctors would advance based on the word of consumers, not government bureaucrats.

Also in a libertarian society, any drug or supplement maker would have the freedom to produce and sell a product on a totally free and open market as long as no actual fraud is committed. And consumers would be free to purchase whatever they want, and that’s it. No compulsory doctor’s prescription, no federal or state government agents worrying about whether someone is using a drug not approved by a bureaucrat, and so on.

And no “illegal drugs,” only “no aggression.” And that’s it. Freedom is not complicated.

And those are just a few examples.

And by the way, regarding the recent unconstitutional aggressions by federal agents against a Nevada cattle rancher, in a libertarian society there would be no “Bureau of Land Management.” In a real libertarian society, there would be no federally-owned lands, period! And there would be no harassment of private property owners by border security bureaucrats, for that matter. In a real libertarian society, border security would be taken care of by what is now popularly referred to as the 2nd Amendment.

There is no compromise, no middle ground between statism and libertarianism. “Limited government” is not libertarian and isn’t even possible. In my view, libertarianism has no role for the State, as the State is a territorial monopoly ruler over people who did not consent to its rule. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled is contract-less and not voluntary. In a libertarian society, all relationships, associations and contracts would be voluntary. No coercion. The essence of the State is that its relationship with the people is involuntary. The State is nothing but an apparatus of coercion and aggression.

In contrast to the State, the libertarian society is a civilized society. But what we have now is an incredibly uncivilized society because institutionalized aggression and slavery of the people is exactly what the State is.

And in our current statist society, the institution of the State employs those who are allowed to be above the law which all others, the ruled, must obey. In a libertarian society, however, everyone is equal under the law, and no one may initiate aggression against anyone else, no exceptions.

So, please pardon my stern exclusiveness on this important matter. While there is room in the libertarian “big tent” for “humanitarians” and “brutalists,” there is no room in libertarianism for statism. Those who believe that the above demonstrations of libertarianism are “extreme” and that there still needs to be some form of compulsory State monopoly apparatus ruling over the people, then in my view those advocates should not be referred to as “libertarians” when in actuality they are statists.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/scott-lazarowitz/in-that-libertarian-tent/

"There are inequalities everywhere..." So, deal with it...

Wage Discrimination

By Walter E. Williams

“President Obama Vows Zero Tolerance on Gender Wage Gap,” read one headline. Another read, “Women Still Earned 77 Cents On Men’s Dollar In 2012.” It’s presumed that big, greedy corporations are responsible for what is seen as wage injustice. Before discussing the “unjust” wage differences between men and women, let’s acknowledge an even greater injustice — which no one seems to care about — age injustice.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers ages 16 to 24 earn only 54 cents on every dollar earned by workers 25 or older (http://tinyurl.com/n6puf6j). This wage gap is 43 percent greater than the male/female gap. Our president, progressives, do-gooders, academics and union leaders show little interest in big, greedy corporations ripping off the nation’s youth. You might say, “Whoa, Williams! There’s a reason younger people earn less than older people. They don’t have the skills or experience.” My response would be — if I shared the vision of the president, media elite and do-gooders: Just as there can be no justification for big, greedy corporations paying women less than they pay men, there’s no justification for them to exploit the nation’s youth.

The 77 percent median income statistic, used in discussions about male/female differences in earnings, tells us nothing about differences that might explain the differences in income, and it leads to stupid discussions. Let’s use some common sense and look at some differences between men and women that may have a bearing on earnings.

Kay S. Hymowitz’s article “Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever,” in City Journal (summer 2011), shows that female doctors earn only 64 percent of what male doctors earn. But it turns out that only 16 percent of surgeons are women, whereas 50 percent of pediatricians are women. Even though surgeons have put in many more years of education and training than pediatricians and earn higher pay, should Obama and Congress equalize their salaries? Alternatively, they might force female pediatricians to become surgeons.

There are inequalities everywhere.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Asian men and women have median earnings higher than white men and women. Female cafeteria attendants earn more than their male counterparts. Females who are younger than 30 and have never been married earn salaries 8 percent higher than males of the same description. Among women who graduated from college during 1992-93, by 2003 more than one-fifth were no longer in the workforce, and another 17 percent were working part time. That’s to be compared with only 2 percent of men in either category. Hymowitz cites several studies showing significant career choice and lifestyle differences between men and women that result in differences in income.

According to 2010 BLS data, the following jobs contain 1 percent or less female workers: boilermakers, brick masonry, stonemasonry, septic tank servicing, sewer pipe cleaners and trash collectors. By contrast, women are 97 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers, 80 percent of social workers, 82 percent of librarians and 92 percent of dietitians and nutritionists and registered nurses.

For people having limited thinking skills, differences in earnings cannot be explained away. For them, Congress has permitted — and even fostered — a misallocation of people by race, sex and ethnicity. They’ll argue that courts have consistently concluded that “gross” disparities are probative of a pattern and practice of discrimination. So what to do? Maybe President Obama and Congress should require women, who are overrepresented in preschool and kindergarten teaching, to become boilermakers, garbage collectors and brick masons and mandate that male boilermakers, trash collectors and brick masons become preschool and kindergarten teachers until both of their percentages are equal to their percentages in the population. You say, “Williams, to do that would be totalitarianism!” I say that if Americans accept that Congress can force us to buy health insurance, how much more totalitarian would it be for Congress to force people to take jobs they don’t want?

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/walter-e-williams/discrimination-against-white-people/

Monday, April 21, 2014

"History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state -- and that of course would be good. This is why it is so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution."

Ron Paul: Nevada Standoff a Sign of the Failure of Authoritarian Warfare-Welfare State
Ron Paul's Weekly Column Texas Straight Talk:


The nation’s attention has for the past few weeks been riveted by a standoff in Nevada between armed federal agents and the Bundys, a ranching family who believe the federal government is exceeding its authority by assessing “fees” against ranchers who graze cattle on government lands. Outrage over the government's use of armed agents to forcibly remove the Bundys’ cattle led many Americans to travel to Nevada to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience in support of the family.

The protests seem to have worked, at least for now, as the government appears to have backed off from direct confrontation. Sadly, some elected officials have inflamed the situation by labeling the Bundys and their supporters “domestic terrorists,” thus justifying any future use of force by the government. That means there is always the possibility of another deadly Waco-style raid on the Bundys or a similar group in the future.

In a state like Nevada, where 84 percent of the land is owned by the federal government, these types of conflicts are inevitable. Government ownership of land means that land is in theory owned by everyone, but in practice owned by no one. Thus, those who use the land lack the incentives to preserve it for the long term. As a result, land-use rules are set by politicians and bureaucrats. Oftentimes, the so-called “public” land is used in ways that benefit politically-powerful special interests.

Politicians and bureaucrats can, and will, arbitrarily change the rules governing the land. In the 19th century, some Americans moved to Nevada because the government promised them that they, and their descendants, would always be able to use the federally-owned land. The Nevada ranchers believed they had an implied contract with the government allowing them to use the land for grazing. When government bureaucrats decided they needed to restrict grazing to protect the desert tortoise, they used force to drive most ranchers away.

By contrast, if the Nevada land in question was privately owned, the dispute over whether to allow the ranchers to continue to use the land would have likely been resolved without sending in federal armed agents to remove the Bundys’ cattle from the land. This is one more reason why the federal government should rid itself of all federal land holdings. Selling federal lands would also help reduce the federal deficit.

It is unlikely that Congress will divest the federal government’s land holdings, as most in government are more interested in increasing government power than in protecting and restoring private property rights.

A government that continually violates our rights of property and contract can fairly be descried as authoritarian. Of course, the politicians and bureaucrats take offense at this term, but how else do you describe a government that forbids Americans from grazing cattle on land they have used for over a century, from buying health insurance that does not meet Obamacare’s standards, from trading with Cuba, or even from drinking raw milk? That so many in DC support the NSA spying and the TSA assaults on our privacy shows the low regard that too many in government have for our rights.

History shows us that authoritarian systems, whether fascist, communist, or Keynesian, will inevitably fail. I believe incidents such as that in Nevada show we may be witnessing the failure of the American authoritarian warfare-welfare state -- and that of course would be good. This is why it is so important that those of us who understand the freedom philosophy spread the truth about how statism caused our problems and why liberty is the only solution.


Link:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/ron-paul-nevada-standoff-sign-of.html

MY HOME TOWN...

Train nearly takes out U.S. Senator

So, Common Core is a commie plot after all...

UNESCO and Bill Gates’ vision for America’s education explained

Kay Bivens


Today I focus on a timeline of events that led up to the development of Common Core, so like Paul Harvey said in his old radio spots, “Here’s the rest of the story.”

The original visions of education reform that led to Common Core include those of Julian Huxley, the first director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In 1947, Huxley expressed his vision of an international education model and sought ways for UNESCO to advance his goals. Fifty-seven years later, multibillionaire chairman of Microsoft Bill Gates stepped forward, signing an alliance with UNESCO. Many of Huxley’s visions sound much like those of Common Core.

Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative political activist and constitutional attorney, wrote an article in 2005 that sums up the Gates-UNESCO alliance and vision; her timeline, plus other events pertinent to Common Core’s history, include:

1946: Huxley wrote a book about UNESCO’s task where he spoke of helping create a single-world culture by reconciling individualism vs. collectivism; American vs. the Russian way of life; capitalism vs. communism; Christianity vs. Marxism.

1960s-70s: UNESCO tried repeatedly to influence U.S. school curricula, but failed.

1984: President Ronald Reagan withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO for its “corruption, anti-Western and far-left propaganda.”

1992: A turning point occurred when Marc Tucker sent Hillary Clinton a letter suggesting America re-mold and expand its education system using the same system for everyone. Tucker proposed using curriculum and counselors to job-match students based on labor market boards at local, state and federal levels. He also proposed: “adopting internationally benchmarked standards for educating our students and workers.”

1994: Many of Tucker’s ideas were implemented in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the School-to-Work Act signed by President Bill Clinton. These laws established “national standards” and “national testing” to cement national control, and are they today considered the blueprint for the Common Core plan. This is another crack putting federalism in jeopardy. Tucker is now advising the Obama administration’s department of education about how to implement the Common Core standards and Race to the Top programs.

2003: President George W. Bush reinstated America’s membership in UNESCO. In October in a UNESCO speech, U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige said: “Education for all is consistent with our recent education legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act,” Bush’s initiative. Paige also said the United States and UNESCO were pursuing a “common strategy” and were “implementing joint action” in education policy. (Weren’t we told Common Core was a state-led initiative?)

Nov. 2004: The Bill Gates/UNESCO agreement called for Microsoft to develop a “master curriculum” for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques.

Dec. 2004: The National Governors Association published a report showing they were onboard with the agreement immediately after it was signed. That report referred to “using schools to feed workers into selected corporations,” and “integrating a common agenda for education, economic and workforce development policies.”

Sept. 2009: The National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers announced the names of the members of the Validation Committee for Common Core. They stated after the committee validated the standards and process, the NGA/CCSSO would begin developing the K-12 standards. (That development was actually outsourced to Achieve Inc.)

June 2010: South Carolina, without public review, adopted a massive education initiative supposedly developed and “advertised” as being “internationally” benchmarked and field-tested in less than nine months. (Internationally is supposed to have been dropped from the claims.)

Do you trust that UNESCO has had no influence on the development of Common Core? Do you think Gates would fund any aspect of Common Core that did not reflect his and UNESCO’s common goals?

Gates’ explanation of his support of UNESCO’s objectives is quite disconcerting: “Common Core does not emphasize student acquisition of knowledge and development skills.”

Since 2000, Gates has given $5 billion to organizations and companies involved in Common Core.

Need more convincing? Visit breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/03/Common-Core-101-What-Is-It-And-How-Does-It-Affect-Our-Children.


Link:
http://www.lakewyliepilot.com/2014/04/07/2370470/my-view-unesco-and-bill-gates.html?sp=/99/426/445/

Fluoride is Poison...

"By the time a person graduates high school, that mindset is so deeply ingrained that it remains with the person through adulthood, oftentimes through his entire life. That’s one of the things, of course, that distinguish libertarians from statists. Libertarians have broken free of the indoctrination. We’re able to analyze crises such as these in a critical way, which enables us to see things differently from those in the mainstream who are still the victims of the indoctrination they received in their public (i.e., government) schools."

Operation Parrot and the Crisis in Ukraine
by Jacob G. Hornberger


One of the fascinating aspects of the crisis in Ukraine is the response of the mainstream media in both Russia and the United States. The response is precisely the same, with the press in each country offering unconditional support to the official line of its own government. The U.S. mainstream press pokes fun at the Russian mainstream press for parroting the official line put out by President Putin and the Russian national-security state while failing to recognize that it is doing precisely what it accuses the Russian mainstream press of doing — parroting the official line put out by President Obama and the U.S. national security state.

Why has the mainstream press in both countries automatically rallied to its respective government?

The reasons are similar.

One similarity is the mindset of deference to authority drilled into owners and operators of the mainstream press, both in Russia and the United States, from the time they were six years of age. That’s the purpose of public (i.e., government) schooling in both Russia and the United States — to inculcate in the children of the country a mindset of conformity, obedience, and deference to authority — a mindset that encourages the child to not challenge the authorities on fundamental issues.

By the time a person graduates high school, that mindset is so deeply ingrained that it remains with the person through adulthood, oftentimes through his entire life. That’s one of the things, of course, that distinguish libertarians from statists. Libertarians have broken free of the indoctrination. We’re able to analyze crises such as these in a critical way, which enables us to see things differently from those in the mainstream who are still the victims of the indoctrination they received in their public (i.e., government) schools.

Unlike statists, we libertarians are able to see when our government is in the wrong with respect to a particular crisis. The statist is unable to do that. In a crisis involving a foreign country, all that he is able to do is immediately rally to the side of his own government, be it Russian, American, or whatever, and not even consider the possibility that his own government is on the wrong side of the crisis. The statist mindset is one of “My government, right or wrong,” or, even better, “My government, never wrong.”

Consider the crisis in Ukraine. The U.S. mainstream press is filled with denunciations of Putin and Russia, parroting the official U.S. national-security state line that the crisis has been caused by Russian expansionism, aggression, militarism, empire, and assertiveness and that the peaceful United States, reluctantly, has been sucked into a new Cold War.

The mainstreamers will fail to point out the critical role that the U.S. national-security state and NATO have played to instigate the crisis. You won’t read now the U.S. national-security state refused to dismantle NATO at the end of the Cold War. Or about how NATO has, in violation of U.S. promises to Russia at the end of the Cold War, expanded its membership to include the Eastern European and Baltic countries that once formed part of the Warsaw Pact. Or the NATO wish to have Ukraine to become a member of NATO, which would have meant that NATO would then have jurisdiction over Russia’s longtime military bases in Crimea.

For that type of critical analysis, you have to turn to the Internet, mostly by libertarians but also by a few principled progressives who are unafraid to criticize a Democrat president.

Another reason for the unconditional support offered by the U.S. mainstream press for its national-security state is that owners and publishers of mainstream U.S. newspapers know that if they fail to toe the official line, the U.S. government is likely to do bad things to them or fail to do good things for them.

In his latest volume on Lyndon Johnson, The Passage of Power, Robert Caro described how the process works. Prior to the Kennedy assassination, the mainstream press was investigating criminal activity involving political corruption by Johnson. Most every historian today agrees that if the investigations had gone forward, Johnson would have been impeached, criminally prosecuted, or both.

Immediately after he became president, Johnson telephoned one Texas newspaper where a reporter was digging into his corruption. Johnson suggested that if the reporter was permitted to continue with the investigation, Johnson would sic the IRS on the newspaper principals. The investigation was shut down.

At another mainstream Texas newspaper, a reporter was undertaking the same type of investigation. Johnson learned that the paper’s principals were trying to get some sort of corporate merger through. Johnson let it be known that if the investigation were to go forward, the principals could kiss any chance of official approval of the merger goodbye. The newspaper shut down the investigation and the merger was permitted to go through.

When Johnson was vice-president, every newspaper person in the country knew about the investigations into his political corruption by both the press and Congress. Yet, the minute he became president, those investigations and even questions into his political corruption came to a screeching halt.

Why?

Two reasons: Fear and deference to the authority of the president.

That’s the same thing that guides the mainstream press in Russia.

Finally, we shouldn’t discount the possibility of the Russian national-security state’s and U.S. national-security state’s having “assets” within the ranks of owners and publishers of the mainstream press in their respective countries. Don’t forget Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s secret program to influence the media here in the United States. There is no reason to believe that the Russia government doesn’t do the same thing with the mainstream press in Russia.

Let’s face it: If you want to get the standard official line of either the U.S. government or the Russian government about the Ukraine crisis, just read the mainstream press in either country. They’re the ones who will parrot the official line. If you want to get critical analysis on the crisis, go to the Internet and especially to the libertarian sites.

Link:
http://fff.org/2014/04/21/operation-parrot-and-the-crisis-in-ukraine/

"With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the chance to defend himself."

The Next Shoe Just Dropped: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Simon Black


In the Land of the Free, people grow up hearing a lot of things about their freedom.

You're told that you live in the freest country on the planet. You're told that other nations 'hate you' for your freedom.

And you're told that you have the most open and fair justice system in the world.

This justice system is supposedly founded on bedrock principles-- things like a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right to due process and an impartial hearing. The right to counsel and attorney-client privilege.

Yet each of these core pillars has been systematically dismantled over the years:

1. So that it can operate with impunity outside of the law, the federal government has set up its own secret FISA courts to rubber stamp NSA surveillance.

According to data obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, of the nearly 34,000 surveillance requests made to FISA courts in the last 35-years, only ELEVEN have been rejected.

Unsurprising given that FISA courts only hear the case from the government's perspective. It is literally a one-sided argument in FISA courts. Hardly an impartial hearing, no?

2. The concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' may officially exist in courts, but administratively it was thrown out long ago.

These days there are hundreds of local, state, and federal agencies that can confiscate your assets, levy your bank account, and freeze you out of your life's savings. None of this requires a court order.

By the time a case goes to court, you have been deprived of the resources you need to defend yourself. You might technically be presumed innocent, but you have been treated and punished like a criminal from day one.

3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is completely private.

In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."

It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.

Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications."

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.

Unbelievable.

While it's true that attorney-client privilege has long been assailed in numerous court cases (especially with regards to tax matters), this decision sets the most dangerous precedent yet.

With this ruling, government now has carte blanche to set aside long-standing legal protections and even deny a human being even the chance to defend himself.

Naturally, you won't hear a word about this in the mainstream media.

But it certainly begs the question, what's the point of even having a trial? Or a constitution?

When every right and protection you have can be disregarded in their sole discretion, one really has to wonder how anyone can call it a 'free country' any more.

Link:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-19/next-shoe-just-dropped-court-denies-attorney-client-privelege

THE HIDDEN ENEMY DOCUMENTARY...

Watch the film here:

http://www.cchr.org/documentaries/the-hidden-enemy.html

"The domestic terrorists in question are not the American people. They are Reid, Obama, Boehner and the rest of the political and bureaucratic class who ignore the rule of law and oppress the American people."

Standing Up To Government Is Now Domestic Terrorism

by Bob Livingston

The political class is now demonstrating a level of hubris rarely, if ever, seen in the American system.

Within just a few hours, three of the top four most post powerful politicians in the country unabashedly revealed the low opinion they have of liberty and the American people and a willingness to persecute, prosecute and lie to those who advocate and fight for Constitutional government. And by their silence, the rest of the political class nodded their agreement.

First, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Bunkerville, Nev., rancher Cliven Bundy and the hundreds of Americans who rallied to Bundy’s defense domestic terrorists. Then, President Barack Obama brazenly lied to the American people in claiming that 8 million people had signed up for Obamacare and that the program was a success, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And early Friday morning, we learned Speaker of the House John Boehner has proclaimed once again to big money donors and crony capitalists that an immigration bill would be passed this year over the wishes of the majority of Americans.

Within hours of reports circulating in alternative media of Reid’s use of the Bureau of Land Management in his land grab on behalf of a Chinese solar energy firm, BLM pulled its goon squad of armed enforcers out of the area. It also scrambled to delete evidence from its own website that the area the Bundy family has used to graze their cattle is needed for “utility-scale solar power generation facilities on public lands” and that need was hindered by “trespass grazing” cattle.

Reid and his son Rory have worked in lockstep with the BLM and transnational green energy firms to wrestle land and use rights from American ranchers for years. Bundy is the last rancher standing in an area that once saw dozens of them.

What few reports on the standoff between Bundy and BLM that have made it into the mainstream media speciously claim the Bundy ranch is some 200 miles from the proposed site of the ENN Energy Group’s solar farm and panel building plant, and that the ENN project was shelved last year. Even the supposedly reliable “right wing” websites Breitbart.com and Glenn Beck’s The Blaze have carried the Federal government’s water on this dispute. The two-faced Beck — who has called for a pitchfork revolution and sells shirts calling for one — even went so far as to call Bundy supporters “frightening” and compared them with Occupy Wall Street, which was a CIA-funded operation designed to foment unrest in America.

Claims have also been made that the Federal government owns the land in question. But the Constitution specifically describes in Article I, Section 8 what land the Federal government can possess, and there are subsequent Supreme Court decisions that lay out the legal framework. (Hint: It does not include protecting tortoises or building solar plants.)

A BLM document discusses the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and specifically mentions the Gold Butte area (which includes Bunkerville) and “cattle trespass grazing” as being part of critical concern to future utility-scale solar energy development. In short, Reid is using the BLM (headed by his lackey and former adviser Neil Kornze) to turn all Nevada “Federal lands” into a green energy zone for his and his son’s personal gain and Bundy’s cattle are hindering this effort. This is proven by information on the BLM website (since removed) that states grazing by Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development and the construction of solar development on public lands.

Understand the implications of Reid’s claim that those who bravely stood with Bundy, stared into the barrels of heavily armed oppressors who were threatening to shoot them and faced down the BLM’s armed goons are “domestic terrorists.”

Thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act, the government can simply designate Americans as terrorists and they can then be disappeared into gulags never to be charged, tried or heard from again. Habeas corpus, in the cases deemed “domestic terrorism,” is now nonexistent. Obama has already ordered drone strikes to kill Americans in foreign lands without due process. The step from indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of American “terrorists” overseas to indiscriminate extrajudicial killings of “domestic terrorists” in America has just been shortened considerably.

This is common knowledge in circles of people who depend upon the alternative media and understand the truth about the Federal police state. Don’t think that Reid is not aware of this. And he understands that those who sided with the Bundys recognize this as well.

Reid is too savvy and too skilled a politician to make a slip of the tongue statement accusing Americans of domestic terrorism.

Obama’s claim that 8 million people have now signed up for Obamacare and the law is working as intended is an incredible stretch even for a man who is such a consummate liar that more than half of Americans know he lies on important issues. The law is working “so well” that even in the face of monetary penalties, tens of millions of people who are eligible to sign up for Obamacare insurance have avoided doing so.

Boehner is said to be “hell-bent” on passing an amnesty bill this year. This has been an important issue for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for some time and is, therefore, an important issue for the Republican establishment.

Understand that, for the Republican elite, amnesty is not about trying to win over Hispanics in order to bolster chances for carrying national elections. It’s about providing cheap labor for big corporations. The plight of millions of unemployed Americans does not concern the establishment.

I have been writing for many years that the U.S. government is democracy in name only. In truth, it is fascist and ruled by one party with two names under the control of the globalists.

The only goal of the globalists and their psychopathic political class stooges is to loot and pillage. They have done so to the point that America is now a giant rock rolling downhill toward collapse.

As regimes get to closer to collapse, they inflict increasingly greater pain and controls on their people. It is now evident in America for those who would see it.

The domestic terrorists in question are not the American people. They are Reid, Obama, Boehner and the rest of the political and bureaucratic class who ignore the rule of law and oppress the American people.


Link:
http://personalliberty.com/standing-government-now-domestic-terrorism/

"If in the next month we see Ebola popping up in North America then we may have a serious problem on our hands."

Report: Ebola Suspected In Europe: “Broken Through All Containment Efforts”

Mac Slavo

Though officials at the World Health Organization are feverishly working to stop the spread of the Ebola virus in what is now seven African nations, their efforts may be for naught. In Guinea, a hot spot for the deadly contagion, government health officials have said that the outbreak is nearly under control. Yet, Reuters reports that the government “planned to stop publicly releasing the death toll to avoid causing unnecessary panic.”

But panic may be in order.

Despite the best efforts of emergency health workers it appears that virus may have crossed out of Africa into Europe.

The outbreak of Ebola Virus in seven west African countries has broken through all containment efforts and is spreading like wildfire. According to Christian Relief groups working in Guinea and Liberia, the number of confirmed infections jumped 15% in just the last 24 hours. In addition, 40 illegal alien migrant workers from the outbreak area, who came ashore in Pisa, Italy, are showing signs of Ebola infection and are being isolated in Pisa Italy because of fever and “conjunctivitis” (bloody around the eyes). According to the World Health Organization, this strain of Ebola is entirely new and although it is close to the Zaire strain, it is different, thus accounting for false-negative test results . . . . . for weeks!

Those false-negative results meant people who were actually infected with Ebola, were returned to their families and neighborhoods to recover from what they believed was the Flu or a case of food poisoning, only to spread the Ebola further.

The result has been a complete loss of containment of this Ebola outbreak.

With the likely arrival of Ebola in Pisa, Italy, the European continent is now at severe risk.

Italian officials deny the reports, but alternative media in the country suggests this is the reason for a complete lock down of a hospital in Pisa, where it is believed to have infected some 40 individuals. Other reports trickling in from various sources like social media indicate the virus may have also appeared about 50 miles from Pisa in Tuscany, Italy.

Alarmingly, a story that appeared about the outbreak on national news wires was reportedly removed by the Italian government for “national security reasons,” suggesting that there is more to the reports than Italian officials are willing to express to the public at this time.

Though they have denied that the Pisa hospital was locked down due to Ebola, they seem to be bracing for the possibility of a severe epidemic in Rome and Milan.

(Google Translation via Italy’s Vnews24)

And ‘mystery about forty hypothetical cases of Ebola registered in our country. The virus is particularly common on the African continent – the cases “official” were recorded in Senegal, Mali and Ghana - may have arrived in Italy “thank you” to the massive exodus of immigrants to our shores. A first “bell” d ‘alarm was launched by Lampedusa. According to a report appeared in the network (and immediately removed for reasons of “national security”), in fact, April 16 would be recorded on an epidemic ‘island, never confirmed nor refuted by our Ministry of Health.

A new ”SOS” about the spread of the virus’ Ebola in the Bel Paese is, this time, from Tuscany. Means of dissemination of the news shock is always the network: blogs, social networks, websites dedicated highlighted the “Curious Case of St. Flushing,” reception center site in Pisa, closed to the public due to the presence, all ‘inside of it, forty non-EU nationals which are to some strange symptoms. Capuzzi Sandra, Councillor for Social Policies of the Municipality of Pisa, he would have dismissed the alarmism of his countrymen, by classifying the health status of the refugees in the structure in these terms: “They have just a little bit fever, caused by stressful travel conditions under which the children were subjected. “

Fear, meanwhile, remains. The forty possible carriers of the virus’ Ebola have been subjected to all the tests required in high-risk situations. The Italian population, however, does not feel the climate of reassurance that high institutional positions and subjected try to transmit information through various channels, official and unofficial. The tension increases, although the Ministry of Health said that, in the unlikely event of an outbreak, Rome and Milan would be ready to face the ‘epidemic.

According to Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian relief group actively working with hospitals and health officials in Guinea and Liberia, what makes Ebola so dangerous is that it can be transmitted through human contact and may take weeks before symptoms appear:

The initial Ebola outbreak in Guinea is believed to have started when hunters came in contact with infected fruit bats. The Ebola virus is spread between humans through direct contact. Once infected, it can take up to 21 days for symptoms to appear, which include high fever, headaches, and fatigue. At that point, the infected person is contagious.

With details lacking and health officials opting to keep reports of infections from the public, it is impossible to know exactly how far the virus has spread.

As noted above, this new strain was not identified immediately, thus blood tests of people showing possible symptoms may have shown false-negatives even though those individuals may have been carrying the virus. Once returned to the general population and assuming they did not contract the virus, it is certainly possible that it was then transmitted to others.

If Ebola has taken hold in Italy, then we can expect more reported cases all over the continent in coming weeks, with the real possibility that the virus could make its way to U.S. shores via hundreds of international flights arriving on a daily basis.

It’s understandable that government officials do not want to overreact and cause panic, especially insofar as global air travel is concerned, because doing so would lead to a lock down of airports worldwide.

The panic would be unprecedented.

As noted by Tess Pennington of Ready Nutrition, even if the public became aware that a pandemic was in progress, many would remain in denial about such a prospect and would remain oblivious to the long-term repercussions. She notes that the effects of a pandemic could be swift and drastic, leading to societal upheaval :

Understanding that our lives will change drastically if the population is faced with a pandemic and being prepared for this can help you make better choices toward the well being of your family. Some changes could be:

■Shut downs of business commerce
■Breakdown of our basic infrastructure: communications, mass transportation, supply chains
■Payroll service interruptions
■Staffing shortages in hospitals and medical clinics
■Interruptions in public facilities – Schools, workplaces may close, and public gatherings such as sporting events or worship services may close temporarily.
■Government mandated voluntary or involuntary home quarantine.

(Source: Pandemic Preparedness)

Given the continued spread of the virus to numerous countries in Africa, and now possibly Europe, we urge readers to remain vigilant and have, at the very least, their basic essentials in place.

This virus is incurable and is believed to have a mortality rate of up to 85% of those infected.

If it is spreading outside of Africa, then it is only a matter of time – perhaps several weeks – before it becomes apparent in developing nations.

These posted probabilities are in no way authoritative, and should be considered a “best guess” only.

Probabilities of unchecked infection at this point, based upon a method of travel, times and frequencies of airline flights to various cities, also including certain assumed volumes of “mixed maritime” traffic between north Africa and southern Europe - the Probability that Ebola will strike is:

63% in Italy within 8 days
44% in Spain within 15 days
77% in Riyadh/Saudi within 21 days
40% in Libya within 25 days
29% in the US within 28 days
37% in Egypt within 33 days

By the time we get to 35 days, it can be in 25 countries on 4 continents.

(Source: TRN)

In the United States, the CDC has issued a travel alert to airlines and set up emergency quarantine stations at domestic airports, though there are no specific guidelines in place at this time according to BD Live:

The US is well prepared to handle infected patients on its soil with 20 CDC quarantine stations in place at US airports that are designed to deal with anyone who has symptoms of a wide range of infectious illnesses, including Ebola, according to spokeswoman Christine Pearson. Despite the outbreak, there are no special requests or guidelines to airlines about Ebola, though the CDC has issued a travel alert, she said.

“The time it takes to travel from rural Guinea to anywhere in the US is more than enough time to incubate the virus and be symptomatic,” Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Laurie Garrett said in New York.

If in the next month we see Ebola popping up in North America then we may have a serious problem on our hands.

Link:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/report-ebola-suspected-in-europe-broken-through-all-containment-efforts_04202014

The increasing use of SWAT teams on Americans...

Balko: 100 to 115 SWAT raids per day in the US

by Kevin Kelly


Radley Balko, a senior investigative journalist for The Huffington Post, has written a book entitled “Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.”

Balko explains in great detail why Americans should become increasingly alarmed over the militarization of law enforcement agencies explaining how figures such as Daryl Gates helped accelerate the militarization of police departments, his response to those who claim law enforcement should have access to weapons and programs reserved for the military, and how citizens are beginning to hold officers who violate the law accountable.

Kevin Kelly: As we approach the 1970’s and progress forward, you document how the pace of the militarization of law enforcement continues unabated. One of the figures that was instrumental in this process is a man by the name of Daryl Gates. Could you describe who he is?

Radley Balko: Daryl Gates is sort of the father of the SWAT Team. He came up with the idea after he was in charge of the LAPD’s response to the Watts riots in 1965. He was really kind of overwhelmed by how ill equipped the LAPD was to respond to the uprising. His idea was to come up with these elite forms of police officers who would be training as the military was training.

You have specialists such as snipers, crowd control people, and somebody who would have been trained at breaching doorways and the entrance to the buildings. You would have this elite team that you would pull out in these situations where they had an immediate threat to the public, an overwhelming threat to the public, and you would send this team in and they would take care of it. The idea was you were bringing violence to diffuse a situation that was already violent, and the idea quickly spread.

There were a couple high profile raids, one in which a SWAT Team was involved against a Black Panther headquarters in L.A. Another involved the Sudanese Liberation Army in 1973. Both of them were televised, highly publicized, and very newsworthy. They were against two groups that a lot Americans were genuinely afraid of. It really injected the SWAT idea, and with the rise of pop culture police began really exploring-the truth is since the time of civil unrest, riots, antiwar protests, going on across the country, and police departments in larger cities were contemplating how would we react to a situation like Watts or- another kind of defining moment in the book that I talk about is The Texas Clock tower Massacre at the University of Texas with Charles Whitman.

Here you have an active shooter who had a long gun and was perched high enough off the ground that police officers weapons were useless. You put all of this together and this provides the perfect environment for SWAT Teams to take off, and it did very quickly. It went from one SWAT Team in the country in 1970 to about 500 by 1975.

Kelly: What do you say to those who support the militarization of law enforcement because they claim that police departments need these weapons and programs because of the dangers they face on the job.

Balko: There a few responses to that. I guess I would say that there is this common conception that criminals are increasingly armed with bigger guns and more powerful guns, and we have to keep the police ahead of them in the arms race or the police are going to be overpowered. The response to that is that there isn’t much evidence to back it up.

There have been two DOJ studies, I think the most recent one was in the early 2000’s and then there was another done before the expiration of the assault weapons ban. What they found is that the overwhelming majority of homicides in this country are committed with handguns. This idea that AR-15’s or AK-47’s are being regularly used in violent crimes in the U.S. - there is just no real empirical evidence to back that up.

A lot of the police officers that I interviewed in the book said the same thing. Drug dealers prefer smaller guns that can be easily concealed. They don’t want to be lugging around a big rifle all the time. The other response to that is, and a lot of police officers I spoke to could back me up on this as well, drug dealers are in the game because they have some self interest, they are trying to make money.

People who are trying to make money are trying to create wealth for themselves, and they genuinely don’t have a death wish. When you read about a SWAT Team who breaks into a drug dealer’s house in the middle of the night, and then he opens fire on them…the more likely explanation is that he thought he was being ripped off by a rival drug dealer.

Even hardened drug dealers know that if you shoot at a cop, you’re going to be lucky to survive the next five or ten seconds. Even if you survive that, you’re going to be going to jail for the rest of your life and you’ll probably be executed. I think that this makes things more dangerous for cops because you’re creating confrontation, and you’re creating violence, and you’re putting people in this very primitive state of mind where you wake up, there’s an immediate threat to your life, what do you do? That’s where you have the classic fight or flight response, and if you’re at home then flight isn’t really an option.

The other thing I would say is even if all of that were true, even if the violence criminals were increasingly well armed, and the drug dealers were violent people with death wishes who were well armed the vast majority of these raids are done against very low offenders. When the police department confronts someone they know has to be violent, they usually don’t break into their house in the middle of the night. They set up a perimeter, yell at them through a megaphone for a while and try and get them to give up peacefully.

Or in the case of Whitey Bulger, which I mention in the book, here is a career criminal, I think he was wanted for about nineteen homicides by the time he finally arrested him. He’s old, he’s ill, if anybody was going to go down in a blaze of glory and take out a bunch of law enforcement officers it would have been Bulger. The way that they got him was they knew he rented a storage locker, and they had somebody from the storage company call him and claim that somebody had broken into his storage locker.

He showed up, and they arrested him. A lot of the older retired police officers that I talked to for the book, explained that the way that it has been done when you have somebody who is genuinely violent and does genuinely pose a threat to police officers, and the public’s safety, you come up with creative ways to bring them in to minimize the chance of violence.

The problem with doing that with your average day to day drug dealer is that there are just too many of them. We are talking 100 to 115 SWAT raid per day in the U.S., and if we are going to continue to fight the drug war we need to go after these low and mid level offenders. There’s just not enough police man power, there’s just not enough creative non-violent ways to come up with to get them to turn themselves in.

This has become the default way to carry out the drug war…bashing into somebody’s home at night. It’s born from just an overwhelming case flows, and also a lack of creativity. You also have a lot of incentives coming from the federal government that encourage warrants to be served this way.

Kelly: Finally, could you describe the ways in which citizens are beginning to hold officers who do abuse their power accountable for their actions? For example, we’ve seen many people use their cell phones and cameras to record law enforcement officers when they use excessive force or violate the law.

Balko: You’ve hit on the technological change that is bringing more transparency to these issues, and that is that everybody is carrying a video camera in their pocket now. You combine that with the ability to instantly stream or upload video to an offsite server, and then you go into social media and the ability to get it out to a lot of people. This is pretty powerful.

We’ve seen it from that case at a DUI checkpoint in Murphy borough, to the Arab Spring where you had all of these dramatic photos and videos of crackdowns on protests that were getting out to the Internet very quickly and spreading across the world. It’s really, really powerful, and it’s a way of bringing transparency to these issues.

Once police officers know that they are going to be recorded, and that there is nothing they can do about it, it’s going to encourage them to act better, to adopt better practices, to stop bullying people. If you know that any of your actions could be caught and put on the Internet for everybody to see, you’ll start to act better.

I’ve given interviews on this particular topic before, and police officers will call onto shows and tell me in person they welcome it. If you’re doing your job properly, you shouldn’t be worried about everyone having a camera. In fact, if people are making false reports against you, having lots of people recording the incident could only help you.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/remnant/2013/aug/1/radley-balko-we-are-talking-100-115-swat-raid-day-/#ixzz2zWHyoRJG

Say no to root canals...

Why and How to Say No to an Unnecessary Root Canal Procedure

By Dr. Lina Garcia

One of the fundamental understandings that supports holistic, biological dentistry is that the dental procedures and materials used in them can affect your whole body, not just your teeth.

In the case of a root canal procedure, it can lead to a number of chronic health problems and even degenerative diseases. Unfortunately, it is very rare for someone in need of dental care to be aware of this.

Although you may be surprised to read this view of root canals, any time the procedure is done there is a real possibility it can endanger your overall health because of the infection and toxicity that can develop in your tooth after the root canal is performed.

The connection between a root canal treated tooth and disease in another area of your body is one the majority of health-care practitioners and their patients are simply unaware of.

The lack of awareness of this connection is puzzling when you consider that in conventional dentistry medicine there is an appreciation of research that has identified a connection between periodontal disease and other health problems, such as heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, diabetes, osteoporosis and difficulties during pregnancy.

Periodontal disease is the general label used to describe chronic infection and/or inflammation of the gums and the supporting structures of the teeth. The American Academy of Periodontology actively seeks to educate the public about research that supports what perceptive dentists inevitably recognize: “Infections in the mouth can play havoc elsewhere in the body.”




Read the rest here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/dr-lina-garcia/who-wants-a-root-canal/

OOPS!!!

Government Weather and Climate Forecasts Are Failures.

By Dr. Tim Ball

Forecasts Wrong, Science Wrong

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

Richard Feynman’s comment describes the scientific method but also applies to weather and climate forecasting. Short, medium and long-term weather and climate forecasts are wrong and below any level of usability. Most forecasting agencies swing between determining their own accuracy level or openly detailing the inadequacy of their work. No production of society is as wrong as government weather forecasts and yet continues to operate. Apparently people just lump it in with all government waste and failure. Their real view is reflected in the fact that few activities receive more ridicule and disdain than weather forecasts.

History of Forecasts

Around 300 BC Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle’s, wrote a book setting out the first rules for weather forecasting. In the Book of Signs, he recorded over 200 empirical indicators such as “A halo around the moon portends rain.” Many skeptics, including me, say we haven’t come very far since. Indeed, I would argue we have regressed.

Various attempts to forecast weather and climate exist over the centuries. Benjamin Franklin’s Old Richard’s Almanac began a service in 1757, especially to farmers, of long-term forecasts. It expanded on Theophrastus’ ideas of weather folklore that actually were climatic observations reflecting seasonal events and their change. It was replaced in 1792 by The Farmer’s Almanac, now known as The Old Farmer’s Almanac and used by many people, especially farmers. Founder, Robert B. Thomas combined solar activity, weather patterns, and astronomy cycles to create his forecasts. We can translate those to mean sunspot activity, historical weather data and variations in magnetism to create a better chance of accuracy than the limited variables in most forecasts, but especially those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They have a better record of accuracy than official long term forecasts, Consider the UKMO seasonal inaccuracies over the last many years, most recently the prediction of a dry winter in 2013 in one of the wettest on record.

In 1837, Patrick Murphy, an English gentlemen of science published a paper titled, The Weather Almanac (on Scientific principles, showing the State of the Weather for Every Day of the Year of 1838). It included one approximately accurate forecast for January 20, 1838;

“Fair, and probably the lowest degree of winter temperature.”

The actual temperature was a remarkable -20°C, the coldest anyone could remember. Heavy ice formed on the Thames, thick enough to allow a sheep to be roasted over a roaring fire at Hammersmith. The temperature seems remarkable today, but was consistent with an earth recovering from the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA) in the 1680s set back by the cooling associated with the Dalton Minimum.

The winter of 1838 became Murphy’s winter, however the rest of the year’s forecasts were mostly wrong. His poor results prompted a poem printed in The Times.

When Murphy says ‘frost’, then it will snowThe wind’s fast asleep when he tells us ’twill blow.For his rain, we get sunshine; for high, we have low.Yet he swears he’s infallible – weather or no!

This appears just as applicable to the UK Met Office (UKMO ) today.

A Dr. Merriweather from Whitby Yorkshire developed a technique for forecasting weather from watching the leeches he used for bleeding in his practice. He noticed the position of the leeches in their jar appeared to predict the weather. In calm conditions they were placid on the bottom, but if they began to rise up the side a weather change was half a day away. When rain was due the leeches climbed above the water line and if they stayed above the line and curled into a tight ball a storm was coming.

Merriweather wrote a paper titled An Essay Explanatory of the Tempest Prognostication to accompany a special jar he designed with a leech and a bell that rang when the leech left the water. He sold it at the 1851 Great Exhibition (World’s Fair). His failed prognostications are comparable to today’s claims of increased severe weather.

Modern Forecast Failures

Over 200 years ago Lavoisier (1743-1794) said,

It is almost possible to predict one or two days in advance, within a rather broad range of probability what the weather is going to be.

I understand that because of persistency of weather systems and Markov probability the chances of tomorrow being the same as today are 63 percent. Currently the UK Met Office claims 93.8% accuracy for temperatures for the first day of forecast, but minimum temperatures for the first night are only 84.3%. The problem is both are with a ±2°C error range so the gain on probability is minimal. It appears little improved on Lavoisier’s “broad range of probabilities”. Most achieve better results because thy practice what I call “gradual approximation”. They make a five-day forecast and then change it every six hours up to the actual time period. I am not aware of any research that compares the accuracy from the first five-day forecast to the reality. How much change was made to even come close to reality?

Weather forecasts had a practical use during the First World War when airplanes and their pilots were at the mercy of the weather. It is why most weather stations are at airports where they became compromised by heat from runways, jet engines, and in many cases the expanding urban heat island (UHI). Bjerknes created many of the terms used in forecasting such as Cold and Warm Fronts or advancing or retreating frontal systems from battle terminology. Now, as aviation advances the need for forecasts diminishes. Weather needs of aviation are now simply station data of current conditions and only for small aircraft. Larger or more sophisticated aircraft can land in virtually zero visibility so only a closed runway is a problem. The problem with most weather station data is it is not “real time”, so pilots rely on what the control tower is telling them.

Farmers need accurate forecasts either a week or months ahead so they can plan operations. Neither is available with any useable accuracy. Other agencies such as forestry, power producers create their own forecasts, many even collecting their data. The problem is insufficient weather stations to create weather maps with sufficient accuracy to produce useful results. The longer the forecast the more expansive the number of stations involved – looking out five days means weather developing a long way down wind. In most cases this means the gaps of information simply are too great.

Public images of weather forecasting come from television. It is the 2 or 3-minute segment at the end of the news that is forgotten shortly after it’s presented. Most stations try to hype the information with visuals and hyperbole. Some present “Extreme weather” or present it from the “Storm Center”. They distort reality presenting wind chill or heat indices as if it is actual temperature. Everything is exaggerated and that causes people to pay less attention. They lose more credibility because they frequently fail to forecast extreme events.

I began flying before computer generated weather maps were introduced. Weather forecasts were not very good, but certainly better than those that are made today. In those days the weather person took individual station data and plotted their own isobaric based maps. While preparing the map they developed a sense of the weather patterns that they then combined with experience of local conditions. Still there was little faith in the forecasts, especially for people who needed a more accurate product. Hubert Lamb as a forecaster for the UKMO took seriously complaints about poor forecasts from aircrew flying over Germany during WWII. He realized better forecasts required better knowledge of past weather and that was a driving force for establishing the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

When Wigley took over from Lamb he took the CRU in a different direction effectively abandoning reconstruction of past climate. The work some were doing exposed the limitations of the data and the computer models ability to create accurate weather maps. Benjamin Santer a CRU graduate completed a thesis titled, Regional Validation of General Circulation Models. It used three top computer models to recreate North Atlantic conditions. Apparently the area was chosen because it was the largest area with the best data. Despite this the computer models created massive pressure systems that don’t exist.

Santer used regional models in 1987 but things haven’t improved in 21 years. In 2008 Tim Palmer, a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England said in the New Scientist...

Read more:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/dr-tim-ball/forecasts-wrong-science-wrong/