Tuesday, August 26, 2014

"...this can be a short lesson for those interested in sound economic analysis in how to proceed when confronted by opposing arguments buttressed by seemingly sound statistics."

A Lesson in Economic Analysis from the Minimum Wage Debate
By Ken Zahringer

In the ebb and flow of interventionist politics, there are some issues that surface periodically regardless of how many times and how completely they are proven to be harmful to the very people they are purported to help. Currently the tide is once again carrying the minimum wage to the forefront of collective attention. Supporters of this and similar measures often use straw-man arguments, like the one in the picture below.

I discovered this ad through one of my friends who shared it on Facebook. It was originally posted on July 12, 2014 on the website of I propose to deconstruct this pseudo-argument here, pointing out its major errors. I do this not to convince hard-core supporters of raising the minimum wage that it is a bad idea; I doubt that is possible by any means. Rather, this can be a short lesson for those interested in sound economic analysis in how to proceed when confronted by opposing arguments buttressed by seemingly sound statistics.

The Ceteris Paribus Principle

The statement in the box is worded rather ambiguously, which is typical for this type of argument. It can be interpreted two different ways. On the one hand, it could be claiming that the minimum wage hike caused the increase in employment. This is a clear violation of ceteris paribus (i.e., all other things being equal or held constant), which is at the core of any good analysis and cannot be stressed often enough. In order for that interpretation to be valid, we must assume that all states are identical in all other respects and that the increase in the minimum wage was the only economic condition that changed. This is clearly not the case. States use a variety of policy initiatives to encourage job growth; focusing on this one factor ignores significant heterogeneity among states.

In its weaker form, the statement could merely be claiming that jobs were created in spite of the increase. This is obvious and trivial. In order for this interpretation to be meaningful we must assume that the minimum wage is the biggest kid on the block, the overriding factor that swamps all others. It’s all or nothing; either it kills all job growth or it’s not a factor. This is what makes the argument a straw man. It is overly simplified and no one who opposes the minimum wage takes the position it attempts to refute. The minimum wage is simply one factor among many affecting the job market; real-world outcomes are a result of a constellation of factors, each playing its part. But this is not the only thing wrong with this version of the argument — it gets better (or worse).

Labor Market Heterogeneity

The argument in the picture implies that the minimum wage affects the entire labor market, but it clearly does not. It only affects that portion of the labor market where the law represents a binding constraint, that is, where market wages would be lower than the legal minimum. There is also heterogeneity among states here; some have a larger portion of workers earning near the minimum while others have relatively few workers at that level. If a state is experiencing growth in high tech jobs, skilled labor, or any other sector with market wages higher than the new legal minimum, there is no particular reason why that growth would not continue after the law takes effect, at least for a while. If a state has a relatively small portion of its labor force earning at or near minimum wage, growth in other sectors could easily override the immediate losses due to an increased minimum. If the minimum wage were raised only slightly, from one non-binding level to another, we would expect no discernable short-term effect on employment or job creation.

Proper Basis of Comparison

What is it that we really want to know about the effect of a minimum wage increase? We want to know what would have happened in the states affected by the law had that law not been passed, versus what did happen in the presence of the law. States that did not pass minimum wage increases are merely proxies for that unseen future, and they are meaningful proxies only if all other conditions are equal, as stated previously, or if we can reasonably approximate that condition. Thus a regression model might give a more realistic picture of the effects of the increase if we could control for enough other factors that affect job growth. The argument in the picture does nothing of the sort, of course.


Note that the picture refers to states that raised the minimum wage at the beginning of 2014. This means that we have at most six months of history to look at. This is far too short a time. The main effects of minimum wage legislation take the form of long-term structural changes as employers adapt to market conditions. Investment decisions are skewed toward capital rather than labor. Firms are not created that might have been. The effects show up in years, not months. Employment trends already underway may persist for some time after a new law is passed.

Economic phenomena are complex. Good economic analysis can’t generally be collapsed into a simple statistic. If the states that increased their minimum wage had experienced slower job growth than those that hadn’t, that would not be an indictment of the minimum wage, any more than the above statistic supports it. Without sound theory to explain them, such simple statistics are meaningless.


"More than 200 incidents of loss or release of bioweapons agents from U.S. laboratories are reported each year. This works out to more than four per week."

Horrifying accidents at infectious disease labs hidden from the public, 'cloaked in secrecy'
by: J. D. Heyes

Literally hundreds of incidents involving viruses, bacteria and toxins that pose major bioterror risks to both people and agriculture have been reported to federal regulators from 2008 through 2012, according to government reports obtained and reviewed by USA Today.

More than half of the over 1,100 incidents were serious enough that laboratory workers had to have medical evaluations and/or treatment, the reports note. And in five of the incidents, regulators confirmed that lab workers had been either infected or sickened, though all recovered.

USA Today also reported:

In two other incidents, animals were inadvertently infected with contagious diseases that would have posed significant threats to livestock industries if they had spread. One case involved the infection of two animals with hog cholera, a dangerous virus eradicated from the USA in 1978. In another incident, a cow in a disease-free herd next to a research facility studying the bacteria that cause brucellosis, became infected due to practices that violated federal regulations, resulting in regulators suspending the research and ordering a $425,000 fine, records show.

'Sloppy practices'

However, the names of the laboratories which experienced mishaps and mistakes, as well as most information about all of the accidents, are required to be kept secret due to federal bioterrorism laws, says the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- which regulates the labs and co-authored the annual laboratory incident reports in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As Natural News has reported in the past, the CDC especially has made an issue of lab safety and security in recent years, and incidents have increasingly come under additional scrutiny by Congress in recent weeks following a series of high-profile blunders at some very prestigious government labs. Accidents involving anthrax, bird flu and the smallpox virus have occurred.

In recent days, CDC investigators found that a rushed lab scientist was using sloppy practices when a specimen of mild bird flu had unwittingly been contaminated with a deadlier strain of the same virus before it was then shipped to other labs.

And early this summer, other scientists and researchers at the CDC might have exposed scores of staffers to live anthrax because of mistakes made in labs, though again, no one was sickened.

Meanwhile, at the National Institutes of Health, vials of deadly smallpox that had long been forgotten were found in a cold-storage room -- and they were not supposed to be there.

'More than 200 incidents are reported each year'

As USA Today reported, the new lab incident information indicates that "mishaps occur regularly at the more than 1,000 labs operated by 324 government, university and private organizations across the country that are registered with the Federal Select Agent Program." This is a program that is jointly run by the USDA and CDC, which are required by law to submit short reports annually with all incident data to lawmakers.

The paper further noted:

The reports, released by CDC in response to a request from USA TODAY, contain few details beyond a count of incidents by categories, such as incidents involving bites or scratches from infected animals, needle sticks, failures of personal protection equipment, spills or specimen packages that temporarily went missing after they were shipped. No thefts were reported.

Complete data for all incidents reported in 2013 are not yet available because they are not finalized, CDC told the paper. The prior year, lab regulators said they took in 247 reports of potential releases of dangerous pathogens. They received the same number of reports the year before as well. In 2010, there were 275 reported incidents, 243 in 2009 and 116 in 2008.

"More than 200 incidents of loss or release of bioweapons agents from U.S. laboratories are reported each year. This works out to more than four per week," Richard Ebright, a biosafety expert at Rutgers University in New Jersey who testified before Congress last month at a hearing about CDC's lab mistakes, told the paper.

Learn more:

"Government is essentially the negation of Liberty."

Who Remembers "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?
By Chris Rossini

August 31, 2010

OBAMA: "So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."

Obama Authorizes Air Strikes in Iraq - Aug. 2014

OBAMA: "We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq."

It goes without saying that Obama is now busily bombing American military equipment. Some of that equipment is pretty high tech gear and especially lethal - David Stockman

OBAMA: "This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens."

ISIS got provisioned by none other than the Iraqi Army. The latter not only dropped its uniforms for civvies during the battle for Mosul, but also left behind armored Humvees, heavy artillery, night vision systems, state of the art firearms and much else of like and similar nature. - David Stockman

OBAMA: "This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout...And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States."

US Leaders Want Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki To Step Down - June 2014

OBAMA: "We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -- a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization."

OBAMA: "Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page."

"ISIL poses a threat greater than 9/11. ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group we have seen...This is way beyond anything we have seen." - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel August 21, 2014

Liberty is not a government "operation". Liberty does not come from government at all. As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out so eloquently: "Government is essentially the negation of Liberty." It only creates disaster.


WAIT TILL IT'S FREE: trailer...

Vaccines and Autism...

Toxic Vaccines and Autism: A CDC Coverup

By Dr. David Brownstein

A major cover-up of vaccine adverse effects is brewing and is about to explode. Much of this information came from my colleague Mike Adams from To find more information about this story, use tags #vaccinegate and #EndVaccineViolence.

For over 20 years, I have seen enough parents who reported that their child was developing normally until they received a vaccine. Within hours to days of the vaccine (particularly the MMR vaccine), these parents claim that their children changed in their behavior and attitude. The story was always similar; one day the child was normal, the next day he/she was crying and irritable and began regressing on all fronts—neurologically, behaviorally, and emotionally. From this point on, the lives of the parents and affected children were changed forever. Nearly all of these children were eventually diagnosed as autistic.

Unfortunately, vaccines contain toxic additives such as mercury, aluminum, and/or formaldehyde. I have written about these toxic additives many times before. Injecting a dangerous substance like ethyl mercury into any living being makes absolutely no sense to me. How could it make sense? Mercury is an extremely toxic substance that needs to be avoided, not injected into any living being, much less a small child whose blood-brain barrier is not properly formed.

The CDC keeps putting out articles saying mercury-containing vaccines are safe. I think it is ludicrous—how can they be safe? It doesn’t make common sense nor does it make biochemical or physiological sense that injecting mercury into a human being is safe. Someday, the history of medicine will look on this practice of medicine as the dark ages of medicine.

Now, there may be proof that the CDC not only knew about the link between the MMR vaccine and autism but they changed the data in a landmark 2004 study to hide the damning data. What did the heads of the CDC do? They altered the data and reported in 2004 (1) no association between autism and the MMR vaccine. Who wrote this article? William Thompson, PhD, the new whistleblower, was one of the authors of that 2004 study. He is reported to be suffering with regret and remorse over the damage that has been done to our children over the last ten years...

Read the rest:

" Today, the war on drugs has been eclipsed by the war on terror as an all-purpose excuse for expanding the police state..."

Ferguson: The War Comes Home

By Ron Paul

America’s attention recently turned away from the violence in Iraq and Gaza toward the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting of Michael Brown. While all the facts surrounding the shooing have yet to come to light, the shock of seeing police using tear gas (a substance banned in warfare), and other military-style weapons against American citizens including journalists exercising their First Amendment rights, has started a much-needed debate on police militarization.

The increasing use of military equipment by local police is a symptom of growing authoritarianism, not the cause. The cause is policies that encourage police to see Americans as enemies to subjugate, rather than as citizens to “protect and serve.” This attitude is on display not only in Ferguson, but in the police lockdown following the Boston Marathon bombing and in the Americans killed and injured in “no-knock” raids conducted by militarized SWAT teams.

One particularly tragic victim of police militarization and the war on drugs is “baby Bounkham.” This infant was severely burned and put in a coma by a flash-burn grenade thrown into his crib by a SWAT team member who burst into the infant’s room looking for methamphetamine.

As shocking as the case of baby Bounkham is, no one should be surprised that empowering police to stop consensual (though perhaps harmful and immoral) activities has led to a growth of authoritarian attitudes and behaviors among government officials and politicians. Those wondering why the local police increasingly look and act like an occupying military force should consider that the drug war was the justification for the Defense Department’s “1033 program,” which last year gave local police departments almost $450 million worth of “surplus” military equipment. This included armored vehicles and grenades like those that were used to maim baby Bounkham.

Today, the war on drugs has been eclipsed by the war on terror as an all-purpose excuse for expanding the police state. We are all familiar with how the federal government increased police power after September 11 via the PATRIOT Act, TSA, and other Homeland Security programs. Not as widely known is how the war on terror has been used to justify the increased militarization of local police departments to the detriment of our liberty. Since 2002, the Department of Homeland Security has provided over $35 billion in grants to local governments for the purchase of tactical gear, military-style armor, and mine-resistant vehicles.

The threat of terrorism is used to justify these grants. However, the small towns that receive tanks and other military weapons do not just put them into storage until a real terrorist threat emerges. Instead, the military equipment is used for routine law enforcement.

Politicians love this program because it allows them to brag to their local media about how they are keeping their constituents safe. Of course, the military-industrial complex’s new kid brother, the law enforcement-industrial complex, wields tremendous influence on Capitol Hill. Even many so-called progressives support police militarization to curry favor with police unions.

Reversing the dangerous trend of the militarization of local police can start with ending all federal involvement in local law enforcement. Fortunately, all that requires is for Congress to begin following the Constitution, which forbids the federal government from controlling or funding local law enforcement. There is also no justification for federal drug laws or for using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to treat all people as potential criminals. However, Congress will not restore constitutional government on its own; the American people must demand that Congress stop facilitating the growth of an authoritarian police state that threatens their liberty.


Monday, August 25, 2014

New Ice Bucket Challenge? Gazans Launch 'Rubble Bucket Challenge'...

Share this...


by Michael Rivero

There are a great many people convinced that there will be another terror attack in the US soon, as a prelude to yet another war that clearly is being sold to us. Certainly the mainstream media is playing "Wag the ISIS" at us as hard as they can. James Inhofe is making the rounds saying ISIS will destroy an entire US city. Drudge has gone one step further and declared Chicago the intended target.

Most people, myself included, are of the opinion that such an event will be another fake terror attack, like 9-11, to be blamed on the target of the pending invasion but actually carried out by the US and Israel. According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans hold that view of 9-11 itself. After the lie about stolen incubators that tricked us into the first invasion of Iraq and the lie Saddam's nuclear weapons that tricked us into the second invasion of Iraq, prudence demands we expect more of the same from our "leaders."

But for the hard core true believers, the men and women so scared of the US Government that they will not even allow the merest hint of doubt or question to enter their minds, lest their souls be eternally damned, the ones so wrapped in the flag that all the blood to their brains has been cut off, I will tell you what another big "bang" inside the US is likely to mean to them.

A big "bang" means the Department of Homeland Security is a total failure.

A big "bang" means the Transportation Safety Administration is a total failure.

A big "bang" means the Central Intelligence Agency is a total failure.

A big "bang" means the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a total failure.

A big "bang" means the National Security Agency is a total failure.

A big "bang" means that the government's promise to keep us safe if only we surrender our Constitutional protections is a lie, as large as the ones about stolen incubators and Iraq's nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

A big "bang" means that hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on security systems that do not work, beyond keeping watch on law-abiding American citizens.

A big "bang" means that those who fall for the lie that the terrorism is committed by nations that hate our freedoms will be forced to recognize that those enemies must be far smarter than Americans, in order to get past all that security and all those billions of dollars in scanners, spies, cameras, uniforms, X-rays, gamma detectors, neutron back-scatter units and dogs.

A big "bang" means that the funny machine that lets airport people look at you without your clothes on really is just an expensive peep show booth, with you as the unwitting pornographic star.

A big "bang" means all our wives and daughters were groped and fondled for nothing.

A big "bang" means that all our tools, Swiss Army Knives, Leatherman tools, and other pocket gadgets were looted from us and kept by TSA, or auctioned off, to no purpose at all.

A big "bang" means that the airport goon who dropped my laptop, wrecked my computer without actually making me any safer for it at all.

A big "bang" means that everyone whose job or career was wrecked by a government "terror" investigation had their lives ruined for no reason.

A big "bang" means that we put up with four-hour delays getting into the airport and had to smell each other's stinky feet for no reason at all.

Another big "BANG" is not going to be seen as a rallying cry for a new American aggression against whomever Israel is pointing the finger at this week. Another big Bang, even if accepted as committed by a genuine enemy, will be seen as a total failure by the US Government to keep us safe despite draconian laws, and the loss of our civil liberties and privacy. The public will realize that all the listening into our phone calls and peeking at our emails really did not protect the American people from terror at all, so much as it protected the US Government from the wrath of the American people.

I think that if there is another "terror attack" it will be seen as a defeat for every single US Government policy of the last 10 years, and will result in a demand by every American to shut down the National Security State and to end the "terror threat" by ending this agenda of invading every nation on earth that refuses to bow before the US dollar in trade and banking.

That is what I think.


Not a conspiracy theory any longer...

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
Submitted by Michael Smith

Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.

Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.

Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)

More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882


SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.



James Foley Beheading Appears to Be a Fake Staged Event

First, a special shout out must go to veteran war correspondent Eric Margolis who warned the Foley "beheading" might have been staged. He wrote:

The alleged beheading of freelance journalist James Foley by the shadowy ISIS (or Islamic State) has sparked outrage and horror around the globe.

I say “alleged” because we are not sure if the decapitation was real or faked.

After three decades of covering wars in the Mideast, Africa, Latin America, and Afghanistan, my reaction as a journalist was also outrage – but cautious outrage.

Here is what The Telegraph is now reporting:

The video of James Foley’s execution may have been staged...

Forensic analysis of the footage of the journalist’s death has suggested that the British jihadist in the film may have been the frontman rather than the killer.

The clip, which apparently depicts Mr Foley’s brutal beheading, has been widely seen as a propaganda coup for Islamic State miltant group.

But a study of the four-minute 40-second clip, carried out by an international forensic science company which has worked for police forces across Britain, suggested camera trickery and slick post-production techniques appear to have been used.

A forensic analyst told The Times that no blood can be seen, even though the knife is drawn across the neck area at least six times.

"After enhancements, the knife can be seen to be drawn across the upper neck at least six times, with no blood evidence to the point the picture fades to black,” the analysis said.

Sounds allegedly made by Foley do not appear consistent with what may be expected.
During Foley’s speech, there appears to be a blip which could indicate the journalist had to repeat a line.

One expert commissioned to examine the footage was reported as saying: “I think it has been staged."

With no evidence at all The Telegraph then goes on to suggest he was likely killed away from the video. Add another mystery to the pile suggesting evil operators skilled in propaganda (SEE: Are Evil Operators Pushing the President Toward More War?), who are intent in drawing the U.S. into war.


Education with an agenda...

Scandal Engulfs Common Core Architect for Rewrite of U.S. History
Written by Alex Newman

After recently facing controversy for dumbing down the SAT to better align it with the Obama-backed Common Core national education standards, College Board boss and Common Core architect David Coleman is once again at the center of an escalating political firestorm. This time, the powerful “educrat” and the federally funded outfit he leads are under fire for literally trying to rewrite American history with what critics charge is a wildly slanted “curriculum” that is biased to the point of being detached from reality.

Organized opposition to the attempt is accelerating quickly; so much so that the organization responsible for the new curriculum refuses to name the authors and announced that it would be “clarifying” the changes soon. Still, opponents say the rewrite of American history should be scrapped altogether — or, at the very least, delayed pending a thorough review and appropriate revisions. Activists and political leaders are already working with authorities in several states such as Texas to block the scheme.

“David Coleman may have gone too far this time,” noted Dr. Carole Hornsby Haynes, a curriculum and education specialist.

Experts say the biggest problem with the new curriculum is its brazen effort to teach “history” through what analysts describe as a “progressive” lens. Instead of focusing on actual U.S. history, for example, critics say the radical new Advanced Placement (AP) history curriculum represents hard-core Marxist indoctrination. Among other concerns, a growing roster of opponents argue that the new scheme hypes and exaggerates real or imagined wrongs while presenting everything in a collectivist mold. Meanwhile, it downplays and ignores virtues and goodness in America’s historical development and its experiments with liberty and self-government.

The unprecedented advancements in human freedom, religious liberty, individual rights, and more are all glossed over, or even framed as negative. Instead, experts and educators say the curriculum represents a half-baked effort to present America as a racist, imperialistic, and oppressive endeavor. From marginalizing, ignoring, and demonizing the Founding Fathers to touting the alleged benevolence and greatness of anti-constitutional federal machinations, opponents say the new history framework represents an extreme departure from what America is and has been.

Part of the problem is what is missing. “You’re not going to find Thomas Jefferson and the House of Burgesses,” explained retired U.S. history teacher Larry Krieger, who taught for over three decades and is now working hard to highlight the deficiencies in the College Board’s rewrite of the course and history itself. “And finally, you’re not going to find Benjamin Franklin and the birth of American entrepreneurialism.”

James Madison, another one of the most important founders of America and its constitutional system of self-government, is also missing from the new program. Even the Pilgrims, who escaped persecution in Europe to become the earliest settlers in America, are conspicuously absent from the controversial AP history course. The course outline specifically states that only material covered in the document will be on the test.

On the other hand, unless the changes are reversed, millions of impressionable high-school students across America will spend their time learning about Chief Little Turtle, the radical leftist group Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers, critics pointed out. They will also learn that European settlers (early Americans) ravaged the environment, exploited other peoples, spread diseases, and more. In short, America’s Founders and heroes are presented largely as a plague upon the Earth.

Instead of American exceptionalism, meanwhile, students will be taught to view U.S. history from the perspective of some of the most radical “progressives” on the fringe of the fringe. “What you’re going to find is our nation’s founders portrayed as bigots who developed a belief in white superiority that was, in turn, derived from a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority,” Krieger was quoted as saying in media reports.

“It is relentless left-wing indoctrination” and “antithetical to everything that I believe about teaching and our country’s history,” Krieger said. The document is also “unprofessional,” “boring,” and “very poorly written,” he added, saying that under Coleman, dubious Common Core principles were now being applied to U.S. history as well. While the history rewrite began before the deeply polarizing Coleman seized control of the College Board, countless critics have blasted his leadership and linked the history fiasco to his Common Core machinations.

The new curriculum also strives to present government expansion beyond constitutional limits from a radical statist perspective, according to analysts. When describing the New Deal, for example, students are expected to learn that the massive federal intervention and anti-constitutional programs were aimed at using government power to “provide relief to the poor” and “stimulate recovery” — a controversial view pushed largely by socialists and discredited Keynesians.

In an open letter to Common Core architect and College Board boss Coleman, a grassroots coalition organized by the American Principles in Action and Concerned Women for America blasted the rewrite of the AP U.S. History Framework. “Concerned citizens and elected officials are increasingly alarmed at the direction it will take our schools, our teachers, and our high school students,” the letter explains, pointing to the “rising tide of opposition” to the controversial scheme.

“The new Framework inculcates a consistently negative view of American history by highlighting oppressors and exploiters while ignoring the dreamers and innovators who built our country,” the August 4 letter continues. “Instead of striving to build a ‘City upon a Hill,’ as generations of students have been taught, the colonists are portrayed as bigots who developed ‘a rigid racial hierarchy’ that was in turn derived from ‘a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority’.”

The controversial framework, according to the letter, ignores the rise of representative governments. It also omits the American colonists’ unprecedented commitment to religious freedom and the emergence of a pluralistic society without an entrenched aristocracy, signatories complained. Even the U.S. government's Herculean efforts to defeat Hitler’s National Socialists (Nazis) are glossed over.

Aside from the content and bias scandals, critics also say the new framework for AP “history” will establish a number of other troubling precedents. Among them: Supplanting local and state curricula and standards by purporting to establish what historic topics are important — a phenomenon that could have far-reaching effects on the views and historical knowledge of generations of Americans.

“The new 98-page document establishes a baseline so far to the left that it conflicts with virtually all state standards,” education activists said in the letter to Coleman, adding that existing state standards and the AP framework “are like oil and water – they will not mix.” Still, experts say that the radical new version of U.S. history will gradually infect government schools, private schools, and even homeschooling programs if left unchecked. Existing standards, meanwhile, will be pushed aside.

Scholars and academics have also lashed out at the new scheme for a wide range of problems — especially the radical viewpoint evident throughout the framework. National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood, for example, called the new AP curriculum a “briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past.” The scheme also “weaves together a vaguely Marxist or at least materialist reading of the key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances,” he added.

The fact that the authors of the framework remain anonymous has also stirred outrage and speculation. Countless critics suspect the architects behind the scheme have not been publicly identified for nefarious reasons — perhaps, for example, it was authored by some fringe university professors or even graduate students whose identities themselves would discredit the document, and the College Board by extension.

Even before the latest scandal over the history indoctrination, Coleman and the once-prestigious educational outfit he leads were already the subject heavy criticism — especially surrounding Common Core and the dumbing down of SAT tests often used for college admissions. Some experts are even predicting that the College Board could begin to fade into irrelevance as it seeks to push radical views, dumb down tests, and foist Common Core on the nation by stealth.

“They’re going to be less and less of an indicator of how ready you actually are for college,” prominent SAT tutor Anthony-James Green, whose skills in prepping students for the test fetch $650 per hour in New York City, told The New American in a phone interview earlier this year. “It is a blatant dumbing down of the SAT.... From a self-preservation standpoint, Coleman got on board a sinking ship.”

Some conservative leaders, meanwhile, are hoping that the growing public outrage over the radical educational scheming could lead to serious change. “We hope that the uproar about Common Core and the new history curriculum will grow to a point where the federal government’s use of taxpayers’ money to bribe states into accepting the program will help many to see how dangerous federal involvement in the important field of education truly is,” wrote John F. McManus, the president of The John Birch Society, in a recent column. “Maybe then, they will join with the growing number who believe federal involvement in education ought to be abolished.”

The new version of history is set to be rolled out across American classrooms this fall. For now, the uproar over Common Core and the extremist AP “history” curriculum is still growing louder, and spreading like wildfire across America.

Responding to a tsunami of pressure, numerous states have already dropped Common Core. Others are expected to do so in the coming months and years. In more than a few states, political leaders are also working on plans to deal with the AP history disaster, too. Even the Republican National Committee unanimously adopted a resolution blasting the new "inaccurate" history curriculum as “a radically revisionist view of American history” and calling for official investigations and withholding taxpayer funds.

Whether real, systemic, and positive change in education will come out of the latest scandals, though, depends largely on how hard parents and teachers are willing to work to protect and properly educate American students.



Cold Summer: 1,025 Record Lows in First Three Weeks of August
Written by William F. Jasper

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported in its Daily Weather Records for August 23 that during the three-week period of August 1-21 more than a thousand records were broken across the United States for low maximum temperatures.

The Sunshine Hours website summarized the NOAA data:

NOAA — 1025 Low Max Records Broken From Aug 1 to Aug 21. Some records Smashed by 16F

1025 Low Max Records Broken From Aug 1 to Aug 21 according to the NOAA.

A “Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been.

This indicates daytime cooling.

Below is a screenshot showing location and the biggest difference between old record and new record.

Note that Dyer NV has 111 years of data. And the record was smashed by 16F.

The NOAA Daily Weather Records for today, August 25, report that in the last 30 days there have been 331 U.S. “High Max” records set. However, there were 2,104 (more than six times as many) “Low Max” records set. The same NOAA page reports in its “Year to Date” section that 2014 has seen 7,053 High Max records set, but nearly three times that number (19,178) of Low Max records were set during the same period.

Going back a full year, NOAA further reports that in the last 365 days there have been 13,051 High Max records, but Low Max records (28,182) more than double that. Of course, we continue to see blazing headlines and breathless broadcasts from the establishment news media regarding every new high temperature record, but a near total blackout of the news of low temperature records.

Local news stations and newspapers are more likely to report these inconvenient facts that the “climate change” fear mongers in the national MSM willfully ignore. Hence, using a search engine, it is possible to find many online examples of local media outlets reporting on record low temperatures for their areas, as, for instance, this July 31, 2014 story from the Ozarks, “Joplin, West Plains Set New Weather Records,” from KOLR10 News:

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — The National Weather Service in Springfield says records were broken in two cities Thursday, as the unusually cool summer continues.

A record low maximum (high) temperature of 70 degrees was set Thursday at Joplin, breaking the old record of 73 set in 1971.

And a record low maximum temperature of 74 degrees was set yesterday at West Plains, breaking the old record of 76 set in 2009.

Oops! Mother Nature’s Gone Cool on the Warmists
The weather has not been cooperating with the advocates of Anthropogenic (human-caused) Global Warming (AGW) theory. As we have reported many times in The New American, contrary to the decades-long, incessant drumbeat of global-warming propaganda, the fact is that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 17 or 18 years (or perhaps 20-24 years, depending on the data sets used).

In a recent cover story ("Desperate Dash of Global Warming") we noted:

The global temperature data show, contrary to all of the frantic predictions of the past two decades, that there has been no increase in global surface temperatures over at least the past 17 to 18 years! Lord Christopher Monckton, science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, points out that the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit records show no warming for 19 or 20 years, and the Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellite dataset shows no warming for 24 years.

Millions of devotees still cling to the Al Gore AGW narrative, however, apparently ignorant of, or oblivious to, the fact that many of the top alarmist authorities have acknowledged that there has indeed been a “pause” in warming temperatures for at least 17 years.

We reported previously:

What’s more, many of the most prominent individual and institutional promoters of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) alarmism have acknowledged that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 17 or 18 years. This includes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the Met Office (the U.K.’s national weather service); the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and Professor Phil Jones, the former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, who was among the scientists exposed by the CRU’s infamous e-mail scandal known as “Climategate."

To this lineup of alarmists who now admit to the pause, we could add the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many additional MSM denizens — most of which, after acknowledging the pause, have continued to crank out the apocalyptic fright peddling nonetheless, like an old phonograph record stuck on a scratchy groove.

Continued Cooling More Likely Than Warming
Dr. Judith Curry, formerly in the AGW alarmist camp, is among the many experts who not only acknowledge the pause, but even note there actually has been a cooling trend for the past decade or so. And there is reason to believe, they say, that this trend will continue for maybe a decade or more. Writing in her Climate Etc., blog this past June 14, Curry, who is a professor of climatology and chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, noted:

Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr "pause" to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr. "pause".

Cold Summer: 1,025 Record Lows in First Three Weeks of August
Written by William F. Jasper

Obama, tool of crony establishment...

Cornel West on Obama: " We ended up with a brown-faced Clinton. Another opportunist."

Robert Wenzel

I doubt that Cornel West holds the same views that I do on on how to improve current society, but he sure understands that Obama is nothing but a tool of the crony establishment.

In a recent interview with, West was asked this question: "How do you feel things have worked out since then, both with the economy and with this president?" He let it rip:

No, the thing is he posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency. The torturers go free. The Wall Street executives go free. The war crimes in the Middle East, especially now in Gaza, the war criminals go free. And yet, you know, he acted as if he was both a progressive and as if he was concerned about the issues of serious injustice and inequality and it turned out that he’s just another neoliberal centrist with a smile and with a nice rhetorical flair. And that’s a very sad moment in the history of the nation because we are—we’re an empire in decline. Our culture is in increasing decay. Our school systems are in deep trouble. Our political system is dysfunctional. Our leaders are more and more bought off with legalized bribery and normalized corruption in Congress and too much of our civil life...

[W]e ended up with a brown-faced Clinton. Another opportunist. Another neoliberal opportunist. It’s like, “Oh, no, don’t tell me that!” I tell you this, because I got hit hard years ago, but everywhere I go now, it’s “Brother West, I see what you were saying. Brother West, you were right. Your language was harsh and it was difficult to take, but you turned out to be absolutely right.”


It's ok if Lincoln did it...

The Mass Murder of Women and Children in Gaza is Just Fine and Dandy
Thomas DiLorenzo

So says neocon war propagandist Victor Davis Hanson. The reason he gives for this, of course, is that Lincoln did it to Southerners in the 1860s; therefore, it must be the moral high road. He praises the Israeli army as being “Shermanesque,” following in the footsteps of the mass murderer of Southern women and children who rarely, if ever, confronted Confederate soldiers during his famous “march” of rape, pillage, and plunder. Hanson praises Sherman for avoiding soldiers and murdering civilians instead, which he calls “humiliation.” He also lies through his teeth, claiming that Sherman never touched any Southern property of the lower or middle classes, only the plantation owners and the Confederate government.


Don't vote, you only encourage them...

Voters are Tied to the Streetcar Tracks

By G. Joseph McLiney

The Kansas City Star

Your vote doesn’t count and it probably never did. The ballot box is nothing more than a scam designed to make you believe you have a voice in politics.

Your leaders have little more than contempt for your directions. To prove this to yourself, you need only listen to what your mayor and city council say and watch what they do.

The August election is a shining example that should drive home this sad fact. By more than a 20-point margin, voters rejected the proposed streetcar expansion.

Instead of listening to the people, Mayor Sly James responded by saying, “We’re not going to let the (streetcar) starter line be the end of the line for this thing. It’s ridiculous to think that.”

He didn’t give this massive defeat a second thought. Moments after the votes were counted and the message to end this unwanted and unneeded streetcar project was clear, he pronounced the voters to be “ridiculous” and declared he is “…not going to roll over and let it go.”

This disdain for us shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to our city government. On May 22, more than two months before a single vote was cast, the city awarded two contracts for the Phase 2 Streetcar expansion design work.

Councilman Russ Johnson sponsored both resolutions causing $8,146,630 to be spent using “funds previously appropriated.”

Perhaps those spare millions we apparently have lying around could help the budget we’re told is always in crisis or go to lowering the cost of utility services and not the mayor’s vanity railroad. If committing millions before the election doesn’t demonstrate our leadership’s complete disregard for us, perhaps you’ll be convinced by Councilman Johnson’s promise that if you vote against him, he knows 50 people who will come and force the expansion upon you.

This thuggish statement isn’t an exaggeration, but you need not take my word for it. Visit the city’s website and the video of officials’ meeting during which Councilman Johnson, in a surprisingly candid moment said, “If anybody out there thinks that if this (Phase 2 Streetcar project) gets voted down in August it’s going to go away. I know 50 people out there that will force you to either move this forward or they will move it forward for you.”

It sounds a little like our councilman has a mob ready to break our legs to help convince people to vote his way. What he is actually referring to is a little known trick used by financiers and developers called a Transportation Development District.

This technique allows a very small group to force a half a billion-dollar project down our throats. It was exactly this underhanded, yet perfectly legal method that created the $100 million, 2-mile starter line currently ravaging Main Street today.

Ayn Rand wrote, “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission….”

It’s clear Kansas City has reached that point. Voters asked their representatives to stop the streetcar expansion.

Our leaders are not listening. They’re ignoring our direction and doing exactly as they please, or in the words of Councilman Johnson, “…the streetcar is going to be expanded whether we like it or not.”


Las Vegas, beware???

Which U.S. City will the Terrorists Hit Next?

By David Franke


Las Vegas?

The U.S. government created/transformed ISIS into a serious threat, just as it earlier created/transformed Al Qaeda into a serious threat. Now, once again, the “terrorist threat” has suddenly become page 1 news again. The American public has refused to get interested in another Mideast war, complicating things for the behind-the-scenes War Party, so it’s time to trot out the domestic threat again.

It depends on whether you believe the “domestic terrorist threat” (World Trade Center, etc.) is a U.S. government Black Flag (False Flag) operation to manipulate us into war, or truly a foreign terrorist operation. The Black Flag position is the Mount Everest of conspiratorial theories, yet most polls show a minority of world opinion believes Al Qaeda was behind 9-11, and a majority of Americans have believed that Bush-Cheney were hiding the truth about the attacks.

If a Black Flag operation, almost any city in the U.S. makes sense. Las Vegas would probably be the most spectacular place to do it, in terms of possibilities of mass casualties without seriously disrupting U.S. economic and war-making capabilities.

If truly a terrorist operation (which I doubt), Houston would make so much more sense than Chicago or Las Vegas or any of the other cities being mentioned. A proper attack on the Houston refineries and Houston Ship Channel could deal a serious blow to the U.S. economy. Yet I hardly ever hear Houston being mentioned, which is just another circumstantial reason I think the current scare campaign in the corporate media is led behind the scenes by the war plans and desires of the U.S. government.

A major attack on Houston, comparable to 9/11, would not even have to focus on Houston proper. Focus on the refineries outside Houston and the Houston Ship Channel. Closing the Ship Channel at its junction with the Texas City refineries, or around Pasadena-San Jacinto, would close the major oil port of the United States. I would have to do some research to find out where the pipelines to the Northeast originate, so that would be another major consideration for a specific target. (That is of some direct interest to me, since a major Houston pipeline ends in western Virginia, which is why my gasoline prices are the envy of visitors from D.C. or Baltimore.)

I don’t think the U.S. government is ready for such a serious economic threat, so I think Houston is relatively safe. Any Black Flag operation is more likely elsewhere. Who really cares if thousands of blackjack players get the ultimate 16 hand or Texas Holdem poker players draw the ultimate off-suit 7-2? So beware, Las Vegas!


"So how did we go from “peace” officers to “police” officers to “law enforcement” officers anyway? How did we go from “protect and serve” to “escalate and harm”? And what is behind the militarization of police departments and the rise of the warrior cop, as one writer terms it?"

Police States and Private Markets

By Jeff Deist

The following is the transcript from a talk delivered at the 2014 Houston Mises Circle. Video of the talk is available here.

I’d like to speak with you today not about the NSA or any of the vast federal spying apparatus that has so eroded our personal and financial privacy; nor about the federal healthcare bureaucracy that undermines our medical privacy; nor about TSA demanding access to our physical bodies at the airport; nor about the countless drug laws, smoking laws, helmet laws, ID laws,and Big Gulp laws that come together to make up our soft police state, or nanny state if you prefer. Now I say “soft” police state because while we know America is heading down a very dangerous path, we should respect those who suffered in the very real, not-soft police states of the twentieth century. There is no comparison, and we shouldn’t use the term lightly. But if we don’t see the growing parallels between totalitarian societies in history and modern day America we have only ourselves to blame.

What I would like to discuss today is the business end of the police state, which is to say the police themselves. Not federal agents necessarily, but garden variety local cops and sheriffs. For many people, police represent their only real, tangible contact with the state. Sure, they pay their taxes and comply with a million petty government rules and regulations, but in their day-to-day lives — in their homes, at work, driving around, walking around — they don’t necessarily feel or see the heavy hand of government. So for the average, law-abiding American, who is not likely to come in contact with Mr. Obama, the local congressman, or even the local mayor, police officers serve as the most visible reminder of the state. And hopefully most of us don’t interact with police much at all, beyond maybe the occasional speeding ticket or fender bender. But for those Americans who do find themselves interacting with police today, the actions, attitudes, and mindset of those police officers is likely to have changed quite a bit from, say, thirty years ago, and changed dramatically for the worse.

The Peace Officer Archetype

So whatever happened to “peace officers”?

Today when we use the term peace officer, it sounds antiquated and outdated. I’m sure most people in the room under forty have never heard the term actually used by anyone; we might as well be talking about buggy whips or floppy disks. But in the 1800s, and really through the 1960s, the term was used widely in America to refer generally to lawmen, whether sheriffs, constables, troopers, or marshals. Today the old moniker of peace officer has been almost eliminated in popular usage, replaced by police officer or the more in vogue “law enforcement officer.”

The terminology has certain legal differences in different settings; in some places peace officers and police officers are indeed different individuals with different functions, jurisdictions, or powers to execute warrants. But nobody says peace officer anymore, and it’s not just a coincidence. The evolution of language, particularly when driven by the political class and media, can have powerful implications for all of us. And I submit that the morphing of peace officers into police officers is much more than just linguistic.

Now the archetype of a peace officer is mostly fictitious — sheriffs in westerns often come to mind, stern lawman carrying Colt revolvers called “peacemakers.” But the Wyatt Earps of western myth weren’t always so peaceful, and often — at least in movies — used their peacemakers to shoot up the place. And while Americans today can’t really relate to the Old West, we do have enough institutional memory — that’s a polite way of saying old people — to paint a pretty accurate picture of the trusted peace officer of Norman Rockwell’s America in the first half of the twentieth century. Fictitious or not, whole generations of Americans grew up with an apple pie view of the peace officer as a friend, not an agent of the state to be feared.

Sheriff Andy Taylor of The Andy Griffith Show is perhaps the best and most facile example of what it once meant, at least in the American psyche, to be a peace officer. As a peace officer, Sheriff Taylor exhibits four key traits that profoundly distinguish him from most modern police officers.

First, he is part of the community. He does not see himself — nor do others see him — as somehow apart from the residents of Mayberry. He does not exhibit an “us vs. them” mentality that seems so prevalent in many police officers today. He does not see himself first and foremost as a government employee or union member. He does not resent the people he protects, but instead considers himself a fellow citizen. In other words, Sheriff Taylor is a true civilian.
Second, he truly seeks to maintain peace within Mayberry, and sees his job as keeping the town safe, quiet, happy — peaceful. He is a peacekeeper, not an enforcer. In fact, he seldom uses force. He does not want a crime wave in Mayberry to justify an increase in his pay or budget; on the contrary, he would view an increase in local crime as a personal failure. He is apt to downplay, rather than exaggerate, the importance of his job. His focus is on creating an environment that discourages crime in the first place.
Third, in every instance Sheriff Taylor attempts to smooth over and defuse problems, rather than escalate them. He invariably looks for simple, common sense, polite answers to conflicts, rather than using his legal authority to threaten or arrest. He rarely concerns himself with technical application of the law; but rather uses his judgment to solve problems and make them go away with the least fuss possible. He never makes a bad situation worse.For example, in one memorable scene Andy and his deputy Barney Fife have been summoned to the dilapidated home of an angry man who is causing a disturbance. Upon seeing the two officers, the man promptly begins firing his old rifle at them from a second story window. Barney reacts as you might expect, pulling out his own rifle, calling in reinforcements, and barricading himself behind the squad car for a shootout. Andy, by contrast, knows the man to be somewhat cranky and believes he can be talked out of it. So he crouches over, zig-zags his way to the front door, enters the house, and then emerges in short order with the suspect, who is now much calmer. The sheriff has, as usual, talked him out of it. No arrest is made, if you can imagine that.
Fourth, Andy genuinely cares about and tries to help the people of Mayberry, having their best interests at heart. See, for example, his gentle treatment of Otis, the town drunk. As a result, he has the trust, admiration, and respect of the townspeople.

Now of course as I mentioned, The Andy Griffith Show was fictional. And there’s no doubt that many, many small town sheriffs in America over the decades have been anything but peace officers. Yet it’s fascinating that just a few decades ago Americans could identify with the character of Sheriff Taylor as a recognizable ideal.

Contrast with Today

Fast forward to 2014, and clearly Norman Rockwell’s America is mostly gone. Obviously the situation today is very different, and we all know how far things have fallen. Police have suffered a very serious decline over the last several decades, both in terms of their public image and the degree to which average citizens now often fear police officers rather than trust them. As an aside, poor and minority communities have long been less trusting, or perhaps less naïve, about the real nature of police. But today that jaundiced view has found its way into middle class consciousness.

Now the subject of police misconduct and the growing militarization and lawlessness of police departments could fill many hours, so we won’t try to cover such a broad topic today. And several libertarian writers are doing a great job of documenting police malfeasance; in my opinion William Norman Grigg is the best out there on the subject.

But allow me to mention a few particularly egregious recent examples of police escalating and harming, rather than protecting and serving.

The first case is truly heartbreaking, as a 90-pound, mentally ill young man very recently was killed by three so-called law enforcement officers from three different agencies in Southport, North Carolina. He was apparently having a schizophrenic episode and brandishing a screwdriver when police arrived in answer to his family’s 911 call asking for “help.” Some help. The first two officers managed to calm the young man down, but the third escalated the situation, demanding that the other officers use a taser to subdue him. Once his body hit the ground the young man was brutally shot at close range by the third officer, for reasons that remain unclear.So here we see modern police at work. Escalation. Aggression. A lack of common sense, making a bad situation worse. Overriding concern for the safety of police officers, regardless of the consequences for those being “protected.” These are the not the hallmarks of peace officers, to put it mildly.
A second case you may have heard about happened in Fullerton, California in 2011. Will Grigg has written extensively about this horrific and brutal police crime, where a homeless man was sadistically suffocated and beaten to death by six police officers after a routine loitering stop. The victim was fairly slender, and though he did have a history of mental health issues, there was no trace of alcohol or drugs found in his postmortem toxicology report. The attack itself took place over nearly ten minutes, and the victim suffered numerous broken bones in addition to the constriction of his airway by the force of six men sitting and laying on him. During the beating he begged and pleaded for his life, but to no avail. Once he was adequately “subdued,” the police made sure to take their time summoning an ambulance. He died a few days later from his injuries. Of course the officers claimed they were merely using justifiable force, and criminal charges for second degree murder and manslaughter against two of the officers involved recently resulted in acquittal. Charges against a third officer were subsequently dropped.

Now depending on one’s point of view, these officers may be seen as nothing more than vicious gang members guilty of murder, or they may be seen (by an exceedingly charitable supporter of “law and order”) simply as overzealous cops involved in an unfortunate situation that got out of hand. But in no universe can they be seen as peace officers.

Another troubling development that demonstrates how far we’ve strayed from the peace officer ideal can be seen in the increasing militarization of local police departments. The Florida city of Ft. Pierce (population 42,000) recently acquired an MRAP vehicle, which stands for “mine response ambush protection” for the bargain price of $2,000. The US military is unloading hundreds of armored tank-like vehicles as Operation Enduring Freedom winds down — and it’s also unloading thousands of Afghanistan and Iraq combat vets into the ranks of local police and sheriffs. The Ft. Pierce police chief states, “The military was pretty much handing them out. … You know, it is overkill, until we need it.”

A similar type of vehicle known as a BATT, or “ballistic armored tactical transport,” has found a home just down the road in Lake Jackson, Texas, hometown to Dr. Paul. This BATT employs thermal imaging cameras and holds up to a dozen officers, which is puzzling since Lake Jackson has a population of only 27,000 and a crime rate, both for violent and property crimes, of less than half the national average. Now Ron and Carol undoubtedly think of their town as a bucolic place where they raised their five children, but apparently it is ripe for a full-scale riot necessitating an armored response.

Of course these are merely anecdotes, but we should not be surprised when military hardware, former military personnel, and a military mindset find their way into our local police departments. And increased federal funding of otherwise cash-strapped local police departments only weakens the connection between police officers and the citizens they ostensibly serve.

The Austrian Perspective

So how did we go from “peace” officers to “police” officers to “law enforcement” officers anyway? How did we go from “protect and serve” to “escalate and harm”? And what is behind the militarization of police departments and the rise of the warrior cop, as one writer terms it?

Well, as Austrians and libertarians we should hardly be surprised, and we certainly don’t need a sociological study to understand what’s happening. The deterioration in police conduct, and the militarization of local police forces, quite simply and quite predictably mirrors the rise of the total state itself.

We know that state monopolies invariably provide worse and worse services for more and more money. Police services are no exception. When it comes to your local police, there is no shopping around, there is no customer service, and there is no choice. Without market competition, market price signals, and market discipline, government has no ability or incentive to provide what people really want, which is peaceful and effective security for themselves, their families, their homes, and their property. As with everything government purports to provide, the public wants Andy Griffith but ends up with the Terminator.

There is no lack of Austrian scholarship in this area, the intersection between security services, state monopolies, public goods, and private alternatives. But if you’re interested in the topic, I would initially direct you toward two excellent primary sources to learn more about how markets could provide security services that not only produce less crime at a lower cost, but also provide those services in a peaceful manner.

My first recommendation is Murray Rothbard’s Power and Market, which opens with a chapter entitled “Defense Services on the Free Market.” Right off the bat Rothbard points out the inherent contradiction between property rights and the argument that state-provided police services are a necessary precondition to securing such property rights:

Economists have almost invariably and paradoxically assumed that the market must be kept free by the use of invasive and unfree actions — in short, by governmental institutions outside the market nexus.

In other words, we’re told that state provided police serves a necessary precondition to market activity. But Rothbard points out that many goods and services are indispensable to functioning markets, such as land, food, clothing, and shelter for market participants. Rothbard asks, “must all these goods and services therefore be supplied by the State and the State only?”

No, he answers:

A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of a free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defenseagainst those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government. … Defense in the free society (including police protection) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not — as the State does — arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection.

Another excellent starting point is Hans Hoppe’s essay The Private Production of Defense. Here Dr. Hoppe makes the case that our long-held belief in collective security is nothing more than a myth, and that in fact state protection of private property — our system of police, courts, and jails — is incompatible with property rights and economic reality.

Speaking at the Mises Institute Brazil in 2011, Dr. Hoppe summarized the fundamental problem with state police services:

The state is … a monopolist of taxation, i.e., it can unilaterally, without the consent of everyone affected, determine the price that its subjects must pay for the state’s provision of (perverted) law. However, a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency is a contradiction in terms: an expropriating property protector. (emphasis added) Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor, but equipped with the unique power to tax, state agents will invariably strive to maximize expenditures on protection — and almost all of a nation’s wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection — and at the same time to minimize the actual production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work for it, the better off one will be.

Both Rothbard and Hoppe discuss an “insurance” model for preventing crime and aggression, which makes sense from a market perspective. Rothbard posits that private police services likely would be provided by insurance companies which already insure lives and property, for the commonsense reason that “… it would be to their direct advantage to reduce the amount of crime as much as possible.”

Hoppe takes the insurance concept further, arguing that:

The better the protection of insured property, the lower are the damage claims and hence an insurer’s loss. Thus, to provide efficient protection appears to be in every insurer’s own financial interest. … Obviously, anyone offering protection services must appear able to deliver on his promises in order to find clients. That is, he must possess the economic means — the manpower as well as the physical resources — necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers, actual or imagined, of the real world. On this count insurance agencies appear to be perfect candidates.

Compare this to the “growth” model of most local police departments, which continuously lobby their city councils for more money and more officers!

Now admittedly the private provision of police and security services is a complex and controversial subject, and we’re only touching on it today. But rest assured that if you read further, both Rothbard and Hoppe address the many common objections raised when discussing private police: attendant issues like political borders; differing legal systems; physical jurisdiction and violence among competing firms; the actuarial problems behind insuring against physical aggression; free riders; and so forth.

Certainly Rothbard and Hoppe’s prescription is radical, and perhaps hard to embrace for the average person who has always conflated security with government.

But, increasingly society is moving in the direction of private security regardless: consider for example, complex insurance networks and indemnification arrangements across borders; private arbitration of disputes; the rise of gated communities and neighborhoods utilizing private security agencies; and fraud prevention mechanisms provided by private businesses like eBay and PayPal.

These trends can only intensify as governments, whether federal, state, or local, increasingly must spend more and more of their budgets to service entitlement, pension, and debt promises.


Jeff DeistIn conclusion, I’ll simply say that market activity is peaceful activity, while state action always implicitly or expressly involves force. If we want our police to act more like Sheriff Andy Taylor and less like militarized aggressors, we must look to private models — models where our interests are aligned with security providers. Only then can we bring back true“peace” officers, private security providers focused on preventing crime and defusing conflicts in cost effective and peaceful ways.

If we don’t, we may find the line between cops and criminals blurring more and more every day — like the scene with Harvey Keitel in the forgettable 1997 movie City of Industry (which, incidentally, borrows this line from a much better 1942 movie entitled This Gun for Hire, with Alan Ladd playing the Harvey Keitel character).

Looking for a man who killed his brother, Keitel breaks into the house of the man’s girlfriend and holds her at gunpoint, demanding the whereabouts of the killer. She claims ignorance, and asks Keitel why he doesn’t go to the police. After a dramatic pause, where Keitel almost leers at the camera, he responds like Bogart: “I’m my own police.”

It’s a brave new world out there folks, and Sheriff Andy Taylor is starting to resemble Harvey Keitel. For now, we are all our own police.


Sunday, August 24, 2014

Mobilize - Official Trailer...


St. Louis Cop Suspended After Radical Views Are Exposed by YouTuber
Activist Post

Sergeant Dan Page of the St. Louis County Police Department was caught earlier this week participating in what seemed like a staged CNN broadcast in Ferguson where he shoved reporter Don Lemon while standing with peaceful protesters.

YouTube activist The Black Child noticed the encounter on CNN and quickly identified Page and exposed his radical views in the video below. The Black Child pulled clips from a 2012 lecture given by Sergeant Page where he gives detailed plans of a military police state takeover of America.

CNN has now confirmed the officer pretending to manhandle reporter Don Lemon is indeed Dan Page in that 2012 lecture. Page has been suspended for his ideology and will be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Of course, they still pretend that Page wasn't a CNN-paid provocateur in that ridiculous sidewalk scene.

Lemon uses the opportunity to smear the Oath Keepers as sharing Page's views. However, they report Oath Keeper's response that Page is not a member of their organization and was only invited to lecture about the police state.

This is the second time in a week that an activist journalist got a thug removed from the Ferguson protest. Three days ago a police officer pointed an assault rifle in the face of a peaceful citizen journalist and says "I will fucking kill you". When the livestreamer asks for his name the officer replied "Go fuck yourself!"

The officer was removed from Ferguson the following day and suspended. Activist journalists have done more to enforce police accountability this week than authorities seem to have done in a span of years.

It's a very interesting world we live in.


Know your war-mongering senators...

Senators Who Are Risking Nuclear War
Michael S. Rozeff

Once again the warmongers in positions of power within the federal government are introducing bills in Congress that greatly amplify the risk of a major war. This time they risk nuclear war with Russia. The bill is S.2277, The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014. I warned about this bill on May 5, 2014. (Also see here and here.) At that time, 20 senators were co-sponsors. Now there are 26. It is such a bad bill and so clearly illustrates the psychopathy in Washington that, once again, I will list the names of the warmongering co-sponsors. Their sponsorship of this bill indicates such a warped capacity for judgment that they should be removed from office at the earliest opportunity. Many of the names are by now familiar.

* = Original cosponsor

Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]*
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]*
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]*
Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]*
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]*
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ]*
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]*
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]*
Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]*
Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]*
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]*
Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN]*
Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]*
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]*
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]*
Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN]*
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]*
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA]*
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]*
Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ]*
Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]*
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC]*
Sen. Chambliss, Saxby [R-GA]
Sen. Toomey, Pat [R-PA]
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY]
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA]


False Flag - The Trailer HD...

Cartoon of the day...

Not a conspiracy any longer???

Obama’s ‘New World Order’ Quote Will Creep You Out Even If You’re Not a Conspiracy Theorist
By Soopermexican

I’m not really partial to conspiracy theories, in fact, I love to debunk them, but even though a certain quote from Obama’s speech on Tuesday will bring out the crazies, it should also alarm the more rational among us.

The Washington Post‘s Chris Cilliza highlighted this excerpt [emphasis added]:

“But whether people see what’s happening in Ukraine, and Russia’s aggression towards its neighbors in the manner in which it’s financing and arming separatists; to what’s happened in Syria — the devastation that Assad has wrought on his own people; to the failure in Iraq for Sunni and Shia and Kurd to compromise — although we’re trying to see if we can put together a government that actually can function; to ongoing terrorist threats; to what’s happening in Israel and Gaza — part of peoples’ concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.”

Yes, this is the kind of “New World Order” quote that puts money in the wallet of Alex Jones, but aside from positing that Obama is a lizard space alien hellbent on imposing Sharia-Illuminati martial law on the world, it actually displays an amazing but troubling aspect of Obama’s “philosophy” of the world, if you can call it that.

While more and more people are looking around the world and seeing the turmoil that follows on America receding from the global stage, Obama just sees business as usual – he doesn’t believe he has any hand at all in all these events. He doesn’t believe that selling out our allies on missile defense and the “Russian Reset” encouraged Putin, or that making impotent threats against Assad emboldened him, or that pulling out of Iraq prematurely brought on the ISIS terrorist resurgence. He really believes this is all just normal.

And so he’s seizing on these crises that he himself worsened, and using them as a springboard to say we need more “hope and change” or whatever vapid phrase he’s going to attach to whatever it is he’s selling.

Let’s hope the American people choose something better than the broken road Obama has been us guiding onto.


And it's one, two, three what are we fighting for???

Beating of the War Drums Intensifies: Full-Scale War Will Be Required to Defeat ISIS

Business Insider reports:

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, America's top military officer, told a press briefing this week that the mere existence of ISIS is clearly a problem that had to be addressed.

The question now is how.

Demspey noted that destroying ISIS will require "the application of all of the tools of [U.S.] national power — diplomatic, economic, information, military."

In fact, as counterterrorism expert Brian Fishman explained, truly defeating ISIS would require full-scale war that would involve fighting in both Iraq and Syria.


Poster of the day...

"Today, not only does the federal government control a massive standing army of regular troops and sailors, but through various federal grant programs, it is beginning to convert local law enforcement into outposts of that force considered by the Founders to be the sine qua non of despotism."

This Day at 1787 Convention: State Sovereignty and Standing Armies
Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

It’s been 227 years since August 23, 1787, but the debates that occupied the 50 or so delegates present that day at the so-called Federal Convention in Philadelphia can still be heard in Congress today.

On that hot summer day, representatives confronted the delicate and divisive issue of state sovereignty.

Less than a week earlier, the imminent Virginian George Mason proposed that the legislative branch of the federal government be granted power “to make laws for the regulation and discipline of the militia of the several states, reserving to the states the appointment of officers.”

In defense of his motion, Mason declared (as reported by James Madison) that “he considered uniformity as necessary in the regulation of the militia throughout the union.” South Carolinians Charles C. Pinckney and Pierce Butler spoke in support of Mason’s position, pointing out various “serious mischiefs” that had occurred during the War for Independence on account of the critical differences among the state militias. They argued that left to their own devices, states “would never keep up a proper discipline.”

James Madison also agreed with his countryman, stating that the regulation of the militias was so inextricably tied to the public defense that it was senseless to separate that power between the states and the federal government.

Then, in a demonstration of the occasional naïveté of those advocating for a stronger national government, John Langdon of New Hampshire assured his colleagues that “he saw no more reason to be afraid of the general government than of the state governments.”

This and other similar statements made by Langdon that day aroused the ire of the bloc of delegates determined to protect the sovereignty of their states.

Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, and John Dickinson were adamant that the militias should remain under state control. Ellsworth warned that the federal government “could not sufficiently pervade the union for such a purpose, nor could it accommodate itself to the local genius of the people. It must be vain to ask the states to give the militia out of their hands.”

In 2014, have we not effectively done just that by allowing the federal Department of Homeland Security to co-opt local law enforcement, putting power over the running of these forces under the control of the federal government?

Gerry joined the fray next, declaring with biblical bravado that he thought this to be "the last point remaining to be surrendered. If it be agreed to by the convention, the plan will have as black a mark as was set on Cain. I have no confidence in the general government as some men professed, and believe it would be found that the states have not.”

Later, he rose again and spoke hotly on the subject. As recorded in Madison’s convention journal:

This power in the United States is making the states drill-sergeants. He as lief let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed as to take the command from the states and subject them to the general legislature. It would be regarded as a system of despotism…. He warned the convention against pushing the experiment too far. Some people will support a plan of vigorous government at every risk. Others of a more democratic cast will oppose it with equal determination and a civil war may be produced by the conflict.

Once again, the pro-state-sovereignty delegates proved themselves a bit more prescient than their nationalist counterparts. Fewer than 75 years would pass before states in the South would resist what they considered tyrannical moves by the federal government to impose on the prerogatives of states. A bloody war between the states would result in the death of an estimated 620,000 men.

In response, James Madison tried to stake out the middle ground, as was his habit:

The discipline of the militia is evidently a national concern and ought to be provided for by a national constitution…. As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the states, it is necessary to guard against it by sufficient powers to the common government; and as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them, by an effectual provision for a good militia.

Madison would make this point again some months later in what became Federalist Number 46.

In that essay, Madison described a symbiotic relationship of state and federal government that would obviate a clash of powers. Madison believed that states would maintain their supremacy over the federal government in terms of their sovereignty principally through the effects of the greater attachment of the “affections” of the people to their state governments than to the distant federal authority.

History, it seems, has not borne out Madison’s confidence in the connections of the people to the state governments.

Madison assumed, however, that the people’s devotion to their state legislatures would compel them to resist any effort by agents of the federal government to subordinate states to second-class status.

The states and the people, Madison argued, would never submit to such despotic designs. The power of this duo — inherent in the latter and artificial in the former — would prevent his opponents’ predicted consolidation of all political power by the federal government.

“What degree of madness,” Madison asks incredulously, could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity,” to ambitiously encroach on the state governments?

Specifically, Madison wrote that should the federal government somehow deceive the states and the people into aiding its accumulation of all power, the people, through the states, would recover their senses and “repel the danger” through a militia mustered and “fighting for their common liberties.” These citizen-soldiers would form a popular armed force that Madison believed “could never be conquered.”

The mustering and maintenance of an organized militia, considered by Madison to be last line of defense against a tyrannical federal government, is often rejected even by many within the liberty movement. Establishment types consider the subject to be an embarrassment and a fascination of the lunatic fringe of the Right. Its advocates, they insist, should be shunned by all right-minded conservatives.

The plan to marginalize militias has been startlingly successful. There remain only 23 state defense forces (not including units of the National Guard and Reserve which are under the command of the president and are effectively just reserves of the federal armed forces). The problem, however, is that even these state-run militias are not militias in the sense that Madison and the Founders were familiar with. They are nothing close to a citizen army that could be counted on to repel federal invasions.

Despite the laudable efforts of Ellsworth, Gerry, and others to deny the federal government the power to regulate state militias, Mason’s motion passed and was included in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

At the end of that historic day, many members of the convention began meeting in private to discuss how the power of states might be protected. At one of these gatherings, Luther Martin of Maryland said that he was “confident no state in the union would more readily accede to a proper system of government than Maryland, but that the system under consideration was of such a nature that [he] never could recommend it for acceptance and that [he] thought the state never ought to adopt it, and expressed [his] firm belief that it never would.”

Today, not only does the federal government control a massive standing army of regular troops and sailors, but through various federal grant programs, it is beginning to convert local law enforcement into outposts of that force considered by the Founders to be the sine qua non of despotism.


Communists, Socialists, Globalists in Charge of Cyberspace???

UN Internet Summit: Communists, Socialists, Globalists in Charge of Cyberspace?
Written by William F. Jasper

The United Nations will soon be convening the ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a gathering that is bound to have a profound impact on freedom throughout the world. A profoundly negative impact, that is, unless the U.S. Congress is activated to stop the Obama administration’s moves to support the UN’s designs for “global governance” over cyberspace.

Despite proclamations of commitment to transparency, openness, inclusivity, privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression, the IGF is stacked from top to bottom with communists, socialists, and globalists who represent the antithesis of those commitments. That is hardly surprising, since that is standard procedure for events sponsored by the UN, which is itself stacked from top to bottom with communists, socialists, and globalists who represent the antithesis of those commitments.

The Internet Governance Forum will take place September 2-5 in Istanbul, hosted by the government of Turkey, which, according to the liberal-left Freedom House, is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists” and is infamous for censoring the Internet. Apropos of this setting, the person overseeing the Istanbul meeting is Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the Istanbul confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

Hongbo will be joined in Istanbul by fellow CPC comrades, who will be attending as “official participants” as well as members of the Internet Government Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). China’s representation includes: Professor Liang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Lee Xiaodong, CEO of CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center, an agency of China’s Ministry of Information); Chen Hongbing, China’s permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva, Switzerland. These are the folks who have helped build and maintain China’s shameful “Great Firewall” that the Communist regime uses to spy on, censor, restrict, and police Internet usage.

Then there is the High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, which has had a huge hand in forming the agenda for the IGF. Among its members is Liu Qingfeng, director of the National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China.

Among those representing Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin at the IGF/Istanbul is Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s State Duma, where he is deputy chairperson of the Committee on Physical Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. He is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio unabashedly admits (or perhaps boasts) that Schlegel was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth. A recent article in the International Business Times, entitled "Censorship, Social Media Crackdown Make It Easy For Putin To Stay Popular,” provides disquieting reports (as if more were needed) concerning the sorry plight of Internet freedom under Putin’s regime. Schlegel is a leader among the Kremlin’s agents who will be pushing for imposing Putin’s model of cyberspace control on the entire Internet.

Socialist International: Elephant Under the Doily

The danger of the Internet becoming an Orwellian tool of oppression does not, however, emanate only from the schemes of Moscow, Beijing, and the other more obvious centers of totalitarian thought and practice. One of the most ominous signals that the Internet Governance Forum is tilted heavily against freedom is the dominance of the process by leaders of the Socialist International, which traces its lineage to the First International founded by Karl Marx. The Socialist International is a massive, globe-straddling organization of 168 political parties and organizations from all continents, including 60 member parties that currently are running national governments. Its members are completely at home inside the United Nations and are comfortable collaborating with representatives of communist regimes. Speakers at Socialist International confabs address each other as “comrade,” and the Socialist International I still maintains the old Soviet organizational structure, governed at the top by a “Presidium.”

Prominent Socialist International members have dominated many of the UN’s agencies, departments, commissions, and conferences for decades. Yet, there is virtually no coverage in the mainstream media of this organization and the tremendous power it wields. Currently, former Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson serves as deputy secretary-general at the UN, second only to Ban Ki-moon in the organization’s hierarchy. Eliasson is a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which is a member party of the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International.

Estonian President Toomas Ilves is chairman of the aforementioned High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms. His Estonian Social Democratic Party is a member party of the Socialist International, and when Ilves served as a Member of the European Parliament, he sat with the Party of European Socialists group. Also on the Panel is Thorbjorn Jagland, former Norwegian prime minister and leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, a Socialist International member party.

Perhaps the most significant person in the Socialist International orbit regarding “global governance” of the Internet is High-Level Panel member Nitin Desai. A former UN under-secretary-general and former secretary-general of the UN’s World Summit for Sustainable Development, he has been in the forefront of the globalist effort to place the Internet under “international” control. Desai, who was appointed in 2004 by the UN secretary-general to chair the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), has been an active participant in many Socialist International activities. During the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit on sustainable development, Desai penned an op-ed attacking the United States for failing to jump on board the UN’s global warming bandwagon. “The American way of life — and, for that matter, the way of life everywhere — has to be up for negotiation,” opined Desai. “This is because climate change is the mother of all externalities — global, long-term and potentially catastrophic in its impact.”

The dangers posed by the likes of Nitin Desai, Wu Hongbo, Toomas Ilves, and the rest of the Communist/Socialist UN claque at the Istanbul conference are multiplied several fold by the organized globalists of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who are also pushing for similar “global governance” goals, as we have reported in a recent article entitled, "UN Grabs for the Internet: CFR, Chatham House Lead Toward “Global Governance."