Saturday, April 19, 2014

South Park Cartoon Destroys the Federal Reserve...

More Common Core nonsense...

You Won’t Believe The Method That Common Core Is Using To Teach Our Kids Subtraction
By Michael Snyder

The dumbing down of America is accelerating. A massive federal takeover of education known as “Common Core” is attempting to impose nationwide academic standards on public schools throughout the entire country. Thanks to the backing of billionaire Bill Gates, endless promotion by the U.S. Department of Education, and financial bribes to state governments by the Obama administration, 45 states and Washington, D.C. have already agreed to implement the full Common Core standards in their schools. Unfortunately, these “standards” are doing to public education what Obamacare is doing to our health care system – absolutely ruining it. Just look at how basic math instruction has changed. Posted below is a comparison between the “old method” of subtraction and the “new method” of subtraction being taught in many of our schools. When I first came across this on Facebook, I thought that it was a joke…

Read the rest here:

"Obama is currently seeking a greater budget for nuclear weapons than the historical peak during the cold war, the era of Strangelove. The United States is pursuing its longstanding ambition to dominate the Eurasian landmass, stretching from China to Europe: a “manifest destiny” made right by might."

The Strangelove Effect

Or how we are hoodwinked into accepting a new world war

By John Pilger

I watched Dr. Strangelove the other day. I have seen it perhaps a dozen times; it makes sense of senseless news. When Major T.J. “King” Kong goes “toe to toe with the Rooskies” and flies his rogue B52 nuclear bomber to a target in Russia, it’s left to General “Buck” Turgidson to reassure the President. Strike first, says the general, and “you got no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops.”

President Merkin Muffley: “I will not go down in history as the greatest mass-murderer since Adolf Hitler.”

General Turgidson: “Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people than with your image in the history books.”

The genius of Stanley Kubrick’s film is that it accurately represents the cold war’s lunacy and dangers. Most of the characters are based on real people and real maniacs. There is no equivalent to Strangelove today, because popular culture is directed almost entirely at our interior lives, as if identity is the moral zeitgeist and true satire is redundant; yet the dangers are the same. The nuclear clock has remained at five minutes to midnight; the same false flags are hoisted above the same targets by the same “invisible government”, as Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations, described modern propaganda.

In 1964, the year Strangelove was made, “the missile gap” was the false flag. In order to build more and bigger nuclear weapons and pursue an undeclared policy of domination, President John Kennedy approved the CIA’s propaganda that the Soviet Union was well ahead of the US in the production of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. This filled front pages as the “Russian threat”. In fact, the Americans were so far ahead in the production of ICBMs, the Russians never approached them. The cold war was based largely on this lie.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its “Nato Enlargement Project”. Reneging a US promise to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand “one inch to the east”, Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucuses, Nato’s military build-up is the most extensive since the second world war.

In February, the United States mounted one of its proxy “colour” coups against the elected government of Ukraine; the shock troops were fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians died in the invasion of their country by Hitler’s Nazis, who were supported by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the UPA, responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The UPA was the military wing, inspiring today’s Svoboda party.

Since Washington’s putsch in Kiev — and Moscow’s inevitable response in Russian Crimea, to protect its Black Sea Fleet — the provocation and isolation of Russia have been inverted in the news to the “Russian threat”. This is fossilised propaganda. The US Air Force general who runs Nato forces in Europe – General Breedlove, no less — claimed more than two weeks ago to have pictures showing 40,000 Russian troops “massing” on the border with Ukraine. So did Colin Powell claim to have pictures of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is certain is that Obama’s rapacious, reckless coup in Ukraine has ignited a civil war and Vladimir Putin is being lured into a trap.

Following a 13-year rampage that began in stricken Afghanistan well after Osama bin Laden had fled, then destroyed Iraq beneath a false flag, then invented a “nuclear rogue” in Iran, dispatched Libya to a Hobbesian anarchy and backed jihadists in Syria, the US finally has a new cold war to supplement its worldwide campaign of murder and terror by drone.

A Nato Membership Action Plan or MAP — straight from the war room of Strangelove — is General Breedlove’s gift to the new dictatorship in Ukraine. “Rapid Trident” will put US troops on Ukraine’s Russian border and “Sea Breeze” will put US warships within sight of Russian ports. At the same time, Nato war games throughout eastern Europe are designed to intimidate Russia. Imagine the response if this madness was reversed and happened on America’s borders. Cue General “Buck” Turgidson.

And there is China. On 24 April, President Obama will begin a tour of Asia to promote his “Pivot to China”. The aim is to convince his “allies” in the region, principally Japan, to re-arm and prepare for the eventual possibility of war with China. By 2020, almost two-thirds of all US naval forces in the world will be transferred to the Asia-Pacific area. This is the greatest military concentration in that vast region since the second world war.

In an arc extending from Australia to Japan, China will face US missiles and nuclear-armed bombers. A strategic naval base is being built on the Korean island of Jeju less than 400 miles from the Chinese metropolis of Shanghai and the industrial heartland of the only country whose economic power is likely to surpass that of the US. Obama’s “pivot” is designed to undermine China’s influence in its region. It is as if world war has begun by other means.

This is not a Strangelove fantasy. Obama’s defence secretary, Charles “Chuck” Hagel, was in Beijing last week to deliver a menacing warning that China, like Russia, could face isolation and war if it did not bow to US demands. He compared the annexation of Crimea with China’s complex territorial dispute with Japan over uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. “You cannot go around the world,” said Hagel with a straight face, “and violate the sovereignty of nations by force, coercion or intimidation”. As for America’s massive movement of naval forces and nuclear weapons to Asia, that is “a sign of the humanitarian assistance the US military can provide”.

Obama is currently seeking a greater budget for nuclear weapons than the historical peak during the cold war, the era of Strangelove. The United States is pursuing its longstanding ambition to dominate the Eurasian landmass, stretching from China to Europe: a “manifest destiny” made right by might.


The financial end is near...

The Vault, Presented by Merit Gold & Silver Broadcasts an Exclusive Interview with Legendary Investor Jim Rogers

Noted Investor Jim Rogers says Americans should prepare for a coming financial crisis that will destroy wealth and annihilate savers around the globe.

"If, after all, it was a triumph of self-determination for Ukraine to secede from the Russian Federation, do not Russians in Crimea and Donetsk have the same right — to secede from Kiev and go home to Russia?"

NED's Chickens Come Home to Roost

By Patrick J. Buchanan

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Empire an “evil empire,” the phrase reflected his conviction that while the East-West struggle was indeed a global geostrategic conflict, it had a deep moral dimension.

If Americans did not see the Cold War as he did, a battle between good and evil, Reagan knew that they would indefinitely sacrifice neither the wealth of the nation nor the blood of its sons to sustain it.

That is in the character of Americans.

Jimmy Carter had sought to remove that moral dimension by declaring, “We have gotten over our inordinate fear of communism.”

But with his “evil empire” speech, Reagan re-moralized the Cold War in what Natan Sharansky called “a moment of moral clarity.”

Here we come to the heart of the matter as to why Americans want to stay out of any Ukrainian conflict. Americans not only see no vital U.S. interest, but also no moral dimension to this quarrel.

If, after all, it was a triumph of self-determination for Ukraine to secede from the Russian Federation, do not Russians in Crimea and Donetsk have the same right — to secede from Kiev and go home to Russia?

If Georgians had a right to break free of the Russian Federation, do not Abkhazians and South Ossetians have a right to break free of Georgia?

Turnabout is fair play is an old American saying.

Op-ed writers bewail Vladimir Putin’s threat to the “rules-based” world we have created. But under what rule did we bomb Serbia for 78 days to tear away Kosovo, the cradle province of the Serb people?

Perhaps some history is in order.

Compare how Putin brought about the secession and annexation of Crimea, without bloodshed but with popular approval, with how Sam Houston and friends brought about the secession of Texas from Mexico, and its annexation by the United States in 1845.

When the Mexicans tried to retrieve a disputed piece of their lost Texas territory, James K. Polk accused them of shedding American blood on American soil, had Congress declare war, sent Gen. Winfield Scott and a U.S. army to Mexico City, and annexed the entire northern half of Mexico, which is now the American Southwest and California.

Compared to the Jacksonian, James Polk, Vladimir Putin is Pierre Trudeau.

Even in Eastern Ukraine, it is hard to see a moral issue.

For the Kiev regime is loudly denouncing as “terrorists” the Russians who are taking over city centers by using the exact same tactics the Maidan Square demonstrators used to seize Kiev.

If it was heroic for the Svoboda Party and Pravy Sektor to fight police and torch buildings to oust Viktor Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine, upon what ground do the usurpers who inherited his power bewail the same thing being done to them?

Is there not glaring hypocrisy here?

And where do we Americans come off piously damning what the Russians are doing in Ukraine?

A decade ago, the National Endowment for Democracy and its progeny helped to foment the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Orange Revolution in Kiev, and countless other “color revolutions” to dethrone unresponsive regimes and bring those countries into America’s orbit.

In the last decade, Putin has learned how to play the Americans’ game. And before winding up in a conflict we managed to avoid over four decades of Cold War, perhaps we should call off this game of thrones, and consign NED to the boneyard.

Today, two courses of action are being hotly pressed upon the Obama White House by the War Party. Both appear likely to lead to disaster.

The first is to arm the Ukrainians. This would likely provoke a war with Russia that Kiev could not win, and lead Ukrainians to believe the Americans will be there beside them, which is not in the cards.

The second option is the sanctions road.

But Europe, dependent on Russian oil and gas, is not going to vote itself a recession. And should the West sanction Russia, Moscow would sanction Ukraine and sink what the Washington Post calls that “black hole of corruption and waste that is the Ukrainian economy.”

As for more U.S. warships in the Black and Baltic seas and more F-16s and U.S. troops in Eastern Europe, what is their purpose, when we are not going to go to war with Russia?

In the title of the old song, Johnny Cash got it right, “Don’t take your guns to town,” unless you’re prepared to use them.

Undeniably, President Obama and John Kerry have egg all over their faces today, as they did in the Syrian “red line” episode.

Yet they continue to meddle where we do not belong, issue warnings and threats they have no power to enforce, and bluster and bluff about what they are going to do, when the American people are telling them, “This is not our quarrel.”


Friday, April 18, 2014

The answer: Collectivism...

What's So Bad About Nazis?

We can only hope...

Pro-Common Core Deception Falling Apart
Written by Alex Newman

Facing a growing avalanche of grassroots opposition from teachers, parents, and voters across the political spectrum, pro-Common Core forces — Big Business, Big Media, the Obama administration, and more — are striking back at their critics, oftentimes with outright deception and utterly ridiculous claims. However, under even a modicum of scrutiny, the absurd allegations and unsubstantiated statements made by proponents of the Obama administration-funded nationalization of education standards promptly fall apart. It appears, then, that while Common Core supporters have the big bucks — much of it from U.S. taxpayers, most of the rest from Big Business and the Gates Foundation — advocates for local control and proper education have the truth on their side.

From the outset, the shadowy development and nationwide imposition of the widely criticized national K-12 standards has been shrouded in deception. The oft-parroted myth that Common Core was in any way “state-led,” for example, has been thoroughly discredited by this publication and many others, including by some of the nation’s top experts in the field. Claims that the nationalized standards would improve education have also been widely debunked, even by some of the respected educators who sat on the largely for-show “Common Core Validation Committee.” The content experts in both English and Mathematics refused to sign off on the standards, citing poor quality, incorrect math, and more.

Meanwhile, Common Core financier and population-control fanatic Bill Gates inadvertently exposed the lie that the standards did not represent a takeover of the curriculum. “Last month, 46 Governors and Chief State School Officers made a public commitment to embrace these common standards,” Gates said during a speech at the 2009 National Conference of State Legislators. “This is encouraging — but identifying common standards is not enough. We’ll know we’ve succeeded when the curriculum and the tests are aligned to these standards.”

The notion that the federal government and the Obama administration were not involved in the whole scheme to centralize control over schools is so absurd that pro-Common Core zealots appear to have largely stopped making the claim. The national Common Core testing regime, for instance, is being financed by the federal government. The shadowy D.C.-based National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) also receive large sums of taxpayer cash, much of it through the federal government. Of course, as The New American has documented extensively, the Obama administration used billions of taxpayer dollars to bribe and bludgeon states into imposing Common Core, too.

Still, the deception by Common Core advocates continues unabated. One of the most incredible recent examples reviewed by The New American came from the “Higher State Standards Partnership,” a front group for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. The astroturf group paid to publish a propaganda advertisement in The Daily Caller headlined “How Common Core state standards prevent federal control of education.” The Big Business front-group’s ad, with a format designed to make it look like an actual article, never explained how the nationalized standards would prevent federal control of education. Instead, the ad made the preposterous claim that abandoning Common Core “would only bolster the hand of the Administration and invite federal control into our schools.”

While the Big Business front group has been producing ads purporting to show that “teachers” support the standards, that lie is easily put to rest by witnessing the revolt among teachers in New York, where the Common Core roll-out has advanced faster than other states. There, the board of the state teachers union voted unanimously against Common Core as it has been implemented so far. New York State Assemblyman Al Graf, a member of the Assembly Education Committee with a degree in education, even told The New American that the controversial standards represent “state-sponsored child abuse.” Even the governor in the establishment stronghold has been forced to retreat slightly on Common Core in the face of the public uprising. Opponents of the education takeover say this is just the start.

In Wisconsin, meanwhile, as The New American reported late last year, a handful of extremist Democrat politicians even resorted to concocting fantastical conspiracy theories about the overwhelming public outrage over the national standards. Among other claims, they suggested that some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy was afoot when five top authorities on the standards testified against them — even though many of the experts the lawmakers were attacking as part of the supposed conspiracy were in fact associated with the political Left. “Your manipulative, race/religion-baiting, sociopathic, misleading press release is a textbook example of what is wrong with American politics and is clearly a window into the mind of a warped individual who values the spotlight over serious discussions related to our nation’s children,” wrote Dr. Gary Thompson, a child psychologist who said he campaigned for Obama, after disgraced State Sen. John Lehman claimed the expert had been “fronting” for “right-wing extremism” in his testimony against Common Core.

More recently, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel newspaper, widely regarded as having a strong bias in favor of Big Government and the Democrat Party, provided an excellent example of the deception when it launched a half-baked attack on Dr. Duke Pesta under the guise of doing a “profile.” The respected university professor and prominent Common Core critic has been traveling across America exposing the controversial national education standards to massive audiences. Already, he has spoken to tens of thousands of Wisconsin parents during his more than 150 talks, in addition to large groups all over the country. The piece, perhaps in an effort to seem “fair and balanced,” begins by noting that his students at the University of Wisconsin love him. However, the real agenda soon becomes transparent: attacking the popular professor for his powerful opposition to Common Core.

In addition to parroting the debunked talking points of Common Core proponents as if they were fact — a big faux pas in journalism — Journal-Sentinel reporter Karen Herzog cites alleged “critics” of Pesta’s efforts who supposedly “accuse him of making statements about the nationwide academic standards that are inflammatory, inaccurate or just plain absurd.” It turns out that those “critics,” in fact, at least the only one cited in the article, is one state education bureaucrat who makes blatantly false claims throughout the article — claims that the reporter allowed to pass unchallenged. Pesta said he was either not allowed a chance to respond, or the reporter simply ignored and omitted the vast amounts of documentation he provided that refuted the falsehoods.

Dr. Duke Pesta spent hours sending documents and information to the Journal-Sentinel reporter backing up the assertions he has made during his talks. Indeed, a copy of the documents with the reporter’s questions and Dr. Pesta’s responses obtained by The New American reveals meticulous use of official sources and news reports to support every statement that the newspaper brought into question. “Every single thing that this [Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction] DPI hack challenges in the article, I went through meticulously and explained it to her,” Dr. Pesta said in a recent radio interview with popular Wisconsin show host Vicki McKenna. “She didn’t include one shred of that evidence.”

Consider, as just one representative example of the deception and journalistic malpractice, the Journal-Sentinel’s claim, attributed to unnamed “critics,” that Pesta’s warning about “a national sex education standard” in the pipeline is “inflammatory, inaccurate or just plain absurd.” In fact, it is public knowledge that a wide assortment of outfits, including abortion giant Planned Parenthood, is pushing national sex-education standards. Dr. Pesta even provided a link to the document and a key excerpt from it: “The National Sexuality Education Standards were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT); existing state and international education standards that include sexual health content; the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.” (Emphasis added).

The reporter was apparently not interested. “She never allowed me to make my case, she simply allowed the DPI guy to respond to little fragments of things that I might have said,” Pesta continued, challenging DPI “Director of Education Information Services” John Johnson to a public debate. “If my comments are as absurd as you say they are, you should have no problem dealing with me in a public forum. What do you say, John? Quit hiding behind the DPI and the Journal-Sentinel and letting them do your hit work and lobbing you soft-balls, and you come out and talk to an actual person about this.” The radio host, McKenna, agreed, saying she would like to see the alleged documentation and evidence behind the state education bureaucracy’s claims. Neither the Journal-Sentinel’s Herzog nor the DPI’s Johnson responded to requests from The New American for comment and documentation by press time.

The reporter, however, did attend one of Pesta’s three-hour presentations on Common Core in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, several days before her article was printed. More than 150 Wisconsin citizens, including four state legislators and two school board members, were in attendance. In detailed fashion, Pesta made his case against Common Core, citing and documenting his information throughout the talk. Incredibly, though, no mention of the hard-hitting talk appears in the article, and Herzog apparently failed to interview a single attendee. Throughout the article, Herzog cites supposed “critics” of Pesta's presentation, yet she never reveals the fact that, according to Pesta, none of those critics (or critic) ever attended one of his talks. Nor did she bother to solicit the opinions of people who actually heard Pesta speak in Cedarburg or elsewhere.

Still, the attack piece may, ironically, be an encouraging sign. “They would not be doing this if we were not making serious, serious inroads, if we weren’t threatening them,” Dr. Pesta said on the radio show, adding that in the day and a half since the "article" was published, he had received another dozen invitations to speak on the issue. “I prove everything I say, I proved it to that reporter.... This is how the Journal-Sentinel works.”

Indeed, Pesta, who was not informed that the reporter was working with the DPI operative on the hit piece, was never even given an opportunity to respond to his debunked claims. The paper also took some of Pesta’s remarks out of context and, incredibly — in a profile about Pesta — allowed the DPI operative to have the last word in the transparent hatchet job. “So much for a profile piece on me,” Pesta said, adding that the reporter misrepresented basic facts, even claiming to Pesta that her readers were not interested in Common Core and so it would not be the focus of the piece. The radio host agreed with Pesta, arguing that the journalist repeated brazen falsehoods, such as the claim that Common Core standards were “internationally bench-marked.”

Herzog also invents an alleged “conflict of interest,” citing unnamed supposed “critics,” by noting that Dr. Pesta “moonlights” as the academic director of FreedomProject Education, an online K-12 school that prides itself on being free of Common Core influence. However, she fails to mention the real conflict of interest; that of her “critic,” the DPI’s Johnson. The Obama administration provided massive bribes to state education officials in exchange for imposing Common Core. Even worse, Obama and top administration officials repeatedly told government-school employees and officials that their stimulus-funded bribes to state governments were, as the president put it, "saving" the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers. Because the unconstitutional bribes were linked to accepting Common Core and Orwellian new data-mining schemes, the administration essentially tried to buy the support of state and local education workers by claiming that their employment was at stake. Now that is a real conflict of interest — one that readers of the Journal-Sentinel deserved to know about.

The fact is that Common Core proponents must rely on taxpayer-funded bribes, deceptive propaganda funded by special-interests, and brazen deception to push the deeply controversial national standards. As the truth becomes more widely known, as it inevitably must, the radical effort to nationalize American education will almost certainly encounter even fiercer resistance. Already, numerous state governments across America, facing a mushrooming backlash from across the political spectrum, are working to extricate themselves from the scheme. However, as the deception unravels and the reality of the standards becomes clear, the tsunami of opposition to Common Core will continue to grow and accelerate.


Government Bailouts: Picking Winners | Walter Block...

The World is Heading Into World War III -- Gerald Celente...

See, there is nothing to worry about...

You're Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist

By Jim Harper

It got a lot of attention this morning when I tweeted, “You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist.” It’s been quickly retweeted dozens of times, indicating that the idea is interesting to many people. So let’s discuss it in more than 140 characters.

In case it needs saying: Police officers are unlike terrorists in almost all respects. Crucially, the goal of the former, in their vastest majority, is to have a stable, peaceful, safe, law-abiding society, which is a goal we all share. The goal of the latter is … well, it’s complicated. I’ve cited my favorite expert on that, Audrey Kurth Cronin, here and here and here. Needless to say, the goal of terrorists is not that peaceful, safe, stable society.

I picked up the statistic from a blog post called: “Fear of Terror Makes People Stupid,” which in turn cites the National Safety Council for this and lots of other numbers reflecting likelihoods of dying from various causes. So dispute the number(s) with them, if you care to.

I take it as a given that your mileage may vary. If you dwell in the suburbs or a rural area, and especially if you’re wealthy, white, and well-spoken, your likelihood of death from these two sources probably converges somewhat (at very close to zero).

The point of the quote is to focus people on sources of mortality society-wide, because this focus can guide public policy efforts at reducing death. (Thus, the number is not a product of the base rate fallacy.) In my opinion, too many people are still transfixed by terrorism despite the collapse of Al Qaeda over the last decade and the quite manageable—indeed, the quite well-managed—danger that terrorism presents our society today.

If you want to indulge your fears and prioritize terrorism, you’ll have plenty of help, and neither this blog post nor any other appeal to reason or statistics is likely to convince you. Among the John Mueller articles I would recommend, though, is “Witches, Communists, and Terrorists: Evaluating the Risks and Tally...” (with Mark Stewart).

If one wants to be clinical about what things reduce death to Americans, one should ask why police officers are such a significant source of danger. I have some ideas.

Cato’s work on the War on Drugs shows how it produces danger to the public and law enforcement both, not to mention loss of privacy and civil liberties, disrespect for law enforcement, disregard of the rule of law, and so on. Is the sum total of mortality and morbidity reduced or increased by the War on Drugs? I don’t know to say. But the War on Drugs certainly increases the danger to innocent people (including law enforcement personnel), where drug legalization would allow harm to naturally concentrate on the people who choose unwisely to use drugs.

The militarization of law enforcement probably contributes to the danger. Cato’s Botched Paramilitary Police Raids map illustrates the problem of over-aggressive policing. Cato alum Radley Balko now documents these issues at the Huffington Post. Try out his “Cop or Soldier?” quiz.

There are some bad apples in the police officer barrel. Given the power that law enforcement personnel have—up to and including the power to kill—I’m not satisfied that standards of professionalism are up to snuff. You can follow the Cato Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project on Twitter at @NPMRP.

If the provocative statistic cited above got your attention, that’s good. If it adds a little more to your efforts at producing a safe, stable, peaceful, and free society, all the better.


Inflation??? What inflation???

Price Inflation Is All Around Us

Robert Wenzel

But don't worry. If you don't eat or need a place to live, and just spend all day reading Paul Krugman blog posts, you will realize there is no problem.

From My Budget 360:

Inflation is accepted as a normal part of our economy similar to how we take it for granted that the sky is blue. It is close to a religion where people simply believe that inflation is part of the economic fabric of our nation. Yet inflation with no subsequent rise in wages is tantamount to a loss in living standards like a lumberjack slowly chopping away at a big pine tree. Inflation is a slow process and erodes purchasing power through a variety of avenues. We sometimes need to step out one generation to see how massive the changes are in the system. Even today inflation is hitting the pocketbooks of most Americans. First, inflation adjusted wages are simply not keeping up. You spend more at the grocery store and get the same or even less amount of goods. Sending your kids to college? More of your money is being allocated to this purchase compared to the previous generation. Housing? The large push of investors in the market has caused housing prices and rents to go up. What this means for most Americans is that more income is being siphoned away into housing. All of these are very tangible impacts of inflation so why is it that central banking policy is practically ignoring all forms of this erosion of living standards to continue monetary easing?

Food costs are certainly up in price. Families spend a good portion on food each month. Just think of the typical American family making $50,000 a year. If you are spending $500 to $750 a month that is a good portion of your disposable income. One needs to eat. We’ve seen disinflation hit in this market were producers are repackaging items with less content but for the same price. These are sneakier ways of hiding inflation since consumers feel they are purchasing the same amount of goods but in reality, they are paying more for the same item. For example, smaller tuna cans or repackaged cereal boxes.

If we look at the S&P GSCI Agriculture and Livestock Index the change in prices are very visible. Most of the changes started in 2000.

The index is up more than 133 percent since 2000. You see that corn, soybeans, and wheat are all up in the double-digits this year alone. All of these items are large staples in our food supply...

Read the rest here:

Injustice for dummies...

People who care about justice exhibit higher-order cognition associated with reason
by: J. D. Heyes

Individuals who are more concerned about justice are influenced more by reason than by emotion, according to a new brain scan study from the University of Chicago's Department of Psychology and Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience.

Researchers have discovered that some individuals tend to react more strongly than others to situations that invoke a sense of justice, such as seeing a person being treated unfairly or mercifully, the university said in a press release.

The study used brain scans to analyze the thought patterns and processes of people who experienced high "justice sensitivity."

Processing morality

"We were interested to examine how individual differences about justice and fairness are represented in the brain to better understand the contribution of emotion and cognition in moral judgment," explained lead author Jean Decety, the Irving B. Harris Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry.

Researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain-scanning apparatus to study what happened in participants' brains as they judged videos depicting behavior that was good or bad, morally speaking.

For instance, participants viewed a person either putting money into the cup of a beggar or kicking the beggar's cup away. Study participants were asked to rate, on a scale, how much they would blame or praise the actor in the video. Participants were additionally asked to complete questionnaires which sought to determine cognitive and emotional empathy, as well as their sensitivity to justice.

Per the university press release:

As expected, study participants who scored high on the justice sensitivity questionnaire assigned significantly more blame when they were evaluating scenes of harm, Decety said. They also registered more praise for scenes showing a person helping another individual.

However, the brain-imaging study also contained some surprises, researchers noted. During the behavior-evaluation stage of the research, people with high justice sensitivity displayed more activity than average participants in parts of the brain that are associated with higher-order cognition. Areas of the brain that are commonly linked with emotional processing were not affected, however.

That left a clear conclusion, Decety said.

"Individuals who are sensitive to justice and fairness do not seem to be emotionally driven. Rather, they are cognitively driven," she noted.

First-of-its-kind study

The professor went on to note that one implication of the results is that the search for justice and the moral missions of human rights organizations, as well as others, do not come primarily from sentimental motivations, as they are most often portrayed. Instead, that drive could have more to do with sophisticated analysis and mental calculation, researchers opined.

Decety added that analyzing good actions produced relatively high activity in the part of the brain that is involved in decision-making, motivation and rewards -- a finding that suggests, perhaps, that individuals may make judgments about behavior premised on how they process the reward value of good actions compared to those deemed bad.

"Our results provide some of the first evidence for the role of justice sensitivity in enhancing neural processing of moral information in specific components of the brain network involved in moral judgment," Decety said.

Learn more:

Problem solved...

Antidepressants keep killing women, thereby 'curing' their depression
by: David Gutierrez

Evidence continues to mount that even supposedly "safer" antidepressants increase women's risk of stroke and death.

One of the reasons that doctors prefer selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants to the older tricyclics is that the latter are known to have negative effects on heart function (and depression itself is already a risk factor for cardiovascular disease). Over the past five years, evidence has started to emerge that SSRIs may also increase cardiovascular risk, particularly among older women.

More strokes, deaths among women

Because older women are also at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in December 2009 examined whether SSRIs increased this risk among women participating in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study.

The research was conducted by a team of scientists from Massachusetts General Hospital, the University of California, San Diego, the University of Washington, the University of Hawaii, the University of Iowa, the University of Massachusetts Medical Center and Emory University.

The landmark WHI study tracked more than 160,000 postmenopausal women for as much as 15 years, collecting data on disease, mortality and lifestyle factors that might affect cardiovascular disease, cancer or osteoporosis.

The 2009 analysis focused on the 136,000 participants who were not taking any antidepressant at the study's start. By three years into the study, 5,500 of the participants were taking an antidepressant; these women were compared with participants who never started taking antidepressants.

The researchers found that, after an average six-year followup, women who took SSRIs were significantly more likely to suffer a hemorrhagic stroke or die from any cause than women not taking antidepressants.

The study did not find any relationship between SSRIs and heart disease, and the overall risk of stroke and death was still small even among women taking antidepressants. Nevertheless, doctors need to be made aware of the risk, the researchers said.

"Older women taking antidepressants can talk with their physicians about their cardiovascular risk, work on modifying other risk factors, and discuss the risks and benefits of various treatment options," lead author Jordan W. Smoller said.

"There are other effective forms of therapy for patients at high cardiovascular risk who also have depression, so concerned women can explore these options with their physicians."

Bad for your heart too?

These findings were strengthened by a meta-analysis published in the journal Neurology in 2012. Researchers reviewed all the studies they could find that examined the connection between antidepressants and stroke, which came to 16 studies including more than 500,000 participants. The researchers found that people taking SSRIs had a 50 percent higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage and a 40 percent higher risk of intracerebral hemorrhage compared with those not taking SSRIs.

This might suggest that patients with other risk factors for bleeding-induced strokes (such as those taking blood thinners, abusing alcohol or with a history of such strokes) should not be given SSRIs, the researchers said.

In June 2013, another analysis of WHI data was published in the American Journal of Public Health. This analysis found that postmenopausal women taking antidepressants were significantly more likely to have a larger waist circumference, a higher body mass index and higher levels of the inflammation marker known as C-reactive protein (CRP). These are all major risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

"Given that diabetes and cardiovascular disease can be effectively prevented or delayed in high-risk individuals... our findings indicate the prudence of monitoring BMI, waist circumference, along with established biomarkers for diabetes and cardiovascular risk... among women with elevated depression symptoms, or who are taking antidepressant medication," researcher Dr. Simin Liu said.

Learn more:

OOPS!!! Why didn't Al come to New England in January and February to speak???

‘Paunchy’ Al Gore: Global warming deniers ‘immoral, unethical and despicable’

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Global warming alarmist and former Vice President Al Gore rallied an audience at the University of Hawaii earlier this week, warning that “the future of civilization is at stake.”

Gore told the mix of students, faculty, enviro-types, elected officials and legislators at the sustainability seminar that global warming can be stopped, according to Civil

“Ultimately, we are going to win this thing,” he said to the adoring crowd.

Gore was fired up, but received a mixed review from Civil Beat, who took a couple of swipes at him, writing:

Gore did not disappoint. Grayer and with less hair, and with a slight paunch filling out his aloha shirt, in voice and mind he sounded as passionate as ever about the environment — a far cry from the inanimate robot label that has stuck to him over the years.

“The way we have to respond to this is going to require a set of changes that are beyond our routine,” Gore said. “I know that we are capable of that. Our way of life is at stake. Our grandchildren are at stake. The future of civilization is at stake.”

There are “barriers” preventing something from being done about climate change, Gore said, naming fossil fuel proponents and fake science by those who think humans are not to blame for the climate.

“That’s immoral, unethical and despicable,” he said of both groups.

No word on the carbon footprint Gore produced for the trip to Hawaii.

Watch the report on Gore’s appearance via KITV4 News:


Just declare everyone a terrorist and be done with it...

White House Counterterror Chief: “Confrontational” Children Could be Terrorists

Obama adviser tells parents to be suspicious of their own kids

Paul Joseph Watson

White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of “confrontational” behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.

During the speech at at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday night, Monaco, who replaced John Brennan last year in overseeing the executive branch’s homeland-security activities, said that parents need to be suspicious of “sudden personality changes in their children at home.”

“What kinds of behaviors are we talking about?” she asked. “For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.”

Monaco lamented the fact that, “The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals,” encouraging parents to act as watchdogs to detect radicalization in line with President Obama’s goal of combating homegrown extremism.

Over the last decade, the federal government has broadened its definition of what constitutes potential terrorism to such a degree that the term has lost all meaning and is clearly being used as a political tool to demonize adversarial political activism.

Indeed, only yesterday Senator Harry Reid caused outrage when he labeled supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists”.

Although such tactics pre-date the 2009 release of the MIAC report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center document was perhaps the most shocking in that it characterized a whole swathe of conservative Americans as domestic extremists, including Ron Paul supporters, people who own gold and people who display political bumper stickers.

A Homeland Security study leaked in 2012 upped the ante even further, demonizing Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Lisa Monaco’s speech and the federal government’s track record in assailing both banal behavior and political activism as potential “terrorism” serves as a reminder that the war on terror has now been focused inwardly against innocent Americans, making it all the more harder to detect actual terrorists.


Thursday, April 17, 2014

"And one day, this kind of technology will likely be so pervasive that you won’t be able to open a bank account, get a credit card or even buy anything without having either your hand or your face scanned first."

What Will You Do When You Can No Longer Buy Or Sell Without Submitting To Biometric Identification?
By Michael Snyder

In some areas of the world, payment systems that require palm scanning or face scanning are already being tested. We have entered an era where biometric security is being hailed as the “solution” to the antiquated security methods of the past. We are being promised that the constant problems that hackers are causing with our credit cards, bank accounts, ATM machines and Internet passwords will all go away once we switch over to biometric identification. And without a doubt, we have some massive security problems that need to be addressed. But do you really want a machine to read your face or your hand before you are able to buy anything, sell anything or log on to the Internet? Do you really want “the system” to be able to know where you are, what you are buying and what you are doing at virtually all times? Biometric security systems are being promoted as “cool” and “cutting edge”, but there is also potentially a very dark side to them that should not be ignored.

In this day and age, identity theft has become a giant problem. Being able to confirm that you are who you say that you are is a very big deal. To many, biometric security presents a very attractive solution to this problem. For example, the following is a brief excerpt from a recent Fox News article entitled “Biometric security can’t come soon enough for some people“…

In a world where nearly every ATM now uses an operating system without any technical support, where a bug can force every user of the Internet to change the password to every account they’ve ever owned overnight, where cyber-attacks and identity theft grow more menacing every day, the ability to use your voice, your finger, your face or some combination of the three to log into your e-mail, your social media feed or your checking account allows you to ensure it’s very difficult for someone else to pretend they’re you.

Almost everyone would like to make their identities more secure. Nobody actually wants their bank accounts compromised or their Internet passwords stolen. But there is a price to be paid for adopting biometric identification. Your face or your hand will be used to continually monitor and track everything that you do and everywhere that you go. Here is some more from that Fox News article…

Friday, we made Ryan King the most verified man in Brooklyn.

“Verified,” a fingerprint-recognition device chirped back at Ryan after he placed his finger on the reader.

“Verified,” a facial-recognition device said to Ryan after scanning his face.

Ryan works at the American headquarters for FingerTec, a Malaysian company replacing PINs, usernames, and typed passwords with fingers and faces we don’t need to memorize.

“You can’t copy someone’s fingerprint unless you chop it off,” Ryan said, “which wouldn’t work because it has to be attached to a hand.”

For now, biometric security is not being forced on people. If you want to avoid it, you can.

But eventually, once it has been adopted on a widespread basis, banks and government agencies will start requiring it.

And it is easy to imagine a day when none of us will any longer be able to buy or sell anything without submitting to biometric identification. In fact, an “alternative payment method” involving hand scanning is already being tested in southern Sweden…

Hand scanning has become an alternative payment method for people in a city in southern Sweden, researchers at Lund University said Monday.

Vein scanning terminals have been installed in 15 shops and restaurants in Lund thanks to an engineering student who came up with the idea two years ago while waiting in line to pay.

Some 1,600 people have signed up already for the system, which its creator says is not only faster but also safer than traditional payment methods.

“Every individual’s vein pattern is completely unique, so there really is no way of committing fraud with this system,” researcher Fredrik Leifland said in a statement.

“You always need your hand scanned for a payment to go through.”

But before biometric identification is widely used for payment systems, we will probably see it implemented in a whole bunch of other ways first. For instance, biometric scanners are already being used in dining halls on college campuses all across America…

Hand geometry readers have been fairly common on campus for years but more recent deployments are leveraging fingerprint and even iris biometrics to link students with transactions. Physical access is the hallmark biometric application but the technology has been gaining popularity in food service and other sectors to expedite transactions.

The social stigma attached to biometrics is also being lifted, as students are becoming more comfortable with the technology, says Brian Adoff, executive vice president at NuVision. The inclusion of a fingerprint scanner on the latest iPhone is just one indication that the younger generation is comfortable with biometrics.

“Administrators have a greater fear of the technology than students,” says Bob Lemley, director of software development at the CBORD Group. “Students are growing up with the technology so they don’t think about it as much as the older generations.”

Georgia Southern University can attest to that fact. The school deployed iris biometrics at its dining hall and only two students out of 5,400 refused to enroll, says Richard Wynn, director of the university’s Eagle Card Program.

Young people tend to be less alarmed by this technology, and so that is where it is being pushed. If you can believe it, biometric scanners are even going to be used at Six Flags amusement park this summer…

A new scanning system at Six Flags sounds like it’s from the future, but the biometric scanner aims to make faster entrances for season pass holders.

When guests arrive at the front gate for the first time of the season, they will present their voucher and a scanner processes an image of their fingerprint, assigning a unique set of numbers that are used to validate the pass holder’s card each visit.

The first visit should take only about 20 seconds to set up the card, as opposed to the additional time of taking a photo and getting it printed on the card, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Gotway.

This kind of reminds me of the new “MagicBands” at Disney parks that I have written about previously. You have probably seen the television commercials featuring them by now. Disney seems to think that parents and kids will have no problems wearing RFID tracking devices that allow them to buy stuff and monitor wherever they go. If you want to see what Disney has to say about these “MagicBands”, you can do so right here.

Our world is becoming stranger with each passing day.

Incredibly, biometric identification is even being used in Africa to keep track of who is being vaccinated…

In fact, some biometric solutions are helping solve vaccine delivery issues in Africa which has been hampered by ineffective tracking and reporting. Today, a biometric vaccination registry helps to ensure that millions of young children receive the vaccine that is needed to save their lives. And by knowing “who” has been vaccinated, these precious life-saving drugs are not wasted by over-vaccinating some and missing others entirely.

This technology is going to keep spreading, and it is going to become harder and harder to avoid it.

And it is easy to imagine what a tyrannical government could do with this kind of technology. If it wanted to, it could use it to literally track the movements and behavior of everyone.

We are already starting to see the establishment of massive biometric databases. One of these is the FBI’s facial recognition database that is a part of their “Next Generation Identification” program. It is being projected that the FBI will have compiled 52 million of our “face images” by the year 2015. Given enough time, eventually I am sure that they would have all of our faces in their computers.

And one day, this kind of technology will likely be so pervasive that you won’t be able to open a bank account, get a credit card or even buy anything without having either your hand or your face scanned first.

When that day arrives, what will you do?

That is something to think about.


#9 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps is now greater than the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”

18 Stats That Prove That Government Dependence Has Reached Epidemic Levels
By Michael Snyder

Did you know that the number of Americans getting benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million? In other words, the number of people that are taking money out of the system is far greater than the number of people that are putting money into the system. And did you know that nearly 70 percent of all of the money that the federal government spends goes toward entitlement and welfare programs? When it comes to the transfer of wealth, nobody does it on a grander scale than the U.S. government. Most of what the government does involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people. In fact, at this point that is the primary function of the federal government.

Just check out the chart below. It comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it shows that 69 percent of all federal money is spent either on entitlements or on welfare programs…

So when people tell you that the main reason why we are being taxed into oblivion is so that we can “build roads” and provide “public services”, they are lying to you. The main reason why the government taxes you so much is so that they can take your money and give it to someone else.

We have become a nation that is completely and totally addicted to government money. The following are 18 stats that prove that government dependence has reached epidemic levels…

#1 According to an analysis of U.S. government numbers conducted by Terrence P. Jeffrey, there are 86 million full-time private sector workers in the United States paying taxes to support the government, and nearly 148 million Americans that are receiving benefits from the government each month. How long can such a lopsided system possibly continue?

#2 Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin. But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps actually exceeds the number of women that have jobs.

#3 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.

#4 Today, the federal government runs about 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years.

#5 Back in 1960, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 10 percent. In the year 2000, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 21 percent. Today, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages is approximately 35 percent.

#6 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the total number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to nearly 47 million.

#7 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.

#8 It sounds crazy, but the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the entire population of the nation of Spain.

#9 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps is now greater than the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”

#10 According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.

#11 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, more than 70 million Americans are on Medicaid, and it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#12 The number of Americans on Medicare is projected to grow from a little bit more than 50 million today to 73.2 million in 2025.

#13 Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.

#14 If the number of Americans enrolled in the Social Security disability program were gathered into a single state, it would be the 8th largest state in the entire country.

#15 In 1968, there were 51 full-time workers for every American on disability. Today, there are just 13 full-time workers for every American on disability.

#16 It is being projected that the number of Americans on Social Security will rise from about 62 million today to more than 100 million in 25 years.

#17 Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

#18 According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

Many will read this and will assume that I am against helping the poor. That is completely and totally not true. There will always be people that are impoverished, and this happens for many reasons. In many cases, people simply lack the capacity to take care of themselves. It is a good thing to take care of such people, whether the money comes from public or private sources. In every society, those that are the most vulnerable need to be looked after.

But it is a very troubling sign that the number of people on government assistance is now far, far greater than the number of people with full-time jobs. This is not a sustainable situation. The federal government is already drowning in debt, and yet more people become dependent on the government with each passing day.

The long-term solution is to get more Americans working or starting their own businesses, but the federal government continues to pursue policies that are absolutely killing the creation of jobs and the creation of small businesses in this country. So our epidemic of government dependence is going to continue to get worse.

And many of these programs are absolutely riddled with fraud and corruption. Just check out the following excerpt from a recent Natural News article…

To understand the extent of this fraudulent waste, go no further than Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist who raked in $20.8 million from Medicare in 2012 alone. Dr. Melgen isn’t the only one bathing in the fraud of this crony government program. Medicare dished out over $1 million to almost 4,000 doctors in 2012, according to the new data release analyzed by The Washington Post.

Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is calling on the public for help in identifying fraud. He says, “The program is funded by and large by taxpayer dollars. The public has a right to know what it is paying for. We know there is fraud in the system. We are asking for the public’s help to check, to find waste, and to find potential fraud.”

Instead of fixing their own problems, they want us to help them do it.

Just great.

And of course they always want more of our money to help fund these programs. In fact, according to Americans for Tax Reform, Barack Obama has proposed 442 tax increases since entering the White House…

-79 tax increases for FY 2010
-52 tax increases for FY 2011
-47 tax increases for FY 2012
-34 tax increases for FY 2013
-137 tax increases for FY 2014
-93 tax increases for FY 2015

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Obama budget with the lowest number of proposed tax increases was released during an election year: In February 2012, Obama released his FY 2013 budget, with “only” 34 proposed tax increases. Once safely re-elected, Obama came back with a vengeance, proposing 137 tax increases, a personal record high for the 44th President.

The more we feed the monster, the larger and larger it grows.

And yet poverty is not decreasing. In fact, the poverty rate has been at 15 percent or greater for three years in a row. That is the first time that has happened in decades.

Barack Obama promised to “transform” America, and yet poverty and government dependence have just continued to grow during his presidency.

Not that anyone really believes anything that he has to say at this point. In fact, one recent survey found that only 15 percent of Americans believe that Barack Obama always tells the truth and 37 percent believe that he lies “most of the time”…

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that six out of every ten Americans believes that President Barack Obama lies to the American people, at least some of the time. A plurality – 37% – say that he lies “most of the time,” while another 24% say he lies “some of the time.” Another 20% say he lies once in awhile, while only 15% say that he never lies.

So what do you think?

Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…


Homeland Security doesn't support our troops. It views them as potential criminals and terrrorists...

Michigan Police Take On ‘Disgruntled Veteran’ In Hostage Drill

Homeland Security campaign to demonize veterans continues

Mikael Thalen

Michigan police trained to shoot and kill a disgruntled military veteran at the state’s Fed­eral Correctional Institution this week as part of a multi-agency hostage drill.

According to the training scenario, a disgruntled prison employee who served two tours in Afghanistan had shot five prison guards before taking the warden’s wife and son hostage. Joined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons Disturbance Control Team and the State Police Emergency Support Team, Michigan police, complete with an armored vehicle, arrived on scene to confront the veteran.

“This is the state police,” Trooper Rob Bow said. “The area is surrounded by police officers. You cannot escape.”

Police reportedly spent several hours using the scenario to enhance their communication, negotiation, forced entry and hostage rescuing skills. As the exercise continued, police unleashed an attack dog on an unknown man suddenly fleeing from the warden’s home.

Sometime later, the veteran, played by a bureau of prisons employee, could be heard saying, “ We’re gonna finish this. I don’t see a way out. I’m done,” from inside the home.

Police responded by immediately storming the warden’s home and shooting the veteran dead.

Speaking with Monroe News, state police Sgt. Aaron Hunt admitted that his team needed to improve their communication skills, but applauded their overall performance.

“It was a very successful training session,” Sgt. Hunt said. “I think things went very well.”

Dundee Police Chief David Uhl, who operated the MRAP armored vehicle during the drill, praised the federal government for giving his department the vehicle free of charge several months prior.

“It was an opportunity of a lifetime to get a vehicle like this for Monroe County,” Chief Uhl said. “Any time you can train with this is a benefit.”

J.A. Dunn, executive assistant to the prison’s detention center administrator, admitted that such a scenario was completely unrealistic, but supported the chance for officers to train.

“In the unlikely event something like this was to happen we want to be ready,” Dunn said. “ That’s the whole purpose here; nobody expects this to happen but we need to be prepared.”

While police are expected to train for serious situations, the scenario clearly represents not only the militarization of police, but the continued demonization of military veterans.

As the federal government floods police departments with armored military vehicles, it also continues to label military veterans as a major terrorism threat.

In 2009, former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to speak out against a report from the department that labeled returning military veterans as the number one terror threat.

Incredibly, the government’s anti-veteran campaign has even been forced upon children in the Boy Scout Explorers, who were taught to kill “disgruntled Iraq war veterans” during a 2009 training session featured by the New York Times.

Given the fact that military personnel donated more cash to Ron Paul than all other presidential candidates combined in 2012, it is unsurprising that the federal government has trained police to treat Ron Paul supporters as domestic terrorists, revealed by the leaked MIAC Report.

Despite the fact that gun homicide has dropped nearly 50 percent since 1993, police departments continue to believe the federal goverment’s ridiculous claims of a never-ending domestic terror threat, allowing them to justify their continued militarization.


If you oppose government tyranny, you just might be a domestic terrorist...

Harry Reid Calls Cliven Bundy Supporters “Domestic Terrorists”

“I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism”

Paul Joseph Watson

Senator Harry Reid has escalated the war of words over the Cliven Bundy dispute, sensationally labeling the Nevada cattle rancher’s supporters “domestic terrorists” during an event in Las Vegas today.

During a ‘Hashtags & Headlines’ event at the Paris Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Reid referred to Bundy supporters as “Nothing more than domestic terrorists,” adding, “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

Reid was referring to the stand off on Saturday in Bunkerville where Bundy supporters, some of whom were armed, forced Bureau of Land Management agents to back down and release around 380 head of cattle belonging to Bundy that had been seized over the course of the previous week.

Reid claimed that Bundy viewed the United States as a “foreign government,” while accusing his supporters of goading violence.

“There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there,” Reid said. “They had sniper rifles in the freeway. They had weapons, automatic weapons. They had children lined up. They wanted to make sure they got hurt first … What if others tried the same thing?”

Despite Reid’s characterization of Bundy supporters as “domestic terrorists,” the only violence metered out during the dispute was when BLM agents tasered and assaulted Bundy supporters during an incident on April 9.

No matter where you stand on the Bundy issue, Reid’s characterization of American protesters as “domestic terrorists” is chilling and a massive backlash is almost certain to follow.

It also fits the narrative that the federal government has been pushing for years through literature such as the MIAC report, which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists. In 2012, a Homeland Security study was leaked which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Reid attracted controversy earlier this week when he promised that the BLM’s fight with Bundy was “not over”. The Nevada Senator was hit with accusations of cronyism after his former staffer Neil Kornze was confirmed as the new BLM director earlier this month.

Reid is obviously angry after his complicity in the siege against the Bundy family was exposed and became a viral story. Although many news outlets claimed this issue was “debunked,” Reid’s involvement in a solar farm just 35 miles from Bundy’s ranch is documented. Archived files which were deleted from the BLM’s own website confirm that confiscating Bundy’s cattle was necessary in order to clear the way for lucrative solar deals with transnational corporations.

Meanwhile, the BLM has admitted slaughtering two prize bulls belonging to Cliven Bundy during their round up of his cattle. The BLM claims the bulls “posed a safety hazard” but refused to elaborate. Bundy supporters have pointed to photographs which appear to show one of the bulls having suffered a gunshot wound.


Devastated Family Struggling To Cope After Losing Everything On DVR...

Devastated Family Struggling To Cope After Losing Everything On DVR

It is good to be king...

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Alex Pappas

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.

“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.

“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)

In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.

“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.

Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:

The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”

The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.

The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. “Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year,” Gray writes.

The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: “First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.”

The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”


Great Britain has invaded 9 out of 10 of all the world's countries in its' history...

British have invaded nine out of ten countries – so look out Luxembourg

Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.

By Jasper Copping

Every schoolboy used to know that at the height of the empire, almost a quarter of the atlas was coloured pink, showing the extent of British rule.

But that oft recited fact dramatically understates the remarkable global reach achieved by this country.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg.

he analysis is contained in a new book, All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.

Stuart Laycock, the author, has worked his way around the globe, through each country alphabetically, researching its history to establish whether, at any point, they have experienced an incursion by Britain.

Only a comparatively small proportion of the total in Mr Laycock’s list of invaded states actually formed an official part of the empire.

The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.

Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government.

So, many countries which once formed part of the Spanish empire and seem to have little historical connection with the UK, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and El Salvador, make the list because of the repeated raids they suffered from state-sanctioned British sailors.

Among some of the perhaps surprising entries on the list are:

* Cuba, where in 1741, a force under Admiral Edward Vernon stormed ashore at Guantánamo Bay. He renamed it Cumberland Bay, before being forced to withdraw in the face of hostile locals and an outbreak of disease among his men. Twenty one years later, Havana and a large part of the island fell to the British after a bloody siege, only to be handed back to the Spanish in 1763, along with another unlikely British possession, the Philippines, in exchange for Florida and Minorca.

*Iceland, invaded in 1940 by the British after the neutral nation refused to enter the war on the Allies side. The invasion force, of 745 marines, met with strong protest from the Iceland government, but no resistance.

* Vietnam, which has experienced repeated incursions by the British since the seventeenth century. The most recent – from 1945 to 1946 – saw the British fight a campaign for control of the country against communists, in a war that has been overshadowed by later conflicts involving first the French and then Americans.

It is thought to be the first time such a list has been compiled.

Mr Laycock, who has previously published books on Roman history, began the unusual quest after being asked by his 11-year-old son, Frederick, how many countries the British had invaded.

After almost two years of research he said he was shocked by the answer. “I was absolutely staggered when I reached the total. I like to think I have a relatively good general knowledge. But there are places where it hadn’t occurred to me that these things had ever happened. It shocked me.

“Other countries could write similar books – but they would be much shorter. I don’t think anyone could match this, although the Americans had a later start and have been working hard on it in the twentieth century.”

The only other nation which has achieved anything approaching the British total, Mr Laycock said, is France – which also holds the unfortunate record for having endured the most British invasions. “I realise people may argue with some of my reasons, but it is intended to prompt debate,” he added.

He believes the actual figure may well be higher and is inviting the public to get in touch to provide evidence of other invasions.

In the case of Mongolia, for instance – one of the 22 nations “not invaded”, according to the book – he believes it possible that there could have been a British invasion, but could find no direct proof.

The country was caught up in the turmoil following the Russian Revolution, in which the British and other powers intervened. Mr Laycock found evidence of a British military mission in Russia approximately 50 miles from the Mongolian border, but could not establish whether it got any closer.

The research lists countries based on their current national boundaries and names. Many of the invasions took place when these did not apply.

The research covered the 192 other UN member states as well as the Vatican City and Kosovo, which are not member states, but are recognised by the UK government as independent states.

The earliest invasion launched from these islands was an incursion into Gaul – now France – at the end of the second century. Clodius Albinus led an army, thought to include many Britons, across the Channel in an attempt to seize the imperial throne. The force was defeated in 197 at Lyon.

Mr Laycock added: “One one level, for the British, it is quite amazing and quite humbling, that this is all part of our history, but clearly there are parts of our history that we are less proud of. The book is not intended as any kind of moral judgment on our history or our empire. It is meant as a light-hearted bit of fun.”

The countries never invaded by the British:





Central African Republic


Congo, Republic of


Ivory Coast





Marshall Islands




Sao Tome and Principe




Vatican City


Medicated to Death: SSRIs and Mass Killings...

"Baghdad’s fate will be suffered by all who stand in the way of the bankster and corporatist drive for global domination. In order to assert its psychopathic dominance, the ruling elite are determined to fashion order out of chaos and level societies so they might be rebuilt as vassal states ruled by a fascist one world government."

Baghdad: Paradigm of Globalist Creative Destruction

Baghdad’s fate will be suffered by all who oppose bankster drive for global domination

Kurt Nimmo

The Mercer consulting group has released a survey showing Baghdad is now the world’s worst city. Once considered the most advanced city in the Arab world, it is now a dangerous ruin stricken by sectarian and religious violence, corruption, crime, unemployment, pollution and numerous other problems. It is categorized along with Bangui in the Central African Republic and the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince.

Prior to Bush Senior’s invasion, Iraq had the highest living standard in the Middle East. Iraqi medical care and education were the envy of the region. Literacy stood at 80 percent. By February of 1991, however, the country was pitched into the Dark Ages.

The objective of Bush’s invasion was to reduce Iraq to a preindustrial wasteland. Electrical power generation, water treatment and distribution systems, telephone and radio exchanges, food processing and storage, roads, highways, bus depots, public transportation, railroads, oil wells, sewage treatment facilities, factories, mosques, churches, residential areas and even historical sites were all targeted for destruction.

Tens of thousands of people died from dehydration, dysentery, lack of potable water, starvation and malnutrition. Following the criminal behavior of Bush Senior and his coterie of criminal neocons, the risk of epidemics of cholera, typhoid, hepatitis and other diseases skyrocketed. The U.S. compounded this by deliberately targeting Iraq’s water supply.

For the global elite who engineered the destruction of Iraq this was only the beginning. They subsequently imposed sanctions comparable to a medieval siege. The globalist United Nations imposed resolution 687 on the ravaged country in an effort to further compounded the misery and death of the Iraqi people. The former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Denis Halliday said in 2000, three years before Iraq would once again be invaded, that he had been instructed “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults… What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible.”

Instead, history followed the “creative destruction” course mapped out by the global elite with the assistance of their neocon think tanks. In 2003, George W. Bush followed in his father’s footsteps and invaded Iraq. It was at best a redundant exercise that, in effect, made the rubble bounce, although it did ultimately result in the downfall of the former CIA assassin turned dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was summarily lynched for his decades of subservience to the global elite.

According to medical journal The Lancet and other sources, nearly 1.5 million Iraqis died as a direct result of Bush’s invasion and occupation, a number that eclipses the Rwandan genocide (the United Nations recently “apologized” for the genocide in Rwanda).

The United States military, as the “world’s policeman” (or executioner, take your pick), has unleashed similar death and destruction in Afghanistan and Libya (30,000 killed in the latter “humanitarian” slaughter) and is now attempting to do the same in Syria, although the manufactured political consensus has so far faltered after decades of war weariness.

The establishment media in the United States repeatedly insists Bashar al-Assad had killed over a 100,000 people in Syria, a figure cited by one of the most demented warmongers in the country, Arizona Senator John McCain. Even the globalists admit the figure is an outright lie. According to SOHR data cited by Micah Zenko and Amelia M. Wolf of the Council on Foreign Relations, “most of the reported deaths in Syria have not been committed by forces under Bashar al-Assad’s command.” In fact, “more pro-regime forces than civilians have been killed during the Syrian civil war,” although you will not hear this on CNN or Fox News.

Baghdad’s fate will be suffered by all who stand in the way of the bankster and corporatist drive for global domination. In order to assert its psychopathic dominance, the ruling elite are determined to fashion order out of chaos and level societies so they might be rebuilt as vassal states ruled by a fascist one world government.

Russia and China, equally interested in authoritarian domination within their related spheres of influence, obstruct the Wall Street game plan for global domination. Thus we see the world’s policeman, more accurately the financial elite’s hit man, undermining China’s interests in Africa and, more poignantly, along Russia’s European border.

“Washington, the ‘exceptional, indispensable country,’ is committed to its hegemony over the world. Russia, China, and Iran are in the way of Washington’s hegemony and are targeted for attack,” writes Paul Craig Roberts. “The attack on Russia is mounting.”

If, indeed, the attack comes, either by calculation or a mistake, the result will be catastrophic.

Russia has around 45,000 nuclear weapons. China, between 100 and 400 (the figures are unreliable), and the United States approximately 70,000 nuclear warheads, more than all other nuclear-weapon states combined.


" The media is awash with reports about Burwell's nomination, which is intended, of course, to make it seem as though the Obama administration is cleaning things up on the healthcare front. But Burwell's connections to the vaccine industry, the biotechnology industry and the bogus Common Core curriculum prove that the White House is still the same traitorous, vile, freedom-crushing monstrosity that the masses have been conditioned to roll over and accept."

Replacement for resigning Kathleen Sebelius is Bill Gates vaccine operative and Common Core pusher

by: Ethan A. Huff

With the disastrous Obamacare nightmare now being irrationally declared a success, the Obama administration has decided to swap out former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who recently resigned from her post, with a woman by the name of Sylvia Mathews Burwell, a former Clinton administration hack who helped aggressively push vaccines on the Third World with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for nearly a decade.

The media is awash with reports about Burwell's nomination, which is intended, of course, to make it seem as though the Obama administration is cleaning things up on the healthcare front. But Burwell's connections to the vaccine industry, the biotechnology industry and the bogus Common Core curriculum prove that the White House is still the same traitorous, vile, freedom-crushing monstrosity that the masses have been conditioned to roll over and accept.

While the mainstream media obsesses about the failed rollout of Obamacare under Sebelius, which is really just a distraction from the fact that Obamacare itself is a monumental failure both legally and constitutionally, few are paying attention to what this post change actually entails. Burwell's background, it turns out, reveals that she is a close friend of the very industries responsible for spreading GMOs, vaccines and other forms of corporate control over medicine and health all around the world.

Burwell led Gates Foundation effort to push GMOs, vaccines into Third World

Burwell's biography page over at the Gates Foundation website reveals that she was president of the organization's Global Development Program for 10 years, during which time she spearheaded campaigns to essentially by adopting proprietary, genetically modified (GM) crop technologies. Her program also heavily pushed vaccines on indigenous people groups, causing many of them to develop severe illnesses.

So-called "polio-like illness," which is still spreading throughout India as a result of Gates Foundation vaccine programs, is just one example of the tremendous harm being caused by the types of "philanthropic" efforts led by people like Burwell. And yet, this is the type of person whom the Obama administration sees as fit to govern health policy in the U.S., which is already heavily influenced by pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporations.

Burwell led GMO front group pushing fraudulent 'Green Revolution' in Africa

As we recently reported, Burwell also served as the director of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, which has a similar agenda as the Gates Foundation. AGRA has repeatedly been exposed for colluding with multinational agriculture corporations to force GMOs on African countries that, to this day, are still fighting to stop this.

"The Gates Foundation and AGRA claim to be 'pro-poor' and 'pro-environment,' but their approach is closely aligned with transnational corporations, such as Monsanto, and foreign policy actors like USAID," reads an outline posted by AGRA Watch, a Seattle-based grassroots group keeping tabs on the sinister work of AGRA around the world.

"They take advantage of food and global climate crises to promote high-tech, market-based, industrial agriculture and generate profits for corporations even while degrading the environment and dis-empowering farmers. Their programs are a form of philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy."

Burwell tied to Common Core propaganda designed to dumb down entire planet

As if Burwell's extensive history of revolving door, pseudo-philanthropic cronyism is not enough to expose her true character, consider the fact that her prior involvement as a mover and shaker at the Gates Foundation was also central in the development of the infamous Common Core protocol for standardized education. Common Core, in case you are unaware, is a deliberate brainwashing effort by the ruling elite to destroy the minds of future generations with phony, non-sensical reeducation.

"Burwell served as both chief operating officer and head of the global development program at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been the primary private source of funding for the development and implementation of the highly controversial Common Core centralized academic standards," writes Dr. Susan Berry for

The Gates Foundation, according to open records, is the organization responsible for creating and pushing Common Core, with its head, Bill Gates, having donated some $25 million towards implementing it worldwide. And since Burwell is so heavily aligned with this eugenics organization and its global agendas, she, too, is an accomplice in this nefarious effort to dumb down the entire globe for the purpose of instigating a new world order.

"In a key document, The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: Meeting Our Collective Commitments' which identifies the goals for what became Common Core" are outlined, explains Dave Hodges from The Common Sense Show. "This document speaks directly to the Agenda 21 educational ideals of collectivism, social justice, environmental justice and the espousing of the beliefs of the pseudoscience known as sustainable development."