Friday, August 31, 2012

"The last thing Mitt Romney and his supporters want is for people to figure out the scam. If people figure out that Romney and Obama are mirror images of each other — that they share the same overall philosophy — then the gig is up. They’ll see that it really doesn’t matter whether it’s Obama or Romney who is elected. The country will continue in the same direction — toward statism, along with its inevitable consequences — recessions, depressions, impoverishment, war, conflict, violence, terrorism, militarism, corruption, and ever-increasing taxes, debt, inflation, and loss of liberty."

The Republican Establishment vs. Ron Paul

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Dana Milbank’s column in the Washington Post yesterday, entitled “A Storm Inside the GOP Convention,” detailed some rather shabby treatment of Ron Paul and his delegates by Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment. Milbank writes: “The Romney campaign had taken pains to stifle the Paul rebellion, by denying him a speaking role, expediting the roll call, changing party rules and even unseating Paul delegates from Maine. ”

Not surprisingly, such actions produced an angry, vocal reaction from the Paul contingent at the convention.

So, why did Romney do it? After all, he had the nomination sewn up. Why not embrace the Paul crowd instead of alienating it? Why not seat all the Paul delegates who were elected according to the existing rules, given that the final outcome wasn’t in doubt anyway? Why not give Paul a speaking slot?

Milbank attributes the fiasco to Romney’s penchant for control. He writes: “Romney is by many accounts a control freak, a stickler for rules and order. His campaign, following his instincts, runs the same way.…”

But the problem goes much deeper than that. It goes to the visceral hatred of libertarian philosophy that pervades the Republican establishment.

Ever since the New Deal, Republicans have engaged in a charade in which they have portrayed themselves to American voters as fundamentally different from Democrats. According to the charade, Republicans are for reducing the size of government and reducing federal spending, taxes, and regulations. Democrats, on the other hand, are portrayed as the party of big government, big spending, high taxes, more debt, and socialism.

So, Republicans have long argued, the choice for Americans is clear and distinct. If you believe in small government, free enterprise, and a sound fiscal policy, vote Republican. If you believe in big government, a managed economy, and out-of-control spending and debt, vote Democrat.

The problem is that it’s all a big fraud. After the New Deal, Republicans realized that the American people were being swept up in the statist tide that FDR had ushered in. They were faced with a critical choice: Should they maintain their allegiance to principles of economic liberty and limited government or should they join the statist tide?

Republicans realized that if they stuck with the principles, they would very likely be rejected by the electorate for years, maybe decades, to come. If they instead surrendered and embraced statism, they still had a chance for political power by coming up with ways to reform or improve the statism that America was now embracing.

The Republicans chose the latter. In the hopes of continuing to be elected to political power, they surrendered their principles and embraced the new statism.

In the process though, they retained their mantras. One of their favorite ones is “free enterprise, private property, and limited government.” But the mantras were lies and delusions given the fact that Republicans favored the welfare state and, equally bad, the warfare state, both of which were expanding exponentially in size and expenditures (and monetary debasement) as each decade passed.

Social Security? Republicans ended up embracing it. Same for Medicare and Medicaid. Same for farm subsidies, education grants, SBA loans, food stamps, and all sorts of other welfare-transfer programs. The only welfare program they would periodically object to was welfare to the arts.

It was no different with such things as drug laws, economic regulations, managed trade, immigration controls, and the myriad of welfare and regulatory departments and agencies within the federal government. Republicans, like Democrats, came to embrace them all.

It was the same with the warfare state. After World War II and especially after the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, Republicans began completely deferring to the military and the CIA, giving them whatever they wanted, which was always more money and more power to protect “national security.” Military bases all over the world. Foreign aid, including to dictatorships. Regime change operations. Assassinations. Coups. Invasions. Interventions. The military and the CIA and the entire national-security state became a dominant force in American society and the driving force of U.S. foreign policy, thanks in large part to Republicans.

That obviously raised some important questions. One was: How are you Republicans different, in principle, from Democrats? Another was: How can you reconcile your devotion to a welfare state and a warfare state with the free-enterprise, private-property, limited-government mantras you preach?

But the problem was that Democrats had no interest in raising those types of questions. They loved it that Republicans had joined them in their statist cause. The last thing they wanted to do was to shame or embarrass Republicans into abandoning statism.

So, the whole battle between Democrats and Republicans evolved into a fight over which party and which candidate would be a better manager of the welfare state and the warfare state, with one major difference: Republicans continued telling people, including their children, how devoted Republicans were to “small government, free enterprise, sound fiscal policy, low taxes, the Constitution, and limited government.”

Why do Republicans resent libertarians so much and wish they would just disappear? Why do they have those enormous ballot barriers, such as petitioning requirements in elections? Why do they come up with all sorts of inane reasons to block libertarians from participating in electoral debates? Why do they treat libertarians so shabbily?

Because libertarians, by their very nature, point out the Republican charade to people. With our genuine devotion to free-enterprise, limited-government principles and our principled opposition to the welfare-warfare state, we expose the life of the lie that they have long lived. We bring their delusion to the surface. And they resent us deeply for doing that.

How can a person truly be in favor of individual freedom, freedom of choice, free enterprise, free markets, private charity, personal responsibility, the Constitution, and limited government while, at the same time, supporting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, foreign aid to dictators, income taxation and the IRS, regulations, Gitmo, indefinite detention, denial of trial by jury, undeclared wars, torture, foreign military bases, and all the other aspects of the welfare-warfare state?

The last thing Mitt Romney and his supporters want is for people to figure out the scam. If people figure out that Romney and Obama are mirror images of each other — that they share the same overall philosophy — then the gig is up. They’ll see that it really doesn’t matter whether it’s Obama or Romney who is elected. The country will continue in the same direction — toward statism, along with its inevitable consequences — recessions, depressions, impoverishment, war, conflict, violence, terrorism, militarism, corruption, and ever-increasing taxes, debt, inflation, and loss of liberty.

Thus, it’s not difficult to see that libertarians pose a tremendous threat to the Republican establishment. As the Ron Paul campaign has shown, once people listen to libertarian philosophy and ideas, a certain percentage of them achieve a “breakthrough” that enables them to break free of the lies and the delusions that are central to Republicanism.

That’s why they’re doing their best to shut down and silence Ron Paul and all other libertarians. They don’t want any more people hearing about and considering libertarianism. It’s just too dangerous to the statist establishment, both Republican and Democrat.



Fun but no sun! Surfers make the most of a chilly summer's day at the beach as the school holidays draw to a close

On same day Met Office reveal it’s been the wettest summer ever, temperatures plunged to almost record summer lows overnight
Braemar is Scotland was the coldest spot as it dropped to -2.1C
There has only been one August night colder, August 21 1973, when Lagganlia in the Highlands suffered -4.5C
It tops off a miserable summer, which has been the wettest in a century, causing flash floods only yesterday
Traffic congestion as parents return from family holidays ahead of children going back to school next week with M25 delayed in both directions

By Martin Robinson

Britain's rotten summer hit a new low last night as it suffered its coldest August evening in 40 years - but that didn't stop children making the most of their last few days off from school.

Despite some areas dropping to below -2C last night, surfers were out in force today, while children happily splashed around in the waves at Tynemouth Beach in North Tyneside.

The pre-school rush left roads busy this evening as parents travelled home from their holidays in preparation for their children returning to school next week...

Read more:

George Carlin - Voting is meaningless...

IRAN LIE same as IRAQ LIE...


New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions...

Read more:

IT'S OFFICIAL: Keep Your Money In This System & LOSE It All - Susanne Posel...

Planet for Sale – The New World Agricultural Order...

So, what do you do all day???

What Americans Actually Do All Day Long - In Three Charts

Submitted by Tyler Durden

The average American spends 9 hours, 12 minutes, and 36 seconds 'Working & Commuting' on an average workday. Wonder what they do with the rest of their precious 'unproductive and non-tax-providing' day?

Here's how the average American with a full-time job spends a typical workday...

... and here's how those hours of Leisure and Cooking-and-Cleaning breakdown...

and for those over 55 years old, things are a little more sleep and play...


"Fluoride-pushing doctors and dentists who try to contaminate your water supply with fluoride are promoting their deadly agenda with a clever lie... a lie you will see obediently repeated in every fluoride push."

PROOF: Chinese industrial fluoride suppliers openly list sodium fluoride as 'insecticide' and 'adhesive preservative' in addition to water treatment chemical

Mike Adams

Fluoride-pushing doctors and dentists who try to contaminate your water supply with fluoride are promoting their deadly agenda with a clever lie... a lie you will see obediently repeated in every fluoride push. Here's how it sounds:

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral in the water. Our city's water is unfortunate enough to have a low level, so we are simply adjusting the fluoride in the water to its optimum levels to improve public health.

This lie is repeated almost verbatim, across every city that seeks to poison its citizens with fluoride. Why is it a lie? Here are the five false deceptions found embedded in the statement:

Deception #1) The fluoride ADDED to the water is not "naturally occurring fluoride." It's a chemical byproduct often purchased from chemical plants in China (see below).

Deception #2) The false idea that ingesting fluoride is somehow good for your teeth. At best, fluoride is a topical treatment which should be swished around your mouth and then spat out. And that's only if it's truly natural (mineral) fluoride, not the fluosilicic acid toxins being pushed as fluoride.

Deception #3) What cities call "fluoride" is actually a toxic cocktail of over 100 deadly industrial chemicals and heavy metals, many of which are purchased in bulk from China, where industrial processing plants are trying to get rid of their excess toxic waste by labeling it "sodium fluoride."

Deception #4) There is no such thing as a "low" level of fluoride or an "optimum" level of fluoride in drinking water. Pure drinking water should contain NO fluoride whatsoever.

Deception #5) Fluoride is "safe" for human consumption. Oh really? Then why is sodium fluoride labeled by its industrial manufacturers with stern safety warnings about causing severe harm to humans?

Chinese fluoride manufacturers openly admit to the toxicity of the chemical
Much of the so-called "fluoride" dumped into the public water supply in the USA, Canada, Australia and other nations actually comes from companies like this one in China: Fluoride Chemicals (Yunnan) Co., Ltd.

As you can clearly see on this industrial chemicals listing page of, the Fluoride Chemicals Yunnan Co. offers a 98% water treatment Sodium Fluoride product with the following description for its uses:

It is used in the manufacture of effervescing steel, and the smelting and refining of light metals. It is also used in fluorination of drinking water, as a wood preservative, an adhesive preservative. An insecticide, a protective coating for metals, a pickle for steels and other metals, a flux for soldering and welding, as well as a flux and pacifier for ceramic, glass and porcelain enamel. (

This company also manufacturers synthetic cryolite, the fluoride-pesticide that's being secretly sprayed on grapes and other crops, adding huge quantities of fluoride to your food (

Here's the description of synthetic cryolite, right from the industrial chemical supplier that sells it by the ton to U.S. food producers:

Uses: It's mainly used as a flux in the aluminum smelting by fused-salt electrolysis; also an opalizer in the manufacture of enamel; an opacifier and auxiliary solvent of glass and enamel; an insecticide of crops; a flux in aluminum alloy casting; and in the production of ferrous alloy and effervescing steel; as well as a wear-resistant filler for resin and rubber-boned abrasive wheels. (

"Highly corrosive to human skin"
Another supplier of sodium fluoride to municipal water facilities, the Shanghai Polymet Commodities Ltd. company in China, offers the following description of its bulk fluoride chemical:

Fluosilicic Acid / hydrofluosilicic acid:

Property: Colorless, transparent and smoky liquid with penetrating odor; highly acidic; soluble in water and volatile; with disinfecting action; corrosive to glass, ceramics, lead and other metals; highly corrosive to human skin and harmful to people's respiratory organs; keep it in a container made of plastics. (

Yet another industrial fluoride supplier from China describes its sodium fluoride as:

used as pesticides and bactericides in agriculture. Used as UF2 adsorbent in nuclear industry. (

Another sodium fluoride supplier describes their fluoride chemicals as "A colorless crystalline or white powder, ...dissolved in water, with toxic." (

This company goes on to describe the uses of its sodium fluoride chemicals as:

Be used as anti-corrosion agent in wood, medical corrosion, fusing in welding... manufacture of rimmed steel, treatment of hides and skins for leather industry, adhesive preservative, purification and coloring flux in the melting of light metals.

Here are two photos, taken right off the Alibaba website, showing how fluoride is promoted as an insecticide, a chemical for the nuclear industry, and a water treatment chemical all in one!

Fluoride pushers are criminals who seek to poison humanity
Keep all this in mind when your local politician says he's going to "adjust" the levels of "naturally-occurring fluoride" in your local water supply. He's lying to you. What he really means is that he's going to dump a toxic pesticide chemical into the water and poison you all.

Spread the word: Sodium fluoride is poison. That's one of the reasons why it works so well as a pesticide. Bureaucrats who try to dump this into the city water supply -- like Portland Mayor Sam Adams ( -- deserve to be arrested as heinous criminals who are unleashing weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. citizenry.

Keep reading for more news on fluoride, GMOs, chemtrails, vaccines and other chemical threats to your health and wellness. Share this story to help get the word out:

Fluoride is a chemical weapon. Those who ingest it are becoming "collateral damage" in the war for control over reality.

Also worth seeing: The Fluoride Deception video by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger:

Aaron Dykes unveils hidden footage of Austin fluoride treatment plant:

Learn more:

"Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. Don’t fall for partisan rhetoric claiming that Romney and Obama have different ideals because, where it really counts, they do not. Instead, vote for someone who stands for what you believe in. Write in a vote for Ron Paul. Or give your vote to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who, ideologically speaking, is the only Presidential candidate who deserves our support. Or express your dissent by not voting at all. Anything is better than voting for Obama or Romney. And the same can be said for most of the other mainstream GOP/DFL choices, as well."

If You Vote

by Melanie M. Johnson

Several of my Facebook friends have given a "like" to Mitt Romney, including a few former Ron Paul supporters whom I got to know during our historic "takeover" of the Minnesota GOP conventions earlier this year. To conservatives who don’t think much of Romney (which, according to polls, seems to be a lot of them), I’d like to say "please reconsider." And to ex-Ron Paul people who are supporting him out of "anybody but Obama" desperation, I’d like to say, "You should know better!"

The conventional wisdom on voting is that you should always vote because it is your "patriotic duty," and that your vote should be for one of the two major political parties, otherwise you’re "throwing your vote away." I disagree. I think people should vote their values, which might mean voting for an "unelectable" third party candidate, or perhaps not voting at all.

I had a political science teacher in college who taught this, and it has stayed with me. He said that if people don’t know the issues, they are better off not voting than risking a vote for the wrong candidate. I agree wholeheartedly, and I’ll even take it a step further: when the choice is between two piles of excrement, one only slightly less foul smelling than the other, we do not have to pick one of them out of some misguided sense of patriotic obligation. If the best the major parties have to offer fall short of the principles you believe in, then it is your patriotic duty to not vote for either one of them.

I know that ousting Obama might seem like the most urgent goal, and that conservatives of all colors, shapes, and sizes ought now unite in this common purpose. But let’s think this through, because there are a number of reasons why it might be a bad strategy.

First of all, a vote for Romney does not ensure his victory. Incomprehensible as it may be, Obama is popular enough, and persuasive enough, and politically cunning enough to get re-elected. The cardboard cutout Republican Mr. Mitt is unlikely to inspire the swing voters in the swing states, which is what he needs to do to win. He has neither the charisma nor the policies to do so. People just don’t relate to him, and no amount of GOP marketing is going to fix that in any significant way. In fact, Romney just may be the GOP’s John Kerry, who ran that pointless campaign against Dubya in 2004, despite immense DFL effort to get the vote out.

But more to the point are the ideological issues involved. If we care about these ideological issues, if we have strong beliefs about what’s best for this country and how best to achieve it, then we must ask ourselves this: does the "anybody but Obama" stance support and further our cause--the cause of liberty? How far will it take us toward the goals of restoring personal freedom and having sane fiscal policies, respectful foreign policies, and limited, non-corrupt representation of the people, by the people, and for the people?

All the evidence points to "not very far." You need only look at the records of the last several presidents to see this. Under every administration since (at least) Woodrow Wilson, economic and personal freedoms have suffered. Government has ballooned to an almost unfathomable size, with no slowdown in sight. Taxes have increased and tax codes have grown more complex and convoluted. Unnecessary wars have been waged, needlessly burdening taxpayers and ending far too many lives at far too young an age. The Federal Reserve gains ever more control over the economy, printing money, setting interest rates, and creating artificial "bubbles" that ultimately end in disaster and each time inch us that much closer to economic apocalypse. The Fed and the Treasury operate hand-in-hand with Wall Street and corporate interests that benefit the powers-that-be at the expense of the middle-class taxpayer. And liberty continues to be trounced on, so much so that outrageous assaults on freedom like the Patriot Act are barely recognized anymore as the fascist, freedom-squelching policies that they are.

And the tragic truth is that both mainstream political parties support these big government policies. Despite all the posturing, mud-slinging, accusations, and general bipartisan nastiness we see in elections, both mainstream candidates are just different sides of the same, corporate-backed, PAC-financed coin. Sure, Romney will institute some different policies; he may lower a tax or two; and he may even abolish such atrocities as Obamacare. But this is vastly different than him having an actual ideology of personal freedom and limited government, which he absolutely does not. Government will not shrink under his watch. Liberty will not be restored. He may end Obama’s wars, but he is likely to start others--and by his own admission, without Congressional consent. He may—may—restore some freedoms taken by Obama, but he will strip others.

Without a foundational ideology of liberty to guide him, it can be no other way.

In order for there to be real change in the federal government, we would have to drastically re-evaluate taxation and, ideally, abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve. We would have to stop thinking that it is the government’s job to regulate the economy. We would have to stop thinking that it is the job of the United States to police the world, and withdraw our bullies--oops, I mean troops--from countries that don’t want them there. We would have to stop accepting that the leviathan devil’s stranglehold on our personal lives and choices is "business as usual" and "for our own good." In short, for there to be a real change in the federal government, there would have to be a sea change of attitude in how people view the role of government.

Maybe these changes wouldn’t have to come all at once. But for them to come at all, we have to have leaders who believe in such change, leaders governed by ideological principles about limited government and non-intervention and an unfettered economy. Barack Obama is certainly not one of those leaders, but neither is Mitt Romney. In fact, they both support different visions of a leviathan government, and are thus ideologically opposed to basic principles of liberty. For this reason, I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for either one of them.

Where does that leave me and people like me who care about our country’s future? What do we do? Well, here’s a great Hans-Hermann Hoppe quote I found in the article How Can You Think Voting Matters? by Will Aston:

In On the Impossibility of Limited Government…, Hoppe says:

…It is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government – whether of kings or caretakers – rests solely on opinion and not on physical force. The agents of government are never more than a small proportion of the total population under their control. This implies that no government can possibly enforce its will upon the entire population unless it finds widespread support and voluntary cooperation within the nongovernmental public. It implies likewise that every government can be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of the public's consent and cooperation. (italics added)

So you see, voting is an act of support. It is how we consent to and cooperate with our government. When we vote for someone, we are agreeing to give him certain powers over our lives. If that politician does not share our values, then we become complicit in our own undoing. We become agents of the very state whose policies are antithetical to the cause of liberty. In other words, when we vote for someone who is not an ideological peer, we are supporting and furthering the cause of our own enslavement.

Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. Don’t fall for partisan rhetoric claiming that Romney and Obama have different ideals because, where it really counts, they do not. Instead, vote for someone who stands for what you believe in. Write in a vote for Ron Paul. Or give your vote to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who, ideologically speaking, is the only Presidential candidate who deserves our support. Or express your dissent by not voting at all. Anything is better than voting for Obama or Romney. And the same can be said for most of the other mainstream GOP/DFL choices, as well.

And above all, don’t worry about "throwing away" your vote. Contrary to popular belief, voting is not a pragmatic activity. Rather, it is a supremely ideological one. It is the best opportunity most of us ever get to voice our beliefs, our values, and our life philosophy. Following your conscience is never wrong, ever. If enough people understand this, real change can and will happen eventually. But it has to start with you and me, and it has to start now.


The coming collapse...

Revisiting the Future

by Jeff Thomas

Back in the early 2000's, the world was on a roll. Spending was at an all-time high, and people were drunk with the belief that the party would never end; that there was no limit to the amount that either they or their governments could borrow and spend and still, somehow, all would be well.

At that time, in a reverse of the old adage, "It's always darkest before the dawn," a small number of people were putting a wet blanket on this thinking, with the prediction that, as history shows, "Bull markets do not end with a whimper, but with an upside spike," or, in simpler words, "It's always brightest before the crash."

As one of the latter group, it's safe to say that, at that time, almost no one was listening to us.

My own predictions had been that, as the economic decline progressed, there would be several major stages of decline. But, in addition, there would be three major stages of denial by the great majority of people, and it is that denial that is the subject of this article.

1. The Initial Crashes

Although the initial crashes that occurred in 2007/2008 were, by far, the easiest aspects of the Great Unravelling to predict, their likelihood was, predictably, rejected by the greatest number of people. The reason for this is that the crashes represented a change of direction – from positive to negative.

2. The Greater Depression

Once people have acknowledged a change of direction, it is easier for them to accept that the trend may become more extreme than it is at present. Correspondingly, after the 2007/2008 crashes, most people were now willing to accept that a recession was underway. However, very few were willing to accept the dreaded "D" word. The term "Greater Depression" was coined by Doug Casey of Casey Research early in the game and is, to my mind, the most accurate two-word description of the economic period that we are now experiencing.

However, as I have stated, the "D" word is so repugnant to most people that, regardless of the indications that we are, indeed, experiencing a depression, most people simply cannot face the term as a reality. They prefer any number of euphemistic terms, such as "double dip recession," in order to avoid accepting the unthinkable.

This is human nature. It seems that, whilst a small number of us would prefer to face the music right from the outset and begin a plan to deal with it, the great majority will accept the details of what is occurring, whilst rejecting the overall reality.

3. Food Crisis

In my belief, people will only begin to accept the reality of this depression after the next set of crashes has occurred, particularly a second crash in the stock market. Historically, it is only after the false recovery has ended in a major downward trend that people tend to swallow hard and admit to themselves, "I guess this is for real."

So, in a sense, this may not be the time to raise the issue of what I consider to be the third unacceptable phrase of the Greater Depression: "Food Crisis." However, recent developments suggest that it may be of value to have a look now.

In July of 2011, International Man published an article entitled "Food Crisis" (reprinted in May 2012). In this article, I outlined the reasons why a significant shortage of food is possible and even likely. At that time, I also pointed out the reason why a Food Crisis is the third great event in the present economic debacle that engenders almost universal denial by otherwise intelligent and informed people:

Historically, there is nothing so chaotic as famine. As long as people have a crust of bread and as long as it arrives regularly, there is a chance that events may be controlled. It is the very unpredictability of supply that causes panic. And the greater the concentration of potential recipients, the greater the panic.

Small wonder that, when I speak to friends and associates of The Great Unravelling, this one facet often makes them recoil in a desire to avoid the subject entirely.

In response to that article, I received many predictable comments that essentially said, "It can't happen. They just can't let it happen." However, I also received quite a few that said, "I haven't even been considering a Food Crisis, but it looks like I'd better. Can you offer suggestions as to how we can deal with it if it happens?" Hence the companion-piece, published in October, 2011 entitled, "Can You Afford to Eat?"

This article dealt primarily with the subject of internationalisation – in effect, travelling in order to eat.

Some may be saying to themselves, "But even if this occurs, it is a ways off. Perhaps two years, or even more. We have enough to think about right now. Can't we deal with this issue when we get a bit closer to finding out if it will become a reality?"

The simple answer is, "Yes, you can." However, a Food Crisis, if it occurs, will have a greater impact on people than any other development in the Great Unravelling. Therefore, it would be wise to keep tabs on its likelihood as events unfold.

As the reader is likely to know, the world is experiencing the worst drought since 1934. However, even though the drought is on the evening news, not much is being said about the overall effect that it will have over time.

A failed grain crop, especially if it continues for more than one season, warns of several developments over the next few years:

Shortages of staple grains – Any food that is prepared using wheat, corn, soybeans, rice or other grain will become scarcer and significantly more expensive.

Shortages may not be limited to grain – Much grain is used as cattle feed. A failed crop means that ranchers will cut the size of their herds, as they deplete their storehouses of grain and rely on grazing. (Grass, too, is affected in a drought.) Beef, pork, poultry and all other meats are likely to be in shorter supply.

Few people will have personal food supplies – In 1934, more than 30% of all people lived on farms, and many others had home gardens. Today, less than 2% live on farms. In addition, in 1934, it was legal to store food. Today (at least in the US), FEMA has the authority to confiscate food. There is no limit as to what they may confiscate, but, as the FEMA website states that two weeks' food is sufficient in an emergency, they may regard this as the allowable limit. It remains to be seen whether they would exercise this power.

Inflation – Due to shortages, the price of food rises. In a period in which the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve has stated that his solution to the problem is to create more money, inflation is not only possible, but certain.

The most important commodities are food and fuel, in that order. Corn is used to produce ethanol, an alternative to fossil fuel. With a shortage in corn, there would be an equal shortage in ethanol, driving up the price of fossil fuel. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency requires that up to 40% of all US-raised corn be used to create ethanol. In a time when corn is experiencing a shortage, Larry Pope, CEO of Smithfield Foods, has called this "a government-mandated disaster."

Extended effects – No one can say how long the present drought condition will last. Should it become extended, as did the drought of 1934, another dust-bowl is entirely possible. Either way, though, farmers who have lost their annual crops will find it hard to recover, especially after more than just one year of drought. Likewise, it will take several years for meat-producers to build up their herds again until they have sufficient meat to fill the ongoing demand. Recovery will not occur immediately after the drought ends.

Food Crisis – And here we come full-circle. When the world is already experiencing a major food shortage, nothing could be less welcome than a collapse in the food delivery system. If the events described in the "Food Crisis" article were to develop during the present drought, we would be facing a similar or worse situation than in the 1930's, when a climatic calamity compounded an economic calamity.

Almost no one in the First World has experienced such a situation. Small wonder that we seek to hope that, "It can't happen. They just can't let it happen."

It is left to the reader as to whether it is wisest to a) plan ahead for this eventuality, b) keep a close eye on developments, or c) simply "wait and see."

In the words of Robert Heinlein,

"After three missed meals, most men are willing to kill for food."


"The tactics employed by the GOP establishment to isolate, intimidate, and ultimately to expel Ron Paul delegates were the natural product of the party’s totalitarian genetics. By using criminal means to impose a monolithic, top-down process in which an entrenched oligarchy can re-write the rules to suit its whims, the Republican Party was simply living down to its odious pedigree."

The Triumph of the Reich-Publican Party

by William Norman Grigg

"There’s nothing American about what just happened," protested Nevada Republican delegate Wiselot Rouzard after the convention refused to seat the delegation from Maine. "This is the death of the Republican Party."

What Wiselot and fellow Ron Paul delegates had experienced was a memorable display of the Republican Party’s fetid essence. The tactics employed by the GOP establishment to isolate, intimidate, and ultimately to expel Ron Paul delegates were the natural product of the party’s totalitarian genetics. By using criminal means to impose a monolithic, top-down process in which an entrenched oligarchy can re-write the rules to suit its whims, the Republican Party was simply living down to its odious pedigree.

From its inception, the Republican Party has been devoted to a doctrine properly called national socialism – the fusion of politically favored corporate interests with national bank and an all-powerful, militaristic central government. This is why Dr. Paul’s noble attempt to cultivate a liberty movement within the GOP was ultimately as futile as seeking to create life in a test tube.

As Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo documents in his slender but potent volume Lincoln Unmasked, a century and a half before the lamentable advent of Barack Obama "The Party of Lincoln set out to fundamentally transform the American government from a decentralized confederacy of sovereign states to a consolidated, monolithic empire." The mission of the GOP, in a single phrase, was to supplant the republic with a reich.

The party’s objectives were described with admirable clarity by Ohio Senator John Sherman – brother to the infamous mass murderer Gen. William T. Sherman, who after putting Atlanta to the torch pursued an exterminationist "final solution" to the problem of the Plains Indians on behalf of the corporatist railroad combine. The Republican Party, Sherman proclaimed, sought "to nationalize as much as possible, even the currency, so as to make men love their country before their states. All private interests of individuals, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals – everything – should be subordinate now to the interest of the Government."

Mussolini would later digest that formula into a single pithy prescription: Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

Dr. Paul and the movement he inspired have agitated for an end to everything the Republican Party cherishes – central banking, fiat money, centralization of power in the executive, militarism, crony capitalism, government regimentation of private life in the name of "morality." Thus it’s hardly a surprise that the RNC and its epigones treated the Ron Paul delegates with the same cultish hostility displayed by Landru’s followers toward those who were "not of the Body."

Witness the fact that objections by Paul delegates on the convention floor were shouted down by mouth-breathing party cadres chanting "USA! USA! USA!" (A more appropriate refrain, given the Party’s emphasis on unity uber alles, would have been: "Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer!") Also of note were the Soviet-style methods used to suppress even the audible mention of Ron Paul’s name during the convention’s roll call.

"It’s a totalitarian process," lamented Yelena Vorobyov, a disillusioned 30-year-old Ron Paul delegate from Minnesota, referring to revised party rules – enacted by a patently fraudulent voice vote after key potential dissidents had been detained or effectively abducted – that stripped all power from state parties. What the RNC accomplished in Tampa is best captured in another German expression – Gleichschaltung, the "coordination" of all activities under the control of the party’s central committee.

What happened in Tampa was a relatively genteel version of the undisguised Brownshirt-style thuggery that had been employed by Party operatives during the primaries. Witness what took place during Louisiana’s state GOP convention on June 2, where Henry Herford – the convention’s duly elected chairman – was feloniously assaulted by a thugscrum of four Shreveport Police Officers, who acted on the orders of the Quisling faction within the state Party.

Herford was hospitalized for a dislocated prosthetic hip. In keeping with standard procedure, the uniformed assailants filed spurious charges against the victim.

"They arrested me for … resisting arrest, and they never said I was under arrest," Hereford commented after being released from the hospital. "And [they said] I didn’t leave when they told me to leave – but I never was told to leave."

Herford, who underwent a CAT scan on his hip and received a painkiller injection, didn’t sign his arrest papers.

"I can’t sign anything while I’m on a narcotic, and I told the police that," he explained.

Alex Helwig, a Ron Paul delegate and Chairman of the Rules Committee, made a formal motion to remove the chair. In a fashion reminiscent of a third world dictatorship, Helwig was seized by Shreveport Police and removed from the room. During his brief detention, Helwig suffered several broken fingers – a punishment favored by Mussolini’s Blackshirts – and when he returned to the event he walked with the aid of a cane.

During the convention, Doug Wead recounted, "Louisiana GOP officials ignored the vast majority of duly elected delegates and attempted to use illegally adopted rules to deny Ron Paul supporters an opportunity to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa."

What happened in Louisiana was a detailed foreshadowing of what would later take place at the national convention. Once again, this is to be expected of those who preside over the GOP, which is America’s original socialist party.

In their valuable book Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War, Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr. examine the role played by the "48ers" – veterans of the 18 interconnected revolutions that convulsed Europe in 1848-1849 – in creating the Republican Party, bringing Abraham Lincoln to power, and conducting the war against the South.

Lincoln, who would later slaughter hundreds of thousands of Americans in order to create a unitary national government, offered unqualified support to the proto-Marxist revolution of 1848. "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better," he insisted in a January 12, 1848 speech. "Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

The "48ers," note Kennedy and Benson, sought to overthrow the existing political order and then consolidate power over larger territories. They weren’t secessionists who sought merely to withdraw from an unsuitable political arrangement, as was the case with the American South.

The revolutions of 1848 understandably appealed to the idealistic impulses of people weary of absolutism. But, as Kennedy and Benson observe, this proved to be a familiar bait-and-switch, with those "freed from local decentralized control" were made subject to "centralized authoritarian control" in the name of Democracy.

The revolutionaries applauded by Lincoln lusted to reconstruct society through violence. In Germany, the stated objective of the revolution was to fuse a multitude of independent principalities into "a united indivisible republic." Again, this foreshadowed the work of Abraham Lincoln and the party that elevated him to power.

When the revolt of 1848-49 was crushed, the "48er" diaspora brought many of the most ambitious and radical of the revolutionaries to the United States, where many of them were instrumental in creating the Republican Party. Several of them – such as Joseph Wedemeyer, Charles A. Dana, Franz Sigel, August Willich, and Carl Schurz – played prominent roles in the war to conquer the independent South. Dana, a personal friend of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, was assistant secretary of war under Lincoln.

The slogan-spewing herd poisoners who compose the GOP’s media auxiliary routinely depict Barack Obama as the embodiment of an ideology alien to America’s constitutional origins. If such people were burdened with a particle of intellectual honesty, they would recognize that to the extent this depiction of Obama is reliable, he is Lincoln’s true heir.


"Under Obama's watch, the U.S. has added nearly $5 trillion in new debt over the course of about three-and-a-half years - a single term - while Bush's debt was spread out over two terms, making Obama's the largest accumulation of new debt over the shortest amount of time in the history of the country. Moreover, this year's budget adds another $1.1 trillion, making it the fourth year in a row the government has run a $1 trillion-plus deficit."

Obama punishes Americans with another trillion-dollar deficit (four in a row)

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Sen. Barack Obama characterized outgoing-President George W. Bush as "unpatriotic" for adding $4 trillion to the national debt during his eight-year tenure.

In a campaign speech to supporters July 3, Obama said:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

"Hope" and "change" were Obama's campaign themes, not "more of the same." It won him the White House.

What a difference four years make.

To be sure, $4 trillion is a lot of debt, and the president, as a candidate, was right to point out the obvious - if the current generation of voters and lawmakers fail to do the responsible thing and begin working together to pay it off, we will saddle our children with it, and sentence them - and their children - to a life of less freedom and fewer opportunities.

It's just too bad he didn't take his own rhetoric to heart.

Hypocrisy, sure, but that's beside the point

Under Obama's watch, the U.S. has added nearly $5 trillion in new debt over the course of about three-and-a-half years - a single term - while Bush's debt was spread out over two terms, making Obama's the largest accumulation of new debt over the shortest amount of time in the history of the country. Moreover, this year's budget adds another $1.1 trillion, making it the fourth year in a row the government has run a $1 trillion-plus deficit.

The strategy from the White House and Democratic talking heads has been to dodge responsibility and lay all of it at Bush's feet, arguing that the recession they inherited was "worse than we thought." But the recession, we are told, ended in 2009, and Obama's efforts since to restart the country's economic engine have fallen flat; his stimulus packages and other economic incentives have not only failed to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, but they have also done virtually nothing to stimulate economic growth, which remains anemic at two percent a year or less. The little growth that has occurred in the economy has literally come in spite of Obama.

What's more, the president has "owned" three of the last four fiscal years, making his policies, not Bush's, the driving factor behind the debt increases which have occurred on his watch. If Bush has to own up, Obama has to own up.

So, does that make him "unpatriotic" as well?

Honestly, who cares? The characterization was political theater when Obama said it, and it's political theater now.

Time is literally running out

The point is we have a debt problem, ladies and gentlemen of Congress, and it is imperative, regardless of which party you belong to, that you solve the problem and stop adding to it.

That will require reviving the lost art of statesmanship and putting the country before your own political careers.

Reducing the dialogue to pointless and inane trivialities will not address what is coming: $16 trillion in overall debt by Election Day, maybe another $5 trillion by 2016 if nothing changes, thereby creating, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a fiscal situation that is simply not sustainable.

"The key issue facing policymakers is not whether to reduce budget deficits," says Doug Elmendorf, director of the CBO. "The question is when. The question is how."

Options are few, he says, and none of them are going to be palatable, either to the politicians who must come together and decide on a course of action or to a sizable and growing portion of the American public , whom many of those same lawmakers have turned into a dependency class in order to buy their votes.

"Now, Congress and Mr. Obama are grappling with 2013 and beyond, and CBO said their options range from immediate belt-tightening and a double-dip recession that clears the economic and fiscal air, to continuing to pump money into the economy and delay, but likely worsen, an eventual reckoning," The Washington Times reported.

Our "leaders" have painted the nation into an economic corner, Elmendorf notes.

"At some point, we will need to adopt policies that require people to pay significantly more in taxes, accept substantially less in government benefits and services, or both," he said.

And with each new deficit, the problem grows larger, while the options fewer.

The debt clock is ticking. Like a time bomb.

Learn more:

Connecticut? Not so good...

What Is The Best Place To Live In America? Pros And Cons For All 50 States

If you could live in any state in America, where would you go? During troubled times like these, what is the best place in the United States to live? A lot of people are asking these kinds of questions these days. Our economy is on the verge of collapse, natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more intense, the U.S. population is becoming angrier and more frustrated by the day, our government has become incredibly oppressive and controlling, war could break out at any time and evidence that society is breaking down is all around us. As our world becomes increasingly unstable, many families are considering moving somewhere else. But what areas are best and what areas should be avoided? Is there really a "best place to live" in America? Well, the truth is that each family is facing a different set of circumstances. If you have a great support system where you live, it can be really tough to pick up and move 3000 miles away from that support system. If you have a great job where you live now, it can be really tough to move some place where there may be no job at all for you. But without a doubt there are some areas of the country that will be far better off than others in the event of a major economic collapse. This article will take a look at each of the 50 U.S. states and will list some of the pros and cons for moving to each one.

Not all of the factors listed below will be important to you, and a few have even been thrown in for humor. But if you are thinking of moving in the near future hopefully this list will give you some food for thought.

A few years ago when my wife and I were living near Washington D.C. we knew that we wanted a change and we went through this kind of a process. We literally evaluated areas from coast to coast. In the end, we found a place that is absolutely perfect for us. But different things are important to different people.

And if I gave your particular state a low rating, please don't think that I am trashing the entire state or all of the people who live there.

For example, there are some absolutely wonderful people that live in the state of California, and there are some areas of California that I would not mind visiting at all. But for the times that are coming I am convinced that it is going to be a really bad place to live.

Not that I have all the answers either. Hopefully this article can get some debates started, and hopefully those debates will help people that are thinking of moving to another state to be more informed.

The following are some pros and cons for all 50 states....


Pros: warm weather, southern hospitality, relatively low population density

Cons: hurricanes, tornadoes, crime, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: C+


Pros: great fishing, lots of empty space, low population density, great for rugged individualists

Cons: very high cost of living, earthquakes, volcanoes, extremely cold, short growing season, too much snow, potentially cut off from supplies from the lower 48 states during an emergency situation

Overall Rating: B


Pros: warm weather

Cons: illegal immigration, wildfires, return of dust bowl conditions, not enough jobs, not enough rain, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, gang violence, Phoenix

Overall Rating: D+


Pros: southern hospitality, warm weather, Ozark National Forest

Cons: tornadoes, Clintons, New Madrid fault zone, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: C


Pros: Disneyland, warm weather, Malibu

Cons: high taxes, Jerry Brown, earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, gang violence, crime, traffic, rampant poverty, insane politicians, ridiculous regulations, bad schools, political correctness, illegal immigration, not enough jobs, air pollution, multiple nuclear power plants, possible tsunami threat along the coast, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Stockton, Sacramento, huge drug problem, high population density, the state government is broke, many more reasons to leave California right here

Overall Rating: F


Pros: Rocky Mountains, Colorado Springs

Cons: wildfires, illegal immigration, short growing season, not enough rain, too much snow, huge drug problem

Overall Rating: B


Pros: beautiful homes

Cons: high taxes, insane politicians, ridiculous regulations, political correctness, short growing season, multiple nuclear power plants, high population density

Overall Rating: C-


Pros: good fishing

Cons: Joe Biden, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, crime, high population density

Overall Rating: D


Pros: University of Florida Gators, oranges, low taxes, southern hospitality, Disneyworld, Gainesville, warm weather, beautiful beaches, Daytona

Cons: hurricanes, most of the state is barely above sea level, high population density, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, gang violence, illegal immigration

Overall Rating: C


Pros: peaches, southern hospitality, warm weather

Cons: not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, gang violence, flesh eating disease, Atlanta

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: awesome beaches, warm weather, great vacation destination

Cons: vulnerable to tsunamis, very high cost of living, volcanoes, traffic, high population density, high taxes

Overall Rating: C-


Pros: awesome people live there, great potatoes, low population density, high concentration of liberty-minded individuals, low crime, Sandpoint, Coeur d'Alene, north Idaho has plenty of water compared to the rest of the interior West, beautiful scenery

Cons: cold in the winter, wildfires, short growing season, not enough jobs

Overall Rating: A


Pros: once you get away from Chicago things are not quite so bad

Cons: Barack Obama, drought, New Madrid fault zone, high population density, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, crime, gang violence, Chicago, East St. Louis, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, mob robberies, the state government is drowning in debt

Overall Rating: D-


Pros: it is in better shape than Illinois, good farming, high Amish population

Cons: drought, tornadoes, the city of Gary, relatively high population density, near the New Madrid fault zone, a "rust belt" state

Overall Rating: C-


Pros: low population density, low crime, good farming

Cons: drought, tornadoes, cold in the winter, multiple nuclear power plants, too much snow, very flat

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: low population density, low crime, good farming

Cons: drought, tornadoes, return of dust bowl conditions, very flat

Overall Rating: B


Pros: southern hospitality, great horses, Lexington

Cons: New Madrid fault zone, not enough jobs, rampant poverty, Louisville

Overall Rating: C


Pros: southern hospitality, warm weather

Cons: hurricanes, New Orleans, not enough jobs, tornadoes, multiple nuclear power plants, oil spills, crime, gang violence, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: D


Pros: low population density, low crime, polite people

Cons: extremely cold, short growing season, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, too much snow

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: the Washington Redskins play there

Cons: Baltimore, borders Washington D.C., high population density, really bad traffic, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, gang violence

Overall Rating: C-


Pros: beautiful homes

Cons: high taxes, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, high population density, short growing season, almost everything is illegal in Massachusetts

Overall Rating: D+


Pros: once you get away from Detroit and Flint things get better

Cons: Detroit, Flint, Dearborn, extremely cold, short growing season, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, too much snow, a "rust belt" state

Overall Rating: D-


Pros: land of 10,000 lakes

Cons: extremely cold, short growing season, multiple nuclear power plants, too much snow, high taxes

Overall Rating: C


Pros: southern hospitality, relatively low population density, warm weather

Cons: hurricanes, tornadoes, not enough jobs, rampant poverty, crime

Overall Rating: C+


Pros: good farming, Branson

Cons: drought, tornadoes, New Madrid fault zone, not enough jobs, crime

Overall Rating: C


Pros: low population density, low taxes, high concentration of liberty-minded individuals, Missoula, Kalispell

Cons: extremely cold in the winter, wildfires, short growing season, not enough rain, near Yellowstone super volcano, rampant poverty, too much snow

Overall Rating: B+


Pros: low population density, good farming

Cons: tornadoes, drought, multiple nuclear power plants, cold in the winter, very flat

Overall Rating: B


Pros: low population density, lots of empty space, low taxes, warm weather

Cons: Harry Reid, Las Vegas, Reno, not enough water, not enough rain, wildfires, hard to grow food, not enough jobs, crime, gang violence, huge drug problem, Yucca Mountain

Overall Rating: D+

New Hampshire

Pros: low crime, beautiful homes

Cons: extremely cold, short growing season, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, too much snow

Overall Rating: C

New Jersey

Pros: anyone got something?

Cons: high population density, Camden, Newark, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, Atlantic City, crime, gang violence

Overall Rating: D-

New Mexico

Pros: low population density, warm weather

Cons: illegal immigration, wildfires, return of dust bowl conditions, not enough jobs, not enough rain, crime, gang violence, huge drug problem

Overall Rating: C-

New York

Pros: the entire state is not like New York City

Cons: New York City, Mayor Bloomberg, high taxes, cold in the winter, high population density, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, the "too big to fail" banks

Overall Rating: D

North Carolina

Pros: southern hospitality, warm weather, Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Cons: hurricanes, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants

Overall Rating: B

North Dakota

Pros: low crime, lots of oil-related jobs, low population density

Cons: extremely cold, short growing season, too much snow

Overall Rating: B


Pros: the Cincinnati Reds, the Pro Football Hall of Fame, high Amish population

Cons: not enough jobs, cold in the winter, multiple nuclear power plants, high population density, Toledo, Cleveland, a "rust belt" state

Overall Rating: C


Pros: warm weather, good farming

Cons: drought, tornadoes, wildfires, return of dust bowl conditions, not enough rain, crime, Oklahoma City, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: C


Pros: tremendous natural beauty

Cons: high taxes, Portland, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, not enough jobs, huge drug problem, possible tsunami threat along the coast

Overall Rating: C-


Pros: high Amish population

Cons: high population density, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, a "rust belt" state

Overall Rating: C

Rhode Island

Pros: so small that most people don't notice their problems

Cons: the state is flat broke, short growing season, political correctness, ridiculous regulations, insane politicians, not enough jobs, high population density

Overall Rating: D+

South Carolina

Pros: southern hospitality, warm weather, Myrtle Beach

Cons: hurricanes, not enough jobs, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, gang violence, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: B

South Dakota

Pros: low population density, fun tourist traps, the Badlands, Mount Rushmore

Cons: extremely cold, short growing season, very flat, too much snow

Overall Rating: B


Pros: Nashville, Michael W. Smith, southern hospitality, warm weather, Gatlinburg

Cons: Memphis, New Madrid fault zone, multiple nuclear power plants, crime, gang violence, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: low taxes, warm weather, Austin

Cons: drought, illegal immigration, tornadoes, wildfires, West Nile Virus, the Dallas Cowboys, return of dust bowl conditions, speed traps, not enough rain, multiple nuclear power plants, George W. Bush, crime

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: beautiful mountains, low crime, low population density

Cons: cold in the winter, wildfires, Salt Lake City, short growing season, not enough rain, illegal to collect rain

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: low crime, beautiful homes

Cons: cold in the winter, insane politicians, ridiculous regulations, short growing season, political correctness, not enough jobs, too much snow

Overall Rating: C


Pros: the University of Virginia, southern hospitality, Charlottesville

Cons: borders Washington D.C., high population density, multiple nuclear power plants, Richmond, really bad traffic in northern Virginia

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: the eastern half of the state is quite nice and much different from the coast

Cons: way too much rain along the coast, volcanoes, wildfires, insane politicians, ridiculous regulations, political correctness, not enough jobs, possible tsunami threat along the coast, Seattle

Overall Rating: C

West Virginia

Pros: beautiful mountains

Cons: not enough jobs, rampant poverty

Overall Rating: B


Pros: cheese, the Green Bay Packers

Cons: extremely cold, short growing season, multiple nuclear power plants, too much snow,

Overall Rating: B-


Pros: low population density, lots of empty space, low taxes

Cons: extremely cold, too windy, too flat, wildfires, short growing season, not enough rain, Yellowstone super volcano

Overall Rating: B-


"Historians will write about this era for centuries to come, just as they write of Rome today."

The Crunch: “It’s Going to Happen In the Next Administration; Regardless of Who Wins This Election”

Mac Slavo

Our incumbent President says that things are getting better, jobs are being created, and America is on the road to recovery. His opponent, Governor Mitt Romney, says the opposite, but claims he has a plan that will turn things around and bring prosperity back.

According to free market proponent Peter Schiff, it doesn’t matter who wins, because the crunch is coming – and it’s going to become apparent during the next President’s administration.

He [Mitt Romney] is not going to prevent the crisis.

We’re headed for a real economic collapse regardless of who wins this election.

The government has over-promised. There are gigantic Ponzi schemes. They do not work.

Meanwhile, the only reason the economy has not collapsed is because interest rates are artificially low. the Fed cannot keep interest rates low indefinitely, and when interest rates go up the party is over. And then we’re not going to have a choice anymore.

We’re going to have to finally deal with these problems or destroy our currency, and that is a real economic crisis that is going to make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

[The crunch] is going to happen in the next administration.

We can’t fix these problems by repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes. We have structural problems that underline the U.S. economy that are very deep that require real free market reforms, and unfortunately none of the major candidates are even talking about that right now.

Peter Schiff was ahead of the collapse of 2008, warning clients of his firm Euro Pacific Capital that global equities would crash as a result of fraud, unservicable debt levels and a failed monetary policy. After the crash he, like many others, urged Congress to address the fundamental problems within the US economy, including fiscal, monetary and economic policy reform.

He and the American citizenry were ignored as Washington not only didn’t listen, but engaged in exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

Four years on we’re worse off than ever before, with more money having been borrowed from foreign creditors and stolen by the government from taxpayers under the guise of bailing out essential financial and manufacturing sectors of the global economy.

We’re in too deep folks. At this point, it cannot be stopped.

Trillions of dollars are owed, and as a country we have no way to make good on that debt.

Confidence in the US dollar will soon be lost, and when that happens we will experience a collapse in the United States and the global economy unlike any that has ever been witnessed in the history of the world.

Historians will write about this era for centuries to come, just as they write of Rome today.


"Now, Ron Paul activists will be forced walk away from the chessboard and to examine the legitimacy of bottom up solutions at the local level, rather than being obsessed with the top down drudgery at the federal level..."

It Is Time For The Ron Paul Revolution To Move Beyond Politics

Brandon Smith

In the lead up weekend to the RNC convention, Tampa, Florida was awash in political electricity. It was so prevalent you could sense it in the corridors of air terminals across the country before you ever made it to that hot humid peninsula in the south. I admit, to be caught up in it is exciting. The ideal of democratic participation, the feeling of rejuvenation and community, joining the ranks of one’s ideological brethren to charge into intellectual combat for the future of our nation. If any of it was real, I would have been truly inspired. Unfortunately, I was well aware that the Republican convention was a farce, and knew full well what the end result would be for the Ron Paul campaign.

I had the privilege of being invited by the organizers of Paulfest, a Liberty Movement Woodstock of sorts, to give a speech on alternative economics and solutions to the general crisis we face as a country in the near future. On the long flight I found myself surrounded by GOP fanboys and even a Secret Service agent, as well as the endless FOX and CNN cavalcade reports on terminal TV’s during layovers. If you were in the middle of it, you would think something “important” was about to happen. If anything, it only clarified my concerns that there is still far too much that needs to be accomplished before the year of 2012 is over.

Arrival at Paulfest revealed immediate conflicts between the Ron Paul campaign and its base support. Certain Ron Paul staff (namely the infamous Jesse Benton) had been going out of their way to stiff and in some cases sabotage the event despite Ron Paul’s words of appreciation to those involved. Benton has had a long track record of venom against Ron Paul’s base supporters, which he referred to as “big fringe elements” in texts to potential speakers including Peter Schiff, to persuade them from partaking in the festival:

Benton has on numerous occasions kicked out alternative news journalists from Ron Paul events in a move to sterilize the press box. When the RNC deliberately buried states with large Ron Paul delegate counts in the bleachers at the back of the building where television cameras would not notice them, complaints to the GOP and the campaign abounded, and an audit of the RNC was even called for. Yet, Benton responded snidely, saying:

“I am glad so many of our delegates get to sit close together.”

It has become clear that Benton and others have been “handling” Ron Paul for a considerable portion of his campaign and attempting to divorce him from the elements of the movement which are seen as “extreme” or anti-establishment, even though these are the same elements that catapulted Ron Paul into the minds of average Americans. My impression is that they have been targeted for surgical removal because they are impossible to co-opt for the purposes of diplomacy (submission) with the Neo-Con elites running the GOP carnival.

Rand Paul’s recent endorsement of Mitt Romney is not surprising given the parasitic nature of particular campaign organizers who buzz about him, including Benton. The bottom line is that some people in the movement are not in it to fight for freedom, or to ensure a brighter and more Constitutional Republic. Some are in the movement to further their political careers and ambitions, and are perfectly willing to use the energy of popular candidates to carry them to success.

Sadly, this is the ultimate weakness of the political ideal; regardless of how honest and forthright a candidate is, even a principled luminary like Ron Paul can be undermined by those closest to him if he is not careful. Millions of people relying solely on the tenuous chance of victory of a single man in a single rigged contest is NEVER a recipe for liberty.

The internal conflict was a source of tension and depression for many who only wanted to see unity within the movement, a final hurrah for Ron Paul, and a last drive towards a respectable showing at the RNC. The problem is that for some reason there was an expectation among some Paul revolutionaries that there would be a semblance of “fairness”. I’m not sure why considering that after four years and two presidential campaigns there has never been a single moment of fair-play in the GOP towards Ron Paul or the Liberty Movement in general. We have been the targets of mass media attacks, Republican con-games, and even DHS profiling. How anyone could think that Ron Paul was going to win by playing a game in which the rules are written and re-written (literally, as we saw with the GOP state delegate selection process changes) by the corrupt system is beyond me.

The most I had ever hoped for was a broken and perhaps chaotic RNC (a rightful punishment for the Neo-Cons), and the expansion of truth. For me, the Ron Paul campaign has always been a vehicle for the movement to expose the reality of our society to those half-hypnotized by the doldrum madness of the mainstream. I never saw it as a solution to our vast problems in and of itself.

Those of us who come from a macroeconomic background tend to have a more grounded vision of time. That is to say, we know the potential danger, and have a more profound sense of urgency than those who only approach activism through politics. We have mathematical insight, not just social or intuitive insight, into the approaching storm. This comes not only with certainty, but extended responsibility. During a round table discussion which included myself, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers, Chuck Baldwin, and many other fantastic voices of the movement, I found that the boys from Montana had our work cut out for us in moving the discussion away from the purely political. The talk touched on alternative strategies, including self sufficiency and independent living, but gravitated time and again back to “finding new candidates to take Ron Paul’s place”, and coming up with new protest venues.

I was not able to take an accurate tally, but my ballpark guess is that though there are millions of Ron Paul supporters out there, at least half are completely unprepared for any kind of crisis event, and really do believe they have four more years to wait in quasi-hibernation while America hangs by a thin fiscal thread. It is not my intention to drive a wedge between “preparedness Ron Paulers” and “political Ron Paulers”. Far from it. But really, these folks should know better.

Stewart Rhodes’ speech at Paulfest was the most shocking for many of the political Paulers, as well as the most necessary. He removed the kid gloves completely as well as any feel-good rhetoric, stating that the GOP as a party was dead, and deserved to be, letting the Paul folks know that any further strategy of attempting to “infiltrate” the Republican establishment and turn it over to the side of good was a waste of time. He also stated that it is no longer enough for the movement to play around as “intellectual warriors”, they might soon have to become real warriors. I agree.

In my speech, I gave clear cut and tangible solutions to Paulfest attendees, including alternative markets and barter networks, commodity based currencies, micro industries and localized business models, useful trade skills, off-grid living, preparedness, and if all else fails, real revolution. Not idealized intellectual activism under the catchy label of revolution, but fists in the air and rifles in hand revolution. The kind that scares the crap out of most, not because of its danger, but because of its finality of purpose. The will to fight, really fight, is frightening, especially to those who cling to the belief that one can reason with his opponents. The cold hard fact is; some men are not men. Some men are monsters, and reason is the last thing that will ever sway them…

I also closed with an admission; that I fear little for the future. Despite the flaws of the Ron Paul campaign, the elections, and the movement in general, there is something to be said for the miracle that has occurred since 2008, and I do mean “miracle”. Four years ago, an activist speaking against the Federal Reserve, for instance, would be immediately met with attacks from all sides and outnumbered 50 to 1. Today, the roles are reversed. The internet is teaming with life and defenders of liberty while the majority of Americans and even Congress are calling for an audit or end of the Fed. The preparedness culture has exploded with dedicated families willing to make the terrifying leap into a once alien lifestyle. The mainstream media has been crushed by alternative outlets; as their numbers dwindle into oblivion, ours skyrocket in turn. All in all, it is not a bad time to be a champion of the Constitutional philosophy, and the existence of such a movement gives me enduring optimism. I do not “think” we will prevail; I KNOW we will prevail.

As I sat in the Sun Dome in Tampa witnessing the last speech of Ron Paul’s campaign career, I felt the loss that lingered within the crowd, but this was not the end. Not to sound callous, but frankly, the best thing that could have happened to the movement today was a farewell from Ron Paul and an end to the political theater that most have been caught up in for the better part of this year. The game is over. The real battle begins.

Ron Paul did more for the movement than many of us had ever dreamed. He forced the Constitution back into the mainstream when we needed it most. He breathed life into America once again. But now, his job is done. Rand Paul will not carry the movement forward, nor will any other candidate, at least not in the short time this nation has left before it becomes entirely unrecognizable.

Now, Ron Paul activists will be forced walk away from the chessboard and to examine the legitimacy of bottom up solutions at the local level, rather than being obsessed with the top down drudgery at the federal level. They will have to insulate themselves using decentralized economic systems and self sustaining living methods. They will have to learn to produce necessities for themselves, and to interact within their communities face to face. They will be compelled to educate local police and military to wake them up to the civil catastrophes ahead. If they do seek out political strategies, it will have to be at the county and state levels, where there is at least a chance of making viable progress. And, most of all, they will have to adopt a self-defense mindset in addition to intelligent discourse. They will have to become what I would call ‘Warrior Poets’ in the shadow of this dark age. They will have to think, and feel, but also be willing to fight, and perhaps even die for their principles. They will have to become whole men and women, rather than incomplete people, projecting all their hopes and dreams into a governmental white knight that will never come.

Ultimately, politics has been warped into a mechanism by which the masses can hand over their responsibility to affect change within the system they live, and pass the buck on to others. It is time to move away from this failed dynamic. It is time for the Ron Paul revolution to mature, and to embrace the pain of doing what must be done. It is time to take matters into our own hands.


Ron Paulites: What is next???

Where Do We Go Next?

by Philip Giraldi

It was perhaps inevitable that the GOP would turn on the Ron Paul supporters to eliminate them from their version of a body politic. I predicted it would take place and so did a number of others. But what has been surprising is the timing. It seemed reasonable to assume that the Republican gatekeepers would wait until after the convention or even the election to keep the Paulistas in harness and supportive, nurturing their faint hopes that their message would somehow have an impact, encouraging them to vote for Mitt Romney. But the Republican Party leadership decided instead to purge Paul supporters at both the state and local level and also on the convention floor. As Justin Raimondo has noted, a harrowing worthy of Josef Stalin took place in a number of states employing procedural ploys, stripping delegates of their accreditation, and even illegal closing of caucuses, which denied to Ron Paul’s supporters any ability to have significant impact at the convention. The deal was sealed when the GOP rules committee revised its convention guidelines, initially to make it impossible to cast dissident votes or to propose nominations from the floor, and subsequently to allow the national party to veto and replace state delegates. As one Associate Press report put it somewhat laconically in an early report on convention preparations “Republican officials have reduced the ranks of Paul delegates.” Jordan Bloom, who attended the Paul events in Tampa, reported that Paul’s supporters were angry and frustrated, many having experienced political corruption up close and personal for the first time. One friend of mine on Capitol Hill likened the caucus deals finally arrived at in various states to having a burglar steal everything you own and then return a couple of days later to give you half back if you do not complain. That’s what happened. The Paul supporters were outgunned and out-muscled and, led by a campaign team that wanted accommodation, wound up taking what they could get.

Through it all, Ron Paul himself has emerged with his dignity and values intact. It is precisely because of his honesty and integrity that he succeeded in attaining near rock star status among his followers. The media is reporting that Ron Paul was offered a last minute opportunity to speak at the convention but refused when he was told he would be required to offer a full endorsement of Mitt Romney and have his speech reviewed by Romney’s staff. Would that Paul’s integrity had somehow trickled down to his senior campaign staff, which Tom Woods has correctly described as “handlers who are concerned with their long term careers in politics.” Or, in the vernacular, the “go-along to get-along gang.”

The New York Times plays along with the charade, describing how, “Paul campaign leaders decided to cooperate with Romney forces for a smooth convention, while eschewing compromises that would have alienated core supporters even more.” That’s called remaining viable in the system even though you know perfectly well it has done its best to delegitimize you and will end up forcing you out completely. And who cares whether or not Ron makes compromises or not? His son and heir presumptive Rand, Senator from Kentucky, has already sold out, endorsing Romney and specifically approving of his foreign policy, with The Times explaining “Senator Paul has shown a greater commitment than his father to operating within Republican Party institutions.” Sort of like plucking a nettle and calling it a rose.

Jesse Benton, married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter, ran the Paul campaign and ran it badly, failing to take advantage of opportunities in states like Virginia where Ron might have actually defeated Romney head-to-head if a minimum of support had been forthcoming from the national campaign. Benton explains to The Times how he has had to reject those who “dress in black, stand on a hill and say, ‘Smash the state.’” Benton, who reportedly has morphed into a multitasking paid political consultant and deal-maker with several businesses registered in his name including offices in Washington, D.C., generously paid himself $586,616 along the way while keeping the revolutionaries in check. He also confuses passion with craziness, possibly because he lacks the former. Most Paul supporters that I have encountered are completely rational and dedicated to turning our country around. They support the message of small government, non-interventionism overseas, constitutionalism, and sound money policies all because they make good sense. But I suppose Benton would argue that he is, as The Times adroitly puts it, “balancing pragmatism and principle.” Too bad pragmatism wins out every time for those who are ambitious.

And then there is the little matter of foreign policy, which is of particular interest to readers of antiwar. Ron Paul bravely opposed foreign aid and foreign interventionism, both as endorsed and practiced by the two mainstream parties, raising challenging questions about the status quo in the Republican debates and also in his speeches. He understands how central what occurs overseas is to America’s malaise, note his comment “If I didn’t have the foreign policy [views] I do, I don’t think we would be here tonight” delivered in his farewell speech to his supporters in Tampa on Sunday night. But go over to the pathetic Campaign for Liberty website and you will detect nary a whiff of that, nothing on foreign affairs more recent than April, as if self-congratulatory blurbs on auditing the Fed will solve all the problems actually caused by America’s evolution into an imperialist police state. Campaign for Liberty is sponsoring a Liberty Political Action Conference in Chantilly Virginia from Sept. 13–15. Check out the list of speakers. Out of 32 speakers, only one, contributor Ivan Eland, can be regarded as having genuine expertise on foreign policy, but I’ll bet there will be some hot discussions on deregulating light bulbs and washing machines and lots of armchair revolutionary talk about how to get organized.

Which is all to say if you want to continue the Ron Paul revolution on foreign policy after November, his self-designated heirs and successors are a dead loss. So ignore those constant email solicitations for funds to continue to fight the good fight because the pleas are mostly designed to maintain the status and incomes of those who have already failed so miserably to deliver on Ron Paul’s promise. You might begin by emailing back and asking exactly how the money being raised is used. If you even suggest that America’s foreign policy mess is the driving force in America’s decline, they will ignore you.

The highly paid Paul advisers, some of whom have been negotiating with the Romney camp for many months, have already been co-opted and do not care about what interests the rest of us if it has anything to do with America’s shameful behavior overseas. Why? I suspect it is because they understand that attacking U.S. foreign policy eventually works its way around to the issue of Israel, which is something they choose not to deal with, for whatever reason. Whether foreign policy phobia was a tactical decision or something more deeply rooted matters little, but the end result was to produce a campaign myopia about what is really wrong with the United States and its policies.

So if you think that auditing the Fed will do it (which might never happen anyway), be my guest, but those of us who are frustrated and angry about what we are seeing must continue to fight against the corporatism and consensus politics that are producing a police state and destroying our nation. We must not stop in November and we must not be bought off by the lies of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama who, apart from expressing their love for Israel, will not discuss foreign policy at all. We must continue to speak out, to support websites like antiwar as well as the increasing number of individuals and groups that are challenging the system. America’s rush to empire must continue to be our focus and a sustaining a vibrant discussion of our failed foreign policy must always be our principal objective. Truly, if we do not tame the beast we are all fated to suffer when it finally turns on us.


Thursday, August 30, 2012

There's no place like home...

The Department of Homeland Security’s New HQ is an Abandoned Insane Asylum

Homeland Security operating without a real home (Los Angeles Times):

Five miles southeast of the gleaming Capitol dome, on a scenic bluff overlooking the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, the future office of the secretary of Homeland Security sits boarded up and abandoned.

Four years ago, U.S. officials announced plans to renovate the dilapidated, castle-like structure —opened in 1855 as the Government Hospital for the Insane — to anchor Washington’s largest construction project since the Pentagon was built 70 years ago.

The goal was to unite on a single campus the 22 agencies that were stitched together to form the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But the $3.4-billion headquarters project stalled as Congress tried to cut the federal deficit. Lawmakers debated this month whether the nation could afford such a massive home-improvement project, and the House has voted to eliminate the funding in next year’s budget.

As a result, Homeland Security employees remain scattered through more than 35 offices around Washington. Janet Napolitano, their boss, works from a former Navy radar facility that has all the comforts of a barracks. Plus, in traffic, she’s a good 40 minutes from the White House.

“They need to get out of there as soon as possible,” said Tom Ridge, who took over the former Navy compound in early 2003 after he was named the first Homeland Security chief.

In the early rush to get settled, Ridge recalls, one of his assistant secretaries emptied out a broom closet and stuck a desk in it.

“It’s hardly anything anyone can call palatial,” he growled.

DHS holds fast to St. Elizabeths HQ plan (Federal News Radio):

Funding gaps and construction delays aren’t swaying the Homeland Security Department from its goal of consolidating most of its Washington-based facilities on the campus of the former St. Elizabeth’s hospital.

“The reduction in the funding stream has impacted our original plans,” said DHS chief administrative officer Don Bathurst. Speaking of the future steps in the project, he said, “We’re going to try to bring those on as quickly as fiscally allowable.”

DHS’s various Washington-area headquarters are spread throughout 50 buildings. Congress has criticized the agency for its lack of integration.

“Bringing the component operation centers together in the DHS operations center will resolve deficiencies in operational management, which was noted in various lessons learned reports and Government Accountability Office reports after Hurricane Katrina,” Bathurst said during a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

Coast Guard vice admiral John Currier and General Services Administration Public Buildings Service commissioner Robert Peck also testified. The Coast Guard is the first division of DHS scheduled to move into the facility.

St. Elizabeth’s Hospital (Wikipedia):

After several decades in decline, the large campus could not be maintained. In 1987, hospital functions on the eastern campus were transferred from the United States Department of Health and Human Services to the District of Columbia government, with the federal government retaining ownership of the western campus. Several commercial redevelopment opportunities were proposed by the D.C. government and consultants, including relocating the University of the District of Columbia to the campus or developing office and retail space. However, the tremendous cost of bringing the facilities up to code (estimated at $50–$100 million) kept developers away.

With little interest in developing the site privately, the Federal Government stepped in. Control of the western campus—home of the oldest building on the campus, the Center Building—was transferred to the General Services Administration in 2004. The GSA improved security around the campus, shored up roofs, and covered the windows with plywood in an attempt to preserve the campus until a tenant could be found.

After three years of searching for an occupant, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on March 20, 2007 that it would spend approximately US$4.1 billion to move its headquarters and most of its Washington-based offices to a new 4,500,000-square-foot (418,000 m2) facility on the site, beginning with the United States Coast Guard in 2010. DHS, whose operations are scattered around dozens of buildings in the Washington, D.C. area, hopes to consolidate at least 60 of its facilities at St. Elizabeths and to save $64 million per year in rental costs. DHS also hopes to improve employee morale and unity by having a central location from which to operate.

The plans to locate DHS to St. Elizabeths have been met with criticism, however. Historic preservationists argue that the move will destroy dozens of historic buildings located on the campus and that other alternatives should be considered.Community activists have also expressed concern that the planned high-security facility will not interact with the surrounding community and do little to revitalize the economically depressed area.

A ceremonial groundbreaking for the DHS consolidated headquarters took place at St. Elizabeths on September 11, 2009. The event was attended by Senator Joseph Lieberman, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, and acting GSA Administrator Paul Prouty.