Trade-Deficit Nonsense
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Do you ever wish that the federal government would stop publishing data on the so-called trade deficit? It would be one of the best things the government could ever do. At the very least, it would bring an end to the nonsensical obsessiveness over the trade deficit that characterizes so many mainstream economists.
The latest example of concern over the trade deficit comes from Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute and former counselor to the secretary of commerce in the Reagan administration. In a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, entitled “The All-Too-Real Costs of Free Trade to Average Americans,” Prestowitz argues that the trade deficit is a root cause of unemployment in America. Reflecting standard statist concern over “income inequality,” he says that the trade deficit is, in large part, responsible for that too.
Prestowitz writes that the problem is that the federal government continues to enter into “free-trade” agreements “that seem to open the U.S. market while leaving others relatively closed.” He says that President Obama should “balance” U.S. trade, which, he says, would create 5 million jobs and finally bring “full employment and greater equality” to America.
What a pile of economic nonsense! It’s really just an excuse to avoid confronting the central problem: the horrific damage that economic statism has done and continues to do to our nation.
Think about the trade deficit between my state of Virginia and your state. Are you concerned about it? Do you know which state has the favorable balance of trade and which one is on the unfavorable side? After all, the chances that trade between our respective states perfectly balances is pretty close to nil.
Do you pace the floors at night worry about that trade deficit? Do you toss and turn in your sleep wondering what you can do about it? Do you try to get more Virginians to visit your state and buy things there in order to shift the trade balance in your favor?
I’ll bet your answer to all those questions is: “Jacob, I don’t give a hoot what the trade deficit is between my state and yours. It makes no difference to me at all.”
And that’s precisely what would happen if the federal government stopped publishing data about the trade deficit between the United States and other countries. It wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever, just like it doesn’t make any difference what the trade deficit is between different states or, for that matter, different cities.
The real cause of America’s economic woes, including chronic unemployment, has nothing to do with any trade deficit. America’s woes, which economic statists will do anything to avoid confronting, are rooted in the type of economic system that modern-day Americans have chosen to embrace — one that is managed, directed, regulated, and manipulated by the federal government.
Prestowitz would undoubtedly call America’s economic system “capitalism.” That’s what statists have long called an economic system based on income taxation, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, economic regulations, minimum-wage laws, the drug war, immigration controls, trade restrictions, a Federal Reserve System, and fiat money, along with a massive warfare state that dominates economic activity in the United States and other parts of the world.
Libertarians know better. We understand that all that junk constitutes not a free-market system but rather a statist system. We also understand that it’s all that statism — that is, the heavy role that the federal government plays in economic activity — that is the root cause of America’s economic woes.
Consider chronic unemployment. Prestowitz says it’s because of the “trade deficit.” Really? What about the trade deficits that exist between the several states? Do those trade deficits cause unemployment too? Should we amend the Constitution to require each state to have a balance of trade with every other state?
It is economic interventionism and the federal government’s heavy role in the economy that is the root cause of unemployment. There are minimum-wage laws that lock out of the labor market everyone whose labor is valued by employers at less than the mandated minimum, including black teenagers, where the unemployment rate stays between 30 and 40 percent. Moreover, heavy income taxes across society to fund the ever-burgeoning expenditures of the public sector, both welfare and warfare, destroy existing businesses and prevent new businesses from coming into existence.
Prestowitz’s notion that the trade agreements that Washington enters into are “free trade” agreements is as palpably nonsensical as his obsessive concern over the trade deficit and income inequality. These agreements are the opposite of free trade. They are managed trade, managed by the central government. Genuine free trade is trade that is entirely free of government control and intervention. That’s why it’s called “free” trade. If Washington favored free trade, it wouldn’t enter into any trade agreement. It would simply drop all federal restrictions imposed on trade, unilaterally and immediately.
What should Americans do who would like to see a society based on liberty and prosperity, especially for those at the bottom of the economic ladder? They should reject the nonsense of economic statism, which has proven to be a disaster. And things are only getting worse, both from a liberty standpoint and an economic standpoint.
Americans should instead restore the principles of economic liberty, free markets, and a limited-government republic to which our American ancestors bequeathed to us. That means a dismantling, not a reform, of the welfare-warfare state way of life, including an abolition of the federal department that publishes the data on the trade deficit.
Link:
http://fff.org/2014/02/06/trade-deficit-nonsense/
Thursday, February 6, 2014
"Prestowitz would undoubtedly call America’s economic system “capitalism.” That’s what statists have long called an economic system based on income taxation, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, economic regulations, minimum-wage laws, the drug war, immigration controls, trade restrictions, a Federal Reserve System, and fiat money, along with a massive warfare state that dominates economic activity in the United States and other parts of the world. Libertarians know better. We understand that all that junk constitutes not a free-market system but rather a statist system. We also understand that it’s all that statism — that is, the heavy role that the federal government plays in economic activity — that is the root cause of America’s economic woes."
"This incident again highlights how some police officers think that their duty is not to protect and serve, but to ensure that all their orders, no matter how dangerous, illogical, or inane, are obeyed without question."
Cop Handcuffs Firefighter For Trying to Protect Crash Victims
“To detain one of our firefighters in the middle of an incident is ridiculous”
Paul Joseph Watson
Stunning video shows a California Highway Patrol officer handcuffing a firefighter who was trying to help victims of a serious car crash in Chula Vista.
San Diego, California News Station - KFMB Channel 8 - cbs8.com
The incident occurred on Tuesday night after a car overturned and another fell down an embankment on the 805 Freeway.
Chula Vista Firefighter Jacob Gregoire responded to the accident by following standard protocol of parking his fire truck in front of the crash scene to protect the victims as they were being treated and loaded into an ambulance.
However, when a CHP officer asked Gregoire to move the truck he refused and returned to helping the crash victims, prompting the officer to handcuff Gregoire and temporarily place him under arrest in front of a TV news camera.
“This is ridiculous. CHP is arresting engineer for where he spotted the fire engine,” states a voice on the Fire Department radio frequency. “We’re in the middle of patient care with patients on the freeway and we’re trying to protect our scene and they’re putting him in handcuffs at this time and walking him away.”
Gregoire was detained in a CHP squad car for half an hour before supervisors from both agencies arrived.
“It’s unbelievable that you guys have to treat us like this. We are on the road trying to help people,” states Gregoire as he is being handcuffed.
The CHP say they are investigating the incident but have refused to name the officer involved or say if he has been reprimanded.
“To detain one of our firefighters in the middle of an incident is ridiculous, and it doesn’t provide the good customer service, the good public service that both of our agencies were there to do,” said Chula Vista Fire Chief Dave Hanneman, adding, “He protected the scene, in this case protected the back of the ambulance where the patients had to go into.”
Representatives from the CHP and Chula Vista Fire Department met yesterday to discuss the incident and released a joint statement saying it would be “a topic of future joint training sessions, in an ongoing effort to work more efficiently together.”
San Diego, California News Station - KFMB Channel 8 - cbs8.com
President for Local IAFF 2180 John Hess told CBS 8, “I’m very proud of Jacob. He did a good job. He made all firefighters look good. He was there to protect the citizens and he was willing to take a stand to do that.”
“We are stunned,” said Fire Engineer John Hess, President of the Chula Vista Firefighters Union. “Our Engineer parked his vehicle consistent with our standards and training. We cannot imagine what possible explanation could be given to justify this conduct by the CHP officer. This removed a valuable fire apparatus and crew out of service for approximately one hour. This occurred at the same time another Fire Engine was moved to San Diego to support their fatality structure Fire. We had two districts without service for over an hour.”
This incident again highlights how some police officers think that their duty is not to protect and serve, but to ensure that all their orders, no matter how dangerous, illogical, or inane, are obeyed without question.
Recall the June 2009 incident when an Oklahoma police officer pulled over and assaulted an ambulance driver, despite the driver making it clear that he had a sick patient who needed to get to hospital.
We recently covered an even more harrowing story centered around a Missouri father who attempted to save his dying son from a burning house.
When the father refused to follow police orders not to enter the house in a vain attempt to rescue his son, a city police officer tased Ryan Miller three times. 3-year-old Riley Miller was later found dead near the doorway to his bedroom and the house was completely destroyed.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cop-handcuffs-firefighter-for-trying-to-protect-crash-victims.html
“To detain one of our firefighters in the middle of an incident is ridiculous”
Paul Joseph Watson
Stunning video shows a California Highway Patrol officer handcuffing a firefighter who was trying to help victims of a serious car crash in Chula Vista.
San Diego, California News Station - KFMB Channel 8 - cbs8.com
The incident occurred on Tuesday night after a car overturned and another fell down an embankment on the 805 Freeway.
Chula Vista Firefighter Jacob Gregoire responded to the accident by following standard protocol of parking his fire truck in front of the crash scene to protect the victims as they were being treated and loaded into an ambulance.
However, when a CHP officer asked Gregoire to move the truck he refused and returned to helping the crash victims, prompting the officer to handcuff Gregoire and temporarily place him under arrest in front of a TV news camera.
“This is ridiculous. CHP is arresting engineer for where he spotted the fire engine,” states a voice on the Fire Department radio frequency. “We’re in the middle of patient care with patients on the freeway and we’re trying to protect our scene and they’re putting him in handcuffs at this time and walking him away.”
Gregoire was detained in a CHP squad car for half an hour before supervisors from both agencies arrived.
“It’s unbelievable that you guys have to treat us like this. We are on the road trying to help people,” states Gregoire as he is being handcuffed.
The CHP say they are investigating the incident but have refused to name the officer involved or say if he has been reprimanded.
“To detain one of our firefighters in the middle of an incident is ridiculous, and it doesn’t provide the good customer service, the good public service that both of our agencies were there to do,” said Chula Vista Fire Chief Dave Hanneman, adding, “He protected the scene, in this case protected the back of the ambulance where the patients had to go into.”
Representatives from the CHP and Chula Vista Fire Department met yesterday to discuss the incident and released a joint statement saying it would be “a topic of future joint training sessions, in an ongoing effort to work more efficiently together.”
San Diego, California News Station - KFMB Channel 8 - cbs8.com
President for Local IAFF 2180 John Hess told CBS 8, “I’m very proud of Jacob. He did a good job. He made all firefighters look good. He was there to protect the citizens and he was willing to take a stand to do that.”
“We are stunned,” said Fire Engineer John Hess, President of the Chula Vista Firefighters Union. “Our Engineer parked his vehicle consistent with our standards and training. We cannot imagine what possible explanation could be given to justify this conduct by the CHP officer. This removed a valuable fire apparatus and crew out of service for approximately one hour. This occurred at the same time another Fire Engine was moved to San Diego to support their fatality structure Fire. We had two districts without service for over an hour.”
This incident again highlights how some police officers think that their duty is not to protect and serve, but to ensure that all their orders, no matter how dangerous, illogical, or inane, are obeyed without question.
Recall the June 2009 incident when an Oklahoma police officer pulled over and assaulted an ambulance driver, despite the driver making it clear that he had a sick patient who needed to get to hospital.
We recently covered an even more harrowing story centered around a Missouri father who attempted to save his dying son from a burning house.
When the father refused to follow police orders not to enter the house in a vain attempt to rescue his son, a city police officer tased Ryan Miller three times. 3-year-old Riley Miller was later found dead near the doorway to his bedroom and the house was completely destroyed.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cop-handcuffs-firefighter-for-trying-to-protect-crash-victims.html
"Ludwig von Mises and other free-market economists have long shown, socialism is inherently defective, meaning that nothing can be done to make it work. Mises called it “planned chaos,” the title of one of his books. What better term to describe situation in Afghanistan (and Iraq)?"
Military Socialism in Afghanistan
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman once pointed out that with the possible exception of the war on drugs, the U.S. military is the biggest socialist enterprise in the United States. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that when the military embarks on a rebuilding campaign for foreign countries it invades and destroys, among the first things it does is adopt socialist programs.
The latest example involves a massive road-building project in Afghanistan, which was detailed in Sunday’s Washington Post in an article entitled “After Billions in U.S. investment, Afghan Roads are Falling Apart.”
It turns out that not only are people dying in Afghanistan from drone attacks, suicide bombs, road mines, and shootings, they’re also dying from the U.S.-built road system. According to the Post, “In many places, the roads once deemed the hallmark of America’s development effort have turned into death traps, full of cars careening into massive bomb-blast craters or sliding off crumbling pavement.”
The Post states, “The United States almost immediately made road construction a top priority after the 2001 invasion—calling an effective network of highways and rural roads the key to both security and economic stability.”
Isn’t that just what we would expect from a large socialist enterprise such as the U.S. military? Among the first things it does to “rebuild” the nation that it destroys with its bombs, missiles, tanks, etc. is adopt a classic socialist program—roads and highways. Maybe they were thinking of the U.S. Interstate Highway System, a massive socialist public-works project that was modeled on the Autobahn system constructed by National Socialist Germany. (Not surprisingly, U.S. officials also love building dams, another public works project that has long been favored by socialist regimes.)
U.S. officials blame the Afghan road problems not on socialism but rather on Afghan officials. “There’s been nothing. No maintenance,” declared one U.S. official who preferred to stay anonymous because he hadn’t gotten permission to speak publicly on the matter. The Afghans say that they need U.S. money to do the maintenance. U.S. officials refuse to provide it because they say the Afghans are too incompetent to maintain the roads. Of course, another possibility is that U.S. officials know that the road maintenance money would end up in the pockets of Afghan officials.
What’s fascinating is that U.S. military officials really believe that socialism can be made to succeed, which is why they continue to embrace these socialist monstrosities. If the 20th century taught us anything, including in the Soviet Union, it’s that socialism is an utter failure. It has brought nothing but destitution, impoverishment, and lower standards of living for every nation that has ever tried it.
Equally important, as Ludwig von Mises and other free-market economists have long shown, socialism is inherently defective, meaning that nothing can be done to make it work. Mises called it “planned chaos,” the title of one of his books. What better term to describe situation in Afghanistan (and Iraq)?
But for socialists, hope springs eternal. Despite the manifest failure of every single one of its nation-building efforts (see Iraq), U.S. military officials continue to hope that one of their socialist programs—this one being a massive public-works road-building project—will finally succeed in rebuilding one of the nations it destroys with its invasions and occupations. It will never work.
The horrible part of U.S. invasions and occupations of foreign countries, of course, is the massive death and destruction that they wreak across the victimized nation.
The second tragedy comes as part of the U.S. military’s “rebuilding” of the new government. It has the new regime adopt a large military-intelligence establishment as the foundation of the new government, with officials having the unfettered power to arrest and detain people, the omnipotent power to search people’s homes, persons, and businesses without judicial warrants, to confiscate guns, torture prisoners, establish surveillance schemes on the citizenry, and so forth. It goes without saying that all of these programs violate the limited-government, due-process principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The third tragedy comes with the socialist economic programs that the U.S. military imposes on the occupied nation, programs that are antithetical to the founding principles of private property, free markets, and limited government on which America was founded. Massive public works projects, such as highway-building and dam-building campaigns, are examples.
So, there you have it: The U.S. military stomps around the world showing everyone what America stands for: militarism, imperialism, and socialism rather than private property, free markets, and limited government.
Americans deserve better. So does the world.
Link:
http://fff.org/2014/02/03/dont-forget-financial-privacy/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman once pointed out that with the possible exception of the war on drugs, the U.S. military is the biggest socialist enterprise in the United States. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that when the military embarks on a rebuilding campaign for foreign countries it invades and destroys, among the first things it does is adopt socialist programs.
The latest example involves a massive road-building project in Afghanistan, which was detailed in Sunday’s Washington Post in an article entitled “After Billions in U.S. investment, Afghan Roads are Falling Apart.”
It turns out that not only are people dying in Afghanistan from drone attacks, suicide bombs, road mines, and shootings, they’re also dying from the U.S.-built road system. According to the Post, “In many places, the roads once deemed the hallmark of America’s development effort have turned into death traps, full of cars careening into massive bomb-blast craters or sliding off crumbling pavement.”
The Post states, “The United States almost immediately made road construction a top priority after the 2001 invasion—calling an effective network of highways and rural roads the key to both security and economic stability.”
Isn’t that just what we would expect from a large socialist enterprise such as the U.S. military? Among the first things it does to “rebuild” the nation that it destroys with its bombs, missiles, tanks, etc. is adopt a classic socialist program—roads and highways. Maybe they were thinking of the U.S. Interstate Highway System, a massive socialist public-works project that was modeled on the Autobahn system constructed by National Socialist Germany. (Not surprisingly, U.S. officials also love building dams, another public works project that has long been favored by socialist regimes.)
U.S. officials blame the Afghan road problems not on socialism but rather on Afghan officials. “There’s been nothing. No maintenance,” declared one U.S. official who preferred to stay anonymous because he hadn’t gotten permission to speak publicly on the matter. The Afghans say that they need U.S. money to do the maintenance. U.S. officials refuse to provide it because they say the Afghans are too incompetent to maintain the roads. Of course, another possibility is that U.S. officials know that the road maintenance money would end up in the pockets of Afghan officials.
What’s fascinating is that U.S. military officials really believe that socialism can be made to succeed, which is why they continue to embrace these socialist monstrosities. If the 20th century taught us anything, including in the Soviet Union, it’s that socialism is an utter failure. It has brought nothing but destitution, impoverishment, and lower standards of living for every nation that has ever tried it.
Equally important, as Ludwig von Mises and other free-market economists have long shown, socialism is inherently defective, meaning that nothing can be done to make it work. Mises called it “planned chaos,” the title of one of his books. What better term to describe situation in Afghanistan (and Iraq)?
But for socialists, hope springs eternal. Despite the manifest failure of every single one of its nation-building efforts (see Iraq), U.S. military officials continue to hope that one of their socialist programs—this one being a massive public-works road-building project—will finally succeed in rebuilding one of the nations it destroys with its invasions and occupations. It will never work.
The horrible part of U.S. invasions and occupations of foreign countries, of course, is the massive death and destruction that they wreak across the victimized nation.
The second tragedy comes as part of the U.S. military’s “rebuilding” of the new government. It has the new regime adopt a large military-intelligence establishment as the foundation of the new government, with officials having the unfettered power to arrest and detain people, the omnipotent power to search people’s homes, persons, and businesses without judicial warrants, to confiscate guns, torture prisoners, establish surveillance schemes on the citizenry, and so forth. It goes without saying that all of these programs violate the limited-government, due-process principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The third tragedy comes with the socialist economic programs that the U.S. military imposes on the occupied nation, programs that are antithetical to the founding principles of private property, free markets, and limited government on which America was founded. Massive public works projects, such as highway-building and dam-building campaigns, are examples.
So, there you have it: The U.S. military stomps around the world showing everyone what America stands for: militarism, imperialism, and socialism rather than private property, free markets, and limited government.
Americans deserve better. So does the world.
Link:
http://fff.org/2014/02/03/dont-forget-financial-privacy/
"Moscow is fully aware that Al Qaeda is an instrument of Western intelligence. And Moscow is also aware that the US is covertly supporting terror groups which threaten the security of the Olympic Games."
The Sochi Olympic Games and the Threat of a Terrorist Attack. Who is Behind the Caucasus Terrorists?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
In the weeks leading up to the Sochi Winter Olympics, the Western Media has released a dribble of “trustworthy reports” examining “the likelihood” of a terrorist attack at the height of the Olympic games.
In late January, the British government warned “that more terrorist attacks in Russia (following the Volgograd attack in December) are “very likely to occur before or during the Winter Olympics in Sochi”. (BBC, January 27, 2014).
As the Olympic torch reaches Sochi, CNN released, in a timely fashion, the results of an “authoritative” opinion poll (based on a meager sample of 1000 individuals): “57% of Americans think terror attack likely at Sochi Games”
Earlier news reports focussed on the mysterious menace of a so-called “Black Widow” terrorist attack emanating from Chechnya, Russia’s hotspot of Islamic terrorism. According to a so-called “catastrophe expert” Dr Gordon Woo, a Black Widow attack “is almost certain to happen”:
“Because of the history between the Russians and the Chechen people who splintered to form the Caucasus Emirate, Sochi is a prime target for terrorism,” said Woo, who has advanced insurance modelling of catastrophes, including designing a model for terrorism risk. (Business Times, UK)
The Sochi Games are occurring at the height of a Worldwide crisis marked by the confrontation between the US and Russia on the geopolitical chessboard. In turn, the ongoing protest movement in Ukraine has a bearing on Russia’s geopolitical control of the Black Sea.
What would be the underlying political objective of a terrorist attack?
Are these slanted media reports solely intended to create an aura of fear and uncertainty which causes political embarrassment to the Russian authorities?
While network TV and the tabloids have their eyes riveted on the Black Widow, the more fundamental question as to Who is behind the Caucasus terrorists goes unmentioned.
None of the news reports has focused on the fundamental question which is required in assessing the terror threat.
Both the history of Al Qaeda as well as recent developments in Syria and Libya confirm unequivocally that the Al Qaeda network is covertly supported by Western intelligence.
History: Who is Behind the Chechen Terrorists?
What are the historical origins of the Chechen jihadists, which are now allegedly threatening the Sochi Games? Who is behind them?
In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US waged a covert war against Russia. The objective was to promote the secession of Chechnya, a “renegade autonomous region” of the Russian Federation, at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.
This was a covert intelligence operation. The main Chechen rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were trained and indoctrinated in CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The two main Chechen jihadist formations, affiliated to Al Qaeda were estimated at 35,000 strong. They were supported by Pakistan’s Military intelligence (ISI) on behalf of the CIA; funding was also channeled to Chechnya through the Wahabbi missions from Saudi Arabia.
The ISI played a key role in organizing and training the Chechnya rebel army:
“[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers (Levon Sevunts, “Who’s Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.)
Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. (Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, “Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo”, Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000)
The Geopolitics of the Sochi Winter Olympics
The Sochi Olympics are at a strategic location on the Black Sea at the crossroads of Russia’s oil and gas pipelines.
The forbidden question (both by the West as well as by the Russian government) in addressing the possibility of a terror attack is: Who is behind the Terrorists?
While the US sponsored Chechen rebels were defeated in the 1990s by Russian forces, various Al Qaeda affiliated formations –including the “Caucasus Emirate militant group, Imarat Kavkaz (IK) — remain active in the Southern Caucasus region of the Russian Federation (e.g. Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia and Abkhazia).
Both the Russian based Al Qaeda groups as well as the broader network of jihadist formations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans constitute CIA “intelligence assets” which could potentially be used to trigger a terrorist event at the height of the Sochi Olympics.
Needless to say, Moscow is fully aware that Al Qaeda is an instrument of Western intelligence. And Moscow is also aware that the US is covertly supporting terror groups which threaten the security of the Olympic Games.
Within the Russian military and intelligence establishment, this is known, documented and discussed behind closed doors. Yet at the same time, it is a “forbidden truth”. It is taboo to talk about it in public or to raise it at the diplomatic level. Washington knows that Moscow knows: “I know you know I know”.
The more fundamental questions which both the Russian and Western media are not addressing for obvious reasons:
■Who is behind the Caucasus terrorists?
■What geopolitical interests would be served, were the US and its allies to decide to trigger a “False Flag” terror event before or during the Sochi Olympic Games?
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sochi-olympic-games-and-the-threat-of-a-terrorist-attack-who-is-behind-the-caucasus-terrorists/5367601
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
In the weeks leading up to the Sochi Winter Olympics, the Western Media has released a dribble of “trustworthy reports” examining “the likelihood” of a terrorist attack at the height of the Olympic games.
In late January, the British government warned “that more terrorist attacks in Russia (following the Volgograd attack in December) are “very likely to occur before or during the Winter Olympics in Sochi”. (BBC, January 27, 2014).
As the Olympic torch reaches Sochi, CNN released, in a timely fashion, the results of an “authoritative” opinion poll (based on a meager sample of 1000 individuals): “57% of Americans think terror attack likely at Sochi Games”
Earlier news reports focussed on the mysterious menace of a so-called “Black Widow” terrorist attack emanating from Chechnya, Russia’s hotspot of Islamic terrorism. According to a so-called “catastrophe expert” Dr Gordon Woo, a Black Widow attack “is almost certain to happen”:
“Because of the history between the Russians and the Chechen people who splintered to form the Caucasus Emirate, Sochi is a prime target for terrorism,” said Woo, who has advanced insurance modelling of catastrophes, including designing a model for terrorism risk. (Business Times, UK)
The Sochi Games are occurring at the height of a Worldwide crisis marked by the confrontation between the US and Russia on the geopolitical chessboard. In turn, the ongoing protest movement in Ukraine has a bearing on Russia’s geopolitical control of the Black Sea.
What would be the underlying political objective of a terrorist attack?
Are these slanted media reports solely intended to create an aura of fear and uncertainty which causes political embarrassment to the Russian authorities?
While network TV and the tabloids have their eyes riveted on the Black Widow, the more fundamental question as to Who is behind the Caucasus terrorists goes unmentioned.
None of the news reports has focused on the fundamental question which is required in assessing the terror threat.
Both the history of Al Qaeda as well as recent developments in Syria and Libya confirm unequivocally that the Al Qaeda network is covertly supported by Western intelligence.
History: Who is Behind the Chechen Terrorists?
What are the historical origins of the Chechen jihadists, which are now allegedly threatening the Sochi Games? Who is behind them?
In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US waged a covert war against Russia. The objective was to promote the secession of Chechnya, a “renegade autonomous region” of the Russian Federation, at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.
This was a covert intelligence operation. The main Chechen rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were trained and indoctrinated in CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The two main Chechen jihadist formations, affiliated to Al Qaeda were estimated at 35,000 strong. They were supported by Pakistan’s Military intelligence (ISI) on behalf of the CIA; funding was also channeled to Chechnya through the Wahabbi missions from Saudi Arabia.
The ISI played a key role in organizing and training the Chechnya rebel army:
“[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers (Levon Sevunts, “Who’s Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.)
Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. (Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, “Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo”, Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000)
The Geopolitics of the Sochi Winter Olympics
The Sochi Olympics are at a strategic location on the Black Sea at the crossroads of Russia’s oil and gas pipelines.
The forbidden question (both by the West as well as by the Russian government) in addressing the possibility of a terror attack is: Who is behind the Terrorists?
While the US sponsored Chechen rebels were defeated in the 1990s by Russian forces, various Al Qaeda affiliated formations –including the “Caucasus Emirate militant group, Imarat Kavkaz (IK) — remain active in the Southern Caucasus region of the Russian Federation (e.g. Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia and Abkhazia).
Both the Russian based Al Qaeda groups as well as the broader network of jihadist formations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans constitute CIA “intelligence assets” which could potentially be used to trigger a terrorist event at the height of the Sochi Olympics.
Needless to say, Moscow is fully aware that Al Qaeda is an instrument of Western intelligence. And Moscow is also aware that the US is covertly supporting terror groups which threaten the security of the Olympic Games.
Within the Russian military and intelligence establishment, this is known, documented and discussed behind closed doors. Yet at the same time, it is a “forbidden truth”. It is taboo to talk about it in public or to raise it at the diplomatic level. Washington knows that Moscow knows: “I know you know I know”.
The more fundamental questions which both the Russian and Western media are not addressing for obvious reasons:
■Who is behind the Caucasus terrorists?
■What geopolitical interests would be served, were the US and its allies to decide to trigger a “False Flag” terror event before or during the Sochi Olympic Games?
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sochi-olympic-games-and-the-threat-of-a-terrorist-attack-who-is-behind-the-caucasus-terrorists/5367601
These peolple are destroying our constitutional government. Does anyone care???
Congresswoman: Drafting Executive Orders Is Congress' “Number One Agenda”
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) told a meeting of the new Congressional Full Employment Caucus January 29 that the chief job of Congress in the coming months should be to draft executive orders for President Obama to sign instead of Congress passing laws themselves, as required by the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers doctrine.
Rep. Lee stated:
We have a dream that is attainable, Mr. Conyers.... People need work, and we're not doing right by them to creating work. I believe this caucus will put us on the right path. And we will give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength. In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let's write up these executive orders — draft them, of course — and ask the President to stand with us on full employment.
Congresswoman Lee's “number one agenda” should instead be following her oath to “support and defend” the U.S. Constitution, which does not allow the president to legislate by executive order. Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If “all” legislative power rests in Congress, then it stands to reason that none remains for the President. The president has no authority for “creating work” outside of any law passed by Congress. Shockingly, Lee's suggestion that the role of the legislature should be that of an advisor toward presidential legislating-by-executive-decree mirrors exactly the legislative plan outlined by Adolf Hitler in his autobiography, Mein Kampf. In that book, Hitler wrote that the executive branch would be in control of the legislative and executive functions of government while the legislative branch should be relegated to a mere advisory role in which the executive would make the laws:
[O]ne will not be able to do without those corporations which today we call parliaments. Their councilors will then actually give counsel, but responsibility can and must be borne always only by one man and thus he alone can and must have the authority and right of command.
Hitler's view was that there should be an executive with total power and control, without interference from an elected legislature. The Nazi Party, Hitler wrote, “rejects a principle of a decision by the majority, by which the leader is degraded to the position of the executive of the will and the opinion of the others. The movement, in small things as well as big things, represents the principle of a Germanic democracy: choice of the leader, but absolute authority of the latter.”
Father of the Constitution James Madison explained in The Federalist, No. 47, that the American Republic was founded upon the opposite principle of separation of powers: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In that Federalist paper, Madison quotes enlightenment-era theorist Charles Montesquieu, who wrote in his book The Spirit of the Laws: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.”
The Madison/Montesquieu model flatly contradicts Hitler's model in Mein Kampf, which stated that “He who wants to be the leader bears, with the highest, unrestricted authority, also the ultimate and the most serious responsibility.” Obviously, these two paths of governance lead to widely divergent results with respect to human rights and liberty.
Presidential candidate Obama pledged in 2008 not to use executive orders and “signing statements” as a means of doing an “end run around Congress.” Then-Senator Obama condemned the idea that a president “can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
But President Obama has taken a different path. He has increasingly adopted Hitler's model of governance while rejecting the Madisonian model he once championed on the campaign trail as senator. In his January 28 State of the Union address this year, Obama repeatedly claimed the authority to legislate through executive order when Congress refuses to do so. On Congress' refusal to raise the national minimum wage, Obama announced:
And as a chief executive, I intend to lead by example. Profitable corporations like Costco see higher wages as the smart way to boost productivity and reduce turnover. We should too. In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.
In the same address, Obama also pledged to “slash bureaucracy” and to create by executive fiat a retirement vehicle he called “MyRA.”
Obama failed to cite any congressionally authorized statute for legal authority to issue any of the above mandates. Of course, Congress should be furious that the president is usurping their exclusive legislative role — and some members of Congress are furious. But Obama's policy of legislation-by-executive-order has now found a champion in the person of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/17565-congresswoman-drafting-executive-orders-is-congress-number-one-agenda
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) told a meeting of the new Congressional Full Employment Caucus January 29 that the chief job of Congress in the coming months should be to draft executive orders for President Obama to sign instead of Congress passing laws themselves, as required by the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers doctrine.
Rep. Lee stated:
We have a dream that is attainable, Mr. Conyers.... People need work, and we're not doing right by them to creating work. I believe this caucus will put us on the right path. And we will give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength. In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let's write up these executive orders — draft them, of course — and ask the President to stand with us on full employment.
Congresswoman Lee's “number one agenda” should instead be following her oath to “support and defend” the U.S. Constitution, which does not allow the president to legislate by executive order. Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If “all” legislative power rests in Congress, then it stands to reason that none remains for the President. The president has no authority for “creating work” outside of any law passed by Congress. Shockingly, Lee's suggestion that the role of the legislature should be that of an advisor toward presidential legislating-by-executive-decree mirrors exactly the legislative plan outlined by Adolf Hitler in his autobiography, Mein Kampf. In that book, Hitler wrote that the executive branch would be in control of the legislative and executive functions of government while the legislative branch should be relegated to a mere advisory role in which the executive would make the laws:
[O]ne will not be able to do without those corporations which today we call parliaments. Their councilors will then actually give counsel, but responsibility can and must be borne always only by one man and thus he alone can and must have the authority and right of command.
Hitler's view was that there should be an executive with total power and control, without interference from an elected legislature. The Nazi Party, Hitler wrote, “rejects a principle of a decision by the majority, by which the leader is degraded to the position of the executive of the will and the opinion of the others. The movement, in small things as well as big things, represents the principle of a Germanic democracy: choice of the leader, but absolute authority of the latter.”
Father of the Constitution James Madison explained in The Federalist, No. 47, that the American Republic was founded upon the opposite principle of separation of powers: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” In that Federalist paper, Madison quotes enlightenment-era theorist Charles Montesquieu, who wrote in his book The Spirit of the Laws: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.”
The Madison/Montesquieu model flatly contradicts Hitler's model in Mein Kampf, which stated that “He who wants to be the leader bears, with the highest, unrestricted authority, also the ultimate and the most serious responsibility.” Obviously, these two paths of governance lead to widely divergent results with respect to human rights and liberty.
Presidential candidate Obama pledged in 2008 not to use executive orders and “signing statements” as a means of doing an “end run around Congress.” Then-Senator Obama condemned the idea that a president “can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”
But President Obama has taken a different path. He has increasingly adopted Hitler's model of governance while rejecting the Madisonian model he once championed on the campaign trail as senator. In his January 28 State of the Union address this year, Obama repeatedly claimed the authority to legislate through executive order when Congress refuses to do so. On Congress' refusal to raise the national minimum wage, Obama announced:
And as a chief executive, I intend to lead by example. Profitable corporations like Costco see higher wages as the smart way to boost productivity and reduce turnover. We should too. In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.
In the same address, Obama also pledged to “slash bureaucracy” and to create by executive fiat a retirement vehicle he called “MyRA.”
Obama failed to cite any congressionally authorized statute for legal authority to issue any of the above mandates. Of course, Congress should be furious that the president is usurping their exclusive legislative role — and some members of Congress are furious. But Obama's policy of legislation-by-executive-order has now found a champion in the person of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/17565-congresswoman-drafting-executive-orders-is-congress-number-one-agenda
OOPS!!! While America freezes...
Obama’s ‘Climate Action Plan’ Directs Officials to Act, ‘Not Wait for Congress, Not Wait for Laws to Be Passed’
Fred Lucas
Continuing the Obama administration’s shunning of Congress, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack heralded the unilateral establishment “climate hubs” across the country.
“These climate action hubs are really part of the president’s climate action plan and its directive of us to actually act, not wait for Congress, not wait for laws to be passed, but to do it on our own,” Vilsack said at the White House Wednesday.
Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change will be located in seven locations around the country, Vilsack told reporters. He said farmers and ranchers have a direct interest in combating climate change because of the adverse impacts of storms and droughts on land.
The climate hubs are supposed to address and mitigate the risks fires, invasive pests, floods and droughts on a regional basis to assist farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The hubs are also designed to link a network of universities, non-governmental organizations and federal agencies such as the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and state agencies.
Responding to a question about being dismissive of Congress, Vilsack stressed that the administration worked with Congress to push the recent farm bill through which President Barack Obama is set to sign.
“As the president has said repeatedly, if there is an opportunity to work with Congress, we will work with Congress, and we did,” Vilsack said. “We’ve been waiting a while for Congress to work on climate. Fair enough. There are multiple reasons why they haven’t. But in the meantime, we’re going to take action because 51 percent of the land mass of the United States is a lot of land. It’s over 1.2 billion acres of land.”
He added, “I think we’re trying to work with Congress when we can and when they can’t or won’t, we’re going to continue to act. That’s what I think the American public wants us to do.”
The theme of Obama’s State of the Union address last week was his pledge to use his executive authority whenever possible to get things done when Congress won’t act on his policies.
The Midwest hub will Ames, Iowa, a state where Vilsack was formerly governor. A “sub-hub” for the Midwest will be in Houghton, Mich. The Northeast hub will be in Durham, N.H. The Southeast hub will be in Raleigh, N.C., with that region’s “sub-hub” in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
The Northern Plains hub will be in Fort Collins, Colo. The Southern Plains hub will be in El Reno, Okla. The Pacific Northwest hub will be in Corvallis, Ore. The Southwest hub will be in Les Cruces, N.M., with that region’s “sub-hub” in Davis, Calif.
According to the USDA, the fire season is 60 days longer than it was 30 years ago, posing a greater risk to forest. The USDA is projecting an increased threat of insect outbreaks, fire, drought and storms over the next 50 years. Droughts were estimated to cost the U.S. about $50 billion from 2011 to 2013, according to the USDA.
“What impacts agriculture and forestry matters,” Vilsack said. “We’ve obviously seeing a significant number of severe storms, very early snow storms that devastated live stock in the Dakotas, the recent drought in California, which is now going into its third year but now is very intense, is a reflection of the changing weather patterns that will indeed impact and affect crop production, live stock production, as well as an expansion of pests and diseases that could compromise agriculture and forestry.”
Link:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/obamas-climate-action-plan-directs-officials-to-act-not-wait-for-congress-not-wait-for-laws-to-be-passed/
Fred Lucas
Continuing the Obama administration’s shunning of Congress, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack heralded the unilateral establishment “climate hubs” across the country.
“These climate action hubs are really part of the president’s climate action plan and its directive of us to actually act, not wait for Congress, not wait for laws to be passed, but to do it on our own,” Vilsack said at the White House Wednesday.
Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change will be located in seven locations around the country, Vilsack told reporters. He said farmers and ranchers have a direct interest in combating climate change because of the adverse impacts of storms and droughts on land.
The climate hubs are supposed to address and mitigate the risks fires, invasive pests, floods and droughts on a regional basis to assist farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The hubs are also designed to link a network of universities, non-governmental organizations and federal agencies such as the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and state agencies.
Responding to a question about being dismissive of Congress, Vilsack stressed that the administration worked with Congress to push the recent farm bill through which President Barack Obama is set to sign.
“As the president has said repeatedly, if there is an opportunity to work with Congress, we will work with Congress, and we did,” Vilsack said. “We’ve been waiting a while for Congress to work on climate. Fair enough. There are multiple reasons why they haven’t. But in the meantime, we’re going to take action because 51 percent of the land mass of the United States is a lot of land. It’s over 1.2 billion acres of land.”
He added, “I think we’re trying to work with Congress when we can and when they can’t or won’t, we’re going to continue to act. That’s what I think the American public wants us to do.”
The theme of Obama’s State of the Union address last week was his pledge to use his executive authority whenever possible to get things done when Congress won’t act on his policies.
The Midwest hub will Ames, Iowa, a state where Vilsack was formerly governor. A “sub-hub” for the Midwest will be in Houghton, Mich. The Northeast hub will be in Durham, N.H. The Southeast hub will be in Raleigh, N.C., with that region’s “sub-hub” in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
The Northern Plains hub will be in Fort Collins, Colo. The Southern Plains hub will be in El Reno, Okla. The Pacific Northwest hub will be in Corvallis, Ore. The Southwest hub will be in Les Cruces, N.M., with that region’s “sub-hub” in Davis, Calif.
According to the USDA, the fire season is 60 days longer than it was 30 years ago, posing a greater risk to forest. The USDA is projecting an increased threat of insect outbreaks, fire, drought and storms over the next 50 years. Droughts were estimated to cost the U.S. about $50 billion from 2011 to 2013, according to the USDA.
“What impacts agriculture and forestry matters,” Vilsack said. “We’ve obviously seeing a significant number of severe storms, very early snow storms that devastated live stock in the Dakotas, the recent drought in California, which is now going into its third year but now is very intense, is a reflection of the changing weather patterns that will indeed impact and affect crop production, live stock production, as well as an expansion of pests and diseases that could compromise agriculture and forestry.”
Link:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/05/obamas-climate-action-plan-directs-officials-to-act-not-wait-for-congress-not-wait-for-laws-to-be-passed/
OOPS!!!
Global warming actually decreases storm activity, says science paper
by: J. D. Heyes
Current weather patterns are changing, we are constantly told by everyone from President Obama during his most recent State of the Union Address on down through various academic circles. And few of us dispute that; weather, after all, changes over time, as Earth's meteorological history attests.
But change isn't necessarily a bad thing, for one. For another, violently changing weather patterns are not indicative of human global warming activity, for if that were the case, new scientific weather findings would not be possible.
According to a paper just published in the Quaternary Science Reviews, a journal featuring peer-reviewed research on paleoclimatology, geology, soil science and other geographic and meteorological disciplines, which reconstructs storm activity in Iceland over the past 12 centuries, finds that extreme weather variability and intensive storm activity was far more common during the Little Ice Age than it was during the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century.
This, of course, is just the opposite of what global warming alarmists would have you believe.
The findings, however, are in line with earlier studies, which essentially reached the same conclusions. A 2011 paper presented in Bern, Germany, at the International Union for Quaternary Science conference in July of that year "reconstructs storm activity over the past 7000 years along the French Mediterranean coast and finds that global warming during the Medieval Warming Period was 'characterized by low storm activity' in comparison to cold periods such as the Little Ice Age. The paper concludes that cold periods increase storm activity because of the increase in thermal gradient between the tropics and poles," the weather pattern analysis website HockeySchtick.com reported.
That study also concluded that "the Medieval Climate Anomaly was characterized by low storm activity," not the kind of violent activity being blamed on global warming today.
Storm violence worse during periods of cooling, not warming
In an abstract of the 2011 study, the authors wrote:
These evidences for high storm activity in the NW Mediterranean Sea are in agreement with the changes in coastal hydrodynamics observed over the North Atlantic and correspond to Holocene cooling periods in the North Atlantic. Periods of low SSTs observed in this area may have led to a stronger meridional temperature gradient and a southward migration of the westerlies during these periods. We hypothesize that the increase in storm activity during Holocene cold events over the North Atlantic and Mediterranean regions was probably due to an increase in the thermal gradient that led to an enhanced lower tropospheric baroclinicity over a large Central Atlantic-European domain.
Before the left-leaning scientific community was convinced that the world is getting warmer - thanks, of course, to Mankind's activities - they believed that we were about to enter a new Ice Age. In the mid-1970s, all the rage was global cooling.
Just food for thought the next time you hear our president - or any climate "expert" - claim that severe storms like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina are the result of manmade global warming cycles; research proves just the opposite is true.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043796_global_warming_storm_activity_climate_change.html#ixzz2sYOEkzAT
by: J. D. Heyes
Current weather patterns are changing, we are constantly told by everyone from President Obama during his most recent State of the Union Address on down through various academic circles. And few of us dispute that; weather, after all, changes over time, as Earth's meteorological history attests.
But change isn't necessarily a bad thing, for one. For another, violently changing weather patterns are not indicative of human global warming activity, for if that were the case, new scientific weather findings would not be possible.
According to a paper just published in the Quaternary Science Reviews, a journal featuring peer-reviewed research on paleoclimatology, geology, soil science and other geographic and meteorological disciplines, which reconstructs storm activity in Iceland over the past 12 centuries, finds that extreme weather variability and intensive storm activity was far more common during the Little Ice Age than it was during the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century.
This, of course, is just the opposite of what global warming alarmists would have you believe.
The findings, however, are in line with earlier studies, which essentially reached the same conclusions. A 2011 paper presented in Bern, Germany, at the International Union for Quaternary Science conference in July of that year "reconstructs storm activity over the past 7000 years along the French Mediterranean coast and finds that global warming during the Medieval Warming Period was 'characterized by low storm activity' in comparison to cold periods such as the Little Ice Age. The paper concludes that cold periods increase storm activity because of the increase in thermal gradient between the tropics and poles," the weather pattern analysis website HockeySchtick.com reported.
That study also concluded that "the Medieval Climate Anomaly was characterized by low storm activity," not the kind of violent activity being blamed on global warming today.
Storm violence worse during periods of cooling, not warming
In an abstract of the 2011 study, the authors wrote:
These evidences for high storm activity in the NW Mediterranean Sea are in agreement with the changes in coastal hydrodynamics observed over the North Atlantic and correspond to Holocene cooling periods in the North Atlantic. Periods of low SSTs observed in this area may have led to a stronger meridional temperature gradient and a southward migration of the westerlies during these periods. We hypothesize that the increase in storm activity during Holocene cold events over the North Atlantic and Mediterranean regions was probably due to an increase in the thermal gradient that led to an enhanced lower tropospheric baroclinicity over a large Central Atlantic-European domain.
Before the left-leaning scientific community was convinced that the world is getting warmer - thanks, of course, to Mankind's activities - they believed that we were about to enter a new Ice Age. In the mid-1970s, all the rage was global cooling.
Just food for thought the next time you hear our president - or any climate "expert" - claim that severe storms like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina are the result of manmade global warming cycles; research proves just the opposite is true.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043796_global_warming_storm_activity_climate_change.html#ixzz2sYOEkzAT
"But again, the Affordable Care Act - not-so-aptly named, because for tens of millions of Americans, it isn't so affordable - is not living up to its promises of cutting costs and abating medical care-induced financial hardship."
by: J. D. Heyes
One of Obamacare's "selling points" - and yes, there were many - was that the cost of healthcare would come down. That is, the cost of actual care that Americans would have to pay out-of-pocket, as well as the prices that people pay for healthcare delivery.
As you are aware, especially if you're a regular Natural News reader, there isn't much about Obamacare that has reduced prices - prices for insurance premiums, level of deductibles and most certainly the cost of healthcare delivery. Still, the president, during his State of the Union Address, and his administration have said that Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to rise less than they otherwise would have. That claim is dubious, at best, but it still, at least, admits the obvious: Costs are continuing to rise, and Obamacare, once claimed by its supporters as the only way to get costs and prices under control, is failing miserably at this as well.
This was substantiated by a recent report from federal researchers, who found, as reported by NBC News, that more than one-quarter of U.S. families are still burdened by having to pay for medical care. Indeed, they found, one in six struggle to pay their healthcare bills (a phenomenon that will only increase as deductibles in Obamacare-approved healthcare plans go up):
The 2010 Affordable Care Act is designed to reduce the burden by getting health insurance to more Americans. But the report from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that even families with health insurance can struggle to pay bills.
The figures don't lie - healthcare costs still burdening families
"In 2012, 26.8 percent of families in the United States experienced any financial burden of medical care," the NCHS team said in its report. "Almost 1 in 6 families (16.5 percent) had problems paying medical bills in the past 12 months."
Almost 9 percent of Americans said they had medical bills they could not even pay.
The government team examined results from a very large national survey of more than 43,000 families involving 108,000 people. They found, for one, that having children typically leads to more medical bills.
"One in three families with children (36 percent) experienced any financial burden of medical care," the NCHS team reported. That is in comparison with 25 percent of families with two adults and no children.
The research team discovered that families who have a mix of insured and non-insured members have the hardest time paying medical bills, as noted by NBC News:
The survey found trouble paying bills among 46 percent of families in which some members had insurance - for instance, a child covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program but whose parents had no insurance. And 40 percent of families with no health insurance at all reported financial burden.
And, even in families where all members were covered under private insurance, medical bills still caused some hardships; 21 percent said they had some financial burden from medical care.
Don't believe the hype from the law's supporters
One of the administration's biggest selling points for Obamacare was that too many American families face bankruptcy each year because of medical bills that they cannot pay. Other reports back this up; they say nearly half of all personal bankruptcies stem from costly illnesses.
But again, the Affordable Care Act - not-so-aptly named, because for tens of millions of Americans, it isn't so affordable - is not living up to its promises of cutting costs and abating medical care-induced financial hardship.
As noted by Charles Blahous, who is a senior research fellow for the Mercatus Center, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution and a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, Obamacare is not reducing costs:
Public confidence in the ACA took a beating when it was revealed that millions would lose health coverage that they had been told they could keep. Now the public is being told that the ACA is responsible for government actuaries' improved health spending projections, when an examination of those projections clearly shows that not to be so.
Supporters of the ACA, the president and his policy team will continue to tout the law as helping to reduce healthcare costs. Don't be surprised if they even trot out a few "success stories" to bolster their claim.
But analysts and experts who are looking at the issue through a non-partisan lens, as they should, know better.
And so do the scores of millions of Americans who are still struggling with healthcare costs.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043807_Obamacare_medical_bills_healthcare_costs.html#ixzz2sYNVKyz6
Spy Agency Engaged In Internet “False Flag” Attacks
Washington’s Blog
We’ve warned since 2009 (and see this) that the government could be launching cyber “false flag attacks” in order to justify a crackdown on the Internet and discredit web activists.
A new report from NBC News – based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden – appear to confirm our fears, documenting that Britain’s GCHQ spy agency has carried out cyber false flag attacks:
In another document taken from the NSA by Snowden and obtained by NBC News, a JTRIG official said the unit’s mission included computer network attacks, disruption, “Active Covert Internet Operations,” and “Covert Technical Operations.” Among the methods listed in the document were jamming phones, computers and email accounts and masquerading as an enemy in a “false flag” operation. The same document said GCHQ was increasing its emphasis on using cyber tools to attack adversaries.
Postscript: We await further revelations of “false flag” attacks by spy agencies.
Link:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/nsa-engaged-internet-false-flag-attacks.html
Washington’s Blog
We’ve warned since 2009 (and see this) that the government could be launching cyber “false flag attacks” in order to justify a crackdown on the Internet and discredit web activists.
A new report from NBC News – based on documents leaked by Edward Snowden – appear to confirm our fears, documenting that Britain’s GCHQ spy agency has carried out cyber false flag attacks:
In another document taken from the NSA by Snowden and obtained by NBC News, a JTRIG official said the unit’s mission included computer network attacks, disruption, “Active Covert Internet Operations,” and “Covert Technical Operations.” Among the methods listed in the document were jamming phones, computers and email accounts and masquerading as an enemy in a “false flag” operation. The same document said GCHQ was increasing its emphasis on using cyber tools to attack adversaries.
Postscript: We await further revelations of “false flag” attacks by spy agencies.
Link:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/nsa-engaged-internet-false-flag-attacks.html
The libertarian answer man...
Libertarian Answers
By Laurence M. Vance
Echoing George Wallace, it has been said many times that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between liberals and conservatives. This is even usually true when the focus is on the most liberal liberals and the most conservative conservatives. The similarity may not be apparent on the surface, but once you compare both groups to libertarians it becomes perfectly clear.
The answers that libertarians give to questions debated by liberals and conservatives are unexpected and not what either of those groups wants to hear. I list below 11 topics with 50 questions that might be debated by liberals and conservatives followed by the libertarian answer.
Foreign Aid
1. Should the United States give less foreign aid to Egypt because of its violent crackdowns on protestors?
Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.
2. Should the United States give more foreign aid to Israel because it is our ally in the Middle East?
Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.
3. Should a country’s foreign aid be tied to its human rights record?
Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.
Disaster Relief
4. How much disaster relief should the United States government provide to the Philippines?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to provide disaster relief to foreigners.
5. How much disaster relief should the United States government have provided to Americans after the tornadoes in Illinois last year?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to provide disaster relief to Americans.
6. How much of a role should the U.S. military play in disaster relief?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of the military to provide disaster relief.
Education
7. Should the U.S. Department of Education provide educational vouchers so low-income children can go to the school of their choice?
Libertarian answer: There should be no U.S. Department of Education in the first place.
8. Should students at public schools be required to wear uniforms?
Libertarian answer: There should be no public schools in the first place.
9. Should the federal government cap the student loan interest rate?
Libertarian answer: The federal government should not be in the student loan business.
10. Should students be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
Libertarian answer: There should be no Pledge of Allegiance for students to recite.
11. How much should children who qualify for the National School Lunch Program have to pay for their lunch?
Libertarian answer: There should be no children who qualify since it is not the business of government to provide anyone lunch.
12. Should Head Start be expanded?
Libertarian answer: There should be no Head Start to expand.
Taxes
13. Should the Earned Income Tax Credit be indexed to inflation?
Libertarian answer: All refundable tax credits should be eliminated.
14. Should welfare benefits be included in determining taxable income?
Libertarian answer: There shouldn’t be any welfare benefits in the first place.
15. Should the income tax be changed to a flat tax?
Libertarian answer: The income tax should be abolished.
16. Should the income tax code be made fairer?
Libertarian answer: The income tax code should be eliminated.
17. Should the number of tax brackets be increased or decreased?
Libertarian answer: There should be no tax brackets in the first place.
18. How much more should the “rich” pay in income taxes than the “poor”?
Libertarian answer: Neither the “rich” nor the “poor” should pay any income tax.
19. Which tax loopholes should be closed?
Libertarian answer: None of them; they should be made larger so Americans can keep more of their money.
20. Which tax deductions should be extended and for how long?
Libertarian answers: All of them should be made permanent so Americans can keep more of their money.
Health Care
21. How much prescription drug coverage should be included with Medicare?
Libertarian answer: Medicare should not exist in the first place.
22. Should the FDA approve more drugs or at least approve drugs quicker?
Libertarian answer: The FDA should not exist in the first place.
23. If Obamacare is repealed, how should the government reform health care?
Libertarian answer: The federal government should have nothing at all to do with health care in the first place.
24. How much funding should the government devote to finding a cure for cancer?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to fund medical research of any kind.
Social Security
25. How much of a COLA should Social Security recipients receive next year?
Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.
26. How quickly should the Social Security retirement age be raised?
Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.
27. By what percentage should the Social Security payroll tax cap be increased for 2014?
Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.
Government Agencies
28. Should NASA go back to the moon or go to Mars instead?
Libertarian answer: NASA should not exist in the first place.
29. Should NPR give equal time to conservatives?
Libertarian answer: NPR should not exist in the first place.
30. Should the NEA be prevented from funding pornographic art?
Libertarian answer: The NEA should not exist in the first place.
31. How much of a fine should the FCC levy on television networks for broadcasting profane speech or actions?
Libertarian answer: The FCC should not exist in the first place.
32. Should AMTRAK increase its fares in an attempt to be profitable?
Libertarian answer: AMTRAK should not exist in the first place.
33. Should the TSA use less invasive procedures?
Libertarian answer: The TSA should not exist in the first place.
34. What criteria should the SBA use in granting loans?
Libertarian answer: The SBA should not exist in the first place.
The Military
35. Should the U.S. intervene militarily in Syria if it can prove that chemical weapons were used?
Libertarian answer: The U.S. military should not intervene in any foreign country for any reason.
36. Which overseas U.S. bases should be consolidated or closed?
Libertarian answer: The United States should not have any overseas bases.
37. By what percentage should the defense budget be increased or decreased?
Libertarian answer: It should be cut to the bone.
38. How many U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as advisers and peacekeepers?
Libertarian answer: The U.S. military should never have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.
Economics
39. What should the minimum wage be?
Libertarian answer: There should be no minimum wage in the first place.
40. For how long should unemployment benefits be extended?
Libertarian answer: There should be no unemployment benefits to be extended.
41. Should food stamp benefits be adjusted every year depending on the state of the economy?
Libertarian answer: There should be no food stamp benefits to be adjusted.
42. By what percentage should a businessman be able to raise prices in the aftermath of a disaster and not be guilty of price gouging?
Libertarian answer: There should be no such thing as price gouging laws.
43. What is the maximum interest rate that should be allowed on a credit card or a payday loan?
Libertarian answer: There should be no government regulation of interest rates to being with.
The Drug War
44. Should marijuana use be legal under certain circumstances?
Libertarian answer: There should be no restrictions on marijuana use for any reason.
45. Should users of crack cocaine do more prison time than users of powder cocaine?
Libertarian answer: There should be no difference between the two; both should be perfectly legal.
46. Should drug traffickers be eligible for parole?
Libertarian answer: No, they should be pardoned and immediately released as long as they have not also committed any real crimes.
Miscellaneous
47. Should public libraries be allowed to make available risqué books?
Libertarian answer: There should be no public libraries to begin with.
48. Should funding for Planned Parenthood be cut since the organization performs abortions?
Libertarian answer: There should not be any government funding of any private organization in the first place.
49. What should the CAFE standards for cars be for the 2014 model year?
Libertarian answers: There should be no CAFE standards to begin with.
50. Should sexual orientation and gender identity be added to anti-discrimination laws?
Libertarian answer: There should be no anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
Conservative and liberal debates over public policy are utterly meaningless. Not only do they not have the right answers; they don’t even ask the right questions.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/laurence-m-vance/libertarianism-vs-liberalism-conservatism/
By Laurence M. Vance
Echoing George Wallace, it has been said many times that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between liberals and conservatives. This is even usually true when the focus is on the most liberal liberals and the most conservative conservatives. The similarity may not be apparent on the surface, but once you compare both groups to libertarians it becomes perfectly clear.
The answers that libertarians give to questions debated by liberals and conservatives are unexpected and not what either of those groups wants to hear. I list below 11 topics with 50 questions that might be debated by liberals and conservatives followed by the libertarian answer.
Foreign Aid
1. Should the United States give less foreign aid to Egypt because of its violent crackdowns on protestors?
Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.
2. Should the United States give more foreign aid to Israel because it is our ally in the Middle East?
Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.
3. Should a country’s foreign aid be tied to its human rights record?
Libertarian answer: No country should receive foreign aid for any reason.
Disaster Relief
4. How much disaster relief should the United States government provide to the Philippines?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to provide disaster relief to foreigners.
5. How much disaster relief should the United States government have provided to Americans after the tornadoes in Illinois last year?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to provide disaster relief to Americans.
6. How much of a role should the U.S. military play in disaster relief?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of the military to provide disaster relief.
Education
7. Should the U.S. Department of Education provide educational vouchers so low-income children can go to the school of their choice?
Libertarian answer: There should be no U.S. Department of Education in the first place.
8. Should students at public schools be required to wear uniforms?
Libertarian answer: There should be no public schools in the first place.
9. Should the federal government cap the student loan interest rate?
Libertarian answer: The federal government should not be in the student loan business.
10. Should students be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
Libertarian answer: There should be no Pledge of Allegiance for students to recite.
11. How much should children who qualify for the National School Lunch Program have to pay for their lunch?
Libertarian answer: There should be no children who qualify since it is not the business of government to provide anyone lunch.
12. Should Head Start be expanded?
Libertarian answer: There should be no Head Start to expand.
Taxes
13. Should the Earned Income Tax Credit be indexed to inflation?
Libertarian answer: All refundable tax credits should be eliminated.
14. Should welfare benefits be included in determining taxable income?
Libertarian answer: There shouldn’t be any welfare benefits in the first place.
15. Should the income tax be changed to a flat tax?
Libertarian answer: The income tax should be abolished.
16. Should the income tax code be made fairer?
Libertarian answer: The income tax code should be eliminated.
17. Should the number of tax brackets be increased or decreased?
Libertarian answer: There should be no tax brackets in the first place.
18. How much more should the “rich” pay in income taxes than the “poor”?
Libertarian answer: Neither the “rich” nor the “poor” should pay any income tax.
19. Which tax loopholes should be closed?
Libertarian answer: None of them; they should be made larger so Americans can keep more of their money.
20. Which tax deductions should be extended and for how long?
Libertarian answers: All of them should be made permanent so Americans can keep more of their money.
Health Care
21. How much prescription drug coverage should be included with Medicare?
Libertarian answer: Medicare should not exist in the first place.
22. Should the FDA approve more drugs or at least approve drugs quicker?
Libertarian answer: The FDA should not exist in the first place.
23. If Obamacare is repealed, how should the government reform health care?
Libertarian answer: The federal government should have nothing at all to do with health care in the first place.
24. How much funding should the government devote to finding a cure for cancer?
Libertarian answer: It is not the purpose of government to fund medical research of any kind.
Social Security
25. How much of a COLA should Social Security recipients receive next year?
Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.
26. How quickly should the Social Security retirement age be raised?
Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.
27. By what percentage should the Social Security payroll tax cap be increased for 2014?
Libertarian answer: Social Security should not exist in the first place.
Government Agencies
28. Should NASA go back to the moon or go to Mars instead?
Libertarian answer: NASA should not exist in the first place.
29. Should NPR give equal time to conservatives?
Libertarian answer: NPR should not exist in the first place.
30. Should the NEA be prevented from funding pornographic art?
Libertarian answer: The NEA should not exist in the first place.
31. How much of a fine should the FCC levy on television networks for broadcasting profane speech or actions?
Libertarian answer: The FCC should not exist in the first place.
32. Should AMTRAK increase its fares in an attempt to be profitable?
Libertarian answer: AMTRAK should not exist in the first place.
33. Should the TSA use less invasive procedures?
Libertarian answer: The TSA should not exist in the first place.
34. What criteria should the SBA use in granting loans?
Libertarian answer: The SBA should not exist in the first place.
The Military
35. Should the U.S. intervene militarily in Syria if it can prove that chemical weapons were used?
Libertarian answer: The U.S. military should not intervene in any foreign country for any reason.
36. Which overseas U.S. bases should be consolidated or closed?
Libertarian answer: The United States should not have any overseas bases.
37. By what percentage should the defense budget be increased or decreased?
Libertarian answer: It should be cut to the bone.
38. How many U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan as advisers and peacekeepers?
Libertarian answer: The U.S. military should never have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.
Economics
39. What should the minimum wage be?
Libertarian answer: There should be no minimum wage in the first place.
40. For how long should unemployment benefits be extended?
Libertarian answer: There should be no unemployment benefits to be extended.
41. Should food stamp benefits be adjusted every year depending on the state of the economy?
Libertarian answer: There should be no food stamp benefits to be adjusted.
42. By what percentage should a businessman be able to raise prices in the aftermath of a disaster and not be guilty of price gouging?
Libertarian answer: There should be no such thing as price gouging laws.
43. What is the maximum interest rate that should be allowed on a credit card or a payday loan?
Libertarian answer: There should be no government regulation of interest rates to being with.
The Drug War
44. Should marijuana use be legal under certain circumstances?
Libertarian answer: There should be no restrictions on marijuana use for any reason.
45. Should users of crack cocaine do more prison time than users of powder cocaine?
Libertarian answer: There should be no difference between the two; both should be perfectly legal.
46. Should drug traffickers be eligible for parole?
Libertarian answer: No, they should be pardoned and immediately released as long as they have not also committed any real crimes.
Miscellaneous
47. Should public libraries be allowed to make available risqué books?
Libertarian answer: There should be no public libraries to begin with.
48. Should funding for Planned Parenthood be cut since the organization performs abortions?
Libertarian answer: There should not be any government funding of any private organization in the first place.
49. What should the CAFE standards for cars be for the 2014 model year?
Libertarian answers: There should be no CAFE standards to begin with.
50. Should sexual orientation and gender identity be added to anti-discrimination laws?
Libertarian answer: There should be no anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
Conservative and liberal debates over public policy are utterly meaningless. Not only do they not have the right answers; they don’t even ask the right questions.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/laurence-m-vance/libertarianism-vs-liberalism-conservatism/
Rule by king...
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Can the president legally bypass Congress and rule the government by decree?
The answer to the question above is: No. But you wouldn’t know that by listening to President Obama. In the past three weeks, the president has made it clear how he plans to run the executive branch of the federal government in the next three years: with a pen and a phone.
In a menacing statement at a cabinet meeting last month, as well as during his recent State of the Union address and in a pre-Superbowl interview with my Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly, the president has referred to his pen and his phone as a way of suggesting that he will use his power to issue executive orders, promulgate regulations and use his influence with his appointees in the government’s administrative agencies to continue the march to transform fundamentally the relationship of the federal government and individuals to his egalitarian vision when he is unable to accomplish that with legislation from Congress.
He has carried out that threat already. In June 2012, facing a presidential election campaign that he feared he might lose and wishing to keep socially conservative Hispanics from voting for Mitt Romney, the president directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — the same folks who failed miserably at rolling out Obamacare — to establish standards of behavior for millions of illegal immigrants, which, if followed to the government’s satisfaction, would get them off of government deportation lists.
To be sure, deportation can be ruinous, particularly to a family with children who were brought here as infants and have become fully Americanized. But the conditions for deportation, and for avoiding deportation, can only be established by Congress, not by the president or his appointees. When he lays down a list of conditions that permit persons in America to avoid complying with federal law, he is not enforcing the law; he is rewriting it. Only Congress can lawfully establish the circumstances under which those who are candidates for deportation may legally avoid it.
As well, when the president creates the conditions for avoiding compliance with federal law, he can hardly be said to be enforcing it. Yet, enforcing federal law is the heart of the president’s job. The Framers were so concerned with the potential of presidents to decline to enforce laws with which they disagreed that they inserted the word “faithfully” in the presidential oath when describing his enforcement obligations, and then they inserted the oath itself into the Constitution. The inescapable conclusion from this is that the Framers intended American presidents to enforce all of the laws that Congress has written, even those they dislike, even those they condemn, even those that may frustrate their friends, even those that may harm their political interests.
On the other hand, American presidents have some discretion when it comes to enforcing laws and may set priorities that are not inconsistent with the laws themselves. Obama, like all of his predecessors, has issued dozens of executive orders and signed off on thousands of regulations that have been lawful and helpful. That’s because, as president, he is the chief executive officer of the executive branch of the federal government and is largely responsible for the professional behavior of the three million persons who work under him as they follow his lead in enforcing federal law.
Thus, executive orders that complement, supplement and further the laws that Congress has enacted, orders that guide officials in the executive branch as to the president’s wishes, priorities and goals, orders that clarify but do not contradict federal laws, can actually be helpful — and such orders are invariably lawful and constitutional.
But Obama seems to have had different kinds of orders in mind when he spoke of his pen and his phone — ones much more akin to the HHS regulations on avoiding deportation — and he has made no effort to hide his intentions. Two months ago, as the effective date of Obamacare was about to set in and after weeks of denying the obvious, the president acknowledged that the rollout of Obamacare was a disaster and that the cancellation of 6.2 million soon-to-be substandard health insurance policies was profoundly contrary to his assurances that that would never happen and was acutely harmful to those who lost their coverage.
To counter the effects of the rollout and the cancellations, the president told insurance companies to reinstate the substandard insurance policies for a year until the rollout could be corrected. Thus, on his own, he attempted to change the effective date of the onset of Obamacare from Jan. 1, 2014, which is the date in the law after which the substandard policies are unlawful, to Jan. 1, 2015, which is the date he now prefers.
The president has reminded us countless times that he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School and therefore understands the Constitution. He doesn’t act like he understands it. He surely knows that only Congress can change the effective date of a law, and that he is utterly without power to do so, no matter his purpose.
He revealed the corruptibility of power when three libertarian Republicans in Congress came to his assistance and he rebuffed them. Shortly after the president told insurance carriers to disregard the onset date of Obamacare, Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, offered legislation in Congress to delay the onset of Obamacare lawfully for one year and thus lawfully permit the return of the 6.2 million canceled policies for one year — and Obama threatened to veto that legislation should Congress pass it.
The same president who claims the unlawful power to rewrite federal law on his own would use his veto power to prevent Congress from doing so lawfully. His preferences surely constitute no less than a perversion of the roles assigned to the branches of government by the Constitution.
How dangerous is a president who wants to rule by pen and phone? Where will he strike next? How will this end? Will this deliver us to tyranny?
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/andrew-p-napolitano/the-usg-is-tyrannical/
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
OOPS!!!
Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change
By Prof. Robert M. Carter
Ten facts about climate change
1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.
LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS
Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.
Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.
Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).
Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.
Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.
Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.
Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.
Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.
Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.
Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.
Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
By Prof. Robert M. Carter
Ten facts about climate change
1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.
LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS
Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.
Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.
Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).
Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.
Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.
Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.
Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.
Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.
Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.
Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.
Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
Obama's SS...
by John Myers
The Dow Jones industrial average, the stock index that represents the wealth and welfare of the Nation, is collapsing before our eyes. With the Dow down almost 1,000 points in just three weeks, I have no doubt that President Barack Obama’s personal police force, his Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), is on standby to engage American citizens in big cities and country communities.
Anyone who believes that JSOC, which originally numbered in the dozens and is now 25,000 strong, was built up to its current size to deal with a few thousand Muslim extremists is disconnected from reality.
“We’re the dark matter. We’re the force that orders the universe but can’t be seen,” a Navy SEAL and JSOC soldier told The Washington Post in 2011.
From whom does this dark force take orders? The son of a Kenyan Marxist commands them. JSOC operates exclusively under the orders of the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. What would mobilize this super army into combat? It certainly wouldn’t be some Muslim militants living in the desert 8,000 miles away, sleeping beside their camels and reading from the Quran.
The Hammer Is Cocked On Obama’s Martial Law Mandate
The real purpose of JSOC may be to deal with the millions of Americans who may revolt after years of suffering a sick economy and an onrushing calamitous financial crisis. Many Americans who were once blind can now see. They recognize that the emperor, Barack Obama, has no clothes. They know that the President ruefully ignores the Constitution.
To what extent will Obama and his ruling elite go? The only logical answer is that they will bring any force necessary to protect Obama’s vision of what America should be. The trigger will be a financial collapse, beginning with the Dow and ending with the dollar. It is already set in motion. Neither all of Obama’s horses nor all of Obama’s men can restore our financial system again.
Obama’s personal army already has preparations underway, as Global Research reported in October:
Reports are that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is engaged in a massive, covert military buildup. An article in the Associated Press in February confirmed an open purchase order by DHS for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. According to an op-ed in Forbes, that’s enough to sustain an Iraq-sized war for over twenty years. DHS has also acquired heavily armored tanks, which have been seen roaming the streets. Evidently somebody in government is expecting some serious civil unrest. The question is, why?
The answer is obvious. Only due to massive Federal spending and the infusion of trillions of fiat dollars by the Federal Reserve did the U.S. economy not collapse completely in 2009. But the Fed and the Federal government only bought themselves some time — enough time to recruit JSOC and provide military orders against Americans. If you think I am being outrageous, then consider recent history.
The BBC reported that “ex-Labour spin doctor” Damian McBride wrote in his book Power Trip that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had his hand next to the red phone ready to call out troops during the financial collapse in 2008. McBride, who was the special economic adviser to the prime minister, quoted brown as saying:
If the banks are shutting their doors, and the cash points aren’t working, and people go to Tesco and their cards aren’t being accepted, the whole thing will just explode.
If you can’t buy food or petrol or medicine for your kids, people will just start breaking the windows and helping themselves.
And as soon as people see that on TV, that’s the end, because everyone will think that’s OK now, that’s just what we all have to do. It’ll be anarchy. That’s what could happen tomorrow.
If a recent prime minister of Great Britain was ready to point bayonets at the people who elected him, then it stands to reason that Obama has already planned to do the same. It no longer seems a question of if, but rather how soon. How soon will it be before our troops are patrolling our streets?
In the wake of a stock market (that old exchange that underpins the banks and our monetary system) in its demise, I expect it will be sooner rather than later. How can an American President fail to warn of an economic impending disaster? The answer is he doesn’t want to trip the panic button, at least not until JSOC and other military and police forces are poised to respond.
Contingency Plans
When I was a teenager, my mother and I went to Ottawa, Canada, to visit my brother and his wife. My brother was an economist for the Bank of Canada. One night, at a small gathering, I was able to talk with a retired Canadian general who had been stationed at NORAD. He told me that the United States had a contingency plan to invade Canada. It seemed inconceivable to me, and I told him so. He said there were a great many contingency plans in Washington I would find even more inconceivable.
Now that I am some decades older, not much seems inconceivable. That the financial system is hanging by a thread is to me irrefutable. I’ve been at this game too long to not know better. It would be naïve to think Obama will not put troops on the ground near our homes.
The list of enemies of the state — most of them American — continues to grow. That is why billions of dollars — the real numbers are kept top secret — are pumped into the National Security Agency and JSOC every year. They have huge underground bunkers and satellites that fly constantly over us. Anyone who believes this spy and police apparatus exists to protect us should invest every cent he has in the Dow Jones industrial average. Perhaps the Dow will go above 20,000 this year. Then again, I might meet the Easter Bunny this spring.
The Dow Jones Debt Average Will Soon Crumble
I first started writing about the markets in 1981 when the Dow stood around 1,000. Today, it stands at nearly 16,000. Do most Americans feel 16 times wealthier than they did 33 years ago? For anyone other than a Wall Street financier, the answer is no. America’s bread-and-butter industries like steel and automobiles are a shadow of what they used to be. Unemployment levels that our President so often brags about are hinged on millions of Americans who have quit looking for work.
Since 1979, U.S. productivity has soared by 79 percent, while real wages have increased by only 8 percent. After you factor in the ultra-rich bankers on Wall Street and the Hollywood moguls on the West Coast, it’s apparent that real wages haven’t budged an inch in 35 years. What has changed from when I was young is a pyramid of debt and trillions of dollars injected over the past decade (especially over the past five years of the Obama Presidency). Under his leadership, America’s financial system is nothing more than cardboard. It supports shockingly overpriced stock market values, a dysfunctional banking system and a U.S. dollar that is on the brink. One whisper of wind will bring it tumbling into ruin.
This leaves us with the greatest challenges any generation of Americans has faced. Martial law will follow as surely as red, black and pale followed the white horse in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/2014/02/05/is-obamas-secret-army-mobilizing-in-the-wake-of-the-dows-demise/
The death of the middle class...
28 Signs That The Middle Class Is Heading Toward Extinction
By Michael Snyder
The death of the middle class in America has become so painfully obvious that now even the New York Times is doing stories about it. Millions of middle class jobs have disappeared, incomes are steadily decreasing, the rate of homeownership has declined for eight years in a row and U.S. consumers have accumulated record-setting levels of debt. Being independent is at the heart of what it means to be "middle class", and unfortunately the percentage of Americans that are able to take care of themselves without government assistance continues to decline. In fact, the percentage of Americans that are receiving government assistance is now at an all-time record high. This is not a good thing. Sadly, the number of people on food stamps has increased by nearly 50 percent while Barack Obama has been in the White House, and at this point nearly half the entire country gets money from the government each month. Anyone that tries to tell you that the middle class is going to be "okay" simply has no idea what they are talking about. The following are 28 signs that the middle class is heading toward extinction...
#1 You don't have to ask major U.S. corporations if the middle class is dying. This fact is showing up plain as day in their sales numbers. The following is from a recent New York Times article entitled "The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding. Just Ask the Business World"...
In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmann’s, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.
As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate America there really is no debate at all. The post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further away.
#2 Some of the largest retailers in the United States that once thrived by serving the middle class are now steadily dying. Sears and J.C. Penney are both on the verge of bankruptcy, and now we have learned that Radio Shack may be shutting down another 500 stores this year.
#3 Real disposable income in the United States just experienced the largest year over year drop that we have seen since 1974.
#4 Median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row.
#5 The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row.
#6 In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be "middle class". In 2014, only 44 percent of all Americans consider themselves to be "middle class".
#7 In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be "lower class". In 2014, an astounding 49 percent of them do.
#8 Incredibly, 56 percent of all Americans now have "subprime credit".
#9 Total consumer credit has risen by a whopping 22 percent over the past three years.
#10 The average credit card debt in the United States is $15,279.
#11 The average student loan debt in the United States is $32,250.
#12 The average mortgage debt in the United States is $149,925.
#13 Overall, U.S. consumers are $11,360,000,000,000 in debt.
#14 The U.S. national debt is currently sitting at $17,263,040,455,036.20, and it is being reported that is has grown by $6.666 trillion during the Obama years so far. Most of the burden of servicing that debt is going to fall on the middle class (if the middle class is able to survive that long).
#15 According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest payments on the national debt will nearly quadruple over the next ten years.
#16 Back in 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance. Today, only 54.9 percent of all Americans are covered by employment-based health insurance.
#17 More Americans than ever find themselves forced to turn to the government for help with health care. At this point, 82.4 million Americans live in a home where at least one person is enrolled in the Medicaid program.
#18 There are 46.5 million Americans that are living in poverty, and the poverty rate in America has been at 15 percent or above for 3 consecutive years. That is the first time that has happened since 1965.
#19 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to 47 million.
#20 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the percentage of working age Americans that are actually working has declined from 60.6 percent to 58.6 percent.
#21 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the average duration of unemployment in the United States has risen from 19.8 weeks to 37.1 weeks.
#22 Middle-wage jobs accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession, but they have accounted for only 22 percent of the jobs created since then.
#23 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year in wages.
#24 Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.
#25 According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month.
#26 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.
#27 Only 35 percent of all Americans say that they are better off financially than they were a year ago.
#28 Only 19 percent of all Americans believe that the job market is better than it was a year ago.
As if the middle class didn't have enough to deal with, now here comes Obamacare.
As I have written about previously, Obamacare is going to mean higher taxes and much higher health insurance premiums for middle class Americans.
Not only that, but millions of hard working Americans are going to end up losing their jobs or having their hours cut back thanks to Obamacare. For example, a fry cook named Darnell Summers recently told Barack Obama directly that he and his fellow workers "were broken down to part time to avoid paying health insurance"...
And the Congressional Budget Office now says that Obamacare could result in the loss of 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021.
Several million people will reduce their hours on the job or leave the workforce entirely because of incentives built into President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.
That would mean job losses equal to 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021, in large part because people would opt to keep their income low to stay eligible for federal health care subsidies or Medicaid, the agency said. It had estimated previously that the law would lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by that year.
But even if we got rid of Obamacare tomorrow that would not solve the problems of the middle class.
The middle class has been shrinking for a very long time, and something dramatic desperately needs to be done.
The numbers that I shared above simply cannot convey the level of suffering that is going on out there on the streets of America today. That is why I also like to share personal stories when I can. Below, I have posted an excerpt from an open letter to Barack Obama that a woman with a Master's degree and 30 years of work experience recently submitted to the Huffington Post. What this formerly middle class lady is having to endure because of this horrible economy is absolutely tragic...
Dear Mr. President,
I write to you today because I have nowhere else to turn. I lost my full time job in September 2012. I have only been able to find part-time employment -- 16 hours each week at $12 per hour -- but I don't work that every week. For the month of December, my net pay was $365. My husband and I now live in an RV at a campground because of my job loss. Our monthly rent is $455 and that doesn't include utilities. We were given this 27-ft. 1983 RV when I lost my job.
This is America today. We have no running water; we use a hose to fill jugs. We have no shower but the campground does. We have a toilet but it only works when the sewer line doesn't freeze -- if it freezes, we use the campground's restrooms. At night, in my bed, when it's cold out, my blanket can freeze to the wall of the RV. We don't have a stove or an oven, just a microwave, so regular-food cooking is out. Recently we found a small toaster oven on sale so we can bake a little now because eating only microwaved food just wasn't working for us. We don't have a refrigerator, just an icebox (a block of ice cost about $1.89). It keeps things relatively cold. If it's freezing outside, we just put things on the picnic table.
You can read the rest of her incredibly heartbreaking letter right here.
This is not the America that I remember.
What in the world is happening to us?
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-heading-toward-extinction
By Michael Snyder
The death of the middle class in America has become so painfully obvious that now even the New York Times is doing stories about it. Millions of middle class jobs have disappeared, incomes are steadily decreasing, the rate of homeownership has declined for eight years in a row and U.S. consumers have accumulated record-setting levels of debt. Being independent is at the heart of what it means to be "middle class", and unfortunately the percentage of Americans that are able to take care of themselves without government assistance continues to decline. In fact, the percentage of Americans that are receiving government assistance is now at an all-time record high. This is not a good thing. Sadly, the number of people on food stamps has increased by nearly 50 percent while Barack Obama has been in the White House, and at this point nearly half the entire country gets money from the government each month. Anyone that tries to tell you that the middle class is going to be "okay" simply has no idea what they are talking about. The following are 28 signs that the middle class is heading toward extinction...
#1 You don't have to ask major U.S. corporations if the middle class is dying. This fact is showing up plain as day in their sales numbers. The following is from a recent New York Times article entitled "The Middle Class Is Steadily Eroding. Just Ask the Business World"...
In Manhattan, the upscale clothing retailer Barneys will replace the bankrupt discounter Loehmann’s, whose Chelsea store closes in a few weeks. Across the country, Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants are struggling, while fine-dining chains like Capital Grille are thriving. And at General Electric, the increase in demand for high-end dishwashers and refrigerators dwarfs sales growth of mass-market models.
As politicians and pundits in Washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate America there really is no debate at all. The post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even further away.
#2 Some of the largest retailers in the United States that once thrived by serving the middle class are now steadily dying. Sears and J.C. Penney are both on the verge of bankruptcy, and now we have learned that Radio Shack may be shutting down another 500 stores this year.
#3 Real disposable income in the United States just experienced the largest year over year drop that we have seen since 1974.
#4 Median household income in the United States has fallen for five years in a row.
#5 The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row.
#6 In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be "middle class". In 2014, only 44 percent of all Americans consider themselves to be "middle class".
#7 In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-old age bracket considered themselves to be "lower class". In 2014, an astounding 49 percent of them do.
#8 Incredibly, 56 percent of all Americans now have "subprime credit".
#9 Total consumer credit has risen by a whopping 22 percent over the past three years.
#10 The average credit card debt in the United States is $15,279.
#11 The average student loan debt in the United States is $32,250.
#12 The average mortgage debt in the United States is $149,925.
#13 Overall, U.S. consumers are $11,360,000,000,000 in debt.
#14 The U.S. national debt is currently sitting at $17,263,040,455,036.20, and it is being reported that is has grown by $6.666 trillion during the Obama years so far. Most of the burden of servicing that debt is going to fall on the middle class (if the middle class is able to survive that long).
#15 According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest payments on the national debt will nearly quadruple over the next ten years.
#16 Back in 1999, 64.1 percent of all Americans were covered by employment-based health insurance. Today, only 54.9 percent of all Americans are covered by employment-based health insurance.
#17 More Americans than ever find themselves forced to turn to the government for help with health care. At this point, 82.4 million Americans live in a home where at least one person is enrolled in the Medicaid program.
#18 There are 46.5 million Americans that are living in poverty, and the poverty rate in America has been at 15 percent or above for 3 consecutive years. That is the first time that has happened since 1965.
#19 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to 47 million.
#20 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the percentage of working age Americans that are actually working has declined from 60.6 percent to 58.6 percent.
#21 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the average duration of unemployment in the United States has risen from 19.8 weeks to 37.1 weeks.
#22 Middle-wage jobs accounted for 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession, but they have accounted for only 22 percent of the jobs created since then.
#23 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year in wages.
#24 Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.
#25 According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month.
#26 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.
#27 Only 35 percent of all Americans say that they are better off financially than they were a year ago.
#28 Only 19 percent of all Americans believe that the job market is better than it was a year ago.
As if the middle class didn't have enough to deal with, now here comes Obamacare.
As I have written about previously, Obamacare is going to mean higher taxes and much higher health insurance premiums for middle class Americans.
Not only that, but millions of hard working Americans are going to end up losing their jobs or having their hours cut back thanks to Obamacare. For example, a fry cook named Darnell Summers recently told Barack Obama directly that he and his fellow workers "were broken down to part time to avoid paying health insurance"...
And the Congressional Budget Office now says that Obamacare could result in the loss of 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021.
Several million people will reduce their hours on the job or leave the workforce entirely because of incentives built into President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.
That would mean job losses equal to 2.3 million full-time jobs by 2021, in large part because people would opt to keep their income low to stay eligible for federal health care subsidies or Medicaid, the agency said. It had estimated previously that the law would lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by that year.
But even if we got rid of Obamacare tomorrow that would not solve the problems of the middle class.
The middle class has been shrinking for a very long time, and something dramatic desperately needs to be done.
The numbers that I shared above simply cannot convey the level of suffering that is going on out there on the streets of America today. That is why I also like to share personal stories when I can. Below, I have posted an excerpt from an open letter to Barack Obama that a woman with a Master's degree and 30 years of work experience recently submitted to the Huffington Post. What this formerly middle class lady is having to endure because of this horrible economy is absolutely tragic...
Dear Mr. President,
I write to you today because I have nowhere else to turn. I lost my full time job in September 2012. I have only been able to find part-time employment -- 16 hours each week at $12 per hour -- but I don't work that every week. For the month of December, my net pay was $365. My husband and I now live in an RV at a campground because of my job loss. Our monthly rent is $455 and that doesn't include utilities. We were given this 27-ft. 1983 RV when I lost my job.
This is America today. We have no running water; we use a hose to fill jugs. We have no shower but the campground does. We have a toilet but it only works when the sewer line doesn't freeze -- if it freezes, we use the campground's restrooms. At night, in my bed, when it's cold out, my blanket can freeze to the wall of the RV. We don't have a stove or an oven, just a microwave, so regular-food cooking is out. Recently we found a small toaster oven on sale so we can bake a little now because eating only microwaved food just wasn't working for us. We don't have a refrigerator, just an icebox (a block of ice cost about $1.89). It keeps things relatively cold. If it's freezing outside, we just put things on the picnic table.
You can read the rest of her incredibly heartbreaking letter right here.
This is not the America that I remember.
What in the world is happening to us?
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-heading-toward-extinction
"Nice job, conservatives! Thanks a lot for trading away our freedom for the sake of security. You lost us both our freedom and our security."
Nice Job, Conservatives!
by Jacob G. Hornberger
When Barack Obama was elected president, the chickens came home to roost above the sordid nest that conservatives made for us after the 9/11 attacks. It was after those attacks that conservatives, quivering and quaking in their shoes over the thought that the terrorists were coming to get us, traded away the freedom of the American people to the federal government in the hope of gaining safety and security from the terrorists.
What were the terms of that fateful trade? They surrendered to President Bush omnipotent powers, powers that are inherent to any totalitarian regime and that are antithetical to the principles of freedom, due process of law, and limited government in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Such totalitarian powers included the following:
1. The power to take people into military custody as suspected terrorists, holding them for as long as the military wants, torture them, and even execute them, perhaps after some sort of kangaroo trial before a military tribunal, all without trial by jury and due process of law. While Americans were initially led to believe that such powers encompassed only foreigners, they soon learned that they also included American citizens. That’s what the Jose Padilla case was all about, a case in which the federal courts deferred to the president and upheld his new presidential powers.
2. The power to spy on people, delve into their telephone records, monitor their telephone calls, read their emails, and who knows what else. That includes not just foreigners but also Americans. That’s what the illegal contracts that Bush and his people made with the telecoms were all about. It’s also what the Edward Snowden revelations about the NSA are all about.
3. The power to assassinate people, including American citizens. That power is confirmed by the ongoing assassinations of countless foreigners as well as the assassinations of American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman. No judicial warrants. No trials to determine guilt or innocence. No due process of law. Just plain, simple, and efficient assassination, without anyone having to answer, justify, or explain the assassinations.
There is no way to reconcile these powers with the principles of a free society. They are inherent to totalitarian regimes. They are precisely the powers that our ancestors did their best to prevent the federal government from exercising. That’s what the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are all about.
It also doesn’t make any difference how much Americans might still consider themselves a free people. False realities are only delusions. They don’t create a new reality. People who live under any regime that wields these types of totalitarian powers are not a free people, pure and simple.
But conservatives thought that it was a good trade because their man — George W. Bush — was the president. He’s a compassionate conservative, they cried. He can be trusted with these omnipotent powers, they said. He’ll take care of us and keep us safe from the terrorists.
We libertarians kept emphasizing: Don’t relinquish these powers to anyone. Imagine the person who you would consider your worst nightmare being elected president. Would you want him to wield these powers? Don’t trade away our freedom, we libertarians said, no matter how afraid you are and no matter how much trust you have in President Bush.
But conservatives wouldn’t listen. They were too afraid. They wanted safety and security. Nothing else mattered. They traded away our freedom in the hope that Bush and his army and CIA would keep them safe from the terrorists.
And then seven years later Democrat Barack Obama was elected president. He now wielded the totalitarian powers that conservatives had relinquished to President Bush.
And that’s not the end of it. Now we are facing the distinct prospect that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be elected president in 2016. She’s leading the polls by far in the Democrat Party. The Republicans have no frontrunner and are expected to field some 15 or more candidates.
That’s what conservatives have done to us with their fateful trade back in 2001. Time will tell, but there is now a very real possibility that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be wielding the totalitarian powers that conservatives relinquished to George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The powers to arrest Americans (and foreigners) and detain them indefinitely in military custody, to torture them, to spy on them, and to assassinate them. All very possibly wielded by Bill Clinton’s wife, Hillary.
Nice job, conservatives! Thanks a lot for trading away our freedom for the sake of security. You lost us both our freedom and our security.
Link:
http://fff.org/2014/02/05/what-conservatives-did-to-us/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
When Barack Obama was elected president, the chickens came home to roost above the sordid nest that conservatives made for us after the 9/11 attacks. It was after those attacks that conservatives, quivering and quaking in their shoes over the thought that the terrorists were coming to get us, traded away the freedom of the American people to the federal government in the hope of gaining safety and security from the terrorists.
What were the terms of that fateful trade? They surrendered to President Bush omnipotent powers, powers that are inherent to any totalitarian regime and that are antithetical to the principles of freedom, due process of law, and limited government in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Such totalitarian powers included the following:
1. The power to take people into military custody as suspected terrorists, holding them for as long as the military wants, torture them, and even execute them, perhaps after some sort of kangaroo trial before a military tribunal, all without trial by jury and due process of law. While Americans were initially led to believe that such powers encompassed only foreigners, they soon learned that they also included American citizens. That’s what the Jose Padilla case was all about, a case in which the federal courts deferred to the president and upheld his new presidential powers.
2. The power to spy on people, delve into their telephone records, monitor their telephone calls, read their emails, and who knows what else. That includes not just foreigners but also Americans. That’s what the illegal contracts that Bush and his people made with the telecoms were all about. It’s also what the Edward Snowden revelations about the NSA are all about.
3. The power to assassinate people, including American citizens. That power is confirmed by the ongoing assassinations of countless foreigners as well as the assassinations of American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman. No judicial warrants. No trials to determine guilt or innocence. No due process of law. Just plain, simple, and efficient assassination, without anyone having to answer, justify, or explain the assassinations.
There is no way to reconcile these powers with the principles of a free society. They are inherent to totalitarian regimes. They are precisely the powers that our ancestors did their best to prevent the federal government from exercising. That’s what the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are all about.
It also doesn’t make any difference how much Americans might still consider themselves a free people. False realities are only delusions. They don’t create a new reality. People who live under any regime that wields these types of totalitarian powers are not a free people, pure and simple.
But conservatives thought that it was a good trade because their man — George W. Bush — was the president. He’s a compassionate conservative, they cried. He can be trusted with these omnipotent powers, they said. He’ll take care of us and keep us safe from the terrorists.
We libertarians kept emphasizing: Don’t relinquish these powers to anyone. Imagine the person who you would consider your worst nightmare being elected president. Would you want him to wield these powers? Don’t trade away our freedom, we libertarians said, no matter how afraid you are and no matter how much trust you have in President Bush.
But conservatives wouldn’t listen. They were too afraid. They wanted safety and security. Nothing else mattered. They traded away our freedom in the hope that Bush and his army and CIA would keep them safe from the terrorists.
And then seven years later Democrat Barack Obama was elected president. He now wielded the totalitarian powers that conservatives had relinquished to President Bush.
And that’s not the end of it. Now we are facing the distinct prospect that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be elected president in 2016. She’s leading the polls by far in the Democrat Party. The Republicans have no frontrunner and are expected to field some 15 or more candidates.
That’s what conservatives have done to us with their fateful trade back in 2001. Time will tell, but there is now a very real possibility that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be wielding the totalitarian powers that conservatives relinquished to George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The powers to arrest Americans (and foreigners) and detain them indefinitely in military custody, to torture them, to spy on them, and to assassinate them. All very possibly wielded by Bill Clinton’s wife, Hillary.
Nice job, conservatives! Thanks a lot for trading away our freedom for the sake of security. You lost us both our freedom and our security.
Link:
http://fff.org/2014/02/05/what-conservatives-did-to-us/
And guess which country is protecting the poppy fields???
Michael Snyder
According to the federal government, the number of heroin addicts in the United States has more than doubled since 2002.
Yes, you read that correctly. In fact, it is being reported that heroin-related overdose deaths have risen 84 percent just since 2010. The truth is that the recent death of Philip Seymour Hoffman is just the tip of the iceberg of the raging heroin abuse epidemic in America. Heroin is cheap, it is potent, and it is very similar to the legal painkillers that millions of Americans are currently addicted to. According to ABC News, Hoffman was found “with five empty heroin bags as well as many as 65 more bags that were still unused” when his body was discovered on Sunday in his New York apartment. It is a great tragedy, but the reality is that tragedies like this are happening all across the United States every single day. Heroin is the the number one killer of illegal drug users, and as heroin use continues to rise so will the number of dead bodies.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was at the peak of his career and seemingly had so much to live for when he died. The following is how the New York Times described what was found in his apartment…
Detectives found dozens of small packages in the West Village apartment where Philip Seymour Hoffman, the actor, died on Sunday. Most were branded, some with purple letters spelling out Ace of Spades, others bearing the mark of an ace of hearts. At least five were empty, and in the trash.
Each of the packages, which can sell for as little as $6 on the street, offered a grim window into Mr. Hoffman’s personal struggle with a resurgent addiction that ultimately, the police said, proved fatal. And the names and logos reflect a fevered underground marketing effort in a city that is awash in cheap heroin.
According to the Daily Mail, the Ace of Spades brand of heroin “is responsible for close to 100 deaths from New Hampshire to Washington State – including 37 in Maryland since September.”
It is suspected that the heroin that killed Hoffman was laced with a deadly narcotic known as fentanyl. The following is an excerpt from a recent Raw Story article…
For the past three weeks, authorities have been tracking batches of deadly fentanyl-laced heroin that has been moving east from Pittsburgh.
Twenty-two people in western Pennsylvania died of overdoses in the past week. Authorities believe that most of the deaths were related to heroin laced with fentanyl, a powerful narcotic typically prescribed to terminal cancer patients as means of pain management.
It is 100 times more powerful than morphine, and in combination with heroin can shut down the respiratory system of users.
The laced heroin went by the street names “Theraflu” and “Bud Ice” in Pennsylvania, but as it made its way to Long Island it was re-branded as “24K.”
The northeast quadrant of the country has been hit particularly hard by this heroin epidemic. According to the DEA, heroin seizures in the state of New York State have increased 67 percent over the last four years, and according to the Daily Beast, the number of heroin overdose deaths is rising “like wildfire”…
In the last month alone, Maryland, Vermont, New York, and even Florida have each reported an unprecedented number of deaths. It’s spreading like wildfire. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is still crunching the numbers, but from what we’ve seen, this could be the worst year yet.
Things have gotten so bad that the governor of Vermont recently used his entire State of the State address to discuss the heroin abuse epidemic…
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin recently spent his entire 34-minute State of the State address talking about the state’s “full-blown heroin crisis,” and law enforcement officials in small cities across New England have noted an increase in heroin use.
And as I mentioned above, the number of heroin addicts nationally has more than doubled since 2002…
“Heroin is pummeling the Northeast, leaving addiction, overdoses and fear in its wake,” said James Hunt of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s New York Office.
A 2012 survey by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (PDF) found that about 669,000 people over age 12 had used heroin at some point in the year. About 156,000 of those were first-time users, and roughly 467,000 were considered heroin-dependent — more than double the number in 2002.
So don’t be stupid.
Using heroin can kill you.
In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heroin is the number one killer of illegal drug users in the United States.
We need our young people to understand this, because right now the use of heroin is exploding among the youth of America…
“We can’t overshadow the fact that there is a public health crisis that is raging across this country. Scenarios like this are playing out in families and communities with alarming regularity and increased frequency,” Scott Hesseltine, operations director at Hazelden Treatment Center, said.
Unfortunately, so far people don’t seem to be getting the message. Those buying and selling heroin just continue to become even more bold.
In fact, as I have written about previously, heroin is being sold in broad daylight in front of public schools in the city of Detroit while kids wait to board their school buses.
When you are addicted to heroin, you will do just about anything for another hit. Addicts will beg, borrow, steal and commit violence to get the money that they need.
Heroin abuse doesn’t just destroy those that are addicted to it. It destroys entire communities.
As the economy continues to decline, selling heroin will seem like an easy way to make some extra cash to many people.
And many people will use the stuff in order to forget their problems.
But in the end, thousands more will die and millions of lives will be deeply affected by this rising epidemic.
America is dying, and this is just another symptom of our steady decline.
Link:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/philip-seymour-hoffman-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-of-the-raging-heroin-abuse-epidemic-in-america
Adios...
MSM Collapsing: NY Times Now “Irrelevant,” According to its Own Writers
Opinion pieces have no impact on public discourse as statist media sinks
Paul Joseph Watson
In another example of how the mainstream media is in a state of collapse, the New York Times’s own writers told a newspaper that NY Times opinion pieces are now seen as “irrelevant” and have no impact on public discourse whatsoever.
This is a stunning turnaround from as little as five years ago, when a New York Times opinion piece was viewed with respect and held a certain level of gravitas.
The New York Observer interviewed more than two dozen current and former NY Times writers, virtually all of whom were unanimous in acknowledging that the Old Gray Lady is becoming increasingly insignificant.
“I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page,” one source told the newspaper. “The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin.”
“They’re completely reflexively liberal, utterly predictable, usually poorly written and totally ineffectual,” said another. “I mean, just try and remember the last time that anybody was talking about one of those editorials. You know, I can think of one time recently, which is with the [Edward] Snowden stuff, but mostly nobody pays attention, and millions of dollars is being spent on that stuff.”
This is yet another consequence of the fact that more and more people are turning away from mainstream media as a result of its habitual efforts to twist the truth and deceive the public in order to serve the interests of the state.
The corporate press is in a blind panic because it is quickly losing its ability to dictate reality and shape narratives, which is why people like Hillary Clinton have bemoaned the fact that the establishment is “losing the Infowar” to newly emerging media sources.
In 2012, the New York Times reported a net loss of 85% on earnings as a result of lost advertising revenue due to dwindling readership figures, but they are actually not doing too badly in comparison to other mainstream news outlets.
From November 2012 to November 2013, MSNBC lost almost half its viewers over the course of just 12 months, shedding 45 per cent of its audience. CNN also lost 48 per cent of its viewers over the same time period.
The corporate press’ refusal to challenge authority and cover real issues has also led to record high levels of distrust in media. Last year, a Gallup poll found that just 23 per cent of Americans trust the institution of television news.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/msm-collapsing-ny-times-now-irrelevant-according-to-its-own-writers.html
Opinion pieces have no impact on public discourse as statist media sinks
Paul Joseph Watson
In another example of how the mainstream media is in a state of collapse, the New York Times’s own writers told a newspaper that NY Times opinion pieces are now seen as “irrelevant” and have no impact on public discourse whatsoever.
This is a stunning turnaround from as little as five years ago, when a New York Times opinion piece was viewed with respect and held a certain level of gravitas.
The New York Observer interviewed more than two dozen current and former NY Times writers, virtually all of whom were unanimous in acknowledging that the Old Gray Lady is becoming increasingly insignificant.
“I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page,” one source told the newspaper. “The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin.”
“They’re completely reflexively liberal, utterly predictable, usually poorly written and totally ineffectual,” said another. “I mean, just try and remember the last time that anybody was talking about one of those editorials. You know, I can think of one time recently, which is with the [Edward] Snowden stuff, but mostly nobody pays attention, and millions of dollars is being spent on that stuff.”
This is yet another consequence of the fact that more and more people are turning away from mainstream media as a result of its habitual efforts to twist the truth and deceive the public in order to serve the interests of the state.
The corporate press is in a blind panic because it is quickly losing its ability to dictate reality and shape narratives, which is why people like Hillary Clinton have bemoaned the fact that the establishment is “losing the Infowar” to newly emerging media sources.
In 2012, the New York Times reported a net loss of 85% on earnings as a result of lost advertising revenue due to dwindling readership figures, but they are actually not doing too badly in comparison to other mainstream news outlets.
From November 2012 to November 2013, MSNBC lost almost half its viewers over the course of just 12 months, shedding 45 per cent of its audience. CNN also lost 48 per cent of its viewers over the same time period.
The corporate press’ refusal to challenge authority and cover real issues has also led to record high levels of distrust in media. Last year, a Gallup poll found that just 23 per cent of Americans trust the institution of television news.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/msm-collapsing-ny-times-now-irrelevant-according-to-its-own-writers.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)