Common Core for cops...

Feds unveil Common Core for local cops
by Sam Rolley

Details unveiled in an interim report on the Obama administration’s plan to restructure law enforcement throughout the United States hint that federal involvement could soon increase greatly in the day-to-day operations of small-town police departments.

“We have a great opportunity… to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations,” President Obama said as the report was released Monday.

“We need to seize that opportunity… this is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come,” he added.

The president’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing calls for a series of changes in the way community police departments operate and offers a plan to tie federal funding to cooperation with the changes.

“The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services [COPS] and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional training, and consolidation,” the report states.

The task force report contains a six-pillar plan for law enforcement agencies throughout the nation. The pillars include:

Building trust and legitimacy
Policy and oversight
Technology and social media
Community policing and crime reduction
Training and education
Officer wellness and safety

While suggestions outlined under the pillars involving trust, legitimacy and oversight could have a positive impact on citizen civil rights during police encounters, other ideas in the have led critics to worry about a creeping national police force.

For instance, the report calls for the federal government to “support the development of partnerships with training facilities across the country to promote consistent standards for high quality training and establish training innovation hubs.”

The report further states: “Federal funding would be a powerful incentive to these designated academies to conduct the necessary research to develop and implement the highest quality curricula focused on the needs of 21st century American policing, along with cutting edge delivery modalities.”

In addition to calling for more federal involvement in training local police, the report calls for increased information sharing between local and federal law enforcement agencies.

“Inconsistent or non-existent standards also lead to isolated and fractured information systems that cannot effectively manage, store, analyze, or share their data with other systems. As a result, much information is lost or unavailable — which allows vital information to go unused and have no impact on crime reduction efforts,” the report states. “As one witness noted, the development of mature crime analysis and CompStat processes allows law enforcement to effectively develop policy and deploy resources for crime prevention, but there is a lack of uniformity in data collection throughout law enforcement, and only patchwork methods of near real-time information sharing exist. These problems are especially critical in light of the threats from terrorism and cybercrime.”

Part of the information-sharing increase should be facilitated by the development of a national public safety broadband network for law enforcement use only, the report says.

“A national public safety broadband network which creates bandwidth for the exclusive use of law enforcement, the First Responder Network (FirstNet) is considered a game-changing public safety project, which would allow instantaneous communication in even the most remote areas whenever a disaster or incident occurs,” the report says. “It can also support many other technologies, including video transmission…”

Critics of the plan have pointed out that attaching the recommendations put forth to federal funding mirrors the way in which the federal government recently increased its control over education with Common Core.

And President Obama has already hinted that he expects the policing plan to be controversial.

“There’s some good answers to be had if we don’t make this a political football or sensationalize it, but rather really focus on getting the job done,” he told reporters. “So I appreciate everybody’s efforts. I’m going to be focused on it. I hope you will be, too.”

Read the full report here.

Link:
http://personalliberty.com/feds-unveil-common-core-local-cops/

BOSTON BOMBING: Naomi Wolf Exposes Fake News/False Flags...

Surprised???

FBI’s ‘Smoking Gun’ Video of Boston Marathon Bombing Doesn’t Exist

By Lara Turner

What do former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, an appeals court justice, several potential members of the Boston Marathon bombing jury and thousands of regular Americans have in common?

They all believe that they’ve seen a video of accused bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dropping a deadly backpack behind victims at the marathon on April 15, 2013—a video his defense said “does NOT actually exist.”

In a pre-trial hearing yesterday, Tsarnaev defense attorney David Bruck argued that the April 18, 2013, press conference in which former Boston FBI Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers identified the brothers should be excluded from evidence. That, he argued, is because the FBI agent described the video footage that doesn’t really exist, which subsequently was used to convict Tsarnaev in the media...

Read the rest:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/no_author/fbis-smoking-gun-video-of-the-boston-bombing/

"I only took a few minutes to do research on the obvious, minimum wage laws and start up difficulties, but any country which is so oppressive in these two sectors is likely to be a regulation nightmare across the board. That's why you have extensive slums in the country---and it has nothing to do with the philosophy of Ron Paul or Ayn Rand."

A Libertarian Nightmare in Action:The Honduras?

By Robert Wenzel

Over at Salon, Edwin Lyngar tells us that he has given up on libertarianism because of a recent vacation he took to the Honduras. He classified the trip as a nightmare: My libertarian vacation nightmare: How Ayn Rand, Ron Paul & their groupies were all debunked

I am really not sure how he reached the conclusion that the Honduras is a libertarian country, but he did:

Eliminate all taxes, privatize everything, load a country up with guns and oppose all public expenditures, you end up with Honduras.
Privatize everything?

Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica is Honduras's government owned and operated electrical power company. ENEE supplies 84.8% of Honduras' electricity.

Hondutel is Honduras' government owned telecommunications company. It has a monopoly on international calls.

Neither of these government owned companies would be something you would find in a libertarian country.

But Lyngar goes on:

The country has a handful of really rich people, a small group of middle-class, some security guards who seem to be getting by and a massive group of people who are starving to death and living in slums.
This tipped me off right away. There is no way you are going to see such slums in a country, unless there are high minimum wage laws and regulations which make it difficult to start a business. So I did some digging.

Honduras has the most complex minimum wage laws I have ever seen. Take a look for yourself.

As far as starting a business, the World Bank lists it as extremely difficult to do so in Honduras, with a rank of 138 out of 189 countries. Which is to say nothing about its ranking for Enforcing Contracts (166).

I only took a few minutes to do research on the obvious, minimum wage laws and start up difficulties, but any country which is so oppressive in these two sectors is likely to be a regulation nightmare across the board. That's why you have extensive slums in the country---and it has nothing to do with the philosophy of Ron Paul or Ayn Rand.

Link:
http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/03/a-libertarian-nightmare-ation-in.html

Conspiracy Theories Embraced by Mainstream Media in Russian Assassination...

WTF!!! I guess they only have the best interests of the students in mind. Yeah, right!!!

School Threatens to Suspend Kids if Parents Skip Meeting on Common Core Testing

“I was like, ‘Wow, is this a joke?’ I really couldn’t believe what I was reading”

Mikael Thalen

Students at Detroit’s Coleman A. Young Elementary School were threatened with suspension after their parents failed to attend a “mandatory” meeting on an upcoming Common Core test.

Read the rest and see video here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/school-threatens-to-suspend-kids-if-parents-skip-meeting-on-common-core-testing.html

"Is there anything that could happen to you if you choose not to pay? With no jail, no liens and no levies, it doesn’t leave the IRS a lot of room to work when it comes to collections. Congress actually managed to create, as I wrote in 2012 and in in 2013, an incredibly complex and burdensome law without any teeth."

Opting Out Of The Obamacare Tax: What Happens If You Don't Pay?

Kelly Phillips Erb

Last month, the Obama administration announced that between three and six million households – about 2 to 4 % of taxpayers – would be faced with a penalty (or is it a tax?) at tax time for failing to secure “minimum essential coverage” to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes referred to as Obamacare.

Under Obamacare, you’re considered covered if you have insurance through the government, including Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, retiree coverage, TRICARE, or VA health coverage; private insurance that you purchased on your own including COBRA coverage and coverage obtained through the Health Insurance Marketplace; or provided by your employer (even if you didn’t pay anything for the coverage). You’ll report coverage on your tax return (find out how here). Most taxpayers – about 130 million or so – will report coverage.

Of those that don’t have coverage (estimates range from 20 million to 37.5 million), most will avoid being subject to the penalty based on a waiver or exemption. Exemptions exist based on income or filing status, immigration status and religious affiliation – as well as the much-talked about incarceration exemption. A number of hardship exemptions are also available. (For more on exemptions and waivers, click here.)

Those taxpayers who can’t demonstrate essential minimum coverage and aren’t otherwise exempt are subject to a penalty – the shared individual responsibility payment – equal to 1% of income above the “filing threshold” or $95 per adult and $47.50 per child (up to $285 for a family), whichever is higher. That amount is figured and reported on the taxpayer’s 2014 tax return, payable by April 15, 2015.

For the 2015 tax year, the amount of the penalty increases to 2% of income or $325 per adult; in 2016, it jumps up again to 2.5% of income or $695 per person.

In terms of dollars, the CBO had initially estimated that by 2016, nearly six million taxpayers would be subject to an average penalty of $1,200. The overwhelmingly majority (80%) of those estimated to be at risk to the penalty were those in the middle class with incomes between $55,850 and $115,250.

Since that time, the numbers have been adjusted downward, based largely on the perceived success of policies purchased through the Marketplace and the increased number of taxpayers exempt under the rules. Those estimates – between three and six million households – are still just guesses. But the dollars associated with those numbers are the real mystery. You see, buried in the language of the 2010 law creating the Affordable Health Care Act (you remember, the “big f*cking deal”) is a bit of an out: There are practically no real consequences for not paying the penalty.

I mentioned this to Maggie McGrath, personal finance reporter for Forbes, while shooting video about the Health Care Act earlier this month. “Shouldn’t that be the real story?” she asked.

She’s right, of course. It should but oddly enough, nobody is really talking about it.

Why so quiet? Here’s my guess: nobody has a clue what’s really going to happen. You see, when the Act became news in 2010, rumors were flying about what would happen if you didn’t pay the penalty. It was politically tricky. The consequences needed to be enough to make you want to conform with the Act but not so onerous that Congress would be loathe to vote for it.

The final language in the Act declared that the penalty “shall be paid upon notice and demand” which sounds really intimidating. The language went on to note that the penalty would be “collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68″ which also sounds pretty serious – especially since subchapter B references some pretty nasty penalties for otherwise not complying with other sections of the Tax Code.

So what would the penalty for noncompliance be? Jail time? Nope. The language in the Act specifically rules out jail time, saying at Section 500A(g)(2)(A):

“
In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

So, no jail time.

But that means that the IRS will chase you and lien your property if you don’t pay, right?

Nope. That’s not allowed under the Act. At 500A(g)(2)(B)(i), the Treasury cannot “file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section.”

So, no liens.

Then, clearly there will be levies or seizures on your wages and account, right?

Nope. Not that either. Under 500A(g)(2)(B)(ii), the Treasury cannot “levy on any such property with respect to such failure.”

To recap then, by law, you have to pay the penalty. But if you don’t, you won’t go to jail, you won’t be liened and you won’t be levied for collection.

Is there anything that could happen to you if you choose not to pay? With no jail, no liens and no levies, it doesn’t leave the IRS a lot of room to work when it comes to collections. Congress actually managed to create, as I wrote in 2012 and in in 2013, an incredibly complex and burdensome law without any teeth.

Well, maybe some teeth. Baby teeth. The IRS might seize any part or all of your refund in order to satisfy your obligation. Might. IRS hasn’t come right out and said that it absolutely will offset your refund if you owe a penalty for failure to pay. However, in the Final Regulations issued on this matter, IRS noted that “[n]othing in this section prohibits the Secretary from offsetting any liability for the shared responsibility payment against any overpayment due the taxpayer, in accordance with section 6402(a) and its corresponding regulations.” That’s sufficiently passive aggressive, right? You’re on notice that the IRS doesn’t think that it’s barred from taking your refund. They’re not saying they will (for certain) but they’re not saying they won’t either.

So is there anything you can expect for sure? You can definitely expect a lot of letter writing and virtual shaking of the government’s fist at you. Maybe even some blustering, for good measure.

But real consequences? Other than that potential refund seizure and a guilty conscience, there’s nothing to keep taxpayers from opting out of paying. Will they? We’ll have to wait and see.

Link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/02/26/opting-out-of-the-obamacare-tax/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taxgirlfeed+%28taxgirl+for+Forbes%29

"Part of the circumstantial evidence that Nemtsov’s murder was a CIA tactic to destabilize Russia is the orchestrated US media. The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the rest of the presstitutes were ready on cue with reports insinuating that Putin was responsible."

Putin Predicted Washington Would Employ Assassination Tactic Against Russia

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Saker provides a one minute video with translation of Putin explaining two years ago the Russian government’s concern that an overseas entity would use a false flag assassination within Russia in order to create an “involuntary martyr” that the Western media would use to demonize Russia.

According to this report by The Saker, the Washington-financed Russian opposition has not, as Washington hoped it would, joined the Western anti-Putin media campaign. Possibly the Washington-financed Russian NGOs have wised up from observing events in Ukraine. In place of “more democracy,” they got a Washington stooge government squandering Ukraine’s last cent on a losing war.

The most likely explanation of Nemtsov’s murder is that the CIA decided, as Nemtsov was completely marginalized as an opposition politician with 5% as against Putin’s 85%, that Nemtsov was worth more dead than alive. But the ploy, if that is what it is, has not worked inside Russia.

Part of the circumstantial evidence that Nemtsov’s murder was a CIA tactic to destabilize Russia is the orchestrated US media. The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the rest of the presstitutes were ready on cue with reports insinuating that Putin was responsible. Stephen Lendman has done a good job tracking the US media’s unquestioning adherence to Washington’s propaganda line.

On February 28 NPR’s report consisted of a sound bite from a dissident Russian in exile who implied that Nemtsov was actually a rival to Putin with the population split between the two and that Putin eliminated his rival. No counterview to this abject nonsense was offered. At one time NPR was an alternative voice. Today NPR belongs to the Republican Party and the corporations whose advertising revenues are larger than listener donations.

If the Russian investigation discovers CIA involvement, the Russian government will keep it quiet. The audacity of Washington murdering a washed-up Russian politician in order to blame the Russian government bespeaks of war. Putin, unlike Washington, does not want war. If the culprit(s) is not found, it will look like a coverup. So someone has to be blamed. The Russian police have already suggested that possibly the key to the murder is the attractive young woman with Nemtsov when he was shot down. Nemtsov might have been trespassing on the property of a dangerous man, possibly a member of the Russian mafia.

Like everything else that happens, Americans will be given by the presstitutes an explanation that coincides with the interests of Washington. All who rely on the US media will never know why Nemtsov was murdered, or anything else for that matter.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/paul-craig-roberts/putin-predicted/

"Ten years after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it is clear that this department has failed to protect our security, but has infringed on liberty. If Congress really wanted to enhance our security and our liberty it would shut down this unnecessary, unconstitutional department."

Department of Homeland Security: What is it Good For?

By Ron Paul

Late Friday night, Congress passed legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security for one week. This vote followed weeks of debate over efforts to attach a prohibition on funding President Obama’s executive order granting amnesty to certain illegal immigrants to the Homeland Security funding bill.

Despite the heated rhetoric from both sides, no one seriously believes that Congress will allow Homeland Security funding to lapse. Most in Congress believe that, without the Department of Homeland Security, Americans would be left unprotected from terrorists and natural disasters. As with most areas of bipartisan agreement, the truth is the exact opposite of the DC consensus. The American people would be much better off if Congress transferred the few constitutional functions performed by Homeland Security to other parts of the government and then shut down the rest of the department.

Many Americans associate Homeland Security with the color–coded terrorist warning system and the “if you see something, say something” public relations campaign. These programs were designed to inspire public confidence in the department, but instead they inspired public ridicule.

Ironically, the best case for shutting down this department is its most well-known component — the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). More terrorist attacks have been thwarted by airline passengers than by the TSA! The TSA may be ineffective at stopping terrorists, but it is very effective at harassing innocent Americans like Lucy Forck. Three-year-old Lucy, who uses a wheelchair, not only had to endure an intrusive screening from TSA agents, but the agents also took away her beloved stuffed animal.

When not abusing children who use wheelchairs, TSA subjects airline passengers to rules that seem designed to make air travel as unpleasant as possible. For example, TSA recently forced a Campaign for Liberty staffer to throw away a jar of Nutella she had in her carry-own luggage. I am sure all airline passengers feel safe knowing that TSA is protecting them from sandwich spreads.

Ending the TSA would return responsibility for airline security to airports and airlines. Private businesses have a greater incentive than a government bureaucracy to ensure their customers’ safety. Those conservatives who think this is a radical idea should try to think of one area where they trust government bureaucrats to do a better job than private business owners.

Another agency within Homeland Security that the American people could do without is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Having spent fifteen years in Congress representing a coastal area subject to hurricanes and floods, I have seen first-hand how FEMA places adherence to bureaucratic rules ahead of aiding victims of a natural disaster. As a result, it is not uncommon for disaster victims to wait months or even years for assistance.

FEMA not only fails to provide effective relief to disaster victims, it also impedes private disaster relief efforts. FEMA even hinders disaster victims’ efforts to help themselves. While in Congress, I heard stories of individuals being threatened with fines or even jail time if they returned to their property without FEMA’s permission. One individual in my district was threatened with arrest if he removed a tarp that FEMA put on his house — even though FEMA was supposed to have put it on his neighbor’s house!

Ten years after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it is clear that this department has failed to protect our security, but has infringed on liberty. If Congress really wanted to enhance our security and our liberty it would shut down this unnecessary, unconstitutional department.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/ron-paul/what-is-it-good-for-absolutely-nothing/

Inflation??? What inflation???

How’s That Deflation Working Out For You?

By Jim Quinn

The BLS put out their monthly CPI lie last week. They issued the proclamation that inflation is dead. Did you know your costs are 0.1% lower than they were one year ago. They then used these deflation numbers to proclaim your real wages soared last month. It’s all good. The American consumer is so flush with cash, they decided to spend less money for the second month in a row. The Wall Street shysters are so happy with declining consumer spending, declining corporate profits, and a global recession, they pushed the NASDAQ up to 5,000 for the first time in 15 years. Hey!!! That was the year 2000. Things really got better after that milestone.

So we know gasoline prices have plummeted in the last year (but are up 20% in the last month), but I’m trying to think of other things I use in my everyday life that have declined in price. Maybe going through the BLS detailed list will jog my memory. Here is the link to their data:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1501.pdf

Let’s see how much deflation we’ve experienced in the last year for things we need to live our everyday lives.

Beef and veal +22.5%

Ground beef +21.0%

Steaks +14.9%

Pork +7.4%

Ham +11.5%

Whole Chicken +6.1%

Fresh Fish +3.5%

Eggs +8.2%

Cheese +7.8%

Fresh Vegetables +4.3%

Lettuce +12.2%

Tomatoes +9.6%

Coffee +6.7%

Butter +19.5%

Restaurant food +3.1%

Housing +2.9%

Hotels +7.6%

Owners Equivalent Rent +2.6%

Homeowners Insurance +5.6%

Electricity +2.5%

Water & Sewer +5.5%

Home Repairs +4.4%

Footwear +2.6%

Car Insurance +5.0%

Parking Fees & Tolls +2.3%

Medicinal Drugs +4.2%

Prescription Drugs +5.6%

Hospital Services +4.3%

Veterinarian Services +3.2%

Sporting Events +3.6%

Newspapers & Magazines +4.6%

College Tuition +3.6%

Educational Books & Supplies +6.5%

Grade School & High School Tuition +4.0%

Childcare & Nursery School +3.0%

Postage +3.6%

Cigarettes +2.5%

Financial Services +5.7%

Tax Return Prep +9.3%

Read the rest here:
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/03/02/hows-that-deflation-working-out-for-you/

"The “gender gap” is not nearly as big as the honesty gap..."

The Honesty Gap

By Thomas Sowell

There may be some poetic justice in the recent revelation that Hillary Clinton, who has made big noises about a “pay gap” between women and men, paid the women on her Senate staff just 72 percent of what she paid the men. The Obama White House staff likewise has a pay gap between women and men, as of course does the economy as a whole.

Does this mean that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both discriminate against women, that they are themselves part of the nefarious “war on women” that so many on the left loudly denounce? The poetic justice in the recent “pay gap” revelations is that the fundamental fraud in the statistics that are thrown around comes back to bite those who are promoting that fraud for political purposes.

What makes such statistics fraudulent is that they are comparing apples and oranges.

Innumerable studies, going back for decades, have shown that women do not average as many hours of work per year as men, do not have as many consecutive years of full-time employment as men, do not work in the same mix of occupations as men and do not specialize in the same mix of subjects in college as men.

Back in 1996, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that young male physicians earned 41 percent higher incomes than young female physicians. But the same study showed that young male physicians worked over 500 hours a year more than young female physicians.

When the study took into account differences in hours of work, in the fields in which male and female doctors specialized and other differences in their job characteristics, “no earnings difference was evident.” In other words, when you compare apples to apples, you don’t get the “gender gap” in pay that you get when you compare apples to oranges.

This is not peculiar to the medical profession. Nor was this a new revelation, even back in 1996. Many studies done by many scholars over the years — including female scholars — show the same thing, again and again.

A breakdown of statistics in an old monograph of mine — “Affirmative Action in Academia” — showed the pay differential between women and men evaporating, or even reversing, as you compared individuals with truly comparable characteristics.

This was back in 1975, forty years ago!

There might have been some excuse for believing that income differences between women and men were proof of discrimination back in the 1960s. But there is no excuse for continuing to use misleading statistics in the 21st century, when their flaws have been exposed repeatedly and long ago.

Many kinds of high-level and high-pressure careers require working 50 or 60 hours a week regularly, and women with children — or expecting to have children — seldom choose those kinds of careers.

Nor is there any reason why they should, if they don’t want to. Raising a child is not an incidental activity that you can do in your spare time, like collecting stamps or bowling.

If you trace the actual history of women in high-level careers, you will find that it bears no resemblance to the radical feminist fable, in which advances began with the “women’s liberation” movement in the 1960s and new anti-discrimination laws.

In reality, women were far better represented in professional occupations in the first three decades of the 20th century than in the middle of that century. Women received a larger share of the postgraduate degrees necessary for such careers in the earlier era than in the 1950s and 1960s.

The proportion of women among the high achievers listed in “Who’s Who in America” in 1902 was more than double the proportion listed in 1958. The decline of women in high-level careers occurred when women’s age of marriage and child-bearing declined during the mid-century “baby boom” years.

The later rise of women began when the age of marriage and child-bearing rose again. In 1972 women again received as high a proportion of doctoral degrees as they had back in 1932.

The truth is not nearly as politically useful as scare statistics. The “gender gap” is not nearly as big as the honesty gap.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/thomas-sowell/the-gender-gap-fraud/

"Each year, 33,000 American die in auto accidents and tens of thousands die of the flu. Last week, the Center for Disease Control reported that in 2011 alone, Clostridium difficile, or C. diff, a disease this writer had never heard of, caused 15,000 deaths in the USA. How many American deaths did ISIS cause?"

Best of Times or Worst of Times?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Last week, John Kerry seemed to be auditioning for the role of Dr. Pangloss.

Despite jihadi violence across the Middle East and ISIS terror in Iraq and Syria, Kerry told Congress, we live in “a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally — less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared to undercut Kerry the next day when he testified, “When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years [since] such data has been complied.”

From January through September 2014, said Clapper, there were 13,000 terrorist attacks that killed 31,000 people. Afghanistan and Pakistan accounted for half of these attacks. And the Islamic State ranks first among terrorist organizations.

Yet, is Kerry wrong?

Despite our outrage over the barbarity of ISIS — beheadings of journalists and aid workers by “Jihadi John,” and of Christians on a beach — this century does not remotely rival in evil the bloodiest century of them all, the 20th.

From 1914-1918, nine million men died in the Great War. A comparable number of civilians perished.

At war’s end came the Russian Revolution and civil war, the Red Terror of Lenin, the genocide of the kulaks, the Holodomor in Ukraine and Stalin’s Great Purge of the ’30s.

Stalin’s butcher’s bill alone has been estimated at 30 million.

From World War II, 1939-45, European and Asian theaters together, the dead are estimated at another 50 million.

From 1945-49, in the Chinese civil war between the Communists of Mao Zedong and the Nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek, millions more died. The 1947-48 war in the subcontinent that severed Pakistan from India also consumed millions of Hindu and Muslim lives.

Came then Korea and Vietnam, where the U.S. dead totaled well over 90,000, and the Korean and Vietnamese dead numbered in the millions. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge produced a million dead Cambodians in their first year in power in 1975.

The Biafran War of secession from Nigeria from 1967 to 1970, the Derg coup in Ethiopia in 1974 and subsequent Marxist rule until 1991, Rwanda in the 1990s, were each responsible for over a million deaths.

World War I gave us poison gas and starvation blockades; World War II provided ethnic cleansing, genocide, saturation bombing of cities and women and children, with the firestorms of Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki the grand finale.

Does not Kerry have a case?

We Americans lost more than 600,000 dead from 1861-1865, and another 600,000 died in World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam.

In this century, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two longest wars in our history, the death toll is 7,000 — a terrible loss, but a tiny fraction of the number of Americans lost in wars during many of our lifetimes.

What Americans seem to lack today is a sense of perspective and what Mark Twain called “the calm confidence of a Christian with four aces.”

Jihadi John is a psycho, a sicko, a Charlie Manson who is loving all this publicity. He is not an “existential threat” to the United States.

Nor is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or as he now calls himself, “Caliph Ibrahim,” who told his American captors who handed him over to Iraqi authorities in 2009, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” Not likely, Abu.

This is not to say that America should dismiss the revolutionary forces roiling an Islamic world of dozens of nation states. If the Sunni regimes do not cope with this challenge, the epidemic could engulf them.

But as threats to the United States, ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram are pathetic compared to Hitler’s Reich, Tojo’s Japan, or the nuclear-armed “evil empire” of the Cold War.

During the height of the Vietnam War in 1968, we were losing 200 dead a week. During World War II, it was 2,000 dead a week.

How many Americans are dying each week at the hands of ISIS?

Make no mistake. These terrorists can bring down an airliner, shoot up malls, blow up buildings and kill a number of us. And they will behead any American who falls into their hands. But they cannot run a country. And they cannot defeat the United States.

Let us put this peril in perspective.

Each year, 33,000 American die in auto accidents and tens of thousands die of the flu. Last week, the Center for Disease Control reported that in 2011 alone, Clostridium difficile, or C. diff, a disease this writer had never heard of, caused 15,000 deaths in the USA.

How many American deaths did ISIS cause?

As the Shiites are already engaged against ISIS, we should inform our Sunni friends — the Turks, Egyptians, Saudis, Gulf Arabs: As you are the most threatened here, you are the first responders to this blaze.

We will have your back, but we will not fight your war for you.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/patrick-j-buchanan/isis-is-a-bad-bunch/

Say goodbye to the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The Chinese weren't buying gold for nothing.....

China plans yuan-denominated gold fix this year -sources
A. Ananthalakshmi

China plans to launch a yuan-denominated gold fix this year to be set through trading on an exchange, sources familiar with the matter said, as the world's second-biggest bullion consumer seeks to gain more say over the pricing of the precious metal.

The Chinese benchmark would be derived from a new 1 kg contract to be launched on the state-run Shanghai Gold Exchange, a senior source directly involved in the process told Reuters.

China, also the top producer of gold, feels its market weight should entitle it to be a price-setter for bullion and it is asserting itself at a time when the established benchmark, the century-old London fix, is under scrutiny because of alleged price-manipulation.

If the Chinese fix takes off, it could add to the pressure on the London benchmark, which is used worldwide by producers, refiners and central banks to price holdings and contracts, although the two could exist side-by-side.

"We need a renminbi benchmark for Chinese producers and foreign suppliers to the market," said the source, using an alternative name for the yuan. "This renminbi gold benchmark can be complementary to the U.S. dollar gold-fixing in London."

The contract for the Chinese fix would be traded for a few minutes each day to make the process transparent - addressing one of the big complaints about the London fix - and the exchange would settle all trades, the source said.

One barrier to wider international acceptance is that the yuan is not fully convertible.

A second source with a global bullion bank said trading and settlement could be done in offshore yuan to allow foreign banks and other suppliers to participate, although only domestic players are expected to participate initially.

China has already made some efforts to liberalise the yuan and encourage foreign participation in its domestic markets, especially in bullion.

The Shanghai Gold Exchange, which has been at the forefront of China's pricing efforts, opened an international bourse in September 2014 in the city's pilot free-trade zone, allowing foreigners to trade yuan-denominated contracts for the first time.

It has also opened up silver contracts for foreign players and launched gold options on a trial basis.

TRANSPARENCY PUSH

China's efforts to gain bigger sway on pricing gained momentum last year, when regulatory scrutiny over the London gold fix increased amid allegations of manipulation of the benchmark, which is set through a teleconference between a handful of banks.

A push to make the London process more transparent and electronic has resulted in a new administrator and a revised format, which is set to go live next month.

A new Chinese fix may be one too many for foreign banks.

"There are lots of compliance issues to deal with these days and I don't think any bank would be very enthusiastic about getting into another fix," the source with the bullion bank said.

Just this week, Switzerland's competition commission said it was looking into possible gold price manipulation, while the Wall Street Journal reported the U.S. Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were investigating at least 10 major banks for possible rigging of precious metals markets.

However, the fact that the Chinese price-setting would be done through an exchange could comfort some as it would be more transparent, the first source said. "There won't be any chance of malpractice on this platform," he said.

Others in Asia have also launched exchange-traded contracts recently with the aim of coming up with a price benchmark.

CME Group Inc launched a physically deliverable gold futures contract in Hong Kong earlier this year, while the Singapore Exchange launched a 25 kg contract last year.

Link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102461888

Jay Taylor: Austrian Economics and the Next (Bigger) Crash...

Trace Amounts Official Trailer...

“The Court finds that the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, a.k.a. Smarter Balanced, Smarter Balanced at UCLA, SBAC, and SB, is an unlawful interstate compact to which the U.S. Congress has never consented, whose existence and operation violate the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10, cl. 3, as well as numerous federal statutes,” the judge ruled. “Missouri’s participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium as a member is unlawful under state and federal law.”

Common Core Testing Regime Ruled Unconstitutional
Written by Alex Newman

In a development with massive implications for the Obama administration’s ongoing attempt at nationalizing education with Common Core, a Missouri judge ruled this week that the federally funded testing regime for the controversial standards was unconstitutional. The ruling means that the state of Missouri is officially prohibited from participating in the “Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium” (SBAC), a key element of Common Core enforcement, because it's an “unconstitutional interstate compact.”

The lawsuit against participation in the scheme was filed late last year by a group of taxpayers seeking to uphold the rule of law, safeguard public funds, and stop Common Core. Judge Daniel R. Green, with the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the state to immediately halt all involvement with the federally funded “multi-state” testing regime. In particular, Judge Green noted that Congress had never approved the interstate compact being foisted on states by the Obama administration’s Department of Education.

“The Court finds that the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, a.k.a. Smarter Balanced, Smarter Balanced at UCLA, SBAC, and SB, is an unlawful interstate compact to which the U.S. Congress has never consented, whose existence and operation violate the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10, cl. 3, as well as numerous federal statutes,” the judge ruled. “Missouri’s participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium as a member is unlawful under state and federal law.”

As such, the court declared that “any putative obligations, including the obligation to pay membership fees, of the State of Missouri to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium ... are illegal and void.” The judge also declared that “no Missouri taxpayer funds may be disbursed to SBAC in the form of membership fees, whether directly or indirectly.” Finally, the court permanently prohibited state officials, and “all those in active concert with them,” from “taking any action to implement or otherwise effectuate any payment of Missouri funds as membership fees to SBAC, whether directly or indirectly.”

The suit against state officials, from Democrat Governor Jay Nixon on down, argued that Nixon and his officials attempted to cede Missouri’s sovereignty over education policy to the illegal entity “operating under the influence of federal regulators located in Washington, DC.” Even though state lawmakers overwhelmingly repudiated the standards scheme in 2014 with veto-proof margins, state officials continued in their efforts to send millions of taxpayer dollars to the illegal entity.

Also cited in the lawsuit was the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers to states and the people if they were not specifically delegated to the federal government. “It has long been recognized that educational policy is an area of core state competence and concern that is not delegated to the federal government under the Constitution and our system of federalism,” the concerned taxpayers argued in their complaint, adding that federal statutes going back almost 50 years also prohibit the U.S. government from controlling education policy, curriculum, or assessment programs.

Common Core, the suit argued, violates those federal laws and the U.S. Constitution. It has also sparked nationwide outrage across the political spectrum, the petition observed. Nonetheless, Governor Nixon, without authorization from the people’s elected representatives, unilaterally signed an agreement purporting to force Missouri to impose the flawed and unlawful standards. The Obama administration, meanwhile, using bribes and lawless “waivers” from other unconstitutional federal education schemes, was working to impose its nationalization plan on Missouri and other states, explained the lawsuit.

State lawmakers, at least, appear to have gotten the message. “The House will act immediately to strip all SBAC funding from the budget with the goal of ending our membership with this group that is in clear violation of the federal and state constitutions,” said Missouri House Speaker John Diehl, a Republican, after the ruling. “The people of Missouri have made it clear they have a distaste for Common Core and that they do not want to see their tax dollars wasted on these federally-produced standards. Going forward, we will continue to focus our efforts on developing Missouri-based standards that will best serve the needs of our young people.”

Indeed, last year, lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to kill the Common Core scheme in Missouri and to have a state panel create new, superior state standards. In interviews with The New American, the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit against SBAC participation sounded optimistic that the nationalization scheme would fail in Missouri — as well as nationwide. However, as this magazine has reported, more than a few states have officially “withdrawn” from Common Core, owing to widespread public pressure, only to keep it largely in place after making a few minor changes.

Still, activists with the Missouri Coalition Against Common Core remain hopeful, and celebrated the court’s ruling. “The SBAC lawsuit was, at its foundation, about the rule of law,” Anne Gassel, one of the taxpayers involved in the lawsuit, told The New American. “Should tax payers be forced to pay for something that was created through the collusion of private entities and the government which circumvented the rule of law, in this case the Constitution?” Her answer is a strong no.

In the recently decided case against SBAC and the governor, “the court agreed that those who created the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia did not follow the rule of law and obtain Congressional approval in establishing the consortia,” she added. “We believe, therefore, that the Memorandum of Agreement signed by our state for the Race To The Top Grant program, and the NCLB [No Child Left Behind] waiver we applied for, which required that our state be a member of a testing consortia, cannot bind the state and the taxpayer to pay for membership in the illegal consortia.”

Gassel and the other two plaintiffs — former Republican gubernatorial candidate Fred Sauer and parent activist Gretchen Logue — expect the governor to appeal the ruling. However, the case appears to be relatively straightforward: State governments and the Obama administration defied the U.S. Constitution and an array of state and federal laws to foist Common Core on the unsuspecting American people. In fact, in a phone call with The New American, Gassel and Logue indicated that, if the testing scheme is unconstitutional in Missouri, it is also unlawful in other states. State activists hope the growing bi-partisan movement against Common Core across America can learn from Missouri and kill the testing regime in other states. Many have already backed out.

As The New American has been reporting for years, the federally funded testing consortia — SBAC and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) — are crucial to the Obama administration’s nationalization plot. Essentially, the administration’s tests, if imposed, will dictate what must be taught in the classroom. As chief Common Core financier and population-control zealot Bill Gates put it in a speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures in 2009: “When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well.” The testing regime is also a crucial component of the Orwellian data-gathering and data-mining plot.

Of course, the Common Core-pushing establishment — Big Business and Big Government, mostly — has no intention of surrendering. However, with outrage over what one state lawmaker and education expert described to The New American as “state-sponsored child abuse” continuing to sweep the nation, the battle is far from over. Parents, taxpayers, educators, and more are crossing party lines to smash the plot. If Americans hope to restore proper education and local control, though, the growing grassroots uprising against Common Core will have to ratchet up the pressure even more.

Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/20204-common-core-testing-regime-ruled-unconstitutional

Ron Paul: Is Government Regulation of Internet Helpful?

"Now we have in America laws that allow for the indefinite imprisonment without trial of those the state deems “terrorists,” without that term being defined. We have an American president who has assumed the authority to kill Americans with drones without due process. We have federal authorities and state and local police abusing citizens with impunity, shooting unarmed and complying citizens down like rabid dogs. And we even have evidence of local police using CIA- or Gestapo-like “black sites” to hold and interrogate Americans without charges or due process."

The fascist state of America
by Bob Livingston

There comes a time in the course of human events that it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another. America is fast hurtling toward that time.

The United States was founded on the republican principles of federalism (states’ rights) and representative government. Today’s government is “constitutional” in name only.

The undocumented usurper currently despoiling the peoples’ house has for six years shown utter disdain for the founding document. In a town hall meeting on Wednesday last, Barack Obama bragged that he has expanded his authorities “under executive action and prosecutorial discretion.”

But Article III of the Constitution lays out the chief executive’s authorities quite explicitly. There is no room for “expanding” them within the scope of the Constitution. The President is neither tasked with nor authorized to write law or change it. That falls solely under the scope of Congress, as outlined in Article I, Section 1. The executive’s role under Article III, Section 4 is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

But Congress has ceded its authority as the lawmaking body to the imperial president and the myriad alphabet soup agencies of government. Now we have the IRS, the FCC, the EPA, HHS, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the FDA, the USDA, etc., writing and enforcing laws under the guise of “regulatory authority.” The result is a contemptible abuse of the people by agents of the federal government, rising taxes and fees, closed businesses, stifled innovation, and depressed economic growth.

When some in Congress do take the tepid step of attempting to regain some of its authority, the bureaucrats show their disdain and contempt of that “august body” by refusing to testify when called on or by refusing to provide requested documents outlining their regulatory agenda or demonstrating the depths of their criminality (see Tom Wheeler, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, etc.).

An activist judiciary is likewise writing law, overturning the will of the people as demonstrated by their votes on state issues and granting by fiat special rights and privileges to one group at the expense of the rights of the others. This is another place where Congress has ceded its authority.

Should it choose to, Congress has the power under Article III, Section 2 to regulate the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. In other words, Congress can pass a law prohibiting the federal courts from ruling on such issues as state-passed referenda on gay marriage, abortion, legalization of pot or anything it chooses.

Of course, few in Congress when considering doing a thing stop to consider whether they are authorized to do it. Fewer still in government consider the Constitution at all. That’s because politics and government attract psychopaths, liars and thieves. It attracts people who are parasitic in nature, greedy and without conscience. In short, these are people who have the born mentality to live off of other people.

They are selfish and attracted to money and power. Therefore, they are easily swayed and even bought by the corporatists and banksters; and their every act is to increase their and their agency’s power and sphere of influence.

The masses of people have been propagandized by the state-controlled media and the public (non)education system into believing that government is designed and tasked with looking out for the best interests of the people. But nothing could be further from the truth. They have little knowledge of the Constitution and little concept of limited government, and they believe government can and should be all things to all people… particularly if a check to them from the federal Treasury is involved.

The so-called regulatory agencies of government are typically staffed at the top by crony capitalists and lobbyists for the industries they supposedly regulate. As such, they write rules and regulations that benefit preferred large multinational corporations and government at the expense of the people. I have documented this so many times here that it is now self-evident to all but the most sycophantic worshipers of government. However, given its relevance considering the passage last Thursday of misnamed “net neutrality” regulations by the FCC, I give you for evidence the agency’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, former president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, which are lobbying organizations for the cable and telecommunications industries. He was also an executive for a venture capital firm that invested in technology firms.

As Benito Mussolini stated, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” and “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.” That exactly explains what our former constitutional republic has become. It is benevolent totalitarianism, tyranny under the guise of democracy. But the truth is democracy = socialism = fascism = communism. They are one in the same.

Mussolini also said of his fascism, “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty,” and that is likewise the goal of the American fascist politician and federal bureaucrat. Liberty necessarily perishes under collectivism, egalitarianism and government altruism.

Now we have in America laws that allow for the indefinite imprisonment without trial of those the state deems “terrorists,” without that term being defined. We have an American president who has assumed the authority to kill Americans with drones without due process. We have federal authorities and state and local police abusing citizens with impunity, shooting unarmed and complying citizens down like rabid dogs. And we even have evidence of local police using CIA- or Gestapo-like “black sites” to hold and interrogate Americans without charges or due process.

America is a prison nation, with more citizens incarcerated than the most vile and oppressive government you might care to name.

It bears little resemblance to the free and prosperous nation envisioned as the 18th century turned into the 19th, or even as the 19th turned into the 20th.

In his book, “The Political Crisis of the 1850s,” Michael Holt describes how Americans, particularly Southern Americans, had lost all confidence in the current political system because the existing parties did not represent the people but instead represented the agricultural aristocracy and big business and the banksters. There was also an influx of aliens (mostly Irish Catholics and Germans) who Americans believed did not understand or appreciate America’s “values.” The political parties agitated the people over these immigrants, creating a constant state of strife in addition to the already existing acrimony over the slavery issue, the addition of states to the union and tariffs.

America’s current political system is very similar. Regardless of which “party” holds power, government grows more oppressive and steals more wealth from its people. It creates one crisis after the other, keeping the people agitated against each other so they cannot focus on the real culprit behind their lost liberties: fascist government.

Elite politicians and most white progressives hold most Americans in great disdain. To them, conservatives are racist hicks and trailer trash clinging to their guns and religion — backward and ignorant and “anti” progressive. Or, in their minds, regressive. To the elite politicians and most white progressives, blacks are incapable of providing for themselves or are simply another minority group ripe for continued exploitation. It is slavery under another name.

Elite politicians and most white progressives would like nothing more than to see those in “flyover country” left to their own devices. Yet talk of separation is deemed seditious, unpatriotic or unAmerican; and those who mention secession are considered more dangerous than ISIS, or IS or ISIL by the current regime. Just belonging to a group discussing secession now gets you raided by the FBI and fingerprinted and your personal communication devices confiscated.

This is freedom in America.

The Constitution was ratified to create a government “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Can anyone honestly say American government does these things today?

Link:
http://personalliberty.com/fascist-state-america/

Cartoon of the day...

We can only hope...

Will Technology Render Fractional-Reserve Banks Obsolete?

By Joseph T. Salerno

Imagine that you need a cash loan to tide you over to your next paycheck, but banks cannot or will not lend to you. So you stop at a machine that looks very much like an ATM. You scan your passport photo, pose for a photograph, enter your cell phone number, and punch in the sum of money that you would like to borrow. Within 15 minutes you receive a text message indicating that your loan application has been approved and directing you to return to the machine and withdraw your cash. This is not fanciful speculation about the future of finance but a reality in Moscow, where 20 such “loan ATMs” are being tested in train stations and shopping malls. The machines belong to SMS Finance (an affiliate of 4finance Holding), which is owned by parapalegic Russian billionaire Oleg Boyko. Boyko became wealthy operating slot machine casinos in Russia before they were banned in 2009.

The machines dispense up to 15,000 rubles ($241) per loan, which must be repaid in 20 days or less– with an interest rate of 2% per day or 730% on an annualized basis. When the loan comes due borrowers may repay it at a local bank, electronics store, online, or using a digital payments system. While the default rate on these micro-loans is 10%, 55% of overdue debt is eventually repaid. The loan ATMs will be tested in Poland and Spain next.

This is one of several recent examples of innovations in technology and finance being creatively married by entrepreneurs to provide financial intermediation outside of the politically privileged and governmentally insured fractional-reserve banks.

Yet another exciting example of nonbank financial intermediation is represented by small-business lender OnDeck Capital. OnDeck makes loans in the amounts of $5,000 to $240,000, and uses algorithms rather than loan officers to determine borrower creditworthiness. Prospective borrowers apply online, and OnDeck makes loan decisions within a few hours. If the loan is approved, the money appears in the borrower’s account the next day–versus two weeks later for banks. The default rate on OnDeck’s loan portfolio is 5%, about comparable to that of bank loans. The traditional way for small businesses to acquire needed capital is via merchant cash advances on their future credit card receipts. These advances bear a hefty annualized interest rate of 70% to 120% or more. OnDeck lends to restaurants, nail salons, auto-body shops, etc. typically at an interest rate of 60 percent or less per annum. In December 2014, OnDeck’s I.P.O. raised $200 million at a price $2.00 per share above the forecast range giving the firm a total valuation of $1.3 billion.

Since OnDeck acquires its funds from selling equity and drawing on lines of credit with hedge funds and banks, it is immune to a dreaded “bank run” that is a continual threat to institutions which lend depositor funds and, in the process, create money– institutions otherwise known as fractional reserve banks.

Addendum: For the general case that technology has “leap-frogged the banking sector, rendering it as obsolete as buggy whips,” see the thoughtful piece by Charles Hughes-Smith here.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/joseph-salerno/cut-out-the-banksters/

If you love war...

You’re a Conservative

By Paul Gottfried

Last night at the CPAC conference when Sean Hannity interviewed presidential hopeful Jeb Bush on his „conservative“ bona fides, one question the Fox-news star immediately threw at the interviewee is whether he „believes in American exceptionalism.” This now has become the supreme acid test of who is or is not a “conservative,” and rarely can one turn on to Fox or read an article in the Murdoch press without encountering the new, pervasive touchstone of conservative right-think. The recent brouhaha created when former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani stated that President Obama did not “love America” the way he did, was simply a reformulation of the same acid test.

And so was a contest devised last week by Hannity between Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindall and California congressman Darrell Issa, when Hannity asked the two GOP stars to respond to Giuliani’s effusions. This gave rise to a competition between the politicians over who could be more over the top in oozing “love” for what America meant to their families. Their forebears, as we were quickly told, came as immigrants (in Issa’s case about one hundred years ago) to this “incredible land.” A glowing defense of the same enthusiasm in the New York Post last Sunday, by Kyle Smith, indicates that the vast majority of Americans who now consider themselves “conservative,” place huge emphasis on believing that “America is exceptional.” Indeed they would demand such a confession of faith from anyone they would think of voting for.

“Conservative” in the US, however, now means something very specific, namely being attached to the Murdoch media, as a brain support system, 24/7. The fact such a self-selected group believes what is poured into their heads continuously has no more informative value than discovering that someone who read The Daily Worker around 1950 thought that Uncle Joe was a great guy. I would not expect any other results in either case. More interesting is why the source of enlightenment on which American “conservatives” depend tells them what it does. I am of course taking into account what Obama correctly said, and for which the GOP is still hammering him, that Americans think they’re exceptional the way those living in the British or Roman empire thought they were exceptional. It is only natural for the citizens or subjects of a world empire (which is what the US is today) to feel good about their political association. I would not expect anything else.

I am also factoring in the view of the establishment (both left-liberal and neoconservative) of America as a “country of immigrants,” held together by some kind of civic creed. Presumably believing in something like “universal equality” makes us different from and better than those nations (e.g., Israel?) that stress ethnic identity as a national link. If propositional nationhood happens to be the unifying card one is holding, then why not show it around?

And there are of course other more substantial reasons to value an association with the US. Unlike the increasingly repressive “liberal democracies” in Western Europe, we do have residual First Amendment liberties to say politically incorrect things without facing criminal charges, as now happens to right-wing dissenters in antifascist Germany, France and Holland. And we still do have the opportunity in this country to make piles of money, if we are resourceful enough and can avoid being hammered by the IRS. Just speak to professionals from other countries and they’ll tell you how much easier it is for them to enrich themselves here (and to get hold of netflick) than it was from wherever they came from.

What I am assuming is an ulterior motive for why the Murdoch media are pushing the America exceptionalist card at this particular time. Although neocons, Straussians and other usual suspects have belabored this card since time out of memory, unless I’m mistaken, exceptionalism is now being pushed with special fury. All the GOP presidential candidates at the CPAC conference (with the exception of Rand Paul) were spitting out exceptionalist rhetoric, usually in combination with calls for American intervention somewhere. Dare I to suggest that the two are integrally related? The rote recitation of American uniqueness as the essence of a manufactured “conservatism” is only the other face of foreign policy belligerence.

Sabre-rattling and doing something or other about Obamacare seem to be the only issues that presently interest the Republicans. They’ve given up entirely on social issues and don’t care if federal judges are overriding state referenda banning gay marriage. Hell, Republican as well as Democratic federal judges, as in my home state of Pennsylvania where Bush-appointee John Jones has taken the lead, are happily striking down bans on gay marriage as inconsistent with their peculiar gloss on the Fourteenth Amendment. And the GOP is putting distance between itself and other issues. Anyone but a Fox-news junkie knows the Republican Congress would never deny amnesty to illegal residents in the US. Instead party leaders in Congress and presidential candidates are looking for “paths to citizenship” for those who jumped the border and are staying her against the law. So what the GOP continues to provide the voters with is more gas about exceptionalism, together with calls to make lesser breeds elsewhere fear us.

As an addendum I should mention that I am not arguing against American intervention anywhere at any time. Although in the present circumstances, namely with what passes for the kind of foreign policy expertise that American leaders are receiving from media-approved experts, I may sound like an absolute isolationist that is not quite my position–yet. It may take John Bolton as secretary-of-state to push me all the way in that direction. What is worrisome at the present time is the appeal to an American ideological crusade, couched in the bombast of American exceptionalism and stressing the interventionist right of the “one indispensable nation.” The latest GOP-FOX-inspired noise about our being exceptional is either an attempt to win elections with empty boasting or else a preparation for going to war somewhere— perhaps everywhere. This nonsense may also be intended to serve both ends.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/paul-gottfried/youre-a-conservative/

"Fascists running America want hardline rule established everywhere. No matter how many millions of corpses it takes to accomplish their objective."

Putin Bashing Crowd in Overdrive Over Nemtsov Killing

By Stephen Lendman

Throughout his tenure, irresponsible Western officials and complicit media scoundrels bashed him relentlessly. Any excuse will do.

Stuff made up out of whole cloth is held against him. Whatever he does is wrong no matter how right.

His months of efforts to save Europe from the scourge of more war is treated like he intends to wage it.

The reason, of course, is his opposition to US imperial adventurism. Its plan to colonize planet earth, steal its resources, and enslave its people as serfs paid poverty or sub-poverty wages.

To let Western monied interests and war-makers control everything for their own benefit at the expense of all others.

To transform nations into exploitable assets. To crush all opposition to its agenda. To let bankers steal everyone’s wealth.

To wage permanent wars because they’re so profitable. To risk destroying planet earth to own it. To commit genocide all in a day’s work.

Putin’s vision is polar opposite. He wants peace, not war. He believes in nation-state sovereignty inviolability.

He says rule of law principles are meant to be obeyed – especially when world peace is at stake. Over 85% of Russians support him.

Why anyone besides rich elites profiting at the expense of others supports Obama they’ll have to explain.

Nemtsov’s killing aroused the bash Putin crowd – despite knowing he had nothing to with it.

Odds strongly indicate a CIA false flag – much like many others it instigated throughout its sordid history.

Jack Kennedy once said he wanted “to splinter (it) in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds” – reason enough to kill him.

For sure over wanting war in Vietnam ended. Obama can’t wait to wage another one. His desire for imperial conquest is insatiable.

As this is written, smaller crowds mourning Nemtsov than Putin bashers hoped for turned out in Moscow and St. Petersburg – around 7,000 in each city growing incrementally throughout the afternoon.

Sputnik News estimated a Moscow 21,000 turnout. Nemtsov supporters hoped for 50,000 or more.

NBC News hyped “immense crowds.” The New York Timesludicrously said after Nemtsov’s killing, “(t)here are no longer any limits.”

Ignoring no-holds-barred US domestic and global barbarism throughout its sordid history – especially post-WW II. Most of all post-9/11.

Nemtsov was a widely disliked self-serving opportunist. The Times ludicrously called him a “standard-bearer of Western liberalism.”

Putin bashing followed. The Times irresponsibly accused him of an “aggressive foreign policy…labeling his opposition a ‘fifth column,’ (and using) state television (to whip) up a militant, nationalistic fervor…”

It quoted a Putin critic saying “(t)he fact that they (meaning Russia’s government) killed him is a message to frighten everyone…”

“This is what happens to people who go against the government of our country.”

Despite knowing Putin had nothing to do with Nemtsov’s killing, The Times published this rubbish – willful Big Lies intended to deceive.

The neocon controlled Washington Post headlined “Russian opposition leaders allege Kremlin links to Nemtsov slaying.”

On the one hand, WoPo flat-out lied. It knows nothing suggests Putin’s involvement. On the other,it hyped a nonexistent threat for political advantage not achieved. More on this below.

At the time of his death, Nemtsov was a political nobody. Polls showed his RPR-PARNAS party had less than 5% support. His personal popularity was around 1%.

You’d never know it based WaPo hyperbole calling him “a towering figure of post-Soviet politics.”

Perhaps he was a legend in his own mind – in very few others in Russia wanting nothing to do with him.

WaPo practically blamed Putin for his death. It called his killing “by far the highest-profile assassination during” his tenure.

Despite no evidence suggesting it, WaPo claimed opposition elements “reasoned that, at minimum, the security services that blanket Red Square must have had advance warning of Nemtsov’s fate.”

Putin had every reason not wanting him or other opposition figures killed. Political smearing alone would follow.

Plenty of unjustifiable criticism – much like what’s happening now. Besides nothing suggesting Putin believes it’s OK to order someone killed.

No evidence suggests he maintains a kill list like Obama – deciding who lives or dies. Ordering people killed by presidential diktat. Acting extrajudicially as judge, jury and executioner.

Heading a regime more abusive of fundamental civil and human rights than any government in history. Making state terror official US policy.

WaPo irresponsibly quoted Nemtsov ally Vladimir Milov absurdly calling his killing “connected to the authorities.”

Another opposition figure was quoted claiming an “aggressive atmosphere created by the Kremlin…could lead to murder” – without citing a shred of corroborating evidence.

None exists. Don’t expect WaPo to explain.

Wall Street Journal neocons hyped Nemtsov’s “political assassination” as “the new reality of Putin’s Russia.”

Again no corroborating evidence, Just baseless accusations and hype about “Russia’s now-dimmed an tarnished hopes for democracy and reform…”

During his 2012 presidential campaign, Putin warned about dark forces “abroad…looking for a sacrificial victim from among prominent people.”

“They would rub him out and then blame it on the authorities. I know about this. I’m not exaggerating,” he said.

What happened was exactly as he envisioned. Perhaps to be followed by similar CIA-staged false flags irresponsibly blamed on him.

The good news is Washington’s best laid plans fell flat. The Saker reported no opposition elements blaming Putin for what happened.

Many indicated a provocation – the term Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov used meaning a false flag intended to blame Kremlin authorities unjustly.

The area around the seat of government is heavily surveilled for security reasons. The Saker expects an arrest in a week at most, likely sooner.

If evidence shows US involvement, he believes it won’t be made public. Instead it will be used quietly behind the scenes, he said.

Expect little or no effect on Putin’s popularity. It won’t stop lunatics in Washington and media scoundrels from bashing him relentlessly.

By this time next week or sooner, they’ll find other reasons to vilify him unjustly. It doesn’t matter what he does or doesn’t do.

A Final Comment

March 1 marks the one-year anniversary of Donbass anti-fascist resistance. Freedom fighters risked all for fundamental democratic rights everyone deserves.

What began as a protest against Kiev’s ban on Russian language use developed into full-blown rebellion against fascist rule – notably in Donetsk and Lugansk.

Activists from Russia, other parts of Ukraine and elsewhere joined rebels against the scourge of fascism they deplore – perhaps inspired by the Lincoln and other Spanish Civil War brigades.

Freedom-fighting rebels want Novorossiya freed from fascist tyranny. They overcame enormous odds so far.

Their liberating struggle continues. It has miles to go. Washington deplores democracy. Expect all-out US efforts to crush it in Donbass.

Maybe by US-led NATO war – turning Novorossiya into a killing field like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Maybe initiated by a US-instigated Ukraine 9/11 followed by shock-and-awe bombing.

Fascists running America want hardline rule established everywhere. No matter how many millions of corpses it takes to accomplish their objective.

No matter how much human misery follows. No matter if nuclear war risks mass annihilation.

Lunatics in Washington may end life on earth to own it. No greater threat in history matches what humanity faces today. No greater urgency than ending it before it ends us.

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/stephen-lendman/another-anti-putin-false-flag/

They've got themselves a fever for more war...

10 Reasons Washington Has War Fever

By Ron Holland

“War is merely the continuation of policy by other means.” – Carl von Clausewitz

The political elites, Federal Reserve and special interests that really run the show hiding behind Congress and the president of either party in America’s closed two-party monopoly seem to be running scared in many regards. They rightly have many fears for their political future as well as the profits and survival of the major international corporations and banking interests that support the current political leadership and regime.

Never has our nation, corporations and wealthy top 1% faced so many new threats to their efforts to grow their power and wealth around the world. Although there is enough blame and mistakes to go around, many of these threats can not really be blamed on our political or financial leaders but rather result from changes in the fast-paced world we live in today.

Conspiracy theorists prefer to see the world in black and white with no gray areas and keep it simple by criticizing secret groups or powerful interests for every problem but I believe the real situation is far more complicated. But everyone should realize the free America we grew up in has been long dead and buried with only the institutions and slogans remaining to lull the dumbed down public into apathy and acceptance. Our leaders are not omnipotent and certainly do not have all the answers and I suggest they have few answers and are actually making everything up as they go along, hence why I fear they will ultimately choose war as a solution to their problems.

Our America Does Not Exist Any More

Of course, conspiracies exist and thanks to Edward Snowden’s publicity, America does indeed operate a global police state with intelligence gathering, torture and spying everywhere in the world. While I believe this effort is more directed toward controlling foreign and domestic politicians and powerful individuals than targeting helpless Americans who disagree with policies, this is a frightening situation for what once was the symbol of freedom and liberty for the entire world.

But as Dorothy told her dog, Toto, in the classic “Wizard of Oz” movie, “I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore,” we’re also not in the America of our Founding Fathers any more, either. Real capitalism and free markets simply do not exist any longer. A few powerful interests manipulate all markets, unlimited fiat money is a profitable franchise and we are attempting to police and control the entire world to maintain our leadership position held since the end of World War Two.

Today you are a fool to trust what the government or press claims is true, fair and balanced, as it’s all just propaganda. Regulatory organizations exist only to protect the favored industries not the public, our legal system is a joke and all wars fought for democracy against evil are just looting expeditions against other nations out for profits, gain and natural resources.

All governments issue propaganda and mainstream news organizations sell the secret agendas and policies to the people. But the world today and especially the United States faces new challenges not even war-gamed or focus-grouped a few years ago and here lies the problem and risks for the nation and citizenry.

War May Be the Only Solution Left For Our Political Elites To Survive & Prosper

As Clausewitz so clearly stated, “War is merely the continuation of policy by other means,” and our leadership and the special interests behind them want to continue the policies and actions that have created so much wealth and world power for them. Think for a moment about the threats they are facing at home and abroad and how a major but limited war could solve or postpone most of their problems and threats to their powerbase.

There are two problems with the war solution. First, while it may be in their best interest to guarantee their survival, war would be bad for our military, soldiers and civilians as well as our economy, private wealth and remaining liberties. Second, there is no guarantee that a real war once started would remain limited in nature. I think both world wars are historical examples of how plans for limited wars can turn into major wars killing tens of millions and all of this for power hungry politicians and vested economic interests. Remember this classic quote about war: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” – Helmuth von Moltke, German military strategist

Wars Are Easy To Start and Rally Patriotism But Are Difficult to End

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.” – Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

1. Wars can provide a crisis and justification to continue sovereign debt issuance and currency expansion for the duration of the conflict.

2. War would allow the politicians to blame Russia and China for the coming end to the dollar as the world reserve currency as well as the looming dollar and debt crisis.

3. The Federal Reserve and their global central banking cartel have really destroyed the economy of the West through excessive debt issuance, money creation and borrowing. A war would allow the blame to be transferred to the enemy nations for public consumption.

4. War would allow the US to regain control over the European Union, individual European nations and NATO. Today, Germany, France and other nations are wavering in the lockstep support for US policies and war plans in the Ukraine.

5. War would stifle secession movements in Spain and Scotland, Greece and Italy threats to withdraw from the EU and the common euro currency.

6. A war would provide the excuse for the US to reestablish elite control over news and opinion from foreign news organizations and alternative Internet news competition.

7. A war against Russia and Iran would safeguard competition from Russian and Iranian oil and gas delivery pipelines as well as allow us to control Middle East production and continue the Petrodollar system for years to come.

8. As in both world wars, a major war would allow the government to terminate all domestic political movements and adversaries except for “approved” controlled opposition candidates from the two major parties.

9. A successful war against allies of China would delay the global power challenge from a resurgent China for a few years.

10. Finally, during a wartime crisis situation, politicians can always get away with attacks on civil liberties, freedom of the press and wealth confiscation to a degree never possible during peacetime and here lies the ultimate war threat to the majority of the American people. The much hyped and often undercover agent driven fake terror plots designed to keep the citizens living in fear and willing to give up liberties for safety simply does not work any longer now 14 years after 9/11.

But a real war would provide the crisis excuse to confiscate your gold and “excess” retirement plan and IRA assets, reduce or curtail your social security benefits, dramatically raise taxes and institute total exchange controls while curtailing your remaining freedoms and ability to resist for the duration of the crisis. I’ll be speaking on wars, conflicts and why you should have a safe haven residence at the upcoming High Alert Investment Management Conference in May.

I hope I’m wrong about war becoming the solution of choice for Washington’s many mistakes and shortcomings. Watch what happens in Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine over the next year and we will likely have the answer. But one of our founding fathers certainly knew better than to allow war or a war crisis to override good leadership and common sense.

“They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/no_author/why-the-war-fever/

Yuri Maltsev The Savagery of Socialism...

"Political correctness and the burgeoning movement to outlaw “offensive language” are merely tactics to: preserve groups’ separate identities; foment conflict between them; and ultimately foster their dependence on government authority."

The “dependent victim” psyop

Jon Rappoport

“American and British feminism has amazingly collapsed backward again into whining, narcissistic victimology… Too many of today’s young feminists seem to want hovering, paternalistic authority figures to protect and soothe them, an attitude I regard as servile, reactionary and glaringly bourgeois…” (Camille Paglia, the National Catholic Review, 2/25/15)

I could have titled this piece: “What government fears: the black entrepreneur.”

But the situation is much wider than that—-

Any person who comes out of an “officially designated victim-group” …and then succeeds in life on his own… and then goes one step further and refuses to identify his entire existence with his group… but instead stands as a unique individual… why, that person, at the very least, must be a criminal, if not a terrorist, right?

That’s the crux of the issue: never leave your group.

That’s how society, civilization, and culture are promoted these days.

“Groups have needs, agendas, and problems, and the solution will come from government.” That’s the all-embracing formula.

Who would invent and expand that formula? The beneficiary. Government.

The fake appearance is: victim groups are fighting for recognition and special status, and the government is pushing back—but that’s now a ruse. That’s a cover story. In fact, victim groups and government have the same goal: a relationship based on dependence. One side depends and the other side gives and protects.

The individual is out of the equation. He is portrayed as the greed-obsessed reason these victim groups exist and need help in the first place.

Banks, Wall Street, and mega-corporations are depicted as the end result of individualism, whereas the government is valiantly striving to solve this endemic problem.

In fact, government, banks, Wall Street, and mega-corporations are joined at the hip. They brush each others’ teeth first thing every morning.

Political correctness and the burgeoning movement to outlaw “offensive language” are merely tactics to: preserve groups’ separate identities; foment conflict between them; and ultimately foster their dependence on government authority.

The idea that the free and independent individual is a sociopath responsible for the existence of victims is absurd.

The truth is, you can’t get free individuals to depend on government. Only “besieged groups” can be relied on for that purpose.

In the State’s eyes, a perfect society would be composed of groups who have entirely forgotten the concept of the individual, as if it never existed.

Peter Collero, of the department of sociology, Western Oregon University, has written a book titled: The Myth of Individualism: How Social Forces Shape Our Lives:

“Most people today believe that an individual is a person with an independent and distinct identification. This, however, is a myth.”

When Callero writes “identification,” he isn’t talking about ID cards and Social Security numbers. He’s talking about an absence of any uniqueness from person to person. He’s asserting there is no significant distinction between any two people. There aren’t two individuals to begin with. They’re a group.

This downgrading of the individual human spirit is far from accidental. It’s launched as a sustained propaganda campaign, the ultimate purpose of which is top-down control over billions of people organized into groups.

“The cold truth is that the individualist creed of everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost is principally responsible for the distress in which Western civilization finds itself — with investment racketeering at one end and labor racketeering at the other. Whatever merits the [individualist] creed may have had in the days of primitive agriculture and industry, it is not applicable in an age of technology, science, and rationalized economy. Once useful, it has become a danger to society.” (Charles Beard, 1931)

Beard, a celebrated historian, sees no difference between individual racketeering and the individual freely choosing and living his own life. In making this judgment, he becomes an intellectual/propaganda racketeer of the highest order.

“British empiricist philosophy is individualist. And it is of course clear that if the only criterion of true and false which a man accepts is that man’s, then he has no base for social agreement. The question of how man ought to behave is a social question, which always involves several people; and if he accepts no evidence and no judgment except his own, he has no tools with which to frame an answer.” (Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, 1956).

Bronowski is quite sure that hearing other people’s evidence and then keeping one’s own counsel is wrong. One has to accept that evidence on its face. This is sheer idiocy. Individuals are capable of deciding, on their own, what social agreements to enter into.

Here’s what journalist Glenn Greenwald (who is gay) has written about the symbolic nature of the American Presidency. Though not making reference to the group vs. the individual, Greenwald’s remarks illustrate the degree to which victim-symbology has taken hold in the US:

“Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person [as President] after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.”

Regardless of the fact that the State and its allies are real oppressors who contribute mightily to creating real victims, what I’m talking about here is something quite apart from that: growing numbers of people who voluntarily take on the victim-mantle and seek comfort in nests of self-promoting groups who exaggerate and distort their own claims to special status.

The State needs these people. The State wants these people. Increasingly, the State employs these people.

Edward Bernays, the father of modern public relations, wrote: “It is sometimes possible to change the attitudes of millions but impossible to change the attitude of one man.”

Bernays understood that the basis of successful propaganda is a mass audience, an audience composed of groups, not individuals.

Retired high-level propaganda operative, Ellis Medavoy (pseudonym), once told me, “There are two aspects of propaganda. There is everything you do to get people to think of themselves as group members. And then there are all the messages you send to those conditioned group members. You need both aspects.”

When a group assigns itself solid “victim-status,” it creates one basic rule: a member must not leave the group. Why? Because if he does, he’s claiming he is no longer a victim—and that assertion is a betrayal.

Nice and neat. A prison.

“I’m a free individual.”

“You’re crazy. There is no such thing. Now get back in the group where you belong.”

Down at the root, betrayal begins as self-betrayal. The individual gives up the ghost. From that point on, his politics don’t matter. He forgets what he could have been. He defines himself by race and religion and country and rank ideology and group. He finds words and feeling through which he can express his role in a stage play that decays him from the inside out.

Eventually, if lunatics have their way, every person on planet Earth will be designated a victim. That will be the group of groups.

It won’t matter why and how everyone supposedly turns out to be a victim. The reasons will be forgotten. People will “instinctively” sign on to the agenda.

And the management team running the world will put another check mark on their sheet of objectives:

“Earth is beginning to resemble one giant hospital/mental institution. Break out the champagne.”

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-dependent-victim-psyop.html

But, that won't stop the mainstream media from blaming Putin...

US State Department Admits Russia had Nothing to Gain from Killing Boris Nemtsov

Tony Cartalucci

Perhaps believing by virtue of having admitted the murder of Russian opposition member Boris Nemtsov in Russia’s capital of Moscow Friday evening in no way served the Russian government’s best interests, the US State Department believes it can deflect guilt from being shifted towards its direction.

Indeed, the US State Department through its Voice of America media network - chaired by the US Secretary of State himself - would state in an online article titled, “Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life?,” that (emphasis added):

With the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, gunned down on a Moscow street, the fiercest critic of President Vladimir Putin has been removed from the political stage. But it remains to be seen whether, in death as in life, Nemtsov will remain a threat to Putin’s rule.

Already, city authorities have approved a mass march for up to 50,000 people in central Moscow on Sunday. The march, expected to be far larger than the scheduled protest rally it replaces, will provide a powerful platform for Kremlin critics who suspect a government hand in Nemtsov’s death.

Even officials in Putin’s government seem to sense the danger that the former first deputy prime minister’s martyrdom might pose, hinting darkly that Friday night’s drive-by shooting may have been an deliberate “provocation” ahead of the planned weekend rally.

While this logic has clearly not escaped the US State Department’s media network, it stops short of clearly implicating the Russian opposition and its foreign backers (the US State Department itself) as the chief suspects in Nemtsov’s murder – though the article clearly states only the opposition (and in turn, their foreign sponsors) stood to benefit from his death.

The diminutive and previously ineffective protests carried out by the opposition will now be “far larger” and serve as a “powerful platform for Kremlin critics,” a reality that simply would not have existed had Nemtsov not been murdered.

One must also factor in the United States’ various proxy conflicts it is waging against Russia, and seemingly losing – including in Syria and Ukraine. The opportunity to spread chaos in the streets of Moscow would not only benefit the US and its agenda beyond its borders, but is in fact America’s stated foreign policy.

Despite attempts to frame it otherwise, even the US State Department cannot escape the fact that Russia lacked any motivation at all to murder a fading opposition leader, let alone incriminatingly murder him practically on the doorstep of the Kremlin itself. Whoever killed Nemtsov meant for the uninformed general public to think it was the Kremlin, however.

Ironically, the US State Department’s media article in Voice of America, echos facts pointed out in the direct aftermath of the murder by many independent analysts. In the previously published article, “Russia: US-Backed Opposition Leader Gunned Down in Moscow: Martyrdom on demand: if not of use alive, perhaps of use dead?,”for example, it was stated explicitly that:

Regarding Nemtsov’s murder, any good investigator would be tasked with the question, “to whose benefit?” Surely it would benefit the Kremlin to rid themselves of an opponents, but not in this manner. In fact, the only party that stood to benefit from his high-profile execution in the streets of Moscow were his own compatriots and his foreign backers who faced the prospect of yet another failed protest. Sympathy, they hope, will spur Russians who are on the fence politically to take to the streets, joining others who may have previously avoided protests because of Russia’s economic strength before US sanctions sank in.

The US State Department’s concession not only raises considerable doubt over the involvement of the Kremlin in Nemtsov’s death, but also shifts suspicion primarily onto his own opposition movement and the extensive foreign interests backing it. Of course, the US State Department will never publish an article pointing out the obvious fact that it itself stood the most to gain from Nemtsov’s murder, but this recent concession all but states this obvious reality, nonetheless.

Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-state-department-admits-russia-had-nothing-to-gain-from-killing-boris-nemtsov.html