Gun grabbers are Holocaust deniers, claiming Hitler never engaged in gun confiscation
J. D. Heyes
History revisionists and Holocaust deniers seem to be gaining ground in recent months as the Obama administration pushes for new gun control measures, thanks in large part to a burgeoning propaganda machine fed by a growing number of useful idiots.
Hitler had Joseph Goebbels; today’s modern deniers and propagandists have the Internet, and this incredible power to deceive is being employed by agents seeking to “fundamentally change” the country, to borrow a campaign phrase from the president himself.
In particular, the anti-gunners “have had tremendous success garnering support by using false statements and outright propaganda, so they have intensified their use of this despicable and nasty tool,” says a poster calling himself “Fight4Freedom” at the SurvivalistBoards.com blog site.
“The trend is to attack history and feed the sheeple with supposed ‘facts’ debunking some of histories most notorious precursors to genocide,” he writes.
Propagandizing the ‘Net for the purposes of pushing a gun control agenda’
In particular, he says a Google search of the terms “Hitler Gun Control” produce so-called “research studies” claiming that “either these atrocities never really occurred (such as the Jewish Genocide) or that the facts are wrong,” Fight4Freedom says.
“No matter what, the idea is to use FALSE statements and FALSE information to continue to gain momentum in calling for disarming of the American People,” he wrote. “The most fundamental question is why should what happened in Nazi Germany have any bearing on calling for Gun Control in the U.S.? They are not related. It is merely a propaganda tool. Our God given right to self-defense, backed by the U.S. Constitution is all that matters.”
A Natural News search of Google using the “Hitler Gun Control” combination turned up some interesting results.
– The top article was a piece posted at Policymic.com which essentially argued that modern-day comparisons to Hitler’s gun control policies actually favor positions held by today’s gun rights advocates (even though his 1938 policy did, by the writer’s admission, “read almost like the Feinstein bill does today”):
Hitler did have a gun control policy, an extension of the 1919 regulation. Funny enough, it sounds a lot like the boiler plate gun control legislation that is on the books across the United States – and, even funnier enough, the Hitler gun control policy sounds like something any American would generally support … but even more so is what pro-gun advocates are pushing for: deregulation.
That’s right: Hitler and pro-gun advocates want the same thing.
– The second listing, from a hate/supremacist group, said this: “Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false.”
– Subsequent sites blamed the Weimar Republic government for implementing strict gun control measures, but most fail to a) note that the Weimar was forced to do so by the victorious Allies to keep Germany as a whole, unarmed and demilitarized after World War I; and b) that Hitler did indeed implement measures even more strict than those imposed by the Alliesshortly before he invaded Poland.
– A piece in the Huffington Post quoted Deborah Lauter, the civil rights director of the Anti-Defamation League, as saying that group deplores the Nazi-American gun rights comparison, and that guns in the hands of Jews “would have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi state.”
– Salon.com spent no small amount of virtual ink citing all kinds of scholars, experts and academics to say basically the same thing: That Hitler’s gun control measures were minimal, at best, and that anyway, even armed Jews could not have fought back against mass extermination.
“Hitler” + “gun control” = Tyranny
Such flippant revisionist history ignores the crux of the modern-day pro-gun argument against further government regulation, “Hitler style” or any style. And that’s the point. In Hitler’s authoritarian Nazi Germany, the government made the decision about gun ownership, whereas the U.S. Constitution recognizes it as a human “right to keep and bear arms,” for defense of self, home and country.
Furthermore, the very phrase gun control is one used only by tyrants and statists, for it seeks to curb or control what our founders understood and recognized as a natural right not subject to the “approval” of those in power.
Finally, any way you look at it, Jews in Hitler’s Germany during World War II were not afforded this right and in the end, six million of them died. Hitler raised vast armies during his tenure but millions of armed Jews would have been a much more formidable foe, meaning far fewer of them would have died, unarmed, at the hands of this butcher.
Hitler was a tyrant by any measure, so references to “Hitler” and “gun control” in this context are entirely appropriate because tyrants like their subjects to be unarmed – semantics, revisionist history and cute phraseology aside.
Only a propagandist on the scale of Hitler’s Goebbels would say otherwise.
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/039324_Holocaust_deniers_gun_control_revisionist_history.html
Monday, March 4, 2013
"The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy..."
Is Copyright Infringement Now Seen As Terrorism?
Washington’s Blog
We reported last year:
The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this.
As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes:
This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.
The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent just like China and Russia.
We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have very little to do with security.
The Verge reported last month:
In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweepingexecutive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12.
***
“Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage,theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.”
***
“The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…”
But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads:
“The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”
This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.”
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industriesin its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so.
It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy.
Link:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html
Washington’s Blog
We reported last year:
The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this.
As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes:
This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.
The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent just like China and Russia.
We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have very little to do with security.
The Verge reported last month:
In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweepingexecutive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12.
***
“Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage,theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.”
***
“The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…”
But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads:
“The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”
This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.”
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industriesin its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so.
It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out against as a potential bad guy.
Link:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/copyright-infringement-now-seen-as-terrorism.html
Closer to the abyss???
12 Things That Just Happened That Show The Next Wave Of The Economic Collapse Is Almost Here
Mike Snyder
Are we running out of time? For the last several years, we have been living in a false bubble of hope that has been fueled by massive amounts of debt and bailout money. This illusion of economic stability has convinced most people that the great economic crisis of 2008 was just an "aberration" and that now things are back to normal. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. The truth is that the financial crash of 2008 was just the first wave of our economic troubles. We have not even come close to recovering from that wave, and the next wave of the economic collapse is rapidly approaching. Our economy is like a giant sand castle that has been built on a foundation of debt and toilet paper currency. As each wave of the crisis hits us, the solutions that our leaders will present to us will involve even more debt and even more money printing. And each time, those "solutions" will only make our problems even worse. Right now, events are unfolding in Europe and in the United States that are pushing us toward the next major crisis moment. I sincerely hope that we have some more time before the next crisis overwhelms us, but as you will see, time is rapidly running out.
The following are 12 things that just happened that show the next wave of the economic collapse is almost here...
#1 According to TrimTab's CEO Charles Biderman, corporate insider purchases of stock have hit an all-time low, and the ratio of corporate insider selling to corporate insider buying has now reached an astounding 50 to 1....
While retail is being told to buy-buy-buy, Biderman exclaims that "insiders at U.S. companies have bought the least amount of shares in any one month," and that the ratio of insider selling to buying is now 50-to-1 - a monthly record.
#2 On Friday we learned that personal income in the United States experienced its largest one month decline in 20 years...
Personal income decreased by $505.5 billion in January, or 3.6%, compared to December (on a seasonally adjusted and annualized basis). That's the most dramatic decline since January 1993, according to the Commerce Department.
#3 In a stunning move, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder says that he will appoint an emergency financial manager to take care of Detroit's financial affairs...
Snyder, 54, took a step he avoided a year ago, empowering an emergency financial manager who can sweep aside union contracts, sell municipal assets, restructure services and reorder finances. He announced the move yesterday at a public meeting in Detroit.
If this does not work, Detroit will almost certainly have to declare bankruptcy. If that happens, it will be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.
#4 On Friday it was announced that the unemployment rate in Italy had risen to 11.7 percent. That was a huge jump from 11.3 percent the previous month, and Italy now has the highest unemployment rate that it has experienced in 21 years.
#5 The youth unemployment rate in Italy has risen to a new all-time record high of 38.7 percent.
#6 On Friday it was announced that the unemployment rate in the eurozone as a whole had just hit a brand new record high of 11.9 percent.
#7 On Friday it was announced that the unemployment rate in Greece has now reached 27 percent, and it is being projected that it will reach 30 percent by the end of the year.
#8 The youth unemployment rate in Greece is now an almost unbelievable 59.4 percent.
#9 On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of protesters filled the streets of Lisbon and other Portuguese cities to protest the austerity measures that are being imposed upon them. It was reportedly the largest protest in the history of Portugal.
#10 According to Goldman Sachs, bank deposits declined all over Europe during the month of January.
#11 Over the weekend, the deputy governor of China's central bank declared that China is prepared for a "currency war"...
A top Chinese banker said Beijing is "fully prepared" for a currency war as he urged the world to abide by a consensus reached by the G20 to avert confrontation, state media reported on Saturday.
Yi Gang, deputy governor of China's central bank, issued the call after G20 finance ministers last month moved to calm fears of a looming war on the currency markets at a meeting in Moscow.
Those fears have largely been fuelled by the recent steep decline in the Japanese yen, which critics have accused Tokyo of manipulating to give its manufacturers a competitive edge in key export markets over Asian rivals.
#12 Italy is an economic basket case at this point, and the political gridlock in Italy is certainly not helping matters. Former comedian Beppe Grillo's party could potentially tip the balance of power one way or the other in Italy, and over the weekend he made some comments that are really shaking things up over in Europe. For one thing, he is suggesting that Italy should hold a referendum on the euro...
"I am a strong advocate of Europe. I am in favor of an online referendum on the euro," Beppe Grillo told Bild am Sonntag.
Such a vote would not be legally binding in Italy, where referendums can only be used to repeal laws or parts of laws, but would carry political weight. Grillo has said in the past that membership of the euro should be up to the Italian people.
In addition, Grillo is also suggesting that Italy's debt has gotten so large that renegotiation is the only option...
In an interview with a German magazine published on Saturday, Mr Grillo said that “if conditions do not change” Italy “will want” to leave the euro and return to its former national currency.
The 64-year-old comic-turned-political activist also said Italy needs to renegotiate its €2 trillion debt.
At 127 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), it is the highest in the euro zone after Greece.
“Right now we are being crushed, not by the euro, but by our debt. When the interest payments reach €100 billion a year, we’re dead. There’s no alternative,” he told Focus, a weekly news magazine.
He said Italy was in such dire economic straits that “in six months, we will no longer be able to pay pensions and the wages of public employees.”
And of course government debt has taken center stage in the United States as well.
The sequester cuts have now gone into effect, and they will definitely have an effect on the U.S. economy. Of course that effect will not be nearly as dramatic as many Democrats are suggesting, but without a doubt those cuts will cause the U.S. economy to slow down a bit.
And of course the U.S. economy has already been showing plenty of signs of slowing down lately. If you doubt this, please see my previous article entitled "Consumer Spending Drought: 16 Signs That The Middle Class Is Running Out Of Money".
So what comes next?
Well, everyone should keep watching Europe very closely, and it will also be important to keep an eye on Wall Street. There are a whole bunch of indications that the stock market is at or near a peak. For example, just check out what one prominent stock market analyst recently had to say...
"Every reliable technical tool is warning of major peaking action," said Walter Zimmerman, the senior technical analyst at United-ICAP. "This includes sentiment, momentum, classical chart patterns, and Elliott wave analysis.
"Most of the rally in the stock market since 2009 can be chalked up to the Federal Reserve’s attempt to create a ‘wealth effect’ through higher stock market prices. This only exacerbates the downside risk. Why? The stock market no is longer a lead indicator for the economy. It is instead reflecting Fed manipulation. Pushing the stock market higher while the real economy languishes has resulted in another bubble.
"The next leg down will not be a partial correction of the advance since the 2009 lows. It will be another major financial crisis. The worst is yet to come."
Sadly, most people will continue to deny that anything is wrong until it is far too late.
Many areas of Europe are already experiencing economic depression, and it is only a matter of time before the U.S. follows suit.
Time is running out, and I hope that you are getting ready.
So what do you think?
How much time do you believe that we have left before the next wave of the economic collapse strikes?
Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below...
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-things-that-just-happened-that-show-the-next-wave-of-the-economic-collapse-is-almost-here
Mike Snyder
Are we running out of time? For the last several years, we have been living in a false bubble of hope that has been fueled by massive amounts of debt and bailout money. This illusion of economic stability has convinced most people that the great economic crisis of 2008 was just an "aberration" and that now things are back to normal. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. The truth is that the financial crash of 2008 was just the first wave of our economic troubles. We have not even come close to recovering from that wave, and the next wave of the economic collapse is rapidly approaching. Our economy is like a giant sand castle that has been built on a foundation of debt and toilet paper currency. As each wave of the crisis hits us, the solutions that our leaders will present to us will involve even more debt and even more money printing. And each time, those "solutions" will only make our problems even worse. Right now, events are unfolding in Europe and in the United States that are pushing us toward the next major crisis moment. I sincerely hope that we have some more time before the next crisis overwhelms us, but as you will see, time is rapidly running out.
The following are 12 things that just happened that show the next wave of the economic collapse is almost here...
#1 According to TrimTab's CEO Charles Biderman, corporate insider purchases of stock have hit an all-time low, and the ratio of corporate insider selling to corporate insider buying has now reached an astounding 50 to 1....
While retail is being told to buy-buy-buy, Biderman exclaims that "insiders at U.S. companies have bought the least amount of shares in any one month," and that the ratio of insider selling to buying is now 50-to-1 - a monthly record.
#2 On Friday we learned that personal income in the United States experienced its largest one month decline in 20 years...
Personal income decreased by $505.5 billion in January, or 3.6%, compared to December (on a seasonally adjusted and annualized basis). That's the most dramatic decline since January 1993, according to the Commerce Department.
#3 In a stunning move, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder says that he will appoint an emergency financial manager to take care of Detroit's financial affairs...
Snyder, 54, took a step he avoided a year ago, empowering an emergency financial manager who can sweep aside union contracts, sell municipal assets, restructure services and reorder finances. He announced the move yesterday at a public meeting in Detroit.
If this does not work, Detroit will almost certainly have to declare bankruptcy. If that happens, it will be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.
#4 On Friday it was announced that the unemployment rate in Italy had risen to 11.7 percent. That was a huge jump from 11.3 percent the previous month, and Italy now has the highest unemployment rate that it has experienced in 21 years.
#5 The youth unemployment rate in Italy has risen to a new all-time record high of 38.7 percent.
#6 On Friday it was announced that the unemployment rate in the eurozone as a whole had just hit a brand new record high of 11.9 percent.
#7 On Friday it was announced that the unemployment rate in Greece has now reached 27 percent, and it is being projected that it will reach 30 percent by the end of the year.
#8 The youth unemployment rate in Greece is now an almost unbelievable 59.4 percent.
#9 On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of protesters filled the streets of Lisbon and other Portuguese cities to protest the austerity measures that are being imposed upon them. It was reportedly the largest protest in the history of Portugal.
#10 According to Goldman Sachs, bank deposits declined all over Europe during the month of January.
#11 Over the weekend, the deputy governor of China's central bank declared that China is prepared for a "currency war"...
A top Chinese banker said Beijing is "fully prepared" for a currency war as he urged the world to abide by a consensus reached by the G20 to avert confrontation, state media reported on Saturday.
Yi Gang, deputy governor of China's central bank, issued the call after G20 finance ministers last month moved to calm fears of a looming war on the currency markets at a meeting in Moscow.
Those fears have largely been fuelled by the recent steep decline in the Japanese yen, which critics have accused Tokyo of manipulating to give its manufacturers a competitive edge in key export markets over Asian rivals.
#12 Italy is an economic basket case at this point, and the political gridlock in Italy is certainly not helping matters. Former comedian Beppe Grillo's party could potentially tip the balance of power one way or the other in Italy, and over the weekend he made some comments that are really shaking things up over in Europe. For one thing, he is suggesting that Italy should hold a referendum on the euro...
"I am a strong advocate of Europe. I am in favor of an online referendum on the euro," Beppe Grillo told Bild am Sonntag.
Such a vote would not be legally binding in Italy, where referendums can only be used to repeal laws or parts of laws, but would carry political weight. Grillo has said in the past that membership of the euro should be up to the Italian people.
In addition, Grillo is also suggesting that Italy's debt has gotten so large that renegotiation is the only option...
In an interview with a German magazine published on Saturday, Mr Grillo said that “if conditions do not change” Italy “will want” to leave the euro and return to its former national currency.
The 64-year-old comic-turned-political activist also said Italy needs to renegotiate its €2 trillion debt.
At 127 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), it is the highest in the euro zone after Greece.
“Right now we are being crushed, not by the euro, but by our debt. When the interest payments reach €100 billion a year, we’re dead. There’s no alternative,” he told Focus, a weekly news magazine.
He said Italy was in such dire economic straits that “in six months, we will no longer be able to pay pensions and the wages of public employees.”
And of course government debt has taken center stage in the United States as well.
The sequester cuts have now gone into effect, and they will definitely have an effect on the U.S. economy. Of course that effect will not be nearly as dramatic as many Democrats are suggesting, but without a doubt those cuts will cause the U.S. economy to slow down a bit.
And of course the U.S. economy has already been showing plenty of signs of slowing down lately. If you doubt this, please see my previous article entitled "Consumer Spending Drought: 16 Signs That The Middle Class Is Running Out Of Money".
So what comes next?
Well, everyone should keep watching Europe very closely, and it will also be important to keep an eye on Wall Street. There are a whole bunch of indications that the stock market is at or near a peak. For example, just check out what one prominent stock market analyst recently had to say...
"Every reliable technical tool is warning of major peaking action," said Walter Zimmerman, the senior technical analyst at United-ICAP. "This includes sentiment, momentum, classical chart patterns, and Elliott wave analysis.
"Most of the rally in the stock market since 2009 can be chalked up to the Federal Reserve’s attempt to create a ‘wealth effect’ through higher stock market prices. This only exacerbates the downside risk. Why? The stock market no is longer a lead indicator for the economy. It is instead reflecting Fed manipulation. Pushing the stock market higher while the real economy languishes has resulted in another bubble.
"The next leg down will not be a partial correction of the advance since the 2009 lows. It will be another major financial crisis. The worst is yet to come."
Sadly, most people will continue to deny that anything is wrong until it is far too late.
Many areas of Europe are already experiencing economic depression, and it is only a matter of time before the U.S. follows suit.
Time is running out, and I hope that you are getting ready.
So what do you think?
How much time do you believe that we have left before the next wave of the economic collapse strikes?
Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below...
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-things-that-just-happened-that-show-the-next-wave-of-the-economic-collapse-is-almost-here
Updated timeline Sandy Hook...
Newtown Sandy Hook School Massacre: Updated Timeline, Chronological Assemblage of Coverage
By James F. Tracy
The following timeline of the December 14 mass killing of 20 children and 8 adults in Newtown Connecticut attempts to demonstrate how the event was presented to the public by corporate news media. The chronological assemblage of coverage is not comprehensive of all reports published on the incident but rather seeks to verify how the storyline was to a substantial degree constructed by federal and state law enforcement authorities and major media around the theory that 20-year-old Adam Lanza was the sole agent in the massacre.
This scenario became an established reality through the news media’s pronounced repetition of the lone gunman narrative and meme. This proposed scenario significantly obscured the fact that police encountered and apprehended two additional shooting suspects on the school’s grounds within minutes of the crime. These suspects remain unaccounted for by authorities but the roles they may have played arguably correlate with the shifting information presented by authorities and major news media on injuries and weapons vis-à-vis the mass carnage meted out in the school. While the certain detainment of additional suspects was pointed to by alternative news media, including Natural News, Infowars, Veterans Today and Global Research in the days following the tragedy, the untenable lone gunman narrative has become firmly established in the public psyche via an overwhelming chorus of corporate media reports and interpretations.
Note: Times of occurrences referenced are Eastern Standard Time and in some instances signify time of publication rather than the specific incident cited. Time of publication does not always correlate with exact time of incident. “n.t.” denotes “no time” of publication referenced.
2012
■September
At the start of the 2012-13 academic year Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung announces in a public letter to families the Newtown School District’s new security system installed “in all elementary schools.” Under the newly-announced security regimen, “exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1,000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification. Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m.” “Principal Outlined New Security Procedures at Sandy Hook Elementary,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012, 8:25PM EST.
■October 17
9:47AM
Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung Tweets photo of emergency drill held at Sandy Hook fire station with Sandy Hook Elementary faculty and students participating. Esther Zuckerman, “The Sandy Hook Principal’s Twitter Feed is Haunting,” The Atlantic Wire, December 14, 2012.
■November 7
n.t.
Following Obama’s reelection Senator Diane Feinstein is believed to be meeting with relevant federal agencies to lay groundwork for reenacting assault weapons ban. “Senator Diane Feinstein Moves to Ban All Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Pistol Grips,” Market Daily News, November 7, 2012.
■November 27
11:00AM
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announce Project Longevity, a joint venture by the Justice Department and State of Connecticut, at a news conference in New Haven, Connecticut. The endeavor is described by one law enforcement officials as “a statewide approach that targets repeat criminals, creates alternatives for potential gang members and rallies neighborhoods against violence.” Federal money is being directed to engage Connecticut-based agents, academics and social workers who will work for or with the FBI and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Dave Ingram, “Project Longevity: Justice Department, Connecticut State Officials Target Gun Violence,” Reuters/Huffington Post, November 27, 2012. See also, Erin Logan, “Attorney General Eric Holder Discussing Gun Violence,” WTNH.com, November, 27, 2012.
■December 14
9:30AM [estimate]
Only 35 minutes away from Newtown an active shooter drill is taking place at a school in Carmel, Putnam County. The operation is conducted by the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (“ERT). “The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriff’s Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments,” the Southeast Brewster Patch newspaper reports. “When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.” “Sheriff: Putnam Officials to Talk School Safety This Afternoon,” Southeast Brewster Patch, December 18, 2012.
(9:30AM [see below])
CNN reports local authorities take the first 911 calls from Sandy Hook Elementary School. “‘Sandy Hook school. Caller is indicating she thinks someone is shooting in the building,’” a dispatcher told fire and medical personnel, according to 911 tapes. “Sandy Hook Shooting: What Happened?” CNN, December 14, 2012. (Recording of fire and law enforcement radio dispatch [below] indicates CNN’s 9:30AM time and account of events is incorrect.)
9:34AM [estimate]
Sandy Hook Elementary School reading consultant Becky Virgalla said she was in a meeting with Principal Dawn Hochsprung, school psychologist Mary Sherlach and other colleagues when the shooter broke into the building on Dec. 14. When they heard the commotion Hochsprung, Sherlach and lead teacher Natalie Hammond proceeded into the hall “to check out the noise that we didn’t know [were] gunshots at first,” Virgalla told Reuters Television at a December 23 Newtown memorial. “The three of them were shot and they yelled back ‘shooter, stay put.’ And they saved my life and the life of four others who were at that meeting,” Virgalla said. “Becky Virgalla, Newtown Shooting Survivor, Says Principal, Others Saved Her in Sandy Hook Rampage,” Reuters/Huffington Post, December 23, 2012.
9:35;52AM
Recording of Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates potential of active shooter situation at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “6-7. Sandy Hook School. Caller indicates she thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:36:38AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch suggests arrival of law enforcement at scene; “front glass has been broken [unintelligible]. They’re unsure why.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:37:15AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates continuance of gunfire at Sandy Hook school. “All units: The individual that I have on the phone is continuing to hear what she believes to be gunfire.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:37:40AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates law enforcement units and backup continual arrival at Sandy Hook Elementary. RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:38:15AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates “the shooting appears to have stopped. It is silent at this time. The school is in lockdown.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:39:05AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates citing of shooter suspects fleeing crime scene. “Reports that a teacher saw two shadows running past the building–past the gym, which would be rear [inaudible] the shooting.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:39:20AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates officers’ encounter with and apprehension of additional shooter suspects fleeing scene. “Yeah, we got ‘em. He’s comin’ at me down Crestwood Way! Coming [inaudible] up the left side.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:40AM
Chris Manfredonia, alleged father of a 6-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary student, claims he is on his way to the school “to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur.” Manfredonia runs around the facility in attempt “to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher. ‘The whole reason we moved here a year ago is because when you drive down the subdivision, it’s a happy place,’ said his wife, Georgeann Manfredonia. “‘There’s a ton of children here and the families are very kind and supportive.’” Richard A. Serrano, Allen Semuals, Tina Susman, “Gunman Kills 20, 6 Adults at Connecticut Elementary School,” Los Angeles Times, December 14, 2012.
9:40:45AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates “one now in room one who [unintelligible] injury to the foot. [unintelligible] call for an ambulance [unintelligible]. RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:45:48AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates officers’ discovery of “bodies here” and requests for ambulatory/first responders’ backup. RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
(9:50AM [see below])
CNN reports police and first responders arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary. Police did not discharge their weapons. The gunman took his own life with a handgun. “Sandy Hook Shooting: What Happened?” CNN, December 14, 2012. (Recording of fire and law enforcement radio dispatch [above] suggests CNN’s 9:50AM time and account of events is incorrect.)
10:14AM
Hartford Courant publishes online Google map of Sandy Hook Elementary School. “Map of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012.
[Late Morning]
In a December 14 Newtown Bee article unidentified school personnel are commended for their courage. Among them are school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who recounted to Bee Editor John Voket[5] how “a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than she could count – that went ‘on and on.’” The problem with the account was that it conflicted with a subsequent storyline where Hochsprung was the first to be killed by the gunmen.
Read the rest here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/updated-sandy-hook-school-massacre-timeline/5324851
By James F. Tracy
The following timeline of the December 14 mass killing of 20 children and 8 adults in Newtown Connecticut attempts to demonstrate how the event was presented to the public by corporate news media. The chronological assemblage of coverage is not comprehensive of all reports published on the incident but rather seeks to verify how the storyline was to a substantial degree constructed by federal and state law enforcement authorities and major media around the theory that 20-year-old Adam Lanza was the sole agent in the massacre.
This scenario became an established reality through the news media’s pronounced repetition of the lone gunman narrative and meme. This proposed scenario significantly obscured the fact that police encountered and apprehended two additional shooting suspects on the school’s grounds within minutes of the crime. These suspects remain unaccounted for by authorities but the roles they may have played arguably correlate with the shifting information presented by authorities and major news media on injuries and weapons vis-à-vis the mass carnage meted out in the school. While the certain detainment of additional suspects was pointed to by alternative news media, including Natural News, Infowars, Veterans Today and Global Research in the days following the tragedy, the untenable lone gunman narrative has become firmly established in the public psyche via an overwhelming chorus of corporate media reports and interpretations.
Note: Times of occurrences referenced are Eastern Standard Time and in some instances signify time of publication rather than the specific incident cited. Time of publication does not always correlate with exact time of incident. “n.t.” denotes “no time” of publication referenced.
2012
■September
At the start of the 2012-13 academic year Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung announces in a public letter to families the Newtown School District’s new security system installed “in all elementary schools.” Under the newly-announced security regimen, “exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1,000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification. Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m.” “Principal Outlined New Security Procedures at Sandy Hook Elementary,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012, 8:25PM EST.
■October 17
9:47AM
Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung Tweets photo of emergency drill held at Sandy Hook fire station with Sandy Hook Elementary faculty and students participating. Esther Zuckerman, “The Sandy Hook Principal’s Twitter Feed is Haunting,” The Atlantic Wire, December 14, 2012.
■November 7
n.t.
Following Obama’s reelection Senator Diane Feinstein is believed to be meeting with relevant federal agencies to lay groundwork for reenacting assault weapons ban. “Senator Diane Feinstein Moves to Ban All Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Pistol Grips,” Market Daily News, November 7, 2012.
■November 27
11:00AM
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announce Project Longevity, a joint venture by the Justice Department and State of Connecticut, at a news conference in New Haven, Connecticut. The endeavor is described by one law enforcement officials as “a statewide approach that targets repeat criminals, creates alternatives for potential gang members and rallies neighborhoods against violence.” Federal money is being directed to engage Connecticut-based agents, academics and social workers who will work for or with the FBI and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Dave Ingram, “Project Longevity: Justice Department, Connecticut State Officials Target Gun Violence,” Reuters/Huffington Post, November 27, 2012. See also, Erin Logan, “Attorney General Eric Holder Discussing Gun Violence,” WTNH.com, November, 27, 2012.
■December 14
9:30AM [estimate]
Only 35 minutes away from Newtown an active shooter drill is taking place at a school in Carmel, Putnam County. The operation is conducted by the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (“ERT). “The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriff’s Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments,” the Southeast Brewster Patch newspaper reports. “When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene.” “Sheriff: Putnam Officials to Talk School Safety This Afternoon,” Southeast Brewster Patch, December 18, 2012.
(9:30AM [see below])
CNN reports local authorities take the first 911 calls from Sandy Hook Elementary School. “‘Sandy Hook school. Caller is indicating she thinks someone is shooting in the building,’” a dispatcher told fire and medical personnel, according to 911 tapes. “Sandy Hook Shooting: What Happened?” CNN, December 14, 2012. (Recording of fire and law enforcement radio dispatch [below] indicates CNN’s 9:30AM time and account of events is incorrect.)
9:34AM [estimate]
Sandy Hook Elementary School reading consultant Becky Virgalla said she was in a meeting with Principal Dawn Hochsprung, school psychologist Mary Sherlach and other colleagues when the shooter broke into the building on Dec. 14. When they heard the commotion Hochsprung, Sherlach and lead teacher Natalie Hammond proceeded into the hall “to check out the noise that we didn’t know [were] gunshots at first,” Virgalla told Reuters Television at a December 23 Newtown memorial. “The three of them were shot and they yelled back ‘shooter, stay put.’ And they saved my life and the life of four others who were at that meeting,” Virgalla said. “Becky Virgalla, Newtown Shooting Survivor, Says Principal, Others Saved Her in Sandy Hook Rampage,” Reuters/Huffington Post, December 23, 2012.
9:35;52AM
Recording of Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates potential of active shooter situation at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “6-7. Sandy Hook School. Caller indicates she thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:36:38AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch suggests arrival of law enforcement at scene; “front glass has been broken [unintelligible]. They’re unsure why.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:37:15AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates continuance of gunfire at Sandy Hook school. “All units: The individual that I have on the phone is continuing to hear what she believes to be gunfire.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:37:40AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates law enforcement units and backup continual arrival at Sandy Hook Elementary. RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:38:15AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates “the shooting appears to have stopped. It is silent at this time. The school is in lockdown.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:39:05AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates citing of shooter suspects fleeing crime scene. “Reports that a teacher saw two shadows running past the building–past the gym, which would be rear [inaudible] the shooting.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:39:20AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates officers’ encounter with and apprehension of additional shooter suspects fleeing scene. “Yeah, we got ‘em. He’s comin’ at me down Crestwood Way! Coming [inaudible] up the left side.” RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:40AM
Chris Manfredonia, alleged father of a 6-year-old Sandy Hook Elementary student, claims he is on his way to the school “to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur.” Manfredonia runs around the facility in attempt “to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher. ‘The whole reason we moved here a year ago is because when you drive down the subdivision, it’s a happy place,’ said his wife, Georgeann Manfredonia. “‘There’s a ton of children here and the families are very kind and supportive.’” Richard A. Serrano, Allen Semuals, Tina Susman, “Gunman Kills 20, 6 Adults at Connecticut Elementary School,” Los Angeles Times, December 14, 2012.
9:40:45AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates “one now in room one who [unintelligible] injury to the foot. [unintelligible] call for an ambulance [unintelligible]. RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
9:45:48AM
Newtown and Connecticut emergency fire and law enforcement radio dispatch indicates officers’ discovery of “bodies here” and requests for ambulatory/first responders’ backup. RadioMan911TV, “Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Newtown Police/Fire and CT State Police,” Youtube, December 14, 2012.
(9:50AM [see below])
CNN reports police and first responders arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary. Police did not discharge their weapons. The gunman took his own life with a handgun. “Sandy Hook Shooting: What Happened?” CNN, December 14, 2012. (Recording of fire and law enforcement radio dispatch [above] suggests CNN’s 9:50AM time and account of events is incorrect.)
10:14AM
Hartford Courant publishes online Google map of Sandy Hook Elementary School. “Map of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012.
[Late Morning]
In a December 14 Newtown Bee article unidentified school personnel are commended for their courage. Among them are school principal Dawn Hochsprung, who recounted to Bee Editor John Voket[5] how “a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots – more than she could count – that went ‘on and on.’” The problem with the account was that it conflicted with a subsequent storyline where Hochsprung was the first to be killed by the gunmen.
Read the rest here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/updated-sandy-hook-school-massacre-timeline/5324851
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Hypocrisy exposed...
Jon Stewart takes aim at Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind’s blackface
> <</body>
> <</body>
Don't give in to the police state...
How Stand Your Ground Against Tyranny
You have to right to refuse to answer questions or demands from fed thugs
Matt Mills writes: Checkpoints (some would say illegal checkpoints) have been popping up quite frequently in the US (S)A. As you see in this video, you DO NOT have to comply with their question's or demands. Don't forget, you have rights.
Please watch all of this video and notice the tactics used against US citizens to try and entrap them. Mills is outstanding is his relentless refusal to comply with these tyrannical thugs, who eventually cave-in to go on their way. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! (14:43)
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/yk/stand-your-ground.html
You have to right to refuse to answer questions or demands from fed thugs
Matt Mills writes: Checkpoints (some would say illegal checkpoints) have been popping up quite frequently in the US (S)A. As you see in this video, you DO NOT have to comply with their question's or demands. Don't forget, you have rights.
Please watch all of this video and notice the tactics used against US citizens to try and entrap them. Mills is outstanding is his relentless refusal to comply with these tyrannical thugs, who eventually cave-in to go on their way. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! (14:43)
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/yk/stand-your-ground.html
Probably not...
Can Chuck Hagel Stop the Pentagon Juggernaut?
by Eric Margolis
Secretary of Defense is the second most important and the toughest job in the US government after President.
Since the 9/11 attacks, US foreign policy has become highly militarized. The Pentagon today dominates US relations with the rest of the world, not the State Department or CIA.
The Pentagon’s 2013 total budget will be $800 billion when all programs, including "black" projects, are included.
This mammoth sum represents almost 50% of the world’s total military spending. Add close US allies in Europe, the Mideast, and Asia, and the figure is 80%.
Contrary to what most Americans believe, the US Defense Department is not really about defense of America’s shores, but about offensive operations abroad. The US has some 1,000 bases and powerful air, naval and land forces scattered across the globe enforcing the Pax Americana.
Americans are relentlessly bombarded by media and Republicans about alleged dire threats from abroad, conjuring still raw memories of 9/11, though evidence is scanty or absent.
But something remarkable has just occurred in Washington, a place that rarely produces much good news.
President Barack Obama, now in his last term and freed of many political constraints, has challenged powerful vested special interests by naming former US Republican Senator and decorated war veteran Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Hagel, wounded twice in Vietnam, is the first former enlisted man to head the Pentagon.
On taking office, Hagel called on the US to resume being a "force for good" in the world and avoid "dictating" to other nations. These were breathtaking words after all the Republican claims of "American exceptionalism" – code for world domination.
Washington is notorious for grinding down men in office and thwarting their hopes. The nation’s capitol and particularly Congress have been deeply corrupted by special interest money.
Hagel’s nomination caused a firestorm among Congressional Republicans who accused Hagel of everything from being anti-Israel and pro-Iranian to accepting money from North Korea.
The former Nebraska senator was slandered, defamed and vilified by fellow Republicans. It was as sickening a display of hypocrisy and pandering as this veteran journalist (and army veteran) has seen.
Verbally warlike senators and congressmen who had dodged national service during the Vietnam War (we call them "chickenhawks") had the nerve to accuse decorated veteran Hagel of being unpatriotic for opposing the disastrous US war against Iraq and for failing to advocate war against Iran.
Behind all this, of course, was the hugely powerful pro-Israel lobby. In official Washington, it is taboo to even say there is an Israel lobby, though in reality everyone knows it dictates Mideast policy to Congress.
When accused some years ago of being insufficiently pro-Israel, the tough-talking Hagel shot back that he was a senator from the US, not Israel. This flaming heresy forever branded Hagel an enemy to the pro-Israel lobby and its ardent Republican supporters.
Obama’s appointment of Chuck Hagel was also a stinging slap in the face to Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who had humiliated Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on numerous occasions and even worked with Republicans to defeat Obama in the last presidential elections.
Hagel must now fend off his foes in Congress and the media while wrestling with sharp cuts in military spending, layoffs of some of the 800,000 civilian Pentagon employees, and delays or cancellations of sacred cow weapons programs like the absurdly expensive F-35 fighter, new aircraft carriers, and anti-missile programs.
The US military-industrial complex has cleverly put arms plants in most US states, assuring that cuts in Pentagon spending will produce howls of national opposition from senators and congressmen.
Still, Secretary Hagel speaks for many moderate Americans, and even for members of the Pentagon and CIA, who want to end America’s post-9/11 heavy-handed policies, stop the fear-mongering over so-called "terrorism," and use the mighty US armed forces to help people around the world.
That’s the hope. But slowing down the Pentagon juggernaut will be very difficult. Reports say US special forces are now entering Niger and planning to stay on in Afghanistan. Anti-China fever is growing at a time when the US must work out a way to peacefully manage China’s rising power.
Secretary Hagel will have his work cut out for him.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis330.html
by Eric Margolis
Secretary of Defense is the second most important and the toughest job in the US government after President.
Since the 9/11 attacks, US foreign policy has become highly militarized. The Pentagon today dominates US relations with the rest of the world, not the State Department or CIA.
The Pentagon’s 2013 total budget will be $800 billion when all programs, including "black" projects, are included.
This mammoth sum represents almost 50% of the world’s total military spending. Add close US allies in Europe, the Mideast, and Asia, and the figure is 80%.
Contrary to what most Americans believe, the US Defense Department is not really about defense of America’s shores, but about offensive operations abroad. The US has some 1,000 bases and powerful air, naval and land forces scattered across the globe enforcing the Pax Americana.
Americans are relentlessly bombarded by media and Republicans about alleged dire threats from abroad, conjuring still raw memories of 9/11, though evidence is scanty or absent.
But something remarkable has just occurred in Washington, a place that rarely produces much good news.
President Barack Obama, now in his last term and freed of many political constraints, has challenged powerful vested special interests by naming former US Republican Senator and decorated war veteran Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Hagel, wounded twice in Vietnam, is the first former enlisted man to head the Pentagon.
On taking office, Hagel called on the US to resume being a "force for good" in the world and avoid "dictating" to other nations. These were breathtaking words after all the Republican claims of "American exceptionalism" – code for world domination.
Washington is notorious for grinding down men in office and thwarting their hopes. The nation’s capitol and particularly Congress have been deeply corrupted by special interest money.
Hagel’s nomination caused a firestorm among Congressional Republicans who accused Hagel of everything from being anti-Israel and pro-Iranian to accepting money from North Korea.
The former Nebraska senator was slandered, defamed and vilified by fellow Republicans. It was as sickening a display of hypocrisy and pandering as this veteran journalist (and army veteran) has seen.
Verbally warlike senators and congressmen who had dodged national service during the Vietnam War (we call them "chickenhawks") had the nerve to accuse decorated veteran Hagel of being unpatriotic for opposing the disastrous US war against Iraq and for failing to advocate war against Iran.
Behind all this, of course, was the hugely powerful pro-Israel lobby. In official Washington, it is taboo to even say there is an Israel lobby, though in reality everyone knows it dictates Mideast policy to Congress.
When accused some years ago of being insufficiently pro-Israel, the tough-talking Hagel shot back that he was a senator from the US, not Israel. This flaming heresy forever branded Hagel an enemy to the pro-Israel lobby and its ardent Republican supporters.
Obama’s appointment of Chuck Hagel was also a stinging slap in the face to Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who had humiliated Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on numerous occasions and even worked with Republicans to defeat Obama in the last presidential elections.
Hagel must now fend off his foes in Congress and the media while wrestling with sharp cuts in military spending, layoffs of some of the 800,000 civilian Pentagon employees, and delays or cancellations of sacred cow weapons programs like the absurdly expensive F-35 fighter, new aircraft carriers, and anti-missile programs.
The US military-industrial complex has cleverly put arms plants in most US states, assuring that cuts in Pentagon spending will produce howls of national opposition from senators and congressmen.
Still, Secretary Hagel speaks for many moderate Americans, and even for members of the Pentagon and CIA, who want to end America’s post-9/11 heavy-handed policies, stop the fear-mongering over so-called "terrorism," and use the mighty US armed forces to help people around the world.
That’s the hope. But slowing down the Pentagon juggernaut will be very difficult. Reports say US special forces are now entering Niger and planning to stay on in Afghanistan. Anti-China fever is growing at a time when the US must work out a way to peacefully manage China’s rising power.
Secretary Hagel will have his work cut out for him.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis330.html
Friday, March 1, 2013
"Fear is the necessary prerequisite to maintaining a giant socialist, interventionist, imperialist apparatus in a representative democracy."
Stay Afraid: It Sustains the Welfare-Warfare State
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Are you pacing the floors? Are you taking anxiety medication? Are you scared to death?
Well, you should be doing all of the above. Be afraid. The entire world is going to collapse. Sequestration day is upon us.
This is really hilarious. Have you noticed that the mainstream statist editorial writers and commentators have gone silent with all their horrible predictions as to how the world is going to come to an end if the sequestration takes place? That’s because a couple of weeks ago they came to the realization that a deal to avoid the sequestration might not be cut, in which case the sequestration would really happen. That’s when they decided that in the abundance of precaution, they had been stop printing all those scary predictions.
You see, the scary scenarios are part of the strategy to keep federal spending and federal debt soaring. If they can scare people into thinking that disaster is going to strike if federal spending is reduced, then frightened Americans will contact their congressmen and plead, “Please, please, Mr. Congressman. Please do not reduce federal spending. I am so scared of what is going to happen if you do.”
I still think that a last-minute deal might be entered into, for no other reason than that Washington, D.C., statists, both Republicans and Democrats, are themselves scared to death, not because of the sequestration but because people might discover that nothing bad is going to happen when the sequestration goes through. When nothing bad happens, what’s going to happen to all the scary scenarios that the statists will paint about reducing federal spending in the future, such as when the debt ceiling debate takes place?
The whole thing is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen. They’re not even cutting overall federal spending. They’re spending more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. How is that a cut? D.C. bureaucrats aren’t getting as big an increase in their budgets as they want and they call that a “cut” even though they’re getting more than they got last year. And they’re going to the warpath, doing what they always do in such situations: engage in a strategy of fear-mongering and blackmail.
Everyone knows about “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal programs, right? Well, wouldn’t you think that this would be an excellent opportunity to get rid of the “waste, fraud, and abuse”? Well, that’s not what they’re doing. Instead, the bureaucrats, with the full support of the politicians, are picking out the things they think are most important to the American people and announcing that that’s what they’re eliminating or reducing. The message is: “Give us the increase we want or pay the price.” It’s a war that the bureaucrats are waging against the American taxpayers.
The entire welfare-warfare state way of life is founded on fear. The idea has always been that if federal officials can keep Americans scared, then Americans will resist libertarian efforts to restore a free society to our land through the dismantling of the welfare-warfare state. No one can deny that the federal fear-mongering has been an enormous success. The American people are among the most fearful people in the world.
Consider the welfare state. Most everyone in the country is inculcated with a deep fear of what would happen if welfare-state programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were repealed. People would be dying in the streets! There would be mass starvation! Millions would be dying of untreated illnesses and diseases! No one would care. Dog eat dog! Oh, thank goodness for the welfare state. We’d all die without it.
Consider the warfare state. Most everyone in the country is inculcated with a deep fear of what would happen if the Pentagon, the CIA, and the U.S. overseas military empire were dismantled. Oh my gosh! Millions of terrorists would cross the oceans in transport ships and invade and conquer America, running the Interstate Highway System and the public schools. And if they didn’t, the communists surely would! Or the drug dealers! Or, most scary of all, the illegal aliens! Aagh!!!
The Pentagon and the CIA are masters at conjuring up fearful scenarios to keep people afraid. Think back to the Cold War, when they kept Americans fearful over the so-called missile gap, where they falsely maintained that the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in nuclear missiles.
And if they have trouble coming up with scary imaginary scenarios, they just go out and produce them, as they did with anti-American terrorism. They go out and poke a bunch of hornets’ nests and then when there is terrorist retaliation, they exclaim, “We’re innocent! We didn’t do anything! The terrorists are coming to get you! National security is at stake! You need us to keep you safe. Keep us around and, even better, give us more money.”
Consider the drug war. Most everyone in the country is inculcated with a deep fear of drug legalization. No one could resist the lure of drugs. The entire country would immediately fall into a drug-induced stupor, which would then enable the terrorists, communists, drug dealers, and illegal aliens to invade and occupy the country (see previous paragraph). Reefer madness, cocaine madness, heroin madness, and meth madness would sweep across the land. No one would be working anymore. Everyone would go on welfare.
Consider federal spending. If we don’t lift the debt ceiling, economic Armageddon will take place. America will fall into the ocean. Everyone will die.
It is all so patently ridiculous, but all so necessary to keep people frightened. Fear is the necessary prerequisite to maintaining a giant socialist, interventionist, imperialist apparatus in a representative democracy. Otherwise, if people were to lose their fear, they quite rationally might ask, “Why do we need the welfare-warfare state? Why shouldn’t we experience a free society by dismantling all this statist junk?”
The best thing that could ever happen to America is a repeal of all federal welfare-state programs and all warfare-state programs as well as the taxes that fund them, including the income tax. Sure, people working in the federal sector would be dislocated but that’s not a bad thing. They would orient toward the private sector, where people would be creating new economic opportunities with the money that they would now be free to keep. And all those dislocated companies and workers would now be in the private, productive sector rather than the public, parasitic sector.
What’s the solution to all this statism? Libertarianism, plus a nation of people who are not gripped by fear. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, the only thing we need to do is conquer fear itself, especially fear inculcated by the welfare-warfare state.
Link:
http://fff.org/2013/03/01/stay-afraid-it-sustains-the-welfare-warfare-state/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Are you pacing the floors? Are you taking anxiety medication? Are you scared to death?
Well, you should be doing all of the above. Be afraid. The entire world is going to collapse. Sequestration day is upon us.
This is really hilarious. Have you noticed that the mainstream statist editorial writers and commentators have gone silent with all their horrible predictions as to how the world is going to come to an end if the sequestration takes place? That’s because a couple of weeks ago they came to the realization that a deal to avoid the sequestration might not be cut, in which case the sequestration would really happen. That’s when they decided that in the abundance of precaution, they had been stop printing all those scary predictions.
You see, the scary scenarios are part of the strategy to keep federal spending and federal debt soaring. If they can scare people into thinking that disaster is going to strike if federal spending is reduced, then frightened Americans will contact their congressmen and plead, “Please, please, Mr. Congressman. Please do not reduce federal spending. I am so scared of what is going to happen if you do.”
I still think that a last-minute deal might be entered into, for no other reason than that Washington, D.C., statists, both Republicans and Democrats, are themselves scared to death, not because of the sequestration but because people might discover that nothing bad is going to happen when the sequestration goes through. When nothing bad happens, what’s going to happen to all the scary scenarios that the statists will paint about reducing federal spending in the future, such as when the debt ceiling debate takes place?
The whole thing is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen. They’re not even cutting overall federal spending. They’re spending more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. How is that a cut? D.C. bureaucrats aren’t getting as big an increase in their budgets as they want and they call that a “cut” even though they’re getting more than they got last year. And they’re going to the warpath, doing what they always do in such situations: engage in a strategy of fear-mongering and blackmail.
Everyone knows about “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal programs, right? Well, wouldn’t you think that this would be an excellent opportunity to get rid of the “waste, fraud, and abuse”? Well, that’s not what they’re doing. Instead, the bureaucrats, with the full support of the politicians, are picking out the things they think are most important to the American people and announcing that that’s what they’re eliminating or reducing. The message is: “Give us the increase we want or pay the price.” It’s a war that the bureaucrats are waging against the American taxpayers.
The entire welfare-warfare state way of life is founded on fear. The idea has always been that if federal officials can keep Americans scared, then Americans will resist libertarian efforts to restore a free society to our land through the dismantling of the welfare-warfare state. No one can deny that the federal fear-mongering has been an enormous success. The American people are among the most fearful people in the world.
Consider the welfare state. Most everyone in the country is inculcated with a deep fear of what would happen if welfare-state programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, were repealed. People would be dying in the streets! There would be mass starvation! Millions would be dying of untreated illnesses and diseases! No one would care. Dog eat dog! Oh, thank goodness for the welfare state. We’d all die without it.
Consider the warfare state. Most everyone in the country is inculcated with a deep fear of what would happen if the Pentagon, the CIA, and the U.S. overseas military empire were dismantled. Oh my gosh! Millions of terrorists would cross the oceans in transport ships and invade and conquer America, running the Interstate Highway System and the public schools. And if they didn’t, the communists surely would! Or the drug dealers! Or, most scary of all, the illegal aliens! Aagh!!!
The Pentagon and the CIA are masters at conjuring up fearful scenarios to keep people afraid. Think back to the Cold War, when they kept Americans fearful over the so-called missile gap, where they falsely maintained that the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in nuclear missiles.
And if they have trouble coming up with scary imaginary scenarios, they just go out and produce them, as they did with anti-American terrorism. They go out and poke a bunch of hornets’ nests and then when there is terrorist retaliation, they exclaim, “We’re innocent! We didn’t do anything! The terrorists are coming to get you! National security is at stake! You need us to keep you safe. Keep us around and, even better, give us more money.”
Consider the drug war. Most everyone in the country is inculcated with a deep fear of drug legalization. No one could resist the lure of drugs. The entire country would immediately fall into a drug-induced stupor, which would then enable the terrorists, communists, drug dealers, and illegal aliens to invade and occupy the country (see previous paragraph). Reefer madness, cocaine madness, heroin madness, and meth madness would sweep across the land. No one would be working anymore. Everyone would go on welfare.
Consider federal spending. If we don’t lift the debt ceiling, economic Armageddon will take place. America will fall into the ocean. Everyone will die.
It is all so patently ridiculous, but all so necessary to keep people frightened. Fear is the necessary prerequisite to maintaining a giant socialist, interventionist, imperialist apparatus in a representative democracy. Otherwise, if people were to lose their fear, they quite rationally might ask, “Why do we need the welfare-warfare state? Why shouldn’t we experience a free society by dismantling all this statist junk?”
The best thing that could ever happen to America is a repeal of all federal welfare-state programs and all warfare-state programs as well as the taxes that fund them, including the income tax. Sure, people working in the federal sector would be dislocated but that’s not a bad thing. They would orient toward the private sector, where people would be creating new economic opportunities with the money that they would now be free to keep. And all those dislocated companies and workers would now be in the private, productive sector rather than the public, parasitic sector.
What’s the solution to all this statism? Libertarianism, plus a nation of people who are not gripped by fear. To paraphrase Franklin Roosevelt, the only thing we need to do is conquer fear itself, especially fear inculcated by the welfare-warfare state.
Link:
http://fff.org/2013/03/01/stay-afraid-it-sustains-the-welfare-warfare-state/
What recovery???
The Missing Recovery
Paul Craig Roberts
Officially, since June 2009 the US economy has been undergoing an economic recovery from the December 2007 recession. But where is this recovery? I cannot find it, and neither can millions of unemployed Americans.
The recovery exists only in the official measure of real GDP, which is deflated by an understated measure of inflation, and in the U.3 measure of the unemployment rate, which is declining because it does not count discouraged job seekers who have given up looking for a job.
No other data series indicates an economic recovery. Neither real retail sales nor housing starts, consumer confidence, payroll employment, or average weekly earnings indicate economic recovery.
Neither does the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy. The Fed’s expansive monetary policy of bond purchases to maintain negative real interest rates continues 3.5 years into the recovery. Of course, the reason for the Fed’s negative interest rates is not to boost the economy but to boost asset values on the books of “banks too big to fail.”
The low interest rates raise the prices of the mortgage-backed derivatives and other debt-related assets on the banks’ balance sheets at the expense of interest income for retirees on their savings accounts, money market funds, and Treasury bonds.
Despite recovery’s absence and the lack of job opportunities for Americans, Republicans in Congress are sponsoring bills to enlarge the number of foreigners that corporations can bring in on work visas. The large corporations claim that they cannot find enough skilled Americans. This is one of the most transparent of the constant stream of lies that we are told.
Foreign hires are not additions to the work force, but replacements. The corporations force their American employees to train the foreigners, and then the American employees are discharged. Obviously, if skilled employees were in short supply, they would not be laid off. Moreover, if the skills were in short supply, salaries would be bid up, not down, and the 36% of those who graduated in 2011 with a doctorate degree in engineering would not have been left unemployed. The National Science Foundation’s report, “Doctorate Recipients From U.S. Universities,” says that only 64% of the Ph.D. engineering graduates found a pay check.
As I have reported on numerous occasions for many years, neither the payroll jobs statistics nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job projections show job opportunities for university graduates. But this doesn’t stop Congress from helping US corporations get rid of their American employees in exchange for campaign donations.
There was a time not that long ago when US corporations accepted that they had obligations to their employees, customers, suppliers, the communities in which they were located, and to their shareholders. Today they only acknowledge obligations to shareholders. Everyone else has been thrown to the wolves in order to maximize profits and, thereby, shareholders’ capital gains and executive bonuses.
By focusing on the bottom line at all costs, corporations are destroying the US consumer market. Offshoring jobs reduces labor costs and raises profits, but it also reduces domestic consumer income, thus reducing the domestic market for the corporation’s products. For awhile the reduction in consumer income can be filled by the expansion of consumer debt, but when consumers reach their debt limit sales cannot continue to rise. The consequence of jobs offshoring is the ruination of the domestic consumer market.
Today the stock market is high not from profits from expanding sales revenues, but from labor cost savings.
US economic policy has been focused away from the real problems and onto a consequence of those problems–the large US budget deficit. As no interest group wants to be gored, Congress has been unable to deal with the trillion dollar plus annual budget deficit, the continuation of which raises the specter of dollar collapse and inflation.
John Maynard Keynes made it clear long ago, as has Greece today, that trying to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP by austerity measures doesn’t work.
Among the countries in the world the US is in a unique position. It not only has its own central bank to provide the money necessary to finance the government’s deficit, but also the money that is provided, the US dollar, is the world’s reserve currency used to settle international accounts among all nations and, thus, always in demand. The dollar thus serves as the world’s transaction currency and also as a store of value for countries with trade surpluses who invest their surpluses in US Treasury bonds and other dollar-denominated assets.
Without the support that the reserve currency status gives to the dollar’s exchange value (its price in foreign currencies), the enormous expansion in the quantity of dollars produced by the Fed’s years of quantitative easing would have resulted in a drop in the dollar’s exchange value, a rise in interest rates, and a rise in inflation. Since my time in government, the US has become an export-dependent economy, and export-dependent economies are subject to domestic inflation when the currency loses exchange value.
To sum up, the corporations’ focus on the bottom line has disconnected US incomes from the production of the goods and services that the American people consume, thus weakening and ultimately destroying the domestic consumer market. The Fed’s focus on saving banks, which mindless deregulation allowed to become “too big to fail,” has created a bond market bubble of negative real interest rates and a dollar bubble in which the dollar’s exchange rate has not declined in keeping with the large increase in its supply. Both the corporations and the Fed have created a stock market bubble based on profits obtained from labor arbitrage (the substitution of cheaper foreign labor for US labor) and from banks speculating with the money that the Fed is providing to them.
This situation is untenable. Sooner or later something will pop these bubbles, and the consequences will be horrendous.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/the-missing-recovery.html
Paul Craig Roberts
Officially, since June 2009 the US economy has been undergoing an economic recovery from the December 2007 recession. But where is this recovery? I cannot find it, and neither can millions of unemployed Americans.
The recovery exists only in the official measure of real GDP, which is deflated by an understated measure of inflation, and in the U.3 measure of the unemployment rate, which is declining because it does not count discouraged job seekers who have given up looking for a job.
No other data series indicates an economic recovery. Neither real retail sales nor housing starts, consumer confidence, payroll employment, or average weekly earnings indicate economic recovery.
Neither does the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy. The Fed’s expansive monetary policy of bond purchases to maintain negative real interest rates continues 3.5 years into the recovery. Of course, the reason for the Fed’s negative interest rates is not to boost the economy but to boost asset values on the books of “banks too big to fail.”
The low interest rates raise the prices of the mortgage-backed derivatives and other debt-related assets on the banks’ balance sheets at the expense of interest income for retirees on their savings accounts, money market funds, and Treasury bonds.
Despite recovery’s absence and the lack of job opportunities for Americans, Republicans in Congress are sponsoring bills to enlarge the number of foreigners that corporations can bring in on work visas. The large corporations claim that they cannot find enough skilled Americans. This is one of the most transparent of the constant stream of lies that we are told.
Foreign hires are not additions to the work force, but replacements. The corporations force their American employees to train the foreigners, and then the American employees are discharged. Obviously, if skilled employees were in short supply, they would not be laid off. Moreover, if the skills were in short supply, salaries would be bid up, not down, and the 36% of those who graduated in 2011 with a doctorate degree in engineering would not have been left unemployed. The National Science Foundation’s report, “Doctorate Recipients From U.S. Universities,” says that only 64% of the Ph.D. engineering graduates found a pay check.
As I have reported on numerous occasions for many years, neither the payroll jobs statistics nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job projections show job opportunities for university graduates. But this doesn’t stop Congress from helping US corporations get rid of their American employees in exchange for campaign donations.
There was a time not that long ago when US corporations accepted that they had obligations to their employees, customers, suppliers, the communities in which they were located, and to their shareholders. Today they only acknowledge obligations to shareholders. Everyone else has been thrown to the wolves in order to maximize profits and, thereby, shareholders’ capital gains and executive bonuses.
By focusing on the bottom line at all costs, corporations are destroying the US consumer market. Offshoring jobs reduces labor costs and raises profits, but it also reduces domestic consumer income, thus reducing the domestic market for the corporation’s products. For awhile the reduction in consumer income can be filled by the expansion of consumer debt, but when consumers reach their debt limit sales cannot continue to rise. The consequence of jobs offshoring is the ruination of the domestic consumer market.
Today the stock market is high not from profits from expanding sales revenues, but from labor cost savings.
US economic policy has been focused away from the real problems and onto a consequence of those problems–the large US budget deficit. As no interest group wants to be gored, Congress has been unable to deal with the trillion dollar plus annual budget deficit, the continuation of which raises the specter of dollar collapse and inflation.
John Maynard Keynes made it clear long ago, as has Greece today, that trying to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP by austerity measures doesn’t work.
Among the countries in the world the US is in a unique position. It not only has its own central bank to provide the money necessary to finance the government’s deficit, but also the money that is provided, the US dollar, is the world’s reserve currency used to settle international accounts among all nations and, thus, always in demand. The dollar thus serves as the world’s transaction currency and also as a store of value for countries with trade surpluses who invest their surpluses in US Treasury bonds and other dollar-denominated assets.
Without the support that the reserve currency status gives to the dollar’s exchange value (its price in foreign currencies), the enormous expansion in the quantity of dollars produced by the Fed’s years of quantitative easing would have resulted in a drop in the dollar’s exchange value, a rise in interest rates, and a rise in inflation. Since my time in government, the US has become an export-dependent economy, and export-dependent economies are subject to domestic inflation when the currency loses exchange value.
To sum up, the corporations’ focus on the bottom line has disconnected US incomes from the production of the goods and services that the American people consume, thus weakening and ultimately destroying the domestic consumer market. The Fed’s focus on saving banks, which mindless deregulation allowed to become “too big to fail,” has created a bond market bubble of negative real interest rates and a dollar bubble in which the dollar’s exchange rate has not declined in keeping with the large increase in its supply. Both the corporations and the Fed have created a stock market bubble based on profits obtained from labor arbitrage (the substitution of cheaper foreign labor for US labor) and from banks speculating with the money that the Fed is providing to them.
This situation is untenable. Sooner or later something will pop these bubbles, and the consequences will be horrendous.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/the-missing-recovery.html
"...those who feel they are prepared for anything are the least worried."
What to do if you are paralyzed by fear of civilization collapse, police states, plagues and other calamities
Mike Bundrant
Over the course of many months I have had the privilege of coaching many Natural News readers who take my online personal development courses. If there has been one concern many have in common, it is fear for the future of humanity.
Some actually live in a state of mental and emotional paralysis, wondering what is the point of making plans for the future or working on themselves if we are all going to hell in a hand basket under a new world order.
I usually ask one question to begin to sort it out. Here it is: Are you prepared?
The answer to this question determines the course of action to follow. If the answer is “no, I am not prepared” then I usually ask if you really believe we are at risk for such calamities. If so, then you have reason to be afraid. You believe something is going to happen for which you are not preparing. It makes sense. Time to get prepared. Start by educating yourself and get moving with a plan, little by little.
I have found – without exception – that those who feel they are prepared for anything are the least worried. They look forward with much greater confidence, even though there is still cause for concern. Being prepared allows them to focus on their day-to-day life with no interruptions, which is how things should be.
There are two scenarios left
1. What if you are prepared, but still live in fear?
2. What if you don’t really believe anything severe will happen, but still chronically worry?
In both of these scenarios, you are milking your fear. If you are prepared, then you are doing all you can. There is not a lot else you can do but go about your life and continue to get ready. Indulging yourself in more fear and self-paralysis is just that – emotional indulgence.
Likewise, if you honestly think there is nothing to worry about, yet still worry, then you are emotionally milking the situation, indulging in worry that is totally unnecessary, according to you. Now, the question is not how to prepare, but how to stop indulging your emotions.
A handy tool to use with most chronic, negative emotions
Whether dealing with fear, discouragement, depression, jealousy, overwhelm or anger, the protocol is the same. Take out your old school legal pad and pen, then get real clear about your emotions, create a plan, act on the plan doing the very best you can. Let’s look at some scenarios:
Anger – get super clear about the anger. At whom are you angry? What for, specifically? How can you maturely express the anger, make yourself understood and work out differences, if possible? Beyond this, you may be indulging yourself.
Fear – what are you afraid of, specifically? What can you do to prepare yourself for that which you fear? Make a list to identify all you can do. Whom can you rely on for support? Are you willing to put forth your best effort?
Overwhelm – make a list of everything that overwhelms you. Prioritize tasks. Create a plan of action. Get moving, one step at a time.
Depression – depression can be characterized as “the perception of a future in which you do not want to participate.” What do you want in your future? Make a list. Create a plan.
What if you approach out-of-control emotions in this way and it is not enough?
I won’t suggest that the above tools are the end-all-be-all of emotional management. The point is, if you use reasonable skills and tools to manage your emotions and they do not work, then you may have deeper attachments to unresolved, negative emotions.
Psychotherapist Peter Michaelson said the following about such attachments at his blog, Why We Suffer.
Unresolved negative emotions are simply determined to be experienced, and our challenge is to liberate ourselves from these attachments. Through our intelligence we can achieve inner freedom when we expose the dynamics of our psyche.
What are some examples of unresolved negative emotions to which we are attached? We want love but, at some deeper level, we’re expecting rejection. We want to feel strong, but we are identified with ourselves through weakness. We want to get rewards and benefits from life, but unconsciously we’re expecting to be refused or deprived. We’re compelled to continue experiencing in a painful way, often on a daily basis, the negative emotions that arise from these unresolved conflicts.
In other words, regardless of what is happening in the world, it is possible, due to unresolved inner conflicts, to compulsively experience a large array of negative emotions. The emotions themselves are not related to real events in today’s world, but unresolved issues from your past. So, regardless of how much action you take today, the emotion is still determined to be experienced. In other words, you will likely indulge your unresolved, fear, resentment, pain, jealousy, emptiness and so forth, until you resolve the underlying cause.
In this scenario, there is good news and bad news. The good news: your emotional angst is not about the present or future, especially if you are clear and engaged in doing all you can. The bad news: you have unresolved conflicts from your past that you may not understand.
It’s time to educate yourself about emotional attachments. Peter Michaelson’s books are a great place to start.
Your life, your happiness – don’t let anyone take it away
Finally, given the reality of those in the world that plan to take away your freedom, do you really want to give away more power by making yourself an emotional slave to them? You have total capacity for happiness in the world today, as it is. It is entirely within your reach to be happy, prepared for the worst, aware of the evil in the world, and content with your life as it is.
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/039296_paralyzed_fear_civilization_collapse.html
Mike Bundrant
Over the course of many months I have had the privilege of coaching many Natural News readers who take my online personal development courses. If there has been one concern many have in common, it is fear for the future of humanity.
Some actually live in a state of mental and emotional paralysis, wondering what is the point of making plans for the future or working on themselves if we are all going to hell in a hand basket under a new world order.
I usually ask one question to begin to sort it out. Here it is: Are you prepared?
The answer to this question determines the course of action to follow. If the answer is “no, I am not prepared” then I usually ask if you really believe we are at risk for such calamities. If so, then you have reason to be afraid. You believe something is going to happen for which you are not preparing. It makes sense. Time to get prepared. Start by educating yourself and get moving with a plan, little by little.
I have found – without exception – that those who feel they are prepared for anything are the least worried. They look forward with much greater confidence, even though there is still cause for concern. Being prepared allows them to focus on their day-to-day life with no interruptions, which is how things should be.
There are two scenarios left
1. What if you are prepared, but still live in fear?
2. What if you don’t really believe anything severe will happen, but still chronically worry?
In both of these scenarios, you are milking your fear. If you are prepared, then you are doing all you can. There is not a lot else you can do but go about your life and continue to get ready. Indulging yourself in more fear and self-paralysis is just that – emotional indulgence.
Likewise, if you honestly think there is nothing to worry about, yet still worry, then you are emotionally milking the situation, indulging in worry that is totally unnecessary, according to you. Now, the question is not how to prepare, but how to stop indulging your emotions.
A handy tool to use with most chronic, negative emotions
Whether dealing with fear, discouragement, depression, jealousy, overwhelm or anger, the protocol is the same. Take out your old school legal pad and pen, then get real clear about your emotions, create a plan, act on the plan doing the very best you can. Let’s look at some scenarios:
Anger – get super clear about the anger. At whom are you angry? What for, specifically? How can you maturely express the anger, make yourself understood and work out differences, if possible? Beyond this, you may be indulging yourself.
Fear – what are you afraid of, specifically? What can you do to prepare yourself for that which you fear? Make a list to identify all you can do. Whom can you rely on for support? Are you willing to put forth your best effort?
Overwhelm – make a list of everything that overwhelms you. Prioritize tasks. Create a plan of action. Get moving, one step at a time.
Depression – depression can be characterized as “the perception of a future in which you do not want to participate.” What do you want in your future? Make a list. Create a plan.
What if you approach out-of-control emotions in this way and it is not enough?
I won’t suggest that the above tools are the end-all-be-all of emotional management. The point is, if you use reasonable skills and tools to manage your emotions and they do not work, then you may have deeper attachments to unresolved, negative emotions.
Psychotherapist Peter Michaelson said the following about such attachments at his blog, Why We Suffer.
Unresolved negative emotions are simply determined to be experienced, and our challenge is to liberate ourselves from these attachments. Through our intelligence we can achieve inner freedom when we expose the dynamics of our psyche.
What are some examples of unresolved negative emotions to which we are attached? We want love but, at some deeper level, we’re expecting rejection. We want to feel strong, but we are identified with ourselves through weakness. We want to get rewards and benefits from life, but unconsciously we’re expecting to be refused or deprived. We’re compelled to continue experiencing in a painful way, often on a daily basis, the negative emotions that arise from these unresolved conflicts.
In other words, regardless of what is happening in the world, it is possible, due to unresolved inner conflicts, to compulsively experience a large array of negative emotions. The emotions themselves are not related to real events in today’s world, but unresolved issues from your past. So, regardless of how much action you take today, the emotion is still determined to be experienced. In other words, you will likely indulge your unresolved, fear, resentment, pain, jealousy, emptiness and so forth, until you resolve the underlying cause.
In this scenario, there is good news and bad news. The good news: your emotional angst is not about the present or future, especially if you are clear and engaged in doing all you can. The bad news: you have unresolved conflicts from your past that you may not understand.
It’s time to educate yourself about emotional attachments. Peter Michaelson’s books are a great place to start.
Your life, your happiness – don’t let anyone take it away
Finally, given the reality of those in the world that plan to take away your freedom, do you really want to give away more power by making yourself an emotional slave to them? You have total capacity for happiness in the world today, as it is. It is entirely within your reach to be happy, prepared for the worst, aware of the evil in the world, and content with your life as it is.
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/039296_paralyzed_fear_civilization_collapse.html
It is only a matter of time...
Lawyers Testify Before House Committee in Favor of Targeted Killings of Americans
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the legality of the federal government targeting American citizens for assassination by drone.
Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the committee, released the following statement before hearing testimony from a panel of expert witnesses.
On Feb. 4, 2013, a confidential Justice Department white paper outlining the legal justification for targeted killings of U.S. citizens overseas was leaked to NBC News. The leak of this white paper brought renewed attention to an issue largely ignored during President Obama’s tenure — is the targeted killing of alleged American terrorists appropriate and under what circumstances? The white paper also confirms a palpable shift in War on Terror policy by this President.
In 2007, Barack Obama, the then-junior Senator from Illinois laid out his position on the War on Terror.
“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people…. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”
The same president who opposes the detention of foreign terrorists, who opposes the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on foreign terrorists, and who attempted to bring foreign terrorists to trial in New York City is now personally approving the killing of Americans. Ironically, the detention facility in Guantanamo remains open and Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators are being tried before a military commission.
Following the release of the white paper, a bipartisan group of Committee members requested the opportunity to review the memos that form the basis for the white paper. Our request was denied. One of President Obama’s first acts as President was to release the Bush Justice Department’s enhanced interrogation techniques memos to the public. But he now refuses to provide his Justice Department’s targeted killing memos not just to the public but even to congressional overseers.
The white paper referred to by Chairman Goodlatte is a 16-page justification released by the Justice Department on the eve of the confirmation hearing for John Brennan, President Obama’s choice to replace David Petraeus as director of the CIA.
In the document, the Justice Department claims that the decision regarding who will be killed by the government will be made by “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.” That is hardly sufficient protection of the due process rights of Americans. Due process requires that the suspected terrorist “co-belligerent” be charged with a crime, allowed to answer those charges, and defend himself against those charges before an unbiased judge in court.
The memo also insists that constitutionally mandated rights of due process must be by-passed in the name of national security, arguing that the safety of America is more important than the constitutionally protected rights of one individual. Furthermore, the memo claims that only those who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” will be targeted.
Of course, just how imminent the threat must be is not discussed, nor is the fact that buried in the memo is the assertion that there are no geographical limits to the president’s lethal authority. In other words, despite Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing’s focus on Americans overseas, the Justice Department makes no such jurisdictional distinction.
Three regular contributors to the Lawfare blog testified before the committee Wednesday in favor of extra-judicial killing of Americans. Although all three admitted that there were "difficult" and "complex" issues of constitutional law involved in the targeted killing of Americans, none of them opposed the policy.
John Bellinger, a former George W. Bush administration official, testified that “killing al Qaida leaders, may at some point cause the U.S. more harm than good. These are important questions for U.S. policymakers to consider, but I do not have sufficient information about the effectiveness of drone strikes, or their negative effects, to offer a view on them here.”
Bellinger must be too busy with his law practice to read accounts of the growing violent backlash to the U.S. drone war or the horrendous psychological effect these strikes are having on the people of Yemen and Pakistan.
Speaking about the Justice Department white paper purporting to lay out the legal justification for targeted extra-judicial killing of Americans by the president or the CIA, Bellinger said, “I agree with the general legal analysis in the White Paper and the Attorney General’s speech." While Bellinger claims that he believes "that an American citizen who is a senior al Qaida leader outside the United States does enjoy a constitutional right to due process before being targeted," he believes that having the assassination vetted by a "senior, informed government official" is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional due process requirement before blowing the American to bits by a Hellfire missile launched from a U.S. drone.
Joining the pro-assassination chorus, Professor Robert Chesney of the University of Texas testified that judicial review of targeted killing by the government is not "strictly required by current law, still less that the government acted unconstitutionally in using force in the particular case of Anwar al-Awlaki or that the positions set forth in the Justice Department’s White Paper are incorrect.”
How is it that a presidential presumption of guilt by association followed by the autocratic order of a lethal drone strike doesn’t bother these legal experts? So many questions of legal and constitutional importance remain unanswered and should give such experts pause.
For instance, why can’t these alleged “terrorists” be tried in our federal court system? For decades those accused of terroristic crimes have been formally charged with those crimes, had those charges heard before an impartial federal judge, and been permitted to mount a defense to those crimes.
In fact, a survey of such trials conducted by Human Rights Watch reported, “Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11.”
Add to this the story of Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in June 2011 for the Oklahoma City bombing, the worst terrorist act on American soil until 9/11. Extending the full panoply of due-process rights — including a trial in federal court — did not allow McVeigh or other convicted terrorists to evade justice. Furthermore, the purpose of protecting and providing civil liberties to those accused of crimes is not to set the guilty free, but to avoid punishing the innocent who are wrongly accused of crimes.
And should the president suggest that alleged evildoers cannot be apprehended, he should be reminded that “public enemy number one” Osama bin Laden was reportedly tracked and overtaken by a U.S. special operations team. Why could other less high-value targets not be similarly found by the military? Although bin Laden was reportedly killed in the raid, there is every reason to believe that a team skilled in this type of operation could have captured him alive if those had been the orders they were following.
Once in the custody of the United States, these suspects could be brought to stand trial for their alleged crimes. This would preserve, protect, and defend the fundamental concept of due process, one of the pillars of liberty upon which our Constitution is built.
Sadly, the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the drone war provided another piece of evidence that increasingly, legal minds in positions of power and influence have no problem suspending the rights of due process to men suspected (not accused or convicted) of being an “imminent” threat to the security of the homeland. This should frighten all friends of the Constitution who recognize that the right to life, liberty, and property was given to all men not by the Constitution, but by God. The Constitution merely protects these rights, providing safeguards protecting them from being unlawfully (and often immorally) denied by the federal government.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14651-lawyers-testify-before-house-committee-in-favor-of-targeted-killings-of-americans
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the legality of the federal government targeting American citizens for assassination by drone.
Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the committee, released the following statement before hearing testimony from a panel of expert witnesses.
On Feb. 4, 2013, a confidential Justice Department white paper outlining the legal justification for targeted killings of U.S. citizens overseas was leaked to NBC News. The leak of this white paper brought renewed attention to an issue largely ignored during President Obama’s tenure — is the targeted killing of alleged American terrorists appropriate and under what circumstances? The white paper also confirms a palpable shift in War on Terror policy by this President.
In 2007, Barack Obama, the then-junior Senator from Illinois laid out his position on the War on Terror.
“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people…. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”
The same president who opposes the detention of foreign terrorists, who opposes the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on foreign terrorists, and who attempted to bring foreign terrorists to trial in New York City is now personally approving the killing of Americans. Ironically, the detention facility in Guantanamo remains open and Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators are being tried before a military commission.
Following the release of the white paper, a bipartisan group of Committee members requested the opportunity to review the memos that form the basis for the white paper. Our request was denied. One of President Obama’s first acts as President was to release the Bush Justice Department’s enhanced interrogation techniques memos to the public. But he now refuses to provide his Justice Department’s targeted killing memos not just to the public but even to congressional overseers.
The white paper referred to by Chairman Goodlatte is a 16-page justification released by the Justice Department on the eve of the confirmation hearing for John Brennan, President Obama’s choice to replace David Petraeus as director of the CIA.
In the document, the Justice Department claims that the decision regarding who will be killed by the government will be made by “an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.” That is hardly sufficient protection of the due process rights of Americans. Due process requires that the suspected terrorist “co-belligerent” be charged with a crime, allowed to answer those charges, and defend himself against those charges before an unbiased judge in court.
The memo also insists that constitutionally mandated rights of due process must be by-passed in the name of national security, arguing that the safety of America is more important than the constitutionally protected rights of one individual. Furthermore, the memo claims that only those who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” will be targeted.
Of course, just how imminent the threat must be is not discussed, nor is the fact that buried in the memo is the assertion that there are no geographical limits to the president’s lethal authority. In other words, despite Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee hearing’s focus on Americans overseas, the Justice Department makes no such jurisdictional distinction.
Three regular contributors to the Lawfare blog testified before the committee Wednesday in favor of extra-judicial killing of Americans. Although all three admitted that there were "difficult" and "complex" issues of constitutional law involved in the targeted killing of Americans, none of them opposed the policy.
John Bellinger, a former George W. Bush administration official, testified that “killing al Qaida leaders, may at some point cause the U.S. more harm than good. These are important questions for U.S. policymakers to consider, but I do not have sufficient information about the effectiveness of drone strikes, or their negative effects, to offer a view on them here.”
Bellinger must be too busy with his law practice to read accounts of the growing violent backlash to the U.S. drone war or the horrendous psychological effect these strikes are having on the people of Yemen and Pakistan.
Speaking about the Justice Department white paper purporting to lay out the legal justification for targeted extra-judicial killing of Americans by the president or the CIA, Bellinger said, “I agree with the general legal analysis in the White Paper and the Attorney General’s speech." While Bellinger claims that he believes "that an American citizen who is a senior al Qaida leader outside the United States does enjoy a constitutional right to due process before being targeted," he believes that having the assassination vetted by a "senior, informed government official" is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional due process requirement before blowing the American to bits by a Hellfire missile launched from a U.S. drone.
Joining the pro-assassination chorus, Professor Robert Chesney of the University of Texas testified that judicial review of targeted killing by the government is not "strictly required by current law, still less that the government acted unconstitutionally in using force in the particular case of Anwar al-Awlaki or that the positions set forth in the Justice Department’s White Paper are incorrect.”
How is it that a presidential presumption of guilt by association followed by the autocratic order of a lethal drone strike doesn’t bother these legal experts? So many questions of legal and constitutional importance remain unanswered and should give such experts pause.
For instance, why can’t these alleged “terrorists” be tried in our federal court system? For decades those accused of terroristic crimes have been formally charged with those crimes, had those charges heard before an impartial federal judge, and been permitted to mount a defense to those crimes.
In fact, a survey of such trials conducted by Human Rights Watch reported, “Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11.”
Add to this the story of Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in June 2011 for the Oklahoma City bombing, the worst terrorist act on American soil until 9/11. Extending the full panoply of due-process rights — including a trial in federal court — did not allow McVeigh or other convicted terrorists to evade justice. Furthermore, the purpose of protecting and providing civil liberties to those accused of crimes is not to set the guilty free, but to avoid punishing the innocent who are wrongly accused of crimes.
And should the president suggest that alleged evildoers cannot be apprehended, he should be reminded that “public enemy number one” Osama bin Laden was reportedly tracked and overtaken by a U.S. special operations team. Why could other less high-value targets not be similarly found by the military? Although bin Laden was reportedly killed in the raid, there is every reason to believe that a team skilled in this type of operation could have captured him alive if those had been the orders they were following.
Once in the custody of the United States, these suspects could be brought to stand trial for their alleged crimes. This would preserve, protect, and defend the fundamental concept of due process, one of the pillars of liberty upon which our Constitution is built.
Sadly, the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the drone war provided another piece of evidence that increasingly, legal minds in positions of power and influence have no problem suspending the rights of due process to men suspected (not accused or convicted) of being an “imminent” threat to the security of the homeland. This should frighten all friends of the Constitution who recognize that the right to life, liberty, and property was given to all men not by the Constitution, but by God. The Constitution merely protects these rights, providing safeguards protecting them from being unlawfully (and often immorally) denied by the federal government.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14651-lawyers-testify-before-house-committee-in-favor-of-targeted-killings-of-americans
"How ironic that this comes from the reporter endlessly heralded for having brought down Richard Nixon's presidency on the ground that Nixon believed himself above the law. Nixon's hallmark proclamation - "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal" - is also apparently Bob Woodward's."
Bob Woodward embodies US political culture in a single outburst
Washington's most celebrated journalist hails the values of militarism, lawlessness, and presidential omnipotence
Glenn Greenwald
Earlier this month, the Pentagon announced that it would deploy "only" one aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, rather than the customary two. This move, said the Pentagon, was in preparation for the so-called "sequestration", scheduled to take effect this week, that mandates spending cuts for all agencies, including the Pentagon. This aircraft carrier announcement was all part of the White House's campaign to scare the public into believing that sequestration, which Democrats blame on Republicans, will result in serious harm to national security. Shortly before this cut was announced, then-defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:
"With another trigger for sequestration approaching on March 1st, the Department of Defense is facing the most serious readiness crisis in over a decade . . . . Make no mistake, if these cuts happen there will be a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in military readiness."
That the Obama administration might actually honor the budget cuts mandated by a law enacted by Congress and signed by Obama infuriates Bob Woodward, Washington's most celebrated journalist. He appeared this week on the "Morning Joe" program to excoriate Obama for withholding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, saying:
"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?' Or George W Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need' or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' as he did when Clinton was president, because of some budget document.
"Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."
As Brian Beutler points out: "the obscure type of budget document Woodward's referring to is called a duly enacted law — passed by Congress, signed by the President — and the only ways around it are for Congress to change it. . . . or for Obama to break it." But that's exactly what Woodward is demanding: that Obama trumpet his status as Commander-in-Chief in order to simply ignore - i.e. break - the law, just like those wonderful men before him would have done. Woodward derides the law as some petty, trivial annoyance ("this piece of paper") and thus mocks Obama's weakness for the crime of suggesting that the law is something he actually has to obey.
How ironic that this comes from the reporter endlessly heralded for having brought down Richard Nixon's presidency on the ground that Nixon believed himself above the law. Nixon's hallmark proclamation - "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal" - is also apparently Bob Woodward's.
All of this, of course, is pure pretense. Is it even remotely plausible that Obama is refraining from engaging in military action he believes is necessary out of some sort of quaint deference to the law? Please. This is a president who continued to wage war, in Libya, not merely without Congressional authorization, but even after Congress expressly voted against its authorization. This is a president who has repeatedly argued that he has the right to kill anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, not only due to Congressional authorization but also his own Commander-in-Chief powers. If Obama really wanted to deploy that second aircraft carrier, he would do so, knowing that journalists like Bob Woodward and members of both parties would cheer him. This is just a flamboyant political stunt designed to dramatize how those Big, Bad Republicans are leaving us all exposed and vulnerable with sequestration cuts.
But whatever Obama's motives might be, the fact is that what we call "law" really does require some cuts in military spending. To refuse to do so would be to assert powers not even most monarchs have: to break the law at will. Woodward is right about one point: not only would prior presidents have been willing to do this, this is exactly what they did. Indeed, George Bush's entire presidency was explicitly predicated on the theory that the president has the power to break the law at will whenever he deems that doing so promotes national security. That America's most celebrated journalist not only supports this, but demands that all presidents follow this model of lawlessness, is telling indeed.
Equally telling is the radical militarism implicit in Woodward's outburst. Contrary to the fear-mongering from the government and its media, the military cuts compelled by sequestration are extremely modest (as opposed to domestic spending cuts, which will actually produce genuine pain for many people). As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein documented: "even if we implement every single cut in the sequester, the fall in spending would be less than the military experienced after Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War." Given the massive explosion of military spending in the name of the War on Terror over the last decade (which Klein notes was "larger than the rise during Vietnam and during the Cold War"), the sequestration-mandated cuts would be but a very small step in returning to a sane level of military spending.
Then there's the hysteria Woodward spreads about how we'll all somehow be endangered if the US has only one rather than two aircraft carriers stalking Iran in the Gulf. What possible harm could come from that? None. This is all grounded in cartoon narrative that Iran is this frightening hegemon threatening the US at all times, and must be contained with massive assertions of military might. The reality, of course, is that even with these sequestration cuts, the US military budget is so much larger than Iran's that they are not in the same universe. That would be true if we had multiple sequestrations. The very idea that two aircraft carriers are needed at all in the Gulf, let alone necessary to Keep America Safe, is just laughable.
Yet here is Bob Woodward, with one rant, expressing the core values of America's media class. The president is not constrained by law (contemptuously referred to as "this piece of paper"). He not only has the right but the duty to do anything - even if the law prohibits it - to project military force whenever he wants (even though the Constitution mandates as his prime duty not to Keep Us Safe but rather that he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and thus must swear as his oath "to the best of [his] ability [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"). The US must act as empire, dominating the world with superior military force if it wants to stay safe. Any reduction in military spending and deployment will endanger us all.
It's to be expected that these authoritarian and militaristic values shape political leaders and their followers. That these values also shape the "watchdog" media class, as embodied by one of their "legends", explains much about US political culture generally.
Bob Woodward fulfills an important function. Just as Tim Russert was long held up as the scary bulldog questioner who proved the existence of an adversarial TV press while the reality was that, as Harper's Lewis Lapham famously put it, he maintained "the on-air persona of an attentive and accommodating headwaiter", the decades-old Woodward lore plays a critical role in maintaining the fiction of a watchdog press corps even though he is one of the most faithful servants of the war machine and the national security and surveillance states. Every once and awhile, the mask falls, and it's a good thing when it does.
Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-woodward-obama-military-sequester
Washington's most celebrated journalist hails the values of militarism, lawlessness, and presidential omnipotence
Glenn Greenwald
Earlier this month, the Pentagon announced that it would deploy "only" one aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, rather than the customary two. This move, said the Pentagon, was in preparation for the so-called "sequestration", scheduled to take effect this week, that mandates spending cuts for all agencies, including the Pentagon. This aircraft carrier announcement was all part of the White House's campaign to scare the public into believing that sequestration, which Democrats blame on Republicans, will result in serious harm to national security. Shortly before this cut was announced, then-defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:
"With another trigger for sequestration approaching on March 1st, the Department of Defense is facing the most serious readiness crisis in over a decade . . . . Make no mistake, if these cuts happen there will be a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in military readiness."
That the Obama administration might actually honor the budget cuts mandated by a law enacted by Congress and signed by Obama infuriates Bob Woodward, Washington's most celebrated journalist. He appeared this week on the "Morning Joe" program to excoriate Obama for withholding a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf, saying:
"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?' Or George W Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need' or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' as he did when Clinton was president, because of some budget document.
"Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."
As Brian Beutler points out: "the obscure type of budget document Woodward's referring to is called a duly enacted law — passed by Congress, signed by the President — and the only ways around it are for Congress to change it. . . . or for Obama to break it." But that's exactly what Woodward is demanding: that Obama trumpet his status as Commander-in-Chief in order to simply ignore - i.e. break - the law, just like those wonderful men before him would have done. Woodward derides the law as some petty, trivial annoyance ("this piece of paper") and thus mocks Obama's weakness for the crime of suggesting that the law is something he actually has to obey.
How ironic that this comes from the reporter endlessly heralded for having brought down Richard Nixon's presidency on the ground that Nixon believed himself above the law. Nixon's hallmark proclamation - "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal" - is also apparently Bob Woodward's.
All of this, of course, is pure pretense. Is it even remotely plausible that Obama is refraining from engaging in military action he believes is necessary out of some sort of quaint deference to the law? Please. This is a president who continued to wage war, in Libya, not merely without Congressional authorization, but even after Congress expressly voted against its authorization. This is a president who has repeatedly argued that he has the right to kill anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, not only due to Congressional authorization but also his own Commander-in-Chief powers. If Obama really wanted to deploy that second aircraft carrier, he would do so, knowing that journalists like Bob Woodward and members of both parties would cheer him. This is just a flamboyant political stunt designed to dramatize how those Big, Bad Republicans are leaving us all exposed and vulnerable with sequestration cuts.
But whatever Obama's motives might be, the fact is that what we call "law" really does require some cuts in military spending. To refuse to do so would be to assert powers not even most monarchs have: to break the law at will. Woodward is right about one point: not only would prior presidents have been willing to do this, this is exactly what they did. Indeed, George Bush's entire presidency was explicitly predicated on the theory that the president has the power to break the law at will whenever he deems that doing so promotes national security. That America's most celebrated journalist not only supports this, but demands that all presidents follow this model of lawlessness, is telling indeed.
Equally telling is the radical militarism implicit in Woodward's outburst. Contrary to the fear-mongering from the government and its media, the military cuts compelled by sequestration are extremely modest (as opposed to domestic spending cuts, which will actually produce genuine pain for many people). As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein documented: "even if we implement every single cut in the sequester, the fall in spending would be less than the military experienced after Korea, Vietnam, or the Cold War." Given the massive explosion of military spending in the name of the War on Terror over the last decade (which Klein notes was "larger than the rise during Vietnam and during the Cold War"), the sequestration-mandated cuts would be but a very small step in returning to a sane level of military spending.
Then there's the hysteria Woodward spreads about how we'll all somehow be endangered if the US has only one rather than two aircraft carriers stalking Iran in the Gulf. What possible harm could come from that? None. This is all grounded in cartoon narrative that Iran is this frightening hegemon threatening the US at all times, and must be contained with massive assertions of military might. The reality, of course, is that even with these sequestration cuts, the US military budget is so much larger than Iran's that they are not in the same universe. That would be true if we had multiple sequestrations. The very idea that two aircraft carriers are needed at all in the Gulf, let alone necessary to Keep America Safe, is just laughable.
Yet here is Bob Woodward, with one rant, expressing the core values of America's media class. The president is not constrained by law (contemptuously referred to as "this piece of paper"). He not only has the right but the duty to do anything - even if the law prohibits it - to project military force whenever he wants (even though the Constitution mandates as his prime duty not to Keep Us Safe but rather that he "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and thus must swear as his oath "to the best of [his] ability [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"). The US must act as empire, dominating the world with superior military force if it wants to stay safe. Any reduction in military spending and deployment will endanger us all.
It's to be expected that these authoritarian and militaristic values shape political leaders and their followers. That these values also shape the "watchdog" media class, as embodied by one of their "legends", explains much about US political culture generally.
Bob Woodward fulfills an important function. Just as Tim Russert was long held up as the scary bulldog questioner who proved the existence of an adversarial TV press while the reality was that, as Harper's Lewis Lapham famously put it, he maintained "the on-air persona of an attentive and accommodating headwaiter", the decades-old Woodward lore plays a critical role in maintaining the fiction of a watchdog press corps even though he is one of the most faithful servants of the war machine and the national security and surveillance states. Every once and awhile, the mask falls, and it's a good thing when it does.
Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/28/bob-woodward-obama-military-sequester
Crash coming???
Warning: Stocks Likely to Crater From Here
Losses of over 50% (!) may be in store
by Chris Martenson
I don't relish the job of constantly pointing out the risks to the equity markets. But since few on Wall Street seem willing (or able) to do this, I'm "making the call" for a market correction, as enough variables have aligned to indicate a high likelihood of stocks heading downwards from here.
I've only given one other such warning about equities before, and that was in March of 2008, when I warned of the possibility of a 40% to 60% decline in stock prices by Fall. I am making a similar call today, with the understanding that I am usually a bit early to the game with my views.
Before I get into the details, the broad outline is that I see a case where speculative fevers, propelled by the Fed's $85 billion thin-air money printing program, have more or less run their course, with the Dow and S&P indexes stalled near their all-time highs. That is, $85 billion a month is what it takes to merely keep the Dow near 14,000 and the S&P 500 near 1,500.
On a fundamental basis, I see numerous signs of consumer weakness, political in-fighting and paralysis in DC, high insider selling, and the return of the retail investor (a.k.a. "greater fool") to the stock market.
On a technical basis, there are numerous tell-tale signs of a market top, including too much bullish sentiment, waning momentum on multiple timeframes, and too many NYSE stocks being above their 200-day moving average (at least until recently; that's begun to correct).
Read the rest here:
http://lewrockwell.com/martenson/martenson21.1.html
Losses of over 50% (!) may be in store
by Chris Martenson
I don't relish the job of constantly pointing out the risks to the equity markets. But since few on Wall Street seem willing (or able) to do this, I'm "making the call" for a market correction, as enough variables have aligned to indicate a high likelihood of stocks heading downwards from here.
I've only given one other such warning about equities before, and that was in March of 2008, when I warned of the possibility of a 40% to 60% decline in stock prices by Fall. I am making a similar call today, with the understanding that I am usually a bit early to the game with my views.
Before I get into the details, the broad outline is that I see a case where speculative fevers, propelled by the Fed's $85 billion thin-air money printing program, have more or less run their course, with the Dow and S&P indexes stalled near their all-time highs. That is, $85 billion a month is what it takes to merely keep the Dow near 14,000 and the S&P 500 near 1,500.
On a fundamental basis, I see numerous signs of consumer weakness, political in-fighting and paralysis in DC, high insider selling, and the return of the retail investor (a.k.a. "greater fool") to the stock market.
On a technical basis, there are numerous tell-tale signs of a market top, including too much bullish sentiment, waning momentum on multiple timeframes, and too many NYSE stocks being above their 200-day moving average (at least until recently; that's begun to correct).
Read the rest here:
http://lewrockwell.com/martenson/martenson21.1.html
"If we truthfully lived in a free market system as the liberals claim, there is no way that the head of state would even dare to say that threatening to shut down government is like holding a gun to Americans' heads. In my mind then it is just more evidence of how far from a free market system we've strayed."
Inflation and Taxes – More and More Coming
by Ed Bugos
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
~ Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book, 1964)
I don't think anyone can truly understand the idea of freedom without understanding why a shrinking group of Americans cherish their 2nd amendment rights so passionately. Obama says that the voices of dead children compel change, by which he means to disarm Americans at a faster pace.
He talks of change, but it is more like "Hope and Chains". He reeks of the status quo. True change would involve a free market (libertarian) solution to the problem of school shootings and violence – since they aren't being employed there. You may not agree. But you can't disagree that they would represent true change.
Certainly there were no such incidents in the left's mythological portrayals of the wild, wild, west!
You know our view. Freedom is an unknown ideal altogether. But even if we were to concede that a libertarian solution was going backwards, who could dispute the better numbers from back then?
But those arguments – and there have been many good ones made that freedom haters on the left have never even heard – weren't given a single thought in his haste to get back at the Republicans for all the trouble they keep causing him. Obama is right that society has failed those dead children of whom he speaks. But isn't this system administered and run by his bureaucratic cohorts? Isn't that same old centrally planned one-size-fits-all education part of the problem? Isn't there anything to the idea that gun free zones invite armed crime, or that guns protect people too (thus also lessening the need for state police)? What about the idea that popular pharmcaeutical drugs play a role in the violence? Or what about the FACT that gun control simply puts all the guns in the bad guys' hands. Not interested! He would much rather exploit the opportunity for more political capital from his own side. I'm just calling it like I see it. Obama is a politician and he's exploiting those dead children for his own political gain.
If that were not true there would be a more serious two-sided debate on the issue before recommending action that will not even be able to cure the symptoms. Not that I am alone claiming to understand the cause of these violent incidents. However, I am pretty sure the mere existence of guns isn't it.
Notwithstanding, they'll probably push more regulations through like they pushed through healthcare reform.
It's symbolic as another signpost on the road to totalitarianism. As Ayn Rand said, "The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time."
The irony is that the same people who would deny it are blind to their own contribution.
But what is important to me, as a gold market analyst, is the impact of all this on the economy. [Editor's Note: Ed's gold market analysis and advice is available to premium subscribers of TDV's Weekly Dispatch. Click here to learn more.]
Any movement in the direction of bigger government puts greater control over the means of production in the hands of the state's planning bodies, which means less competition, less consumer sovereignty, and hence less supply, less quality and higher prices. This in turn ultimately means less productivity.
But in a world where politicians are constantly trying to buy votes with the illusion that they alone are the source of prosperity (while the market is bad) it means more inflation, and more taxes.
It's really just simple economics.
If Government Really Were Shut Down It Would Be America's New Birthday
So whereas the US administration's position on gun control is a mere signpost on a section of the highway where there are no turnoffs, its position on the public debt (and spending of course) is far more revealing of the substance in my point. It seems pretty clear that Obama's agenda will result in the further expansion of government, not only in the present but also in the future – by obligating future generations to pay for today's excesses. Describing the Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling and insisting on some spending cuts, Obama said they were "holding a gun at the head of the American people." I mean, and they aren't even talking about the kind of spending cuts that I would recommend. What would he say to that? Really, it is the irony in his words that compels change!
For he is currently the nominal head of the largest criminal organization in the world, an organization that holds a gun to Americans' heads each and every day, and he accuses the Republicans of holding a gun to Americans heads for wanting to reduce that burden!?! Surreal.
So the sheep are brainwashed. They think their taxes, taken from them involuntarily, actually go towards the public good because the lesser evil who they voted in is a benevolent philosopher king.
Meanwhile, the money is blown on pork barrel subsidies to a handful of preferred cartels, bureaucrats, labor unions, war pigs, and other organizations that couldn't stand without the support of government.
The mass of sheeple thinks the government is protecting them while it is waging a war on the little guy.
If we truthfully lived in a free market system as the liberals claim, there is no way that the head of state would even dare to say that threatening to shut down government is like holding a gun to Americans' heads. In my mind then it is just more evidence of how far from a free market system we've strayed.
It would do Obama followers well to listen to Mao's words. They contain the obvious – at least to our group – but they also happen to point out the less obvious: that socialists don't want to accept that the coercion is never justified. The end never justifies the means. Isn't the means, after all, most of the journey? If government were ever to shut down, history should record it as America's new birthday.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/bugos3.1.1.html
by Ed Bugos
"Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
~ Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book, 1964)
I don't think anyone can truly understand the idea of freedom without understanding why a shrinking group of Americans cherish their 2nd amendment rights so passionately. Obama says that the voices of dead children compel change, by which he means to disarm Americans at a faster pace.
He talks of change, but it is more like "Hope and Chains". He reeks of the status quo. True change would involve a free market (libertarian) solution to the problem of school shootings and violence – since they aren't being employed there. You may not agree. But you can't disagree that they would represent true change.
Certainly there were no such incidents in the left's mythological portrayals of the wild, wild, west!
You know our view. Freedom is an unknown ideal altogether. But even if we were to concede that a libertarian solution was going backwards, who could dispute the better numbers from back then?
But those arguments – and there have been many good ones made that freedom haters on the left have never even heard – weren't given a single thought in his haste to get back at the Republicans for all the trouble they keep causing him. Obama is right that society has failed those dead children of whom he speaks. But isn't this system administered and run by his bureaucratic cohorts? Isn't that same old centrally planned one-size-fits-all education part of the problem? Isn't there anything to the idea that gun free zones invite armed crime, or that guns protect people too (thus also lessening the need for state police)? What about the idea that popular pharmcaeutical drugs play a role in the violence? Or what about the FACT that gun control simply puts all the guns in the bad guys' hands. Not interested! He would much rather exploit the opportunity for more political capital from his own side. I'm just calling it like I see it. Obama is a politician and he's exploiting those dead children for his own political gain.
If that were not true there would be a more serious two-sided debate on the issue before recommending action that will not even be able to cure the symptoms. Not that I am alone claiming to understand the cause of these violent incidents. However, I am pretty sure the mere existence of guns isn't it.
Notwithstanding, they'll probably push more regulations through like they pushed through healthcare reform.
It's symbolic as another signpost on the road to totalitarianism. As Ayn Rand said, "The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time."
The irony is that the same people who would deny it are blind to their own contribution.
But what is important to me, as a gold market analyst, is the impact of all this on the economy. [Editor's Note: Ed's gold market analysis and advice is available to premium subscribers of TDV's Weekly Dispatch. Click here to learn more.]
Any movement in the direction of bigger government puts greater control over the means of production in the hands of the state's planning bodies, which means less competition, less consumer sovereignty, and hence less supply, less quality and higher prices. This in turn ultimately means less productivity.
But in a world where politicians are constantly trying to buy votes with the illusion that they alone are the source of prosperity (while the market is bad) it means more inflation, and more taxes.
It's really just simple economics.
If Government Really Were Shut Down It Would Be America's New Birthday
So whereas the US administration's position on gun control is a mere signpost on a section of the highway where there are no turnoffs, its position on the public debt (and spending of course) is far more revealing of the substance in my point. It seems pretty clear that Obama's agenda will result in the further expansion of government, not only in the present but also in the future – by obligating future generations to pay for today's excesses. Describing the Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling and insisting on some spending cuts, Obama said they were "holding a gun at the head of the American people." I mean, and they aren't even talking about the kind of spending cuts that I would recommend. What would he say to that? Really, it is the irony in his words that compels change!
For he is currently the nominal head of the largest criminal organization in the world, an organization that holds a gun to Americans' heads each and every day, and he accuses the Republicans of holding a gun to Americans heads for wanting to reduce that burden!?! Surreal.
So the sheep are brainwashed. They think their taxes, taken from them involuntarily, actually go towards the public good because the lesser evil who they voted in is a benevolent philosopher king.
Meanwhile, the money is blown on pork barrel subsidies to a handful of preferred cartels, bureaucrats, labor unions, war pigs, and other organizations that couldn't stand without the support of government.
The mass of sheeple thinks the government is protecting them while it is waging a war on the little guy.
If we truthfully lived in a free market system as the liberals claim, there is no way that the head of state would even dare to say that threatening to shut down government is like holding a gun to Americans' heads. In my mind then it is just more evidence of how far from a free market system we've strayed.
It would do Obama followers well to listen to Mao's words. They contain the obvious – at least to our group – but they also happen to point out the less obvious: that socialists don't want to accept that the coercion is never justified. The end never justifies the means. Isn't the means, after all, most of the journey? If government were ever to shut down, history should record it as America's new birthday.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/bugos3.1.1.html
Bubble, bubble, toil and big trouble...
Addicted to Asset Bubbles
by Joseph T. Salerno
Helicopter Ben Runs Out of Ideas for Creating Money
Ben Bernanke confided on January 14 that he is unaware of any new method of stimulating economic growth. Bernanke said: “As far as I’m aware, there’s no completely new method that we haven’t [already tapped].” So Helicopter Ben has run out of innovative and unconventional ways to create new money. Lest you be tempted to breathe a bit easier, however, rest assured that the now conventional method of quantitative easing, involving the Fed’s monthly purchase of $85 billion worth of mortgage-backed and U.S. government securities, seems to be working just fine according to Bernanke and he foresees its continuation. Noting the stubbornly high unemployment rate combined with the low inflation rate in the U.S. economy, Bernanke stated, “That is the case for being aggressive, which we are trying to do.” Although he is “cautiously optimistic,” he does promise to closely monitor the risks, efficacy, costs, and benefits of this inflationary policy.
I guess the rapid asset price run-up in stock and commodities markets, which are nearly back to financial bubble levels, and booming farmland prices do not count in Bernanke’s benefit-cost calculus. More likely, Bernanke accounts them as a benefit, which, via the “wealth effect,” will induce another debt-driven consumption spree on the part of the American public that will stimulate economic growth, i.e., create another bubble economy.
Recreating the Asset Bubble: The Fed’s Plan for Economic Recovery
While Keynesians continue to sing that lame old song about insufficient aggregate demand stimulus and the horrors of austerity and “market” monetarists prattle on about deficient growth in nominal GDP, the signs of an incipient asset bubble become more evident every day. In fact, it would not be overstating the case to say that the Fed is deliberately aiming at recreating an asset bubble as a means of rekindling the historically unprecedented consumption booms of the latter half of the 1990s and the first part of the last decade. These consumption manias were driven by the “wealth” or “net worth” effect, pithily described in the metaphor “using one’s home as an ATM machine.” As the following graphs show, Fed monetary policy is succeeding in pumping up total net worth, which consists mainly of financial assets plus real estate owned by households (and nonprofit organizations) minus household debt...
Read the rest here:
http://lewrockwell.com/salerno/salerno15.1.html
by Joseph T. Salerno
Helicopter Ben Runs Out of Ideas for Creating Money
Ben Bernanke confided on January 14 that he is unaware of any new method of stimulating economic growth. Bernanke said: “As far as I’m aware, there’s no completely new method that we haven’t [already tapped].” So Helicopter Ben has run out of innovative and unconventional ways to create new money. Lest you be tempted to breathe a bit easier, however, rest assured that the now conventional method of quantitative easing, involving the Fed’s monthly purchase of $85 billion worth of mortgage-backed and U.S. government securities, seems to be working just fine according to Bernanke and he foresees its continuation. Noting the stubbornly high unemployment rate combined with the low inflation rate in the U.S. economy, Bernanke stated, “That is the case for being aggressive, which we are trying to do.” Although he is “cautiously optimistic,” he does promise to closely monitor the risks, efficacy, costs, and benefits of this inflationary policy.
I guess the rapid asset price run-up in stock and commodities markets, which are nearly back to financial bubble levels, and booming farmland prices do not count in Bernanke’s benefit-cost calculus. More likely, Bernanke accounts them as a benefit, which, via the “wealth effect,” will induce another debt-driven consumption spree on the part of the American public that will stimulate economic growth, i.e., create another bubble economy.
Recreating the Asset Bubble: The Fed’s Plan for Economic Recovery
While Keynesians continue to sing that lame old song about insufficient aggregate demand stimulus and the horrors of austerity and “market” monetarists prattle on about deficient growth in nominal GDP, the signs of an incipient asset bubble become more evident every day. In fact, it would not be overstating the case to say that the Fed is deliberately aiming at recreating an asset bubble as a means of rekindling the historically unprecedented consumption booms of the latter half of the 1990s and the first part of the last decade. These consumption manias were driven by the “wealth” or “net worth” effect, pithily described in the metaphor “using one’s home as an ATM machine.” As the following graphs show, Fed monetary policy is succeeding in pumping up total net worth, which consists mainly of financial assets plus real estate owned by households (and nonprofit organizations) minus household debt...
Read the rest here:
http://lewrockwell.com/salerno/salerno15.1.html
"Don't be caught living paycheck to paycheck and totally unprepared when the next wave of the economic collapse strikes. Anyone that believes that this debt-fueled bubble of false hope can last indefinitely is just being delusional."
Consumer Spending Drought: 16 Signs That The Middle Class Is Running Out Of Money
Mike Snyder
Is "discretionary income" rapidly becoming a thing of the past for most American families? Right now, there are a lot of signs that we are on the verge of a nightmarish consumer spending drought. Incomes are down, taxes are up, many large retail chains are deeply struggling because of the lack of customers, and at this point nearly a quarter of all Americans have more credit card debt than money in the bank. Considering the fact that consumer spending is such a large percentage of the U.S. economy, that is very bad news. How will we ever have a sustained economic recovery if consumers don't have much money to spend? Well, the truth is that we aren't ever going to have a sustained economic recovery. In fact, this debt-fueled bubble of false hope that we are experiencing right now is as good as things are going to get. Things are going to go downhill from here, and if you think that consumer spending is bad now, just wait until you see what happens over the next several years.
Even though the Dow is surging toward a record high right now, everyone knows that things are not good for the middle class. A recent quote from CPA Howard Dvorkin kind of summarizes our current state of affairs very nicely...
"The fact of the matter is that America is broke — whether it's mortgages, student loans or credit cards, we are broke. The old rule of thumb is that people should have six months' of savings," Dvorkin says."If you talk to people, most don't have two pennies."
These days most Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck, and thanks to rising prices and rising taxes, those paychecks are getting squeezed tighter and tighter. Many families have had to cut back on unnecessary expenses, and some families no longer have any discretionary income at all.
The following are 16 signs that the middle class is rapidly running out of money...
#1 According to one brand new survey, 24 percent of all Americans have more credit card debt than money in the bank.
#2 J.C. Penney was once an unstoppable retail powerhouse, but now J.C. Penney has just posted its lowest annual retail sales in more than 20 years...
J.C. Penney Co. (JCP) slid the most in more than three decades after the department-store chain lost $4.3 billion in sales in the first year of Chief Executive Officer Ron Johnson’s turnaround plan.
The shares fell 18 percent to $17.40 at 11:28 a.m. in New York after earlier declining 22 percent, the biggest intraday drop since at least 1980, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. J.C. Penney yesterday said its net loss in the quarter ended Feb. 2 widened to $552 million from $87 million a year earlier. The Plano, Texas-based retailer’s annual revenue slid 25 percent to $13 billion, the lowest since at least 1987.
How much worse can things get? At this point the decline has become so steep for J.C. Penney that Jim Cramer of CNBC is declaring that they are in "a true tailspin".
#3 In the United States today, a new car has become out of reach for most middle class Americans according to the 2013 Car Affordability Study...
Looking to buy a new car, truck or crossover? You may find it more difficult to stretch the household budget than you expected, according to a new study that finds median-income families in only one major U.S. city actually can afford the typical new vehicle.
The typical new vehicle is now more expensive than ever, averaging $30,500 in 2012, according to TrueCar.com data, and heading up again as makers curb the incentives that helped make their products more affordable during the recession when they were desperate for sales. According to the 2013 Car Affordability Study by Interest.com, only in Washington could the typical household swing the payments, the median income there running $86,680 a year.
#4 The founder of Subway Restaurants, Fred Deluca, says that the recent tax increases are having a noticeable impact on his business...
"The payroll tax is affecting sales. It's causing sales declines," he said, estimating a decline of about 2 percentage points off sales at his restaurants. "There are a lot of pressures on consumers," Deluca said, adding "I think this is on the permanent side, but I think business will adjust to it."
#5 Many other large restaurant chains are also struggling in this tough economic environment...
Darden Restaurants, which owns the casual dining chains Oliver Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse and Red Lobster, said blended same-store sales at its three eateries would be 4.5 percent lower during its fiscal third quarter.
Clarence Otis, Darden's chairman and chief executive, said that "while results midway through the third quarter were encouraging, there were difficult macro-economic headwinds during the last month of the quarter."
"Two of the most prominent were increased payroll taxes and rising gasoline prices, which together put meaningful pressure on the discretionary purchasing power of our guests," he added.
#6 The CFO of Family Dollar recently admitted to CNBC that this is a "challenging time" because of reduced consumer spending...
At Family Dollar where the average customer makes less than $40,000 a year, the combination of a two-percent hike in the payroll tax, rising gas prices and delayed tax refunds has created a "challenging time and an uncertain time for the consumer right now," said Mary Winston, the company's chief financial officer.
"In our case, anything that takes money out of our customer's wallet gives them less money to spend in our stores," she told CNBC. "So I think all of those things create nervousness for the consumer, and I think there are sometimes political dynamics going on that they might not even fully understand the details, but they know it's not good."
#7 Even Wal-Mart is really struggling right now. According to a recent Bloomberg article, Wal-Mart is struggling "to restock store shelves as U.S. sales slump"...
Evelin Cruz, a department manager at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pico Rivera, California, said Simon’s comments from the officers’ meeting were “dead on.”
“There are gaps where merchandise is missing,” Cruz said in a telephone interview. “We are not talking about a couple of empty shelves. This is throughout the store in every store. Some places look like they’re going out of business.”
This all comes on the heels of an internal Wal-Mart memo that was leaked to the press earlier this month that described February sales as a "total disaster".
#8 Electronics retailer Best Buy continues to struggle mightily. Best Buy just announced that it will be eliminating 400 jobs at its headquarters in Richfield, Minnesota.
#9 It is being projected that many of the largest retail chains in America, including Best Buy, will close down hundreds of stores during 2013. The following is a list of projected store closings for 2013 that I included in a previous article...
Best Buy
Forecast store closings: 200 to 250
Sears Holding Corp.
Forecast store closings: Kmart 175 to 225, Sears 100 to 125
J.C. Penney
Forecast store closings: 300 to 350
Office Depot
Forecast store closings: 125 to 150
Barnes & Noble
Forecast store closings: 190 to 240, per company comments
Gamestop
Forecast store closings: 500 to 600
OfficeMax
Forecast store closings: 150 to 175
RadioShack
Forecast store closings: 450 to 550
#10 Another sign that consumer spending is slowing down is the fact that less stuff is being moved around in our economy. As I have mentioned previously, freight shipment volumes have hit their lowest level in two years, and freight expenditures have gone negative for the first time since the last recession.
#11 Many young adults have no discretionary income to spend because they are absolutely drowning in student loan debt. According to the New York Federal Reserve, student loan debt nearly tripled between 2004 and 2012.
#12 The student loan delinquency rate in the United States is now at an all-time high. It is only a matter of time before the student loan debt bubble bursts.
#13 Due to a lack of jobs and high levels of debt, poverty among young adults in America is absolutely exploding. Today, U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
#14 According to one recent survey, 62 percent of all middle class Americans say that they have had to reduce household spending over the past year.
#15 Median household income in the United States has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by more than $4000 during that time span.
#16 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is currently taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.
Are you starting to get the picture?
Retailers are desperate for sales, but you can't squeeze blood out of a rock.
For much more on how the middle class is absolutely drowning in debt, please see this article: "Money Is A Form Of Social Control And Most Americans Are Debt Slaves".
But if you listen to the mainstream media, they would have you believe that happy days are here again.
Right now, everyone seems to be quite giddy about the fact that the Dow is marching toward an all-time high. And I actually do believe that the Dow will blow right past it. In fact, it is even possible that we could see the Dow hit 15,000 before everything starts falling apart.
But at some point, the financial markets will catch up with economic reality. It is just a matter of time.
In the meanwhile, those that are wise are taking advantage of these times of plenty to prepare for the great economic drought that is coming.
Don't be caught living paycheck to paycheck and totally unprepared when the next wave of the economic collapse strikes. Anyone that believes that this debt-fueled bubble of false hope can last indefinitely is just being delusional.
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/consumer-spending-drought-16-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-running-out-of-money
Mike Snyder
Is "discretionary income" rapidly becoming a thing of the past for most American families? Right now, there are a lot of signs that we are on the verge of a nightmarish consumer spending drought. Incomes are down, taxes are up, many large retail chains are deeply struggling because of the lack of customers, and at this point nearly a quarter of all Americans have more credit card debt than money in the bank. Considering the fact that consumer spending is such a large percentage of the U.S. economy, that is very bad news. How will we ever have a sustained economic recovery if consumers don't have much money to spend? Well, the truth is that we aren't ever going to have a sustained economic recovery. In fact, this debt-fueled bubble of false hope that we are experiencing right now is as good as things are going to get. Things are going to go downhill from here, and if you think that consumer spending is bad now, just wait until you see what happens over the next several years.
Even though the Dow is surging toward a record high right now, everyone knows that things are not good for the middle class. A recent quote from CPA Howard Dvorkin kind of summarizes our current state of affairs very nicely...
"The fact of the matter is that America is broke — whether it's mortgages, student loans or credit cards, we are broke. The old rule of thumb is that people should have six months' of savings," Dvorkin says."If you talk to people, most don't have two pennies."
These days most Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck, and thanks to rising prices and rising taxes, those paychecks are getting squeezed tighter and tighter. Many families have had to cut back on unnecessary expenses, and some families no longer have any discretionary income at all.
The following are 16 signs that the middle class is rapidly running out of money...
#1 According to one brand new survey, 24 percent of all Americans have more credit card debt than money in the bank.
#2 J.C. Penney was once an unstoppable retail powerhouse, but now J.C. Penney has just posted its lowest annual retail sales in more than 20 years...
J.C. Penney Co. (JCP) slid the most in more than three decades after the department-store chain lost $4.3 billion in sales in the first year of Chief Executive Officer Ron Johnson’s turnaround plan.
The shares fell 18 percent to $17.40 at 11:28 a.m. in New York after earlier declining 22 percent, the biggest intraday drop since at least 1980, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. J.C. Penney yesterday said its net loss in the quarter ended Feb. 2 widened to $552 million from $87 million a year earlier. The Plano, Texas-based retailer’s annual revenue slid 25 percent to $13 billion, the lowest since at least 1987.
How much worse can things get? At this point the decline has become so steep for J.C. Penney that Jim Cramer of CNBC is declaring that they are in "a true tailspin".
#3 In the United States today, a new car has become out of reach for most middle class Americans according to the 2013 Car Affordability Study...
Looking to buy a new car, truck or crossover? You may find it more difficult to stretch the household budget than you expected, according to a new study that finds median-income families in only one major U.S. city actually can afford the typical new vehicle.
The typical new vehicle is now more expensive than ever, averaging $30,500 in 2012, according to TrueCar.com data, and heading up again as makers curb the incentives that helped make their products more affordable during the recession when they were desperate for sales. According to the 2013 Car Affordability Study by Interest.com, only in Washington could the typical household swing the payments, the median income there running $86,680 a year.
#4 The founder of Subway Restaurants, Fred Deluca, says that the recent tax increases are having a noticeable impact on his business...
"The payroll tax is affecting sales. It's causing sales declines," he said, estimating a decline of about 2 percentage points off sales at his restaurants. "There are a lot of pressures on consumers," Deluca said, adding "I think this is on the permanent side, but I think business will adjust to it."
#5 Many other large restaurant chains are also struggling in this tough economic environment...
Darden Restaurants, which owns the casual dining chains Oliver Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse and Red Lobster, said blended same-store sales at its three eateries would be 4.5 percent lower during its fiscal third quarter.
Clarence Otis, Darden's chairman and chief executive, said that "while results midway through the third quarter were encouraging, there were difficult macro-economic headwinds during the last month of the quarter."
"Two of the most prominent were increased payroll taxes and rising gasoline prices, which together put meaningful pressure on the discretionary purchasing power of our guests," he added.
#6 The CFO of Family Dollar recently admitted to CNBC that this is a "challenging time" because of reduced consumer spending...
At Family Dollar where the average customer makes less than $40,000 a year, the combination of a two-percent hike in the payroll tax, rising gas prices and delayed tax refunds has created a "challenging time and an uncertain time for the consumer right now," said Mary Winston, the company's chief financial officer.
"In our case, anything that takes money out of our customer's wallet gives them less money to spend in our stores," she told CNBC. "So I think all of those things create nervousness for the consumer, and I think there are sometimes political dynamics going on that they might not even fully understand the details, but they know it's not good."
#7 Even Wal-Mart is really struggling right now. According to a recent Bloomberg article, Wal-Mart is struggling "to restock store shelves as U.S. sales slump"...
Evelin Cruz, a department manager at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pico Rivera, California, said Simon’s comments from the officers’ meeting were “dead on.”
“There are gaps where merchandise is missing,” Cruz said in a telephone interview. “We are not talking about a couple of empty shelves. This is throughout the store in every store. Some places look like they’re going out of business.”
This all comes on the heels of an internal Wal-Mart memo that was leaked to the press earlier this month that described February sales as a "total disaster".
#8 Electronics retailer Best Buy continues to struggle mightily. Best Buy just announced that it will be eliminating 400 jobs at its headquarters in Richfield, Minnesota.
#9 It is being projected that many of the largest retail chains in America, including Best Buy, will close down hundreds of stores during 2013. The following is a list of projected store closings for 2013 that I included in a previous article...
Best Buy
Forecast store closings: 200 to 250
Sears Holding Corp.
Forecast store closings: Kmart 175 to 225, Sears 100 to 125
J.C. Penney
Forecast store closings: 300 to 350
Office Depot
Forecast store closings: 125 to 150
Barnes & Noble
Forecast store closings: 190 to 240, per company comments
Gamestop
Forecast store closings: 500 to 600
OfficeMax
Forecast store closings: 150 to 175
RadioShack
Forecast store closings: 450 to 550
#10 Another sign that consumer spending is slowing down is the fact that less stuff is being moved around in our economy. As I have mentioned previously, freight shipment volumes have hit their lowest level in two years, and freight expenditures have gone negative for the first time since the last recession.
#11 Many young adults have no discretionary income to spend because they are absolutely drowning in student loan debt. According to the New York Federal Reserve, student loan debt nearly tripled between 2004 and 2012.
#12 The student loan delinquency rate in the United States is now at an all-time high. It is only a matter of time before the student loan debt bubble bursts.
#13 Due to a lack of jobs and high levels of debt, poverty among young adults in America is absolutely exploding. Today, U.S. families that have a head of household that is under the age of 30 have a poverty rate of 37 percent.
#14 According to one recent survey, 62 percent of all middle class Americans say that they have had to reduce household spending over the past year.
#15 Median household income in the United States has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by more than $4000 during that time span.
#16 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is currently taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.
Are you starting to get the picture?
Retailers are desperate for sales, but you can't squeeze blood out of a rock.
For much more on how the middle class is absolutely drowning in debt, please see this article: "Money Is A Form Of Social Control And Most Americans Are Debt Slaves".
But if you listen to the mainstream media, they would have you believe that happy days are here again.
Right now, everyone seems to be quite giddy about the fact that the Dow is marching toward an all-time high. And I actually do believe that the Dow will blow right past it. In fact, it is even possible that we could see the Dow hit 15,000 before everything starts falling apart.
But at some point, the financial markets will catch up with economic reality. It is just a matter of time.
In the meanwhile, those that are wise are taking advantage of these times of plenty to prepare for the great economic drought that is coming.
Don't be caught living paycheck to paycheck and totally unprepared when the next wave of the economic collapse strikes. Anyone that believes that this debt-fueled bubble of false hope can last indefinitely is just being delusional.
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/consumer-spending-drought-16-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-running-out-of-money
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)