The rule of law has left Western civilization
by Paul Craig Roberts
My work documenting how the law was lost began about a quarter of a century ago. A close friend and distinguished attorney, Dean Booth, first brought to my attention the erosion of the legal principles on which rests the rule of law in the United States. My columns on the subject got the attention of an educational institution that invited me to give a lecture on the subject. Subsequently, I was invited to give a lecture on “How The Law Was Lost” at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in New York City.
The work coalesced into a book, The Tyranny Of Good Intentions, coauthored with my research associate, Lawrence M. Stratton, published in 2000, with an expanded edition published in 2008. We were able to demonstrate that Sir Thomas More’s warning about prosecutors and courts disregarding law in order to more easily convict undesirables and criminals has had the result of turning law away from being a shield of the people and making it into a weapon in the hands of government. That is what we witness in the saga of the Hammonds, long-time ranchers in the Harney Basin of Oregon.
With the intervention of Ammon Bundy, another rancher who suffered illegal persecution by the Bureau of Land Management but stood them off with help from armed militia, and his supporters, the BLM’s decades long persecution of the innocent Hammonds might have come to a crisis before you read this.
Bundy and militiamen, whose count varies from 15 to 150 in the presstitute media, have seized an Oregon office of the BLM as American liberty’s protest against the frame-up of the Hammonds on false charges. As I write the Oregon National Guard and FBI are on the way.
The militiamen have said that they are prepared to die for principles, and the rule of law is one of them. Of course, the presstitute media is making the militiamen into the lawbreakers—and even calling them terrorists—and not the federal government’s illegal prosecution of the Hammonds, whose crime was their refusal to sell their ranch to the government to be included in the Masher National Wildlife Refuge.
If there are only 15 militiamen, there is a good chance that they will all be killed, but if there are 150 armed militiamen prepared for a shootout, the outcome could be different.
I cannot attest to the accuracy of this report of the situation: The resources required to verify the information in this account of how the government escalated a “crisis” out of the refusal of a family to bend is beyond [my] resources … However, the story fits perfectly with everything Lawrence Stratton and I learned over the years that we prepared our book on how the law was lost. This account of the persecution of the Hammonds is the way government behaves when government has broken free of the rule of law.
I can attest with full confidence that the United States no longer has a rule of law. The USA is a lawless country. By that I do not mean what conservative Republicans mean, which is, if I understand them, that racial minorities violate law with something close to impunity.
What I mean is that only the mega-banks and the One Percent have legal protection, and that is because these people control the government. For everyone else law is a weapon in the hands of the government to be used against the American people.
The fact that the shield of law no longer exists for American citizens is why, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, only 4 percent of federal felonies ever go to trial. Almost the entirety of federal felonies are settled by coerced plea bargains that force defendants to admit to crimes that they did not commit in order to avoid “expanded indictments” that, if presented to the typical stupid, trusting, gullible American “jury of their peers,” would lock them away for hundreds of years.
American justice is a joke. It does not exist. You can see this in the American prison population. “Freedom and Democracy” America not only has the largest percentage of its population in prison than any country on the planet, but also the largest number of prisoners.
If you consider that “authoritarian” China has four times the population of the United States but fewer prisoners, you understand that “authoritarian” China has a more protective rule of law than the United States.
Compared to “freedom and democracy America,” Russia has hardly anyone in prison. Yet, Washington and its media whores have defined the President of Russia as “the new Hitler.”
The only thing we can conclude from the facts is that the United States government and those ignorant fools who worship it are evil incarnate.
Out of evil comes dictatorship. The White House Fool, at best a two-bit punk, has decided that he doesn’t like the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution any more than he likes any of the other constitutional protections of U.S. citizens. He is looking for dictatorial methods, that is, un-legislated executive orders, to overturn the 2nd Amendment. He has the corrupt U.S. Department of Justice, a criminal organization, looking for ways for the dictator to overturn both congressional legislation and Supreme Court rulings.
The media whores have fallen in line with the would-be dictator. All we hear is “gun violence.” If only Karl Marx were still with us. He would ridicule these fools for turning inanimate objects into purposeful actors. It is extraordinary that the American left-wing thinks that guns, not people, kill people.
The position of the “progressive left-wing” in the United States is perplexing. Here are Americans, immersed into a police state, as are the Hammonds, and the progressive left-wing wants to disarm the population.
Whatever this “progressive left-wing opposition” is, it has nothing in common with revolutionaries. The American left-wing is totally irrelevant, a defeated force that sold out and no longer represents the people or the truth.
I cannot but wonder how much the American ”progressive left” is being paid by Washington.
Even more astonishing, judging by comments on Russia Today’s report on the situation and the readers comments, all RT and American blacks want to know is where is the National Guard in Oregon? Why isn’t it called out against the white militia protests as it was called out against the black Ferguson protests?
If protesting the murder of a young black American by Ferguson police is not legitimate and the protesters are “terrorists,” why aren’t the Oregon protesters terrorists for trying to protect jailbirds from their “lawful sentence”?
This is the wrong question.
It really is discouraging that the American black community is unable to understand that if any American can be dispossessed, all Americans can be dispossessed.
It is also discouraging that RT decided to play the race card instead of comprehending that law is no longer a shield of the American people but is a weapon in the hands of Washington.
Why doesn’t RT at least listen to the President of Russia, who states repeatedly that America and the West are lawless.
Putin is correct. America and its vassals are lawless. No one is safe from the government.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/the-rule-of-law-has-left-western-civilization/
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
"The media whores have fallen in line with the would-be dictator. All we hear is “gun violence.” If only Karl Marx were still with us. He would ridicule these fools for turning inanimate objects into purposeful actors. It is extraordinary that the American left-wing thinks that guns, not people, kill people."
Sickening...
Obama Lets the Gun Confiscation Cat Out of the Bag
Thomas DiLorenzo
During his speech on creeping gun prohibition/confiscation today, Obama announced that “this isn’t going to happen overnight. The liberation of African-Americans didn’t happen overnight.”
By comparing his agenda to the abolition of slavery (which was protected under the U.S. flag, not the Confederate flag, from the 1770s to 1866 by the way), he is admitting that this is NOT just about tweaking gun registration regulation at gun shows. That CAN happen “overnight.” The “this” that he says will not happen overnight is his communistic/fascistic dream of gun confiscation. It’s all a part of the “transformation of American society” that the Kenyan/Indonesian communist in the White House promised when he was running for office.
“This is not a plot to take away everyone’s guns,” he said. I can’t decide if this sounds more like Nixon (“I am not a crook!”) or Clinton, with the word “everyone’s” in there (as in, “It is a plot to take away almost everyone’s guns). A little of both, I guess.
I turned off the TV after this, but I hear that the assembled mob of applauding-on-cue sycophants at the imperial palace in D.C. then sang “We Shall Overcome.”
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/obama-lets-gun-confiscation-cat-bag/
Thomas DiLorenzo
During his speech on creeping gun prohibition/confiscation today, Obama announced that “this isn’t going to happen overnight. The liberation of African-Americans didn’t happen overnight.”
By comparing his agenda to the abolition of slavery (which was protected under the U.S. flag, not the Confederate flag, from the 1770s to 1866 by the way), he is admitting that this is NOT just about tweaking gun registration regulation at gun shows. That CAN happen “overnight.” The “this” that he says will not happen overnight is his communistic/fascistic dream of gun confiscation. It’s all a part of the “transformation of American society” that the Kenyan/Indonesian communist in the White House promised when he was running for office.
“This is not a plot to take away everyone’s guns,” he said. I can’t decide if this sounds more like Nixon (“I am not a crook!”) or Clinton, with the word “everyone’s” in there (as in, “It is a plot to take away almost everyone’s guns). A little of both, I guess.
I turned off the TV after this, but I hear that the assembled mob of applauding-on-cue sycophants at the imperial palace in D.C. then sang “We Shall Overcome.”
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/obama-lets-gun-confiscation-cat-bag/
So true...
The MSM Sure does not Want to Talk About Bill Clinton’s Rapes & Violent Sex Assaults or Hillary’s Criminal Terror Campaigns
By Roger Stone and Robert Morrow
The Clintons are criminals and this has nothing to do with any consensual oral sex that Bill had with Monica Lewinsky, martial infidelity or adultery. Like Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton is a sexual predator – and Hillary used Strong-arm tactics to run the cover-up. In fact Hillary is an accessory after the fact in all of Bill Clinton’s sex crimes.
Recently, Glen Kessler of the Washington Post published a so-called “Fact Checker” essay titled “A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing.” May we suggest a more pointed topic? How about a guide to Bill Clinton’s violent sexual assaults and Hillary’s criminal terror campaigns to scare his victims into silence? You can get a rundown of all that in our The Clintons’ War on Women, which is 445 pages long and backed up with 586 footnotes and a bibliography of 157 books.
We have often said that Hillary Clinton has for decades enabled her husband’s dreadful abusive behavior by hiring an army of nasty private detectives (“secret police” in the words of former Clinton insider Dick Morris) who have used criminal intimidation tactics on Bill’s sex victims. The MSM and the prestige press – think CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post – do their fair share of ignoring, enabling, and excusing Bill and Hillary for their crimes, both sexual and terror tactics.
Recently Donald Trump had to correct CNN, which bent over backwards to state that it was mere “allegation” that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. CNN somehow overlooked the fact that both Bill Clinton and Lewinsky have admitted the affair in addition to the unfortunate fact that Bill despoiled her blue dress with his DNA.
Let’s take a look at the Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler’s “guide” to Bill Clinton. Kessler mentions that Bill Clinton “flatly denied” that he raped Juanita Broaddrick in 1978 when she was a volunteer in his campaign. NBC and Lisa Meyers heavily vetted Juanita and thought she was highly credible when they ran their interview of her in February, 1999. Juanita told multiple people (Norma Kelsay, David Broaddrick, Phillip Yoakum) in 1978 that Clinton had violently raped her and nearly bit her upper lip off.[i] Former Clinton insider Larry Nichols was there when Hillary came running into the office in 1978 and said “You will never believe what the [mf Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!” [ii] Kessler says there are inconsistencies in her “story”. There are none.
“Violent rapist” – that seems like a pretty good description of Bill Clinton. How about “serial rapist?” In 1999, Capitol Hill Blue published a critical investigation titled “Juanita isn’t the only one: Bill Clinton’s long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years.”
Capitol Hill Blue interviewed Eileen Wellstone, who as a 19-year-old was raped by Bill Clinton at Oxford in 1969. A retired State Department employee said there was a cover-up of this crime because “we were under tremendous pressure to avoid embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape.”[iii] So the CIA sent Bill Clinton off on his tour into Eastern Europe and Moscow (source: CIA Cord Meyer to his buddy Jack Wheeler).[iv] Sen. William Fulbright, who had pulled strings to get young Bill, a staffer, into Oxford, wanted the matter quietly closed as a State Department source told us at the time.
Another rape victim of Clinton’s was Miss America Liz Ward Gracen in 1983. Publicly Gracen has said this sex was consensual. Privately a tearful Gracen told her then best friend Judy Stokes that Bill Clinton had raped her. Notably Gracen told reporter Michael Isikoff then of Newsweek that Clinton had bit her, just as he had bit Juanita Broaddrick. Gracen said the sex was “unpleasant” and “rough” but “consensual only” after FOB and Clinton image-maker Harry Thomasson got Gracen a small acting job on a TV show. How did Kessler miss this?
In sum Bill Clinton raped Eileen Wellstone (1969), Juanita Broaddrick (1978), and the reigning Miss America Liz Ward Gracen (1983). On top of all that in 1979 Bill Clinton probably raped Hillary while they were on vacation in Bermuda when he told his friends “I’m going back to my cottage to rape my wife.”[v] Clinton’s friend later said that the next morning Clinton’s vacation cottage at the Horizons Hotel looked like WWIII had occurred there: busted furniture, etc.
Roger Morris in his book Partners in Powers (p. 238) interviewed yet another victim of a violent sexual assault by Clinton. This anonymous and terrified women, with her husband present, told Roger Morris that Clinton forced himself on her, biting and bruising her (1979-1980 time period).[vi] That is the third woman we know an unhinged, sex-crazed Bill Clinton has actually bitten.
Seasoned reporter Michael Isikoff interviewed yet another woman that Bill had attacked in 1996. She said that she rebuffed a very crude assault by Clinton and that after she refused him, “I think he finished the job himself.”[vii] We think that means sex sicko Bill Clinton masturbated until completion, “finishing the job,” after yet another failed rape.
Glenn Kessler lists Gennifer Flowers, who Clinton lied about, as a “consensual affair.” Flowers’s apartment was broken into multiple times and it was utterly ransacked in 1991, most likely by Clinton goons.[viii] Was that consensual, too? A home ransacking is a psychological rape and invasion of privacy of the first degree.
Glenn Kessler also lists Myra Bell “Sally” Miller as having a “consensual” affair with Clinton in 1983. In 1992, Sally had the back windshield of her Jeep smashed in and shotgun shells placed on her driver’s seat. So was that terror tactic “consensual?” Those are the precise tactics that Clinton operative Anthony Pellicano (who Hillary hired and is now parked in jail) was known for. Sally also got letters saying things like “Marilyn Monroe was snuffed” – which is a death threat.
The Washington Post’s Kessler also leaves out the Hillary-directed terror campaign that was directed on Kathleen Willey after she was scheduled to be deposed in the Paula Jones case. Clinton goons killed her cat Bullseye, nail-gunned her car tires in the whitewalls, mentioned her children Shannon and Patrick by name and sent a thug to terrify her while she was walking her dogs alone.[ix] The morning after her deposition in early 1998, an animal skull was artfully placed on her doorstep.
Hillary is the point person in the cover-up of Bill’s crimes against Women. It’s Hillary who calls them sluts and trash and hires heavy-handed private detectives to terrorize those women unlucky enough to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton. Hillary has degraded Bill’s victims as “trash,” “sluts,” “bimbos,” and “whores.” From her East Wing office she orchestrated the campaign to smear Monica Lewinsky, seduced by Bill, as “a nut and a slut.”
CNN’s Don Lemon shut off the microphone of a guest who dared raise the issue, claiming Bill’s actions are “irrelevant to Hillary.” On the contrary, Don, Hillary is an accessory after the fact in all of Clinton’s sex crimes.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/roger-stone/clintons-criminals/
By Roger Stone and Robert Morrow
The Clintons are criminals and this has nothing to do with any consensual oral sex that Bill had with Monica Lewinsky, martial infidelity or adultery. Like Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton is a sexual predator – and Hillary used Strong-arm tactics to run the cover-up. In fact Hillary is an accessory after the fact in all of Bill Clinton’s sex crimes.
Recently, Glen Kessler of the Washington Post published a so-called “Fact Checker” essay titled “A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing.” May we suggest a more pointed topic? How about a guide to Bill Clinton’s violent sexual assaults and Hillary’s criminal terror campaigns to scare his victims into silence? You can get a rundown of all that in our The Clintons’ War on Women, which is 445 pages long and backed up with 586 footnotes and a bibliography of 157 books.
We have often said that Hillary Clinton has for decades enabled her husband’s dreadful abusive behavior by hiring an army of nasty private detectives (“secret police” in the words of former Clinton insider Dick Morris) who have used criminal intimidation tactics on Bill’s sex victims. The MSM and the prestige press – think CNN, the New York Times and Washington Post – do their fair share of ignoring, enabling, and excusing Bill and Hillary for their crimes, both sexual and terror tactics.
Recently Donald Trump had to correct CNN, which bent over backwards to state that it was mere “allegation” that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. CNN somehow overlooked the fact that both Bill Clinton and Lewinsky have admitted the affair in addition to the unfortunate fact that Bill despoiled her blue dress with his DNA.
Let’s take a look at the Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler’s “guide” to Bill Clinton. Kessler mentions that Bill Clinton “flatly denied” that he raped Juanita Broaddrick in 1978 when she was a volunteer in his campaign. NBC and Lisa Meyers heavily vetted Juanita and thought she was highly credible when they ran their interview of her in February, 1999. Juanita told multiple people (Norma Kelsay, David Broaddrick, Phillip Yoakum) in 1978 that Clinton had violently raped her and nearly bit her upper lip off.[i] Former Clinton insider Larry Nichols was there when Hillary came running into the office in 1978 and said “You will never believe what the [mf Bill] did now, he tried to rape some bitch!” [ii] Kessler says there are inconsistencies in her “story”. There are none.
“Violent rapist” – that seems like a pretty good description of Bill Clinton. How about “serial rapist?” In 1999, Capitol Hill Blue published a critical investigation titled “Juanita isn’t the only one: Bill Clinton’s long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years.”
Capitol Hill Blue interviewed Eileen Wellstone, who as a 19-year-old was raped by Bill Clinton at Oxford in 1969. A retired State Department employee said there was a cover-up of this crime because “we were under tremendous pressure to avoid embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape.”[iii] So the CIA sent Bill Clinton off on his tour into Eastern Europe and Moscow (source: CIA Cord Meyer to his buddy Jack Wheeler).[iv] Sen. William Fulbright, who had pulled strings to get young Bill, a staffer, into Oxford, wanted the matter quietly closed as a State Department source told us at the time.
Another rape victim of Clinton’s was Miss America Liz Ward Gracen in 1983. Publicly Gracen has said this sex was consensual. Privately a tearful Gracen told her then best friend Judy Stokes that Bill Clinton had raped her. Notably Gracen told reporter Michael Isikoff then of Newsweek that Clinton had bit her, just as he had bit Juanita Broaddrick. Gracen said the sex was “unpleasant” and “rough” but “consensual only” after FOB and Clinton image-maker Harry Thomasson got Gracen a small acting job on a TV show. How did Kessler miss this?
In sum Bill Clinton raped Eileen Wellstone (1969), Juanita Broaddrick (1978), and the reigning Miss America Liz Ward Gracen (1983). On top of all that in 1979 Bill Clinton probably raped Hillary while they were on vacation in Bermuda when he told his friends “I’m going back to my cottage to rape my wife.”[v] Clinton’s friend later said that the next morning Clinton’s vacation cottage at the Horizons Hotel looked like WWIII had occurred there: busted furniture, etc.
Roger Morris in his book Partners in Powers (p. 238) interviewed yet another victim of a violent sexual assault by Clinton. This anonymous and terrified women, with her husband present, told Roger Morris that Clinton forced himself on her, biting and bruising her (1979-1980 time period).[vi] That is the third woman we know an unhinged, sex-crazed Bill Clinton has actually bitten.
Seasoned reporter Michael Isikoff interviewed yet another woman that Bill had attacked in 1996. She said that she rebuffed a very crude assault by Clinton and that after she refused him, “I think he finished the job himself.”[vii] We think that means sex sicko Bill Clinton masturbated until completion, “finishing the job,” after yet another failed rape.
Glenn Kessler lists Gennifer Flowers, who Clinton lied about, as a “consensual affair.” Flowers’s apartment was broken into multiple times and it was utterly ransacked in 1991, most likely by Clinton goons.[viii] Was that consensual, too? A home ransacking is a psychological rape and invasion of privacy of the first degree.
Glenn Kessler also lists Myra Bell “Sally” Miller as having a “consensual” affair with Clinton in 1983. In 1992, Sally had the back windshield of her Jeep smashed in and shotgun shells placed on her driver’s seat. So was that terror tactic “consensual?” Those are the precise tactics that Clinton operative Anthony Pellicano (who Hillary hired and is now parked in jail) was known for. Sally also got letters saying things like “Marilyn Monroe was snuffed” – which is a death threat.
The Washington Post’s Kessler also leaves out the Hillary-directed terror campaign that was directed on Kathleen Willey after she was scheduled to be deposed in the Paula Jones case. Clinton goons killed her cat Bullseye, nail-gunned her car tires in the whitewalls, mentioned her children Shannon and Patrick by name and sent a thug to terrify her while she was walking her dogs alone.[ix] The morning after her deposition in early 1998, an animal skull was artfully placed on her doorstep.
Hillary is the point person in the cover-up of Bill’s crimes against Women. It’s Hillary who calls them sluts and trash and hires heavy-handed private detectives to terrorize those women unlucky enough to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton. Hillary has degraded Bill’s victims as “trash,” “sluts,” “bimbos,” and “whores.” From her East Wing office she orchestrated the campaign to smear Monica Lewinsky, seduced by Bill, as “a nut and a slut.”
CNN’s Don Lemon shut off the microphone of a guest who dared raise the issue, claiming Bill’s actions are “irrelevant to Hillary.” On the contrary, Don, Hillary is an accessory after the fact in all of Clinton’s sex crimes.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/roger-stone/clintons-criminals/
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The assault on the Second Amendment...
Obama Pushes More Gun Control; Most Americans Don't Want It
Written by Bob Adelmann
Just as President Obama is amping up the volume on his gun-control agenda, the American people are telling Gallup they really couldn’t care less.
Today the president will be conferring with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to confirm his opinion that he can issue gun-control regulations by executive order without congressional approval. Later, the president is expected to announce those orders, which are likely to include broadening the number of gun owners who must obtain a Federal Firearms License in order to purchase or sell guns for themselves. He’ll also tell Americans that if a gun is stolen, that fact must be forwarded to the ATF for their records.
On Thursday the president will be hosting a “town hall” meeting with himself and anti-gun CNN commentators to discuss what further actions he might take to advance his anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Gallup just issued its latest poll indicating that 1) most Americans don’t really give two hoots about what the president is doing about the gun “problem” but 2) instead are increasingly concerned about government overreach, which has hit new highs during his administration.
Specifically, concerns about the gun issue that Obama is focusing on comes in at 19th out of 23 issues presented by Gallup to 12,000 American adults over the past 12 months. At no time did gun control ever engage more than seven percent of those respondents, while for most of 2015 the issue engaged just one percent.
Much higher on the list, according to Gallup, is government: specifically government under Obama. In 2007, governmental overreach concerned just seven percent of Americans but climbed steadily as the Obama administration pressed its agenda to “change” America, and now is at 16 percent. Said Gallup: “For the second consecutive year, dissatisfaction with government edged out the economy as the problem more Americans identified as the nation’s top problem in 2015.”
About the so-called “gun issue” Gallup added: “Another issue that briefly spiked as a concern in 2015 was gun control, with mentions rising from near 1% most months to 7% in October and December following mass shootings that dominated the news.” On average, just two percent of those polled listed gun control as a concern during all of 2015.
Obama’s push for gun control, despite extraordinary lack of support by most Americans, is providing welcome grist for the GOP presidential mill, as several of the candidates have said they would immediately reverse any of Obama’s executive orders if they were elected president. Said Marco Rubio, “All these executive orders he’s going to come out with … that are going to undermine our Second Amendment rights — on my first day in office, they’re gone.”
Said New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:
Quite frankly, the American people have rejected his agenda by turning both the House and the Senate over to the Republicans, and going from 21 [Democrat] governors when he came into office, to the 31 Republican governors now. Now this president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator. [The] fact is, if he wants to make changes [he should] go to Congress and convince Congress that they’re necessary. But this is going to be another illegal executive action which I’m sure will be rejected by the courts … when I become President [they] will be stricken … by executive action I’ll take.
Donald Trump added: "[This is] an assault on the Second Amendment. You know Obama’s going to do an executive order [to] really knock the helll out of it…. He’s going to sign another executive order having to do with the Second Amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto [it]. I will unsign that so fast..."
The president’s continued push for an agenda increasingly rejected by most Americans illustrates just how committed he is to that agenda. All the noise and clatter emanating from the White House and a complicit media over the matter is increasingly falling on deaf ears.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22253-obama-pushes-for-more-gun-control-most-americans-want-it
Written by Bob Adelmann
Just as President Obama is amping up the volume on his gun-control agenda, the American people are telling Gallup they really couldn’t care less.
Today the president will be conferring with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to confirm his opinion that he can issue gun-control regulations by executive order without congressional approval. Later, the president is expected to announce those orders, which are likely to include broadening the number of gun owners who must obtain a Federal Firearms License in order to purchase or sell guns for themselves. He’ll also tell Americans that if a gun is stolen, that fact must be forwarded to the ATF for their records.
On Thursday the president will be hosting a “town hall” meeting with himself and anti-gun CNN commentators to discuss what further actions he might take to advance his anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Gallup just issued its latest poll indicating that 1) most Americans don’t really give two hoots about what the president is doing about the gun “problem” but 2) instead are increasingly concerned about government overreach, which has hit new highs during his administration.
Specifically, concerns about the gun issue that Obama is focusing on comes in at 19th out of 23 issues presented by Gallup to 12,000 American adults over the past 12 months. At no time did gun control ever engage more than seven percent of those respondents, while for most of 2015 the issue engaged just one percent.
Much higher on the list, according to Gallup, is government: specifically government under Obama. In 2007, governmental overreach concerned just seven percent of Americans but climbed steadily as the Obama administration pressed its agenda to “change” America, and now is at 16 percent. Said Gallup: “For the second consecutive year, dissatisfaction with government edged out the economy as the problem more Americans identified as the nation’s top problem in 2015.”
About the so-called “gun issue” Gallup added: “Another issue that briefly spiked as a concern in 2015 was gun control, with mentions rising from near 1% most months to 7% in October and December following mass shootings that dominated the news.” On average, just two percent of those polled listed gun control as a concern during all of 2015.
Obama’s push for gun control, despite extraordinary lack of support by most Americans, is providing welcome grist for the GOP presidential mill, as several of the candidates have said they would immediately reverse any of Obama’s executive orders if they were elected president. Said Marco Rubio, “All these executive orders he’s going to come out with … that are going to undermine our Second Amendment rights — on my first day in office, they’re gone.”
Said New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:
Quite frankly, the American people have rejected his agenda by turning both the House and the Senate over to the Republicans, and going from 21 [Democrat] governors when he came into office, to the 31 Republican governors now. Now this president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator. [The] fact is, if he wants to make changes [he should] go to Congress and convince Congress that they’re necessary. But this is going to be another illegal executive action which I’m sure will be rejected by the courts … when I become President [they] will be stricken … by executive action I’ll take.
Donald Trump added: "[This is] an assault on the Second Amendment. You know Obama’s going to do an executive order [to] really knock the helll out of it…. He’s going to sign another executive order having to do with the Second Amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto [it]. I will unsign that so fast..."
The president’s continued push for an agenda increasingly rejected by most Americans illustrates just how committed he is to that agenda. All the noise and clatter emanating from the White House and a complicit media over the matter is increasingly falling on deaf ears.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22253-obama-pushes-for-more-gun-control-most-americans-want-it
"...it is right and proper to suspect and oppose anyone who seeks to usurp "the right of the people" to "keep and bear arms."
Every call for gun confiscation is a call for unrelenting government violence against the American people
by: J. D. Heyes
Oddly, the mass shootings that have occurred with increasingly frequency during the Obama administration, have always been followed by rancorous calls for more and more gun control. That has even been the case following terrorist attacks, as in the most recent jihadi-inspired shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. – religiously inspired murders that led the editorial staff of The New York Times to publish a front-page editorial – the first since 1920 – to call for more gun control and the banning of "weapons of war."
I say this behavior is odd, because some of the same people who are calling for gun bans and gun control – even to the point of disarming the populace – also regularly decry centralized government power and the "militarization" of local police.
Some of those people can't help themselves because they have been indoctrinated to believe that "all guns are bad" and "the only way to be safe is to be disarmed" by gun control activists in politics, the mainstream media and in academia – the latter demonstrated just recently by students at the University of Texas, Austin in reaction to a staged mock mass shooting held to demonstrate the futility of so-called "gun-free zones."
The founders' vision and experience informed the Second Amendment
Well, it's not possible to write a single column that argues powerfully enough to convince Americans dead set against an armed citizenry that their position is wrong. Most, when their position is challenged, will simply close their minds and shut off debate.
But once upon a time, when the country was founded, there were men who had the vision and experience to make convincing arguments for an armed citizenry. And, though many will claim that "that was then and this is now," there is little difference in today's America than in the America of those times, in terms of human and societal behavior. There were miscreants, thieves, murderers and tyrants in the 18th century, just as there are today, and they were every bit as much of a threat then as they are now. That's what makes our founders' perspective on an armed citizenry as prescient in 2015 as it was in 1775.
-- "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail.
-- "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette.
To critics of gun rights who want to argue that "a bunch of rifle-toting so-and-so's from the boonies can't stand up to the U.S. military," I would counter, "Tell that to the resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, whom I have seen stand up to the U.S. military on a daily basis and, in some cases, prevail or – at least, not lose." Or better still, tell that to the rebel fighters in Ukraine; if a fight came between American "rebels" and the government, don't for one second believe that the "rebels" would not get their hands on U.S. military weapons systems. The point is, an armed populace makes a would-be tyrant think twice and three times before becoming tyrannical.
Words of wisdom
More from the founders on whom should be armed, and why:
-- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution
-- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
-- "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
-- "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers
Tyranny, ill-intent, criminal behavior and even terrorism are not 18th century constructs. These dangers to life, liberty and property existed then and they exist today, as our founders knew they would.
That's why it is right and proper to suspect and oppose anyone who seeks to usurp "the right of the people" to "keep and bear arms."
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/052515_Founding_Fathers_Second_Amendment_gun_control.html
by: J. D. Heyes
Oddly, the mass shootings that have occurred with increasingly frequency during the Obama administration, have always been followed by rancorous calls for more and more gun control. That has even been the case following terrorist attacks, as in the most recent jihadi-inspired shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. – religiously inspired murders that led the editorial staff of The New York Times to publish a front-page editorial – the first since 1920 – to call for more gun control and the banning of "weapons of war."
I say this behavior is odd, because some of the same people who are calling for gun bans and gun control – even to the point of disarming the populace – also regularly decry centralized government power and the "militarization" of local police.
Some of those people can't help themselves because they have been indoctrinated to believe that "all guns are bad" and "the only way to be safe is to be disarmed" by gun control activists in politics, the mainstream media and in academia – the latter demonstrated just recently by students at the University of Texas, Austin in reaction to a staged mock mass shooting held to demonstrate the futility of so-called "gun-free zones."
The founders' vision and experience informed the Second Amendment
Well, it's not possible to write a single column that argues powerfully enough to convince Americans dead set against an armed citizenry that their position is wrong. Most, when their position is challenged, will simply close their minds and shut off debate.
But once upon a time, when the country was founded, there were men who had the vision and experience to make convincing arguments for an armed citizenry. And, though many will claim that "that was then and this is now," there is little difference in today's America than in the America of those times, in terms of human and societal behavior. There were miscreants, thieves, murderers and tyrants in the 18th century, just as there are today, and they were every bit as much of a threat then as they are now. That's what makes our founders' perspective on an armed citizenry as prescient in 2015 as it was in 1775.
-- "...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail.
-- "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette.
To critics of gun rights who want to argue that "a bunch of rifle-toting so-and-so's from the boonies can't stand up to the U.S. military," I would counter, "Tell that to the resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, whom I have seen stand up to the U.S. military on a daily basis and, in some cases, prevail or – at least, not lose." Or better still, tell that to the rebel fighters in Ukraine; if a fight came between American "rebels" and the government, don't for one second believe that the "rebels" would not get their hands on U.S. military weapons systems. The point is, an armed populace makes a would-be tyrant think twice and three times before becoming tyrannical.
Words of wisdom
More from the founders on whom should be armed, and why:
-- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution
-- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
-- "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
-- "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers
Tyranny, ill-intent, criminal behavior and even terrorism are not 18th century constructs. These dangers to life, liberty and property existed then and they exist today, as our founders knew they would.
That's why it is right and proper to suspect and oppose anyone who seeks to usurp "the right of the people" to "keep and bear arms."
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/052515_Founding_Fathers_Second_Amendment_gun_control.html
SSRIs and the brain...
Prenatal exposure to SSRI antidepressants changes brain wiring, causes anxiety and depression in adults
by: Jonathan Benson
The dangers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac and Lexapro are once again highlighted in a new study, which found that the use of these brain-altering drugs during pregnancy can have lasting and sometimes permanent effects on offspring, with mothers basically passing the drugs on to their unborn children.
Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studied the effects of SSRIs on pregnant women, of whom about 15 percent in the U.S. are said to suffer from anxiety disorders and/or depression during their pregnancies. As a result, as many as 5 percent of all babies born in the U.S. annually, or about 200,000 babies, are exposed to antidepressants while in the womb.
The effects of this, as demonstrated by a mouse model that simulated antidepressant exposure during the third trimester of human pregnancy, were found to include permanent changes to a child's brain wiring. Many of the effects of this manifest as a child grows into adulthood, and often include anxiety and depression.
Based on the research, mice exposed to the SSRI Lexapro experienced "permanent changes" in serotonin neurotransmission, a process that regulates mood and cognition. Children exposed to this drug while in the womb basically grew into adults with altered brain states, a form of drug poisoning brought about by the mother's use of the drug during pregnancy.
Compared to mice that were given Prozac, another popular SSRI, those in the Lexapro group experienced changes that were more likely to result in reduced anxiety. But both drugs artificially block the actions of a protein known as the serotonin transporter, which alters serotonin levels in the spaces between neurons. The effects of this can vary depending on a person's unique chemical makeup.
"The mice exposed to Lexapro had permanent changes in serotonin neurotransmission and were less anxious as adults than the mice exposed to Prozac," explained Anne M. Andrews, a professor of psychiatry and chemistry and biochemistry at the Richard Metzner Endowed Chair in Clinical Neuropharmacology at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior and California NanoSystems Institute.
While this might seem positive, it actually illustrates how the damaging effects of pharmaceuticals are passed on to future generations. Researchers can claim a possible reduction in anxiety later in life when a child's mother takes Lexapro during pregnancy as opposed to Prozac, but the takeaway is that both drugs induce permanent brain changes -- changes that could forever damage a child's ability to function normally.
"Current antidepressant therapies are ineffective in treating anxiety and depression in large numbers of patients, and advances in predicting individual responses are hindered by difficulties associated with characterizing complex influences of genetic and environmental factors on serotonergic transmission in humans," admits the study.
In other words, a one-size-fits-all drug approach to depression and anxiety, which is the current standard, fails to help most people for whom a more tailored approach based on their individual chemical compositions is required. And the consequences of this during pregnancy are directly passed on to future generations, which are chemically disadvantaged from the minute they exit the womb.
"Serotonin is the first neurotransmitter expressed in the developing embryo and it plays a crucial role in human brain formation," explains RxISK, highlighting numerous studies demonstrating neurodevelopmental damage, including autism, from SSRI use during pregnancy. "Serotonin has been shown to be essential for the growth and development of certain areas of the brain. It is involved in such basic processes as cell division, differentiation, migration, and synaptogenesis."
"In short, proper functioning of the serotonin system is essential for the brain to form and function normally."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052514_SSRI_antidepressants_brain_changes_anxiety.html#ixzz3wN2QiT2S
by: Jonathan Benson
The dangers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac and Lexapro are once again highlighted in a new study, which found that the use of these brain-altering drugs during pregnancy can have lasting and sometimes permanent effects on offspring, with mothers basically passing the drugs on to their unborn children.
Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studied the effects of SSRIs on pregnant women, of whom about 15 percent in the U.S. are said to suffer from anxiety disorders and/or depression during their pregnancies. As a result, as many as 5 percent of all babies born in the U.S. annually, or about 200,000 babies, are exposed to antidepressants while in the womb.
The effects of this, as demonstrated by a mouse model that simulated antidepressant exposure during the third trimester of human pregnancy, were found to include permanent changes to a child's brain wiring. Many of the effects of this manifest as a child grows into adulthood, and often include anxiety and depression.
Based on the research, mice exposed to the SSRI Lexapro experienced "permanent changes" in serotonin neurotransmission, a process that regulates mood and cognition. Children exposed to this drug while in the womb basically grew into adults with altered brain states, a form of drug poisoning brought about by the mother's use of the drug during pregnancy.
Compared to mice that were given Prozac, another popular SSRI, those in the Lexapro group experienced changes that were more likely to result in reduced anxiety. But both drugs artificially block the actions of a protein known as the serotonin transporter, which alters serotonin levels in the spaces between neurons. The effects of this can vary depending on a person's unique chemical makeup.
"The mice exposed to Lexapro had permanent changes in serotonin neurotransmission and were less anxious as adults than the mice exposed to Prozac," explained Anne M. Andrews, a professor of psychiatry and chemistry and biochemistry at the Richard Metzner Endowed Chair in Clinical Neuropharmacology at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior and California NanoSystems Institute.
While this might seem positive, it actually illustrates how the damaging effects of pharmaceuticals are passed on to future generations. Researchers can claim a possible reduction in anxiety later in life when a child's mother takes Lexapro during pregnancy as opposed to Prozac, but the takeaway is that both drugs induce permanent brain changes -- changes that could forever damage a child's ability to function normally.
"Current antidepressant therapies are ineffective in treating anxiety and depression in large numbers of patients, and advances in predicting individual responses are hindered by difficulties associated with characterizing complex influences of genetic and environmental factors on serotonergic transmission in humans," admits the study.
In other words, a one-size-fits-all drug approach to depression and anxiety, which is the current standard, fails to help most people for whom a more tailored approach based on their individual chemical compositions is required. And the consequences of this during pregnancy are directly passed on to future generations, which are chemically disadvantaged from the minute they exit the womb.
"Serotonin is the first neurotransmitter expressed in the developing embryo and it plays a crucial role in human brain formation," explains RxISK, highlighting numerous studies demonstrating neurodevelopmental damage, including autism, from SSRI use during pregnancy. "Serotonin has been shown to be essential for the growth and development of certain areas of the brain. It is involved in such basic processes as cell division, differentiation, migration, and synaptogenesis."
"In short, proper functioning of the serotonin system is essential for the brain to form and function normally."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052514_SSRI_antidepressants_brain_changes_anxiety.html#ixzz3wN2QiT2S
It begins...
Investment expert warns the economy is 'ten times worse' than in 2008 and will inevitably implode
by: J. D. Heyes
Economic experts and long-time investors continue to sound the alarm that the global economy is not all it is made out to be and in fact has been teetering on the edge for some time.
While no one has a crystal ball, experts see signs of danger, especially if certain conditions occur. One of them is Daniel Ameduri, who – in a recent report to subscribers of the Weekly Wealth Digest, offered via the Future Money Trends website and republished by The Daily Sheeple – noted that the global economy has yet to really recover from the "Great Recession" of 2008.
"For the past 7 years, the world has been living through a really ugly experiment, hyper-Keynesian economics," Ameduri begins. "Included are stimuli, low interest rates, quantitative easing, and plenty of fraud to go around, from government statistics to the lack of honest accounting."
He notes that for a number of years as well the world's investors had a lot of confidence in China's growth, and for good reason: Beijing was delivering an average of 8 percent growth per year for a decade, but now, that growth is slowing, much to the chagrin of investors.
Collapse in commodities is fueling this decline
But importantly, Ameduri noted, the Chinese economic model was looked upon as perhaps one that the world could follow: a centrally planned, state-run economy sprinkled with elements of capitalism.
China's growth in particular fueled the growth of commodities consumption. However, much of it was an illusion, said Ameduri, noting that "ghost cities and $50 billion bridges to nowhere were all part of an economy and job market built on air."
Now, reality is setting in; annual economic growth in China has slowed to 6.9 percent this year and is expected to trend downward, something investors need to understand. The fact is "that we have no idea what will be China's new normal, because even once they hit bottom, they've already built cities for the next 20 years," Ameduri wrote.
"Think of the harm this has done to a construction worker looking to enter the workforce in 5 years. What's the point? The cities of 2025 were built in 2010," he said in his report.
This is a disaster for commodities investors, he continued, as has also been noted by other media (here, here and here).
"Here in the U.S., oil companies since 2009 have borrowed at artificially low interest rates in order to produce higher-cost oil from fracking, which has now helped flood the world in oil," Ameduri continued. "Only now we have lower oil prices, higher interest rates for the oil frackers, and an almost certain default, as these companies can't pay the debt back, especially with lower oil prices that, for the most part, are unprofitable for unconventional drillers."
"No silver bullet"
The oil companies have attempted to resolve the deficits by ramping up production, but that has only made the problem worse, Ameduri said.
"All around the world, stock markets are crashing. Brazil is in a depression, China and Europe are in recession, and Canada and the U.S. look to be entering an official recession in 2016," he wrote.
And while all of this economic turmoil has central planners seeking solutions after making things "ten times worse" than in 2008, Ameduri said there is "no silver bullet" that can "fix this."
Already there are major ramifications from the collapse of commodities. Companies that deal in commodities, like Anglo-American, are laying off tens of thousands of people, and all from great-paying jobs. In China, more than 100,000 coal workers are going to be let go.
"We are living through a moment where all the trillions of dollars in misallocation and debt are unwinding, so we are going to live through a nasty deflation, but at the same point in time, we must also consider how central planners will respond," Ameduri noted.
"This is why there is no foolproof way to protect and profit forward – there are only strategies to hedge through this crisis."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052520_economic_collapse_investment_expert_China.html#ixzz3wN1kLXoM
by: J. D. Heyes
Economic experts and long-time investors continue to sound the alarm that the global economy is not all it is made out to be and in fact has been teetering on the edge for some time.
While no one has a crystal ball, experts see signs of danger, especially if certain conditions occur. One of them is Daniel Ameduri, who – in a recent report to subscribers of the Weekly Wealth Digest, offered via the Future Money Trends website and republished by The Daily Sheeple – noted that the global economy has yet to really recover from the "Great Recession" of 2008.
"For the past 7 years, the world has been living through a really ugly experiment, hyper-Keynesian economics," Ameduri begins. "Included are stimuli, low interest rates, quantitative easing, and plenty of fraud to go around, from government statistics to the lack of honest accounting."
He notes that for a number of years as well the world's investors had a lot of confidence in China's growth, and for good reason: Beijing was delivering an average of 8 percent growth per year for a decade, but now, that growth is slowing, much to the chagrin of investors.
Collapse in commodities is fueling this decline
But importantly, Ameduri noted, the Chinese economic model was looked upon as perhaps one that the world could follow: a centrally planned, state-run economy sprinkled with elements of capitalism.
China's growth in particular fueled the growth of commodities consumption. However, much of it was an illusion, said Ameduri, noting that "ghost cities and $50 billion bridges to nowhere were all part of an economy and job market built on air."
Now, reality is setting in; annual economic growth in China has slowed to 6.9 percent this year and is expected to trend downward, something investors need to understand. The fact is "that we have no idea what will be China's new normal, because even once they hit bottom, they've already built cities for the next 20 years," Ameduri wrote.
"Think of the harm this has done to a construction worker looking to enter the workforce in 5 years. What's the point? The cities of 2025 were built in 2010," he said in his report.
This is a disaster for commodities investors, he continued, as has also been noted by other media (here, here and here).
"Here in the U.S., oil companies since 2009 have borrowed at artificially low interest rates in order to produce higher-cost oil from fracking, which has now helped flood the world in oil," Ameduri continued. "Only now we have lower oil prices, higher interest rates for the oil frackers, and an almost certain default, as these companies can't pay the debt back, especially with lower oil prices that, for the most part, are unprofitable for unconventional drillers."
"No silver bullet"
The oil companies have attempted to resolve the deficits by ramping up production, but that has only made the problem worse, Ameduri said.
"All around the world, stock markets are crashing. Brazil is in a depression, China and Europe are in recession, and Canada and the U.S. look to be entering an official recession in 2016," he wrote.
And while all of this economic turmoil has central planners seeking solutions after making things "ten times worse" than in 2008, Ameduri said there is "no silver bullet" that can "fix this."
Already there are major ramifications from the collapse of commodities. Companies that deal in commodities, like Anglo-American, are laying off tens of thousands of people, and all from great-paying jobs. In China, more than 100,000 coal workers are going to be let go.
"We are living through a moment where all the trillions of dollars in misallocation and debt are unwinding, so we are going to live through a nasty deflation, but at the same point in time, we must also consider how central planners will respond," Ameduri noted.
"This is why there is no foolproof way to protect and profit forward – there are only strategies to hedge through this crisis."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052520_economic_collapse_investment_expert_China.html#ixzz3wN1kLXoM
"Where are all the anti-war Democrats as Clinton continues to lead in polls?"
Vote Clinton for perpetual war
by Sam Rolley
GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump told a crowd gathered at a recent campaign stop that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama created the Islamic terror threat, as he touted his plan to quash the group.
“I’m pretty good at signals, and I see a lot of things happening,” Trump said at a crowded event in Biloxi, Mississippi.
Trump told the audience that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would be in better shape if U.S. officials had done more to control oil assets in the regions now controlled by ISIS.
“I’ve predicted a lot of things, you have to say, including, ‘Get the oil, take the oil, keep the oil.’ Right? I’ve been saying that for three years, and everybody said, ‘Oh, I can’t do that. I mean, this is a sovereign country.’ There is no country!” Trump said.
By overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes and creating power vacuums with little U.S. control, Trump said, Obama and Clinton are directly responsible for the growing ISIS terror threat.
“They have a bunch of dishonest people,” he said. “They’ve created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama — created with Obama. But I love predicting because you know, ultimately, you need somebody with vision.”
Trump is right, and he’s not alone
Rep. Michael McCaul, the Republican chairman of the committee, told an audience gathered at a recent Christian Science Monitor event that the nation faces its highest national security threat levels since 9/11 as a result of the duo’s incompetence.
“I would say that she and the president are responsible for ISIS rearing its ugly head. They have not effectively dealt with it and that’s going to be a huge campaign issue,” McCaul said.
Clinton’s policies “imploded Iraq and creates ISIS,” he added.
McCaul predicted that her culpability in the rise of ISIS will become a key talking point for the eventual Republican nominee.
“I think they are going to have a big advantage when it comes to the question of the American people, ‘Do you feel safer today than you did eight years ago,’” he said.
Clinton knows how badly she bungled her job at the State Department
Back during the summer of 2014, Obama and Clinton were playing a blame game over the rise of ISIS as the former top diplomat attempted to distance herself from the administration’s abysmal foreign policy ahead of the 2016 election season.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said during an interview.
Top Democrats later said that Obama categorized Clinton’s remarks as “horseshit” during a private meeting.
Clinton, at the time, also criticized the Obama administration over the president’s trademark “don’t do stupid stuff” foreign policy motto.
“Great nations need organizing principles and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Clinton said.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod hit back at Clinton over that remark on Twitter, saying: “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.”
Clinton, as you might remember, supported the Iraq invasion. Obama did not. But during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, he gave the go-ahead for equally damaging U.S. intervention to aid the ill-fated Arab Spring.
The point here is that it’s pretty easy to see what kind of president Clinton would be on the foreign policy front: Her primary focus will be on continued destabilization and perpetual war.
If you haven’t yet caught on, another GOP presidential hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, recently laid it out on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“It turns out that probably the most likely candidate to take us back to war is Hillary Clinton,” he said.
Paul continued: “The difference is President Obama and Hillary Clinton both supported arming the Syrian rebels, the Islamic rebels against [Syrian President Bashar] Assad. I wouldn’t have done that. They also supported toppling [Moammar] Gadhafi in Libya.”
The biggest question in all this: Where are all the anti-war Democrats as Clinton continues to lead in polls?
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/vote-clinton-for-perpetual-war/
by Sam Rolley
GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump told a crowd gathered at a recent campaign stop that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama created the Islamic terror threat, as he touted his plan to quash the group.
“I’m pretty good at signals, and I see a lot of things happening,” Trump said at a crowded event in Biloxi, Mississippi.
Trump told the audience that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would be in better shape if U.S. officials had done more to control oil assets in the regions now controlled by ISIS.
“I’ve predicted a lot of things, you have to say, including, ‘Get the oil, take the oil, keep the oil.’ Right? I’ve been saying that for three years, and everybody said, ‘Oh, I can’t do that. I mean, this is a sovereign country.’ There is no country!” Trump said.
By overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes and creating power vacuums with little U.S. control, Trump said, Obama and Clinton are directly responsible for the growing ISIS terror threat.
“They have a bunch of dishonest people,” he said. “They’ve created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama — created with Obama. But I love predicting because you know, ultimately, you need somebody with vision.”
Trump is right, and he’s not alone
Rep. Michael McCaul, the Republican chairman of the committee, told an audience gathered at a recent Christian Science Monitor event that the nation faces its highest national security threat levels since 9/11 as a result of the duo’s incompetence.
“I would say that she and the president are responsible for ISIS rearing its ugly head. They have not effectively dealt with it and that’s going to be a huge campaign issue,” McCaul said.
Clinton’s policies “imploded Iraq and creates ISIS,” he added.
McCaul predicted that her culpability in the rise of ISIS will become a key talking point for the eventual Republican nominee.
“I think they are going to have a big advantage when it comes to the question of the American people, ‘Do you feel safer today than you did eight years ago,’” he said.
Clinton knows how badly she bungled her job at the State Department
Back during the summer of 2014, Obama and Clinton were playing a blame game over the rise of ISIS as the former top diplomat attempted to distance herself from the administration’s abysmal foreign policy ahead of the 2016 election season.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad — there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle — the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said during an interview.
Top Democrats later said that Obama categorized Clinton’s remarks as “horseshit” during a private meeting.
Clinton, at the time, also criticized the Obama administration over the president’s trademark “don’t do stupid stuff” foreign policy motto.
“Great nations need organizing principles and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Clinton said.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod hit back at Clinton over that remark on Twitter, saying: “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.”
Clinton, as you might remember, supported the Iraq invasion. Obama did not. But during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, he gave the go-ahead for equally damaging U.S. intervention to aid the ill-fated Arab Spring.
The point here is that it’s pretty easy to see what kind of president Clinton would be on the foreign policy front: Her primary focus will be on continued destabilization and perpetual war.
If you haven’t yet caught on, another GOP presidential hopeful, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, recently laid it out on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“It turns out that probably the most likely candidate to take us back to war is Hillary Clinton,” he said.
Paul continued: “The difference is President Obama and Hillary Clinton both supported arming the Syrian rebels, the Islamic rebels against [Syrian President Bashar] Assad. I wouldn’t have done that. They also supported toppling [Moammar] Gadhafi in Libya.”
The biggest question in all this: Where are all the anti-war Democrats as Clinton continues to lead in polls?
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/vote-clinton-for-perpetual-war/
Are you ready???
Internal war is now on the horizon for America
by Brandon Smith
If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence, that we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a cliché. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists. That would just complicate the narrative.
My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.
As I write this, China’s stock market just crashed 7 percent and was shut down by Chinese authorities. U.S. futures markets have plummeted, creating the potential for yet another “Black Monday” event. By the time you read this, we will probably know if it is merely another false start or the beginnings of a major market downturn.
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term.
And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters.
As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.
I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters will likely be perceived as the invaders, not the defenders — and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them not to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon is likely to end in a very different fashion.
I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to come and get them.
Rather conveniently, the action in Oregon takes place only days before the Obama administration is to begin publicly fielding plans for executive orders on gun control, which will undoubtedly include the removal of gun rights from people placed on secret government watch lists. Keep in mind that these watch lists are entirely arbitrary. And there is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesn’t like and belong on a naughty list.
Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war, they should do it over draconian gun control measures rather than using a family who did not want their help to begin with as a means to an end.
As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I have been warning people about this for nine years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed a thermal evasion suit and gave the basic construction information to the liberty movement for free. No one is more aware of what is coming and why than I am.
At this point, I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as the storm rises.
False leadership and irrational leadership
You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real “tip of the spear.” First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but don’t jump blindly into any situation.
If his plan seems poorly thought out, don’t follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, don’t follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, don’t follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, don’t follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and question your “patriotism” when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him.
To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first.
Hotheads and imbeciles
I’ve found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense or the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some of them requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action.
The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warrior’s mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them.
I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with the long term in mind, then you have missed the entire point.
Factions and tribes
Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. That said, if a “tribe” or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead.
The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they don’t have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people.
Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, expect to be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur.
Governments will not disappear
I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the government’s tyranny.
Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, we must fight to win. Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed profits will lead people only to disaster.
Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, if you have to fight, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/internal-war-is-now-on-the-horizon-for-america/
by Brandon Smith
If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence, that we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a cliché. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists. That would just complicate the narrative.
My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.
As I write this, China’s stock market just crashed 7 percent and was shut down by Chinese authorities. U.S. futures markets have plummeted, creating the potential for yet another “Black Monday” event. By the time you read this, we will probably know if it is merely another false start or the beginnings of a major market downturn.
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term.
And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters.
As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.
I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters will likely be perceived as the invaders, not the defenders — and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them not to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon is likely to end in a very different fashion.
I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to come and get them.
Rather conveniently, the action in Oregon takes place only days before the Obama administration is to begin publicly fielding plans for executive orders on gun control, which will undoubtedly include the removal of gun rights from people placed on secret government watch lists. Keep in mind that these watch lists are entirely arbitrary. And there is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesn’t like and belong on a naughty list.
Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war, they should do it over draconian gun control measures rather than using a family who did not want their help to begin with as a means to an end.
As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I have been warning people about this for nine years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed a thermal evasion suit and gave the basic construction information to the liberty movement for free. No one is more aware of what is coming and why than I am.
At this point, I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as the storm rises.
False leadership and irrational leadership
You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real “tip of the spear.” First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but don’t jump blindly into any situation.
If his plan seems poorly thought out, don’t follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, don’t follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, don’t follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, don’t follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and question your “patriotism” when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him.
To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first.
Hotheads and imbeciles
I’ve found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense or the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some of them requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action.
The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warrior’s mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them.
I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with the long term in mind, then you have missed the entire point.
Factions and tribes
Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. That said, if a “tribe” or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead.
The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they don’t have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people.
Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, expect to be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur.
Governments will not disappear
I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the government’s tyranny.
Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, we must fight to win. Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed profits will lead people only to disaster.
Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, if you have to fight, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/internal-war-is-now-on-the-horizon-for-america/
"The high-school civics class mindset in which most of us have been conditioned, tells students little about the real-world nature of economic systems. When it comes to a discussion of the destructive, harmful nature of governmental regulation of the marketplace, students – as well as adults – learn to recite the mantra that good intentions trump adverse consequences."
Prosperity by Fiat
Butler Shaffer
Suppose that a physician told you that you needed important brain surgery, and that the operation would be very expensive. Suppose, as well, that I offered to perform the surgery for 1/10th the fee your doctor proposed? If you asked about my experiences in such matters, I tell you that, while I am not a physician, I know a great deal about the human brain; that I have one and use it on a regular basis; that I have read some recent, well-researched books on brain-function; and that I would have your best-interests at heart in doing so. Would you take me up on my offer?
As absurd as my suggestion sounds, it is no goofier than the proposal offered up every few years by politicians, editorial writers, and other well-meaning people, to increase the minimum wage. That most of those who advocate such legally-mandated wage levels have as much understanding of economic principles as I have of the intricacies of brain-surgery, does not diminish their enthusiasm for the idea. Those with the strongest opinions on such an issue seem to regard themselves as having a clear understanding of economics by little more than their being able to balance their check-book each month.
A prominent Nebraska newspaper had a recent article that began “Nebraska minimum wage earners will take home an extra dollar an hour in 2016.” Really? Based upon what? Was it because employers had discovered that there was a shortage of marginally-paid workers whose continued employment – even at the new minimum wage level – would increase the profits of their firm? Or does the answer lie in the fact that labor unions and employers already paying above the minimum wage lobbied the Nebraska legislature to increase the minimum wage in order to provide them a competitive advantage?
Murray Rothbard’s classic words to the effect that those who lack an understanding of basic economics principles ought not “to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” The same warning applies to those who would offer opinions on brain-surgery.
Both economic analysis, and the well-documented history of minimum wage laws, confirms that such legislative schemes end up hurting the very marginally-paid workers they were theoretically designed to benefit. Returning to the earlier newspaper article, “minimum wage earners will” more likely start the new year by having their employment terminated, or their hours of work reduced because, at their present wage, they are being paid at a level that is marginally productive to their employers. An employer who pays a higher wage than this is making an economically irrational decision that is likely to add to the prospects of the firm’s business failure.
The high-school civics class mindset in which most of us have been conditioned, tells students little about the real-world nature of economic systems. When it comes to a discussion of the destructive, harmful nature of governmental regulation of the marketplace, students – as well as adults – learn to recite the mantra that good intentions trump adverse consequences. Even the employers who have to accommodate themselves to the economic irrationalities of wage price-fixing schemes, get caught up in the warm and mushy sentimentality that underlies the propaganda on behalf of such programs. One retailer was quoted in the above article that “we would love to give bigger raises, bonuses, that type of thing.” With or without the new law taking effect, there is nothing preventing any business firm from doing this. Any employer could pay its employees $100 an hour – or even $100 per minute – just as there is nothing preventing Congress or any other legislative body from mandating such minimum wages. It costs nothing to make such statements of unearned generosity, so why don’t employers voluntarily do this, or legislative bodies mandate such levels of pay, particularly if – as is defended – minimum wage laws inflict no harm on anyone?
Minimum wage laws run counter to one of the basic assumptions of economic decision-making: men and women will act to maximize their gains, and minimize their costs. A rational participant in the marketplace – be he or she an employer, employee, manufacturer, wholesaler, buyer, or whatever – will be no more inclined to pay more for what they want than what is alternatively available in the marketplace. Should a retailer who is forced by legislative fiat to pay a manufacturer of widgets an additional $1 for each widget he has bought and sold; and would that retailer be inclined to embrace this governmental mandate because of the “good intentions” underlying the measure? If not, where is the logic of this same employer being legally compelled to pay more for the services of employees than what the parties have voluntarily agreed to?
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/prosperity-fiat/
Butler Shaffer
Suppose that a physician told you that you needed important brain surgery, and that the operation would be very expensive. Suppose, as well, that I offered to perform the surgery for 1/10th the fee your doctor proposed? If you asked about my experiences in such matters, I tell you that, while I am not a physician, I know a great deal about the human brain; that I have one and use it on a regular basis; that I have read some recent, well-researched books on brain-function; and that I would have your best-interests at heart in doing so. Would you take me up on my offer?
As absurd as my suggestion sounds, it is no goofier than the proposal offered up every few years by politicians, editorial writers, and other well-meaning people, to increase the minimum wage. That most of those who advocate such legally-mandated wage levels have as much understanding of economic principles as I have of the intricacies of brain-surgery, does not diminish their enthusiasm for the idea. Those with the strongest opinions on such an issue seem to regard themselves as having a clear understanding of economics by little more than their being able to balance their check-book each month.
A prominent Nebraska newspaper had a recent article that began “Nebraska minimum wage earners will take home an extra dollar an hour in 2016.” Really? Based upon what? Was it because employers had discovered that there was a shortage of marginally-paid workers whose continued employment – even at the new minimum wage level – would increase the profits of their firm? Or does the answer lie in the fact that labor unions and employers already paying above the minimum wage lobbied the Nebraska legislature to increase the minimum wage in order to provide them a competitive advantage?
Murray Rothbard’s classic words to the effect that those who lack an understanding of basic economics principles ought not “to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” The same warning applies to those who would offer opinions on brain-surgery.
Both economic analysis, and the well-documented history of minimum wage laws, confirms that such legislative schemes end up hurting the very marginally-paid workers they were theoretically designed to benefit. Returning to the earlier newspaper article, “minimum wage earners will” more likely start the new year by having their employment terminated, or their hours of work reduced because, at their present wage, they are being paid at a level that is marginally productive to their employers. An employer who pays a higher wage than this is making an economically irrational decision that is likely to add to the prospects of the firm’s business failure.
The high-school civics class mindset in which most of us have been conditioned, tells students little about the real-world nature of economic systems. When it comes to a discussion of the destructive, harmful nature of governmental regulation of the marketplace, students – as well as adults – learn to recite the mantra that good intentions trump adverse consequences. Even the employers who have to accommodate themselves to the economic irrationalities of wage price-fixing schemes, get caught up in the warm and mushy sentimentality that underlies the propaganda on behalf of such programs. One retailer was quoted in the above article that “we would love to give bigger raises, bonuses, that type of thing.” With or without the new law taking effect, there is nothing preventing any business firm from doing this. Any employer could pay its employees $100 an hour – or even $100 per minute – just as there is nothing preventing Congress or any other legislative body from mandating such minimum wages. It costs nothing to make such statements of unearned generosity, so why don’t employers voluntarily do this, or legislative bodies mandate such levels of pay, particularly if – as is defended – minimum wage laws inflict no harm on anyone?
Minimum wage laws run counter to one of the basic assumptions of economic decision-making: men and women will act to maximize their gains, and minimize their costs. A rational participant in the marketplace – be he or she an employer, employee, manufacturer, wholesaler, buyer, or whatever – will be no more inclined to pay more for what they want than what is alternatively available in the marketplace. Should a retailer who is forced by legislative fiat to pay a manufacturer of widgets an additional $1 for each widget he has bought and sold; and would that retailer be inclined to embrace this governmental mandate because of the “good intentions” underlying the measure? If not, where is the logic of this same employer being legally compelled to pay more for the services of employees than what the parties have voluntarily agreed to?
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/prosperity-fiat/
"Thanks to the counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, there is a thriving drug market in many government schools, urban, suburban and rural. There is no escape since the free market is an efficient distribution mechanism, far more efficient and creative than the bureaucrats paid to stop it."
The Best Drug Store in Town
By James Ostrowski
Note: This is an excerpt from Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids.
Your local government high school is often the best drug store in town. Government schools are the key distribution point for illegal drugs in many communities. One study concluded that “80% of the nation’s high school students and 44% of middle-schoolers have personally seen illegal drugs used or sold and/or students drunk or high on the grounds of their schools.”[1] Another study warns that rates of illegal drug use are no lower in suburban schools as than urban ones.[2]
Illegal drugs are tiny and easily hidden. The government has made them quite profitable by making them illegal. That allows those willing to risk prison—and we haven’t reached the bottom of that group yet—to make lots of money selling drugs to those who want them. Take lots of bored young people who don’t want to be there and put them into a government school for six hours a day and you have created a wonderful profit opportunity for drug dealers. Finally, since it is illegal to sell drugs to anyone, there is little additional incentive not to sell to children. The prohibition of illegal drugs removes any possibility of regulating the age of the user. One of the unintended consequences of the Rockefeller Drug Laws of the 70’s that established tough mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing was to create an incentive to recruit younger dealers such as high school students who for one reason or another are not subject to those penalties.
Thanks to the counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, there is a thriving drug market in many government schools, urban, suburban and rural. There is no escape since the free market is an efficient distribution mechanism, far more efficient and creative than the bureaucrats paid to stop it. And once again, the facts explode the myth of the “safe” suburban school:
“On every indicator, suburban students were either more likely than urban students to engage in substance-related behaviors, or about as likely to do so. . . . Suburban students were slightly more active drinkers than urban students on the broad alcohol indicators. . . For illegal drugs, suburban and urban students were virtually identical on the broad indicator—in both cases, well over a third of all students and over four of ten twelfth graders have used illegal drugs. Almost one out of seven students in both urban and suburban schools, and about one out of six twelfth graders, have been high on drugs at school.”[3]
Because of the severe drug problems in government schools, the courts have bestowed great power on administrators to become drug enforcers. In one case, the court held that a principal could strip search a student suspected of possessing drugs:
“In the school nurse’s office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any [drugs].
“I was embarrassed and scared, but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. “The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had.””[4]
This decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court but too late for the victim here and only on the particular facts on that case. The court did not prohibit strip searches generally and their “syllabus” is a good warning to you: “Its indignity does not outlaw the search.”[5] As if to put an exclamation point on the court’s warning, an Iowa high school administrator recently ordered five female students to be strip-searched over a suspected theft. The missing money was not uncovered.[6]
Why is the problem so bad? We have already seen the answer in prior chapters. Government schools are filled with people who don’t want to be there and who are bored and alienated. As we are constantly reminded by those who defend government schools: they must take all students. The fact that your kids spend six hours a day with fellow students subject to virtually no screening process is hardly a recommendation. It is more of a condemnation. It is also difficult to discipline students. So doing involves a whole host of legal and bureaucratic procedures. In contrast, a disruptive student can simply be booted from private school. Those charged with student discipline are bureaucrats, not particularly responsive to parental or student concerns. Private schools must be so responsive or else face closing their doors due to a lack of customers.
A word to the wise should be sufficient. If you send your child to a government school, they may learn more about chemistry than you could possibly imagine.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/james-ostrowski/best-drug-store-town/
By James Ostrowski
Note: This is an excerpt from Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids.
Your local government high school is often the best drug store in town. Government schools are the key distribution point for illegal drugs in many communities. One study concluded that “80% of the nation’s high school students and 44% of middle-schoolers have personally seen illegal drugs used or sold and/or students drunk or high on the grounds of their schools.”[1] Another study warns that rates of illegal drug use are no lower in suburban schools as than urban ones.[2]
Illegal drugs are tiny and easily hidden. The government has made them quite profitable by making them illegal. That allows those willing to risk prison—and we haven’t reached the bottom of that group yet—to make lots of money selling drugs to those who want them. Take lots of bored young people who don’t want to be there and put them into a government school for six hours a day and you have created a wonderful profit opportunity for drug dealers. Finally, since it is illegal to sell drugs to anyone, there is little additional incentive not to sell to children. The prohibition of illegal drugs removes any possibility of regulating the age of the user. One of the unintended consequences of the Rockefeller Drug Laws of the 70’s that established tough mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealing was to create an incentive to recruit younger dealers such as high school students who for one reason or another are not subject to those penalties.
Thanks to the counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, there is a thriving drug market in many government schools, urban, suburban and rural. There is no escape since the free market is an efficient distribution mechanism, far more efficient and creative than the bureaucrats paid to stop it. And once again, the facts explode the myth of the “safe” suburban school:
“On every indicator, suburban students were either more likely than urban students to engage in substance-related behaviors, or about as likely to do so. . . . Suburban students were slightly more active drinkers than urban students on the broad alcohol indicators. . . For illegal drugs, suburban and urban students were virtually identical on the broad indicator—in both cases, well over a third of all students and over four of ten twelfth graders have used illegal drugs. Almost one out of seven students in both urban and suburban schools, and about one out of six twelfth graders, have been high on drugs at school.”[3]
Because of the severe drug problems in government schools, the courts have bestowed great power on administrators to become drug enforcers. In one case, the court held that a principal could strip search a student suspected of possessing drugs:
“In the school nurse’s office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any [drugs].
“I was embarrassed and scared, but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. “The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had.””[4]
This decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court but too late for the victim here and only on the particular facts on that case. The court did not prohibit strip searches generally and their “syllabus” is a good warning to you: “Its indignity does not outlaw the search.”[5] As if to put an exclamation point on the court’s warning, an Iowa high school administrator recently ordered five female students to be strip-searched over a suspected theft. The missing money was not uncovered.[6]
Why is the problem so bad? We have already seen the answer in prior chapters. Government schools are filled with people who don’t want to be there and who are bored and alienated. As we are constantly reminded by those who defend government schools: they must take all students. The fact that your kids spend six hours a day with fellow students subject to virtually no screening process is hardly a recommendation. It is more of a condemnation. It is also difficult to discipline students. So doing involves a whole host of legal and bureaucratic procedures. In contrast, a disruptive student can simply be booted from private school. Those charged with student discipline are bureaucrats, not particularly responsive to parental or student concerns. Private schools must be so responsive or else face closing their doors due to a lack of customers.
A word to the wise should be sufficient. If you send your child to a government school, they may learn more about chemistry than you could possibly imagine.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/james-ostrowski/best-drug-store-town/
"Crime works as a tax on people who can least afford it..."
Unappreciated Tax on the Poor
By Walter E. Williams
A few years ago, BET had a commentary titled “Where Are the Grocery Stores in Black Neighborhoods?” One wonders whether anyone thinks that the absence of supermarkets in predominantly black neighborhoods means that white merchants do not like dollars coming out of black hands. Racial discrimination cannot explain the absence of supermarkets in black communities.
Compare the operation of a supermarket in a low-crime neighborhood with that of one in a high-crime neighborhood. You will see differences in how they operate. Supermarkets in low-crime neighborhoods often have merchandise on display near entrances. They may have merchandise left unattended outside the store, such as plants and gardening material. Often these items are left out overnight. Supermarket managers’ profit maximizing objective is to maximize merchandise turnover per square foot of leased space. The economic significance of being able to have merchandise located at entrances and outside is the supermarket manager can use all of the space he leases.
Supermarket operation differs in high-crime neighborhoods. Merchandise will not be left unattended outside the store — and surely not overnight. Because of greater theft, the manager will not have products near entrances and exits. As a result, the manager cannot use all of the space that he leases. On top of this, it is not unusual to see a guard employed by the store.
Because supermarkets operate on a very lean profit margin, typically less than 2 percent, crime makes such a business unprofitable. The larger crime cost is borne by black residents, who must pay higher prices, receive inferior-quality goods at small mom and pop stores and/or bear the transportation cost of having to shop at suburban malls. Crime works as a tax on people who can least afford it.
Racial discrimination suits have been brought against pizza companies whose drivers either refuse to deliver pizzas to certain neighborhoods or require customers to come down to their car.
In many instances, the pizza deliverymen are black people who are reluctant to deliver pizzas even in their own neighborhoods. For a law-abiding person, not to have deliveries on the same terms as everyone else is insulting, but who is to blame?
It is not just pizzas. Recently, Comcast notified a cable customer on the South Side of Chicago the company would not send out a technician because of the violent crime in the area. Delivery companies do not leave packages in high-crime neighborhoods when the customer is not home. The company must bear the costs of making return trips, or more likely, the customer has to bear the cost of going to pick up the package. Taxi drivers, as well as Uber and Lyft drivers, are reluctant to provide services to high-crime neighborhoods.
Crime and lack of respect for property rights impose another unappreciated cost. They lower the value of everything in the neighborhood. A house that is not even worth $50,000 might be worth many multiples of that after gentrification. Gentrification is a trend in some urban neighborhoods whereby higher-income people buy up property in poor repair and fix it up. This results in the displacement of lower-income families and small businesses. Before we call gentrification an exclusively racial phenomenon, many gentrifiers are black middle-class, educated people.
It is by no means flattering to law-abiding black people that “black” has become synonymous with “crime.” Crime not only imposes high costs on blacks but also sours race relations. Whites are apprehensive of blacks, and blacks are offended by being subjects of that apprehension. That apprehension and offense are exhibited in many insulting ways to law-abiding blacks — for example, jewelers keeping their displays locked and store clerks giving extra surveillance to black shoppers.
White people and police officers cannot fix this or other problems of the black community. If blacks do not fix them, they will not be fixed, at least in a pleasing way.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/walter-e-williams/white-people-cannot-fix-black-problems/
By Walter E. Williams
A few years ago, BET had a commentary titled “Where Are the Grocery Stores in Black Neighborhoods?” One wonders whether anyone thinks that the absence of supermarkets in predominantly black neighborhoods means that white merchants do not like dollars coming out of black hands. Racial discrimination cannot explain the absence of supermarkets in black communities.
Compare the operation of a supermarket in a low-crime neighborhood with that of one in a high-crime neighborhood. You will see differences in how they operate. Supermarkets in low-crime neighborhoods often have merchandise on display near entrances. They may have merchandise left unattended outside the store, such as plants and gardening material. Often these items are left out overnight. Supermarket managers’ profit maximizing objective is to maximize merchandise turnover per square foot of leased space. The economic significance of being able to have merchandise located at entrances and outside is the supermarket manager can use all of the space he leases.
Supermarket operation differs in high-crime neighborhoods. Merchandise will not be left unattended outside the store — and surely not overnight. Because of greater theft, the manager will not have products near entrances and exits. As a result, the manager cannot use all of the space that he leases. On top of this, it is not unusual to see a guard employed by the store.
Because supermarkets operate on a very lean profit margin, typically less than 2 percent, crime makes such a business unprofitable. The larger crime cost is borne by black residents, who must pay higher prices, receive inferior-quality goods at small mom and pop stores and/or bear the transportation cost of having to shop at suburban malls. Crime works as a tax on people who can least afford it.
Racial discrimination suits have been brought against pizza companies whose drivers either refuse to deliver pizzas to certain neighborhoods or require customers to come down to their car.
In many instances, the pizza deliverymen are black people who are reluctant to deliver pizzas even in their own neighborhoods. For a law-abiding person, not to have deliveries on the same terms as everyone else is insulting, but who is to blame?
It is not just pizzas. Recently, Comcast notified a cable customer on the South Side of Chicago the company would not send out a technician because of the violent crime in the area. Delivery companies do not leave packages in high-crime neighborhoods when the customer is not home. The company must bear the costs of making return trips, or more likely, the customer has to bear the cost of going to pick up the package. Taxi drivers, as well as Uber and Lyft drivers, are reluctant to provide services to high-crime neighborhoods.
Crime and lack of respect for property rights impose another unappreciated cost. They lower the value of everything in the neighborhood. A house that is not even worth $50,000 might be worth many multiples of that after gentrification. Gentrification is a trend in some urban neighborhoods whereby higher-income people buy up property in poor repair and fix it up. This results in the displacement of lower-income families and small businesses. Before we call gentrification an exclusively racial phenomenon, many gentrifiers are black middle-class, educated people.
It is by no means flattering to law-abiding black people that “black” has become synonymous with “crime.” Crime not only imposes high costs on blacks but also sours race relations. Whites are apprehensive of blacks, and blacks are offended by being subjects of that apprehension. That apprehension and offense are exhibited in many insulting ways to law-abiding blacks — for example, jewelers keeping their displays locked and store clerks giving extra surveillance to black shoppers.
White people and police officers cannot fix this or other problems of the black community. If blacks do not fix them, they will not be fixed, at least in a pleasing way.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/walter-e-williams/white-people-cannot-fix-black-problems/
Monday, January 4, 2016
"Americans have a full belly; but nutritionally, they are starving..."
You’re not sick; you’re starving
by Bob Livingston
A basic misunderstanding the American people have about food is that calories are the same as nutrition. All foods have calories, but only a very small amount of foods have nutrition.
Commercial food processors, which produce hundreds of thousands of tons of empty foods containing calories without nutrition, capitalize upon this ignorance. This has led to a national crisis that I call full belly starvation. This is to say that Americans have a full belly; but nutritionally, they are starving.
Diets that count calories without nutrition lead to chronic obesity, diabetes, much sickness, early degenerative disease and death. Few Americans know that consuming calories has little to do with consuming nutrition. Junk foods loaded with calories give the sensation of a full belly even when no nutrition is taken in. This is a sinister and silent syndrome of starvation that so-called health authorities never address and of which the public is unaware.
Body reserves are easily exhausted and chronic and regular sickness is the rule rather than the exception. Perplexed doctors don’t have a clue. Antibiotics, statins, proton pump inhibitors, steroids, blood thinners and anti-diabetic drugs are the only things in their bags of tricks.
The last thing an allopathic doctor considers is that his patients are not sick but that they are starving. They are not deficient of the latest new drug or chemical; they have chronic and ongoing malnutrition. No person has yet been born who was born deficient of the latest “miracle drug.” Yet the first thing the doctor does is to prescribe a drug or drugs rather than consider the patient’s eating habits.
The problem is that a full belly doesn’t know the difference between just calories and nutrition. Even though the results and outer manifestation of malnutrition is sickness, nobody equates the two — neither patients nor their doctors. This ignorance has caused a health crisis upon which commercial food processors and the medical establishment have raked in trillions of dollars.
When the American public thinks of starvation, they think of children with extended bellies and reed-thin limbs. Mass starvation in America is incomprehensible concept to the public. What a foundation for the commercial food processors! They can proceed knowing that there is absolutely no possibility that any significant number of people will ever discover the crime.
If we assume that government agencies know nutritional science and fail to object and warn of our national diet of foodless foods, then could we not assume that starvation is public policy? An agenda can be established upon omission or commission with no difference in results.
All sickness and degenerative disease relate to malnutrition. This means that the public is being prescribed drugs for malnutrition and starvation.
Many researchers in the past and the present know this. But they have no voice in the media, and most of their work is never published. If it is published, it is destroyed or marginalized as quackery or worse.
Disease and sickness are conditions of our own inner environment, not something caused by attack from foreign entities. It is directly related to malnutrition.
The human economy is totally fooled in the consumption of nutrition. Foodless foods are by far the biggest percentage of the American diet. These mass-produced nonfoods take the biggest chunk of the American food budget. This trash is beautifully packaged and full of trans-fatty acids, fructose (formerly known as high fructose corn syrup), fillers and artificial flavors.
Probably 80 percent of grocery foods are synthetic chemicals that are not and cannot be fit for human consumption. The other 20 percent is located around the outer wall of the store, where one finds fresh vegetables, meats and dairy. Of course, serious students of nutrition would be hard-pressed to find even 2 percent in this section not adulterated or pasteurized.
These synthetic foods taste good to most people, which builds addictions. Additionally, they cause inflammation and an unhealthy pH balance in the body.
Millions of adults and children eat these nonfoods daily. It fills them up, and they all believe that they have eaten real food. They have really eaten products of chemistry that are totally unrelated to nutrition. This is nothing less than a system of starvation, sickness and death, but huge profits for the commercial food processors and the “healthcare” system.
Most Americans are looking for ways to avoid Obamacare. What better way is there to avoid the regulatory Obamacare regime than by not participating in it, and what better way to not participate is there than to reclaim your health?
Americans do not understand how governments and commerce deceive their own people. Mass starvation through malnutrition of millions of people for profits is the ultimate crime that dwarfs all the wars in history. This crime is against past, present and future generations. It is such a colossal and deceptive conspiracy that not one person in a million suspects it or would believe it if overwhelmed with the facts.
To find nutritional food in America requires knowledge, diligent effort and daily attention. Not many people will make the effort, but they will pay in sickness and disease.
Why not make a vow to yourself and family to improve your health and theirs in 2016? A good place to start is with fresh, whole, mostly raw organic foods. You should choose only wild meats or organic meat from free-range, non-GMO (genetically modified) livestock and poultry.
If you’re looking for dietary guidelines, there’s none better than the Nutritarian Diet created by Joel Fuhrman, M.D. But his diet, which is rated five stars by my friend and colleague Michael Cutler, M.D. in his book “When Fad Diets Fail: Safe, Natural Weight Loss That LASTS!” is really just a breakdown of the broad sensible dietary guidelines above.
Fuhrman’s guidelines are based on the nutrient density of foods. To improve your diet — and, therefore, your health — you should eat so that you have a diet of high-density nutritious foods and eliminate low-density foods and all processed foods and sugars. Ninety percent of your daily diet should be nutrient-rich plant foods.
To determine how much your diet needs to improve, study the nutrient-density scores below. The nutrient-density scores Fuhrman developed are based on identified phytochemicals, antioxidant activity, and total vitamin and mineral content. It is a ranking of foods based on their ratio of nutrients to calories...
Read the rest here:
http://personalliberty.com/youre-not-sick-youre-starving/
by Bob Livingston
A basic misunderstanding the American people have about food is that calories are the same as nutrition. All foods have calories, but only a very small amount of foods have nutrition.
Commercial food processors, which produce hundreds of thousands of tons of empty foods containing calories without nutrition, capitalize upon this ignorance. This has led to a national crisis that I call full belly starvation. This is to say that Americans have a full belly; but nutritionally, they are starving.
Diets that count calories without nutrition lead to chronic obesity, diabetes, much sickness, early degenerative disease and death. Few Americans know that consuming calories has little to do with consuming nutrition. Junk foods loaded with calories give the sensation of a full belly even when no nutrition is taken in. This is a sinister and silent syndrome of starvation that so-called health authorities never address and of which the public is unaware.
Body reserves are easily exhausted and chronic and regular sickness is the rule rather than the exception. Perplexed doctors don’t have a clue. Antibiotics, statins, proton pump inhibitors, steroids, blood thinners and anti-diabetic drugs are the only things in their bags of tricks.
The last thing an allopathic doctor considers is that his patients are not sick but that they are starving. They are not deficient of the latest new drug or chemical; they have chronic and ongoing malnutrition. No person has yet been born who was born deficient of the latest “miracle drug.” Yet the first thing the doctor does is to prescribe a drug or drugs rather than consider the patient’s eating habits.
The problem is that a full belly doesn’t know the difference between just calories and nutrition. Even though the results and outer manifestation of malnutrition is sickness, nobody equates the two — neither patients nor their doctors. This ignorance has caused a health crisis upon which commercial food processors and the medical establishment have raked in trillions of dollars.
When the American public thinks of starvation, they think of children with extended bellies and reed-thin limbs. Mass starvation in America is incomprehensible concept to the public. What a foundation for the commercial food processors! They can proceed knowing that there is absolutely no possibility that any significant number of people will ever discover the crime.
If we assume that government agencies know nutritional science and fail to object and warn of our national diet of foodless foods, then could we not assume that starvation is public policy? An agenda can be established upon omission or commission with no difference in results.
All sickness and degenerative disease relate to malnutrition. This means that the public is being prescribed drugs for malnutrition and starvation.
Many researchers in the past and the present know this. But they have no voice in the media, and most of their work is never published. If it is published, it is destroyed or marginalized as quackery or worse.
Disease and sickness are conditions of our own inner environment, not something caused by attack from foreign entities. It is directly related to malnutrition.
The human economy is totally fooled in the consumption of nutrition. Foodless foods are by far the biggest percentage of the American diet. These mass-produced nonfoods take the biggest chunk of the American food budget. This trash is beautifully packaged and full of trans-fatty acids, fructose (formerly known as high fructose corn syrup), fillers and artificial flavors.
Probably 80 percent of grocery foods are synthetic chemicals that are not and cannot be fit for human consumption. The other 20 percent is located around the outer wall of the store, where one finds fresh vegetables, meats and dairy. Of course, serious students of nutrition would be hard-pressed to find even 2 percent in this section not adulterated or pasteurized.
These synthetic foods taste good to most people, which builds addictions. Additionally, they cause inflammation and an unhealthy pH balance in the body.
Millions of adults and children eat these nonfoods daily. It fills them up, and they all believe that they have eaten real food. They have really eaten products of chemistry that are totally unrelated to nutrition. This is nothing less than a system of starvation, sickness and death, but huge profits for the commercial food processors and the “healthcare” system.
Most Americans are looking for ways to avoid Obamacare. What better way is there to avoid the regulatory Obamacare regime than by not participating in it, and what better way to not participate is there than to reclaim your health?
Americans do not understand how governments and commerce deceive their own people. Mass starvation through malnutrition of millions of people for profits is the ultimate crime that dwarfs all the wars in history. This crime is against past, present and future generations. It is such a colossal and deceptive conspiracy that not one person in a million suspects it or would believe it if overwhelmed with the facts.
To find nutritional food in America requires knowledge, diligent effort and daily attention. Not many people will make the effort, but they will pay in sickness and disease.
Why not make a vow to yourself and family to improve your health and theirs in 2016? A good place to start is with fresh, whole, mostly raw organic foods. You should choose only wild meats or organic meat from free-range, non-GMO (genetically modified) livestock and poultry.
If you’re looking for dietary guidelines, there’s none better than the Nutritarian Diet created by Joel Fuhrman, M.D. But his diet, which is rated five stars by my friend and colleague Michael Cutler, M.D. in his book “When Fad Diets Fail: Safe, Natural Weight Loss That LASTS!” is really just a breakdown of the broad sensible dietary guidelines above.
Fuhrman’s guidelines are based on the nutrient density of foods. To improve your diet — and, therefore, your health — you should eat so that you have a diet of high-density nutritious foods and eliminate low-density foods and all processed foods and sugars. Ninety percent of your daily diet should be nutrient-rich plant foods.
To determine how much your diet needs to improve, study the nutrient-density scores below. The nutrient-density scores Fuhrman developed are based on identified phytochemicals, antioxidant activity, and total vitamin and mineral content. It is a ranking of foods based on their ratio of nutrients to calories...
Read the rest here:
http://personalliberty.com/youre-not-sick-youre-starving/
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Forced vaccinations coming to Rhode Island...
Rhode Island mandates 7th graders get dangerous HPV vaccine - adverse reactions hidden from parents
by: Natural News Editor
It was announced this week that 7th graders in Rhode Island would be required to have the Gardasil HPV vaccine as a requirement for attending school. The Providence Journal[1] reports: (Story by Brian Shilhavy, republished from VaccineImpact.com.)
Starting this fall, seventh-graders in all public and private schools will be required to get a vaccine that protects against a sexually transmitted virus linked to various genital cancers, especially cervical cancer in women. Students who fail to get the vaccine for HPV — or the human papillomavirus — will be precluded from attending school unless their parents seek an exemption for medical or religious reasons.
The HPV vaccine has become very controversial, particularly outside of the United States, due to the large amount of injuries being attributed to the vaccine, and in some cases, also deaths.
Sadly, parents are generally not warned about the serious adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Locally, some parents are already agitating against the vaccine, saying it's an intrusion by the government into private matters and that the vaccine's side effects can be serious.
But Tricia Washburn, chief of the office of immunization for the Rhode Island Department of Health, said the vaccine has been thoroughly studied by the Centers for Disease Control, which monitors adverse outcomes, and no safety concerns were found. (Source.)[1]
The CDC has shown that they cannot be trusted for information on vaccine safety, due to a serious conflict of interest as they are the largest purchaser of vaccines in the world, buying billions of dollars worth of vaccines each year. (See: CDC's Purchase of $4 Billion of Vaccines a Conflict of Interest in Overseeing Vaccine Safety.[2])
Countries outside of the U.S. have stopped recommending the vaccine, and launched investigations regarding the widespread reports of crippling vaccine injuries due to the HPV vaccine, such as the recent European Medicines Agency probe that just started a few weeks ago. (See: European Medicines Agency Launches Probe into HPV Vaccine Injuries.[3])
Risk of Infertility from HPV Vaccine
One of the most serious side effects being reported by those harmed by the HPV Gardasil vaccine is premature menopause, or what the medical community labels as "Primary Ovarian Failure." This terrible side effect is well-documented in the medical literature. (See: Study: HPV Vaccine Linked to Premature Menopause in Young Girls.[4])
Most people are also probably unaware that the U.S. Government earns royalties from the sale of Merck's Gardasil vaccine. In November 2010, Dr. Eric Suba submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Office of Government Information Services to discover the amount of money the U.S government earns from Merck's sale of Gardasil. But apparently the government is immune from revealing those figures, as you can read for yourself the response Dr. Suba received here.[5]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052487_HPV_vaccine_adverse_reactions_Rhode_Island.html#ixzz3w7CGvDkr
by: Natural News Editor
It was announced this week that 7th graders in Rhode Island would be required to have the Gardasil HPV vaccine as a requirement for attending school. The Providence Journal[1] reports: (Story by Brian Shilhavy, republished from VaccineImpact.com.)
Starting this fall, seventh-graders in all public and private schools will be required to get a vaccine that protects against a sexually transmitted virus linked to various genital cancers, especially cervical cancer in women. Students who fail to get the vaccine for HPV — or the human papillomavirus — will be precluded from attending school unless their parents seek an exemption for medical or religious reasons.
The HPV vaccine has become very controversial, particularly outside of the United States, due to the large amount of injuries being attributed to the vaccine, and in some cases, also deaths.
Sadly, parents are generally not warned about the serious adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Locally, some parents are already agitating against the vaccine, saying it's an intrusion by the government into private matters and that the vaccine's side effects can be serious.
But Tricia Washburn, chief of the office of immunization for the Rhode Island Department of Health, said the vaccine has been thoroughly studied by the Centers for Disease Control, which monitors adverse outcomes, and no safety concerns were found. (Source.)[1]
The CDC has shown that they cannot be trusted for information on vaccine safety, due to a serious conflict of interest as they are the largest purchaser of vaccines in the world, buying billions of dollars worth of vaccines each year. (See: CDC's Purchase of $4 Billion of Vaccines a Conflict of Interest in Overseeing Vaccine Safety.[2])
Countries outside of the U.S. have stopped recommending the vaccine, and launched investigations regarding the widespread reports of crippling vaccine injuries due to the HPV vaccine, such as the recent European Medicines Agency probe that just started a few weeks ago. (See: European Medicines Agency Launches Probe into HPV Vaccine Injuries.[3])
Risk of Infertility from HPV Vaccine
One of the most serious side effects being reported by those harmed by the HPV Gardasil vaccine is premature menopause, or what the medical community labels as "Primary Ovarian Failure." This terrible side effect is well-documented in the medical literature. (See: Study: HPV Vaccine Linked to Premature Menopause in Young Girls.[4])
Most people are also probably unaware that the U.S. Government earns royalties from the sale of Merck's Gardasil vaccine. In November 2010, Dr. Eric Suba submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Office of Government Information Services to discover the amount of money the U.S government earns from Merck's sale of Gardasil. But apparently the government is immune from revealing those figures, as you can read for yourself the response Dr. Suba received here.[5]
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052487_HPV_vaccine_adverse_reactions_Rhode_Island.html#ixzz3w7CGvDkr
But it is still standing!!!
Authorities investigating cause of huge fire at Dubai hotel
Dubai authorities are investigating the cause of a huge fire that broke out at a hotel in the city's downtown district ahead of the emirate's New Year celebrations.
Only minor injuries were reported after the blaze at the 63-storey Address Downtown hotel, close to the world's tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.
Link:
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-01-02/authorities-investigating-cause-of-huge-fire-at-dubai-hotel/
Unlike this building...
Dubai authorities are investigating the cause of a huge fire that broke out at a hotel in the city's downtown district ahead of the emirate's New Year celebrations.
Only minor injuries were reported after the blaze at the 63-storey Address Downtown hotel, close to the world's tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.
Link:
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-01-02/authorities-investigating-cause-of-huge-fire-at-dubai-hotel/
Unlike this building...
Just like the current occupant...
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States; The meaning of "Natural Born."
Mike Rivero
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." -- Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, clause 5
Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President of the United States. He was born in Canada, or parents who were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz's mother claims to have been born in Delaware but as of last report, the State of Delaware vital records says, no record of Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz exists. Ted Cruz's mother does not have a US birth certificate.
Ted Cruz's supporters try to get around "Natural Born" by claiming it simply means any US citizen, an opinion even echoed at Wikipedia!
But if any US citizen could be President, then the qualifier "Natural Born" would not be needed (and is not present in the Constitutional citizenship requirements for Representatives and Senators). Clearly, to the Founding Fathers, "Natural Born" had a specific and obvious meaning, applied exclusively to the Presidency!
The Founding Fathers did not need to define what "Natural Born" meant inside the Constitution as it had been defined in existing legal theory in works such as "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758 and relied on heavily by the framers of the Constitution. "Natural Born" was already legally defined when the Constitution was written as "born inside the nation."
The inclusion of the "Natural Born" requirement for the Presidency was proposed at the Constitutional Convention by Chief Justice John Kay, who wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/NaturalBorn.php#ixzz3w79SC5rB
Mike Rivero
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." -- Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, clause 5
Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President of the United States. He was born in Canada, or parents who were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz's mother claims to have been born in Delaware but as of last report, the State of Delaware vital records says, no record of Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson Cruz exists. Ted Cruz's mother does not have a US birth certificate.
Ted Cruz's supporters try to get around "Natural Born" by claiming it simply means any US citizen, an opinion even echoed at Wikipedia!
But if any US citizen could be President, then the qualifier "Natural Born" would not be needed (and is not present in the Constitutional citizenship requirements for Representatives and Senators). Clearly, to the Founding Fathers, "Natural Born" had a specific and obvious meaning, applied exclusively to the Presidency!
The Founding Fathers did not need to define what "Natural Born" meant inside the Constitution as it had been defined in existing legal theory in works such as "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758 and relied on heavily by the framers of the Constitution. "Natural Born" was already legally defined when the Constitution was written as "born inside the nation."
The inclusion of the "Natural Born" requirement for the Presidency was proposed at the Constitutional Convention by Chief Justice John Kay, who wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/NaturalBorn.php#ixzz3w79SC5rB
Happy New Year???
What’s in Store for Our Freedoms in 2016? More of Everything We Don’t Want
By John W. Whitehead
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1
In Harold Ramis’ classic 1993 comedy Groundhog Day, TV weatherman Phil Connors (played by Bill Murray) is forced to live the same day over and over again until he not only gains some insight into his life but changes his priorities. Similarly, as I illustrate in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we in the emerging American police state find ourselves reliving the same set of circumstances over and over again—egregious surveillance, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc.—although with far fewer moments of comic hilarity.
What remains to be seen is whether 2016 will bring more of the same or whether “we the people” will wake up from our somnambulant states. Indeed, when it comes to civil liberties and freedom, 2015 was far from a banner year.
The following is just a sampling of what we can look forward to repeating if we don’t find some way to push back against the menace of an overreaching, aggressive, invasive, militarized surveillance state.
More surveillance. The surveillance state is alive and well and kicking privacy to shreds in America. Whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, will still be listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere. We are now in a state of transition with the police state shifting into high-gear under the auspices of the surveillance state. In such an environment, we are all suspects to be spied on, searched, scanned, frisked, monitored, tracked and treated as if we’re potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other. Even our homes provide little protection against government intrusions. Police agencies, already empowered to crash through your door if they suspect you’re up to no good, now have radars that allow them to “see” through the walls of your home.
More militarized police. Americans will continue to be rendered powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, government agents were not permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And citizens could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant. Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons would be nothing short of suicidal. Moreover, as police forces across the country continue to be transformed into extensions of the military, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield. Having already transformed local police into extensions of the military, now the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are preparing to turn the nation’s police officers into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone Stingray devices and so much more.
More police shootings of unarmed citizens. Owing in large part to the militarization of local law enforcement agencies, not a week goes by without more reports of hair-raising incidents by police imbued with a take-no-prisoners attitude and a battlefield approach to the communities in which they serve.
More so-called “terrorist” attacks. Despite the government’s endless propaganda about the threat of terrorism and even in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino and Paris, statistics show that you are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack. You are 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane. You are 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack. You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack. And you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.
More costly wars. The military industrial complex that has advocated that the U.S. remain at war, year after year, is the very entity that will continue to profit the most from America’s expanding military empire. The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest employer, with more than 3.2 million employees. Thus far, the U.S. taxpayer has been made to shell out more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you add in our military efforts in Pakistan, as well as the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt, that cost rises to $4.4 trillion.
More attempts by the government to identify, target and punish so-called domestic “extremists.” In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, the government’s anti-extremism program will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist. To this end, police will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist before they can become actual threats. This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming. Moreover, under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program and hire a domestic extremism czar.
More SWAT team raids. More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, kill citizens, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.
More erosions of private property. Private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.
More debt. Currently, the national debt is somewhere in the vicinity of a whopping $18.1 trillion and rising that our government owes to foreign countries, private corporations and its retirement programs. Not only is the U.S. the largest debtor nation in the world, but according to Forbes, “the amount of interest on the national debt is estimated to be accumulating at a rate of over one million dollars per minute.”
More government contractors. Despite all the talk about big and small government, what we have been saddled with is a government that is outsourcing much of its work to high-paid contractors at great expense to the taxpayer and with no competition, little transparency and dubious savings. According to the Washington Post, “By some estimates, there are twice as many people doing government work under contract than there are government workers.” These open-ended contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, “now account for anywhere between one quarter and one half of all federal service contracting.”
More overcriminalization. The government’s tendency towards militarization and overcriminalization, in which routine, everyday behaviors become targets of regulation and prohibition, have resulted in Americans getting arrested for making and selling unpasteurized goat cheese, cultivating certain types of orchids, feeding a whale, holding Bible studies in their homes, and picking their kids up from school.
More strip searches and the denigration of bodily integrity. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the citizenry from being subjected to “unreasonable searches and seizures” by government agents. While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity. Unfortunately, court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, forcibly take our DNA, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women alike—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops.
More injustice. Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The courts were established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet the courts increasingly march in lockstep with the police state, while concerned themselves primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal. As a result, Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.
More political spectacles. Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not). As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots). Politics in America is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion. In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same.
More drones. As corporations and government agencies alike prepare for their part in the coming drone invasion—it is expected that at least 30,000 drones will occupy U.S. airspace by 2020, ushering in a $30 billion per year industry—it won’t be long before American citizens who will be the target of these devices discover first-hand that drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—come in all shapes and sizes, from nano-sized drones as small as a grain of sand that can do everything from conducting surveillance to detonating explosive charges, to middle-sized copter drones that can deliver pizzas to massive “hunter/killer” Predator warships that unleash firepower from on high.
More dumbed down, locked down public schools. Our schools have become training grounds for compliant citizens. Despite the fact that we spend more than most of the world on education ($115,000 per student), we rank 36th in the world when it comes to math, reading and science, far below most of our Asian counterparts. Even so, we continue to insist on standardized programs such as Common Core, which teach students to be test-takers rather than thinkers. Making matters worse is the heavy police presence in schools, which have become little more than quasi-prisons in which classrooms are locked down and kids as young as age 4 are being handcuffed for “acting up,” subjected to body searches, and suspended for childish behavior.
More ignorance about our rights. Americans know little to nothing about their rights or how the government is supposed to operate. This includes educators and politicians. For example, 27 percent of elected officials cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, while 54 percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
More prisons. Our prisons, housing the largest number of inmates in the world and still growing, have become money-making enterprises for private corporations that manage the prisons in exchange for the states agreeing to maintain a 90% occupancy rate for at least 20 years. And how do you keep the prisons full? By passing laws aimed at increasing the prison population, including the imposition of life sentences on people who commit minor or nonviolent crimes such as siphoning gasoline. Little surprise, then, that the United States has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners.
More corruption. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.
More censorship. First Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.” Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms. As a result, we are no longer a nation of constitutional purists for whom the Bill of Rights serves as the ultimate authority. We have litigated and legislated our way into a new governmental framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
More fascism. As a Princeton University survey indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. We are no longer a representative republic. With Big Business and Big Government having fused into a corporate state, the president and his state counterparts—the governors, have become little more than CEOs of the Corporate State, which day by day is assuming more government control over our lives. Never before have average Americans had so little say in the workings of their government and even less access to their so-called representatives.
More fear. We’re being fed a constant diet of fear, which has resulted in Americans adopting an “us” against “them” mindset that keeps us divided into factions, unable to reach consensus about anything and too distracted to notice the police state closing in on us.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, put it best: “Take alarm,” he warned, “at the first experiment with liberties.” Anyone with even a casual knowledge about current events knows that the first experiment on our freedoms happened long ago. Worse, we have not heeded the warnings of Madison and those like him who understood that if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. Unfortunately, the government has not only taken a mile, they have taken mile after mile after mile after mile with seemingly no end in sight for their power grabs.
If you’re in the business of making New Year’s resolutions, why not resolve that 2016 will be the year we break the cycle of tyranny and get back on the road to freedom? No matter what the politicians say about the dire state of our nation, you can rest assured that none of the problems that continue to plague our lives and undermine our freedoms will be resolved by our so-called elected representatives in any credible, helpful way in the new year.
“We the people”—the citizenry, not the politicians—are the only ones who have ever been able to enact effective change, and there is a lot that needs to change.
All of the signs point to something nasty up ahead.
Link:
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/whats_in_store_for_our_freedoms_in_2016_more_of_everything_we_dont_want
By John W. Whitehead
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Vol. 1
In Harold Ramis’ classic 1993 comedy Groundhog Day, TV weatherman Phil Connors (played by Bill Murray) is forced to live the same day over and over again until he not only gains some insight into his life but changes his priorities. Similarly, as I illustrate in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we in the emerging American police state find ourselves reliving the same set of circumstances over and over again—egregious surveillance, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc.—although with far fewer moments of comic hilarity.
What remains to be seen is whether 2016 will bring more of the same or whether “we the people” will wake up from our somnambulant states. Indeed, when it comes to civil liberties and freedom, 2015 was far from a banner year.
The following is just a sampling of what we can look forward to repeating if we don’t find some way to push back against the menace of an overreaching, aggressive, invasive, militarized surveillance state.
More surveillance. The surveillance state is alive and well and kicking privacy to shreds in America. Whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, will still be listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere. We are now in a state of transition with the police state shifting into high-gear under the auspices of the surveillance state. In such an environment, we are all suspects to be spied on, searched, scanned, frisked, monitored, tracked and treated as if we’re potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other. Even our homes provide little protection against government intrusions. Police agencies, already empowered to crash through your door if they suspect you’re up to no good, now have radars that allow them to “see” through the walls of your home.
More militarized police. Americans will continue to be rendered powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, government agents were not permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And citizens could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant. Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons would be nothing short of suicidal. Moreover, as police forces across the country continue to be transformed into extensions of the military, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield. Having already transformed local police into extensions of the military, now the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are preparing to turn the nation’s police officers into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone Stingray devices and so much more.
More police shootings of unarmed citizens. Owing in large part to the militarization of local law enforcement agencies, not a week goes by without more reports of hair-raising incidents by police imbued with a take-no-prisoners attitude and a battlefield approach to the communities in which they serve.
More so-called “terrorist” attacks. Despite the government’s endless propaganda about the threat of terrorism and even in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino and Paris, statistics show that you are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack. You are 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane. You are 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack. You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack. And you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.
More costly wars. The military industrial complex that has advocated that the U.S. remain at war, year after year, is the very entity that will continue to profit the most from America’s expanding military empire. The U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest employer, with more than 3.2 million employees. Thus far, the U.S. taxpayer has been made to shell out more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you add in our military efforts in Pakistan, as well as the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt, that cost rises to $4.4 trillion.
More attempts by the government to identify, target and punish so-called domestic “extremists.” In much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, the government’s anti-extremism program will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist. To this end, police will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist before they can become actual threats. This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming. Moreover, under the guise of fighting violent extremism “in all of its forms and manifestations” in cities and communities across the world, the Obama administration has agreed to partner with the United Nations to take part in its Strong Cities Network program and hire a domestic extremism czar.
More SWAT team raids. More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, kill citizens, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.
More erosions of private property. Private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.
More debt. Currently, the national debt is somewhere in the vicinity of a whopping $18.1 trillion and rising that our government owes to foreign countries, private corporations and its retirement programs. Not only is the U.S. the largest debtor nation in the world, but according to Forbes, “the amount of interest on the national debt is estimated to be accumulating at a rate of over one million dollars per minute.”
More government contractors. Despite all the talk about big and small government, what we have been saddled with is a government that is outsourcing much of its work to high-paid contractors at great expense to the taxpayer and with no competition, little transparency and dubious savings. According to the Washington Post, “By some estimates, there are twice as many people doing government work under contract than there are government workers.” These open-ended contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, “now account for anywhere between one quarter and one half of all federal service contracting.”
More overcriminalization. The government’s tendency towards militarization and overcriminalization, in which routine, everyday behaviors become targets of regulation and prohibition, have resulted in Americans getting arrested for making and selling unpasteurized goat cheese, cultivating certain types of orchids, feeding a whale, holding Bible studies in their homes, and picking their kids up from school.
More strip searches and the denigration of bodily integrity. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect the citizenry from being subjected to “unreasonable searches and seizures” by government agents. While the literal purpose of the amendment is to protect our property and our bodies from unwarranted government intrusion, the moral intention behind it is to protect our human dignity. Unfortunately, court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, forcibly take our DNA, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women alike—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops.
More injustice. Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The courts were established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet the courts increasingly march in lockstep with the police state, while concerned themselves primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal. As a result, Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.
More political spectacles. Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not). As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots). Politics in America is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion. In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same.
More drones. As corporations and government agencies alike prepare for their part in the coming drone invasion—it is expected that at least 30,000 drones will occupy U.S. airspace by 2020, ushering in a $30 billion per year industry—it won’t be long before American citizens who will be the target of these devices discover first-hand that drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—come in all shapes and sizes, from nano-sized drones as small as a grain of sand that can do everything from conducting surveillance to detonating explosive charges, to middle-sized copter drones that can deliver pizzas to massive “hunter/killer” Predator warships that unleash firepower from on high.
More dumbed down, locked down public schools. Our schools have become training grounds for compliant citizens. Despite the fact that we spend more than most of the world on education ($115,000 per student), we rank 36th in the world when it comes to math, reading and science, far below most of our Asian counterparts. Even so, we continue to insist on standardized programs such as Common Core, which teach students to be test-takers rather than thinkers. Making matters worse is the heavy police presence in schools, which have become little more than quasi-prisons in which classrooms are locked down and kids as young as age 4 are being handcuffed for “acting up,” subjected to body searches, and suspended for childish behavior.
More ignorance about our rights. Americans know little to nothing about their rights or how the government is supposed to operate. This includes educators and politicians. For example, 27 percent of elected officials cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, while 54 percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.
More prisons. Our prisons, housing the largest number of inmates in the world and still growing, have become money-making enterprises for private corporations that manage the prisons in exchange for the states agreeing to maintain a 90% occupancy rate for at least 20 years. And how do you keep the prisons full? By passing laws aimed at increasing the prison population, including the imposition of life sentences on people who commit minor or nonviolent crimes such as siphoning gasoline. Little surprise, then, that the United States has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners.
More corruption. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.
More censorship. First Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.” Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms. As a result, we are no longer a nation of constitutional purists for whom the Bill of Rights serves as the ultimate authority. We have litigated and legislated our way into a new governmental framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
More fascism. As a Princeton University survey indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. We are no longer a representative republic. With Big Business and Big Government having fused into a corporate state, the president and his state counterparts—the governors, have become little more than CEOs of the Corporate State, which day by day is assuming more government control over our lives. Never before have average Americans had so little say in the workings of their government and even less access to their so-called representatives.
More fear. We’re being fed a constant diet of fear, which has resulted in Americans adopting an “us” against “them” mindset that keeps us divided into factions, unable to reach consensus about anything and too distracted to notice the police state closing in on us.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, put it best: “Take alarm,” he warned, “at the first experiment with liberties.” Anyone with even a casual knowledge about current events knows that the first experiment on our freedoms happened long ago. Worse, we have not heeded the warnings of Madison and those like him who understood that if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. Unfortunately, the government has not only taken a mile, they have taken mile after mile after mile after mile with seemingly no end in sight for their power grabs.
If you’re in the business of making New Year’s resolutions, why not resolve that 2016 will be the year we break the cycle of tyranny and get back on the road to freedom? No matter what the politicians say about the dire state of our nation, you can rest assured that none of the problems that continue to plague our lives and undermine our freedoms will be resolved by our so-called elected representatives in any credible, helpful way in the new year.
“We the people”—the citizenry, not the politicians—are the only ones who have ever been able to enact effective change, and there is a lot that needs to change.
All of the signs point to something nasty up ahead.
Link:
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/whats_in_store_for_our_freedoms_in_2016_more_of_everything_we_dont_want
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)