Charlie Echo

May 21, 2012 Cover of Newsweek Magazine Bath House Barry Sex Scandal—The mainstream media are frantically covering up major leaks from Chicago about Barack Obama’s homosexuality. It turns out that his views on homosexuality didn’t exactly “evolve over time”. WorldNetDaily’s intrepid Jerome Corsi has revealed that the Reverend Wright had a “program” at Obama’s Trinity Church to help homosexual blacks live double lives on the “Down Low” by getting them married to women that nobody else wanted. Sound familiar? This provided them cover to go about their public lives while privately indulging their sexual preference -- on the “down low”. A recent WND article said the following, Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “***” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims. “It is common knowledge in the Chicago *** community that Obama actively visited the *** bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND. In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to .... Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation. How’s that for an October Surprise? Better put some ice on that, Barry. But the real October Surprise may be when the Democrats suddenly realize that Americans have had a belly full of Barack Hussein Obama -- and the Democratic Party -- and want nothing further to do with either of them. Imagine their surprise. http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2277534&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin MOSCOW, August 27 (RIA Novosti) – A firebrand Russian nationalist-turned-senior official said Tuesday that the West was acting in the Islamic world like a “monkey with a hand grenade.” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s former envoy to NATO, did not elaborate on his comparison, made on his Russian-language Twitter page. But Rogozin, who used to head a popular nationalist political party and now oversees Russia’s military industrial complex, has previously lambasted on Twitter the alleged plans of “Anglo-Saxons” to attack Syrian government forces. The United States may launch missile strikes against the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad as early as Thursday, NBC reported Tuesday. Official Washington, as well as Britain, France and Turkey, is considering an attack on Assad’s forces over allegations – which Russia calls unproven – that the Syrian government, locked in a fight against a domestic insurgency since 2011, used chemical weapons against civilians in rebel-controlled areas. http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130827/182995837/Russian-Deputy-Premier-Calls-West-Monkey-With-Hand-Grenade.html My question to this is... Who is he talking about and wait til the Lame stream media get their eyes on this... ha!! They will say "It's just not politically correct"....

Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike The UN team spoke to witnesses and survivors in Muadhamiya Syria conflictHow Western forces might strike Where neighbours stand on 'strike' 'Chemical attack' tipping point? What casualties footage tells us Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region. The US and its allies are considering launching strikes on Syria in response to deadly attacks last week. The US said there was "undeniable" proof of a chemical attack, on Monday. UN chemical weapons inspectors are due to start a second day of investigations in the suburbs of Damascus. The UN team came under sniper fire as they tried to visit an area west of the city on Monday. A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron says the UK is making contingency plans for military action in Syria. Mr Cameron has cut short his holiday and returned to London to deal with the Syrian crisis. Mark Mardell North America editor How Syria conflict affects neighbours Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law. "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement. Late on Monday, the US said it was postponing a meeting on Syria with Russian diplomats, citing "ongoing consultations" about alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. Hours later, Russia expressed regret about the decision. The two sides had been due to meet in The Hague on Wednesday to discuss setting up an international conference on finding a political solution to the crisis. The Russian deputy defence minister, Gennady Gatilov said working out the political parameters for a resolution on Syria would be especially useful, with the threat of force hanging over the country. UN chemical weapons inspectors spent nearly three hours in the suburb of Muadhamiya in western Damascus on Monday. The inspectors visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors over last week's suspected chemical attack near the Syrian capital. Amateur video was posted online apparently showing a UN inspector measuring and photographing a canister. On Monday, Mr Cameron spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin who said there was no evidence yet that Syria had used chemical weapons against rebels, Mr Cameron's office said. The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who may have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation. UN visit Both the Syrian government and rebels have blamed each other for last Wednesday's attacks. Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said three hospitals it supported in the Damascus area had treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 had died. Models for possible intervention Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures" Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi US officials said there was "little doubt" that President Bashar al-Assad's government was to blame. UN inspectors spent nearly three hours in the western district of Muadhamiya on Monday where they visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors. A UN spokesman said they had collected some samples. Earlier in the day, the UN convoy came under fire from unidentified snipers and was forced to turn back before resuming its journey. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the shooting and asked the UN team in Syria to register a complaint. 'Accountability' In the most forceful US reaction yet, US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday described the recent attacks in the Damascus area as a "moral obscenity". He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites was a sign the Syrian government had something to hide. He said Washington had additional information about the attacks that it would make public in the days ahead. "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday. "Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people." John Kerry: "There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons" Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and military leaders from the US, UK and their allies have convened a meeting in Jordan. Analysts believe the most likely US action would be sea-launched cruise missiles targeting Syrian military installations. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday the West had not produced any proof that President Assad's forces had used chemical weapons. He was responding to suggestions from some Western countries that military action against the Syrian government could be taken without a UN mandate. Mr Lavrov said the use of force without Security Council backing would be "a crude violation of international law". Earlier, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC an international military response to the suspected use of chemical weapons would be possible without the backing of the UN. The UN Security Council is divided, with Russia and China opposing military intervention and the UK and France warning that the UN could be bypassed if there was "great humanitarian need". In a column in The Times newspaper, former UK PM Tony Blair has written that if the West does not intervene to support freedom and democracy in Egypt and Syria, the Middle East will face catastrophe The UN says more than 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Assad began more than two years ago. The conflict has produced more than 1.7 million registered refugees. More on This Story Syria conflict Features and analysis How Western forces might strikeA range of options are available to Western allies planning a possible military strike on Syria, writes the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus Where neighbours stand on 'strike' 'Chemical attack' tipping point? What casualties footage tells us 'Chemical attack' in pictures Syria's chemical arsenal Alleged chemical attacks Tent city of Zaatari City where snipers shoot children Who is arming whom? Guide to conflict Mapping the conflict Bloodiest days

Russia warns of 'catastrophic consequences' if Syria hit Russia on Tuesday warned a military intervention in Syria could have "catastrophic consequences" for the region and called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis. "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," a foreign ministry spokesman said. "We are calling on our American partners and all members of the world community to demonstrate prudence (and) strict observance of international law, especially the fundamental principles of the UN Charter," ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement. Earlier deputy foreign minister Gennady Gatilov said that Moscow regretted Monday's decision by the US to postpone a meeting on the Syria crisis, as Western powers mulled military action over last week's chemical attack in Syria. The scrapping of the meeting, which was due to take place at The Hague later in the week, is the latest sign of a new peak in tensions between Moscow and the West over the possibility of military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's regime. "It arouses regret that our partners decided to cancel the bilateral meeting" involving senior diplomats from both sides, Gatilov said on Twitter. "Working out the parameters of a political solution in Syria would have been especially helpful right now, when military action is hanging over this country," Gatilov said. In such a climate, it was especially important to work in concert to try to organise the repeatedly postponed peace conference bringing together the Damascus regime and the rebels, Lukashevich said. "However, the United States' decision to postpone the meeting in The Hague is sending precisely the opposite signal to the opposition, encouraging their intransigence as they await outside intervention," he said. Lukashevich said convening the peace conference was now a "most urgent task." Western countries including the United States are considering their response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by Assad's regime on August 21. Russia has said it believes rebels were behind the incident and has warned any military action without UN approval would violate international law. On Monday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned the "hysteria" over the claimed chemical attack and said the West had yet to come up with proof that Assad's regime was behind it. He also said Russia would not get involved in a military conflict in Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin told British Prime Minister David Cameron in a telephone call on Monday there was no evidence yet that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against rebels, Cameron's office said. Pro-Kremlin Russian newspaper Izvestia on Monday published an interview with Assad who ridiculed as "nonsense" the idea his regime used chemical weapons and warned the United States of failure if it attacked Syria. Russian officials are now comparing the possible use of force against Syria to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, which was vehemently opposed by Moscow as based on flawed intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Deja-vu," Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee wrote on Twitter. "It feels like in the White House it's still (George W.) Bush, (****) Cheney and (Donald) Rumsfeld and in Downing Street Tony Blair," he said, referring to the former US president, vice president, defence secretary and British premier during the Iraq war. "The faces change. But not the politics," he added. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Europe/Russia-warns-of-catastrophic-consequences-if-Syria-hit/Article1-1113650.aspx

While the media panicked over the halting of NASDAQ stock trading due to a reported bug in the system (more on that shortly), one critical development went under-reported. In fact, it wasn’t reported at all. If the following from France’s second largest newspaper Le Figaro is accurate, then we must assume that war is now a foregone conclusion. According to our information, the regime’s opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos moving towards Damascus since mid-August. This attack could explain the possible use of the Syrian president to chemical weapons. According to information obtained by Le Figaro , the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17. A second would have joined the 19. According to military sources, the Americans, who do not want to put troops on the Syrian soil or arming rebels in part controlled by radical Islamists form quietly for several months in a training camp set up at the border Jordanian- Syrian fighters ASL, the Free Syrian Army, handpicked. Translation via Zero Hedge What’s equally as intriguing as boots on the ground inside of the Syrian border is the fact that these troops and intelligence officers reportedly made their way into the country on August 17th, fully four days before reports and images surfaced showing hundreds of men, women and children killed by a chemical weapons attack allegedly at the hands of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The purported attack, which some experts argue was a set-up, left even the pacifist government of France calling for military intervention. Furthermore, should UN investigators, who conveniently happen to be in-country investigating possible chemical weapons stockpiles, confirm that the attack did take place, then we can expect armed military confrontation in the middle east once again. Of interest is also the fact the NASDAQ stock market exchange was halted today due to what NASDAQ officials call a technical glitch. Within hours of the ‘glitch’ cyber security experts suggested that this was no accident, but rather, a hack attack originating from the “hacking collective” known as the Cyber Fighters of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, an Iranian backed organization. Earlier this week President Obama met with the heads of the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FDIC and several other agencies responsible for monitoring and implementing U.S. financial, economic and monetary policy, indicating that there could be a serious crisis unfolding behind the scenes of our financial system. This comes on the heels of the Federal Reserve claiming that they would begin to “taper” the stimulus, a move that would likely send massive shock waves through domestic and global stock markets. This is all speculation, of course, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that the US financial system is potentially on the brink of a massive re-collapse, while the Obama administration is actively engaging Syria in what we can only conclude will lead to a broader conflict in the middle east. Throughout history governments have deflected blame for economic disasters by turning their efforts to a far off enemy and going to war. It’s certainly no accident and it’s a forecast that contrarian observers have made repeatedly as the global economic crisis deepened. Is this what we’re seeing play out right now? If so, then the implications are far reaching, because anyone who thinks this is going to be another Iraq are kidding themselves. This time, the Russians and the Chinese have a stake in the game, and they too have been positioning pieces on the Grand Chessboard. Not only have the Russians already advised western nations that the Syrians will be armed with weapons never before seen in the middle east, but they have warned that any military confrontation in the region could potentially go nuclear. The question then becomes: who were the Russians talking about? Syria doesn’t have nuclear weapons. Neither does Iran (at least not for a few more months if Israeli intelligence reports are to be believed). But the United States, Israel, Russia and China do have nukes. Thus, one can only conclude that the Russians were talking about a nuclear engagement between them… and us. It’s a realistic possibility also put forth by survival specialist Joel Skousen in his documentary Strategic Relocation and a warning reiterated by a DHS Insider who claimed in June of 2013 that a World War was about to break out and would lead to the deaths of millions. This is getting real folks. All signs point to a serious confrontation in our near future. http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/report-war-looms-hundreds-of-american-troops-and-cia-operatives-have-entered-syria_08232013

This is for the low information people out there that think O B Wan is so great... This is how he treats our use to be allies!!

By Greg Palast When a little birdie dropped the End Game memo through my window, its content was so explosive, so sick and plain evil, I just couldn't believe it. The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak’s fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3 percent unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears. The Treasury official playing the bankers’ secret End Game was Larry Summers. Today, Summers is Barack Obama’s leading choice for Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, the world’s central bank. If the confidential memo is authentic, then Summers shouldn’t be serving on the Fed, he should be serving hard time in some dungeon reserved for the criminally insane of the finance world. The memo is authentic. I had to fly to Geneva to get confirmation and wangle a meeting with the Secretary General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy. Lamy, the Generalissimo of Globalisation, told me, “The WTO was not created as some dark cabal of multinationals secretly cooking plots against the people... We don’t have cigar-smoking, rich, crazy bankers negotiating.” Then I showed him the memo. It begins with Larry Summers’ flunky, Timothy Geithner, reminding his boss to call the Bank bigshots to order their lobbyist armies to march: “As we enter the end-game of the WTO financial services negotiations, I believe it would be a good idea for you to touch base with the CEOs…” To avoid Summers having to call his office to get the phone numbers (which, under US law, would have to appear on public logs), Geithner listed the private lines of what were then the five most powerful CEOs on the planet. And here they are: Goldman Sachs: John Corzine (212)902-8281 Merrill Lynch: David Kamanski (212)449-6868 Bank of America: David Coulter (415)622-2255 Citibank: John Reed (212)559-2732 Chase Manhattan: Walter Shipley (212)270-1380 Lamy was right: They don’t smoke cigars. Go ahead and dial them. I did, and sure enough, got a cheery personal hello from Reed – cheery until I revealed I wasn't Larry Summers. (Note: The other numbers were swiftly disconnected. And Corzine can’t be reached while he faces criminal charges.) It's not the little cabal of confabs held by Summers and the banksters that’s so troubling. The horror is in the purpose of the "end game” itself. Let me explain: The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels. Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: “derivatives trading”. JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as “assets”. Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives. But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws? The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet -- in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous. How could they pull off this mad caper? The bankers' and Summers' game was to use the Financial Services Agreement (or FSA), an abstruse and benign addendum to the international trade agreements policed by the World Trade Organisation. Until the bankers began their play, the WTO agreements dealt simply with trade in goods – that is, my cars for your bananas. The new rules devised by Summers and the banks would force all nations to accept trade in "bads" – toxic assets like financial derivatives. Until the bankers’ re-draft of the FSA, each nation controlled and chartered the banks within their own borders. The new rules of the game would force every nation to open their markets to Citibank, JP Morgan and their derivatives “products”. And all 156 nations in the WTO would have to smash down their own Glass-Steagall divisions between commercial savings banks and the investment banks that gamble with derivatives. The job of turning the FSA into the bankers’ battering ram was given to Geithner, who was named Ambassador to the World Trade Organisation. Bankers Go Bananas Why in the world would any nation agree to let its banking system be boarded and seized by financial pirates like JP Morgan? The answer, in the case of Ecuador, was bananas. Ecuador was truly a banana republic. The yellow fruit was that nation’s life-and-death source of hard currency. If it refused to sign the new FSA, Ecuador could feed its bananas to the monkeys and go back into bankruptcy. Ecuador signed. And so on – with every single nation bullied into signing. Every nation but one, I should say. Brazil’s new President, Inacio Lula da Silva, refused. In retaliation, Brazil was threatened with a virtual embargo of its products by the European Union's Trade Commissioner, one Peter Mandelson, according to another confidential memo I got my hands on. But Lula’s refusenik stance paid off for Brazil which, alone among Western nations, survived and thrived during the 2007-9 bank crisis. China signed – but got its pound of flesh in return. It opened its banking sector a crack in return for access and control of the US auto parts and other markets. (Swiftly, two million US jobs shifted to China.) The new FSA pulled the lid off the Pandora’s box of worldwide derivatives trade. Among the notorious transactions legalised: Goldman Sachs (where Treasury Secretary Rubin had been co-chairman) worked a secret euro-derivatives swap with Greece which, ultimately, destroyed that nation. Ecuador, its own banking sector de-regulated and demolished, exploded into riots. Argentina had to sell off its oil companies (to the Spanish) and water systems (to Enron) while its teachers hunted for food in garbage cans. Then, Bankers Gone Wild in the Eurozone dove head-first into derivatives pools without knowing how to swim – and the continent is now being sold off in tiny, cheap pieces to Germany. Of course, it was not just threats that sold the FSA, but temptation as well. After all, every evil starts with one bite of an apple offered by a snake. The apple: the gleaming piles of lucre hidden in the FSA for local elites. The snake was named Larry. Does all this evil and pain flow from a single memo? Of course not: the evil was The Game itself, as played by the banker clique. The memo only revealed their game-plan for zzzzzzzzz. And the memo reveals a lot about Summers and Obama. While billions of sorry souls are still hurting from worldwide banker-made disaster, Rubin and Summers didn’t do too badly. Rubin’s deregulation of banks had permitted the creation of a financial monstrosity called “Citigroup”. Within weeks of leaving office, Rubin was named director, then Chairman of Citigroup – which went bankrupt while managing to pay Rubin a total of $126 million. Then Rubin took on another post: as key campaign benefactor to a young State Senator, Barack Obama. Only days after his election as President, Obama, at Rubin’s insistence, gave Summers the odd post of US “Economics Tsar” and made Geithner his Tsarina (that is, Secretary of Treasury). In 2010, Summers gave up his royalist robes to return to “consulting” for Citibank and other creatures of bank deregulation whose payments have raised Summers’ net worth by $31 million since the “end-game” memo. That Obama would, at Robert Rubin’s demand, now choose Summers to run the Federal Reserve Board means that, unfortunately, we are far from the end of the game. Special thanks to expert Mary Bottari of Bankster USA www.BanksterUSA.org without whom our investigation could not have begun. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo

What is privacy? Why should we want to hold onto it? Why is it important, necessary, precious? Is it just some prissy relic of the pretechnological past? We talk about this now because of Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency revelations, and new fears that we are operating, all of us, within what has become or is becoming a massive surveillance state. They log your calls here, they can listen in, they can read your emails. They keep the data in mammoth machines that contain a huge collection of information about you and yours. This of course is in pursuit of a laudable goal, security in the age of terror. Is it excessive? It certainly appears to be. Does that matter? Yes. Among other reasons: The end of the expectation that citizens' communications are and will remain private will probably change us as a people, and a country. Among the pertinent definitions of privacy from the Oxford English Dictionary: "freedom from disturbance or intrusion," "intended only for the use of a particular person or persons," belonging to "the property of a particular person." Also: "confidential, not to be disclosed to others." Among others, the OED quotes the playwright Arthur Miller, describing the McCarthy era: "Conscience was no longer a private matter but one of state administration." Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things—the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind—and the boundary between those things and the world outside. Enlarge Image Close Martin Kozlowski A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. That is the view of Nat Hentoff, the great journalist and civil libertarian. He is 88 now and on fire on the issue of privacy. "The media has awakened," he told me. "Congress has awakened, to some extent." Both are beginning to realize "that there are particular constitutional liberty rights that [Americans] have that distinguish them from all other people, and one of them is privacy." Mr. Hentoff sees excessive government surveillance as violative of the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires that warrants be issued only "upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." But Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too. About a year ago he went up to Harvard to speak to a class. He asked, he recalled: "How many of you realize the connection between what's happening with the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment?" He told the students that if citizens don't have basic privacies—firm protections against the search and seizure of your private communications, for instance—they will be left feeling "threatened." This will make citizens increasingly concerned "about what they say, and they do, and they think." It will have the effect of constricting freedom of expression. Americans will become careful about what they say that can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and then too careful about what they say that can be understood. The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship. All of a sudden, the room became quiet. "These were bright kids, interested, concerned, but they hadn't made an obvious connection about who we are as a people." We are "free citizens in a self-governing republic." Mr. Hentoff once asked Justice William Brennan "a schoolboy's question": What is the most important amendment to the Constitution? "Brennan said the First Amendment, because all the other ones come from that. If you don't have free speech you have to be afraid, you lack a vital part of what it is to be a human being who is free to be who you want to be." Your own growth as a person will in time be constricted, because we come to know ourselves by our thoughts. He wonders if Americans know who they are compared to what the Constitution says they are. Mr. Hentoff's second point: An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. Broad and intrusive surveillance will, definitively, put government in charge. But a republic only works, Mr. Hentoff notes, if public officials know that they—and the government itself—answer to the citizens. It doesn't work, and is distorted, if the citizens must answer to the government. And that will happen more and more if the government knows—and you know—that the government has something, or some things, on you. "The bad thing is you no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic," Mr. Hentoff said. "The people we elect are not your bosses, they are responsible to us." They must answer to us. But if they increasingly control our privacy, "suddenly they're in charge if they know what you're thinking." This is a shift in the democratic dynamic. "If we don't have free speech then what can we do if the people who govern us have no respect for us, may indeed make life difficult for us, and in fact belittle us?" If massive surveillance continues and grows, could it change the national character? "Yes, because it will change free speech." What of those who say, "I have nothing to fear, I don't do anything wrong"? Mr. Hentoff suggests that's a false sense of security. "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?" Or can be made to come out through misunderstanding the data, or finagling, or mischief of one sort or another. "People say, 'Well I've done nothing wrong so why should I worry?' But that's too easy a way to get out of what is in our history—constant attempts to try to change who we are as Americans." Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people. What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. "There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution." Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological expertise will only become deeper and broader. "They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of databases, then privacy will get even weaker." Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do." A version of this article appeared August 16, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323639704579015101857760922.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

By Michael Snyder There is one vitally important number that everyone needs to be watching right now, and it doesn't have anything to do with unemployment, inflation or housing. If this number gets too high, it will collapse the entire U.S. financial system. The number that I am talking about is the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries. When that number goes up, long-term interest rates all across the financial system start increasing. When long-term interest rates rise, it becomes more expensive for the federal government to borrow money, it becomes more expensive for state and local governments to borrow money, existing bonds lose value and bond investors lose a lot of money, mortgage rates go up and monthly payments on new mortgages rise, and interest rates throughout the entire economy go up and this causes economic activity to slow down. On top of everything else, there are more than 440 trillion dollars worth of interest rate derivatives sitting out there, and rapidly rising interest rates could cause that gigantic time bomb to go off and implode our entire financial system. We are living in the midst of the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world, and the only way that the game can continue is for interest rates to stay super low. Unfortunately, the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries has started to rise, and many experts are projecting that it is going to continue to rise. On August 2nd of last year, the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries was just 1.48%, and our entire debt-based economy was basking in the glow of ultra-low interest rates. But now things are rapidly changing. On Wednesday, the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries hit 2.70% before falling back to 2.58% on "good news" from the Federal Reserve. Historically speaking, rates are still super low, but what is alarming is that it looks like we hit a "bottom" last year and that interest rates are only going to go up from here. In fact, according to CNBC many experts believe that we will soon be pushing up toward the 3 percent mark... Round numbers like 1,700 on the S&P 500 are well and good, but savvy traders have their minds on another integer: 2.75 percent That was the high for the 10-year yield this year, and traders say yields are bound to go back to that level. The one overhanging question is how stocks will react when they see that number. "If we start to push up to new highs on the 10-year yield so that's the 2.75 level—I think you'd probably see a bit of anxiety creep back into the marketplace," Bank of America Merrill Lynch's head of global technical strategy, MacNeil Curry, told "Futures Now" on Tuesday. And Curry sees yields getting back to that level in the short term, and then some. "In the next couple of weeks to two months or so I think we've got a push coming up to the 2.85, 2.95 zone," he said. This rise in interest rates has been expected for a very long time - it is just that nobody knew exactly when it would happen. Now that it has begun, nobody is quite sure how high interest rates will eventually go. For some very interesting technical analysis, I encourage everyone to check out an article by Peter Brandt that you can find right here. And all of this is very bad news for stocks. The chart below was created by Chartist Friend from Pittsburgh, and it shows that stock prices have generally risen as the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries has steadily declined over the past 30 years... When interest rates go down, that spurs economic activity, and that is good for stock prices. So when interest rates start going up rapidly, that is not a good thing for the stock market at all. The Federal Reserve has tried to keep long-term interest rates down by wildly printing money and buying bonds, and even the suggestion that the Fed may eventually "taper" quantitative easing caused the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries to absolutely soar a few weeks ago. So the Fed has backed off on the "taper" talk for now, but what happens if the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries continues to rise even with the wild money printing that the Fed has been doing? At that point, the Fed would begin to totally lose control over the situation. And if that happens, Bill Fleckenstein told King World News the other day that he believes that we could see the stock market suddenly plunge by 25 percent... Let’s say Ben (Bernanke) comes out tomorrow and says, ‘We are not going to taper.’ But let’s just say the bond market trades down anyway, and the next thing you know we go through the recent highs and a month from now the 10-Year is at 3%. And people start to realize they are not even tapering and the bond market is backed up.... They will say, ‘Why is this happening?’ Then they may realize the bond market is discounting the inflation we already have. At some point the bond markets are going to say, ‘We are not comfortable with these policies.’ Obviously you can’t print money forever or no emerging country would ever have gone broke. So the bond market starts to back up and the economy gets worse than it is now because rates are rising. So the Fed says, ‘We can’t have this,’ and they decide to print more (money) and the bond market backs up (even more). All of the sudden it becomes clear that money printing not only isn’t the solution, but it’s the problem. Well, with rates going from where they are to 3%+ on the 10-Year, one of these days the S&P futures are going to get destroyed. And if the computers ever get loose on the downside the market could break 25% in three days. And as I have written about previously, we have seen a huge spike in margin debt in recent months, and this could make it even easier for a stock market collapse to happen. A recent note from Deutsche Bank explained precisely why margin debt is so dangerous... Margin debt can be described as a tool used by stock speculators to borrow money from brokerages to buy more stock than they could otherwise afford on their own. These loans are collateralized by stock holdings, so when the market goes south, investors are either required to inject more cash/assets or become forced to sell immediately to pay off their loans – sometimes leading to mass pullouts or crashes. But of much greater concern than a stock market crash is the 441 trillion dollar interest rate derivatives bubble that could implode if interest rates continue to rise rapidly. Deutsche Bank is the largest bank in Europe, and at this point they have 55.6 trillion euros of total exposure to derivatives. But the GDP of the entire nation of Germany is only about 2.7 trillion euros for a whole year. We are facing a similar situation in the United States. Our GDP for 2013 will be somewhere between 15 and 16 trillion dollars, but many of our big banks have exposure to derivatives that absolutely dwarfs our GDP. The following numbers come from one of my previous articles entitled "The Coming Derivatives Panic That Will Destroy Global Financial Markets"... JPMorgan Chase Total Assets: $1,812,837,000,000 (just over 1.8 trillion dollars) Total Exposure To Derivatives: $69,238,349,000,000 (more than 69 trillion dollars) Citibank Total Assets: $1,347,841,000,000 (a bit more than 1.3 trillion dollars) Total Exposure To Derivatives: $52,150,970,000,000 (more than 52 trillion dollars) Bank Of America Total Assets: $1,445,093,000,000 (a bit more than 1.4 trillion dollars) Total Exposure To Derivatives: $44,405,372,000,000 (more than 44 trillion dollars) Goldman Sachs Total Assets: $114,693,000,000 (a bit more than 114 billion dollars - yes, you read that correctly) Total Exposure To Derivatives: $41,580,395,000,000 (more than 41 trillion dollars) That means that the total exposure that Goldman Sachs has to derivatives contracts is more than 362 times greater than their total assets. And remember, the biggest chunk of those derivatives contracts is made up of interest rate derivatives. Just imagine what would happen if a life insurance company wrote millions upon millions of life insurance contracts and then everyone suddenly died. What would happen to that life insurance company? It would go completely broke of course. Well, that is what our major banks are facing today. They have written trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of interest rate derivatives contracts, and they are betting that interest rates will not go up rapidly. But what if they do? And the truth is that interest rates have a whole lot of room to go up. The chart below shows how the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries has moved over the past couple of decades... As you can see, the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries was hovering around the 6 percent mark back in the year 2000. Back in 1990, the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries hovered between 8 and 9 percent. If we return to "normal" levels, our financial system will implode. There is no way that our debt-addicted system would be able to handle it. So watch the yield on 10 year U.S. Treasuries very carefully. It is the most important number in the entire U.S. economy. If that number gets too high, the game is over.

"Tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold on use of a nuclear bomb as their modern incarnation can be tuned in yield in order to target military sites using stand off weapons without escalating by destroy surrounding civilian infrastructure.”

A very interesting story from News 4 columnist Jon Snow has been released, then taken down, though thankfully captured in Google’s cache and brought over to Beforeitsnews for you to see and read. Why did they take this story down? The video below certainly shows that this event actually happened, is that a ‘nuclear strike’?. Did they determine that this strike was not a ‘nuclear’ strike as first reported and took the story down or is there more to it? Monday 05 Aug 2013 Nuclear strikes on Syria: The genie is already out of the bottle The fight against Assad’s brutal regime has taken an unexpected turn late Thursday afternoon when a large weapons cache belonging to the so-called national protection force in Homs city, an arm of Assad’s Shabeeha, was destroyed. The explosion was reminiscent of the attack on Qasyoon mountain, a stronghold for the Syrian army and a location said to house missiles targeting Israel. It was first reported that the missile fuelling station had blown up which seemed like a reasonable proposition especially since an ammunition depot was targeted. But the two explosions in Homs and Qasyoon share the same property: They are both above ground air bursts according to Greg Thielmann, an expert on arms control policy whom I spoke with on Saturday at great length. I was first alerted to the connection by slow twitter chatter right after the bombing in Homs. Needless to say I was shocked at what he told me next: “The fact of the matter is, what we are seeing in both these cases is a tactical nuclear strike, probably by cruise missiles launched from aircrafts near the borders of Syria or right off the coast in the Mediterranean.” But sure, Greg, wouldn’t this mean a nuclear holocaust? Not so he says. “Tactical nuclear weapons lower the threshold on use of a nuclear bomb as their modern incarnation can be tuned in yield in order to target military sites using stand off weapons without escalating by destroy surrounding civilian infrastructure.” So, according to News Channel 4 and experts, this was a nuclear attack as shown in the video below. If so, what comes next? Jon Snow came to some excellent conclusions, including his statement to end the story: “All I know is, I’ll be spending time in my summer home in the woods for the next few weeks”, great advice for all! Is THIS why all of the US Embassies are being closed across the world? I concluded with him that it is awfully ironic that an inhuman weapon such as nuclear weapons and chemical weapons could be used to promote human rights and freedom in the world. But the Syrian people, or at least who will remain of them after these attacks, deserve to enjoy the same freedoms enjoyed today by Iraqis. “Don’t be so sure”, another anonymous strategist disagreed, “We are now playing with nuclear fire and the use of all these weapons of mass destruction will definitely attract a counterattack with massive force. We are now on a slippery slope, there is no such thing as a limited nuclear strike, the retaliation will be delayed, but it is coming and god save us all when the nuclear fire spreads to our backyards.” Spooky stuff. All I know is, I’ll be spending time in my summer home in the woods for the next few weeks. http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2013/08/nuclear-genie-out-of-the-bottle-story-censored-why-video-of-nuclear-strike-on-syria-2453272.html?utm_campaign=&utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2FpEqX&utm_medium=verticalresponse&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse

Subject: Gold going to $7,000 in currency reset says author Jim Rickards « ArabianMoney http://www.arabianmoney.net/gold-silver/2013/07/25/gold-going-to-7000-in-currency-reset-says-author-jim-rickards/

Detroit has become something of an American punch line, hasn’t it? But it bears the question: How did one of the most affluent cities in the country become what it is today? I mean, I’m talking about the city that brought you the Model T… chrome fenders… and big-block V-8 engine, just to name a few. I’m talking about the city that once defined what it means to have a thriving industry… a city that boasted one of the highest median incomes in the nation. Today, it’s home to some of the countries most shameful income levels, crime rates, unemployment numbers and education rankings. In fact, a student in Detroit is statistically more likely to wind up in prison than graduating from high school. To put it bluntly, Detroit sucks. And the reason why is simple. You see, Detroit has literally been a laboratory for leftist policies for the last 50 years. It’s their “Model City.” Their ideological Utopia. Yet, not even one year after Obama deemed Detroit “saved,” the city has officially declared bankruptcy. And the toxic liberal governance that caused a once-great city to go belly up is being applied to America, as an entire nation, right now… Liberal Economics Extortion On October 13th 2012, with roughly one month to go ‘til campaign season was over, Barack Obama sat down in front of a video camera and gave his weekly address. In it, he said something that didn’t really seem to add up, but hey… the president said it, so it has to be true, right? Wrong. He claimed, “We refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt. We bet on American workers and American ingenuity, and three years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.” Well, On July 19th 2013, not even one year later, Detroit publicly announced its state of financial ruin by filing the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history. According to Detroit’s Emergency Financial Manager, Kevyn Orr, the city’s debt totals an astounding $18 billion. The reason? Liberal economics. Liberal economics has been running rampant in Detroit for over 50 years. An extremely long and ugly chapter out of the progressive playbook… Think of how much Obama has promised the nation, and how every time he’s guaranteed that not one penny will be added to the deficit. Well, we free thinking individuals can’t help but ask: How the heck are you going to pay for all those handouts? Detroit has been the beneficiary of every single government handout and program known to man. It’s literally the city of entitlements. And because of that, it’s paid a heavy price. Amazingly, though, in spite of these demoralizing realities, the city remains hitched to the Democratic Party wagon. In the 2012 election, Barack Obama received 98% of the vote, while other Democratic candidates won by a landslide too… Compassionate Crooked Politicians Liberal politicians pride themselves on their “for the greater good” approach to politics. And people eat that garbage up… It’s sickening really. Leftist politicians always tout their policies as the end-all solution to helping the poor, giving their “fellow man” a leg up, and spreading equal prosperity to all. Well, in the 1960s that theory and those policies were put to the ultimate test… President Lyndon B Johnson established the “Model Cities” program, where select cities were used as federal petri dishes. It was an effort to see what type of environment would evolve from extreme progressive agenda. Johnson dumped $490 million federal dollars into the Detroit project alone… a project that spanned a nine-mile radius and was inhabited by 130,000 citizens. It was considered to be the first great step towards exemplary urban planning. Their “model city” was meant to be a blueprint for the rest of the country to follow. Instead, what evolved was a state dependent on government handouts. In fact, it was the furthest thing from what anyone would consider a model city. The program, along with the corrupt leftist politicians and bureaucrats running it, robbed Detroit of the American Dream by taking everything away from the people and granting total authority to the government. Considering the quality of leaders running the city, its descent into ruination shouldn’t come as a surprise. Leadership that’s been strictly Democratic for over 50 years, mind you. Consistent scandal… Partisan branded racism… Sound familiar? But the corrupt politicians weren’t the only causes for Detroit’s demise… Union Power Profiteering Of course, Liberal politicians aren’t the only ones flexing their power… the people laying in bed with them are too. Those people collectively form the Unions…And when it comes to unions, it doesn’t get any more despicable and corrupt than Detroit’s factory and teacher unions. The teacher unions are responsible for one of the most degenerate school systems in the nation. And it certainly has nothing to do with a lack of funding… Detroit receives roughly $12,000 per student compared to the national average of $9,600. Yet Detroit students face a graduation rate of 25% — making it statistically more likely for a child in Detroit to end up in prison versus graduating from high school. You have to ask yourself… how has the mighty teachers union failed the students so dramatically? The truth of the matter is, not only do they pad their pockets with federal funding, but they’ve also consistently refused to bend on several policies that would benefit the students. Policies like merit based pay, increased student to teacher ratios and incentivized teacher programs. Even the School Choice program that’s seen tremendous success all over the nation has been rejected. Worse still is the United Auto Workers Union (UAW). Through dangerously irresponsible mismanagement, they too have contributed to Detroit’s decay. You see, the UAW doesn’t know the meaning of “concessions.” Fully aware of the fact that the Big 3 would inevitably have to file for bankruptcy, the UAW still made sure that they received the following: 7 weeks paid vacation each year Maintained job banks (Where fired UAW employees go to receive weekly paychecks while… you guessed it…not working) Maintained $74/hour salary with benefits (Especially exorbitant when compared to the $42/hour for a comparable Japanese automaker… or even $26/hour in the private sector) First rank medical coverage (covering all surgeries including cosmetic like Lasik eye surgery) That translates to you, the car buyer, having to pay an addition $1,200 for employee benefits! Now that’s made in the good ‘ol liberal U.S. of A. The average UAW employee was making $130,000/year in salary and benefits. GM alone was shoveling out over $100 billion in retiree healthcare costs in the last 15 years. So while most of us had to make concessions in tough economic times, the liberal unions didn’t even take it into consideration… even with inevitable bankruptcy right around the corner. They know they can just count on the federal government to bail them out…And why not? The unions play a major part in getting them elected. Now Look at the Current Administration… Look at the promises they’ve made… the handouts they’ve either already given or guaranteed will come – Obama phones, Obama cars, Obamacare… They’re identical to the promises and the handouts in Detroit over the last 50 years. Detroit is a replica of the exact policies the current administration sees as the perfect Utopia for America. DETROIT! When you continue to remove the free market principles that have always made this nation great… when you continue to create an entirely dependent society…what you get is Detroit. And that’s what America will look like in a very short matter of time. Come election season, make sure you use Detroit, the liberal model for all cities, as an example of why the progressive agenda is toxic for America. Fight as hard as you can to prevent our nation from becoming “Model America.” Your eyes on the Hill,

By Michael Snyder, on July 22nd, 2013 The pension nightmare that is at the heart of the horrific financial crisis in Detroit is just the tip of the iceberg of the coming retirement crisis that will shake America to the core. Right now, more than 10,000 Baby Boomers are hitting the age of 65 every single day, and this will continue to happen every single day until the year 2030. As a society, we have made trillions of dollars of financial promises to these Baby Boomers, and there is no way that we are going to be able to keep those promises. The money simply is not there. Yes, I suppose that we could eventually see a "super devaluation" of the U.S. dollar and keep our promises to the Baby Boomers using currency that is not worth much more than Monopoly money, but as it stands right now we simply do not have the resources to do what we said that we were going to do. The number of senior citizens in the United States is projected to more than double by the middle of the century, and it would have been nearly impossible to support them all even if we weren't in the midst of a long-term economic decline. Tens of millions of Americans that are eagerly looking forward to retirement are going to be in for a very rude awakening in the years ahead. There is going to be a lot of heartache and a lot of broken promises. What is going on in Detroit right now is a perfect example of what will soon be happening all over the nation. Many city workers stuck with their jobs for decades because of the promise of a nice pension at the end of the rainbow. But now those promises are going up in smoke. There has even been talk that retirees will only end up getting about 10 cents for every dollar that they were promised. Needless to say, many pensioners are extremely angry that the promises that were made to them are not going to be kept. The following is from a recent article in the New York Times... Many retirees see the plan to cut their pensions as a betrayal, saying that they kept their end of a deal but that the city is now reneging. Retired city workers, police officers and 911 operators said in interviews that the promise of reliable retirement income had helped draw them to work for the City of Detroit in the first place, even if they sometimes had to accept smaller salaries or work nights or weekends. “Does Detroit have a problem?” asked William Shine, 76, a retired police sergeant. “Absolutely. Did I create it? I don’t think so. They made me some promises, and I made them some promises. I kept my promises. They’re not going to keep theirs.” But Detroit is far from an isolated case. As Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said the other day, many other cities are heading down the exact same path... "We may be one of the first. We are the largest. But we absolutely will not be the last." Yes, Detroit's financial problems are immense. But other major U.S. cities are facing unfunded pension liabilities that are even worse. For example, here are the unfunded pension liabilities for four financially-troubled large U.S. cities... Detroit: $3.5 billion Baltimore: $680 million Los Angeles: $9.4 billion Chicago: $19 billion When you break it down on a per citizen basis, Detroit is actually in better shape than the others... Detroit: $7,145 Baltimore: $7,247 Los Angeles: $8,437 Chicago: $13,355 And many state governments are in similar shape. Right now, the state of Illinois has unfunded pension liabilities that total approximately $100 billion. There are some financial "journalists" out there that are attempting to downplay this problem, but sticking our heads in the sand is not going to make any of this go away. According to Northwestern University Professor John Rauh, the total amount of unfunded pension and healthcare obligations for retirees that state and local governments across the United States have accumulated is 4.4 trillion dollars. So where are they going to get that money? They are going to raise your taxes of course. Just check out what is happening right now in Scranton, Pennsylvania... Scranton taxpayers could face a 117 percent increase in taxes next year as the city's finances continue to spiral out of control. A new analysis by the Pennsylvania Economy League projects an $18 million deficit for 2014, an amount so massive it outpaces the approximate $17 million the struggling city collects annually A 117 percent tax increase? What would Dwight Schrute think of that? Perhaps you are reading this and you are assuming that your retirement is secure because you work in the private sector. Well, just remember what happened to your 401k during the financial crisis of 2008. During the next major stock market crash, your 401k will likely get absolutely shredded. Many Americans will probably see the value of their 401k accounts go down by 50 percent or more. And if you have stashed your retirement funds with the wrong firm, you could end up losing everything. Just ask anyone that had their nest eggs invested with MF Global. But of course most Americans are woefully behind on saving for retirement anyway. A study conducted by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research found that American workers are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire comfortably. That certainly isn't good news. On top of everything else, the federal government has been recklessly irresponsible as far as planning for the retirement of the Baby Boomers is concerned. As I noted yesterday, the U.S. government is facing a total of 222 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. Social Security and Medicare make up the bulk of that. At this point, the number of Americans on Medicare is projected to grow from a little bit more than 50 million today to 73.2 million in 2025. The number of Americans collecting Social Security benefits is projected to grow from about 56 million today to 91 million in 2035. How is a society with a steadily declining economy going to care for them all adequately? Yes, we truly are careening toward disaster. If you are not convinced yet, here are some more numbers. The following stats are from one of my previous articles entitled "Do You Want To Scare A Baby Boomer?"... 1. Right now, there are somewhere around 40 million senior citizens in the United States. By 2050 that number is projected to skyrocket to 89 million. 2. According to one recent poll, 25 percent of all Americans in the 46 to 64-year-old age bracket have no retirement savings at all. 3. 26 percent of all Americans in the 46 to 64-year-old age bracket have no personal savings whatsoever. 4. One survey that covered all American workers found that 46 percent of them have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. 5. According to a survey conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, "60 percent of American workers said the total value of their savings and investments is less than $25,000". 6. A Pew Research survey found that half of all Baby Boomers say that their household financial situations have deteriorated over the past year. 7. 67 percent of all American workers believe that they "are a little or a lot behind schedule on saving for retirement". 8. Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line. 9. More elderly Americans than ever are finding that they must continue working once they reach their retirement years. Between 1985 and 2010, the percentage of Americans in the 65 to 69-year-old age bracket that were still working increased from 18 percent to 32 percent. 10. Back in 1991, half of all American workers planned to retire before they reached the age of 65. Today, that number has declined to 23 percent. 11. According to one recent survey, 70 percent of all American workers expect to continue working once they are "retired". 12. According to a poll conducted by AARP, 40 percent of all Baby Boomers plan to work "until they drop". 13. A poll conducted by CESI Debt Solutions found that 56 percent of American retirees still had outstanding debts when they retired. 14. Elderly Americans tend to carry much higher balances on their credit cards than younger Americans do. The following is from a recent CNBC article... New research from the AARP also shows that those ages 50 and over are carrying higher balances on their credit cards -- $8,278 in 2012 compared to $6,258 for the under-50 population. 15. A study by a law professor at the University of Michigan found that Americans that are 55 years of age or older now account for 20 percent of all bankruptcies in the United States. Back in 2001, they only accounted for 12 percent of all bankruptcies. 16. Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent. 17. What is causing most of these bankruptcies among the elderly? The number one cause is medical bills. According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States. Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance. 18. In 1945, there were 42 workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. Today, that number has fallen to 2.5 workers, and if you eliminate all government workers, that leaves only 1.6 private sector workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. 19. Millions of elderly Americans these days are finding it very difficult to survive on just a Social Security check. The truth is that most Social Security checks simply are not that large. The following comes directly from the Social Security Administration website... The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits. You can view the rest of the statistics right here. Sadly, most Americans are not aware of these things. The mainstream media keeps most of the population entertained with distractions. This week it is the birth of the royal baby, and next week it will be something else. Meanwhile, our problems just continue to get worse and worse. There is no way in the world that we are going to be able to keep all of the financial promises that we have made to the Baby Boomers. A lot of them are going to end up bitterly disappointed. All of this could have been avoided if we would have planned ahead as a society. But that did not happen, and now we are all going to pay the price for it.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. Ratified in 1791, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government. The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising. For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. Known as police powers, such authority is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, no state may enter into a treaty with a foreign government because such agreements are prohibited by the plain language of Article I to the Constitution. At the time the states adopted the Tenth Amendment, two primary conceptions of government were under consideration. Many federalists supported a centralized national authority, with power concentrated in a single entity. This type of government was exemplified by the English constitutional system, which vested absolute authority in the monarchy during the seventeenth century and in Parliament during the eighteenth century. On the other hand, many anti-federalists supported a more republican form of government consisting of a loose confederation of sovereign states that would form an alliance only for the purpose of mutual defense. The Articles of Confederation, which governed the 13 states in national matters until 1787, when the Constitution was ratified, epitomized this form of government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was unable to levy and collect taxes on its own behalf. Many federalists, such as James Madison, argued that the Tenth Amendment was unnecessary because the powers of the federal government are carefully enumerated and limited in the Constitution. Because the Constitution does not give Congress, the president, or the federal judiciary the prerogative to regulate wholly local matters, Madison concluded that no such power existed and no such power would ever be exercised. However, British oppression had made the Founding Fathers fearful of unchecked centralized power. The Tenth Amendment was enacted to limit federal power. Although it appears clear on its face, the Tenth Amendment has not been consistently applied. Before the Civil War, nearly every state urged a broad reading of the Tenth Amendment. Although no state wanted a federal government that was impotent against internal enemies or foreign aggressors, many state politicians challenged the authority of the federal government to regulate any matter that could otherwise be handled by local authorities. For example, immediately after the U.S. Revolution, all 13 states resisted federal efforts to force local governments to return the property of British loyalists taken during the war. During the first half of the nineteenth century, Southern states objected to federal legislation that attempted to limit Slavery. State sovereignty reached its height when 11 states seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy. Following the Civil War, the Tenth Amendment was virtually suspended. For a number of years during the Reconstruction era, the federal government occupied the former Confederate states with military troops and required each occupied state to ratify the Civil War Amendments, which outlawed slavery, gave African Americans the right vote, and declared the equality of all races. To a large extent the federal government ran local matters in Southern states during this period. In 1883, the Tenth Amendment regained some of its force. In that year the Supreme Court invalidated the federal civil rights act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335), which criminalized racial discrimination in public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants, because it violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment (civil rights cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 [1883]). In 1909, the Supreme Court struck down the White Slave Traffic Act (34 Stat. 898), which Congress had passed to prohibit the harboring of alien women for the purposes of prostitution, because it violated the Tenth Amendment (Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138, 29 S. Ct. 470, 53 L. Ed. 737 [1909]). Nine years later the Court struck down another congressional law prohibiting the interstate shipment of products that had been manufactured by certain businesses that employed children under the age of 14 (hammer v. dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L. Ed. 1101 [1918]). "In interpreting the Constitution," the Court said in Hammer, "it must never be forgotten that the nation is made up of states to which are entrusted the powers of local government. And to them the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved." During the depth of the Great Depression, the Tenth Amendment returned to a dormant condition. President franklin roosevelt worked with Congress to pass the New Deal,a series of programs designed to stimulate the troubled economy. After the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the National Labor Relations Act (mandatory Collective Bargaining) in nlrb v. jones & laughlin steel corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 (1937), Congress began exercising unprecedented lawmaking power over state and local matters. For the next 40 years, the Supreme Court upheld congressional authority to regulate a variety of matters that had been traditionally addressed by state legislatures. For example, in one case the Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1281 et seq.) over objections that it allowed Congress to regulate individuals who produced and consumed their own foodstuffs entirely within the confines of a family farm (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 [1942]). The Tenth Amendment enjoyed a brief resurgence in 1976 when the Supreme Court held that the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201 et seq.) to state and local governments was unconstitutional. In National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976), the Court said that the Minimum Wage and maximum hour provisions of this act significantly altered and displaced the states' abilities to structure employment relationships in such areas as fire prevention, police protection, sanitation, public health, and parks and recreation. These services, the Court emphasized, are historically reserved to state and local governments. If Congress may withdraw from the states the authority to make such fundamental employment decisions, the Court concluded, "there would be little left of the states' separate and independent existence," or of the Tenth Amendment. National League of Cities proved to be an unworkable constitutional precedent. It cast doubt on congressional authority to regulate many aspects of local affairs that most of society had come to rely upon. It was unclear, for example, whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a federal agency established by Congress to regulate workplace safety, retained any constitutional authority after the Supreme Court announced its decision in National League of Cities. The Supreme Court eliminated these concerns by overturning National League of Cities in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 105 S. Ct. 1005, 83 L. Ed. 2d 1016 (1985). In Garcia the Court upheld the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as it applied to a city-owned public transportation system. In reaching this decision, the Court said that if certain states are worried about the extent of federal authority over a particular local matter, the residents of such states should contact their senators and representatives who are constitutionally authorized to narrow federal regulatory power through appropriate legislation. Judicial Review of federal regulations under the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court suggested, is not the proper vehicle to achieve this end. The ebb and flow of Tenth Amendment Jurisprudence reflects the delicate constitutional balance created by the Founding Fathers. The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power. Further readingsDerthick, Martha. 2001. Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays on American Federalism. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Killenbeck, Mark R., ed. 2002. The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty: Constitutional History and Contemporary Issues. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Cross-referencesConstitution of the United States; Federalist Papers; States' Rights.

By Erika Nolan, Executive Publisher of The Sovereign Society Dear Sovereign Investor, Tony Soprano, the troubled mob boss who struggled to balance his crime family and his personal life, was possibly the greatest TV character of all time. James Gandolfini, the 51-year-old actor who played Tony in the HBO series The Sopranos and won three Emmy Awards for his portrayal, died suddenly on June 19. While his official cause of death was a massive heart attack … when it comes to his estate, it seems that Tony Soprano got whacked by the biggest crime family in the business – the U.S. government. Mr. Gandolfini’s estate is estimated to be about $70 million. Due to poor legal advice and estate planning, more than $30 million of his estate could go to the government thanks to a “death tax,” or an estate tax of 55%. Unless Gandolfini was sitting on large sums of cash, his family will now be forced to sell off property and liquidate assets quickly in order to pay the tax bill. There are a few simple techniques that could have saved Tony millions, and they can work for you too … The key mistake Gandolfini made was leaving the bulk of his estate to his sister and his young 9-month-old daughter. Yesterday, I chatted with Josh Bennett, a friend and estate planning and asset protection attorney, about what could have been done to considerably lower the death tax bill, so that the bulk of the estate could have gone to his family. These Are the Ways to Protect Your WealthFor the very wealthy, like Gandolfini, the first $5.25 million of an estate is exempt from death taxes. That amount doubles to $10.5 million for a married couple. But if you are fortunate enough to be worth more, then the federal estate tax of 40% is applied to anything over that threshold. Many states also charge their own estate tax of 5% to 16%. Since Gandolfini was married, a simple strategy would have been for him to create a marital testamentary trust while he was alive. Depending on the type of assets he included in the trust, his estate may have qualified for a marital contribution deduction. In this case, Gandolfini's estate would receive huge savings since the portion of his estate that was placed in the martial trust would not have been subject to estate tax until the death of his spouse — saving the 55% of his estate from the Tax Man. It is very easy to define the terms of a marital trust. Gandolfini could have specified how much access his wife could have to the money and how the money would be paid out to her. Upon the death of his wife, the remainder of the estate would have passed to his children. While taxes would be due at that point, Gandolfini’s second wife is quite young so the assets would have time to grow over the years thanks to the deferral of the estate tax … leaving his children a larger payout. The estate tax is deferred (subject to limitations, since not all assets qualify until the death of the second spouse) and because Gandolfini's wife is so young, the time value of money adds up with the deferral of the estate tax on the marital trust portion. Another option would be to set up an irrevocable life insurance trust. Here, the key is to take out enough life insurance so that upon your death the policy payout will cover any estate tax burden your family might have. But again, for the very wealthy, life insurance payouts are added into to the value of the estate when the government is assessing your total net worth. That’s why it’s critical to have the policy in a trust. The life insurance policy should be owned by the trust. Upon death, the policy payout remains income tax free and it will not be added into the value of the total estate. Legal Confiscation at its Finest …Once you’re gone, it’s nearly impossible to correct estate planning mistakes. I doubt that any of us expect a sudden end, but when it comes to proper legal planning we must do it, regardless of our net worth. There is nothing more tragic than losing a spouse or parent and then having to deal with money issues at the same time. I highly encourage you to review your estate plan once a year – including your will, trusts, powers of attorney, etc. It should have the same priority to you as your annual physical exam. Be sure to account for any changes in your family structure – new grandchildren, the loss of a sibling or any increase in your net worth. Josh Bennett, Esq. (josh@joshbennett.com) is a great resource regardless of where you live, if you are in need of a good family estate plan or even if you want to have your current plan reviewed and updated. Let’s face it … our government is “legally” confiscating wealth through the gift tax and estate tax. We are taxed when the money is earned, which should be more than enough – but it’s not. Giving your post-tax wealth to loved ones, either during your life or after your death, can cost dearly. So, plan early and plan well to avoid being the next target of U.S. government mafia. In Wealth & Prosperity, Erika Nolan Executive Publisher, The Sovereign Society

Posted by John Thompson Hatter We can expect big bad October Surprises to erupt across the media in the next two weeks. But what’s it going to be: war in the Middle East, a bimbo eruption, more on Bain Capital? Something worse? The Democrats are cornered and desperate. They’re upside down in the polls and losing ground rapidly. We can expect eye-popping bombshells any day now. Let’s take a stroll through Romney’s pumpkin patch and see what jack-o-lanterns the Democrats are carving up for us. Hobgoblins and Evil Republicans—H.L. Menken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” To the mainstream media and Democrats, the Republicans are hobgoblins. This silly season’s hobgoblin themes are: the war against women; the war against the middle class; eliminating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; and causing the earth to burn up. Pretty droll stuff that won’t get much mileage. Mainstream Media Kerfuffle—Look for the media to suddenly discover an insignificant factoid and breathlessly blow it all out of proportion. Like George Bush’s grades or the fact that he might have tooted cocaine once. Or like Romney making fun of a *** guy in high school. The talking heads may find that Romney smoked a cigarette once, or that he smiled at a woman not his wife. Perhaps he put this woman in a binder. Maybe one of his tax returns has a typo in it. If the media can’t find something scandalous, they’ll simply create it. Look for a fake-but-accurate, Dan Rather-type forgery. And look for Candy Crowley’s fingerprints all over it. Class Warfare Flap—Let’s face it. Socialist can’t resist class warfare. It’s basically all they’ve got. That and race baiting. But blacks are in the bag for Obama so no campaign money will be going their way. The Obots’ mentors, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao require class warfare — like holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to wring a few more bucks from small businesses and the nation’s top earners. Republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for everybody. If there’s no agreement before January 1, 2013 then it’s Tax Armageddon for everybody. America goes over the Fiscal Cliff. Obama is blackmailing the Republicans and engaging in a risky game of chicken. The Dims think class warfare has legs. Look for it. Sharon Bialek and Gloria Allred Friars Club Press Conference, New York, November 2011 Bimbo Eruption— For some reason political sex scandals work only against Republicans. This is the old double standard at work. A Democrat can be caught with the dead body of a little girl (or boy) in their bed, and the media will protest that a person’s sex life is a private matter with no place in politics. They are still incensed that Bill (“I never had sex with that woman.”) Clinton got impeached for lying to a grand jury about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski. The rumor is that the Dims have a bimbo bomb ready to go. Who to deliver it? Gloria Allred, is a discrimination attorney in California specializing in feminist issues. Guess which political party she belongs to. Obama has endorsed her and said, “She’s one of the best attorneys in our country.” She’s certainly one of the best political attack lawyers for Democrats. Allred generated political headlines aimed at derailing Meg Whitman’s run for governor of California. Allred claimed that Whitman once employed an illegal alien. Hiring an illegal alien is a crime in California only if you’re a Republican. Governor Moonbeam won by a tiny margin. Allred torpedoed Herman Cain’s presidential ambitions with a bimbo eruption. Allred stood in front of the cameras with blonde floozy Sharon Bialek, as the victim tearfully accused Cain of acting in a “sexually inappropriate” manner after a dinner date in 1997. There was no sex. She didn’t file any sexual harassment charges at the time and said that she wasn’t filing any then. She just wanted to get the message out. Cain was in the lead before Allred delivered her charges to the breathlessly orgiastic media. After more media bimbo eruptions, Cain dropped out of the race. Is Obama ready to unleash his rotweiller? Radaronline puts it this way, Is famed women’s right attorney Gloria Allred about to pull an “October surprise” on Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney? 
That’s the thinking, after Drudge Report founder and respected politico, Matt Drudge, tweeted Thursday: “Here she comes. Hearing Gloria Allred out there again, about to make a move. After all, it’s her time of the campaign. Team O at the ready!!” Barack’s Minefield But Obama could be in for a few surprises of his own. October surprises can go both ways and it might not be the Romney camp that launches them. There are millions of Americans determined to rid America of the Marxist-in-Chief and his red diaper baby, socialist government. Let’s tiptoe through Barack’s minefield and take a peek at the surprises brewing for him. Illegal Campaign Contributions—Obama is raising incredible amounts of money — $181 million dollars in September alone. About 98% of this money is untraceable and much of it comes from foreign sources, including governments hostile to the United States. Obama is violating federal campaign laws. Does he care? Do the Republicans? This could be a major blowup in the new media. As serious as it is, the mainstream media will ignore and cover up the matter. Dreams from My Real Father DVD Who’s Your Daddy?—Joel Gilbert is mailing millions of his Dreams From My Real Father DVDs to battleground states and to others. If the communist agitator and pornographer, Frank Marshall Davis, was really Obama’s biological father and ideological mentor, as Gilbert says, then Obama’s entire story is a massive fraud. Liberal media resistance and progressive pushback against Gilbert has been hostile and fierce. His response to me about that? As long as the major media refuses to cover my film, I am going to continue this publicity campaign by shipping DVDs state-by-state, million-by-million, or until Barack Obama comes clean. Instead of misrepresenting himself as the son of a goat herder, as he did in 2008, Obama should say, ‘My father was a Communist Party propagandist and suspected Soviet agent who indoctrinated me into Marxist ideology. Please vote for me so I can destroy the American middle class and create a one-party political system.’ Gilbert’s DVD is the #1 selling Amazon instant video documentary and the #2 DVD Amazon documentary. It is being watched by thousands on Netflix. But Gilbert has gone one huge step further to get his message out. So far he’s mailed out 1.5 Million free DVDs to voters in Florida; 700,000 to Colorado; 500,000 to Iowa; 1.2 million to Ohio; and 100,000 each to New Hampshire and Nevada. He’s got 3 million more free DVDs in the pipeline for Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan. Joel Gilbert is a one-man October surprise. Trick or Treat, Barry. Lost in Zombieland: The Rise of President Zero—The book goes viral and Americans find out who Barack Omeba really is and what he’s really up to. This happens just in time to keep the jihadi nukes from detonating, stop the Tea Party/Zombie War from spreading across the USA, and prevents Omeba from finally throwing the Constitution out the West Wing window. Breitbart—Before he died, Andrew Breitbart that he would do the job the mainstream media failed to do for Americans. He said, “This election we’re going to vet him…to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to the hope and change that was sold in 2008.” We’ve seen his of Obama praising and the racist, radical, Harvard professor Derrick Bell, which the media hid from us. But I think Breitbart has more to show us. Just in time for the election. Birther Nuke—Lawsuits to get Obama disqualified from state ballots are under way. What would really make it a surprise? It’s Orly Taitz that gets it done. Trump Tweet Torpedo—Donald Trump just tweeted, “I’ll be making a major announcement on President Obama next week–stay tuned!” Well, that’s interesting. Trump never did release the findings of his birth certificate investigation. Who knows what The Donald has come up with? The Donald Bomb might be all it takes to push the ball into the end zone. Benghazi Blowback—CIA, FBI and NSA release internal memos and reports to the White House that prove Obama lied to the mainstream media, the American people and Candy Crowley. If you don’t think these fed-up intelligence agencies can’t do this just ask yourself where Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are getting their files. Sean will be on this like a duck on a June bug. Celebrity Defections—Celebrities publicly expressing voter remorse will hurt Obama. Lee Iacocca, a lifelong Democrat, has already endorsed Romney, but he’s not a liberal. A Democrat not a liberal? Gene Simmons, a recovering liberal, wants his vote back and says Obama has “no fu__ing idea” what he’s doing. Ouch. More to come. Wag the Dog—To hold onto the presidency, Obama just might wag the dog and start a war. Likely battlefields? Iran for one. Israel might attack on her own, or a Lost in Zombieland scenario might force Obama to deploy forces to fight the Iranians behind the scenes. Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Egypt are primed to blow up, thanks in large part to Obama and Hillarious’s horrendous mess of a foreign policy. Would Obama sacrifice the lives of our young men and women just so he can retain the White House? You bet he would. May 21, 2012 Cover of Newsweek Magazine Bath House Barry Sex Scandal—The mainstream media are frantically covering up major leaks from Chicago about Barack Obama’s homosexuality. It turns out that his views on homosexuality didn’t exactly “evolve over time”. WorldNetDaily’s intrepid Jerome Corsi has revealed that the Reverend Wright had a “program” at Obama’s Trinity Church to help homosexual blacks live double lives on the “Down Low” by getting them married to women that nobody else wanted. Sound familiar? This provided them cover to go about their public lives while privately indulging their sexual preference — on the “down low”. A recent WND article said the following, Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “***” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims. “It is common knowledge in the Chicago *** community that Obama actively visited the *** bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND. In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to …. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation. How’s that for an October Surprise? Better put some ice on that, Barry. But the real October Surprise may be when the Democrats suddenly realize that Americans have had a belly full of Barack Hussein Obama — and the Democratic Party — and want nothing further to do with either of them. Imagine their surprise. http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPost%3A2277534&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post http://abousa.net/news/page/8/

I'm afraid we are in a post constitutional Saul Alinsky http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html downhill slide. He made the follow statement and it is analyzed by Mark Levin here: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-obama-quotes-saul-alinsky-in-the-middle-east-what-the-hell-is-he-doing-there/

Last Friday, I wrote about the fragility of complex systems and how they can collapse. Currently, the most complex and fragile of our American systems is Obamacare. And it’s collapsing before it can even be implemented. I’m frequently asked if Obamacare can be repealed. I like to respond by saying, Obamacare is destroying itself. It’s so complex and byzantine that the government is struggling to implement the law. The next big challenge on the calendar is the deadline to have health insurance exchanges operational by October 1, 2013. The full implementation of Obamacare is supposed to happen January 1, 2014. But how are the 45 million uninsured Americans supposed to sign up if there isn’t a place to sign up? This week we heard from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO). Their report on the exchanges was ugly. The health insurance exchanges being created by the federal government for more than 30 states will likely miss the October 1 deadline. Houston, We Have a Problem These health insurance exchanges are projected to provide health coverage for seven million people in 2014 and 22 million by 2016. But it’s becoming obvious Obama’s crown jewel policy achievement is shattered and in ruins. According to the GAO, vital parts of the computer systems running the exchanges remain unfinished. This means the government has no way to know who’s even eligible for the federal subsidies. They have no system to monitor insurance plans for compliance with the mountains of new regulations. Health insurance rates are doubling, tripling and even quadrupling. Any affordability in the Affordable Care Act was a mirage. In some cases, insurance companies are even suspending the sale of individual policies. Aetna has announced that it’s pulling the plug on California. Worse yet, the existing healthcare system is also unraveling. The question is: Will Obamacare opponents be able to use this vulnerability to finally kill the beast? A Lack of Courage This much is obvious: Opponents of Obamacare don’t have much courage. If they did, Obamacare would already be gone. In order to push Obama hard enough to induce full repeal, they’ll have to go to the mat and shut down the government, much like Newt Gingrich did to Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, John Boehner is no Newt Gingrich. So I foresee a series of half-measures taking shape instead. The House of Representatives may vote to repeal the individual mandate. The mandate is what makes the law unpopular with voters. But the House should also pass a bill proposed by Georgia Rep. Tom Price to cut off funding to enlarge the Internal Revenue Service. No IRS expansion, no enforcement of Obamacare. Americans never have liked the IRS. They like it even less under Obama’s aggressive tax collection policies. Obama will never agree to a full repeal, but as the problems continue to mount, he could choose to come to the table and repeal the most onerous provisions of the law. Total repeal will have to wait until he’s out of office. He would veto any plan to fully repeal it. The best plan of action is to not aid Obama and try to fix it piecemeal. Allow it to fail in full view so voters become committed to total repeal. The current Obamacare system is unfixable and the sooner the problems come to light, the sooner all will see that the entire system is broken beyond repair. Your eyes on the Hill, Floyd Brown http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/06/obamacare-system/

Let’s have a look at Egypt. It’s toast. Egypt is breaking down because Hosni Mubarak didn’t create a modern and free economy to propel the 85 million Egyptian people out of abject poverty. And the Muslim Brotherhood, who seized power, will likely do a worse job of stewarding Egypt than Mubarak did. Egypt has become a bottomless money pit. It has a chronic and unsolvable balance-of-payments problem created by the need to import 50% of its food. Socialist energy subsidies consume a quarter of the national budget. Egypt is a pre-modern Islamic society, with 50% illiteracy and a 90% rate of female genital mutilation. Marriage between family members has been practiced in Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs, and at 35.3%, it’s still high – especially among first cousins, who make up 86% of the inbreeding couples. As a result, Egypt is flooded with genetic diseases. Underemployment is another chronic problem. Over 40% of those that are even able to find work are underemployed. It would require at least $20 billion a year to keep this basket case afloat, and no one is going to provide it. According to the World Health Organization, malnutrition already afflicts 25% of Egyptians. The Muslim Brotherhood can pray all it wants for a bumper wheat crop, but even that won’t solve these problems. Egypt is collapsing. And They’re Not Alone Right behind Egypt is Syria. Syria is a complex ethnic and religious cauldron that’s mired in a violent civil war. Obama now plans to arm the Sunni jihadists, but this will only increase the bloodshed. It won’t change the situation. Better weapons only mean a more deadly conflict. Slowly, Syria is depopulating via death and out-migration. The Syrian suffering continues. Of course, such circumstances beg the question… How does this happen? In a matter of months, these countries spun out of control. The same happened in Russia after the fall of communism. In 1988, Joseph Tainter wrote the groundbreaking book, “The Collapse of Complex Societies.” It was his attempt to explain how a complex and successful society could collapse in a short time. His book is an academic treatise. I don’t recommend it for light reading, but his conclusions are useful. Tainter’s goal was to create a theory that explained the decline and fall of societies using a single model. His basic argument is that increasing complexity eventually renders falling marginal returns for the society. Think of it this way… The creative-destructive forces unleashed by capitalism will eventually lead to its demise as a system, as Joseph Schumpeter put it. To exhibit his construct, Tainter considers three complex societies: The Western Roman Empire, the Maya of the southern lowlands, and the Chacoan Society (Pueblo Indian) of the American Southwest. Tainter observes that they each suffered significant increased costs not long before collapsing and they inflicted those costs on a population already exhausted by burdens they couldn’t handle. According to Tainter, it wasn’t the challenges that caused the break down; it was a system of rules that became unproductively complex and made it impossible for governing bodies to react. These societies were unable to adapt to change. Think of them as earlier versions of our modern-day Congress in D.C. Tainter says that the only solution for over complexity is simplification. But at the same time, he didn’t believe that complex societies are able to voluntarily simplify. Collapse, he believed, is nothing more than involuntary simplification. He explains that collapse is “not a fall to some primordial chaos, but a return to the normal human condition of lower complexity…an economizing process.” Collapse is an Equal-Opportunity Destroyer Regardless of Tainter’s theories, millions or even billions of people will be displaced or may even die when our current world order collapses. Our interdependence and ability to quickly migrate intensifies local problems across borders. Just ask the Turks. Syrians have been pouring into Turkey, and now their stressed society seems to be coming apart at the seams. Just over the horizon is Greece – another basket case. Across the water is a third stressed society, the island of Cyprus. Today, political systems require more and more resources to sustain them, but they’re unable to react to challenges in a successful way. It’s easy to say of collapse, “That could never happen here.” But such statements are arrogant. They ignore how Washington, D.C. has failed to meet the current challenges we face. We no longer enforce many laws. Obama and Congress pass laws and debate issues with no relevance to our lives. They ignore our bigger, more complex budgetary and economic problems. It’s easy to say that collapse could never come to America, but the reality is that we’re more vulnerable than most of us realize. http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/06/egypt-syria-collapse/#more

Baghdad Bob is Back in ActionMany of you may recall Saddam Hussein’s mouthpiece, Baghdad Bob. He was known for his colorful personality and grossly over-the-top, idealistic propaganda. He’d glorify the invincibility of the Iraqi Army and celebrate the eternalness of Saddam’s rule. His broadcasts tried to fuel a cult-like public following that was totally controlled by state censorship. But in the early 2000s, the internet gave the world a glimpse of what dictatorial reign looked like. And Baghdad Bob became a laughing stock in the Western world, mostly because his lies were so blatant that they were actually funny. Well, fast-forward to today, and there’s a new Baghdad Bob in town. His name is Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary. He lives by the same mantra as Bob… “Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes a truth.” And his arrogance is almost as disgraceful as his hypocrisy. TIME… the Father of Truth But Carney wasn’t always a deceitful White House yes-man. In fact, he had an extensive journalism career before leading the communications staff for Vice President Biden and eventually replacing Robert Gibbs as speaker. And during the latter part of his journalistic career, Carney operated as chief of Time Magazine’s Washington Bureau. There, he (ironically) wrote an article about the Bush administration’s mistreatment of the press: “The assumption that journalists were the enemy and that everything they wrote was biased and wrong only added to the insulation of the White House from reality as the president’s public support began to plummet. And that insulation from reality is at least partly to blame for some of Bush’s worst mistakes – including his response to Katrina and his insistence, for several years, that the U.S. war was “making progress” in Iraq, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary…There is a difference between aggressively trying to manage the media and having so much disdain for reporting itself that you discount it and lose touch with reality.” So Carney asserted that Bush’s “contempt for the press” – essentially, rejecting their claims as false and blatantly lying to them – cost him his standing in the public eye. http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/06/baghdad-bob-jay-carney/ Be Careful What You Say “Credibility’s enormously important for press secretaries. All of the predecessors, my living predecessors, I spoke with all of them before I took this job. I knew all of them, already. Whether they served a Republican president or a Democratic one, they all talked about the need to maintain your credibility. Which means, when I go and stand up in front of the podium, in front of the White House press corps, I never lie. I never say something that I know is not true.” –Jay Carney The above quote is from a scholarship lunch hosted by the White House Correspondents’ Association. With that in mind, let’s have a look at Carney’s own track record… Baghdad Jay It takes a special kind of person to do Jay Carney’s job… at least the way Jay Carney does it. To carefully spin webs of lies for the entire world to see and then boldly reject the accusations… These are actions reminiscent of the same Bush administration that Carney denounced while working at TIME. And just as Baghdad Bob became so outlandish it was funny, Mr. Carney’s comments seem amusing as well. He’s living the Baghdad Bob mantra…Lie through your teeth, no matter how grand the lie. Even if proof of the contrary is right in front of your eyes, stand firm and make ‘em believe you.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ARCHIVE/CLINTON_CHRONICLES.html If you want to read about the Clinton's.... here you go...

A presidential trip to Africa this month could cost the government anywhere from $60 to $100 million dollars, according to the Washington Post, which obtained an internal planning document for the travel itinerary. At the end of June, Mr. Obama and his family will take an eight-day trip to sub-Saharan Africa, making stops in Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa in the name of reinforcing U.S. commitment to forging strong relationships with emerging democracies in the region. The president will hold meetings with "a wide array of leaders from government, business, and civil society, including youth," according to a White House press release announcing the trip, and seek to "underscore the [his administration's] commitment to broadening and deepening cooperation between the United States and the people of sub-Saharan Africa to advance regional and global peace and prosperity." Presidential trips to foreign countries tend to be expensive in any administration: According to the Post, former President Bill Clinton's 1998 trip to Africa racked up a bill of at least $42.7 million, not including what were likely significant Secret Service costs. For his part, former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, took two trips to Africa in 2003 and 2008, involving significant resources as well. But the also paper reports that, due to "a confluence of factors," Mr. Obama's three-country trip could be "one of the most expensive" of his presidency. "Obama's trip could cost the federal government $60 million to $100 million based on the costs of similar African trips in recent years, according to one person familiar with the journey, who was not authorized to speak for attribution," according to the Post. The paper said that it received the internal planning document from a "person who is concerned about the amount of resources necessary for the trip." According to the Post, the expenses listed on the document include: "Hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency. Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bulletproof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close." Other sources of expense include the use of 56 vehicles and hundreds of Secret Service agents, according to the Post. The document, however, did not note specific prices. Mr. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama had reportedly been planning to go on a safari in Tanzania, but the Post says that trip was canceled after reporters inquired into the cost and purpose of the trip. At a press briefing on Friday, White House spokesman Ben Rhodes defended the trip, noting that "we have not traveled to Africa in the same way that we've traveled to other regions in the world" and that "Africa's a critically important region of the world." "We have huge interests there... So for the United States to say, 'We're a world leader except in this continent' doesn't make any sense," Rhodes told reporters. "From a foreign policy perspective, in some respects, people believe this trip is overdue. And, frankly, there will be a great bang for our buck for being in Africa, because when you travel to regions like Africa that don't get a lot of presidential attention, you have very long-standing and long-running impact from the visit." CAN YOU SAY SEQUESTER ? NO MONEY FOR CANCER, RATIONS FOR SOLDIERS, CUTS IN MEDICARE..... HMMMMM..... STRANGE ISN'T IT... I THINK I SMELL A RAT... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589236/report-obamas-africa-trip-could-cost-$60-100-million/

MILTON FRIEDMAN ON INFLATION AND THE MONEY SUPPLY MILTON FRIEDMAN TELLS PHIL DONAHUE WHY SOCIALISM FAILS

This Should Wake Your Reality check Geert Wilders is a Dutch Member of Parliament. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: Who lost Europe ?' Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands , at the Four Seasons, New York , introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem . Dear friends, Thank you very much for inviting me. I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe . Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem . The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe . These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe , street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city. There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe . With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule. Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear '*****, *****'. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya , Israel . I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization. A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe . San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century. Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France . One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays. The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey . Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers. Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored. The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel . First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines , Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan , Lebanon , and Aceh in Indonesia . Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War. The war against Israel is not a war against Israel . It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel , Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming. Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands , 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome , Athens and Jerusalem ... Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe , American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know. Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, please send it to every free person that you know - it is so very important.