Senior Hamas leader rebukes Syrian ally Assad, backs rebels
Al-Qaida urges Muslims to help Syrian rebels
Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood urge 'jihad' against Syrian regime
Syrian security forces destroy Wahabi terrorist gang
France’s secret war against the Syrian people
The ‘Friends of Syria’ is a contradiction in terms
Syria's "friends" prepare military assault
Clinton calls Russia and China 'despicable' for failing to condemn Syria
China calls US critique on Syria "super arrogant"
SYRIA: US-NATO Behind the Killings of Civilians
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
WHY DO PEOPLE IN THE WEST SUPPORT US/NATO'S GLOBALIST ENTERPRISE?
By CanSpeccy
What is being fast created is a global empire ruled by the 146 corporate entities that control the bulk of international business activity. The people of the so-called Western democracies go along with this project largely because they imagine it to be a war of the West against the Rest.
This is a pathetic misconception.
The Western nations have already been subjugated. Hence, the fraudulent mainstream media that pumps controlled news and propaganda. Hence the ongoing genocidal program to destroy the nations of Europe as racial, cultural and religious communities. Hence, the progressive collapse in Western living standards. Hence, the reduction of the United States to a police state, where citizens can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, where the president can order the assassination of anyone, including American citizens, where the government declares it vital to grope the genitals of every traveler.
How truly pathetic the people of the Western nations have become.
Libya was occupied and Gaddafi murdered, to Hillary Clinton's ecstatic delight, not because Gaddafi was "killing his own people," but because he put down a violent, US/Nato and Al Qaeda-backed rebellion, intended to restore Libya's resources to the control of the multi-nationals that already own the puppet regimes of Obama, Cameron, Harper, Sarkozy, et al.
The project was a success. Thirty thousand Chinese engineers and technicians were ousted from Libya, an American citizen installed as Libya's Prime Minister and the control of Libya's resources restored to the corporations that, through a network of elite groups meeting at Davos, or less publicly elsewhere, directs the crimes of US/Nato.
What is being fast created is a global empire ruled by the 146 corporate entities that control the bulk of international business activity. The people of the so-called Western democracies go along with this project largely because they imagine it to be a war of the West against the Rest.
This is a pathetic misconception.
The Western nations have already been subjugated. Hence, the fraudulent mainstream media that pumps controlled news and propaganda. Hence the ongoing genocidal program to destroy the nations of Europe as racial, cultural and religious communities. Hence, the progressive collapse in Western living standards. Hence, the reduction of the United States to a police state, where citizens can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, where the president can order the assassination of anyone, including American citizens, where the government declares it vital to grope the genitals of every traveler.
How truly pathetic the people of the Western nations have become.
Libya was occupied and Gaddafi murdered, to Hillary Clinton's ecstatic delight, not because Gaddafi was "killing his own people," but because he put down a violent, US/Nato and Al Qaeda-backed rebellion, intended to restore Libya's resources to the control of the multi-nationals that already own the puppet regimes of Obama, Cameron, Harper, Sarkozy, et al.
The project was a success. Thirty thousand Chinese engineers and technicians were ousted from Libya, an American citizen installed as Libya's Prime Minister and the control of Libya's resources restored to the corporations that, through a network of elite groups meeting at Davos, or less publicly elsewhere, directs the crimes of US/Nato.
Grateful Arabs
ATTACKS ON BRITISH IN LIBYA; KILLINGS AND TORTURE EVERYWHERE
By Aangirfan
War graves in Libya
In Benghazi, in Libya, Commonwealth War Graves have been smashed up by the mad Islamists put into power by the USA and NATO.
Headstones commemorating British and Allied soldiers, killed during World War II, have been destroyed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106230/Insult-WWII-heroes-Graves-British-soldiers-smashed-desecrated-Libyan-Islamists-protest-U-S-soldiers-Koran-burning.html#ixzz1nNBepz3w ...
Read more
THE RCAF: Al-QAEDA'S AIR FORCE
By Stephen Gowans
Canadian fighter pilots “flew 946 sorties and dropped almost 700 bombs” in last year’s NATO intervention in Libya. [1] But rather than enforcing a no-fly zone to protect civilians, the Canadian pilots—and their counterparts from other NATO countries—took sides in the conflict, intervening directly on behalf of anti-Gaddafi rebels.
But who exactly were the rebels that NATO sided with?
Private remarks by Canadian military officers, reported by the Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese, suggest the rebels weren’t everyday people thirsting for democracy, as NATO officials and mainline media made them out to be.
Gaddafi had claimed that “the rebellion had been organized by” Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb “and his old enemies the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), who had vowed to overthrow the colonel and return the country to traditional Muslim values, including Sharia law.” [2] But this was dismissed by the West as propaganda.
Still, a “Canadian intelligence report written in late 2009…described the anti-Gadhafi stronghold of eastern Libya” where the rebellion began, “as an ‘epicentre of Islamist extremism’ and said ‘extremist cells’ operated in the region.” [3]
And Canadian military intelligence noted “in 2004 (that) Libyan troops found a training camp in the country’s southern desert that had been used by an Algerian terrorist group that would later change its name to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM.” [4]
Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who had “joined the U.S.-backed resistance to the Soviet (intervention in) Afghanistan, fighting alongside militants who would go on to form al-Qaeda,” was emblematic of the militant Islamic character of the uprising.
“Mr. Belhaj returned to Libya in the 1990s and led the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in fierce confrontations with Col. Gadhafi’s” government. The LIFG was aligned with al-Qaeda. [5]
Belhaj was “the rebellion’s most powerful military leader.” [6]
This should have aroused suspicions about the true nature of the uprising, but there was an earlier clue that the Benghazi revolt was inspired by something other than a thirst for democracy.
“On Feb. 15, 2011, citizens in Benghazi organized what they called a Day of Anger march. The demonstration soon turned into a full-scale battle with police.
“At first, security forces used tear gas and water cannons. But as several hundred protesters armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails attacked government buildings, the violence spiralled out of control. Demonstrators chanted, ‘No God but Allah, Moammar is the enemy of Allah’.” [7]
Today, Libya is a warzone of competing militias. The Transitional National Council, anointed by the West as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, has no authority.
And now, one year after the uprising began, some NATO officials are admitting that NATO aligned itself with militant Islamic rebels to oust Gaddafi, who US officials had complained was engaging in “resource nationalism,” while oil companies denounced him for trying to “Libyanize” the economy. [8]
According to the Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese, some Canadian military officers in private refer “to the NATO jets bombing Gadhafi’s troops as ‘al-Qaeda’s air force’.” [9] ...
Read more
EGYPT: A REAL REVOLUTION ON ITS WAY?
By Tony Cartalucci
In January of 2011, we were told that "spontaneous," "indigenous" uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, in what was hailed as the "Arab Spring." It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated (emphasis added):
In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM's various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared C0hen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.
Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO "Otpor" who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a "well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States." After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.
The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, a full year before the "Arab Spring," along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while waiting for ElBaradei's arrival at Cairo's airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his "National Front for Change" and began preparing for the coming "Arab Spring."
An April 2011 AFP report would confirm that the US government had trained armies of "activists" to return to their respective countries and enact political "change," when US State Department's Michael Posner stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."
By striking at the meddling, seditious NGOs, Egypt seeks to undermine the source of destabilization, the conduit through which US money and support is funneled through to "activists," and expose the true foreign-funded nature of the political division that has gripped the nation for now over a year. ...
Read more
WHY DO PEOPLE IN THE WEST SUPPORT US/NATO'S GLOBALIST ENTERPRISE?
By CanSpeccy
What is being fast created is a global empire ruled by the 146 corporate entities that control the bulk of international business activity. The people of the so-called democracies go along with this project largely because they imagine it to be a war of the West against the Rest.
This is a pathetic misconception.
The Western nations have already been subjugated. Hence, the fraudulent mainstream media that pump nothing but controlled news and propaganda. Hence the ongoing genocidal program to destroy the nations of Europe as racial, cultural and religious communities. Hence, the progressive collapse in Western living standards. Hence, the reduction of the United States to a police state, where citizens can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, where the president can order the assassination of anyone, where the government declares it vital to feel the genitals of every traveler.
How truly pathetic the people of the Western nations have become.
Libya was occupied and Gaddafi murdered, to Hillary Clinton's ecstatic delight, not because Gaddafi was "killing his own people," but because he put down a violent, US/Nato and Al Qaeda-backed rebellion, intended to restore Libya's resources to the control of the multi-nationals that already own the puppet regimes of Obama, Cameron, Harper, Sarkozy, et al.
The project was a success. Thirty thousand Chinese engineers and technicians were ousted from Libya, an American citizen installed as Libya's Prime Minister and the control of Libya's resources restored to the corporations that, through a network of elite groups meeting at Davos, or less publicly elsewhere, directs the crimes of US/Nato.
By Aangirfan
War graves in LibyaIn Benghazi, in Libya, Commonwealth War Graves have been smashed up by the mad Islamists put into power by the USA and NATO.
Headstones commemorating British and Allied soldiers, killed during World War II, have been destroyed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106230/Insult-WWII-heroes-Graves-British-soldiers-smashed-desecrated-Libyan-Islamists-protest-U-S-soldiers-Koran-burning.html#ixzz1nNBepz3w ...
Read more
THE RCAF: Al-QAEDA'S AIR FORCE
By Stephen Gowans
Canadian fighter pilots “flew 946 sorties and dropped almost 700 bombs” in last year’s NATO intervention in Libya. [1] But rather than enforcing a no-fly zone to protect civilians, the Canadian pilots—and their counterparts from other NATO countries—took sides in the conflict, intervening directly on behalf of anti-Gaddafi rebels.
But who exactly were the rebels that NATO sided with?
Private remarks by Canadian military officers, reported by the Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese, suggest the rebels weren’t everyday people thirsting for democracy, as NATO officials and mainline media made them out to be.
Gaddafi had claimed that “the rebellion had been organized by” Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb “and his old enemies the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group), who had vowed to overthrow the colonel and return the country to traditional Muslim values, including Sharia law.” [2] But this was dismissed by the West as propaganda.
Still, a “Canadian intelligence report written in late 2009…described the anti-Gadhafi stronghold of eastern Libya” where the rebellion began, “as an ‘epicentre of Islamist extremism’ and said ‘extremist cells’ operated in the region.” [3]
And Canadian military intelligence noted “in 2004 (that) Libyan troops found a training camp in the country’s southern desert that had been used by an Algerian terrorist group that would later change its name to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or AQIM.” [4]
Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who had “joined the U.S.-backed resistance to the Soviet (intervention in) Afghanistan, fighting alongside militants who would go on to form al-Qaeda,” was emblematic of the militant Islamic character of the uprising.
“Mr. Belhaj returned to Libya in the 1990s and led the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in fierce confrontations with Col. Gadhafi’s” government. The LIFG was aligned with al-Qaeda. [5]
Belhaj was “the rebellion’s most powerful military leader.” [6]
This should have aroused suspicions about the true nature of the uprising, but there was an earlier clue that the Benghazi revolt was inspired by something other than a thirst for democracy.
“On Feb. 15, 2011, citizens in Benghazi organized what they called a Day of Anger march. The demonstration soon turned into a full-scale battle with police.
“At first, security forces used tear gas and water cannons. But as several hundred protesters armed with rocks and Molotov cocktails attacked government buildings, the violence spiralled out of control. Demonstrators chanted, ‘No God but Allah, Moammar is the enemy of Allah’.” [7]
Today, Libya is a warzone of competing militias. The Transitional National Council, anointed by the West as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people, has no authority.
And now, one year after the uprising began, some NATO officials are admitting that NATO aligned itself with militant Islamic rebels to oust Gaddafi, who US officials had complained was engaging in “resource nationalism,” while oil companies denounced him for trying to “Libyanize” the economy. [8]
According to the Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese, some Canadian military officers in private refer “to the NATO jets bombing Gadhafi’s troops as ‘al-Qaeda’s air force’.” [9] ...
Read more
EGYPT: A REAL REVOLUTION ON ITS WAY?
By Tony Cartalucci
In January of 2011, we were told that "spontaneous," "indigenous" uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, in what was hailed as the "Arab Spring." It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated (emphasis added):
"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):
"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, LaHood's IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the "Arab Spring" began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first "fist" was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.
In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM's various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared C0hen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.
Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO "Otpor" who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a "well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States." After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.
The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, a full year before the "Arab Spring," along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while waiting for ElBaradei's arrival at Cairo's airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his "National Front for Change" and began preparing for the coming "Arab Spring."
An April 2011 AFP report would confirm that the US government had trained armies of "activists" to return to their respective countries and enact political "change," when US State Department's Michael Posner stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."
....
That ripple effect of course, was the "Arab Spring" and the subsequent destabilization, violence, and even US armed and backed warfare that followed. While nations like Libya and Tunisia are now run by a BP, Shell, and Total-funded Petroleum Institute chairman and a US NED-funded "activist" respectively, Egypt has managed to ward off and expose the US proxy of choice, Mohammed ElBaradei, who's own movement was forced to denounce him as a Western agent.By striking at the meddling, seditious NGOs, Egypt seeks to undermine the source of destabilization, the conduit through which US money and support is funneled through to "activists," and expose the true foreign-funded nature of the political division that has gripped the nation for now over a year. ...
Read more
WHY DO PEOPLE IN THE WEST SUPPORT US/NATO'S GLOBALIST ENTERPRISE?
By CanSpeccy
What is being fast created is a global empire ruled by the 146 corporate entities that control the bulk of international business activity. The people of the so-called democracies go along with this project largely because they imagine it to be a war of the West against the Rest.
This is a pathetic misconception.
The Western nations have already been subjugated. Hence, the fraudulent mainstream media that pump nothing but controlled news and propaganda. Hence the ongoing genocidal program to destroy the nations of Europe as racial, cultural and religious communities. Hence, the progressive collapse in Western living standards. Hence, the reduction of the United States to a police state, where citizens can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, where the president can order the assassination of anyone, where the government declares it vital to feel the genitals of every traveler.
How truly pathetic the people of the Western nations have become.
Libya was occupied and Gaddafi murdered, to Hillary Clinton's ecstatic delight, not because Gaddafi was "killing his own people," but because he put down a violent, US/Nato and Al Qaeda-backed rebellion, intended to restore Libya's resources to the control of the multi-nationals that already own the puppet regimes of Obama, Cameron, Harper, Sarkozy, et al.
The project was a success. Thirty thousand Chinese engineers and technicians were ousted from Libya, an American citizen installed as Libya's Prime Minister and the control of Libya's resources restored to the corporations that, through a network of elite groups meeting at Davos, or less publicly elsewhere, directs the crimes of US/Nato.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Sixteen trillion here, fifteen trillion there, soon you're talking real money
Google for "sixteen trillion" and you come up with some scary stuff:
Bernanke Secretly Gives away Sixteen Trillion (Ahead of the Heard);
US$ 16000000000000.00 (sixteen trillion) bailout (Pravda Forum);
Bernanke Secretly Gives away Sixteen Trillion Dollars (News Goldseek.com);
FED doles out sixteen trillion in bailouts that banks don't have to repay (trulia.com);
The Sixteen-Trillion-Dollar Mistake (cup.columbia.edu);
and many, many similar stories, although none, it seems, from the mainstream media.
Then comes this speech in the British upper house by Lord James Blackheath, a man of supposedly wide experience of banking and finance, in which the speaker claims to possess documents indicating that the US Fed was a participant in a fraud involving the transfer of $15 trillion dollars from an Indonesian potentate to the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Wow. Beeeeezaaaaaaarrrrre.
However, on the Blackheath claim, at least, we can probably set our minds at rest, for according to Andy McSmith at the Independent the noble lord himself appears to have been taken in by a Nigerian-letter-type scam.
Thanks to an amendment by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Wall Street reform law passed in July 2010 directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct "the first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve."
"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
But what we also know from Page 137 of the Government Accountability Office report is that by last summer, every cent of the $16 trillion had been repaid.
So perhaps what is most puzzling about the $sixteen trillion is that the US Fed does not do more to publicize the success of an operation that seems to have cost the US taxpayer nothing, while possibly saving the World from a total banking system collapse.
Bernanke Secretly Gives away Sixteen Trillion (Ahead of the Heard);
US$ 16000000000000.00 (sixteen trillion) bailout (Pravda Forum);
Bernanke Secretly Gives away Sixteen Trillion Dollars (News Goldseek.com);
FED doles out sixteen trillion in bailouts that banks don't have to repay (trulia.com);
The Sixteen-Trillion-Dollar Mistake (cup.columbia.edu);
and many, many similar stories, although none, it seems, from the mainstream media.
Then comes this speech in the British upper house by Lord James Blackheath, a man of supposedly wide experience of banking and finance, in which the speaker claims to possess documents indicating that the US Fed was a participant in a fraud involving the transfer of $15 trillion dollars from an Indonesian potentate to the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Wow. Beeeeezaaaaaaarrrrre.
However, on the Blackheath claim, at least, we can probably set our minds at rest, for according to Andy McSmith at the Independent the noble lord himself appears to have been taken in by a Nigerian-letter-type scam.
David James was a City businessman commissioned by the Tories, in opposition, to report on ways of eliminating government waste. Last week, the 74-year-old peer was exercised about a story he has picked up that $15trn – that is $15,000,000,000,000 – belonging to "the richest man in the world", Yohannes Riyadi, was deposited in 2009 in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Lord James said he remains baffled after a two-year pursuit of the story, but has all the information on a memory stick, which he is offering to hand over to the Government.But what of Bernanke's "secret," "not-to-be-repayed" "give away" to those undeserving banksters?
His documents include a letter from the Bank of Indonesia telling him the whole story is a "complete fabrication". He took his concerns to the Treasury minister, Lord Sassoon, who said: "This is rubbish. It is far too much money. It'd stick out like a sore thumb and you can't see it in the RBS accounts."
And an alert Financial Times blogger said that had Lord James googled "Yohannes Riyadi", the first item to come up would be a warning from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that the name is part of an internet scam designed to get money from the gullible. Two agents are trying to trace who is behind it. Perhaps Lord James should offer his memory stick.
Thanks to an amendment by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Wall Street reform law passed in July 2010 directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct "the first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve."
"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
But what we also know from Page 137 of the Government Accountability Office report is that by last summer, every cent of the $16 trillion had been repaid.
So perhaps what is most puzzling about the $sixteen trillion is that the US Fed does not do more to publicize the success of an operation that seems to have cost the US taxpayer nothing, while possibly saving the World from a total banking system collapse.
George de Mohrenschildt, George H.W. Bush, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK
George de Mohrenschildt, a millionaire petroleum geologist and acquaintance of George H. W. Bush, befriended Lee Harvey Oswald in the period immediately prior to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
De Mohrenschildt supposedly committed suicide by blowing his brains out with a 20 gauge shot gun the day, in 1977, he was to be interviewed by an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
In this video clip, Bill O'Reilly explains the relationship between de Mohrenschildt and the CIA, and the curious circumstances of de Mohrenschildt's death.
In this article, Russ Baker explains why Bill O'Reilly's forthcoming book on the Kennedy assassination is unlikely to tell all.
De Mohrenschildt supposedly committed suicide by blowing his brains out with a 20 gauge shot gun the day, in 1977, he was to be interviewed by an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
In this video clip, Bill O'Reilly explains the relationship between de Mohrenschildt and the CIA, and the curious circumstances of de Mohrenschildt's death.
In this article, Russ Baker explains why Bill O'Reilly's forthcoming book on the Kennedy assassination is unlikely to tell all.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
When Science and Politics Mix
Politics has to do with appearances without regard for reality. Science has to do with reality without regard for appearances. When science and politics mix the results can be remarkable. Politicians prove to be ignoramuses, scientists prove to be liars. Climate science provides a wonderful example. Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, intent on making science serve political ends, proves himself to be an ass and the Nobel Peace Prize a joke. Dr. Peter Gleick, member of the US National Academy of Sciences, McArthur Foundation Genius Award winner, intent on shaping public opinion proves himself a thief and liar, and those who backed him, gullible dupes.
Those who care about the perversion of science and wish to avoid being themselves duped by scientists behaving as politicians or politicians falsely claiming scientific expertise should apply to every argument about science the following questions.
Did Al Gore openly acknowledge this criticism and revise his argument accordingly? Apparently not, and it is this failure that confirms that Gore does not seek to reveal the reality of climate change, but to manipulate public perception of climate change for political reasons.
In addition, it is essential to determine whether the data presented in support of an argument are comprehensive or cherry picked.
In his Forbes blog, the above-mentioned Peter Gleick assails those who claim that global temperature is not rising in a piece entitled "Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data.
In fact, for the past decade, there seems no discernible trend, but Gleick assures the reader that:
And note that the issue of the past decade is central to Gleick's case, for he has set out to refute those who say that despite the current rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, global temperature is not rising.
But if Gleick's argument about the last decade is dodgy, what about the rest of his evidence?
Four other graphs all show a rise in global temperature or global heat over varying time scales going back to 1880.
So do those graphs clinch his argument? Hardly.
As can be seen in the adjacent image, over the last 130 years, global temperature has been quite variable, falling between 1880 and 1910, then rising more or less continuously until 1945, after which it fell slightly before flattening out for 30 years, then rising until around 2000, since when it has been flat.
Does this reflect a close correlation with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration? No.
Does it show, as Gleick asserts, that those who claim global warming has stopped "are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth"? No.
What it does show is that global temperature varies, sometimes rising sometimes falling, and that while the overall trend since 1880 is upward, the trend since 2000, when atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising quite rapidly, has been flat.
Does this prove that human activity has no effect on climate? Absolutely not. It merely shows that global temperature fluctuates for reasons we do not fully understand.
But if global temperature has, for now, stopped rising, despite the continued and increasing human-caused rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, does that prove that human activity cannot harm the planet? Far from it.
Neither the climate "warmists" nor the warming "skeptics" know enough about the vagaries of the Earth's climate to make any definite statement. All that one can reasonably say is that changing the chemical composition and spectral properties of the atmosphere in an uncontrolled way, as we have been doing with increasing effect, does not seem like a very good idea, and could eventually have clearly apparent and seriously harmful environmental consequences. On the other hand, we cannot simply shut down the fossil-fueled economy overnight, without wiping out most of humanity.
What then to do? The answer is simple, though not easily accepted. Leave climate science to the scientists, and be very skeptical of everything the politicians, including those in white coats, have to tell you about the environmental, social and economic implications of the science.
But we have to act, many will assert. That is true, but we have to act in a state of uncertainty. There are risks whatever course is taken. We must hope for intelligent political decisions base on first-rate, unbiased science, not panic-driven actions serving ulterior political motives.
For now, neither the physical evidence nor the theoretical considerations suggest imminent danger. Viewed in the long-term, we are currently in a pleasantly warm and perhaps all too brief interglacial and seem in greatest danger not of harmful warming but of catastrophic cooling.
Those who care about the perversion of science and wish to avoid being themselves duped by scientists behaving as politicians or politicians falsely claiming scientific expertise should apply to every argument about science the following questions.
Does the argument rest upon observational data?On that basis, Al Gore's claim that past increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were associated with increases in global temperature is based on observable facts, and the data are not, as far as I am aware, disputed by qualified experts. However, what the experts do assert is that Gore has the timing wrong, and that the rise in temperature always came before, not after, the rise in carbon dioxide concentration.
Are the data disputed by those with expertise to make a plausible judgement?
Do those who advance the argument deal honestly with those who question the data or the logic of the analysis?
Did Al Gore openly acknowledge this criticism and revise his argument accordingly? Apparently not, and it is this failure that confirms that Gore does not seek to reveal the reality of climate change, but to manipulate public perception of climate change for political reasons.
In addition, it is essential to determine whether the data presented in support of an argument are comprehensive or cherry picked.
In his Forbes blog, the above-mentioned Peter Gleick assails those who claim that global temperature is not rising in a piece entitled "Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data.
The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.These liars, ignoramuses and blatant disregarders of the truth Dr. Gleick fails to mention by name, but he aims to refute them with a series of graphs showing in every case, so he claims, a rising trend in global temperature.
The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.
In fact, for the past decade, there seems no discernible trend, but Gleick assures the reader that:
The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warmingwhich seems something of a contradiction in terms. If the line is flat it is flat. To talk about a warming trend masked by "temporary cooling forces" appears to be sheer sophistry.
And note that the issue of the past decade is central to Gleick's case, for he has set out to refute those who say that despite the current rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, global temperature is not rising.
But if Gleick's argument about the last decade is dodgy, what about the rest of his evidence?
Four other graphs all show a rise in global temperature or global heat over varying time scales going back to 1880.
So do those graphs clinch his argument? Hardly.
Does this reflect a close correlation with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration? No.
Does it show, as Gleick asserts, that those who claim global warming has stopped "are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth"? No.
What it does show is that global temperature varies, sometimes rising sometimes falling, and that while the overall trend since 1880 is upward, the trend since 2000, when atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising quite rapidly, has been flat.
Does this prove that human activity has no effect on climate? Absolutely not. It merely shows that global temperature fluctuates for reasons we do not fully understand.
But if global temperature has, for now, stopped rising, despite the continued and increasing human-caused rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, does that prove that human activity cannot harm the planet? Far from it.
Neither the climate "warmists" nor the warming "skeptics" know enough about the vagaries of the Earth's climate to make any definite statement. All that one can reasonably say is that changing the chemical composition and spectral properties of the atmosphere in an uncontrolled way, as we have been doing with increasing effect, does not seem like a very good idea, and could eventually have clearly apparent and seriously harmful environmental consequences. On the other hand, we cannot simply shut down the fossil-fueled economy overnight, without wiping out most of humanity.
What then to do? The answer is simple, though not easily accepted. Leave climate science to the scientists, and be very skeptical of everything the politicians, including those in white coats, have to tell you about the environmental, social and economic implications of the science.
But we have to act, many will assert. That is true, but we have to act in a state of uncertainty. There are risks whatever course is taken. We must hope for intelligent political decisions base on first-rate, unbiased science, not panic-driven actions serving ulterior political motives.
For now, neither the physical evidence nor the theoretical considerations suggest imminent danger. Viewed in the long-term, we are currently in a pleasantly warm and perhaps all too brief interglacial and seem in greatest danger not of harmful warming but of catastrophic cooling.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Greening the Sahara
 |
| Tensegrity sphere |
Are you anxious to feed the hungry, combat the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and see the desert bloom? If so, this piece, Greening the Sahara, outlining a scheme to do just that by irrigating the ten million square kilometers of the Sahara desert using solar power as the sole driving energy source may be of interest.
The scheme involves the use of geodesic spheres as gigantic, lighter-than-air cloud-containment structures that carry water-saturated air from the coast inland on the sea breeze, deposit the water over the desert during the cool nighttime and return to the coast either on the predawn land breeze or perhaps drawn by camels.
I had intended to add a cost analysis of the scheme but it is some months since I worked on the idea and the details about cost now escape me. As I recall, however, the thing was not altogether unfeasible. In fact, with some ingenuity in the construction of the hot air dirigibles, it seemed to me that the idea could payoff quite well.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Why the Eurozone Is About to Break Up
 |
| Image source: Euro Failure is Systemic. |
Mish has a piece today entitled "Why Greece Must Exit the Eurozone." This states exactly what I said a while back, which confirms what a smart fellow Mish is.
Mish's article includes a quote listing the requirements for a successful monetary union as spelled out by Canadian Nobel Prize winning economist, Robert Mundell: requirements that, as we noted earlier, the Eurozone entirely lacks.
In fact, rather than the Euro monetary straightjacket, Europe would be better off with a multiplicity of currencies, as Canadian author Jane Jacobs explained in various works on the economy of cities. With a free-floating currency a country, region or city automatically maintains a currency exchange rate that under most circumstances insures balanced trade and full employment. If productivity falls relative to that of trading partners, the currency falls, achieving in effect, a reduction in real wages without modification in nominal wages. Conversely, if productivity rises relative to that of trading partners the currency exchange rate rises, thus achieving an increase in real wages without modification in nominal wages.
Because labor productivity varies not only country by country but region by region and city by city, the greater the number of free floating currencies within a trading area the greater the precision with which real wages are adjusted to productivity and unemployment is minimized.
An alternative to the complication of multiple currencies within a trade zone would be the implementation of automatic wage adjustments according to productivity. Because productivity is difficult to measure accurately and expeditiously, unemployment would be used as a proxy for the inverse of productivity. Thus as unemployment in any region increased, wages would be adjusted downward on a year-to-year, or month-to-month basis. Conversely, as the labor market tightened, wages would be adjusted upward.
A scheme to achieve regional adjustment in wages according to productivity within a currency union such as just outlined would solve the Eurozone crisis, and incidentally, win CanSpeccy the Nobel Prize for economics. But the idea is undoubtedly far above the heads of Merkozy and co, or most economists, so the Eurozone break-up will proceed -- on March 23, so many people are saying.
Hitler's 9/11: How fortunate for leaders that men do not think
Via WRH
On November 7, 1938, Ernst vom Rath was shot outside the German embassy by Herschel Grynszpan, who wanted revenge for his parents' sudden deportation from Germany to Poland, along with tens of thousands of other Polish Jews.
[The murder provided the Nazis with a justification for] a campaign of terror against Jewish people and their homes and businesses in Germany and Austria. The violence, which continued through November 10 and was later dubbed "Kristallnacht," or "Night of Broken Glass," after the countless smashed windows of Jewish-owned establishments, left approximately 100 Jews dead, 7,500 Jewish businesses damaged and hundreds of synagogues, homes, schools and graveyards vandalized. An estimated 30,000 Jewish men were arrested, many of whom were then sent to concentration camps for several months; they were released when they promised to leave Germany.
Excerpts from This Day in History.
Friday, February 17, 2012
The stinking orthodoxies of the white self-hating liberal-left
By Patrick Buchanan
My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.
The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice," claimed that my book espouses a "white supremacist ideology." Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, "The End of White America."
Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!
A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America's leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan's "extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world."
Their rage was triggered by a remark to NPR's Diane Rehm – that I believe homosexual acts to be "unnatural and immoral."
On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on.
"Buchanan has shown himself, time and again, to be a racist and an anti-Semite," said Foxman. Buchanan "bemoans the destruction of white Christian America" and says America's shrinking Jewish population is due to the "collective decision of Jews themselves."
Well, yes, I do bemoan what Newsweek's 2009 cover called "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" and editor Jon Meacham described as "The End of Christian America." After all, I am a Christian.
And what else explains the shrinkage of the U.S. Jewish population by 6 percent in the 1990s and its projected decline by another 50 percent by 2050, if not the "collective decision of Jews themselves"?
Let error be tolerated, said Thomas Jefferson, "so long as reason is left free to combat it." What Foxman and ADL are about in demanding that my voice be silenced is, in the Jeffersonian sense, intrinsically un-American.
Consider what it is these people are saying.
They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin's, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity.
If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism?
How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?
In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, "The End of White America?" from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America's white majority. At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050.
Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?
That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.
Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?
Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of Suicide of a Superpower is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century's end.
Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?
So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, "I don't think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC."
In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract.
Yet my four-months' absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.
The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.
All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.
Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their "smelly little orthodoxies." They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.
Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.
I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.
My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.
After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.
The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it "exists to strengthen Black America's political voice," claimed that my book espouses a "white supremacist ideology." Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, "The End of White America."
Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!
A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America's leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan's "extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world."
Their rage was triggered by a remark to NPR's Diane Rehm – that I believe homosexual acts to be "unnatural and immoral."
On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on.
"Buchanan has shown himself, time and again, to be a racist and an anti-Semite," said Foxman. Buchanan "bemoans the destruction of white Christian America" and says America's shrinking Jewish population is due to the "collective decision of Jews themselves."
Well, yes, I do bemoan what Newsweek's 2009 cover called "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" and editor Jon Meacham described as "The End of Christian America." After all, I am a Christian.
And what else explains the shrinkage of the U.S. Jewish population by 6 percent in the 1990s and its projected decline by another 50 percent by 2050, if not the "collective decision of Jews themselves"?
Let error be tolerated, said Thomas Jefferson, "so long as reason is left free to combat it." What Foxman and ADL are about in demanding that my voice be silenced is, in the Jeffersonian sense, intrinsically un-American.
Consider what it is these people are saying.
They are saying that a respected publisher, St. Martin's, colluded with me to produce a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic book, and CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, Fox Business News and the 150 radio shows on which I appeared failed to detect its evil and helped to promote a moral atrocity.
If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism?
How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?
In a 2009 cover story in the Atlantic, "The End of White America?" from which my chapter title was taken, professor Hua Hsu revels in the passing of America's white majority. At Portland State, President Clinton got a huge ovation when he told students that white Americans will be a minority in 2050.
Is this writer alone forbidden to broach the subject?
That homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral has been doctrine in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.
Is it now hate speech to restate traditional Catholic beliefs?
Documented in the 488 pages and 1,500 footnotes of Suicide of a Superpower is my thesis that America is Balkanizing, breaking down along the lines of religion, race, ethnicity, culture and ideology, and that Western peoples are facing demographic death by century's end.
Are such subjects taboo? Are they unfit for national debate?
So it would seem. MSNBC President Phil Griffin told reporters, "I don't think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC."
In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract.
Yet my four-months' absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.
The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate.
All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.
Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their "smelly little orthodoxies." They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.
Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.
I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
German MP's propose tax on the childless
The idea of taxing people who have no children will no doubt arouse indignation among the brains-washed liberal-leftist masses who have been educated to understand that the only thing wrong with sex is that it perpetuates the human race.
Some German MP's, however, have had the temerity to propose a tax on childless adults as a measure to combat the catastrophic, nation-destroying collapse in the German birthrate. By imposing a tax on the childless, the state would provide couples with an incentive to have children by at least marginally lessening the financial burden of so doing.
At the same time, those without children, would by virtue of the tax, come to bear part of the financial burden that others bear in raising the children upon whom they will become dependent in old age.
To some, the idea that the childless become dependent on other people's children in old age may seem strange, for they will argue, provided I have saved for retirement I will be dependent on no one. But that is not the case. Without a younger generation to provide the labor that delivers the goods and services that the elderly need in order to survive beyond the point of retirement, the elderly cannot remain alive however much money they might have saved.
Oh, it will be said by the thoughtless or the self-genocidal, there will always be immigrants to do the work that we are unable to do when we are old. But that is precisely the problem. If Europeans have no children, there will in future be none of the existing European nations remaining on the face of the Earth.
Yes, there will still be people calling themselves Germans, or French or English, but they will not be the descendants of those ancient races. The proposed legislation would be a small step toward ending the present ongoing self-genocide of the European peoples.
Read article from the German edition of The Local
Some German MP's, however, have had the temerity to propose a tax on childless adults as a measure to combat the catastrophic, nation-destroying collapse in the German birthrate. By imposing a tax on the childless, the state would provide couples with an incentive to have children by at least marginally lessening the financial burden of so doing.
At the same time, those without children, would by virtue of the tax, come to bear part of the financial burden that others bear in raising the children upon whom they will become dependent in old age.
To some, the idea that the childless become dependent on other people's children in old age may seem strange, for they will argue, provided I have saved for retirement I will be dependent on no one. But that is not the case. Without a younger generation to provide the labor that delivers the goods and services that the elderly need in order to survive beyond the point of retirement, the elderly cannot remain alive however much money they might have saved.
Oh, it will be said by the thoughtless or the self-genocidal, there will always be immigrants to do the work that we are unable to do when we are old. But that is precisely the problem. If Europeans have no children, there will in future be none of the existing European nations remaining on the face of the Earth.
Yes, there will still be people calling themselves Germans, or French or English, but they will not be the descendants of those ancient races. The proposed legislation would be a small step toward ending the present ongoing self-genocide of the European peoples.
Read article from the German edition of The Local
Kurt Haskell Exposes Government False Flag Operation During Underwear Bomber Sentencing
Kurt Haskell
Infowars.com Thursday, February 16, 2012: Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim’s physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime. Keep that in mind as you read my statement.
Below is a copy of the victim impact statement I gave today at the Underwear Bomber sentencing hearing. When reading my statement, keep in mind that I am a practicing attorney in the State of Michigan.
In addition, I regularly practice in the Court the hearings are taking place at and therefore, I am somewhat limited as to what I can say. We were limited to 5 minutes each.
I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution.
On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate.
What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport.
Read more
Infowars.com Thursday, February 16, 2012: Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim’s physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime. Keep that in mind as you read my statement.
Below is a copy of the victim impact statement I gave today at the Underwear Bomber sentencing hearing. When reading my statement, keep in mind that I am a practicing attorney in the State of Michigan.
In addition, I regularly practice in the Court the hearings are taking place at and therefore, I am somewhat limited as to what I can say. We were limited to 5 minutes each.
I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution.
On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate.
What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport.
Read more
Paul Volcker Slaps Down Bank of Canada Over Rules to Prevent Banks Too Big to Fail
By SIMON JOHNSON Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is the co-author of “13 Bankers.”
The Volcker Rule is intended to curb “proprietary trading” – specifically, high-risk bets placed by our largest banks. The Dodd-Frank financial reform act put it into law, and the relevant regulators have proposed a detailed and credible set of regulations to make it work. In accordance with typical administrative procedure in the United States, comments on these regulations were solicited. The deadline was this past Monday.
The legislative intent behind the Volcker Rule is clear – and reaffirmed in detail in the comment letter by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan, the co-authors of the relevant part of the Dodd-Frank legislation.
The reason that the general approach and this specific regulation makes sense, given past practices and likely future risks, is laid out in meticulous and convincing detail in the comment submitted by Dennis Kelleher and his colleagues from Better Markets.
The big banks and their allies are naturally fighting back. They like the implicit too-big-to-fail subsidies and are apparently offering to split those with people who will support their positions in public (including some of my academic colleagues). Their collective lack of concern for the public interest is also natural, if somewhat callous.
But the executives of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, and they interpret the too-big-to-fail subsidies as helpful in this regard. Government support, after all, allows these banks to borrow more cheaply and to take on more risk (gaining more when they get lucky, precisely because they have “downside protection” provided by taxpayers).
Read more
The Volcker Rule is intended to curb “proprietary trading” – specifically, high-risk bets placed by our largest banks. The Dodd-Frank financial reform act put it into law, and the relevant regulators have proposed a detailed and credible set of regulations to make it work. In accordance with typical administrative procedure in the United States, comments on these regulations were solicited. The deadline was this past Monday.
Congress rightly decided that excessive risk-taking by very large banks had to be curtailed. Responsible regulators around the world are cheering from the sidelines, and that’s why I was shocked to see the recent comment letter from the Bank of Canada that criticized the American law.
The legislative intent behind the Volcker Rule is clear – and reaffirmed in detail in the comment letter by Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan, the co-authors of the relevant part of the Dodd-Frank legislation.
The reason that the general approach and this specific regulation makes sense, given past practices and likely future risks, is laid out in meticulous and convincing detail in the comment submitted by Dennis Kelleher and his colleagues from Better Markets.
The big banks and their allies are naturally fighting back. They like the implicit too-big-to-fail subsidies and are apparently offering to split those with people who will support their positions in public (including some of my academic colleagues). Their collective lack of concern for the public interest is also natural, if somewhat callous.
But the executives of these companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make profits, and they interpret the too-big-to-fail subsidies as helpful in this regard. Government support, after all, allows these banks to borrow more cheaply and to take on more risk (gaining more when they get lucky, precisely because they have “downside protection” provided by taxpayers).
Read more
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Second Great Depression and The Cause That None Dare Name
 |
| The decline in unemployment to 2008 was the result of an unsustainable credit-based housing bubble created by the US Federal Reserve. Image source |
Unemployment in Spain is around 23%. On a true measure, according to the Trades Union Congress, unemployment in the UK now exceeds 6.3 million people or more than 20% of the workforce. US unemployment according to the U6 measure is over 15%.
Among young people (aged 16-24) the rate of unemployment is even worse. In Spain, youth unemployment has surged over 50%. In the UK, youth unemployment now exceeds one million, while hundreds of thousands of immigrants flood in. For black youth in Britain the outlook is particularly grim with unemployment exceeding 50%. But for black youngsters in America, unemployment approaching 90% is catastrophic.
 |
| European youth unemployment. (Image source) |
But in a World possessed of technology that to an earlier generation would appear to be of near magical power, the idea that the highly capitalized Western nations cannot provide their populations with opportunities to work and support themselves is absurd. And indeed if it were not absurd, why do the Western elites continue to promote a flood of immigration to the West, destroying ethnic diversity, social cohesion and religious compatibility while vilifying and criminalizing opposition to this genocidal program as racist and xenophobic?
As for resource shortages, most appear to be artificial. Food prices have been boosted by government programs to encourage the conversion of food into fuel at huge cost to taxpayers and with little if any net gain in energy. Oil prices have been boosted by the continual Western-generated threat or reality of war in the chief oil exporting regions of the World.
As for global warming, all we've seen so far has likely boosted crop yields, as must have the the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The reason for mass Western unemployment must, therefore, be hidden in plain sight.
And the cause is in plain sight, though none in the media dare mention it. It is the 1994 GATT agreement that opened the Western nations to unrestricted free trade with the rest of the World, which is to say with the teeming masses of Asia, the Middle East and Africa, where hundreds of millions of workers are sweated for pennies an hour.
The outcome was predictable and predicted. In fact, Sir James Goldsmith felt so strongly about the damage that would be done to Britain by the 1994 Gatt Agreement that he formed the Referendum Party to take Britain out of the EU and thus make her free to regulate trade in the national interest. Goldsmith, however, died in 1997 and his party was absorbed by another Euroskeptic group now headed by a former commodities broker with a gift for lampooning the charisma-challenged EU leadership, but who seems to have nothing to say against global free trade.
But why, if Third-World competition is wreaking such havoc with Western job markets, does almost no prominent individual or mass media outlet dare speak of it? Because it is immensely profitable to those moving work from the West to the Rest, and it is they who own the political class and thus the education system, which should more accurately be called a system of state indoctrination and propaganda, the broadcast media, and the publishing industry.
As the great classical economist David Ricardo explained, "wages and profits are together always the same," meaning that if you lower wages you increase profits. It is no coincidence, therefore, that while the West suffers the severest depression in jobs and wages since the 1930's, profits of Western corporations are at record highs. In the United States, for example, corporate profits have doubled since 2000, while unemployment has increased by 150%.
What then is the solution? Briefly, there is none. True, we have proposed seeming solutions: either trade protectionism, or government intervention to speed wage convergence between the West and the Rest, while providing income support to those in the West whose wages fall below the subsistence level. But Western governments have shown no interest in either protecting jobs and job skills or preventing the flight of capital to low-wage, low regulation regimes, where profits are highest. It is sufficient, they seem to believe, to provide the unemployed with a dole to keep them alive with crumbs from the bankers' tables but in a state of smouldering resentment, while hastening wage convergence through currency devaluation. Unfortunately, for Western countries, the Chinese are putting on a fine performance in the race to debase, thus preventing the US and Europe from gaining competitive advantage through devaluation.
How will this end? Badly. It will end with the burial of Western Civilization and the emergence of the New World Order, which is to say a global plutocracy ruling over a mongrelized human population. There will be no West or Rest in the future. There will be one global mass, and anyone who objects to the genocidal destruction of their own race, nation and culture will be criminalized and silenced.
Unless, that is, there is push back. But there is no evidence that a reaction is possible, let alone occurring. Seeming opponents of the New World Order are mostly globalist controlled assets. How to tell? find out what they say about globalization of trade, mass migration and multi-culturalism. Most you will find are entirely on board with the Council on Foreign relations, Chatham House, and the pseudo-left-wing media.
Related post:
Crooks and Liars: Hell Is Cheap: China, Apple, And The Economics Of Horror
What's Wrong With Europe and What Needs to Be Done About It
Robert Herndon:The globalist lies about the British job market
Monday, February 13, 2012
Is "Bad Science" an Oxymoron
 |
| View full size |
Having written on occasion about scientific fraud, scientific data manipulation and outright scientific nonsense, I was invited by its creators to comment on a poster entitled Bad Science, the psychology behind bad research, offered as a resource on the ClinicalPsychology.net website.
"Scientists," states an introduction to the poster, "are some of our most trusted members of society ... [but] many scientists are not as trustworthy as we would like to believe. By engaging in various kinds of scientific misconduct, such as falsifying or fabricating data, scientists are getting the results they want without the honesty and integrity that we expect of the scientific institution."
As a scientist of almost 50 years standing, it's news to me that scientists are among the most trusted members of the community. Personally, I would trust a scientists no more and no less than I would trust a banker or a politician. And that is surely not being unduly cynical, for as everyone knows, when their work impinges on important economic or political questions, scientists can be remarkably responsive to the interests of those funding their work, whether it be the tobacco industry, the drug industry, the arms industry or a government with an agenda on climate change, HIV/AIDS, the psychiatric treatment of political dissidents, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons in populated areas. So it seems to me that the people at ClinicalPsychology.net are proceeding on the basis of a questionable assumption.
There is no question, however, that data falsification (are falsified data, truly data at all in the scientific sense?) and data fabrication are not activities to be encouraged, so when ClinicalPsychology.net tells us to read their "infographic" to find out how to fix the problem, we are prepared to read on.
However, what we find is little in the way of the promised account of the "psychology behind bad science" or effective means to "fix the problem," but mainly a series of assertions about the prevalence of scientific fraud. "Shady scientific research is rampant" we are told, which sounds bad, but what does it mean. Well for one thing, "One in three scientists admit to using questionable research practices," which include "dropping data points based on gut feeling," and "changing the results or design of a study due to pressure from a funding source."
So now we begin to have some idea what they are talking about, but it nevertheless remains vague. What, for example, does it mean to drop a data point "based on gut feeling"? Presumably it means that the scientist believes that they have a plausible justification for dropping the data point in question: "I noticed some crud in that tube when I was adding the reagents," or "the rat that died looked sick before we began feeding it GM corn." Adoption of such rationalizations for the selection of data is not considered acceptable practice but it has a venerable history in science, and while few would condone it, the question of whether it constitutes "bad science" is less clear than many might suppose.
Scientific knowledge is not a collection of facts, it is a system of laws, principles and patterns which allow us to infer from a given set of facts another heretofore unknown set of facts, including facts about past, present or future. Thus science as a process of discovery is concerned, primarily, not with any specific facts, but with ideas about the relationships among facts in the observable world. Because there is uncertainty about all particular observed facts, there is no overwhelming reason to reject a good idea because it is inconsistent with some observation that "gut feeling", i.e., some plausible argument, suggests is false.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
How can Wikileaks battle mainstream media disinformation by working in collaboration with the mainstream media? LOL
A project such as Wikileaks could provide a most effective mechanism for both diverting the alternative media with misleading or fabricated information, and identifying for termination genuine leaks damaging to US/NATO's imperialist agenda and the anti-social or criminal activities of multinational corporations.
That Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a recipient of the Sam Adams Award "for integrity in intelligence," which is given annually by a group of retired CIA officers, appears to confirm the hypothesis that Wikileaks is an intel operation.
That Wikileaks claims to have as its primary interest, oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in no way detracts from the notion that it is an intel or propaganda operation serving the the aims of Western hegemony.
That Wikileaks has collaborated extensively with the mainstream media in the selection and redaction of material to be leaked supports the same conclusion.
In this excellent analysis of Wikileaks and the parties with which it has collaborated, Professor Michel Chossudovksy spells out exactly why Wikileaks has the essential features of a mechanism for the manufacture of controlled dissent.
That Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a recipient of the Sam Adams Award "for integrity in intelligence," which is given annually by a group of retired CIA officers, appears to confirm the hypothesis that Wikileaks is an intel operation.
That Wikileaks claims to have as its primary interest, oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in no way detracts from the notion that it is an intel or propaganda operation serving the the aims of Western hegemony.
That Wikileaks has collaborated extensively with the mainstream media in the selection and redaction of material to be leaked supports the same conclusion.
In this excellent analysis of Wikileaks and the parties with which it has collaborated, Professor Michel Chossudovksy spells out exactly why Wikileaks has the essential features of a mechanism for the manufacture of controlled dissent.
Human Biodiversity: Liberals Rediscover IQ
By Dennis Mangan
Whenever the subject of intelligence testing comes up, especially in the context of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence, or disparate outcomes in education, liberals can always be counted upon for their skepticism towards the entire subject of IQ testing. They will usually claim that the tests are either biased or don't measure anything real - as in "IQ measures the ability to take an IQ test". This is of course ironic, since individual differences in intelligence as measured by IQ testing is the most established and robust finding of modern psychometrics, and liberals constantly proclaim their devotion to science, only inbred conservatives being opposed to scientific findings.
But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Whenever the subject of intelligence testing comes up, especially in the context of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence, or disparate outcomes in education, liberals can always be counted upon for their skepticism towards the entire subject of IQ testing. They will usually claim that the tests are either biased or don't measure anything real - as in "IQ measures the ability to take an IQ test". This is of course ironic, since individual differences in intelligence as measured by IQ testing is the most established and robust finding of modern psychometrics, and liberals constantly proclaim their devotion to science, only inbred conservatives being opposed to scientific findings.
But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority."I guess smart liberals believe that a mother working outside the home full-time couldn't possibly have any downside for family life, and that their indoctrination of schoolkids in things like environmentalism, global warming, and the essential evilness of America's past don't constitute teaching children to obey their authority.
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Friday, February 10, 2012
How Iran Threatens the United States of Aggression
 |
| Each star marks the location of a US military base. Image Source: Juan Cole |
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nulius in verba: On the word of no one
Or how the Royal Society betrayed its original purpose to become another quasi governmental organization spewing the scientifically correct official line
By Andrew Montford
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.
The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.
The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.
Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
For example, in an exchange in the Financial Times (April 9, 2010), Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone (President of the NAS) defended global warming concern by noting essentially that carbon dioxide (CO2) was increasing and that climate was changing. Of course, climate is always changing, and increasing CO2 must make some contribution, but none of this suggests anything alarming. The alarm results from controversial feedbacks wherein the small impacts of CO2 are, in current computer models, greatly amplified. With respect to these feedbacks, Rees and Cicerone say: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise (referring to global mean temperature anomaly), stemming largely from ‘feedback’ effects on water vapor and clouds are topics of current research.” That is to say, we don’t even know if there is a problem. Yet, Rees and Cicerone conclude: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”
In other words, regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty? My guess is that Rees and Cicerone were only mindlessly repeating a script prepared by the environmental movement. In this report Montford documents some disturbing general trends, which one can only hope that scientists of good standing shall increasingly continue to oppose.
Summary
For 300 years after its foundation, the Royal Society adopted a position of aloofness from political debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day. This position was encapsulated in the Society’s journal, The Philosophical Transactions, which carried a notice that ‘It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Society to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room’.
In the 1960s, the society became increasingly involved at the interface of science and political policymaking.With the elevation of Robert May to the presidency, the Society became highly politicised, involving itself in political advocacy and media campaigns. In 1989 it had issued the first of its highly controversial position papers on climate change, a document that eschewed the sober language of the scientist in favour of denunciations of those who questioned the reality or extent of manmade global warming.
May’s political approach was continued by his successor, Martin Rees, with the Society’s authority being used to try to cut off funding of sceptic groups and with Rees putting forward positions on the economics of climate change. The Society issued a series of highly political statements demanding action from politicians.
Under Rees, another combative statement on the science of global warming was issued. With the Society again adopting a political rather than scientific tone, a substantial group of the fellows was stirred to action, demanding that the Society reconsider the unscientific way in which it was addressing the global warming question, the result being a much improved position paper on global warming that reflected at least some of the critics’ concerns.
Despite this, the Society has yet to distance itself from its former unscientific conduct, and the new president, Paul Nurse, has begun his term of office by staking out some very questionable positions on the role of scepticism in the climate debate.
Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.
Full report
Related:
Canspeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization
By Andrew Montford
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.
The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.
The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.
Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
For example, in an exchange in the Financial Times (April 9, 2010), Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone (President of the NAS) defended global warming concern by noting essentially that carbon dioxide (CO2) was increasing and that climate was changing. Of course, climate is always changing, and increasing CO2 must make some contribution, but none of this suggests anything alarming. The alarm results from controversial feedbacks wherein the small impacts of CO2 are, in current computer models, greatly amplified. With respect to these feedbacks, Rees and Cicerone say: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise (referring to global mean temperature anomaly), stemming largely from ‘feedback’ effects on water vapor and clouds are topics of current research.” That is to say, we don’t even know if there is a problem. Yet, Rees and Cicerone conclude: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”
In other words, regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty? My guess is that Rees and Cicerone were only mindlessly repeating a script prepared by the environmental movement. In this report Montford documents some disturbing general trends, which one can only hope that scientists of good standing shall increasingly continue to oppose.
Summary
For 300 years after its foundation, the Royal Society adopted a position of aloofness from political debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day. This position was encapsulated in the Society’s journal, The Philosophical Transactions, which carried a notice that ‘It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Society to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room’.
In the 1960s, the society became increasingly involved at the interface of science and political policymaking.With the elevation of Robert May to the presidency, the Society became highly politicised, involving itself in political advocacy and media campaigns. In 1989 it had issued the first of its highly controversial position papers on climate change, a document that eschewed the sober language of the scientist in favour of denunciations of those who questioned the reality or extent of manmade global warming.
May’s political approach was continued by his successor, Martin Rees, with the Society’s authority being used to try to cut off funding of sceptic groups and with Rees putting forward positions on the economics of climate change. The Society issued a series of highly political statements demanding action from politicians.
Under Rees, another combative statement on the science of global warming was issued. With the Society again adopting a political rather than scientific tone, a substantial group of the fellows was stirred to action, demanding that the Society reconsider the unscientific way in which it was addressing the global warming question, the result being a much improved position paper on global warming that reflected at least some of the critics’ concerns.
Despite this, the Society has yet to distance itself from its former unscientific conduct, and the new president, Paul Nurse, has begun his term of office by staking out some very questionable positions on the role of scepticism in the climate debate.
Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.
Full report
Related:
Canspeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization
Monday, February 6, 2012
The US Federal Reserve Really Does Turn Over Profits to the Treasury
It is repeatedly stated by bloggers and others self-published on the Internet that the US Federal Reserve is a scam because it prints money for the US Government and then charges the US Treasury interest on the money thus conjured out of thin air.
In fact, charging interest on money created out of thin air is what commercial banks do. They create credit in amounts many times what has been placed on deposit with them and charge borrowers for the use of the money thus created.
The Fed, however, operates differently. If the Treasury needs money, it prints off some bonds and hands them over to the Fed, which then writes the Treasury a check for money it does not have -- so-called ink money.
The Treasury then spends the money the Fed just created out of thin air, while paying interest at the rate specified by the bonds held in the Fed's portfolio.
However, at the end of the year, the Fed pays the Treasury its profits, i.e., interest earned on the Government paper it holds less operating expenses.
So all that actually happens is that the Government pays itself interest on money created for it by the Fed, less the cost of the Fed's role as an intermediary.
Why, one might ask, involve the Fed at all?
The answer is that by handling the Government's paper, the Fed can control the money supply by selling bonds to the public, or buying them back.
When the Fed sells bonds it takes money out of circulation and reduces the money supply. When the Fed buys bonds either from the Government or the public it increases the money in circulation.
The money that the Fed receives on the sale of bonds to the public goes out of existence as magically as the ink money with which it purchased the bonds was conjured into existence.
The only significant consequence for the Treasury of Fed bond sales is that the interest on the bonds is no longer returned, courtesy of the Fed. It is at this point that the interest on the money created by the Fed becomes a real expense to the Treasury and thus to the American taxpayer.
This is as it should be, since the money with which the bonds have been purchased by private parties is real money, not funny money, which is to say that by purchasing government bonds, investors are giving up use of their money and expect, naturally, to earn interest in return.
Confirming that the Fed does not earn interest beyond its expense of operation on bonds that it purchases from the Treasury, the New York Times states in an article published today:
None of which is intended to suggest that the Fed is an unmitigated blessing on the American people or that it should not be audited. On the contrary, it is impossible to judge the value of the Fed without knowing what it does, and anyone who opposes a thorough review of the Fed's activities is probably a banker whose owes their job and bonuses to the generosity of the Fed to undeserving speculators and fraudsters.
In fact, charging interest on money created out of thin air is what commercial banks do. They create credit in amounts many times what has been placed on deposit with them and charge borrowers for the use of the money thus created.
The Fed, however, operates differently. If the Treasury needs money, it prints off some bonds and hands them over to the Fed, which then writes the Treasury a check for money it does not have -- so-called ink money.
The Treasury then spends the money the Fed just created out of thin air, while paying interest at the rate specified by the bonds held in the Fed's portfolio.
However, at the end of the year, the Fed pays the Treasury its profits, i.e., interest earned on the Government paper it holds less operating expenses.
So all that actually happens is that the Government pays itself interest on money created for it by the Fed, less the cost of the Fed's role as an intermediary.
Why, one might ask, involve the Fed at all?
The answer is that by handling the Government's paper, the Fed can control the money supply by selling bonds to the public, or buying them back.
When the Fed sells bonds it takes money out of circulation and reduces the money supply. When the Fed buys bonds either from the Government or the public it increases the money in circulation.
The money that the Fed receives on the sale of bonds to the public goes out of existence as magically as the ink money with which it purchased the bonds was conjured into existence.
The only significant consequence for the Treasury of Fed bond sales is that the interest on the bonds is no longer returned, courtesy of the Fed. It is at this point that the interest on the money created by the Fed becomes a real expense to the Treasury and thus to the American taxpayer.
This is as it should be, since the money with which the bonds have been purchased by private parties is real money, not funny money, which is to say that by purchasing government bonds, investors are giving up use of their money and expect, naturally, to earn interest in return.
Confirming that the Fed does not earn interest beyond its expense of operation on bonds that it purchases from the Treasury, the New York Times states in an article published today:
The Federal Reserve said on Tuesday that it contributed $76.9 billion in profits to the Treasury Department last year, slightly less than its record 2010 transfer but much more than in any other previous year.So if any cranks or crackpots out there still wish to maintain that the Fed prints money and pockets the interest on it, I say take it up with the New York Times, and don't waste your time arguing the point here.
The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth.
Almost 97 percent of the Fed’s income was generated by interest payments on its investment portfolio, including $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities, which it has amassed in an effort to decrease borrowing costs for businesses and consumers by reducing long-term interest rates.
None of which is intended to suggest that the Fed is an unmitigated blessing on the American people or that it should not be audited. On the contrary, it is impossible to judge the value of the Fed without knowing what it does, and anyone who opposes a thorough review of the Fed's activities is probably a banker whose owes their job and bonuses to the generosity of the Fed to undeserving speculators and fraudsters.
Iran provides the West good reason to resist multiculturalism
The practices of Muslims are in some respects deeply repulsive to those brought up in the ethical and legal tradition of the West.
The point is vividly illustrated in the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen resident in Canada, who, while in Iran to see his dying father, was arrested, charged, convicted and condemned to death on the basis of a confession made under torture.
The 35-year-old website designer was found guilty of desecrating and insulting Islam by developing software to upload photographs to the Internet, a program that has been used by pornographic websites.
Mr. Malekpour claims not to have known that his software was used by pornographers and even if he had known, his actions do not, by Western standards, justify the death penalty.
If the government of Iran of any other country maintains a legal system that imposes the death penalty on those convicted on evidence from torture of acts that in the West would considered either perfectly harmless or only mildly anti-social, that is no reason for Western military intervention.
One cannot prevent all the evil in the world and to presume that hanging pornographers is worse than Western practices abhorrent to Muslims such as the state-funded slaughter of millions of humans in utero or the current American practice of detention or execution of citizens without due process is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
Thus, the lesson of the Malekpour case for the West is not that we need to undertake regime change in Iran. The lesson that the West should draw from the inhumane standards of Iran's Islamic courts is that the Islamization of the West is something to be fiercely resisted.
That Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a state-appointed leader of England's established church, has argued that adoption in Britain of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable," is truly contemptible. Even more contemptible is his reasoning for this despicable betrayal of the people he is supposed to serve.
The UK has to "face up to the fact," Dr. Williams is reported by the BBC to have said, that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. A statement to which the obvious retort is that such citizens are not suited to life in Britain should return whence they or their recent immigrant ancestors came.
Or to put it more succinctly: bollocks to you Dr. Williams and bollocks to that traitor and warmonger Tony Blair who appointed such a creep as an Archbishop of the Anglican Church.
The point is vividly illustrated in the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen resident in Canada, who, while in Iran to see his dying father, was arrested, charged, convicted and condemned to death on the basis of a confession made under torture.
The 35-year-old website designer was found guilty of desecrating and insulting Islam by developing software to upload photographs to the Internet, a program that has been used by pornographic websites.
Mr. Malekpour claims not to have known that his software was used by pornographers and even if he had known, his actions do not, by Western standards, justify the death penalty.
If the government of Iran of any other country maintains a legal system that imposes the death penalty on those convicted on evidence from torture of acts that in the West would considered either perfectly harmless or only mildly anti-social, that is no reason for Western military intervention.
One cannot prevent all the evil in the world and to presume that hanging pornographers is worse than Western practices abhorrent to Muslims such as the state-funded slaughter of millions of humans in utero or the current American practice of detention or execution of citizens without due process is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
Thus, the lesson of the Malekpour case for the West is not that we need to undertake regime change in Iran. The lesson that the West should draw from the inhumane standards of Iran's Islamic courts is that the Islamization of the West is something to be fiercely resisted.
That Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a state-appointed leader of England's established church, has argued that adoption in Britain of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable," is truly contemptible. Even more contemptible is his reasoning for this despicable betrayal of the people he is supposed to serve.
The UK has to "face up to the fact," Dr. Williams is reported by the BBC to have said, that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. A statement to which the obvious retort is that such citizens are not suited to life in Britain should return whence they or their recent immigrant ancestors came.
Or to put it more succinctly: bollocks to you Dr. Williams and bollocks to that traitor and warmonger Tony Blair who appointed such a creep as an Archbishop of the Anglican Church.
Canada's interprovincial equalization payments are unfair
A group at the University of Toronto has discovered what must always have been self-evident to anyone but a liberal fanatic for total government control of everything, that a program to equalize incomes that ignores differences in the cost of living between town and country, and between the rich provinces and the poor is bound to be unfair.
As the star.com reports:
If salaries currently paid to Federal civil servants in Toronto are adequate, as they must be since vacant positions with the Federal Government in Toronto are promptly filled, the Federal Government must have very substantial scope for savings to the taxpayer by adjusting civil service wages downward in areas with a lower cost of living than Toronto.
But better still would be to cut the Federal public service, currently numbering 250,000, and return the resultant savings to the taxpayer. The job cuts, apparently, are coming. Whether we see the tax cuts, remains to be seen. We may not even see a spending cut. If Harper has his way, we will almost certainly see a Canadian role in any new Middle-East war, and keeping a soldier in the field is even more costly than employing a Field Interviewer for Statistical Survey Operations in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
As the star.com reports:
In a 41-page paper to be released Monday by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto, equalization expert Peter Gusen said the status quo is unconstitutional.So far as it goes, the argument seems reasonable, but it could certainly go much further. For example, why are Federal public servants of the same grade paid the same salary wherever they live in Canada, even though costs of living vary greatly. This is surely grossly unfair since it means that either those whose work requires them to live in Toronto or Vancouver are grossly underpaid or that a civil servant in Come By Chance, Newfoundland or Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan is greatly overpaid.
And that [it] costs Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick billions of dollars annually that go instead to Quebec, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.
“If equalization continues to ignore differences in expenditure need it will not be treating provinces fairly and it will not be fulfilling its constitutional mandate,” writes Gusen.
When dispensing equalization payouts from the taxpayer-funded $15.4 billion pool, Ottawa doesn’t take into account that wages and cost-of-living expenses are higher in Ontario and B.C. than in much of the country.
“Provinces … differ in their ability ‘to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services’ because they have to spend different amounts to offer similar services; in other words, because they have different expenditure needs,” he writes, quoting Section 36.2 of the Constitution Act.
If salaries currently paid to Federal civil servants in Toronto are adequate, as they must be since vacant positions with the Federal Government in Toronto are promptly filled, the Federal Government must have very substantial scope for savings to the taxpayer by adjusting civil service wages downward in areas with a lower cost of living than Toronto.
But better still would be to cut the Federal public service, currently numbering 250,000, and return the resultant savings to the taxpayer. The job cuts, apparently, are coming. Whether we see the tax cuts, remains to be seen. We may not even see a spending cut. If Harper has his way, we will almost certainly see a Canadian role in any new Middle-East war, and keeping a soldier in the field is even more costly than employing a Field Interviewer for Statistical Survey Operations in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Arab league monitors find slaughter in Syria the work of foreign-backed subversives
A report by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) based on a one month inquiry by 160 monitors failed, as Pepe Escobar reports in the Asia Times, to conclude that:
See also:
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here
Pepe Escobar: US will continue to arm anti-government rebels in Syria after veto
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
Wayne Madsen: World War III Has Begun – The First Asymmetric War
West gunning for Putin as Syria face-off unfolds
... the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.
So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.
Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full.
The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.
... So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions".
See also:
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here
Pepe Escobar: US will continue to arm anti-government rebels in Syria after veto
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
Wayne Madsen: World War III Has Begun – The First Asymmetric War
West gunning for Putin as Syria face-off unfolds
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Public Education: The Foundation of the New World Order
By Gary North
LEWROCKWELL.COM: One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.
The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)
Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union."
When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.
In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."
Count on it.
You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.
In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.
Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.
LEWROCKWELL.COM: One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.
The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)
Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union."
When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.
In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."
Count on it.
You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.
In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.
Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.
US and Israel Divided Only on Timing of Iran Strike
Bloomberg: The U.S. and Israel are publicly disagreeing over timing for a potential attack on Iran’s disputed nuclear facilities, as that nation’s leader said it won’t back down.
The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.
Read more
The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.
Read more
WAPO: Israel to nuke Iran to prevent Iran building a nuke that would deter Israel from nuking Iran
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.
Read more
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)