http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/gdp-report/index.html?iid=SF_E_Lead

U.S. economy revved up, but it's probably temporary
 By Annalyn Kurtz

 @AnnalynKurtz April 26, 2013: 11:36 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
 
The U.S. economy accelerated at the beginning of the year, but don't get too excited. Economists aren't very optimistic that trend will continue in the months ahead.
 
Gross domestic product -- the broadest measure of economic output -- rose at a 2.5% annual pace in the first three months of the year, driven largely by a pick-up in consumer spending, the Commerce Department said.





Consumer spending, which alone accounts for roughly two-thirds of GDP, rose at a 3.2% annual pace, the fastest pace since the end of 2010.

At first glance, that's pretty remarkable, since most workers saw their take-home pay drop in January, following the end of the payroll tax cut.

But the data also shows that consumers funded that spending in part by saving less. Americans saved an average of 2.6% of their disposable income in the first quarter, down from 4.7% at the end of 2012.

"Households are drawing down savings, and they are borrowing to continue spending," said Steve Cunningham, director of research and education for the American Institute for Economic Research. "That won't last forever."

What were people buying? Primarily, more services. That too could be partly temporary in nature.

Americans spent more on housing and utilities, which rebounded after slumping following Hurricane Sandy in the prior quarter. This March was also the coldest since 2002, a weather patten that boosted the demand for heating.

Consumer spending on durable goods like autos also contributed to stronger economic growth, but to a lesser extent.

On the business side, investment in equipment and software added slightly to growth. An even bigger boost, however, came as businesses restocked their shelves and warehouses after drawing down their inventories in the fourth quarter. That effect is also likely to be temporary, Cunningham said.

Related: The global economy is losing steam

Meanwhile, cuts in government spending, mainly related to defense, dragged on the economy in the first quarter.

The last two quarters marked the biggest six-month contraction in the federal government's economic activity since the months following the Korean War, which ended in 1953, noted Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist of Capital Economics.

Spending by federal, state and local governments is now lower than it was in mid-2007, before the recession began.

Given the fiscal squeeze, Ashworth said it's rather impressive that the economy still grew 2.5% in the first quarter. Since the recovery began in mid-2009, the economy has grown an average of 2.1% a year. Once you strip out the government's spending, though, that growth looks more like 3.1%.

"It's becoming more and more clear that the public sector is the real thing holding the economy back now," he said.

Public-sector cutbacks are likely to continue dragging on the economy through the rest of the year as the federal government alone cuts $85 billion over a seven-month period.

Economic growth isn't likely to be as strong in the second quarter. Other economic data already shows the economy may have lost some steam starting in March.

Job growth slowed, retail sales slumped and the manufacturing sector showed signs of weakness.

Overall, the first quarter GDP report was a bit of a letdown. Economists had been expecting the economy to grow at an even stronger rate of 2.8%.

"Even this weaker-than-hoped-for growth rate exaggerates the true underlying momentum in the economy," said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.

U.S. stocks were mixed Friday morning, following the report.

Jim Rogers: ‘Race To Insanity’ Producing ‘Artificial’ Market Gains
 



Wednesday, 24 Apr 2013 01:32 PM
 
By Michelle Smith
 

With central banks printing like never before, legendary investor Jim Rogers warns that markets and economies are likely to get hurt in the aftermath.

“This is the first time in recorded history where nearly all the central banks in all countries are pumping out lots of money, debasing their currencies, printing money. I've never seen this in history, and now we've got everybody — or nearly everybody — doing it,” he told Money Morning.

 Japan's central bank dominated headlines when it announced an unprecedented stimulus program that devalues the yen. This action was said to be an effort to battle deflation.


Central bank policies that weaken national currencies are seen as competitive. When other nations do not follow suit, they essentially become less competitive because a weaker currency results in cheaper exports.

Countries’ efforts to competitively weaken their currencies is commonly called the race to the bottom.

Rogers told Money Morning that instead it is a “race to insanity.”

While the gains in the U.S. and Japanese stock markets may be euphoric now, Rogers warns that they are “artificial” and likely to lead to pain.

“The central banks are determined to keep printing money. But, underneath that, eventually there are going to be more and more skeptics. I'm not going to be the only one. And more and more people will start heading for the door. And by the time they stop, printing the damage may already have been done to the markets,” Rogers noted.

But similar statements have often raised the comeback question — when will the stimulus stop? Many argue that there is little reason for investors to be concerned about that now if it will happen much later.

Even Rogers admits that though the market gains are artificial, the bubble may not burst anytime soon. Investors could continue to see soaring markets for some time.

Central banks’ policies could cushion any sell off, he explained to Money Morning. But ultimately, the ending is still a bad one — the results of that type of distortion could be a “slow-speed crash,” not only for the markets, but also for the broader economies.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/InvestingAnalysis/Rogers-US-Japan-markets/2013/04/24/id/501187

http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/record-number-households-food-stamps-1-out-every-5


Record Number of Households on Food Stamps-- 1 out of Every 5



 April 25, 2013

By Joe Schoffstall


The latest available data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that a record number 23 million households in the United States are now on food stamps.
 
The most recent Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) statistics of the number of households receiving food stamps shows that 23,087,886 households participated in January 2013 - an increase of 889,154 families from January 2012 when the number of households totaled 22,188,732.

The most recent statistics from the United States Census Bureau-- from December 2012-- puts the number of households in the United States at 115,310,000. If you divide 115,310,000 by 23,087,866, that equals one out of every five households now receiving food stamps.
 
As CNSNews.com previously reported, food stamp rolls in America recently surpassed the population of Spain. A record number 47,692,896 Americans are now enrolled in the program and the cost of food stamp fraud has more than doubled in just three years.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html?TNNoMobile

Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

Posted: Friday, May 3, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 12:48 am, Fri May 3, 2013.

By Barry Snell, barry.snell@iowastatedaily.com
 



Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality. 

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section.

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.

Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

No experience necessary

In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does. 

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere. 

Hell, it’s even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me).

Liberals always make the common plea, “We need to get some experts to solve this problem!” for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner — people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they’ve seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.

How can we “gun people” honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.

Death by a thousand cuts

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America. 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that “little book” called the Constitution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and “saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there’s a lot of gun control to see the possible connection).

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights. That’s great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.

Truth, treason and the empire of lies

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too.  We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings. 

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment — a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don’t trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.

A dangerous servant and fearful master

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard ‘round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protects radio, television, movies, video games, the Internet, domain names, Facebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else.  Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You’re screwed under liberal logic, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services — things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own — they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the “ATF”). We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis Katona, Patty and Paul Mueller, John Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of the dozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn’t help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunner Andrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF’s “Good Ol’ Boys Roundup,” “Project Gunrunner” scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren’t there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren’t there, and asked God why we couldn’t have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world’s distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call “sheepdogs” and we’re proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us “cowboys” and “wannabes” for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one’s own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them.

Do unto others

No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.

We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars.

So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks?

Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about. 

Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity.

I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being.  I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I’d perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice. 

And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.

Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn’t help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs?

The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now.

Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve

I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it’s too late. 

Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns — but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time.

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/artscience/2013/05/creepy-or-cool-portraits-derived-from-the-dna-in-hair-and-gum-found-in-public-places/

Very interesting.

Obama abandons Israel ? Who could have seen this coming?

Rising lead levels in the U.S. from 1950 through the 1970s neatly track increases in violence 20 years later, from the '70s through the '90s. (Violence peaks when individuals are in their late teens and early 20s.) As lead in the environment fell in the '70s and '80s—thanks in large part to the regulation of gasoline—violence fell correspondingly. No other single factor can account for both the inexplicable rise in violence in the U.S. until 1993 and the precipitous drop since then.

Or, as the baby boomers aged, they stopped committing so many crimes, as crime is generally a young male thing.

Genetics and environment may work together to encourage violent behavior. One pioneering study in 2002 by Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt of Duke University genotyped over 1,000 individuals in a community in New Zealand and assessed their levels of antisocial behavior in adulthood. They found that a genotype conferring low levels of the enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), when combined with early child abuse, predisposed the individual to later antisocial behavior. Low MAOA has been linked to reduced volume in the amygdala—the emotional center of the brain—while physical child abuse can damage the frontal part of the brain, resulting in a double hit.

Or, being abused tends to make one prone to acting out of rage, and having had antisocial behavior modeled by one's parents, an abused child might then follow those behavior patterns of the parent when they become adults.

So what explains coldblooded psychopathic behavior? About 1% of us are psychopaths—fearless antisocials who lack a conscience. In 2009, Yaling Yang, Robert Schug and I conducted structural brain scans on 27 psychopaths whom we had found in temporary-employment agencies in Los Angeles. All got high scores on the Psychopathy Checklist, the "gold standard" in the field, which assesses traits like lack of remorse, callousness and grandiosity. We found that, compared with 32 normal people in a control group, psychopaths had an 18% smaller amygdala, which is critical for emotions like fear and is part of the neural circuitry underlying moral decision-making. In subsequent research, Andrea Glenn and I found this same brain region to be significantly less active in psychopathic individuals when they contemplate moral issues. Psychopaths know at a cognitive level what is right and what is wrong, but they don't feel it.

Would a brain scan show that the author of this piece is prone to seeing 27 as a meaningful number for an alleged scientic study of neurology and criminal behavior? 

So, some questions that come to mind are:

1. If the police cordon off a 30-block area (or whatever it was) does the exigent circumstance of a dangerous suspect they believe to be on the loose in that area give them carte blanche authority to barge into and search each and every home in that large area they so choose whether or not they have any articulable suspicion the suspect is in a particular home?

I sure wouldn't think so. I doubt the courts would either, except in very extreme circumstances, like a potential nuclear terror incident.

2. If they lack that specific reason and remove residents from an arbitrary house are they actually placing those residents, previously holed up in their home in relative safety, at increased danger from the suspect believed to be in the area?

Possibly. Under normal circumstances, LE has no direct duty to protect individuals, UNLESS we deprive them of their freedom. I'd think that if you remove someone from their home under the color of your authority, and in doing so, place them into harm's way and they suffer harm as a result, there would be serious liability there.

3. If they don't have the authority to search homes door-to-door, might they instead search the yards and/or curtilage of the homes in the area for evidence of the suspect, particularly signs of forced entry, which would then give them the probable cause for a search of the home in question? Wouldn't this be a more efficient method of searching the area anyway and in fact likely have most quickly led to the location of the suspect in this case?

I'd think so.

4. If they announce their intention to search an arbitrary occupied home in the cordoned area without any particular suspicion and are met by armed residents who do not match the suspect description, affirm that the suspect is not in the home and refuse/resist entry by the police, will the police take the time out from their search to engage the residents by force, up to and including deadly force, in order to conduct that search, or back off and move along to the next house? Recall, this is all ostensibly justified in order to protect the public from danger.

How would they know these were not associates of the fugitive terrorists shielding them? If police show up to search your home, the wrong response is to do the above, anytime, though during the Boston Bombing manhunt it would be an especially poor choice. If police enter your home, and the do so illegally, the correct way to address it is through the courts and enjoy the large check.

Inquiring minds want to know....

Wow, it's like a new era of American weakness! Who could have forseen this?

Thank God Buraq rescued us from the nightmare of 5 percent unemployment and 2 dollar gasoline we suffered under BooooooOOOOOOooooosh.

Where is professional journalist Martha Radditz on this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/23/boston-mosque-radicals/2101411/

Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties


Oren Dorell, USA TODAY10:47 a.m. EDT April 24, 2013


Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.

NFW! 
I guess we better get more "Coexist" bumperstickers and Andrew to explain to them that "jihad" really means warm woolen mittens and kittens with whiskers...

 

1. If possible, shoot the threat to the ground.

2. Try to avoid being shot by responding officers.

3. Render aid to the injured, using triage to select the most viable victims.

4. Be a good witness, even if you can't do any of the above.

Anyone think she actually wrote this?

I'd guess her attention-whore husband or one of his Soros funded staffers for their astroturf anti-gun group did.

I think most cops, even in the Northeast tend to think armed citizens are a good thing in general and using them to protect their homes is reasonable.

From my experience, (not playing at the federal level i'll note) Miranda hasn't even been a big deal as long as you are smooth in your delivery and only do it one time as part of the Q and A routine once you've established a degree of rapport with the suspect. As far as the legal complexities, I'll defer to Orin Kerr below.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights

Orin Kerr • April 20, 2013 2:18 am


Law enforcement has successfully captured Dzhokar Tsarnaev, and DOJ has announced that Tsarnaev is being interrogated without first being read his Miranda rights because the DOJ thinks that the public safety exception to Miranda applies. Back in 2010, I blogged a lot about Miranda in this setting. Here are a few reminders about the law here:

1) A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his Miranda rights upon arrest. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. The police aren’t required to follow Miranda. Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So, contrary to what a lot of people think, it is legal for the government to even intentionally violate Miranda so long as they don’t try to seek admission of the suspect’s statements in court.

2) Even if we assume that the police later seek to admit a statement from Tsarnaev from post-arrest custodial interrogation outside Miranda, a court would allow an initial pre-Miranda interrogation to be admissible under the public safety exception of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). It’s not clear how long the public safety exception will continue to apply: At some point in time, it becomes harder to say that the agents needed to dispense with Miranda in light of the threat to public safety. We don’t have good cases on when that line might be crossed, in part because (fortunately) there aren’t many similar cases. So the longer investigators interrogate Tsarnaev outside Miranda, the more they run the risk that some statements they obtain from him may be inadmissible. But recall that under (1), the government is still free to question Tsarnaev outside Miranda as long as the government accepts the uncertainty of whether those statements would be admissible in a criminal case against him. Assuming that the evidence against Tsarnaev’s many different crimes over the last week is likely to be overwhelming, agents may not need any statements from him for a criminal case. They may simply want whatever intelligence he can provide for use in broader antiterrorism efforts, and Miranda is no impediment in that case. The agents are free to question Tsarnaev outside Miranda to gather intellligence as long as they don’t cross the line into coercing statements from him. See, e.g., Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963).

3) It is true that, under existing law, interviewing Tsarnaev for an extended period without reading him his Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver creates a risk that any incriminating statements made after an extended period may not be admissible in court in a criminal prosecution against Tsarnaev. However, if Tsarnaev does end up making incriminating statements that fall outside the public safety exception, and the government wants to use those statements in court against him, the government has a possible remedy to get the substance of even those statements admitted. At the end of the interrogation, agents can give him his Miranda warnings, see if he will waive his rights waiver, and, if he does, try to get Tsarnaev to repeat his pre-waiver incriminating statements. Because the two-stage interview likely would not be deemed an intentional two-step interrogation technique designed to circumvent Miranda, a court would very likely allow the post-Miranda, post-waiver statement under Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).

UPDATE: I have fiddled with the post a bit to make it clearer.

ANOTHER UPDATE: If Tsarnaev is going to be charged in federal court, the more pressing limit on his interrogation may be the limits imposed by Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See generally Corley v. United States (2009).

So, now that we know that not ALL Muslims bombed Boston this week, will the white house declare it "workplace violence" or a "spontaneous protest" resulting from a YouTube video?

Nope, a high risk scenario like that has the potential to go very wrong, so clearing the field of non-combatants was exactly the right thing to do.

I couldn't disagree more.

Did they have to cut into their wall to wall coverage of the Gosnell trial to do this?

If we use a drone to drop a bucket of water onto a jihadist, is it still torture?

If the explosive is TATP, this suggests Jihadists.

Using explosive detection dogs to check the marathon route wouldn't be unusual.

Having unexploded devices is a big plus for the investigation.

I never knew adolescent males held such political power in California. I expect there will be a massive spike in young males self identifying as needing access to the girl's showers.

 I'd just like to point out that there is a path to citizenship already in existence. Illegal aliens are free to return home and apply to legitimately return and pursue naturalization in compliance with federal law.

I think that federal law should only apply when there is an interstate or international nexus.

Hey, his bows are free! Isn't it great to live in this new era of peace and prosperity?

Anything with an IP address is vulnerable. It's as bad as the article states, if not worse.

Everybody’s outraged that Jeremy Irons said gay marriage could lead to fathers marrying their sons for tax reasons
 
4:58 PM 04/04/2013


Jim Treacher
 
 
In addition to decrying Michael Bloomberg’s nanny-state food fascism, actor Jeremy Irons is making waves this week by presenting a hypothetical about gay marriage that, I’m told, he shouldn’t have presented. Shame, shame, shame, Jeremy Irons!
 
Here’s Mr. Irons on HuffPost Live yesterday, talking to host Josh Zepps:
 



“I mean, taxwise it’s an interesting one, because… You see, could a father not marry his son?… It’s not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding. But men don’t breed, so incest wouldn’t cover that. Now if that were so, then if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son, and pass on my estate to him.”
 
Zepps replies that there’s still a “moral approbation” associated with incest, which seems like an odd argument to make regarding any aspect of gay marriage. If we’re going to disregard some people’s “moral approbation” about homosexuality, why should anybody’s “moral approbation” about incest continue to be encoded in law? Saying that it can’t happen because it’s illegal is pretty silly, when you’re talking about changing the law in the first place.
 
To borrow an argument from gay-marriage proponents: How would a marriage between father and son affect your marriage, gay or straight? How would it take anything away from your marriage? Who are you to tell someone else what the institution of marriage should and shouldn’t be?
 
But that’s just resorting to logic and making people face the ramifications of their own rhetoric, which is why people like John Aravosis and Sarah Karlan and Mary Elizabeth Williams are hyperventilating over it. You’re not supposed to talk about the unintended consequences, you bigots. They’re unintended!
 
Jeremy Irons seems confident enough in himself and his opinions not to be worried about getting kicked out of the Cool Kids’ Club. I sincerely thank him for what is sure to be another entertaining meltdown from our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/everybodys-outraged-that-jeremy-irons-said-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-fathers-marrying-their-sons-for-tax-reasons/

By the way, we won the Iraq War
 
9:39 AM 04/09/2013


Jim Treacher

 
I know, right? Here I thought it was the biggest mistake ever, by the most evil president ever. At least that’s what I’ve been told again and again by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left. But apparently Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disagrees.
 
Here he is, writing in the Washington Post yesterday:
 

Today, on the 10th anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the debate about whether it was worth it to topple the regime and the direction of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship is influenced by a pessimistic view that the United States has lost Iraq. Not true. Despite all the problems of the past decade, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree that we’re better off today than under Hussein’s brutal dictatorship.
 
Iraqis will remain grateful for the U.S. role and for the losses sustained by military and civilian personnel that contributed in ending Hussein’s rule. These losses pale by comparison, of course, to those sustained by the Iraqi people. Our government emerges from this experience determined to ensure that these sacrifices contribute to a future of freedom and prosperity for our country…
 
The United States has not “lost” Iraq. Instead, in Iraq, the United States has found a partner for our shared strategic concerns and our common efforts on energy, economics and the promotion of peace and democracy.
 

Well, that’s weird. That whole thing was George Bush’s idea, wasn’t it? And yet this guy is claiming it was the right thing to do? How can that be right?
 
Isn’t it odd how everybody stopped keeping a death toll of Americans killed overseas after January 20, 2009? But then, as the great lady once said: What difference does it make?
 
It’s not like the President of the United States is a Republican.
 
(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey)
 
P.S. In related news: 700 Special Ops vets call on Congress to establish special select committee on Benghazi. Just let it go. Obama Is Awesome.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/09/by-the-way-we-won-the-iraq-war/

Survey suggests law enforcement united against gun control
 
1:35 AM 04/10/2013
 

Spencer Amaral
 
 
A new online survey suggests that the vast majority of active and former police officers adamantly oppose President Barack Obama’s proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.
 
The study, conducted by first-responder community website PoliceOne.com, included more than 15,000 self-identified active and retired law enforcement officers, with 99 percent of respondents saying that policies other than an assault-weapons ban are most important in preventing future mass shootings.
 
“The American people, and particularly the members of law enforcement, want politicians in Washington to stop pursuing a failed political agenda and get to work fixing our broken mental health system, improving school security, and getting criminals off the streets,” said the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris Cox.
 

Here are the rest of the survey’s results:
 •99 percent said policies other than an “assault weapons” ban are most important to prevent mass shootings.
 •Almost 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines would not reduce violent crime.
 •More than 91 percent stated that the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime should have stiff, mandatory sentences, and no plea-bargains.
 •More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
 •More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence.
 •80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.
 •Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime.
 •More than 76 percent indicated that legally armed citizens are important to reducing crime.
 •More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.
 •More than 70 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would not reduce violent crime.
 •More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national registry of legal gun sales.
 •Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally.
 •More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would not improve officer safety.
 
The full survey can be found here. PoliceOne verifies that members are police officers by requiring them to submit a photograph or scanned copy of government-issued law enforcement identification. It is unclear whether only verified members could participate in the survey.
 
The online survey is not necessarily statistically indicative of the attitudes of law enforcement nationally.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/10/survey-shows-law-enforcement-united-against-gun-control/

Just wait until the national Obarkycare database can be datamined.

 

I miss Great Britain. I hope these savages enjoy what they have coming.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/09/gosnell-abortion-clinic-worker-one-of-the-babies-sounded-like-a-little-alien/

Gosnell abortion-clinic worker: One of the babies “sounded like a little alien”


posted at 4:01 pm on April 9, 2013 by Allahpundit






Unimaginable.
 

A Delaware woman who worked for Kermit Gosnell testified Tuesday that she was called back to a room at his abortion clinic in Philadelphia where the bodies of aborted babies were kept on a shelf to hear one screaming amid the bodies of aborted babies kept on a shelf…
 
“I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” West said, telling the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge and jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at the Women’s Medical Society clinic…
 
West, who said she called aborted babies “specimens” because “it was easier to deal with mentally,” said a co-worker had called her back to the room that night because she did not know what to do. West said the baby’s eyes and mouth were not yet completely formed and it was lying on a glass tray on a shelf and she told the co-worker to call Gosnell and fled the room…
 
She later made it clear that she called it “a baby” in her testimony “because that is what it is.”
 
That’s not the first time a clinic worker’s resorted to Orwellian euphemisms to make her “work” more bearable. Ed e-mails to remind me that you’ll also find “Product of Conception” in usage. More on Gosnell from NBC Philadelphia, one of the precious few media outlets covering this story:
 

An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions.
 
Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, “literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.” He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, “it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”
 
The Anchoress notes correctly that, simply for reasons of sensationalism, the media should be all over this story. Dead children, body parts, harrowing testimony on the stand — even the most soulless news editor, untroubled by the horror-movie accusations against Gosnell, should be pushing heavy coverage for selfish reasons, to boost readership. (Britain’s Daily Mail, whose tabloid instincts are unerring, has posted several stories about it.) Out of curiosity, I skimmed the last week’s results for “Kermit Gosnell” on Google News to see what turned up among major U.S. media. I found a few articles from local Philadelphia and Delaware outlets, a couple of AP items picked up by ABC, a Mona Charen op-ed carried in the Chicago Sun-Times, and … that’s basically it. There’s no explanation for the omission except one, just as there’s no explanation for ignoring Mark Mattioli in the Newtown coverage except one, just as there’s no explanation for disinterest in the Salmon family’s saga except one.
 
I’m left feeling about media bias the way I felt yesterday about dynastic politics: It seems like it’s getting worse, especially their willingness to completely black out “unhelpful” stories or parts of a story rather than simply spin them away, but there’s no way to know without hard numbers. Nate Silver’s right: The world needs fewer pundits and more data-crunchers. Here’s fertile ground for the latter. Exit question from Mark Steyn: “So how many dead American babies does it take to make the news?”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100622802

Why US Jobs Market Is Going to Get a Lot Worse

 
 Published: Monday, 8 Apr 2013 | 4:44 AM ET
By: Matt Clinch
News Assistant



 Weak U.S. jobs data on Friday confirmed the worst trading week this year for European and U.S. stocks, and now analysts are warning that investors should brace for further trouble ahead as fiscal tightening begins to take its toll.

Friday's jobs report came in well below expectations, raising concerns that the recovery in the world's largest economy is weakening. March's participation rate was at its lowest since 1979, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Just 88,000 jobs were added to the economy last month, although the unemployment rate fell to 7.6 percent from 7.7 percent in February.

"In the labor market, at least, we see a real risk of even worse news down the line," Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomic Advisors said in a research note on Monday.

(Read More: US Job Creation Plunges, but Rate Drops to 7.6%)
 

Weakening labor demand, not rising layoffs, is the key problem with the U.S. economy, according to Shepherdson. The weakening demand is mostly coming from smaller firms that are below the radar of the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) survey, which reflects national factory activity.

The National Federation of Small Business job survey has done a decent job in foreshadowing movements in payrolls in recent years, according to Shepherdson, and it's this report—due to be released on Tuesday—that's warning of troubled waters ahead, he said.

"While actual job creation appears to be rising, plans to create jobs [in March] took a dive, falling 4 points to a net zero percent of small employers who plan to increase total employment. It seems that the stamina for growth is waning," William C. Dunkelberg, chief economist for the NFIB said in a press release last week.

Looking at the figures, Pantheon's Shepherdson said there could be a degree of respite in the official employment numbers for the next couple of months, before a distinct change.

(Read More: Unemployment Rate Dip Offers Little Reason to Celebrate)
 

"The outlook then turns bleaker again. The survey does not signal an outright decline in payrolls over the next few months, but we cannot be sure it has bottomed out yet," Shepherdson said.

He cited fiscal tightening as the major reason behind the reverse. At the start of the year, the payroll tax that funds Social Security was raised two percentage points to its 2010 level of 6.2 percent. This was the largest component of tax increases approved by Congress in the resolution of the "fiscal cliff" that many believe will cause a significant hit to U.S. growth.

"You can't take more than 1.5 of GDP (gross domestic product) out of the economy more or less overnight and expect nothing bad to happen," Shepherdson said. "Markets—especially the Treasury market—are having a rethink of the fiscal-tightening-doesn't matter-much hypothesis. Good. It never made any sense."

 U.S. equities responded negatively on Friday to the soft jobs data, government bond yields fell with the benchmark 10-year Treasury falling to its lowest yield so far this year. The dollar also depreciated against European currencies in response.

(Read More: Job-Seeking Teens Might Get a Break This Summer)
 

"The data support our view that the strong U.S. data flow in January and February is likely to give way to weaker data in (the second quarter), as fiscal headwinds are reflected in slower growth in demand, activity, and employment," Barclays said in a research note on Monday. "Although we have recently raised our forecast of (first quarter) GDP growth to 3.5 percent, which matches our latest tracking estimate for the quarter, we have kept our (second quarter) forecast at 1.5 percent."

—By CNBC.com's Matt Clinch

"War, what war? Don’t mention the (currency) war."

by:By Gregory McKenna

 April 09, 20139:16AM
 

Shh, don't mention the currency war!



YES, international finance collectives, G7 and G20 have been pulling their best Basil Fawlty impressions of late.

With straight faces they are claiming that the policies they are pursuing, which have weakened the US dollar, severely weakened the Yen and which will soon weaken the Euro and Pound, are not currency manipulation.
 
"No, not us! We wouldn’t do that!"

Just look at their recent communique from the G20 and what it said about currencies:

“We reaffirm our commitment to cooperate for achieving a lasting reduction in global imbalances, and pursue structural reforms affecting domestic savings and improving productivity. We reiterate our commitments to move more rapidly toward more market-determined exchange rate systems and exchange rate flexibility to reflect underlying fundamentals, and avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments and in this regard, work more closely with one another so we can grow together.”


“Reflect underlying fundamentals”, translates to “we’re weak but you BRICS and Aussies are strong so your currencies and Economies have to suffer”. It was G20, or more correctly G7 speak for "Don’t mention the War!"
 
Pulling the trigger
Certainly the folks at the Federal Reserve (Fed), Bank of England (BoE) or Bank of Japan (BoJ) would claim that they have not fired any shots in anger, but prisoners are being taken all over the world. The Fed’s unconventional policy has, until very recently, had the twin successes for the Fed of driving stocks up and the US dollar down, as the US economy has clearly improved relative to most of the rest of the world. Exports as a proportion of the US GDP are up 3-4% since the beginning of the GFC.

Plenty of shots have been fired in the battle to get those numbers moving and plenty of foreign business owners are smarting from the Fed’s phony war. Nope -- ask the Fed and what you might hear is, "Not me Sir! It’s those Chinese; they are the ones who manipulate their currency. Not us, certainly not!"

It’s almost like the Cat in the Hat is about to jump out or Basil Fawlty is going to be appointed Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Fed.

Collateral Damage
The Japanese are only slightly less overt about their intentions. Gone are the days of the stealthy approach. No, Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe favours a more direct approach of simply seeking to destroy the Bank of Japan’s credibility and in so doing drive the USDJPY rate from high 70s to above 96, as witnessed in the early weeks of March.

Since Brazil’s Finance Minister Guido Mantega accused the big nations of launching a currency war back in 2011 against the rest of the world, there has been denial after denial. Yet somehow, the Yen to USD has now fallen to an average of 92 in 2013 from an average of 80 in 2012 and 79.5 in 2011.  This is more than 15% devaluation against the USD and such similar movement can also be seen against the Chinese Renmimbi.

What is clear is that the big guys are saying "do as we say, not do as we do."  But who could argue that the Chinese economic miracle and the recovery from the 2009 economic weakness could have proceeded at the pace (or even proceeded at all) if the CNY was a truly floating currency against the US dollar and others? It takes around 6.2 Yuan to buy 1 US dollar at the moment, but where would it be otherwise? 3.5? 4.5? Or maybe just somewhere in the 5s? Any way you look at it though, the Yuan is undervalued.
 
And therein lies the rub
The big nations have set internal monetary policies and quantitative easing with the express purpose, although not stated publicly (except perhaps in Japan), of improving their competitiveness globally through currency weakness.

The Australian dollar is still above 1.02 even when Europe is weak; Japan stagnant, the UK about to have a triple dip recession and the US is only just now starting to climb out of the doldrums. As the Reserve Bank has said many times recently, the Aussie dollar has been stronger than might have been expected.

But like the Brazilians, there is little anyone can do to fight the combined might of the big 4 Central Banks of the Fed, ECB, BoJ and BoE. Countless times over the years, from the Plaza Accord to until the next G20 meeting, they have and will set currency levels when and where they want them.

It is the same again -- just don’t mention the war.
 
Gregory McKenna is Australia’s first Currency Strategist at Westpac and Vantage FX’s Key Expert Writer.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/australian-dollar/war-what-war-dont-mention-the-currency-war/story-fn6t6wad-1226611800434

BREAKING: KS Gov Sam Brownback signs HB 21 – Recognizes All States’ Concealed Carry Permits
 
Added Apr 5, 2013, Under: News & Articles
 

Way to go Kansas! Their reciprocity will be the best in the nation!
 
SB 21 authorizes official recognition of any valid concealed carry permit from another state for individuals traveling through or visiting Kansas.

America’s Death Zones: Where NOT To Be When It Hits the Fan
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/americas-death-zones-where-not-to-be-when-it-hits-the-fan/

http://nevadaguntrustattorney.com/2011/09/16/the-national-firearms-act-a-brief-history/

The National Firearms Act: A Brief History

Posted on September 16, 2011 by BBunker


The Original National Firearms Act
 Originally passed into law in 1934, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was enacted in response to the surging crime gang of the era, like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Congress addressed this issue by imposing a “tax” on certain firearms and devices mistakenly thought to contribute to this crime wave: machine guns, silencers, and short barreled rifles/shotguns.
 
The NFA required that the possessor of any NFA restricted firearm or device must register it with the Dept. of Treasury (now the Dept. of Justice) and pay the then enormous tax stamp fee of $200. This was intended to discourage possession of these firearms and devices. Unfortunately, the NFA ran into serious constitutional hurdles vis-a-vis the Fifth Amendment in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).
 
The 1968 Amendment to the NFA (Title II)
 Following the setback by the U.S. Supreme Court in Haynes, Congress set about revising the NFA to cure its constitutional flaws. No longer could information from an NFA application be used against a person in a criminal proceeding. Also, Congress expanded the definition of “machine gun” and added destructive devices to the list.
 
The 1986 Amendment to the NFA: Firearm Owners Protection Act
 This ironically named amendment to the NFA adjusted the definition of “silencer” by adding parts for a silencer. The amendment also prohibited the transfer or possession of machineguns, with the exception of those manufactured prior to May 19, 1986 (The infamous “Hughes Amendment”).

The Peelian principles describe the philosophy that Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force. The principles traditionally ascribed to Peel state that:
■Every police officer should be issued an identification number, to assure accountability for his actions.
 ■Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.
 ■Above all else, an effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, Peel's most often quoted principle that "The police are the public and the public are the police."
 
However, it has been suggested that Peel's list of principles was more likely authored by twentieth century policing scholars than by Peel himself; although Peel discussed the spirit of some of these principles in his speeches and other communications, researchers Lentz and Chaires found no proof that he ever actually compiled a formal list.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2043907

A Due Process Right to Record the Police

Glenn Harlan Reynolds
University of Tennessee College of Law

John A. Steakley
John A. Steakley, P.C.

April 22, 2012

Washington University Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 30, 2012, Forthcoming
University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 190


Abstract:     
There has been considerable discussion of citizens' First Amendment right to record the police. This essay, however, argues that independent of any First Amendment right, there is also a due process right to record the actions of law enforcement, and that this right applies even when the interaction takes place in private, and not in public places. This question of a due process right to record the police has not yet produced the degree of attention and litigation that public recording has, but the growth of inexpensive recording equipment and its inclusion in smart phones ensures that such attention and litigation are sure to be forthcoming.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 9

Keywords: first amendment, due process, recording, video, photography, police, law enforcement, citizen

Accepted Paper Series

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/hey-dan-memo-to-piers-morgan-heres-another-example-of-an-ar-15-used-for-self-defense/

Memo to Piers Morgan: Here’s ANOTHER Example of an AR-15 Used for Self-Defense

Anything that holds 100 rounds can generally be counted on to malfunction constantly. Very few people can accurately employ a rifle with a 100 round drum that isn't jamming with any kind of accuracy when attempting to hit anything beyond contact distance. The problem is that Newt and most others in the national spotlight haven't much, if any experience and training in firearms usage.

Yes.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=219400


The Chart That Will Crash The Market
   

The screeching coming from CNBS and elsewhere this morning is amusing.

There's only one chart that matters, and it will, when recognized, blow up the stock market -- sending it down 50% or more.

It's this one:





That's it.  And the ADP report this morning is showing the pathway to recognition, as construction has stalled and the destruction of job creation in small and mid-sized businesses exposed to Obamacare will finish it off.

I continue to maintain that we're in a time very similar to 2007, when the facts were on the table.  Banks paying dividends with money they didn't have.  Hedge funds that blow.  Bubbles in crazy places, then housing, this time in subprime car lending, student loans and even Bitcon.

The transports are telling you that all is not well.  CAT is confirming it.  Copper is warning that we're in deep trouble internationally, and irrespective of the claim that "America benefits from everyone else's pain" that's only partially true -- in the end earnings are what drive stock prices, and the red flags are waving at warp speed on earnings.

To go along with this are rail car loadings.  The trouble here is that baseline is in a serious downtrend -- and after halting its decline from 2008 to 2009 over the last year it has slid severely once more.  There will be those who argue that this is "no big deal"; I disagree.

At the end of the day the premise behind the Fed's intervention in the market is that "cheap money" promotes hiring through an indirect process.  But inherent in that process is a belief that the economic model from 1980 to 2007 can be restarted -- a model predicated on ever-larger amounts of leverage in the economy.  That model had positive feedback that came from the bond market rally from 1980 to 2008 as well with yield compression helping to fuel the fire.

More than five years into this experiment the results are clear: It doesn't work.

I believe that by the time we get to the end of the year we will be looking back at these signs and asking "what the hell was I thinking?"

Credit expansion is not going to restart because it can't -- we have reached the terminus of that economic model, like it or not.