Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 27, 2017, 03:40:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101222 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1087 Members
Latest Member: R.K
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick: Trump Embraces the PLO Fantasy... on: March 15, 2017, 01:50:44 PM
Trump Embraces The PLO Fantasy

The new president is gearing up to make the same mistake as his predecessor.

March 15, 2017
Caroline Glick

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

US President Donald Trump is losing his focus. If he doesn’t get it back soon, he will fail to make America great again or safe again in the Middle East.

After holding out for a month, last week Trump indicated he is adopting his predecessors’ obsession with empowering the PLO.

This is a strategic error.

There are many actors and conflicts in the Middle East that challenge and threaten US national interests and US national security. Iran’s rise as a nuclear power and regional hegemon; the war in Syria; Turkey’s abandonment of the West; and Russia’s regional power play all pose major threats to US power, security and interests. The Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State, Hamas and other Sunni jihadist movements all threaten the US, Europe and the US’s Sunni allies in the region in a manner that is strategically significant to America.

None of these issues, none of these actors and none of these threats are in any way related to or caused by the PLO and its interminable, European-supported hybrid terror and political war against Israel. None of these pressing concerns will be advanced by a US embrace of the PLO or a renewed obsession with empowering the PLO and its mafia-terrorist bosses.

To the contrary, all of these pressing concerns will be sidelined – and so made more pressing and dangerous – by a US reengagement with the PLO .

And yet, over the past week, Trump has indicated that the PLO is now his focus.

Last Friday, Trump spoke on the telephone with Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas is head of the PLO and the unelected dictator of the corrupt, terrorism-sponsoring, PLO -controlled Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria.

According to media reports, Trump told Abbas – whose legal term in office ended eight years ago – that he views him as a legitimate leader. According to the official White House report of the conversation, Trump also reportedly told Abbas that he supports reaching a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. Such a deal, to the extent it is ever reached, involves expanding PLO control over Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem at Israel’s expense.

Trump also invited Abbas for an official visit to Washington. And the day after they spoke, the Trump administration moved $250 million in US taxpayer dollars to Abbas’s police state where for the past 25 years, Abbas and his cronies have enriched themselves while feeding a steady diet of antisemitic, anti-American jihadist bile to their impoverished subjects.

To build up his credibility with the PLO , Trump put his electoral pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem on ice. The real estate mogul ordered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deny Jews the right to their property and their legal right to use state lands in Judea and Samaria.

And swift on the heels of that conversation with Abbas, Trump’s chief negotiator Jason Greenblatt was dispatched to Jerusalem to begin empowering the PLO at Israel’s expense.

According to media reports, Greenblatt intended to use his meeting Monday with Netanyahu to reject Netanyahu’s commitment to build a new Israeli town in Samaria. Greenblatt was also reportedly intending to dictate the parameters for yet another round of negotiations with the PLO.

After meeting with Netanyahu, Greenblatt continued on to Ramallah to embrace Abbas.

Also during his stay, Greenblatt is scheduled to meet with IDF generals who are responsible for giving money and providing services to the PLO.

And Greenblatt doesn’t have the Palestinians to himself.

Following Trump’s conversation with Abbas, plans were suddenly afloat for Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump to visit Israel and spend an afternoon with Abbas in Ramallah.

If things develop as reported, then Trump is serious about embracing the PLO and intends to have his top advisers devote themselves to Abbas and his henchmen. If that is the case, then Trump is setting himself, his advisers, his daughter and the US up to fail and be humiliated.

The PLO is the Siren that drowns US administrations. It is to the PLO that America’s top envoys have eagerly flown, gotten hooked on the attention of the demented, anti-Israel press corps, and forgotten their purpose: to advance US national interests.

If Trump is serious about repeating this practice, then rather than repair the massive damage done to the US and the Middle East by his two predecessors, the 45th president will repeat their mistakes. Like them, he will leave office in a blaze of failure.

To understand why this is the case, three things must be clear.

First, the PLO will never make peace with Israel. There will never be a Palestinian state.

There will never be a peace or a Palestinian state because the PLO wants neither. This is the lesson of the past 25 years. Both Abbas and his predecessor Arafat rejected peace and statehood multiple times and opted instead to expand their terrorist and political war against Israel.

Why did they do that? Because they are interested in two things: personal enrichment – which they achieve by stealing donor funds and emptying the pockets of their own people; and weakening, with the goal of destroying Israel – which they achieve through their hybrid war of terrorism and political warfare.

The second thing that needs to be clear is that the Palestinians are irrelevant to the rest of the problems – the real problems that impact US interests – in the region. If anything, the Palestinians are pawns on the larger chessboard. America’s enemies use them to distract the Americans from the larger realities so that the US will not pay attention to the real game.

Iran will not be appeased or defeated if Trump empowers the PLO in its war against Israel and continues feeding PLO leaders’ insatiable appetite for other people’s money.

The Sunni jihadists will not beat their swords into plowshares if the US coerces Israel to cough up land to the PLO . To the contrary, they will be emboldened.

Russian President Vladimir Putin will not move his forces out of Syria or stop giving nuclear technologies to Iran if the US turns the screws on Israel. Putin will come to the conclusion that Trump is either weak or stupid to damage Israel, the US’s most serious ally.

And of course, Israel will not be better off if Trump decides to push it back onto the peace train which has caused it nothing but harm for the past quarter century.

Trump’s election opened up the possibility, for the first time in decades, that the US would end its destructive obsession with the PLO. For three months, Israelis have been free for the first time to discuss seriously the possibilities of applying Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria. And a massive majority of Israelis support doing just that.

On the Palestinian side as well, Trump’s election empowered the people who have been living under the jackboot of Abbas and his cronies to think about the possibility of living at peace with Israel in a post-PLO era. Polling results indicate that they too are eager to move beyond the Palestinian statehood chimera.

But now, it appears that Trump has been convinced to embrace the PLO obsession. The same entrenched bureaucrats at the State Department and the same foreign policy establishment in Washington that brought the US nothing but failure in the Middle East for a generation appear to have captivated Trump’s foreign policy. They have convinced him it is better to devote his top advisers to repeating the mistakes of his predecessors than to devote his energies and theirs to fixing the mess that Obama and George W. Bush left him with. They have gotten him to believe that it is better to empower the PLO than develop coherent strategies and plans for dealing with the problems of the region that actually endanger US interests and imperil the security and safety of the American people.
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brandon Smith's latest... on: March 10, 2017, 07:55:22 AM
Are We Witnessing The Weirdest Moment In Economic History?

Wednesday, 08 March 2017    Brandon Smith


It is an unfortunate reality that most people tend to be oblivious to massive sea changes in geopolitics and economics. You would think that these events would catch the immediate attention of everyone as they happen, but usually it is not until they realize that the microcosm of their personal lives is subject to the consequences of the macrocosm that they wake up and take notice.

There are, however, ways to train yourself to pick up on signals within the news cycle and within political and financial rhetoric; signals that indicate a great shift is perhaps on the way. Sometimes these initial signs are subtle, sometimes they are as subtle as a feminist slut-walk. I would point out that over the next few months there are dangerous correlations so numerous and blatant in the economic sphere that I would almost rather watch a marching gaggle of frumpy feminists wearing nothing but electrical tape than bear witness to the mayhem that is about to strike the unwitting public.

What am I talking about? Well, let’s go through the list…

Federal Reserve Meeting March 14-15th

As my readers know well, I have been warning since before the election that the Fed would use a Trump presidency as an opportunity to pull the plug on near-zero interest rates and remove a primary pillar supporting stock markets — stock buybacks made possible by free overnight loans to numerous banks and corporations. Without QE and low interest rates the equities bubble will inevitably implode.

Corporate earnings certainly aren’t holding up stocks, neither is GDP or consumer spending. The Fed is the only determining factor of the ongoing bull market. Anyone who claims otherwise is probably a mainstream analyst or overzealous day trader with a vested interest in keeping the illusion going.

It is not surprising to me at all that the “rate hike odds” for March have been increased by mainstream analysts to 90% in the span of a week. I don’t know why anyone uses these arbitrary odds as an indicator of anything. I’ve been receiving emails all month asking me if I still believe the Fed will hike rates while the odds are “so low.” Look, the Fed does not make decisions at these meetings. They make decisions months in advance and the meetings are window dressing.

Too many people operate under the delusion that the central bank wants to continue propping up stocks, which is why they cannot grasp why the Fed would raise rates. In reality, the stage has been perfectly set to allow the bubble to implode. When the elites have a perfect scapegoat, they use it, and conservative movements represent that perfect scapegoat today.

The important thing to remember, though, is the timing of this particular meeting…

U.S. Debt-Ceiling Suspension Ends March 15th

So, in case you weren’t tracking the economic situation two years ago, the U.S. government almost went bust (in a sense) in 2015. The debt ceiling sets limits on how much the government can borrow to fund itself, and that limit was hit hard under the Obama administration after he managed to nearly double the national debt during his tenure. Congress passed legislation to allow borrowing to continue until March 2017, and of course, much of that capital was “borrowed” from the Federal Reserve, which, of course, creates it out of thin air. With the return of the debt ceiling, the question is — will Congress be able to extend and delay again? With Trump running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, CAN they extend again?  Do they even want to, or is this an engineered crisis event?

Once again, the timing of all this is a little odd. The Fed is raising rates into the first year of the Trump presidency leaving equities increasingly open to destabilization. In addition, the government might not be able to continue borrowing from them, or there will be a renewed extension but the costs of borrowing will run much higher. In either case, this month seems to pronounce the beginning of something; a considerable move away from the standard operating procedures that the elites have been using for the past several years. With such changes come consequences, always.

Formal Initiation Of Brexit On March 15th

The skeptics have been telling me for months that even though I was right about the Brexit vote victory the elites “would never allow” the British to leave the EU. Well, it doesn’t look that way to me so far. Theresa May plans to formally notify the EU of British exit on March 15th triggering two years of negotiations which will undoubtedly send economic shock waves throughout the globe on a regular basis.

Of course the Brexit will move forward! Why not? Globalists need a continuing atmosphere of crisis to distract the masses from their great global reset, and they need multiple scapegoats for the economic disaster that their reset will cause. Enter conservative movements in Europe; once again the perfect target to pin a crisis on.

French Elections Start April 23rd, End May 7th

Yet another election in which the EU hangs in the balance. Recent polls indicate that Marine Le Pen, the designated “populist" candidate, is falling behind. I have to ask, though, have we not learned our lesson yet on the meaninglessness of political polls? I think most of us have.

I believe Le Pen will be one of the final two candidates to move on to the election in May, and though I am not as certain as I was on Brexit and Trump, I am going to go ahead and predict a Le Pen win. If there is any sizable terrorist event in the next couple of months in the EU, or expanded Muslim riots, she is a guaranteed win. This brings up the very real prospect of a “Frexit” in the near future, and analysts should expect that a Le Pen win will be met with some panic in the financial world.

Potential Italian Election Move On April 30th

The Italian political process is a little confusing to me, but what I can tell you is that this spring or early summer you will probably be hearing a lot more about it. Former Italian prime minister and current Italian Democratic Party leader Matteo Renzi is set to decide on a the date for a leadership vote, which may come as early as April 30th. The outcome of this vote will likely decide how soon the next official Italian election will take place.

The election is required to be held before May 2018, but there is increasing pressure to hold elections in 2017, perhaps even this coming summer. I would not be at all shocked to see a surprise announcement of an early Italian election after the leadership vote is held.

Why should anyone care? The consensus is that Renzi’s party will be overrun by anti-EU factions and that this may result in a kind of “Italiexit.” The outcome of Italy’s series of votes and political restructuring will have wide reaching effects on the psychology of the markets for many months to come.

German Federal Election Held September 24th

Yes, even Germany is quaking this year in the wake of a potential “populist” tsunami. Angela Merkel is exceedingly unloved by her own people lately as her approval ratings collapse. Once-silent sovereignty champions in the country are becoming more and more vocal about Merkel’s rather insane open immigration policies which were the key element that drew millions of Muslims into the EU. It was the German government’s promise of endless entitlement programs that created the incentive for the mass migration in the first place, and now, finally, the German people are fed up with the complete lack of cultural assimilation and what many see as the destruction of western values.

I do not think that Germany will abandon the supranational concept of the EU regardless of the outcome of the election, but the removal of Merkel would signal a less agreeable Germany, which would exacerbate the already tottering European Union. Meaning more economic uncertainty in 2017.

If You Thought 2016 Was Weird…

If you thought 2016 was weird, I suggest you get comfortable with the surreal because it is not going away anytime soon. 2017 is a veritable treasure trove of falling elevators, and I haven’t even covered half of the issues facing the economy this year. But what about the macro-analysis?

To summarize, it seems to me that many of these events, stacked so closely together, are not coincidental in their timing. As I have noted in articles such as The Economic End Game Explained, globalists have been openly planning for decades to set in motion a vast financial overhaul and the launch of a single global economy and currency (the seeds being planted starting in 2018). If this is still their timeline, then it would follow that they would need a series of fiscal earthquakes designed to shake up the “old world order” to make way for a “new world order.”

Perhaps each of these events will result in a “stable” outcome and there is nothing to be concerned about. That said, I don’t believe in chance. Most geopolitical outcomes are influenced by internationalist players, which makes the outcomes of these events predictable. This is what made the Brexit predictable, and it is what made Trump’s victory predictable. Everything about the confluence of political and economic events in 2017 suggests to me a festering crisis atmosphere.

As I have always said, economic collapse is a process, not a singular moment in time. This process lulls the masses into complacency. You can show them warning sign after warning sign, but most of them have no concept of what a collapse is. They are waiting for a cinematic moment of revelation, a financial explosion, when really, the whole disaster is happening in slow motion right under their noses. Economies do not explode, they drown as the water rises one inch at a time.

 
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mexican rapists pouring into America... on: March 08, 2017, 05:47:03 PM
'IMMIGRANT PRIVILEGE' DRIVES CHILD RAPE EPIDEMIC

Ann Coulter - March 8, 2017

Before breathing a sigh of relief that, unlike Western Europe, we don't have Muslim rapists pouring into our country, recall that we have Mexican rapists pouring into our country.

Almost all peasant cultures are brimming with rapists, pederasts and child abusers. Latin America just happens to be the peasant culture closest to the United States, while the Muslims are closest to Europe.

According to North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement, immigrants commit hundreds of sex crimes against children in North Carolina every month -- 350 in the month of April 2014, 299 in May, and more than 400 in August and September. More than 90 percent of the perpetrators are Hispanic.

They aren't even counting legal immigrants. Aren't those worse? Only certain Republicans get excited about the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. The rest of America is trying to understand the point of the last 40 years of legal immigration. Why was this necessary?

Below is a very short excerpt from a few days in November 2013. As Stalin is supposed to have said, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.

-- Abundez, Jose, Juan (11/12/2013): Felony Sex Offense -- Parental Role

-- Aguilar-Sandoval, Jersson, Iss (11/21/2013): Felony First Degree Sexual Offense; Felony First Degree Rape; Felony First Degree Kidnapping

-- Aguilar, Rafael (11/04/2013): Felony Indecent Liberties With Child

-- Aguilar, Rigoberto, Castellano (11/04/2013): Felony First Degree Rape; Felony Indecent Liberties With Child; Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def>4-<6yr

(Note: That's sex with a child between 4 and 6 years old.)

-- Manzano, Gustavo, Adolfo (11/20/2013): Felony Indecent Liberties With Child; Felony Rape of Child

-- Monje, Alcides, Aguilar (11/18/2013): Felony Stat Rape/Sex Offn Def >=6yr; Felony Indecent Liberties With Child, 13.

The list, for a single month in a single state, goes on in the same vein through 87 separate offenders. When not providing North Carolina meatpackers with cheap labor, immigrant workers seem to spend all their time raping little girls.



To be fair, there are also Asian names, such as Y'Hon Nie (Indecent Liberties With Child, First Degree Sex Offense-Child, Second Degree Sexual Offense); and David Vo Minh (First Degree Sex Offense-Child, Indecent Liberties With Child).

North Carolina's cheap labor advocates better be paying Sen. Thom Tillis well. It sure isn't the average North Carolinian demanding that he shill for amnesty. Illegal immigration alone costs North Carolina taxpayers billions of dollars per year.

Our nation's epitaph, with a photo of Sen. Tillis, could be: "We built a powerful economic engine that attracted people, but then some businessmen saw their chance to screw the country and make a pile for themselves. Let's bring in low-wage workers so we can externalize our costs to the taxpayer!”

Except North Carolina's businesses aren't just externalizing their costs to the taxpayers. They're externalizing their costs to little girls.

The reason websites like North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement are so important is that the government and the media hide immigrant crime from the public.

They cite bogus studies that compare immigrants to America's criminal class. (We didn't want immigrants who are only slightly less criminal than our worst inner cities.)

Or they announce their impressionistic conclusions. (I heard about a crime in Montana -- that state must have a lot of crime, is not a scientific way to argue.)

Or they refuse to count any criminal without an ICE detainer against him as an immigrant, at all. (Is the court translator a hint that the defendant isn't a 10th-generation American?)

The way to determine how many immigrants are committing crime is to count them. Why does the government refuse to do this?

The number of immigrants in prison would be a good start, but that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Immigrant criminals flee back to their own countries after arrest. Prosecutors deport illegals rather than imprison them -- and then the illegals come right back. Some George Soros-inspired prosecutors allow illegals to plea guilty to a minor offense, to prevent them from being deported.

To get the full picture, government investigators will need to talk to crime victims, police and prosecutors, too.

And we want honesty -- not studies that count anchor babies and second-generation immigrants as "the native population.”

The media is the government's co-conspirator in hiding immigrant crime. I have approximately 1,000 examples of media subterfuges on immigrant crime in Adios, America! The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole.

Here are a few recent examples from Sen. Tillis' North Carolina.

Headline: "Burke County man convicted of raping 13-year-old girl," Charlotte Observer, Feb. 1, 2017 (Ricardo Solis Garcia -- an illegal whom Mexico refused to take back);

Headline: "Burlington man charged with child rape," The Times News, Jan. 19, 2017 (Felipe Samuel Rivera Rodriguez);

Headline: "Angier man accused of having sex with 14-year-old girl," The Fayetteville Observer, Aug. 29, 2016 (Estevan Roberto Silva).

NOTE TO READERS: The North Carolina Estevan Roberto Silva -- sex with a 14-year-old girl -- should not be confused with the Texas Esteban Villa Silva -- sex with a 12-year-old girl about 60 times -- or the Alabama Esteban Silva Jr. -- 42-year-old man convicted of sex with a 12-year-old girl. All these child rapes were revealed in coded headlines like "Man pleads to sexual relationship with girl.”

Other informative North Carolina headlines:

Headline: "Man, 42, arrested for sexual offense with girl under 13" (Carlos Gumercindo Crus);

Headline: "Man charged with sexual assault of a minor" (Jose Freddy Ambrosio-Gorgonio);

Headline: Man Pleads Guilty in Child Rape Case (Luis Perez-Valencia).

It's too relentless to be a coincidence.

There have been more stories in the American media about a rape by white lacrosse players that didn't happen than about thousands of child rapes in North Carolina that did.

I'm pretty sure our media is opposed to rape. But evidently, not as opposed as they are to America.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NYT reporter who reported on wiretaps of Trump now contradicts himself... on: March 07, 2017, 10:05:09 PM
NYT Reporter Who Said Trump was Wiretapped Now Says Trump's Wiretapping Claims Are Unfounded

Because "the truth is more important now than it was in January."

3.7.2017  News   M.J. Randolph


Well, this is awkward. 

This weekend, President Donald Trump made a claim (via Twitter, natch) that President Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower during the Presidential election. Though Obama administration officials emphatically deny this surveillance happened, the controversy has once again divided the nation down partisan lines.

On Saturday, New York Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt helped write a story called, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.”  This piece echoed the common liberal mantra that attempted to paint the new President as unhinged and unnecessarily alarming. However, Jeff Dunetz on LidBlog points out a rather inconvenient truth for the NYT reporter: on January 19 and 20, the same Michael S. Schmidt helped write an article that claimed members of the Trump team were being wiretapped and passed on the President.

"That’s right, the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the President’s claim, said that there was no evidence for the claim," wrote .

He continued:

This is the ultimate in liberal media bias.  In January Michael S. Schmidt perpetuated the rumor that team Trump had Russian connections, and to support his point he said that Trump’s people were wiretapped. However when President Trump claimed his people were wiretapped, the same guy,  Michael S. Schmidt said there was no evidence.

Either the Times editors and Mr. Schmidt are trying to skew the story, or they are all suffering from a form of dementia and have no memory.

And the New York Times wonders why no one trusts them? Just for kicks, let's remember their Academy Award ceremony commercial called -- ahem -- "The Truth is More Important Now than Ever."


Maybe they should've called it "The Truth is More Important Now than in January."


5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump brilliantly turns the tables on Democrats, media... on: March 07, 2017, 06:46:27 PM
This is a transcript from today's radio show:

CALLER:  The point I wanted to make, you were talking earlier about what’s going on with President Trump and the possible wiretapping of Trump Tower. And I’ve also read online that supposedly there’s a possibility that Jeff Sessions’ office was being tapped also, at least that’s what Corey Lewandowski said, but my point I wanted to make was I think that Trump should take this opportunity to turn the tables on the Dems and the libs. I don’t like their tactics, but they are effective.  And one of the things you’ve talked about in the past many times is the idea that investigations need to be done because of the seriousness of the charge.

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  I can’t think of anything more serious than the possibility that the presidential campaign was being wiretapped, and I would use that argument and just push the Democrats back on their heels and say, “The seriousness of the charge, we have to look.”  I mean, you could run with this for months.  That’s what I would do.

RUSH:  Trump is doing that.  So far, he doesn’t have anybody willing to join him in the investigation, ’cause most people’s reaction — can I share this with you?

CALLER:  Of course.

RUSH: The first Trump tweet was on Saturday, and I’m on the golf course Sunday, and it’s a mother-in-law convention out there.  The winds are like 35 miles an hour.  It’s just impossible.  So we started talking about things to try to distract from how poorly we were playing, and these guys — and these are, you know, my age, 50 to 55, 60, successful people, and they’re shocked at what Trump said. They think, “Oh, no, the guy’s going off his rocker, oh, my God, oh, my God.”

I tried to bring ’em back down.  I said, “No,” that’s when I hit them.  “Wait a minute, now.  What do you mean?  Is it more reasonable to think that it could be or that it isn’t?”  And so they started thinking about it the way I was thinking about it.  So I think the initial reaction of even some people on Trump’s team, “Oh, my God, you don’t say that, oh, gee.”  Because in their minds, you never win accusing Obama or the Democrats of anything.  The media’s gonna come out and destroy you.

But Trump is not everybody.  Trump doubled down on it today.  You better be applauding Donald Trump. If what you just said you want, you better be applauding Donald Trump.  Because he’s taking it — this is exactly what he’s doing out there, Pete.  He’s doing exactly what they have been doing to him.  This whole Russia-rigged-the election thing is a bogus charge and he decided to pick the grenade up and throw it right back at the media-Democrat complex.

And it’s working.  They’re now running around like stuck pigs.  “What investigation?  He wasn’t under investigation.”  He wasn’t under investigation?  I thought the last six months — “No, no, no, there are no wiretaps on Trump.  That’s absurd.”  Well, then how do people get hold of his phone calls to these foreign leaders?  “Well, I don’t know, but he’s not under investigation.  Nobody ever said he’s under investigation.”

Katy Tur, infobabe NBC, was on Meet the Press Sunday saying there hasn’t even been a single report alleging that Trump was working with the Russians.  I looked at that.  I didn’t watch it live, I was on the way to the golf course.  I looked at it later.  I said, “Are you kidding me?”  This is the same reporter who had not heard that Obama had told the Russians to tell Vladimir to wait, he’ll be more flexible after the election.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My point yesterday about is it reasonable to think that Obama could indeed have wiretapped Trump and his campaign, given other aspects of the investigation we’ve been hearing. We know that Trump’s under investigation. We know that some of his peeps are under investigation supposedly ’cause of collusion with the Russians. So we know there was an investigation going on.

Is it unreasonable or reasonable to think that Trump could have been wiretapped too? People were saying, “That’s outrageous! Trump’s off his rocker.” No, no. It’s entirely reasonable if everybody — and Trump’s phone calls have been transcribed and broadcast and reported in the media. So they played that segment — in fact, here it is — and they asked Newt to react to it.

RUSH ARCHIVE: There has been a sabotage effort to undermine Trump and his administration since the election. … t’s totally reasonable to believe that something like this could be happening. It would be unreasonable to think that this is crazy, unreasonable to think that this is absurd, unreasonable to think that this is nothing more than a big batch of conspiracy theories stitched together for whatever purpose.

RUSH: Bill Hemmer played that for Newt Gingrich today on America’s Newsroom, and he said, “Okay, flip Limbaugh’s logic around. Is it reasonable to think that actually this is crazy?”

GINGRICH: I think if you’re a left-winger and you believe that everything Trump does is wrong, you can believe that. But if you look at the unending process of leaks — by the way, all of them breaking the law. You have a New York Times columnist actively calling on IRS agents to break the law and leak President Trump’s taxes. The left has gone crazy since the election. There’s this whole model right now that anything goes on the left, and then they want the rest of us to believe that they’re reasonable.

RUSH: Right. And then here’s Mike Pence. He was on Brian Kilmeade’s Fox News Radio show this morning, and they were talking about Trump’s tweets accusing Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower, and Pence said this…

PENCE: I think the president’s tweet speaks for itself. He’s expressed himself on it, and, you know, we’re very pleased that the congressional committees have made it clear that they will look into that matter just as they’re looking into every aspect it.

RUSH: See, this is why it’s a brilliant thing that Trump did, whether he knew it or not, ’cause it’s gonna come back and bite them. We just had a caller saying, “Look, why don’t we play the game the way they do? They say, no evidence. That means we have to investigate it. The seriousness of the charge.”

Well, you know what? You can’t get a more serious charge than a sitting president wiretapped a presidential campaign. You can’t get a more serious charge. And by the Democrats’ own definition that mandates an investigation. And Congress said they’ll do it. They’re gonna fold Trump’s allegation into the rest of this. And now the Democrats are walking it back, “There wasn’t any investigation, there wasn’t any investigation, what do you mean? Where are you getting this?”

It’s like Katy Tur, the infobabe on NBC. She’s on Meet the Press Sunday. She said she’s not aware of any news agency alleging that there was collusion between Trump and the Russians. I saw that, and I said, “What is it, does she really not know,” which is the entirely possible. I think journalists are some of the most ill-educated people. I don’t even think they’re educated. They’re indoctrinated. They know one side of things and they have no curiosity about anything else.

She’s also the infobabe who did not know that Obama was overheard on an open mic telling Dmitry Medvedev in 2012, Putin’s second in command; he’s the president of the Russian Federation, said (paraphrasing), “You tell Vladimir that I’ll have much more flexibility in getting rid of our nukes here after I’m reelected.” She didn’t know that had happened. How do you not know that? Well, NBC didn’t report it. CBS didn’t report it. ABC didn’t report it. The New York Times didn’t report it.

There’s no way she would know it. Yet it happened, and they don’t know it. And now she’s out there saying there’s no new organization that’s ever alleged collusion between Trump and the Russians. She was dead serious. And her own network is reporting that. Everybody else in the Drive-Bys is reporting that.


6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Opposition Movement... on: March 07, 2017, 01:06:27 PM
#OBAMAGATE: EXPOSING THE OBAMA DEEP STATE

Obama’s third term has begun. Our Republic is in danger.

March 7, 2017  Daniel Greenfield 

After Trump secured the nomination, Obama’s people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing everything they can to bring him down.

It was always going to come down to this.

One is the elected President of the United States. The other is the Anti-President who commands a vast network that encompasses the organizers of OFA, the official infrastructure of the DNC and Obama Anonymous, a shadow government of loyalists embedded in key positions across the government.

A few weeks after the election, I warned that Obama was planning to run the country from outside the White House. And that the “Obama Anonymous” network of staffers embedded in the government was the real threat. Since then Obama’s Kalorama mansion has become a shadow White House. And the Obama Anonymous network is doing everything it can to bring down an elected government.

Valerie Jarrett has moved into the shadow White House to plot operations against Trump. Meanwhile Tom Perez has given him control of the corpse of the DNC after fending off a Sandernista bid from Keith Ellison. Obama had hollowed out the Democrat Party by diverting money to his own Organizing for America. Then Hillary Clinton had cannibalized it for her presidential bid through Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile. Now Obama owns the activist, OFA, and organizational, DNC, infrastructure.

But that’s just half the picture.

Obama controls the opposition. He will have a great deal of power to choose future members of Congress and the 2020 candidate. But he could have done much of that from Chicago or New York. The reason he didn’t decide to move on from D.C. is that the nation’s capital contains the infrastructure of the national government. He doesn’t just want to run the Democrats. He wants to run America.

The other half of the picture is the Obama Deep State. This network of political appointees, bureaucrats and personnel scattered across numerous government agencies is known only as Obama Anonymous.

Obama Inc. had targeted Trump from the very beginning when it was clear he would be the nominee.

Trump had locked down the GOP nomination in May. Next month there was a FISA request targeting him. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied the request, and it is still unknown whether the request targeted Trump, or only his associates, but it’s silly to pretend that the submission of such a request a month after he became the presumptive GOP nominee was apolitical.

The second, narrower, FISA request came through in October.  This one was approved. The reason for getting a FISA request in October was even more obvious than June. October is the crucial month in presidential elections. It’s the month of the “October Surprise” when the worst hit pieces based on the keenest opposition research is unleashed. Obama’s opposition research on Trump involved eavesdropping on a server in Trump Tower. Nixon would have been very jealous.

After the election, Obama Inc. began to spread out its bets. Some of his people migrated into his network of political organizations. Others remained embedded in the government. While the former would organize the opposition, the latter would sabotage, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

An unprecedented campaign for full spectrum dominance was being waged in domestic politics.

Political opposition wasn’t a new phenomenon; even if a past president centralizing control of the organizational and activist arms of his party to wage war on his successor was unprecedented. But weaponizing unelected government officials to wage war on an elected government was a coup.

Obama Anonymous conducted its coup in layers. The first layer partnered congressional Democrats with OA personnel to retain control of as much of the government as possible by the Obama Deep State. They did it by blocking Trump’s nominees with endless hearings and protests. The second layer partnered congressional Democrats with the deeper layer of Obama operatives embedded in law enforcement and intelligence agencies who were continuing the Obama investigations of Trump. 

This second layer sought to use the investigation to force out Trump people who threatened their control over national security, law enforcement and intelligence. It is no coincidence that their targets, Flynn and Sessions, were in that arena. Or that their views on Islamic terror and immigration are outside the consensus making them easy targets for Obama Anonymous and its darker allies.

These darker allies predate Obama. The tactics being deployed against Trump were last used by them in a previous coup during President Bush’s second term. The targets back then had included Bush officials, an Iran skeptic, pro-Israel activists and a Democrat congresswoman. The tactics, eavesdropping, leaks, false investigations, dubious charges and smear campaigns against officials, were exactly the same.


 
Anyone who remembers the cases of Larry Franklin, Jane Harman and some others will recognize them. Before that they were used to protect the CIA underestimates of Soviet capabilities that were broken through by Rumsfeld’s Halloween Massacre and Team B which helped clear the way for Reagan’s defeat of the Soviet Union.

Under Bush, the Deep State was fighting against any effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program. It did so by eliminating and silencing opposition within the national security establishment and Congress through investigations of supposed foreign agents. That left the field clear for it to force a false National Intelligence Estimate on President Bush which claimed that Iran had halted its nuclear program.

Obama broke out the same tactics when he went after Iran Deal opponents. Once again members of Congress were spied on and the results were leaked to friendly media outlets. Before the wiretapping of Trump’s people, the NSA was passing along conversations of Iran Deal opponents to the White House which were used to coordinate strategy in defense of the illegal arrangement with Islamic terrorists.

The same wall between government and factional political agendas that Nixon’s “White House Plumbers” had broken through on the way to Watergate had been torn down. NSA eavesdropping was just another way to win domestic political battles. All it took was accusing the other side of treason.

And worse was to come.

During the Iran Deal battle, the NSA was supposedly filtering the eavesdropped data it passed along.

In its last days, Obama Inc. made it easier to pass along unfiltered personal information to the other agencies where Obama loyalists were working on their investigation targeting Trump. The NSA pipeline now makes it possible for the shadow White House to still gain intelligence on its domestic enemies.

And the target of the shadow White House is the President of the United States.

There is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government. The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow government than the real President.

The Obama network is an illegal shadow government. Even its “light side” as an opposition group is very legally dubious. Its “shadow side” is not only illegal, but a criminal attack on our democracy.

When he was in power, Obama hacked reporters like FOX News’ James Rosen and CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson. He eavesdropped on members of Congress opposed to the Iran Deal. Two men who made movies he disliked ended up in jail. But what he is doing now is even more deeply disturbing.

Obama no longer legally holds power. His Deep State network is attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election using government employees whose allegiance is to a shadow White House. Tactics that were illegal when he was in office are no longer just unconstitutional, they are treasonous.

Obama Inc. has become a state within a state. It is a compartmentalized network of organizations, inside and outside the government, that claim that they are doing nothing illegal as individual groups because they are technically following the rules within each compartment, but the sheer scope of the illegality lies in the covert coordination between these “revolutionary cells” infecting our country.

It is a criminal conspiracy of unprecedented scope. Above all else, it is the most direct attack yet on a country in which governments are elected by the people, not by powerful forces within the government.

"We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain,” President Lincoln declared at Gettysburg.  “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Obama’s shadow government is not just a war on President Trump. It is a war on that government of the people, by the people and for the people. If he succeeds, then at his touch, it will perish from the earth.

Obama’s third term has begun. Our Republic is in danger.
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Stockman: "Everything Will Grind To a Halt in 2017" on: February 27, 2017, 11:35:01 AM
David Stockman correctly diagnoses (IMHO) the current debt calamity we are living in, and says that stocks are wildly overvalued, and Trump is powerless to stop this train wreck from occurring this year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xgNncFHAng

8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Shadow Presidency... on: February 15, 2017, 07:53:32 PM
Unprecedented, but then so was Obama's Presidency - with it's explicit goal of dismantling this nation as founded.  He has hardly given up on that goal, and will work very hard to undermine Trump, along with many D.C. career appointees who despise Trump and his plan to root out corruption.  This promises to be a long, nasty fight.  I think Trump is up for it, however.  Even Republicans in Congress are in many cases working to dismantle his Presidency - just as it has begun.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265808/obamas-shadow-presidency-matthew-vadum

9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Shadow Presidency... on: February 15, 2017, 01:41:43 PM
This is entirely unprecedented - but then - so is Barack Obama and his efforts as U.S. President to dismantle the nation as founded:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265808/obamas-shadow-presidency-matthew-vadum

10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Russian insiders fear Trump assassination? on: February 14, 2017, 02:25:38 PM
With full understanding of the fact that this comes second-hand from Foreign Policy magazine via InfoWars - I offer it for what it's worth.  Rush Limbaugh today opined on his radio program that Washington establishment insiders - including Republicans - will do anything to discredit and eliminate Trump, as he poses a threat to their comfortable positions of power and influence.  Limbaugh advised that Trump should aggressively root out these disloyal operators and name names.  He also stated that he feels that it is a grave mistake on Trump's part to ask for Flynn's resignation IF it were done primarily because of the media screaming for his scalp.  It will only embolden them, said Limbaugh.

http://www.infowars.com/russian-insiders-fear-washington-establishment-will-assassinate-trump/

11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Global Debt Level is Unsustainable... on: February 13, 2017, 09:34:48 PM
The author is correct here - this ought to be blindingly obvious at this point:

www.sovereignman.com/trends/worlds-largest-hedge-fund-manager-predicts-bleak-future-for-markets-20855/

12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Can Only Mitigate Economic Disaster - Not Prevent It... on: February 03, 2017, 07:40:59 AM
Irreversible Damage - The U.S. Economy Cannot Be Repaired

Brandon Smith - February 2, 2017


As I outlined in my article 'The False Economic Narrative Will Die In 2017', the mainstream media has been carefully crafting the propaganda meme that the Trump administration is inheriting a global economy in “ascension,” when in fact, the opposite is true. Trump enters office at a time of longstanding decline and will likely witness severe and accelerated decline over the course of the next year. The signs are already present, and this fits exactly with the basis for my prediction of the Trump election win — conservative movements are indeed being set up as scapegoats for a global economic crisis that international financiers actually created.

Plus, it doesn’t help that Trump keeps boasting about the farcical Dow hitting record highs after his entry into the White House. Talk about the perfect setup…

With the speed at which Trump is issuing executive orders, my concern is that people’s heads will be spinning so fast they will start to assume an appearance of economic progress. Here is the issue — some problems simply cannot be fixed, at least not in a top down fashion. Some disasters cannot be prevented. Sometimes, a crisis has to run its course before a nation or society or economy can return to stability. This is invariably true of the underlying crisis within the U.S. economy.

It is imperative that liberty activists and conservatives avoid false hope in fiscal recovery and remain vigilant and prepared for a breakdown within the system. Despite the sudden political sea change with Trump and the Republican party in majority control of the D.C. apparatus, there is nothing that can be done through government to ease fiscal tensions at this time. Here are some of the primary reasons why:

Government Does Not Create Wealth

Government is a wealth-devouring machine. The bigger the government, the more adept it is at snatching capital and misallocating it. Such a system is inherently unequipped to repair an economy in a stagflationary spiral.

I’m hearing a whole lot of talk lately on all the jobs that will be created through Trump’s infrastructure spending plans, which reminds me of the desperation at the onset of the Great Depression and the efforts by Herbert Hoover to reignite the U.S. economy through a series of public works programs. Reality does not support a successful outcome for this endeavor.

First off, Trump’s ideas for infrastructure spending to kick start a U.S. recovery are not new. The Obama administration and Congress passed the largest transportation spending bill in more than a decade in 2015 and pushed for a similar strategy to what is now being suggested by Trump. I should point out though that like Herbert Hoover, Obama’s efforts in this area were essentially fruitless. Obama was the first president since Hoover to see “official” annual U.S. GDP growth drop below 3 percent for the entirety of his presidency, with GDP in 2016 dropping to a dismal 1.6 percent.

Though projects like the Hoover Dam were epic in scope and electrifying to the public imagination during the Depression, they did little to fuel the overall long-term prospects of the American economy. This is because government is incapable of creating wealth; it can only steal wealth from the citizenry through taxation to pay debts conjured out of thin air, or, it can strike a devil’s bargain with central banks to print its way to fake prosperity.

Some might argue that Trump is more likely to redirect funds from poorly conceived Obama-era programs instead of increasing taxes or printing, but this does not change the bigger picture. Redirected funds are still taxpayer funds, and those funds would be far better spent if they were returned to taxpayers rather than wasted in a vain effort to increase GDP by a percentage point. Beyond this, the number of jobs generated through the process will be a drop in the bucket compared to the 100 million plus people no longer employed within the U.S. at this time.

Bottom line? Though new roads and a wall on the southern border are winners for many conservatives, infrastructure spending is a non-solution in preventing a long-term fiscal disaster.

Interdependency Is Hard To Break

Another prospect for raising funds to pay for job generating public works projects is the use of tariffs on foreign imports. Specifically, imports of goods from countries which have maintained unfair trade advantages through global agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA or the China Trade Bill. This is obviously a practical concept and it was always the intention of the founding father post-revolution for government to generate most of its funding through taxation of foreign imports and interstate commerce, rather than taxation of the hard earned incomes of the citizenry. However, the idea is not without consequences.

Unfortunately, globalists have spent the better part of a half-century ensuring that individual nations are completely financially dependent on one another. The U.S. is at the very CENTER of this interdependency with our currency as the world reserve standard. In order to change the nature of the inderdependent system, we have to change the nature of our participation within that system. This means, in order to assert large tariffs on countries like China (which Trump has suggested), America would have to be willing to sacrifice the main advantage it enjoys within the interdependent model — we would have to sacrifice the dollar’s world reserve status.

Keep in mind, this is likely to be done for us in an aggressive manner by nations like China. China’s considerable dollar and treasury bond holds can be liquidated, and despite claims by mainstream shills, this WILL in fact have destructive effects on the U.S. economy.

Also keep in mind that with higher tariffs come higher prices on the shelf. The majority of goods consumed by Americans come from outside the country. Higher tariffs only work to our advantage when we have a manufacturing base capable of producing the goods we need at prices we can afford. The American manufacturing base within our own nation is essentially nonexistent compared to the Great Depression. In order to levy tariffs we would need a level of production support we simply do not have.

The point is, an unprecedented change in America's production dynamic would have to happen so that we do not face heavy fiscal consequences for the use of tariffs as an economic weapon.

Manufacturing Takes Time To Rebuild

Much excitement has been garnered by reports that certain U.S. corporations will be bringing some manufacturing back within our borders over the course of Trump’s first term as president. And certainly this is something that needs to happen. We should have never outsourced our manufacturing capability in the first place. But, is this too little too late? I believe so.

I remember back in 2008/2009 mainstream economists were applauding the Federal Reserve’s bailout efforts and the call for quantitative easing, because, they argued, this would diminish the dollar’s value on the global market, which would make American goods less expensive, and by extension inspire a manufacturing renaissance. Of course, this never happened, which only adds to the mountain of evidence proving that most mainstream economists are intellectual idiots.

It is important that we do not fall into the same false-hope trap in 2017. While Trump may or may not handle matters more aggressively, there is only so much that can be accomplished through politics. Rebuilding a manufacturing base after decades of outsourcing takes time. Many years, in fact. Factories have to be commissioned, money has to change many hands, wages have to be scouted for the best possible labor per-dollar spent and people have to be trained from the very ground up in how to produce goods again. In many cases, the skill sets required to maintain functioning factories in the U.S. (from engineers to machinists to assembly line labor to the people who know how to manage it all) just don’t exist anymore.  All we have left are millions of retail and food service workers forming mobs to demand $15 an hour, which is simply not going to encourage a return to manufacturing.

Beyond this, at least in the short term, America will have a much stronger dollar on the global market, rather than a weaker dollar, due to the fact that the Federal Reserve has initiated a renewed series of interest rate increases just as Trump entered office.  While the mainstream theorizes that the Fed will turn "dovish" and back away from rate hikes, I think this is a rather naive notion.  It serves the elites far better to create a battle between Trump and the Fed - therefore, I see no reason for the Fed to back away from its rate hike process.  Trump will demand a weaker dollar, the Fed won't give it to him, and ultimately, the global economy will start to see the dollar as a risky venture and dump it as the world reserve; which is what the globalist have wanted all along so that they can introduce the SDR as a bridge to a new world currency.

With a "strong" dollar (relative to other indexes) there is even LESS incentive for foreign nations to buy our goods now than there was after the credit crisis in 2008. If the dollar loses world reserve status (as I believe it will during Trump’s first term), then at that point we will have a swiftly falling currency — but too swift to fuel a manufacturing reboot.

Is there even enough internal wealth to support the rise of manufacturing within the U.S. for a period of time necessary for our economy to rebalance?  If there is I’m not seeing it.  We are a nation mired in debt.  So much so that even selling off our natural resources would not erase the problem.

Ultimately, the shift away from being tied to a globalized system towards a self-contained producer nation with a citizenry wealthy enough to sustain that production in light of limited exports to foreign buyers is a shift that requires incredible foresight, precision and ample time. It is not something that can be ramrodded into existence through force or by government decree. In fact, the act of trying to force the change haphazardly will only agitate an economy already on the verge of calamity.

Solutions Start With The Citizenry, Not Washington

I understand that conservatives in particular want to “make America great again,” and I fully agree with that goal. But, someone has to point out the inconsistencies in the current strategy and recognize that the situation is beyond repair. To make America great again would require decentralized efforts to maximize production and self reliance at a local level, not centralized federal tinkering with the economy. The globalists have been far too thorough in their programs of interdependency. The only way out now is for the system to crash and for the right people to be in place to rebuild.

Sadly, not only will a crash result in great tragedy for many Americans, but it is also an outcome the globalists prefer. They believe that THEY will be the men in the right place at the right time to rebuild the system in an even more centralized fashion. They hope to sacrifice the old world order to inspire the social desperation needed to convince the masses of the need for a “new world order.” Again, this crash cannot be avoided, it can only be mitigated. We can prepare and become self sufficient. We can fight to ensure that the globalists are not in a position to rebuild the system in their image once the dust settles. But, we should not place too much expectation that the Trump administration will be able to solve any of our economic problems, if that is even their intent.  The solution remains in our hands, not in the hands of the White House.

13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Alternative Perspective - Inflationary Depression Coming? on: January 27, 2017, 09:47:37 AM
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3115-are-you-ready-for-an-inflationary-depression

14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Greenfield: Establishment Media Regretting "Fake News" Meme... on: January 16, 2017, 06:42:26 PM
Trump, master of media combat, turned this term around on them - now all of a sudden they want to "retire" the term.  Cowards.

www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265466/media-will-pay-price-its-fake-news-daniel-greenfield

15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sober Analysis by Thomas Sowell... on: December 14, 2016, 11:01:41 AM
As always, Sowell makes a calm assessment of the situation we face:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265136/where-are-we-thomas-sowell

16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glenn Beck is a con man... on: September 26, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
This passage is from the Wikipedia entry for Glenn Beck.  I maintain that he is a (possibly brilliant - or alternatively extremely talented, if you prefer) con man.  He'd give P.T. Barnum a run for his money:

On November 10, 2014, Beck announced on TheBlaze that he had been suffering from a severe neurological disorder for at least the last five years.[44] He described many strong and debilitating symptoms which made it difficult to work,[45] and that he had "a string of health issues that quite honestly made me look crazy, and quite honestly, I have felt crazy because of them."[46] Beck related that a chiropractor who specializes in "chiropractic neurology", Frederick Carrick, had "diagnosed [him] with several health issues, including an autoimmune disorder, which he didn’t name, and adrenal fatigue." Over a period of ten months he had received a series of treatments and felt better.[47] A number of medical experts have expressed doubt about the legitimacy of Beck's diagnosis, treatment,[48] and the credentials of the chiropractor,[49] with Yale University neurologist Steven Novella dismissing chiropractic neurology as "pseudoscience": "Chiropractic neurology does not appear to be based on any body of research, or any accumulated scientific knowledge,....[and] appears to me to be the very definition of pseudoscience."[50]

17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: September 26, 2016, 03:11:16 PM
Yes - sadly, I think Beck is essentially a con man, quite possibly with a serious psychiatric disorder.  I say this having attended his "Restoring Honor Rally" in Washington, D.C. at the Lincoln Memorial in 2010.  At that point I thought he was genuine.  
His actions and statements since then have proven otherwise.
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: September 26, 2016, 02:56:20 PM
Glenn Beck went bat-s**t crazy right after Trump won the Republican nomination.  The man is mentally unstable, in my opinion.
19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Washington Shooter Had Posted Jihad-Related Material... on: September 26, 2016, 01:43:51 PM
Despite mall shooter’s “SubhanAllah” post and admiration for ISIS caliph, police search for motive

September 26, 2016 10:44 am By Robert Spencer

He had a history of violence and sexual abuse of women — almost as if he grew up in a culture that revered violence and thought of non-Muslim women as “uncovered meat.” He posted admiration for al-Baghdadi and Khamenei and a call for Muslims to repeat “SubhanAllah” multiple times.

Maybe he wasn’t a jihadi and there is some mitigating explanation for all of this. When authorities refuse to discuss it and appear to dismiss it out of hand, however, it only reinforces the impression that there is some deliberate effort to cover up jihad attacks — an impression that authorities reinforce all too often.



“A portrait of violence emerges of suspect in Washington state mall killings,” by Rick Anderson, Los Angeles Times, September 25, 2016 (thanks to Darcy):

    A disturbing portrait began to emerge Sunday of Arcan Cetin, the man suspected of killing five people at a Washington state mall, but authorities appeared no closer to determining the motive for the crime.

    Cetin, 20, who came to the United States from Turkey as a child, was described by authorities as having called out women’s names as he allegedly killed them in a hail of bullets Friday night at the Cascade Mall in Burlington.

    By the time he was found carrying a computer bag near his home in nearby Oak Harbor about 24 hours later, he was depicted by the sheriff who arrested him as “zombie-like” and docile….

    As Lt. Chris Cammock of the police department in Mount Vernon, south of Burlington, said Saturday, he and a task force investigating the shooting have a lot of questions to answer.

    “I don’t know what his motivations were to do this. I don’t know what his motivations were to continue [shooting]. I don’t know what his motivations were to stop,” Cammock said….

    Investigators have not revealed what, if anything, Cetin — who pronounces his first name as “ar-zhan” — has told them since his arrest. But his capture and jailing were greeted with both relief and anger.

    Uhlaine Finnigan, 19, a former classmate at Oak Harbor High School, remembered Cetin as someone to avoid in the school hallways. She didn’t want to comment further Sunday but gave permission to use her recollections from a Facebook post after his arrest.

    “He’d grab and slap my friends and … even caressed my friends chest, along with other women,” she wrote. “Has been known to be violent towards girls too.”

    Another classmate, Austin Hendrix, 19, told the Seattle Times, “He would grope women in high school and middle school.”…

    According to his Facebook page, Cetin is a native of Turkey, not Russia, and goes by the nickname “the Turk.” He came to the U.S. with his parents and is a legal permanent resident, officials said.

    The Associated Press quoted a neighbor, Amber Cathey, 21, describing Cetin as “really creepy, rude and obnoxious” — so much so, she said, that she complained to apartment management and kept a stun gun handy. Cathey said she blocked him on Snapchat after he sent her a photo of his crotch.

    His Tumblr page, with “arcanmotherrussiavodkaandak47” as part of the Web address, includes a photo of him with an apparent assault-style weapon. He also posted, without comment, a photo of serial killer Ted Bundy at age 4, sitting next to a snowman.

    Court records show Cetin has faced three domestic violence assault charges in Skagit and Island counties, involving disputes with his stepfather. There is no record of any convictions. In December, however, a judge ordered Cetin not to possess firearms. The judge also suggested imposing a no-contact order, but the stepfather objected, saying Cetin was going through “a hard time” and needed the stepfather’s help.

    One post on Cetin’s Tumblr page urged readers to repeat the phrase “Subhan Allah” (“Glory to God”) 10 times “and then reblog this, do not stop reblogging it.”

    Police had no comment on the suspect’s religious beliefs.
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Keith Lamont Scott was scum... on: September 23, 2016, 02:04:24 PM
Protest Thugs and the Real Evil in Charlotte

Nothing says “family man” like assaulting women and children.

September 23, 2016

Daniel Greenfield - Frontpagemag.com


Keith Lamont Scott was scum.

He had been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in two different states and convicted of assault in three states. He had been hit with “assault with intent to kill” charges in the 90s. His record of virtue included “assault on a child under 12” and “assault on a female.”

The media spin; “Family and neighbors call Scott a quiet ‘family man.’”

Nothing says “quiet” like “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill” and nothing says “family man” like assaulting women and children.

Keith Lamont Scott, the latest martyr of Black Lives Matter and its media propaganda corps, was shot while waving a gun around. He had spent 7 years in jail for “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.”

This vicious monster’s career of crime ended when he was shot by Brentley Vinson, an African-American police officer, protecting himself from the latest rampage by this “quiet family man.”

Brentley Vinson is everything that Scott isn’t. The son of a police officer, Brentley dreamed of following in his father’s footsteps. He used to organize his football team’s bible studies and mentored younger players. Former teammates describe him as a “great guy” with “good morals.” His former coach calls him a “natural leader” and says that, “We need more Brent Vinsons… in our communities.”

Except that Obama, Black Lives Matter, the media, the NAACP and everyone else going after this bright and decent African-American officer has decided that what we really need are more Keith Lamont Scotts. And the streets of Charlotte are full of “Scotts” throwing rocks at police, assaulting reporters and wrecking everything in sight in marches that are as “peaceful” as Scott was a “quiet family man.”

That’s what Hillary Clinton wanted when she tweeted that, “We have two names to add to a long list of African-Americans killed by police officers. It’s unbearable, and it needs to become intolerable.”

What exactly should be intolerable? An African-American police officer defending his life against a violent criminal who happened to be black? Should black criminals enjoy a special immunity? The greatest victims of black criminals are black communities.

Whom does Hillary Clinton imagine she’s helping here? Instead of standing with heroic African-American police officers like Vinson, she’s championing criminal scum like Scott.

Tim Kaine, Hillary’s No. 2, wants us to think about Scott’s family. We should do that. Scott’s brother announced on camera that all “white people” are “devils.” Timmy should check to see if he can get an exemption from white devildom.  But if there are any white devils, it’s men like Kaine and women like Hillary who enable the worst behavior in a troubled community while punishing those who try to help.

Every time the lie about “peaceful” protests is repeated, another black community becomes unlivable.

Twenty police officers have been injured and National Guard troops have arrived to deal with all those “peaceful” protests. Protesters chanted, “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” before throwing things at police and then peacefully shooting each other. Stores had their windows broken and decorated with Black Lives Matter graffiti. A Walmart was peacefully looted and trucks were torched.

A police officer was peacefully hit by a car. Another was peacefully hit in the face with a rock. Mobs besieged and attempted to break into hotels. Reporters were attacked and a photographer was nearly thrown into a fire. White people were targeted by the racist Black Lives Matter mob and assaulted.

But all these peaceful rioters are probably just quiet family men too.

The peaceful protests are as big a lie as the “bookish” Keith Lamont Scott reading a book in his car. Police had no trouble finding a gun. They couldn’t have found Scott anywhere near a book. The only thing he could have done with a book is try to beat someone to death with it. Maybe a child.

Scott wasn’t a quiet family man; he was a violent criminal with a horrifying vicious streak. He and the rest of the Black Lives Matter rioters remind us of the monsters that we need dedicated police officers to protect us from.

The spin on what happened between a deranged black criminal and a courageous black police officer fell apart as fast as the Freddie Gray case, where black police officers were targeted and a city terrorized over conspiracy theories relating to the accidental death of a drug dealer.

The claims of racism are absurd. Not only was Scott shot by an African-American police officer, but Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, who has taken the lead in defending him, is also African-American.

Are we supposed to believe that an African-American police officer and an African-American police chief are racists or that these two black men took the lead in a genocidal conspiracy to kill black men?

That’s the laughable premise of the racist Black Lives Matter hatefest that alternates between “Stop killing us” street theater and violent assaults on police officers, reporters and anyone in the area.

But the truth doesn’t matter. Black Lives Matter rioters are still chanting, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” long after the Michael Brown lie fell apart. They’re holding up signs reading, “It Was a Book.”  The lie is backed by some of the biggest media corporations in the country, by $130 million from George Soros and the Ford Foundation, by Barack Hussein Obama and by Hillary Clinton.

These are the malign forces destroying Charlotte, as they trashed Baltimore. On the ground there are the vulture community organizers of Black Lives Matter, funded by the left, who parachute in to organize race riots, behind them are the reporters who sell the spin live on the air and the photographers who capture glamor shots of the racist rioters, and after them come the lawyers of the DOJ out to ruin, terrorize and intimidate whatever law enforcement survived the riots.

They did it in Ferguson and a dozen other places. Now they want to do it in Charlotte.

They want to do it because they hate white people and black people. They hate peace and decency. They hate the idea of people getting up in the morning and working for a living. They hate the idea of good officers, white and black men and women, like Brentley Vinson, who genuinely believe in doing the right thing. They want unearned power. They demand unearned wealth. And they thrive on destruction.

This is the real evil in Charlotte. And we need to stand up to it. From the ghetto to the manors of the liberal elite from burning cars to pricey restaurants in exclusive neighborhoods, it plots against us.

It is a lie repeated a million times. Sometimes the lie is simple. Other times it’s sophisticated. But the way to fight it is to begin with the truth.

The truth is that Keith Lamont Scott was a violent criminal who came to a bad end because of his own actions. Just like Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and too many other Black Lives Matter martyrs to count.

The truth is that everything Black Lives Matter does reminds us of why we need police officers.

The truth is that this is not about race, but about those who want to build and those who want to destroy. It’s about the difference between Brentley Vinson and Keith Lamont Scott.

It’s about what kind of country we want to be. Is it a country that celebrates a young black football player who chose to follow in his father’s footsteps, who organized bible study and helped others, who risked his life to keep other people safe. Or is it one that celebrates Keith Lamont Scott, who assaulted a woman, a child and anyone else he could get at, who terrorized three states and died as he lived.

Obama and the left want a nation of Keith Lamont Scotts. But now it’s our turn to choose.
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Deport the Entire Rahami Family - Time to Send Terrorists a Message... on: September 21, 2016, 07:48:33 PM
DEPORT THE RAHAMI FAMILY

It’s time to send Muslim terrorists a message.

September 21, 2016  Daniel Greenfield - FrontPageMag.com


The Rahami family came to America from Afghanistan as refugees. They made life miserable for their neighbors. When the police tried to bring some order, they cried Islamophobia.

Two of the Rahamis have posted in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups on social media. The third actually built and planted bombs to kill Americans. He terrorized two states, tried to kill and maim countless Americans and then shot it out with police.

Ahmad Khan Rahami, the central figure in the terror case, brought his wife here from Pakistan and she departed days before his attack. His mother left for Pakistan a few weeks before his bombing spree.

The media, eager for a story of redemption, has widely broadcast the claim that Mohammed Rahami, Ahmad’s father, told the FBI that he was a terrorist. But that was years ago. And Mohammed didn’t turn in his son because there was a terror plot, but because he attacked family members.

As Mohammed put it, “Because he doing bad. He stab my son and hit my wife. I put him in the jail."

This wasn’t Mohammed Rahami being a good citizen. It was a dysfunctional oversized family of Muslim refugees causing problems for local law enforcement over their own internal disputes.

Ahmad stabbed his brother in the leg with a knife. His father told the FBI that Ahmad was a terrorist. Then he recanted the accusation and said that he had made it out of anger.

This wasn’t patriotism. It wasn’t helpful. It was selfish abuse of the system.

We get a lot of lectures from politicians about the contributions of Muslims, especially refugees, to America.

Here are the sum total contributions of the Rahami family to America. 29 wounded people in Manhattan. 1 wounded police officer in Linden, New Jersey. A chicken place that was the subject of disputes with law enforcement. A lawsuit against Elizabeth, New Jersey stemming from that chicken place, which threw around accusations of Islamophobia. Previous legal issues and a jail sentence for Ahmad over his family dispute. 1 assaulted police officer due to issues with the chicken place.

Then there’s Ahmad’s unwed girlfriend and his baby whose case will be wending through the courts.

A conservative ballpark figure for the Rahamis and their various legal issues would be $100 million. Considering the sheer cost of scrambling manpower and resources across states, the hospital bills, the various insurance costs, the jail time, trial and security, that’s probably erring on the thrifty side.

Unless one of the Rahamis cures cancer, there is nothing they can do to even the score.

3 of the Rahami children support Islamic terrorists. For all the nonsense about “internet radicalization”, it’s obvious that support for terrorism and hatred for America ran in the family. And it might not even end with Ahmad sneering on a stretcher. There’s a history of multiple siblings engaging in terrorism. The most effective Islamic terror cells in this country in recent years have been siblings and married couples.

We can waste more time puzzling it out or we can just get the Rahamis out of the country and let them be Pakistan’s problem or Afghanistan’s annoyance. They don’t have to be our problem anymore.

And that is what we should have done back when these “refugees” first tried to set up shop here.

America does not have a desperate need for terrible fried chicken places or domestic disputes. The FBI doesn’t need to waste more time chasing terror suspects who might not have evolved into terrorists yet because they’re too busy stabbing other family members. It doesn’t need more accusations of Islamophobia. And it does not need the Rahamis.

Immigration policy is about making intelligent choices. And we are making the dumbest immigration choices possible.

The Rahamis and the Tsarnaevs, two dysfunctional terror families of asylumites, are typical of our terrible decisions. Both ate up large numbers of resources while giving us only terror and death.

Politicians tell us that Muslim refugees “contribute” to this country. But is it possible that we can get non-terrorists to make us fried chicken? And is cheap fried chicken really worth the cost of bombs going up? Would we be willing to pay a dollar more for fried chicken so we can just get on a plane without the TSA or so that the countless people who have been killed from 9/11 and onward could still be with us?

Let’s have an adult conversation about this crisis. And we can start by recognizing that granting asylum to the Rahamis was a mistake. If Ahmad’s bombs had worked properly, it might have been an even bigger mistake. As it was countless people were traumatized, countless millions have been squandered on dealing with the Rahamis and there’s no reason to believe that’s about to stop.

We can and should undo that mistake.

Denaturalizing those Rahami family members who have made statements supportive of Islamic terror and then deporting them would be an excellent start. It would send a message to other terror families that playing dumb after their son goes on his terror spree won’t work anymore.

But, for that matter, there’s no reason not to deport the entire Rahami family except technicalities.

We let them in under false pretenses. We let them stay under false pretenses. They have been nothing but trouble. We can’t undo the damage they have done in the past, but we can prevent them from doing any more of it in the future.

It’s either that or we can rerun the same tired narrative from every previous attack. The family will offer contradictory statements. Neighbors and school friends will be shocked at how normal Ahmad was. Rahami’s lawyer will blame everything from discrimination to mental illness. The whole soap opera will play out for the next few days until we all get tired of it. Just the way that it did with the Tsarnaevs.

We’ve seen this movie too many times. Maybe we should change the channel.

Denaturalization and deportation will send a message that we’re serious. It will encourage families of terrorists to come forward when they actually suspect something, instead of abusing the system.

When a Muslim terrorist kills Israelis, Israel demolishes his house. This sends a message that the terrorists are destroying exactly the thing that they are trying to gain. They want to conquer Israel and take over its land. But instead their racist atrocities are depriving them of the land.

Ahmad Rahami sought to kill non-Muslims in order to impose the rule of Islam on America. His writings contained a call to kill non-Muslims. They expressed admiration for Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Al Qaeda leader, who had declared, "We will implement the rule of Allah on earth by the tip of the sword."

We don’t need to demolish the Rahami family home or their fried chicken place. But we do need to make it clear that Rahami’s actions have not only failed to bring this goal closer, but represent a setback toward that goal by removing the rest of his family from the country.

The Rahamis have been our problem for far too long. It’s time to make them someone else’s problem. We can go back to living in denial until the next attack or we can send the Muslim terrorists of tomorrow a message.
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: September 20, 2016, 10:00:14 PM
Crafty:

Over the relative short-term, yes.  Point acknowledged.  However the vast majority of those people may lose all of their gains in one breathtaking plunge when the crash occurs if they fail to time it properly, which is virtually impossible to do.  I will eat my words if Wesbury accurately predicts the downturn.  I'm not losing sleep over this prospect.
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: September 20, 2016, 08:38:11 PM
Thank you, GM!   cheesy  Wesbury conveniently fails to mention that JUST TO MAINTAIN PACE WITH THE POPULATION GROWTH (workers retiring vs. new young people reaching working age) requires that the economy create approximately 250,000 jobs/month.  That hasn't happened on average SINCE 2008.  There is no recovery.  It doesn't exist.  It's a BIG LIE.  It's nothing more than propaganda designed to prop up the political status quo which is benefiting people like Wesbury.

24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Breitbart: Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Admits Birther Link... on: September 16, 2016, 08:38:09 PM
But of course NPR and the rest of the traditional media are insisting Trump made this up out of thin air, and it is HE who is guilty of starting the controversy:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ugly Economic Developments Coming Very Soon... on: September 15, 2016, 03:53:40 PM
The World is Turning Ugly as 2016 Winds Down

Brandon Smith - www.alt-market.com

I have to say that the negative reverberations in our current economic and political environment are becoming so strong that it is impossible for people to not feel at least some uneasiness in their gut. I imagine this is the same kind of sensation many felt from 1914 to 1918 during World War I and the terrible birth of communism, or perhaps in the early 1930s at the onset of the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. Some global changes are so disturbing that they send shockwaves through the collective unconscious before they ever hit the mainstream. People know that something is about to happen, even if they cannot yet clearly define it.

At the beginning of August in my article “2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency” I stated that:

"I believe a softer downturn will begin before the election (the U.S. presidential election) takes place, most likely starting in September. This will give a boost to the Trump campaign, or at least, that is what the polls will likely say. I would also watch for some banking officials and media pundits to blame this downturn on Trump’s rise in the polling data. The narrative will be that just the threat of a Trump presidency is “putting the markets on edge."

Unfortunately, it would seem so far that this prediction was correct. Currently global markets have crossed into severe volatility with a vengeance after around three months of eerie calm. Why? Well, as I warned in the same article linked above as well as numerous others since the beginning of this year, the Federal Reserve is determined to continue raising interest rates into a recessionary environment as they almost always do, and equities markets addicted to cheap debt cannot tolerate even one additional rate hike from the central bank.

So far all evidence suggests that the Fed plans to raise rates again soon; I believe at the end of this month.  The only seemingly "anti-hike" voice at the Fed so far has been board member Lael Brainard, but even her statements promote a false narrative that a America is on track to "recovery".

Many normally “dovish” members of the Fed have openly suggested that now is the time to hike.  Voting members at the Fed have been vocal about a shift in policy.  The latest example being head of the Bank of Cleveland, Loretta Mester. She argues that rates have remained “too low for too long,” and rejected notions that lower rates are necessary to maintain stability.

This is the same kind of language Fed members used right before the rate hike in December 2015, the first rate hike in around a decade.  And, to add to the fervor, even JP Morgan Chase head Jamie Dimon is calling for interest rates to rise.

Get ready folks, because all the naysayers that claimed another rate hike is “impossible" are probably about to be proven wrong yet again.

My warning on an accelerating Trump campaign being blamed for weak stock markets has also come true. Already, Bloomberg is launching the meme that the idea of Hillary Clinton losing the election to Trump “because of her health” is a “landmine for vulnerable markets.”

This is some incredible spin by the elitist controlled media, but again, very predictable. The globalists are setting the stage to blame the economic collapse they created on conservative movements. Clinton’s “health issues” are being set up as the scapegoat for a Trump win, which conjures additional social unrest as many on the Left will argue (in the event of a Trump win) that Trump prevailed on a technicality. That is to say, the extreme Left will argue that Trump’s presidency is not legitimate.

Another scenario is also possible but I think less likely — the potential for Clinton to bow out of the election due to her health, causing a rationale for a postponed election. I do not think a postponed election really serves the interests of the elites, but it would certainly trigger massive chaos if it occurred. Only in the strangest of any election year in American history could this even be thought of as a legitimate danger.

Another global indicator, oil, is tumbling yet again as all the jawboning from OPEC on a “production freeze” has failed to boost crude prices for more than a week at a time. Frankly, no one is buying the hype anymore. Those who bet on the WTI index shooting past $50 to $60 a barrel this year should have been paying more attention to alternative analysts. The only other factor that has kept oil from crashing down into the $30 range has been random inventory draws. These reports, though, are little more than a stop gap. Companies have been shifting crude to different facilities in order to create the illusion of inventory draws and higher demand. But usually within a week the reports catch up to the real supply and an inventory spike sends oil crashing down again.

Add to this the latest news that Congress has passed a bill allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government for their part in the attack, and you have a recipe for a dumping of the dollar as the world’s petrocurrency. Even if Obama vetoes the bill, I believe a two-thirds majority of congress will override that veto. A catastrophe in oil markets is inevitable.

Whether in oil markets or other sectors of finance and social stability, make no mistake, catastrophe is exactly what national governments are preparing for.

This is most obvious today in the European Union. The German government in their first revision of their civil defense plan since the cold war has warned the public to prepare for an unspecified event by stockpiling at least 10 days worth of food and five days worth of water. Germany is also debating the idea of placing troops on the streets to “protect against ISIS.”

And Germany is not alone. French presidential candidate Nickolas Sarkozy has made some highly disturbing statements on security in a recent interview, outlining measures he believes will best protect the public from “militants.” From Reuters:

France needs to get tough on militants by creating special courts and detention facilities to boost security, the country’s former President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a interview published in Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche.

“Every Frenchman suspected of being linked to terrorism, because he regularly consults a jihadist website, or his behavior shows signs of radicalization or because is in close contact with radicalized people, must by preventively placed in a detention center,” Sarkozy said in the interview.

Sarkozy, who announced last month his candidacy for the April 2017 presidential election, has said there is no place for “legal niceties” in the fight against terrorism.

Even in the face of Islamic extremism and terrorism, the concept of “detention facilities” where people are held without charge and without trial on the mere suspicion of being a danger to society should horrify anyone with any sense. The fact of the matter is, these violations of personal freedom and of due process are NEVER used for only one group of people. Totalitarian governments ALWAYS use one group as an excuse for the police state, then over time they expand the police state outwards to oppress everyone.

This is the kind of rhetoric that liberty movement activists in the U.S. fought against in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); but it is making a resurgence in Europe and in America as well. If you think Sarkozy is a marginal example, I recommend you re-watch this interview with Gen. Wesley Clark, who argues that “radicalized people” who are disloyal to the U.S. government should be placed in internment camps. He suggests that Britain, Germany and France need to take similar measures. It would appear that they are doing just that.

Never forget that “radicalism” is an arbitrary designation, and the label can be applied to just about anyone for any reason. A trend in police state language is growing in the mainstream in the name of fighting terrorism, but the abrupt urgency in Europe is rather odd. Only a few months ago, EU leaders were using some outrageous mental gymnastics in order to avoid confronting the notion of Islamic terrorism. Now, they are suddenly concerned? Why?

I believe Europe is about to witness a catalyst for financial crisis, and they are using terrorism as an excuse to preposition martial law resources before this event takes place. They don’t care about stopping ISIS, but they do care about locking down and controlling an angry citizenry in the wake of an economic downturn. If a few more terrorist attacks occur in the meantime, then hey, that only helps the elites in their efforts to pacify the public for the sake of “security.”

Official preparedness warnings from Germany, for example, are of little use to the public. A supply of a mere ten days of food and five days of water is useless during any sizable crisis. But, the German government can now say that they “tried to warn people.” Sarkozy’s statements are the most blatant call for a police state I have yet seen from an establishment puppet politician, and this should worry people. The fact that he is being so open and honest about the end game indicates to me that a dangerous shift is imminent.

It would appear, according to EU government behavior, that whatever is about to happen globally is going to hit hardest in Europe first and then spread to the U.S. and the rest of the world. I recommend readers watch the EU very carefully over the next few months. If you have any financial or survival preparations you have been putting off, I suggest you take care of them before the end of this year. From what I see so far, geopolitically and economically the global situation is only going to become more unstable in the near term.
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Walter Williams: Corrupt Academics and the Media... on: September 07, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
Corrupt Academics and the Media

Walter E. Williams - Townhall.com - September 7, 2016

Some are puzzled by the dishonesty, lack of character and sheer stupidity of many people in the media. But seeing as most of them are college graduates, they don't bear the full blame. They are taught by dishonest and irresponsible academics. Let's look at it.

"A Clash of Police Policies," a column written by Dr. Thomas Sowell, presents some readily available statistics: "Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice (Earl) Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years."

Academics and the media blame poverty and discrimination for today's crime. No one bothers to ask why crime was falling in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, when blacks faced far greater poverty and discrimination.

The 1960s riots were blamed on poverty and discrimination. Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country, but riots were not nearly so common there. Detroit's deadliest riot occurred at a time when the median income of black families in Detroit was 95 percent of their white counterparts, plus the black unemployment rate was 3.4 percent and black homeownership was higher than in other major cities.

Academics teach that the breakdown of the black family is the legacy of slavery and discrimination. They ignore the following facts. In 1950, 72 percent of black men and 81 percent of black women had been married. Also, only 17 percent of black children lived in single-parent households; today it's close to 70 percent. Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates exceeded those of whites. During the late 1940s, the unemployment rate for black 16- and 17-year-olds was less than that for white teens.

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children were born to unwed mothers. Before 1960, the number of teenage pregnancies had been decreasing; both poverty and dependency were declining; and black income was rising in both absolute and relative terms to white income. As late as 1965, 75 percent of black children were born to married women. Today over 73 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers. Again, so much for the "legacy of slavery" argument.

Academics teach that school integration is a necessary condition for black academic excellence. Blacks, their logic implies, cannot achieve academic excellence unless they go out and capture a white kid to sit next to their kids. Public charter schools such as those in the Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP, and Success Academy Charter Schools are having some successes without race mixing. Sowell points out that only 39 percent of students in New York state schools who were tested recently scored at the "proficient" level in math, but 100 percent of the students at the Crown Heights Success Academy scored at that level in math. Blacks and Hispanics are 90 percent of the students in the Crown Heights Success Academy.

More than 43,000 families are on waiting lists to get their children into charter schools. Teachers unions are opposed to any alternative to public education and contribute to politicians who place obstacles and restrictions on the expansion of charter schools. The NAACP, at its 2016 national convention in Cincinnati, voted to support "a moratorium on the proliferation of privately managed charter schools."

It's easy to understand why the NAACP is against any alternative to public schools. Many of its members work in public education. However, many of those people do want alternatives for themselves. In Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, 25 percent of public-school teachers send their children to private schools. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of teachers send their children to private schools. The percentages are similar in several other cities: Cincinnati, 41 percent, Chicago, 39 percent and Rochester, New York, 38 percent. This demonstrates the dishonesty, hypocrisy and arrogance of the elite. They effectively say, "One thing for thee and another for me."
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Barone: Trump's Immigration Policy Completely Reasonable. on: September 07, 2016, 11:09:06 AM

Trump Calls for More High-Skill Immigration


By Michael Barone
September 07, 2016

Would he go hard or go soft? That was the mainstream media template for judging Donald Trump's speech on immigration in Phoenix last Wednesday. The verdict: hard. "How Trump got from Point A to Point A on immigration," was the headline in the Washington Post's recap.

Similarly, the often-insightful Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall characterized Trump's discourse as "hate speech." "Precisely what solution Trump is calling for is almost beside the point."

That's precisely wrong. Marshall found the Phoenix crowd's raucous shouts distasteful, and so did I. But a search through Trump's prepared text and his occasional digressions fails to disclose anything that can be fairly characterized as "hate speech."

Instead it discloses some serious critiques and proposals for recasting our immigration laws, which almost everyone agrees need changing.

Start near the end, with the 10th of Trump's 10 points. He notes that we've admitted 59 million immigrants since the last major revision of immigration law in 1965, and that "many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country." No asides about criminals or rapists.

Then he proposes a major policy change: "to select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient ... to choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency."

That's not racism or hate speech, and it's not out of line with American tradition.

Emma Lazarus' oft-quoted poem commends America for welcoming "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" and "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore." But during the great wave of immigration from eastern and southern Europe from 1892 to 1914, the Ellis Island inspectors, in line with national policy, excluded those deemed incapable of supporting themselves as well as those with communicable diseases.

And the United States deported immigrants judged to be terrorists. American immigration policy even then wasn't completely open door.

Trump seems to be calling, in non-provocative language, for changing immigration law to give priority to high-skill immigrants, as do the immigration laws of Canada and Australia. That's not racist: Those countries admit plenty of non-whites. But they do require proficiency in English (or French in Canada).

Both have higher foreign-born percentages of population than the United States, and both have students who score higher on PISA international achievement tests than U.S. students do. No wonder a diplomat from one of those countries told me, half in jest, "Please do not adopt our immigration system."

Every serious expert concedes that the 1965 immigration act resulted in an unexpected huge flow of low-skill immigrants, especially but not only from Mexico. Most serious scholars agree that has tended to reduce, at least a little, wages for low-skill Americans. Do we really need another inrush of unskilled workers in the next few decades?

Near the beginning of his speech, Trump said, "The media and my opponent discuss one thing, and only this one thing: the needs of people living here illegally." That's an exaggeration, but not by much: mainstream media judges Trump hard or soft depending on what he says about illegals. "The central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants -- or however many there may be," he went on. "The only one core issue" is "the well-being of the American people."

To some, this sounds like bigotry, prejudice against foreigners, a preference for a mostly (but far from totally) white populace over a vastly larger (and mostly non-white) humanity. They instinctively prefer Hillary Clinton's version of open borders, allowing anyone who gets here and isn't criminally convicted to stay.

Trump's answer came earlier in the day, in Mexico City, as he shook hands and spoke cordially with President Enrique Pena Nieto. I like and admire him, Trump said; he loves his country and I love mine. Nieto's invitation, much criticized in Mexico, was prompted by his need to get along with whoever is elected U.S. president. That need likewise prompted his cautious remarks about Trump in a joint news conference with Barack Obama earlier this summer.

Trump's threats of trade retaliation and suggestion he might not honor NATO obligations provide rationales for voting against him as irresponsibly reckless. His immigration proposals don't.

His proposals for visa tracking and E-Verify validation of job applicants -- similar to Marco Rubio's -- would marginally reduce the illegal population, as would his deportation of some illegals.

More important, though ignored by mainstream media, is that his policies would produce more high-skill immigrants and Hillary Clinton's plan would produce more low-skill immigrants. Which is better for America?

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for  the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Barone: Trump's Immigration Policy Completely Reasonable. on: September 07, 2016, 11:08:14 AM

Trump Calls for More High-Skill Immigration


By Michael Barone
September 07, 2016

Would he go hard or go soft? That was the mainstream media template for judging Donald Trump's speech on immigration in Phoenix last Wednesday. The verdict: hard. "How Trump got from Point A to Point A on immigration," was the headline in the Washington Post's recap.

Similarly, the often-insightful Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall characterized Trump's discourse as "hate speech." "Precisely what solution Trump is calling for is almost beside the point."

That's precisely wrong. Marshall found the Phoenix crowd's raucous shouts distasteful, and so did I. But a search through Trump's prepared text and his occasional digressions fails to disclose anything that can be fairly characterized as "hate speech."

Instead it discloses some serious critiques and proposals for recasting our immigration laws, which almost everyone agrees need changing.

Start near the end, with the 10th of Trump's 10 points. He notes that we've admitted 59 million immigrants since the last major revision of immigration law in 1965, and that "many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country." No asides about criminals or rapists.

Then he proposes a major policy change: "to select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient ... to choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency."

That's not racism or hate speech, and it's not out of line with American tradition.

Emma Lazarus' oft-quoted poem commends America for welcoming "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" and "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore." But during the great wave of immigration from eastern and southern Europe from 1892 to 1914, the Ellis Island inspectors, in line with national policy, excluded those deemed incapable of supporting themselves as well as those with communicable diseases.

And the United States deported immigrants judged to be terrorists. American immigration policy even then wasn't completely open door.

Trump seems to be calling, in non-provocative language, for changing immigration law to give priority to high-skill immigrants, as do the immigration laws of Canada and Australia. That's not racist: Those countries admit plenty of non-whites. But they do require proficiency in English (or French in Canada).

Both have higher foreign-born percentages of population than the United States, and both have students who score higher on PISA international achievement tests than U.S. students do. No wonder a diplomat from one of those countries told me, half in jest, "Please do not adopt our immigration system."

Every serious expert concedes that the 1965 immigration act resulted in an unexpected huge flow of low-skill immigrants, especially but not only from Mexico. Most serious scholars agree that has tended to reduce, at least a little, wages for low-skill Americans. Do we really need another inrush of unskilled workers in the next few decades?

Near the beginning of his speech, Trump said, "The media and my opponent discuss one thing, and only this one thing: the needs of people living here illegally." That's an exaggeration, but not by much: mainstream media judges Trump hard or soft depending on what he says about illegals. "The central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants -- or however many there may be," he went on. "The only one core issue" is "the well-being of the American people."

To some, this sounds like bigotry, prejudice against foreigners, a preference for a mostly (but far from totally) white populace over a vastly larger (and mostly non-white) humanity. They instinctively prefer Hillary Clinton's version of open borders, allowing anyone who gets here and isn't criminally convicted to stay.

Trump's answer came earlier in the day, in Mexico City, as he shook hands and spoke cordially with President Enrique Pena Nieto. I like and admire him, Trump said; he loves his country and I love mine. Nieto's invitation, much criticized in Mexico, was prompted by his need to get along with whoever is elected U.S. president. That need likewise prompted his cautious remarks about Trump in a joint news conference with Barack Obama earlier this summer.

Trump's threats of trade retaliation and suggestion he might not honor NATO obligations provide rationales for voting against him as irresponsibly reckless. His immigration proposals don't.

His proposals for visa tracking and E-Verify validation of job applicants -- similar to Marco Rubio's -- would marginally reduce the illegal population, as would his deportation of some illegals.

More important, though ignored by mainstream media, is that his policies would produce more high-skill immigrants and Hillary Clinton's plan would produce more low-skill immigrants. Which is better for America?

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for  the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brandon Smith Responds... on: September 03, 2016, 07:45:15 AM
I don't "assume" the markets are propped up by Fed stimulus, that is a verifiable fact.

As already linked in the article above, stock buybacks are indeed propping up equities prices artificially. Companies are seeking to counteract poor fundamentals:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/28/companies-that-do-buybacks-do-worst-over-time-.html

The Fed's overnight loans and near zero interest rates feed the coffers of various banks and international businesses. This has allowed them to institute constant debt fueled stock buybacks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-buybacks-analysis-idUSKCN0RN0D320150923

The Fed cut rates because it was the only way to prop up the dying markets. In fact, every time stocks began to retrace the initial crash of 2008-2009, the Fed introduced more QE, boosting markets again. THIS WAS OPENLY ADMITTED by Dallas Fed head Richard Fisher. Here is the quote:

"What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.

It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Whimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow.

I’m not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly." [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December.]

Fisher went on to hint at the impending danger:

I was warning my colleagues, “Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10-20% correction at some point…. Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.”

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000474362

Alan Greenspan also openly admitted that the Fed's main concern was propping up equities:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-18/greenspan-admits-feds-plan-was-always-pushing-stocks-higher

Of course, it does not surprise me that a "mainstream economist" would be completely oblivious to this information. They live in another world separate from reality.

As far as the so called "recovery" is concerned, all fundamental data has indicated since last DECEMBER that the global economy is not only in consistent decline, but that decline is now accelerating. This did not stop the Fed from raising rates the first time. I am not sure why mainstream economists think that data makes any difference to the Fed today.

No one asked the fed to raise rates in the first place, yet they did. And now, they are going to raise again. Today's job numbers gave no indication whatsoever that the Fed will back off from another hike. That is all mainstream news gossip and nothing more.

I have been consistently right over the years about Federal Reserve activity. I am right again this time. When they raise again this year, I hope you are willing to accept that perhaps the mainstream knows very little about how the economy and the central banks operate
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Anti-Semites Support Hillary Clinton, Warn Against Donald Trump... on: September 02, 2016, 12:45:48 PM
Muslim Terrorists and Jewish Anti-Semites Against Trump

Moderate Saudi businessmen who fund terror warn of Trump’s "extremism."

September 2, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

“I was often the ‘designated yeller.’”

That’s how Hillary Clinton described her relationship with the Israeli prime minister. Yelling and cursing was her particular specialty.

One marathon Hillary yelling session allegedly lasted 45 minutes. Afterward the Israeli ambassador said that relations between the United States and Israel had reached their lowest point.

Her favorite name for Netanyahu was, “F____ Bibi.”

But it wasn’t just about her hatred of any particular Israeli leader. The same year that Hillary was yelling herself hoarse at a man who had fought terrorists on the battlefield, she addressed the American Task Force on Palestine, a leading terror lobby, and blasted Israel and praised Islamic terrorists.

Hillary told the terror lobby, “I may have been the first person ever associated with an American administration to call for a Palestinian state.” She praised Mahmoud Abbas, the PA terror dictator who had boasted, “There is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.”

She celebrated Naomi Shihab Nye who had written of the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli cities, “Oppression makes people do desperate things.” Echoing her, Hillary denounced the “indignity of occupation”.  A few years later she accused Israelis of a lack of “empathy” in understanding “the pain of an oppressed people.”

Perhaps they were too busy mourning their dead to emphasize with the terrorists who were killing them.

But fighting for her political life, Hillary and Huma dug through her closet and threw on a blue and white pantsuit. Her campaign placed an editorial in the Forward headlined, “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Probably by yelling “F___ Bibi” at him for another 45 minutes.

When Hillary Clinton promised to reaffirm her “Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu” it was in the pages of The Forward. And, striving to sell a rotten radical to skeptical Jews, the left-wing paper has decided to run a piece claiming that “Trump Would Be Israel’s Worst Nightmare”. As if anyone in Israel goes to bed dreaming of eight years of Hillary.

The Forward shares Hillary’s view of Netanyahu. And it violently loathes Israel.

Its quick costume change from denouncing anything and everything about the Jewish State to a sudden bout of concern for Israel is as unconvincing as Hillary Clinton’s southern accent.

Jay Michaelson, the author of the editorial warning us how bad Trump would be for Israel, followed that up with another piece accusing Israel of being an apartheid state. During Passover, Michaelson’s seething hatred for the Jewish State had pushed him to declare, “I’m Seeking Freedom From the Organized Jewish Community This Passover.”

Should American Jews take their cues on how dangerous Trump would be for Israel from a guy who hates Israel? Who hates Israel so much that he can’t even stand the Jewish community?

The Forward, like Hillary, hates Israel. Its pages are dedicated to rationalizing, justifying and defending the Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews. There’s Lisa Goldman explaining that the Muslim anti-Semitism displayed at the Rio Olympics was really a “Jewish persecution complex” that lacked “nuance.” It’s not an outlier. The Forward’s view of Israel is as hostile and negative as any white supremacist website.

Or Hillary Clinton’s inbox where the likes of Max Blumenthal regularly made appearances.

Do the Forward or Hillary Clinton actually care about Israel? All they’re trying to do is keep the American Jews who don’t believe that Israel is an apartheid state or that Muslim anti-Semitism is the fault of the Jews on the Democratic reservation by scaring them with bedtime stories about Trump.

Michaelson warns us that Trump would destabilize the Middle East and endanger Israel. It’s hard to imagine how he could do so more than Hillary’s Arab Spring which turned Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, sowed terrorist dragon’s teeth across the region, including an ISIS affiliate in the Sinai.

Trump would destroy American credibility, he tells us. What credibility? Nobody thinks we have any credibility now. Not on Syria, Iran, Libya, China, Russia or anything else. And much of that took place under Hillary Clinton.

Then we are told that Trump is an “extremist” because “moderate Saudi businessmen” don’t like him.

Whom should American Jews better take their guidance from than “moderate Saudi businessmen”? Perhaps Jay Michaelson, Hillary Clinton and the Forward. It’s hard to tell who in that gruesome bunch hates Israel more.

The “moderate” Saudi businessman whom Michaelson quotes is Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Alaweed had his post 9/11 donation thrown back in his face after blaming America for the attack. And Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, claimed that he was an Al Qaeda supporter.

He had also donated $27 million to terrorism against Israel at a telethon whose host declared on television, “Do not have any mercy, neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. Allah made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?”

The Forward and Jay Michaelson would like American Jews to heed this warning about Trump’s extremism from a “moderate Saudi” who donated to the mass murder and rape of Jews.

Also, Jay Michaelson and the Forward warn American Jews not to vote for Trump because he “famously promised to “bomb the s___ out of ISIS.” This, according to Jay, ”would entail the murder of thousands of innocent people.” Some of whom might even be “moderate Saudi businessmen.”

Finally, we are warned that under Trump, “Egypt and Syria will soon resemble Hamas and Hezbollah: extremist, Islamist and violent.” This was formerly known as Obama and Hillary’s Arab Spring.

Michaelson contends that Republicans are voting from “that part of the brain that sends out constant ‘fight or flight’ messages based on threats and fear.” That’s an odd lack of self-awareness from a man who just desperately tried to hammer together some “fight or flight” messages on Trump.

But attacking Trump is easier than defending Hillary. And so we get this pathetic showing of Muslim terrorist financiers and Jewish anti-Semites against Trump. It’s as meaningful as Hillary’s pro-Israel pandering.

The real Hillary, the one caught with an inbox full of attacks on Israel, including approval for the bigotry of Max Blumenthal whose work was cited by the Kansas City Jewish Community Center gunman, is quite a different creature from the public Hillary who suddenly loves Israel. 

The real Hillary, the one who kissed Arafat’s wife and listened placidly to her rant about Israeli poison gas, has a long anti-Israel history. Her time as Secretary of State has already given us a preview of her policies. She will continue demanding apartheid segregation for Jews living in ’67 Israel and she will go on pushing for more concessions to Islamic terrorists. She will back the Iran deal that she championed.

Hillary will go on financing Iran’s wave of Islamic terrorism while ignoring its nuclear violations.

But there is nothing extraordinary about any of this. Hillary is not a radical in a party of moderates. The Democratic Party has drifted so far into the fever swamps of the radical left that opposition to Israel is mainstream. The only reason that Hillary reserves her fulminations for phone calls and private emails is that even though her inner circle of advisers is vocally anti-Israel, some in her outer circle of donors are pro-Israel. And she still needs their support. At least while the election is still going on.

Israel has ceased to be a bipartisan issue. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton reversed JFK and LBJ’s pro-Israel policies. This rejection has been cloaked in euphemisms about “two states for two people”, but that really means championing the creation of Islamic terror states inside Israel.

This policy, which has until recently been bipartisan, represents the greatest threat to Israel.

Donald Trump is the first Republican presidential nominee to firmly break with it. Unlike Hillary, Trump hasn’t kissed Arafat’s wife or spent an hour on the phone yelling at the Prime Minister of Israel. Instead he has said that Jews should be able to keep on living and building houses in ’67 Israel.

Jews living as a free people in their own land is the essence of Zionism. And it’s a rejection of the hateful ravings of Hillary Clinton, the Forward and the “moderate” Saudi businessmen of Islamic terror.
Tags: 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brandon Smith: Fed is Ready to Raise Interest Rates - Plan Accordingly... on: September 02, 2016, 11:04:11 AM
Central Banks Ready to Launch Their "Brave New World"

Brandon Smith - www.alt-market.com - August 31, 2016

The latest Federal Reserve meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is over and so far it would seem that the general investment world is not too happy about Janet Yellen’s statements as well as those of other Fed officials.  In fact, many people are looking for some simple clarity as to what the central bank is actually planning.

Most importantly, investors want to know why the Fed is suddenly so adamant about continued interest rate hikes in 2016.  Only a couple months ago, almost everyone (including alternative economic analysts) was arguing that the Fed would “never dare” to raise rates again so soon, and that there was no chance of a rate hike so close to the presidential elections.

Instead, investors have been greeted with surging rate-hike odds as Fed officials openly hint of another boost, probably in September.

As I have been saying for years, if you think the Fed’s motivation is to protect or prolong the U.S. economy, then you will never understand why they do the things that they do.  Only when people are willing to accept the reality that the Fed’s job is to undermine the U.S. economy can they grasp central bank behavior.

Here is the issue that scares mainstream markets — many day traders are greedy, but not necessarily dumb.  They KNOW full well that the only pillar holding up stocks at record highs has been central bank intervention.  A vital part of this intervention has been the use of near-zero interest rates.  That is to say, cheap and free overnight loans through the Fed have allowed banks and other corporations to remain “solvent,” and these loans have been the fuel companies have used for corporate buybacks of stocks.

Corporate buybacks have been a primary driver in the bull market rally that supposedly saved the world from the ongoing deflationary destruction of capital.  In 2015, buybacks reached historic levels and garnered one of the largest equities reversals in history.   While these buybacks do little or nothing to heal the economy on Main Street, they certainly do wonders for equities portfolios.  By buying up their own shares, corporations boost the value of remaining shares through a brand of legal trickery.  And, in the process, these corporations also boost the overall perceived value of global stock markets.

As Edward Swanson, author of a study from Texas A&M, noted on stock buybacks used to offset poor fundamentals:

“We can’t say for sure what would have happened without the repurchase, but it really looks like the stock would have kept going down because of the decline in fundamentals… these repurchases seem to hold up the stock price.”

Yes, to us he seems to be stating the obvious, but for the average American, a green stock market means a recovering economy.  There is no deeper question of why the markets are rallying, and this lack of understanding is dangerous for our country.

Even marginal hikes in borrowing costs will kill the party and, while people not involved in finance and stocks are oblivious, day traders know exactly what is going on.  This is the reason for the underlying panic felt by the investment world at any hint of a rate hike by the Fed.

As we saw with the limited audit of TARP, the Fed was pumping tens of trillions in overnight loans into distressed banks and companies, even foreign companies overseas.  I suggest that if a FULL audit of the Fed were ever conducted, we would find tens of trillions more in overnight loans since 2008.

Imagine for a moment if those loans never stopped.  Imagine that such loans have been an ongoing mainstay of our financial system and stock markets in general.  Now, ask yourself, what would happen if the companies reliant on these free loans suddenly had to pay interest on them?

Think about it; what would the interest cost be on a mere .5% to 1% of $16 trillion in overnight loans through TARP?  What would the cumulative cost be on all the loans banks and companies need to survive every quarter?   In the end, corporations would either drown in billions of dollars in exponential debt or they would have to stop accessing loans from the Fed.  Once the loans stop, the stock buybacks stop.  Once the buybacks stop, stock markets crumble.

Without free cash from the Fed, the bubble in stock markets will finally and thoroughly implode, crashing down to meet all other fundamentals.

Why would the central bank pull the plug on life support to stock markets?  There are multiple reasons, but a top reason is that this is the Federal Reserve’s modus operandi.  They consistently seem to raise rates into recessionary conditions that they also tend to create.  In essence, the Fed likes to acclimate and addict markets to low interest percentages, and then increase those percentages to agitate and elicit a chaotic reaction.

In my article Brexit Aftermath - Here’s What Will Happen Next, I stated:

“Really, the only safe measure the Fed can take from now on is to do nothing.  I highly doubt that they will do nothing.  In fact, even in the face of the Brexit I still believe the Fed will raise rates a second time before the end of the year.  Why?  This is what the Fed has always done as recession takes hold.  Historically, the Fed raises rates at the worst possible times.  As with the Brexit, I am going to have to take the contrary position to most analysts on this.”

What analysts out there need to understand, whether they are independent or mainstream, is that a great shift in central bank policy and attitude is coming. Christine Lagarde at the IMF calls it the “economic reset,” some Fed officials, like Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart, state that central banks are entering a “brave new world.” These are highly loaded phrases that represent a drastic overhaul of the global financial system; an overhaul that is quite deliberate and inevitably destructive for certain nations and economies, including the U.S.

If we examine the policy pursuits and recently stated goals of central banks around the world, and those statements made after the Brexit referendum, we find that a process of complete global centralization is underway. This includes a push for all central banks to “coordinate policy” under a single directive.

Alternative analysts already know that all central banks are ALREADY covertly coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements.  So, when central bankers call for policy coordination in the mainstream press, what they really mean is, they want the existing coordination that is covert to become publicly accepted and celebrated.  They want that which is illegal to become legal.  That which is morally reprehensible to become morally relative.

Central bankers also want their position of authority over the global economy to become a public priority.  Ten years ago, when I asked average people what they knew about the Federal Reserve, most of them responded with confusion.  They had never heard of the institution, let alone what its function was.  Today, almost everyone knows about the Fed, but there is also an assumption attached that central banks, whether they are successful or not, are supposed to maintain economic stability.  Keep in mind that global stocks barely vibrate today until a central bank somewhere publishes a policy statement.  This is not how investment is supposed to function.  The jawboning of central banks should be mostly meaningless.

The brave new world of central banking is a plan to expand on this corrupt correlation.  That is to say, the general public and the mainstream should be questioning whether central banks should exist at all.  Instead, people are arguing over what policies are better for central banks to adapt.  The existence of central banks is considered an absolute.  The masses are only given the option to debate what faces and what hats central banks should wear.  If we get anything out of this deal, we only get to choose the form of our destructor.

I should point out also the growing trend in the mainstream media of criticism against the Fed.  This is a relatively new thing.  For the past several years the more effectively critical the alternative media became against the Fed, the louder MSM talking heads would cheerlead for the establishment.  With central bankers becoming more open about their global shift into something "different", a new program of stabbing at the Fed has been initiated.  This is not a coincidence.

As I have argued in various articles, the Fed itself may be just as sacrificial to the elites as the U.S. economy.  In the process of global centralization, the Fed would eventually have to take a back seat to the IMF, World Bank and the BIS.  It is not surprising to me in the slightest that the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media is changing gears and attacking the institution they once desperately defended.  Priorities are evolving.

I believe that with the advent of a second rate hike in 2016, many conditions will change.  The Dow and some emerging markets will no longer enjoy unmitigated support, and they will begin to fall going into the elections.  As I have mentioned many times in past articles, Donald Trump is the most likely candidate to take up residence in the White House.  Conservatives will be lulled into a temporary euphoria, happy just to have defeated she-demon Hillary Clinton, only to discover that an overall global implosion has entered a new stage.  This implosion will of course be blamed on those same conservative movements.

In the meantime, central banks around the world are going to start openly coordinating while the IMF will take up a “leadership role” in managing international policy.  Central banks will also be branching out and taking on new powers.  As suggested at Jackson Hole, many central bankers are arguing for “new tools” to fight future fiscal downturns, and no, this does not mean negative interest rates.  Instead, watch for central banks to change the definition of inflation on a whim, or adjust the relative value of currencies through agreements with other countries instead of allowing free markets to determine values, and watch for complete overhauls in how economic instability is calculated.

What we are heading for is a world in which many nations will suffer from reductions in living standards and where some first world nations will be reduced to third world conditions.  In order to normalize increased global poverty, you have to stop calling it poverty and start calling it a “brave new world.”  You have to convince the populace that the economic degradation is not a problem that can be solved — rather, it is a problem we must all adapt to and accept.

Be very wary when elites and international financiers mention “global reset,” or a “brave new world,” or a “new world order.”  What they are talking about is not a program that is in your best interest.  What they are talking about is the deliberate creation of chaos; a slow burning calamity that can be exploited to derive the benefits of even more centralization and even more power.

They will call it random.  They will call it coincidence or fate or even blame it all on their ideological opponents.  In the end, they will eventually call it a natural progression of events; a social and financial evolution.  They will call it inevitable.  None of this will be true.  There is nothing natural about a totalitarian framework — it is a machine that is carefully crafted piece by piece, maintained by the hands of a select few tyrants and fed with the labor, sacrifice and fear of the innocent.

The only solution is to expunge the parasites from our fiscal body.  These institutions and the people behind them should not exist.  Most if not all of our sociopolitical distress today could be cured if a “brave new world” meant wiping the slate clean and dispelling financial elites and central bankers into a bottomless pit.
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: August 29, 2016, 02:39:52 PM
I will also say that anyone who claims to care about this nation and its founding principles, but does not vote for Trump in order to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency is either a liar, or someone who will benefit from the status quo.
There is simply no rational argument to be made that Trump would be equally bad or worse than Clinton.  She is guaranteed destruction for the Constitution, and probably a guarantee of civil unrest if not outright civil war following her election.
In addition her presidency pretty much guarantees another massive (if not many) terrorist attack.  It will suit her goal of seizing totalitarian control.
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / To GM... on: August 29, 2016, 01:08:27 PM
Donald Trump took any hope of beating the Crooked Hillary machine out onto 5th Ave. and shot it in the head.

Hillary is the next president. Plan accordingly.

Your prediction of Hillary's win is highly premature - and I believe influenced by the crooked media's phony polls and wishful thinking (on the media's part) that Trump will go down to defeat.  Don't be so sure.
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's Long History of Associations with Racists... on: August 29, 2016, 01:06:20 PM
Hillary's Long, Cozy Love Affairs With Racists

Promoting racial animosity has been the mainstay of her political strategy for years.

August 29, 2016

John Perazzo


There is something otherworldly about Hillary Clinton accusing her Republican rival of running a presidential campaign steeped in “racial resentment,” “divisive rhetoric,” and “racist comments.” Otherworldly, because these are precisely the elements that have been Hillary's stock-in-trade since the dawn of her political career.

During her first presidential campaign eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton spoke at an event held by Al Sharpton's National Action Network, where she crowed about the “long and positive relationship” she had enjoyed with Sharpton and his organization. Noting that “I don't ever remember saying 'no' to them,” Clinton vowed “to remain their partner in civil rights” for as long as there was breath in her body. Sharpton, you may recall, is the vile, foul-mouthed black socialist who has done more to poison race relations in America than virtually anyone other than Barack Obama.

And nothing whatsoever has changed in Mrs. Clinton's estimation of Sharpton in the years since then. This past April, for instance, Madame Hillary again spoke at a National Action Network event where she lauded Sharpton and his group for steadfastly working “on the frontlines of our nation’s continuing struggle for civil rights,”  and “in a million ways lift[ing] up voices that too often go unheard.”

To what voices was Hillary referring, you may ask? Perhaps she meant the voices of people like the family of Yankel Rosenbaum, a Hasidic Jew who was killed in a Brooklyn race riot that Sharpton helped foment; or the voice of a young assistant district attorney in New York whose life Sharpton ruined with what he knew were false accusations of interracial rape and sodomy; or the voices of the white “crackers” whom Sharpton has identified as descendants of early American settlers from Europe; or the voices of the seven people who died in a 1995 Harlem fire set by a lunatic whose rage had been stoked by Sharpton's relentless anti-Semitic rhetoric; or the voices of the three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team whom Sharpton falsely accused of having raped a black woman in 2006.

Yes, Hillary is deeply moved by all the things Al Sharpton has done to “lift up” so many people in need.

It's also noteworthy that Mrs. Clinton has never denounced Black Lives Matter (BLM), a racist movement that openly and proudly reveres the former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, longtime fugitive, and lifelong Marxist, Assata Shakur; a movement that likewise venerates yet another cop-killer, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, the Sixties radical renowned for urging blacks to murder “honkies” and “burn America down”; a movement whose supporters and foot soldiers have vocally and repeatedly called for the murder of white police officers.

Instead of condemning the hate-filled racists of BLM, Hillary treats them like dignitaries. Indeed, in one impromptu conversation with three BLM activists complaining about the “mass incarceration” of blacks, Hillary praised their “analysis” as “totally fair,” “historically fair,” psychologically fair,” and “economically fair.” Referring to white people as “sinners,” she dutifully lamented that America “has still not recovered from its original sin” of racism.

On another occasion, Hillary met with BLM leader DeRay McKesson and a number of other race-obsessed grievance mongers. There, she listened to McKesson's insipid musings about “issues related to blackness,” and to his call for the implementation of a massive “New Deal for black people” which would redistribute massive sums of money from whites to blacks as a penalty for historical wrongs.

Following her meeting with McKesson, a slobbering Clinton lauded him as a “social media emperor” (given his 230,000+ Twitter followers). And Hillary herself tweeted: “Racism is America's original sin. To those I met with today, thank you for sharing your ideas.”

And just last month – a mere eleven days after a Black Lives Matter supporter had murdered five policemen in Dallas, and one day after a black gunman had murdered three police officers in Baton Rouge – Mrs. Clinton delivered a campaign speech to a receptive audience of fellow racialists at the NAACP. There, she emphasized exactly what you might expect a classless political whore to focus on in the wake of eight senseless murders of police officers: “how urgently we need to make reforms to policing and criminal justice”; “how we cannot rest until we root out implicit bias and stop the killings of African-Americans”; how tragic it is that “many African-Americans fear the police”; and how unacceptable it is that “African- Americans are disproportionately killed in police incidents compared to any other group.”

Hillary Clinton's worldview is founded on a bedrock belief in the notion that white people have, and always will have, a great deal to atone for. And this, in turn, is founded upon her bedrock belief in tribalism, group-identity politics, and collective guilt. To Hillary Clinton, people aren't individuals. They are members of groups, and the only thing that matters is whether or not the passions of those groups can be manipulated and exploited to help her and her party gain more political power.

Hillary's obsession with race is the flip side of her Marxism. Classical Marxism seeks to divide people along class lines and pit them against one another in an effort to spark a revolution. Modern-day Marxists, like Hillary, seek to also divide people along racial lines. As the great scholar and author Dennis Prager has noted, they firmly reject the American credo of E pluribus unum (“From many, one”). Instead, they promote the very opposite: “From one, many.” A thoroughly divided, tribalized society.

Hillary Clinton pretends to be disgusted and offended by “divisive” and “racist” language. But in fact, her entire political career has been built on it.
35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Janet Yellen Suggest Rate Hike Coming in September... on: August 28, 2016, 01:19:09 PM
Fed Officials Suggest Rate Hike On The Way In September

Friday, 26 August 2016   Brandon Smith

As predicted here at Alt-Market, despite all other indications of a receding economy the Fed is pushing for yet another rate hike in 2016.  This is a CLASSIC move for the Federal Reserve.  They almost ALWAYS hike rates into a recession/depression, and this usually accelerates the downturn.  Keep in mind the timing of these announcements; only two months before the U.S. presidential elections.  I believe the goal here by the elites is to initiate a soft downturn going into the elections which will boost Donald Trump's campaign.  I believe that they plan to place Trump into office and then allow the system to crash completely.  The point?  To place conservatives at the helm and then blame them for an economic collapse that was already engineered to happen by international financiers...

 

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Friday that the case for an interest rate hike “has strengthened in recent months” in light of recent strong job growth, but she gave no signal that Fed policymakers will make a move at a meeting next month.

At the Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Yellen said the Fed’s policymaking committee “continues to anticipate that gradual increases in the federal funds rate will be appropriate over time” to meet the Fed’s goals for inflation and employment.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose after Yellen’s remarks, but logged a small decline at midday as the market digested the news that met its expectations. Meanwhile, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said on CNBC that next Friday's report on August job gains could factor into the Fed's decision at its September 20-21 meeting, a remark that appeared to keep a rate increase on the table. The 10-year Treasury yield was up .03 percentage points in early afternoon trading at 1.6%.

The Fed raised its benchmark interest rate in December for the first time in nine years but has stood pat since then, leaving it at a historically low 0.4%.
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Janet Yellen Suggests Rate Hike Coming in September... on: August 28, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Fed Officials Suggest Rate Hike On The Way In September

Friday, 26 August 2016 - Brandon Smith

As predicted here at Alt-Market, despite all other indications of a receding economy the Fed is pushing for yet another rate hike in 2016.  This is a CLASSIC move for the Federal Reserve.  They almost ALWAYS hike rates into a recession/depression, and this usually accelerates the downturn.  Keep in mind the timing of these announcements; only two months before the U.S. presidential elections.  I believe the goal here by the elites is to initiate a soft downturn going into the elections which will boost Donald Trump's campaign.  I believe that they plan to place Trump into office and then allow the system to crash completely.  The point?  To place conservatives at the helm and then blame them for an economic collapse that was already engineered to happen by international financiers...

 

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Friday that the case for an interest rate hike “has strengthened in recent months” in light of recent strong job growth, but she gave no signal that Fed policymakers will make a move at a meeting next month.

At the Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Yellen said the Fed’s policymaking committee “continues to anticipate that gradual increases in the federal funds rate will be appropriate over time” to meet the Fed’s goals for inflation and employment.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose after Yellen’s remarks, but logged a small decline at midday as the market digested the news that met its expectations. Meanwhile, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said on CNBC that next Friday's report on August job gains could factor into the Fed's decision at its September 20-21 meeting, a remark that appeared to keep a rate increase on the table. The 10-year Treasury yield was up .03 percentage points in early afternoon trading at 1.6%.

The Fed raised its benchmark interest rate in December for the first time in nine years but has stood pat since then, leaving it at a historically low 0.4%.
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick: Trump & The American Dream... on: August 26, 2016, 01:12:41 PM

Trump and the American Dream 

By CAROLINE B. GLICK - The Jerusalem Post
 08/25/2016   
 
 
According to most polls taken since last month’s party conventions, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton enjoys an insurmountable lead over Republican nominee Donald Trump. Consequently, a number of commentators on both sides of the partisan divide have declared the race over. Clinton, they say, has won.

 There are several problems with this conclusion.

 First of all, the “official campaign,” won’t begin until September 26, when Clinton and Trump face off in their first presidential debate. Clinton is not a stellar debater and Trump, a seasoned entertainer, excels in these formats.

 Second, recent polls indicate that Trump is closing the gap. Whereas until this past week Clinton enjoyed a 6-8 point lead in the polls, in two polls taken this week, her lead had contracted to a mere 1-3 points.

 Third, it is quite possible that Clinton’s problems have only begun. Her peak popularity may be behind her. Since her nomination, barely a day has passed without another stunning exposé of apparently corrupt behavior on the part of Clinton and her closest advisers. This week’s AP report that half of Clinton’s non-official visitors during her tenure as secretary of state were donors to the Clinton Foundation was merely the latest blow.

 The continuous drip of corruption stories will have a corrosive effect on Clinton’s support levels. If the revelations to come are as damaging as many have claimed, their impact on Clinton’s candidacy may be fatal.

 In light of Clinton’s weaknesses, Trump’s main hurdle to winning the election may very well lie with the NeverTrump movement. That movement encompasses much of the Republican establishment – that is, the political class of centrist elected officials, opinion-shapers, former officials and ideologues. Its members have vowed not to vote for Trump even if it means that Clinton wins the White House. The fact that so many prominent Republican voices continue to oppose Trump even after he has been nominated hurts his ability to build support among swing voters.

 As far as the NeverTrumpsters are concerned, Trump carried out a hostile takeover of their party.

 The man who discussed his private parts on national television and brutally and personally attacked his opponents may have won more primary votes than any Republican candidate in the past. But he also won the enmity of more members of the party establishment than any other Republican presidential hopeful.

 In an interview with CNN in late May,  Wall Street Journal columnist (and former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief) Bret Stephens spoke for many in the NeverTrump camp when he said that he wants Trump to be “the biggest loser in presidential history.”

Stephens explained, “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents, this kind of ethnic quote ‘conservatism’ or populism, be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party and Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape or form.”

In June Stephens told radio host Hugh Hewitt that a Trump presidency would be more devastating for the US than a Clinton presidency. Stephens argued that whereas a Clinton presidency would be “a survivable event” he was unsure that the US could survive a Trump presidency.

 He explained, “The United States survives so long as at least one of its major parties is politically and intellectually healthy. I don’t think the Republican Party... as the vehicle for modern American conservative ideas, survives with Donald Trump.”

This week, The Washington Times published a list of 50 senior Republicans who not only will not support Trump, but have switched sides and are publicly supporting Clinton.

 The problem with Stephens’s view, which again, is widely shared by the intellectual and political establishment of the party, is that it ignores the cause of Trump’s primaries victory.

 On the eve of his 2008 electoral victory, Barack Obama pledged to “fundamentally transform,” America.

 He kept his word.

 And it is this fundamental transformation and the Republican leadership’s failure to stop it that transformed a loud-mouthed, brash billionaire into the Republican nominee. It was this transformation, and the Republican establishment’s failure to block it, that made it impossible for moderates like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush to win the Republican primaries in 2016.

 Not only has the country been transformed, the Republican electorate has been transformed.

 Today America is steeped in crisis. Foreign audiences concentrate on the crisis of American power overseas. Today, due to Obama’s decision to prefer his failed attempt at rapprochement with Iran over longtime US allies in the region, the Americans have lost their strategic superiority in the Middle East and are on the way to losing whatever residual influence they still maintain over regional affairs.

 Turkey’s ground invasion of Syria on Wednesday is a clear sign of the disintegration of America’s regional position. While the invasion was ostensibly launched against ISIS, the plain fact is that its main target is the Kurds. That is, NATO member Turkey invaded Syria to take out the US’s primary ally in its campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

 And the US is providing air cover to the Turkish invaders while abandoning the Kurds.

 Every advance the US has made in its campaign against ISIS has been achieved on the backs of the Kurds. And yet, Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting in Ankara the day of the Turkish invasion, openly threatened the Kurds. Biden said the US will abandon them if they refuse to conform with Turkey’s demand that they withdraw to the eastern side of the Euphrates River.

 Biden’s move merely reinforced the growing impression that the US is only dangerous to its allies. The Iranians, for instance responded to the Turkish move by harassing the US Navy destroyer USS Nitze as it traversed the Strait of Hormuz. Rather than sink the Iranian vessels that threatened it, the Nitze responded by shooting off a couple of flares. The State Department then whined about the assault, calling Iran’s act of war “unprofessional.”

And the worst part about the US’s strategic crackup is that it is but one of the crises endangering America today.

 Economically, the US has been steeped in stagnation for eight years. Largely as a result of overregulation, entrepreneurship is producing almost no new jobs. The housing crisis has not ended. People who purchased homes before 2008 remain stuck with underwater mortgages, doomed to remain in towns with no jobs because they can’t afford to sell their homes.

 Obamacare has made healthcare unaffordable for people who have insurance. Co-payments have risen so steeply that for many insured Americans, medical care is now viewed as a luxury item.

 In Rust Belt states, tens of millions of blue collar workers find themselves living in ruined towns. In the past two decades company after company closed its factories, shipped its operations out of the US or went bankrupt in the face of foreign competitors. And their former workers, people who believed in the American Dream, and actually achieved it, now have no dreams and no hope of ever getting back what they lost, much less of seeing their children do better than they did.

 The economic crisis has caused deeper crises.First and foremost the US is now in the midst of a crisis of faith. A Pew poll released this week showed that between 2007 and 2014, church attendance declined from 39 to 36 percent over the seven-year period. A significant number of nonobservant Americans no longer believe in God.

 Those numbers themselves are highly inflated. A multiyear study of church attendance data gathered from the majority of churches in the US by sociologists C. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Long Marler and published in 2005 showed that fewer than half of those who claim to go to church regularly actually do so. Hadaway and Marler assessed that a mere 17.7 percent of Americans go to church on a regular basis. The rest just tell pollsters that they attend because they are embarrassed that they don’t attend.

 In other words, what the Pew survey shows is not a reduction in religious worship but a shift in values. Today fewer Americans view church attendance as normatively superior to nonattendance.

 Loss of faith may well be directly correlated with a diminished view of the value of life. In Appalachia and the Midwest, the economic crisis and the spiritual crisis have also engendered a drug epidemic unprecedented in rural America. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 Americans die every day from drug overdoses. That is more than the number of Americans who die in car accidents. The most significant rise in drug addiction rates has occurred in rural America. New Hampshire is the heroin capital of the US.

 Just last weekend, 10 people died of heroin overdoses in one rural county in Ohio. The heroin in question was laced with a tranquilizer generally used on elephants.

 This is the American transformation that Obama has brought about. And the suffering and misery it has engendered are the reason that Trump is now the Republican presidential nominee.

 Trump is no Billy Sunday. He is not a champion of free trade or social conservativism. He isn’t a neoconservative interventionist. Trump is the bar brawler who says things no one else will say. And the people who lack faith in the country’s ability to help them, who have lost hope that things that used to work can work again, adore him for it.

 This brings us to the issue of the lessons that will be learned by Republican voters if Trump loses as the NeverTrumpsters hope and expect.

 If Trump loses, his voters will not realize that they were mistaken to believe in him and support him in defiance of their party’s intellectual class. They will blame the NeverTrumpsters for the election results and boot them out of the party altogether. If the Republican Party even exists in 2020 and 2024, its candidates will make Trump look like a moderate.

 If Trump wins, on the other hand, while it is true that the NeverTrumpsters will not maintain their unquestioned control over Republican policies, they will likely get a seat at the table and retain some influence.

 More important, if Trump wins, the US will have a chance of changing back to the country it was before Obama fundamentally transformed it.

 Clinton, who like Obama and the NeverTrumpsters scoffs at Trump’s dark descriptions of American life today, has pledged to double down on Obama’s foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, she even pledged to destroy what’s left of the coal industry.

 So if Clinton is elected, what Republicans think about illegal immigration and free trade and foreign policy will be irrelevant. America’s fundamental transformation will become irreversible.

 In that event, America as a whole – not Trump, and not even the NeverTrumpsters – will be the greatest loser of November’s election.

www.CarolineGlick.com 
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Horowitz: "Trump's Lincolnesque Moment"... on: August 21, 2016, 06:01:56 PM
DONALD TRUMP’S LINCOLNESQUE MOMENT

A landmark in the emergence of a new Republican Party.

August 19, 2016  David Horowitz

Today in Dimondale Michigan Donald Trump gave what was not only the best speech of his campaign but a speech that will one day be seen as a landmark in the emergence of a new Republican Party – a party finally returning to its roots as the party of Lincoln. If this sounds like hyperbole ask yourself what other Republican leader in recent memory has addressed America’s African American communities in this voice:

The African-American community has given so much to this country.  They’ve fought and died in every war since the Revolution.  They’ve lifted up the conscience of our nation in the long march for Civil Rights.  They’ve sacrificed so much for the national good.  Yet, nearly 4 in 10 African-American children still live in poverty, and 58% of young African-Americans are not working. We must do better as a country.  I refuse to believe that the future must be like the past.

Trump’s Dimondale speech was a pledge to African Americans trapped in the blighted zones and killing fields of inner cities exclusively ruled by Democrats for half a century and more, and exploited by their political leaders for votes, and also used as fodder for slanders directed at their Republican opponents. This was his appeal:

Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future. The inner cities of our country have been run by the Democratic Party for 50 years.  Their policies have produced only poverty, joblessness, failing schools, and broken homes. It is time to hold Democratic Politicians accountable for what they have done to these communities.  It is time to hold failed leaders accountable for their results, not just their empty words.

Time to hold the Democrats responsible for what they have done. For twenty years I and many others on the right have waited for Republican leaders to do just this. Until now we have despaired of seeing this happen in our lifetimes. But here is Trump articulating the very message we have been waiting for - support for America’s inner city poor – a message that should have been front and center of every Republican campaign for the last fifty years.

Trump: “Look at what the Democratic Party has done to the city of Detroit. Forty percent of Detroit’s residents live in poverty.  Half of all Detroit residents do not work. Detroit tops the list of Most Dangerous Cities in terms of violent crime. This is the legacy of the Democrat politicians who have run this city.  This is the result of the policy agenda embraced by Hillary Clinton…. The one thing every item in Hillary Clinton’s agenda has in common is that it takes jobs and opportunities from African-American workers.  Her support for open borders.  Her fierce opposition to school choice.  Her plan to massively raise taxes on small businesses.  Her opposition to American energy.  And her record of giving our jobs away to other countries.”

Tying the fight to liberate African Americans and other minorities from the violent urban wastelands in which Democrats have trapped them to his other proposals– secure borders, law and order to make urban environments safe, jobs for American workers, putting Americans first – these are a sure sign that Trump has an integrated vision of the future towards which he is working. Call it populism if you will. To me it seems like a clear-eyed conservative plan to restore American values and even to unify America’s deeply fractured electorate.

I love this line: “America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future.” Yes African Americans and other Americans too are suffocating under the racism of the Democratic Party which takes African Americans for granted and lets the communities of the most vulnerable sink ever deeper into a maelstrom of poverty and violence without end.

Trump being Trump offers this constituency that has turned its back on Republicans for half a century this deal maker: “Look at how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic Control. To those hurting, I say: what do you have to lose by trying something new?’

In the boldest imaginable way, Donald Trump is doing what Republicans have been talking about doing for a generation but have failed miserably to achieve – creating a “big tent” and opening up the party to new constituencies, in particular to minority constituencies. The fact that at the moment he is nonetheless distrusted by minorities is partly the result of his flamboyant carelessness with language during his extemporaneous riffs, but mainly because of the vicious distortions of his words and character by his unscruplous Democratic enemies and their media whores. These progressives pretend to care about African Americans but are content to let generations of inner city minorities and their children live blighted lives so long as they can be bussed to the polls every November and cast the votes that keep them in power.

Not to forget the #NeverTrumpers on the Republican side. These defectors are among the loudest slanderers, smearing Trump as a racist and a bigot when he is obviously the very opposite of that. In fact, when you look at what Trump is actually saying and actually doing, Never Trumpism appears as the newest racism of low expectations. To turn their backs on Trump conservatives must write off the inner cities and their suffering populations, regarding them as irredeemable, and unpersuadable, while leaveing them to their fate. Fortunately there is a large constituency in the Republican Party that resonates to Trump’s message of a new Republican Party and a new hope for all Americans - white and non-white – who have been left behind.
39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / American Journalism Collapsing Before Our Eyes... on: August 21, 2016, 02:21:16 PM
American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

By Michael Goodwin August 21, 2016 - The New York Post.


Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ Web site. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of its own. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate.
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Globalist Control Post-Collapse... on: August 20, 2016, 08:25:37 AM
How The Globalists Will Attempt To Control Populations Post-Collapse

Wednesday, 17 August 2016   Brandon Smith


There is an interesting disconnect with some people when discussing the concept of global centralization. Naturally, the mind reels in horror at the very idea, because many of us know, deep down at our core, that centralization is the root of tyranny.  We know that when absolute power is granted into the hands of an elite few over the lives of the masses, very bad things happen.  No small group of people has ever shown itself trustworthy, rational, empathic or wise enough to handle such a responsibility.  They ALWAYS screw it up, or, they deliberately take advantage of their extreme position of influence to force a particular ideology on everyone else.

This leads to resistance, resistance leads to sociopolitical crackdown and then great numbers of people are imprisoned, enslaved or even murdered.  This leads to even more resistance until one of two possible outcomes emerges — chaos and revolution or complete totalitarianism and micro-managed collectivism.

There is no way around this eventual conflict.  As long as the centralists continue to pursue total power, men and women will gather to fight them and the situation will escalate.  The only conceivable way that this fight could be defused is if the elites stop doing what they do.  If they suddenly become enlightened and realize the error of their ways, then perhaps we could escape the troubles unscathed.  Or, if those same elites all happen to meet an abrupt end and their influence is neutralized, then the world might have a chance to adjust and adapt in a more organic fashion.

Unfortunately, there are people who refuse to believe that a fight is unavoidable.  They desperately want to believe there is another way, and they will engage in an amazing display of mental gymnastics in order to justify this belief.

First, I think it is important to note that I have always argued that the globalists will eventually fail in their pursuit.  I find that some folks out there misinterpret my position when I outline the strategies of globalists and they assume I am presenting global centralization as a “sine qua non.”  I do not argue that the elites will win the fight, I only argue that there is no way to avoid the fight.

Those that want to know my views on why globalist defeat is a certainty can read my article The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose.

The rhetorical question always arises:  “How could the globalists ever hope to secure dominance over the entire world; isn’t that an impossible task?”

I believe according to my knowledge of history and human psychology that it IS an impossible task, but that is NOT going to stop the globalists from trying.

This is what the cynics just don’t seem to grasp; we are dealing with a group of narcissistic psychopaths organized around a cult ideology and with nearly unlimited resources at their fingertips.  These people think they are rising man-gods, like the Egyptian pharaohs of old.  They cannot be persuaded through superior logic or emotional appeal.  They will not be deterred by mass activism or peaceful redress.  They only understand one thing — the force of arms and the usefulness of lies.

Such people are notorious for taking entire civilizations down with them rather than ceding their thrones.  It is foolish to plan a response to them on the assumption that a fight can be avoided.  When I say that the globalists are “destined to lose,” this is predicated on my understanding that a certain percentage of human beings will always have an inherent capacity for resistance to tyranny.  The globalists will be defeated because there is no way to quantify every single threat to their utopian framework.  As long as people continue to fight them, physically and with information, regardless of the personal cost, their weaknesses will be found and they will fall.

This will not be accomplished, however, without considerable sacrifice.

When I talk about "collapse", I am talking about a process.  Collapse is not an singular event, it is an ongoing series of events.  The U.S. has, for example, been in the middle of a collapse since 2008.  The end of this collapse will come when the final economic bubble propping up our system has burst and the process of rebuilding begins.  The most important questions is, WHO will do the rebuilding?  The globalists with their power agenda, or common people seeking freedom and prosperity?

I have outlined in numerous articles the reality that an ongoing destabilization of large portions of the global economic framework will be used by the elites as leverage to convince the public that greater centralization is necessary, including global economic management through the IMF and BIS, a global currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as a bridge and global governance through the United Nations or a similar body not yet developed.  This plan is becoming more and more openly discussed by globalists within the mainstream media.  It’s hardly a secret anymore.

Many people will undoubtedly support this centralization out of fear of instability.  That said, many people will also refuse to support it.

Here is how I believe, according to historical precedence and the globalist’s own writings, that they will attempt to assert global centralization post-collapse and enforce compliance.

Resource Management And Distribution

As I point out in many of my articles on the necessity for localism, without ample food, water and shelter self-maintained by groups of like minded citizens, no resistance can be mounted against a centralizing force.  If you cannot supply your own logistics, then you must resort to stealing them from the enemy.  Obviously, it is less risky to supply yourself if possible.

Post-collapse, when rule of law in many places has broken down and resources can no longer be transferred safely from region to region, the name of the game will be control of necessities and the producers of necessities.  This is also used by totalitarians when the danger of unrest is present.  A prime example of this method in action was the Stalinist consolidation of the Soviet Union.

The fact is, successful rebellions in occupied nations tend to grow in rural surroundings.  Cities are often strongholds for totalitarians because they offer more means of surveillance, a more passive population and, once taken over, they are easier to secure and defend.  I call this the “green zone doctrine;” the use of locked down cities as pivot points to launch attacks on rural people.

Stalin used this very model, sending troops from controlled cities to plunder resources from outlying farming communities.  He then stored these supplies for “redistribution;” the people deemed most useful to the regime were fed, the people deemed not useful or potential threats were not fed.  In the end, Stalin killed off many potential rebels simply by denying them food production or food access.

The elites do not need to own every inch of ground in order to launch an effective campaign of martial law.  All they need to do is own key cities through surveillance technology and troop presence, then use these cities as staging grounds to confiscate resources in surrounding areas from people they do not like.  If you think the government would not pursue that kind of tactic in the U.S., I highly suggest you look into Executive Order 13603, signed by Barack Obama in 2012.  This order gives the president authority during a “national emergency” to take any private property or resources if it is deemed “necessary to national defense.”

It should be noted that starvation as a weapon has been extremely useful for the elites in the past.

The Malaysian Model Of Control

If the elites are anything, they are rather predictable.  This is because they have a habit of consistently using strategies that have worked for them before.  In my article When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It, I examine the writings of Council On Foreign Relations member Max Boot on methods for quelling insurgencies.  In the U.S., insurgency is a given post-collapse.  The only question is whether it will be a large insurgency or a small one.

I do not hold out much hope for most of the rest of the world in terms of generating a useful rebellion.  Most citizens in Europe and Asia are unarmed and untrained.  Any resistance in these regions will be very small and cell structured if it is going to survive.

The methods Max Boot describes tend toward larger threats to the establishment.  Boot mentions specifically the great success by the British in Malaysia from 1948-1960 against highly effective communist guerillas and terrorists.  This success can be attributed to several factors:

1) The British used large-scale concentration camps to separate production centers from rebel influence.  These were massive camps surrounded by barbed wire fences and guard towers, primarily used to house farmers and other workers and their families.  This stopped the guerillas from hiding among the working class and recruiting from them.  This follows the “green zone doctrine” I described above.

2) The British implemented a sophisticated identification system for all Malaysian citizens including fingerprinting.  They then set up numerous checkpoints across the country at which citizens had to produce their paperwork.  Anyone who did not have their papers was held on suspicion of being an insurgent.  The rebels in Malaysia attempted to counter this by forcefully taking over busy buildings and buses, then burning everyone’s IDs.  This would not be a very effective tactic in a digitized world where identification is accomplished through advanced biometrics.

3) Instead of fielding massive lumbering military brigades in a useless effort to cover large stretches of ground, the British used spies and informants to locate rebel strongholds, then sent special forces units in to neutralize them.  Again, they did not need to control every inch of ground; they used military assets wherever the rebels were, then left.  Their goal was not to control a lot of ground, but to kill rebels.  The British used considerable brutality in their efforts, including a mobile gallows that traveled the country, and the public display of rotting corpses to strike fear in the insurgency.

4) The political elites in Britain fought the psychological war by offering promises of peace and prosperity to the Malaysian commoners if they supported the effort against the insurgency.  They did not necessarily need to follow through on these promises, all they needed to do was create a few examples of reward for cooperation, and sell this to the public in a convincing manner.  Once enough of the population was in the hands of the British, the insurgency lost supply resources and also had to worry about informants.

Technology Grid For Tyranny

Malaysia was an example of a competent strategy to uproot insurgents, but there were also many failures and pitfalls.  The elites are trying to mitigate any future unknown quantities when fighting against rebellions through the use of new technologies.

The green zone doctrine could only be successful today with the use of biometric surveillance.  Restriction of movement could be accomplished, but only in cities with extensive surveillance grids.  The insurgents of a post-collapse future would be hard pressed to infiltrate or exfiltrate from a green zone with currently available facial recognition, gait and walk recognition, retina and thumbprint scanning, etc.  Facial recognition has even gone into the realm of thermal imaging; cameras can use the unique heat signature from blood vessels within the human face to identify a person from a relative distance.  Make-up and prosthetics would not counter this.  Thermal masking would be the only solution.

Beyond that, an insurgency would have to be technologically savvy. Cyber warfare would have to be integral to their methodology.  This is not something any other rebellion in history has had to deal with.

An Uneducated And Bumbling Insurgency

The globalist’s strategy to trigger economic and social chaos, then lock down certain regions and offer centralization as a solution to the population, is far easier to accomplish when the opposition they face lacks insight, patience, planning and initiative.

The British were partially successful in Malaysia because the guerillas were ignorant of public perception. While they were effective and ruthless fighters, their viciousness resulted in lack of public support.  Though wide public support is not needed for victory, it certainly helps.

Multiple revolutions against Stalin’s power, some of them very large, were put down because of poor planning.  Rebels massed sizable forces in tight areas, such as a single mountain or mountain ranges.  Stalin simply dropped poisonous gasses on insurgents that had put all their eggs in one basket and forgot to stockpile gas masks.  It is vital to recognize that in a post-collapse world governments and elites may no longer be subject to public scrutiny, and are thus free to act as maliciously as they want.  All contingencies have to be considered.

Rebels in the Soviet Union also had a bad habit of ignoring logistics.  Many were armed with mismatched rifles and a rainbow selection of ammunition instead of arming all their men with the same rifle and the same ammo for redundancy.  Rebellions have been lost in the past merely because the fighters armed with too wide an array of weapons ran out of enough ammo to feed any of them.

Insurgents have also historically suffered from an inability to strike the leadership centers of the empires they fought.  Primarily because they did not know who the real leadership was.  Only in our modern era do we have the information available to identify the elites and their organizations.  Globalists are often very vocal today in media about who they are and what they want.  This is why the elites seek to make the next insurgency the LAST insurgency.  Never before have they been so vulnerable.

I believe the globalists will use their standard strategy of disinformation and division first to acquire centralization, but eventually they will turn to a Stalin/Malaysian model for control on the ground.  I will have to save the specific counter-strategies to these tactics for another article.  Some of them I probably cannot legally discuss at all.  The most important thing to remember, though, is that the globalists’ job is harder than our job.  They have to control people, property, resources, and mass psychology.  They have thousands of variables to take into account, and thousands of situations that could go wrong.

All we have to worry about is our own local organization, our own moral compass, our own survival and removing the top globalists from the picture.

 
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / BRILLIANT move on Trump's part... on: August 17, 2016, 02:12:30 PM
Brilliant! Trump Brings Breitbart CEO On Board as Campaign Chief

ByPamela Geller on August 17, 2016

I know Steve Bannon. It’s an inspired choice.

Andrew Breitbart is cheering from heaven.

Brilliant. Steve Bannon is a warrior. He has  long understood that this is a war in the information battle-space (something the right has failed to grasp, despite the left’s smear machine against those with whom they disagree.) The media is out to destroy Donald Trump. Trump needs a champion, a “Patton,” a Bannon.

This is fantastic news. Heads are exploding on the left.



    “NY Times: Donald Trump, in Shake-Up, Hires Breitbart Executive Stephen K. Bannon for Top Campaign Post,”


    Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker write in the New York Times:

        LAS VEGAS — Donald J. Trump has shaken up his presidential campaign for the second time in two months, hiring a top executive from the conservative website Breitbart News and promoting a senior adviser in an effort to right his faltering campaign.

            Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become the Republican campaign’s chief executive, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser and pollster for Mr. Trump and his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, will become the campaign manager.

            Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, will retain his title. But the staffing change, hammered out on Sunday and set to be formally announced Wednesday morning, was seen by some as a demotion for Mr. Manafort.

            […]

            “We met as the ‘core four’ today,” Ms. Conway added, referring to herself, Mr. Bannon, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates.

            People briefed on the move said that it reflected Mr. Trump’s realization that his campaign was at a crisis point. But it indicates that the candidate — who has chafed at making the types of changes his current aides have asked for, even though he had acknowledged they would need to occur — has decided to embrace his aggressive style for the duration of the race.

            Both Ms. Conway and Mr. Bannon, whose news organization has been very favorable to Mr. Trump since he entered the primaries, are close with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the father-and-daughter conservative donors who have become allies of the candidate and are funding a “super PAC” that is working against Hillary Clinton.

            […]

            Mr. Bannon has no experience with political campaigns, but he represents the type of bare-knuckled fighter that the candidate had in Corey Lewandowski, his combative former campaign manager, who was fired on June 20.

            Mr. Bannon has been a supporter of Mr. Trump’s pugilistic instincts, which the candidate has made clear in interviews he is uncertain about suppressing. He is also deeply mistrustful of the political establishment, and his website has often been critical of Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/briiliant-trump-brings-breitbart-ceo-on-board-as-campaign-chief.html/#sthash.L11wQqsl.dpuf
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spencer: Muslims Videotaping in Ohio church "Suspicious in the Extreme"... on: August 16, 2016, 11:26:11 AM
How can the church and the civil authorities be so blind, stupid, or both???

Robert Spencer: Muslims videoing in Ohio church “suspicious in the extreme”

August 15, 2016 11:57 pm By Robert Spencer

Meanwhile, as churches are being cased, Church leaders are intent on reading those who call attention to the problem out of the Church.

More on this story. “Saudi Arabians Videotape Inside Catholic Church, Scare Parishoners [sic],” by Richard Ducayne, Church Militant, August 15, 2016:

    KETTERING, Ohio – Three Arab men were caught recording footage in Ascension Catholic Church in Kettering, Ohio Sunday, claiming they were only “studying” Christianity — but JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer is calling their behavior “suspicious in the extreme.”

    The men, who were visiting their families from Saudi Arabia, had all passed background checks and, according to church authorities, simply breached “proper etiquette.”

    “While their actions did arouse suspicion, we believe their actions were simply a breach of proper etiquette,” a statement on Ascension’s website read Thursday morning. “While current evidence suggests that they intended no ill will, the Kettering police and other appropriate agencies are continuing to thoroughly investigate the matter and are keeping us aware of their findings.”

    Church Militant contacted Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org. Spencer said that if the Saudis were really studying Christianity, “they could have approached the priest and asked him questions. They could have read books about Christianity. They could even have asked permission to videotape. That they did none of these things is suspicious in the extreme.”

    Spencer highlighted that authorities, when apprehending an extremist or investigating an attack after the fact, have found that the extremists usually have videos in their possession of their intended targets.

    Many jihadis have been discovered with videos of prospective target sites in their possession. The Islamic State (ISIS) has quite recently called on Muslims to attack Christians. What’s more, jihadis thrive on intimidation, striving to “strike terror into the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60) — at the very least the videotaping of the Mass would unnerve and frighten the parishioners. This incident should be treated as the intentional provocation that it clearly was.

    Regarding local authorities ignoring the attack by writing it off as merely a “breach of proper etiquette,” Spencer remarked that such curious behavior should be looked at with a more wary eye.

    “The phenomenon of Muslims videotaping at sensitive sites cannot be ignored by those concerned about jihad terror,” he commented to ChurchMilitant.com. “What has been passed off as innocent tourist interest includes videotaping of water treatment plants, electrical plants and other sites without plausible interest for tourists.”

    Concerns have developed after ISIS earlier this month, in its propaganda magazine Dabiq, ordered its supporters who live in the West to attack more Christians.

    Titled “Break the Cross,” the issue is dedicated to calling all Europeans and Westerners to “abandon their infidelity and accept Islam, the religion of sincerity and submission to the Lord of the heavens and the Earth.”…
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Outflanks Democrats on Gay Rights... on: August 16, 2016, 07:53:59 AM
Donald Trump Just Overtook The Democrats On Gay Rights


by MILO 15 Aug 2016 - Breitbart.com

The madman has actually done it. God-Emperor Daddy — known to the rest of you as Republican presidential candidate Donald J Trump — has just outflanked Hillary Clinton on the Left and announced what can only be described as an ultra-progressive immigration policy.
I don’t mean progressive as it has come to be used, of course — nannying, language-policing, Muslim-pandering. I mean it’s a policy that could actually make things better for minorities.

Trump’s plan is to introduce a screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S., testing their ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism. It’s a brilliant plan. I’m especially inclined to say it’s brilliant because it may have been partly inspired by me.

The test will apply to all immigrants, yet its obvious target is Muslims, who, as we know, get a bit bomby in the presence of gays, a bit rapey in the presence of women who wear skirts shorter than their ankles and generally a bit hostile and violent around anyone who doesn’t have their bum in the air five times a day.

The media won’t portray this policy as progressive, of course — they’ll portray it as stupid, bigoted, and reactionary. The Washington Post, little more than a Hillary mouthpiece this election cycle, has already started, branding the proposal “crazy” and “outlandish.” But it isn’t. Actually, it’s about the most pro-gay policy I’ve ever heard from a presidential hopeful.

Trump has also promised to deport hate-preachers in the U.S. His specific wording (“send them home”) again suggests that he’s targeting Islam. Go Daddy!


It’s odd that leftists are already starting up the outrage machine. After all, isn’t this what progressivism is supposed to be about? All around the world, Muslims are oppressing women, murdering gays, and exterminating non-Muslims. Progressives claim to want to protect the rights of gays, women and minorities, yet are silent on the greatest threat to them in the world today.

Somehow, I doubt they would be outraged if Trump threatened to deport the Westboro Baptist Church. This, despite the fact that the Westboro Baptists haven’t killed anyone, whereas a Muslim, Omar Mateen, carried out the greatest act of homophobic violence in U.S. history.

The Left, of course, think Orlando was a tragic incident of workplace violence, enabled by toxic masculinity and a lack of gun control.

I’m comfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, as long as they don’t want to kill us, maim us or throw us off rooftops. (Permission for lesser violence is available upon application.) For leftists, the reverse appears to be true — they’re uncomfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, unless they want to kill us and maim us and throw us off rooftops.

Thus, decline to bake a cake for some lesbians and you are a heinous bigot. Murder 50 fags and injure 50 more and you’re a tragic victim, probably reacting to islamophobia, whose dad will be invited to stand behind Hillary Clinton at a rally.

There’s no diplomatic way to put it. In this historic announcement, Donald Trump has dramatically overtaken the chronically Muslim-friendly Democratic Party on gay rights. I predict conservatives across the west will soon follow suit. The right is quickly realising that, thanks to the silence on Islam, it is they and not the left who are destined to safeguard women, gays, and minorities from the barbarians of the East.

As the body counts — and rape counts — in Europe rack up, gays — and others on Islam’s kill-list — will realize that in a world of Muslim migration, conservative immigration policies are actually the most progressive. Meanwhile, the claims of self-proclaimed leftists to champion the rights of women and minorities will ring increasingly hollow.

Voters are starting to take notice of all this.

Throughout this election cycle, Trump has been attacked as a bigot and a reactionary on immigration. With this new plan, though, he has proven beyond doubt that he’s the only person running for President who can stick up for chicks and queers.

Face facts, guys. It is the political Left that wants to flood America with violent homophobes and misogynists, not Trump. No-one with a clear-eyed view of Muslim culture can believe otherwise.

Perhaps this is what the #NeverTrump guys meant when they said Trump was a closet liberal.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at milo@breitbart.com.
44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Calls for "Extreme Vetting"... on: August 16, 2016, 07:50:45 AM
Trump calls for “extreme vetting” of those who believe “sharia law should supplant American law”

AUGUST 15, 2016 11:12 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Common sense. And long overdue. It would be difficult to devise a test that could not withstand a practiced and skillful taqiyya artist, but why should the attempt not be made? Unsurprisingly, the Washington Post is enraged, along with the rest of the mainstream media, and is doing all it can to discredit and defeat Trump.

The obvious fact that they are so deeply threatened by him is the best testimony to his viability as a candidate — better even than his own statements. The political and media elites are frightened to the core, and their globalist and pro-jihad policies are threatened, and that is a very good thing.

Trump081516

“Trump proposes ideological test for Muslim immigrants and visitors to the U.S.,” by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, August 15, 2016:

Donald Trump called Monday for a Cold War-style mobilization against “radical Islamic terror,” repeating and repackaging calls for strict immigration controls — including a new ideological litmus test for Muslim visitors and migrants — and blaming the current level of worldwide terrorist attacks on President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In a grab bag of promises to battle the Islamic State organization together with Russia and anyone else who wants to join the fight, the Republican nominee underlined the need to improve intelligence and shut down militant propaganda, recruiting and financing.

But he provided few specifics on how he would expand such efforts beyond those already underway.

“My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS,” Trump said in a speech in Youngstown, Ohio, using an acronym for the Islamic State. “International cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting . . . It’s got to be stopped.”

The speech was one in a series of prepared remarks the Republican presidential nominee has scheduled, amid criticism of controversial off-the-cuff policy pronouncements that he has later dismissed as jokes or sarcasm. Reading directly from a TelePrompter, a subdued Trump rarely departed from his script.

The principal new initiative was what Trump called “extreme vetting” for “any hostile attitude towards our country or its principles, or who believed sharia law should supplant American law. . . . Those who did not believe in our Constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country.”

“In the Cold War,” he said, “we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. . . . I call it extreme, extreme vetting.”…
45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brandon Smith: Trump Will Win The Election, but He Can't Save The Economy... on: August 15, 2016, 04:49:16 PM
2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency

Wednesday, 10 August 2016 02:19 Brandon Smith

Political and economic events tend to swing like a pendulum, or move like the tides.  What you think you know today, according to the mainstream mood, can swiftly change tomorrow.  Sometimes this is mere random coincidence, but often it is engineered by the powers that be.  When discerning coming trends, the only assumption I recommend people operate on is that the globalists will play the long game; the short game is only relevant as far as it serves the long game.

What is the long game?  The globalists have openly admitted their goal in numerous mainstream publications, but my favorite example is the January 1988 issue of the Rothschild run magazine The Economist.  The issue pronounces boldly that investors should “get ready for a global currency” by 2018.  I examine this issue in detail in my article The Economic End Game Explained.

The Economist article mentions the sacrifice of “some” economic sovereignty of nation states, the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the rise of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket currency mechanism as a “bridge” to a single global currency.  None of these changes can be accomplished without certain parts of the world suffering severe financial instability first.  Not only is this a mathematical inevitability, such crisis is also a useful tool for elitists to mold the public’s collective psychology.

So, let’s make this crystal clear — the long game is the total and OPEN centralization of economic and geopolitical power into the hands of a select few financial elites.  Not the pulling of strings behind the curtain.  Not shadow governance.  OPEN governance of the world by the elites, accepted or even demanded by the people.

There are a lot of assumptions floating around economic conditions and election developments right now that do not take into account this long game.  The first being that globalists “are losing their grip on the situation.”

I would have to disagree.  In terms of political leaders (East and West) and surface economic indicators, the elites have more control than ever.

The argument of the “bumbling globalists” became rather popular the days after the initial success of the Brexit referendum.  This was of course based on the assumption that the Brexit is damaging to the globalists rather than helpful to them.  I outline why the Brexit is a perfect scapegoat for a fiscal downturn engineered by the elites in my article Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out, Or Something Else?, published before the Brexit vote took place.

Since the referendum, central banks and politicians around the world have begun calling for a single monetary and fiscal policy initiative meant to “head off any ill effects of the Brexit.”  That is to say, the open calls for one economic authority to rule them all have now begun.

The numerous warnings by the financial elites of a coming crisis event have most people in the mainstream and even many alternative analysts scratching their heads.  For those that hyper-focus on stock markets, all seems to be well.  Of course, these people only have an attention span that lasts until the next market ticker opens for the day.  They aren’t looking at the bigger picture.

To be fair, though, the mainstream media is really laying on the fake-out propaganda thick.

July and August have produced considerably strange behaviors from stocks so far, with a record number of days positive, followed by a near-record number of days negative.  I would consider this a form of volatility that should not be overlooked.  The media have so far shrugged off these developments and only noted that stock valuations are still high despite the Brexit “surprise.”  Their assertion has been that the Brexit “had no effect;” completely ignoring the fact that such events can have long term consequences rather than immediate consequences.

Oil prices have plunged back towards lows last seen at the beginning of the year, something I stated would eventually occur after the predictable failure of the OPEC meeting in Doha.  Low global demand continues and production has not slowed in any meaningful way.

There has been a steady correlation the past year between oil and stocks.  The current decoupling is unlikely to last very long and stocks should track down to oil by September as speculators give up trying to hold crude offshore in a useless effort to drive prices higher.  The mainstream has said little to nothing about this decoupling or its eventual consequences.

The past two months of employment numbers have been an epic farce, with the media playing up the supposed number of jobs added while mentioning nothing about the nearly 95 million working age Americans removed from the rolls and no longer counted as unemployed.  That’s almost one third of the U.S. population, and around half of all working age Americans that have no job.

The Bureau of Labor’s claim when cornered by this statistic and the fraudulent nature of their primary employment percentages?  “Those people don’t want to work, therefore they should not be counted…”

The better than expected jobs reports have so far allowed markets to levitate.  I would assert, however, that stocks are merely treading water at the deceptively calm center of a hurricane.

The reality is, they cannot hide an economic collapse forever.  Negative financial effects are going to touch ground somewhere, and the data is going to sneak through.  Case in point; U.S. productivity is now at 37 year lows despite government statistics claiming fully recovered employment.  You would think that in such a happy labor environment portrayed by the BLS productivity would grow.  This is not the case.  Perhaps a total unemployed population of over 100 million people may be contributing to the implosion of U.S. productivity...?

Outside of the U.S., European banks are on the verge of a breakdown, and central bank stimulus measures and rate cuts are adding minimal extra boost to markets.  They aren't currently falling much, but they aren't rallying much either.  In essence, equities are becoming stagnant due to artificial support from central banks and there is little incentive for investors to participate any longer.

In light of the latest manipulations of economic data and the jawboning of stocks since March, some alternative analysts have pronounced that the central banks plan to prop up markets “indefinitely,” or at least until Hillary Clinton can win the election.

This is an unfortunate assumption by the alternative crowd…

I remember before the Brexit vote a vast majority of independent economists and liberty analysts argued that the elites would “never allow” the U.K. referendum to pass — that they had the power to rig the vote however they pleased.  If this is the case (and I agree it is the case), then clearly the elites WANTED the Brexit to pass.

It would serve alternative analysts well to recall specifically the rigged polling numbers in the weeks leading up to the Brexit which showed a definite win for the “Stay” crowd.  Interesting how that all turned out, isn’t it?

I am consistently reminded of the Brexit surprise when I look today at the polling numbers on the U.S. election.  The erratic and inconsistent polling shows Trump climbing, then suddenly sinking days later, then climbing again without any clear catalysts.  Many polls contradict each other, just as the polls did before the Brexit, and, the same kind of circus atmosphere is present, if not more prevalent.

It may be possible, if not certain, that this is all a game.  The Brexit outcome was predetermined, which is how elites like George Soros scored successful investment bets on the referendum passing, and the reason why the Bank for International Settlements gathered central bankers from around the world as the vote was taking place.

I believe that the U.S. presidential election has also been predetermined; with a Trump win.  Some people might be confused by this concept.

Trump’s campaign has been consistently compared to the Brexit campaign by globalists in the media, as well as by mainstream pundits.  They call it a "dangerous" trend of rising populists.

The propaganda surrounding the Brexit asserts that the referendum will eventually lead to global economic crisis; and already, central banks and politicians are attempting to tie the Brexit to anything that might go wrong fiscally in the near future.

The propaganda surrounding Trump is the same; that Trump is unfit to lead America and that his economic policies will end in global financial ruin.

One constant connects the Brexit referendum and Trump — both are supported by conservative movements with anti-globalist leanings.

I submit that there is in fact a wider economic crisis on the way, and that the elites plan to use the Brexit and Trump as scapegoats for this crisis.

I have stated this before, but I think the idea needs repeating:  The globalists need the economy to turn unstable in order to create a rationale for a centralized economic authority and a single global currency system.  This is why they have consistently called for a “coordinated global central banking policy” after the Brexit.  This is why they continue to warn of a fiscal crisis even though stock markets remain at all-time highs.

If Hillary Clinton, a well known globalist puppet deep in the bedrock of the establishment, wins the election only to have the economy tank, then the globalists will get the blame.

If Trump is either allowed in office, or is placed in office, and the economy tanks, CONSERVATIVES, the primary enemy of the globalists, will get the blame for the resulting crisis.

To reiterate, the globalists have created the conditions by which an economic crisis can be triggered at the time of their choosing (within certain limits).  They are then either supporting the success of seemingly conservative based movements and candidates, or simply refusing to interfere with them.  This is being done so that the globalists can then blame the crash they created on conservative movements.

This allows them to demonize not just conservatives, but the conservative philosophy in general; labeling it a poisonous ideal akin to fascism.  Their solution?  Erase all elements of conservatism and sovereignty from society for the sake of the “greater good” of the collective.

This is part of the long game.

As I noted after the U.K. referendum, I believe the Brexit to be part of a “one-two-punch combination,” and that the second punch has not arrived yet.  My view appears to be supported by the number of financial elites warning investors to pull out of markets today before it is too late.  Obviously, they know something the rest of the financial mainstream does not.

This sets up the elites as “prophets” rather than criminals, as economic perception turns negative and the public begins looking for answers.

In the meantime, I believe a softer downturn will begin before the election takes place, most likely starting in September.  This will give a boost to the Trump campaign, or at least, that is what the polls will likely say.  I would also watch for some banking officials and media pundits to blame this downturn on Trump’s rise in the polling data.  The narrative will be that just the threat of a Trump presidency is “putting the markets on edge.”

Many claim the Federal Reserve will not raise rates in 2016 with the election threatened by a Trump candidacy.  I believe the Fed will in fact raise rates, as they always do going into major recessions.  If they do not raise rates before the election, they will most certainly raise rates in December if Trump is in the White House.

I realize that many will argue that Trump will “never be allowed to win,” just look at how the media demonizes him.  But this is what people argued before the Brexit, and they were wrong.  I suggest that this demonization campaign is much like the doom and gloom used by globalists before the UK referendum — it is not meant to stop the event.  It is not meant to prevent Trump from getting into office, it is meant to make Trump and conservatives a scapegoat for an impending crisis once he is IN office.

While I certainly am not advocating Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, I have to point out that a Trump presidency serves the globalist long game better than a Clinton presidency.

First, the elites need an international financial crisis to encourage the public to support a single central bank policy and authority.  They can blame such a crisis on Trump and the Brexit and divert attention away from themselves.

Second, the elites need to remove the philosophy of conservatism as an obstacle to global collectivism and the destruction of national sovereignty.  Again, conservatives will be blamed as participants and co-conspirators in the fiscal crisis, and painted as so devilish that no future generation would want to be a associated with conservative thought.

Third, the elites need to kill the dollar’s world reserve status.  And yes, even this could be blamed on Trump as Saudi Arabia moves away from the dollar as the petro-currency and multiple nations begin to protest Trump’s “isolationism” by dumping the dollar.  In October, China (with the approval of the IMF) begins spreading SDR-based liquidity around the world, launching the next phase of the end of the dollar as world reserve right before the U.S. election climax.

Fourth, the elites need internal conflict within the U.S. and/or martial law in order to justify international intervention.  A Trump presidency will most likely be met with accelerated violence from social justice activists and general riots from the entitlement class.  I believe Trump will use martial law measures, though he probably will not label this "martial law".  There may even come a day when globalist “leaders” will assert that Trump cannot be allowed access to a nuclear arsenal, and that he must be stopped.

If Trump turns out to be anti-constitution, and the liberty movement acts to stand against him — we will be accused of working for the social justice miscreants, or we will ironically be accused as agents of the globalists.  If we fight against a globalist intervention or the social justice mobs, we will be accused as fascists by the international community.  Truly, with Trump as president, many doors open for the elites.

That said, this does not mean the elites will be ultimately successful in their endeavors.  There are always unknowns to any grand scheme.  As Mike Tyson famously said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”  I believe the elites will be surprised by some sizable punches in the mouth.  Until then, though, their current strategy appears to be running on schedule.
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: Trump Essentially Correct Regarding ISIS "Founders"... on: August 13, 2016, 10:27:58 PM
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/media-in-frenzy-over-trump-claim-that-obama-and-hillary-founded-isis-ignores-dia-document-showing-how-they-did
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller: Did Obama's FBI Want Us Dead in Garland, TX? on: August 09, 2016, 06:49:36 AM
Pamela Geller–Undercover FBI Agent Told Garland Jihadist: ‘Tear Up Texas’


by PAMELA GELLER 8 Aug 2016


The Daily Beast recently reported that “days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

The Beast’s Katie Zavadski also revealed that the undercover agent was at our free speech event in Garland, where Simpson and Nadir Soofi attempted a jihad massacre.

Zavadski and others in the left-wing media have pounced on the incitement, entrapment angle — which is absurd. These jihadis were plotting jihad at the Super Bowl and planning to travel to Syria to join ISIS, and we’re supposed to believe they were entrapped? What could anyone say to you or me that would make you a mass murderer? Nothing.

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with, because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility, it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of the freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

In the wake of Garland, the media attacks on us were the overwhelming and overarching story. But outside of that, one of the stories that bubbled to the surface was that the FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

Now we find they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to alerting Garland police about Simpson’s jihad plans three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack, one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

I’ve been trying to get my mind around this thing. What was Obama trying to do? Teach Americans a lesson? Enforce the edict that he enunciated in the wake of the Benghazi jihad slaughter, that “the future must not belong to those to slander the prophet of Islam”?

If people had died at our Garland event, the murders would have had a blood-chilling effect on the freedom of speech in America. That, in my view, appears to have been what the Obama administration wanted — and certainly that’s what the enemedia wanted in the wake of our event, as it gleefully and relentlessly blamed us for violating Sharia blasphemy laws and getting shot at.

If you look at the Obama administration’s track record in regard to jihad in America, it’s abysmal and ghastly. Look at San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Orlando… Garland is one of the few stories where Americans came out on top.

And now it comes out that in Garland, we have to ask whether the United States government aided and abetted the would-be murderers. It’s astonishing.

Did the Obama FBI want us dead? We need answers: we need an explanation of the FBI’s behavior that accounts for everything we know and demonstrates that this is not the case – if there is one.

This is shocking, and it should frighten every American, all across the political spectrum.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.
48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro... on: August 07, 2016, 10:12:05 PM
Crafty:  LOL cheesy  My best friend in CT who is Jewish says the same thing, though he likes her opinions generally.  He says she reminds him of the pushy, dominating and abrasive Jewish women he grew up surrounded by in West Hartford, CT.    grin
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro's Devastating Indictment of Hillary Clinton... on: August 07, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
This is apparently only available on the Fox site - be sure to adjust the volume using the gear icon at the lower-right of the screen.  It is her opening statement from last night's show:

www.foxnews.com/shows/justice-jeanine.html
50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Would the Founders Have Considered Islam a "Religion?" on: August 05, 2016, 08:55:33 PM
DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECT WARRIOR RELIGIONS?

A frightening glimpse into the European future -- and its dire warning to America.

August 5, 2016  William Kilpatrick 

Reprinted from CrisisMagazine.com.

After every Islamic terrorist attack, whether in Europe or the U.S., people ask what can be done to prevent it from happening again. But when the obvious solutions are proposed, they are invariably met with the objection that “you can’t do that,” or “that’s unconstitutional,” or words to that effect.

Some of the obvious solutions are to close radical mosques and radical Islamic schools, to monitor suspected mosques, to deport radical imams, and, of course, to restrict Muslim immigration or ban it altogether. If you dare to say such things, however, it quickly becomes apparent that—for many, at least—only politically correct solutions are acceptable. The trouble is, the politically correct crowd doesn’t have any solutions. In the memorable words of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, “France is going to have to live with terrorism.”

Catholics are frequently in the forefront of those who object to these “drastic” measures for preventing terrorism in the West. Pope Francis, for example, has made generosity to refugees and immigrants a hallmark of his papacy. Christians, he has reminded us on several occasions, should build bridges, not walls. Others, Catholics among them, have objected that restrictions on Islamic immigration would violate the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution—as would surveillance of mosques and Islamic societies.

Catholics are understandably touchy about the subject of religious liberty. But concerns over Christians being forced to bake cakes for same-sex weddings shouldn’t be allowed to overshadow some other basic questions about religious liberty.

One of the questions is this: does a religion that doesn’t believe in religious freedom for others qualify for First Amendment protection? Another, related question might be framed as follows: Is a religion that calls for the subjugation of other religions entitled to the “free exercise” of that mandate? The underlying issue, of course, is whether or not Islam really qualifies as a religion. As any number of authorities have pointed out, Islam is a hybrid—part religion and part a geo-political movement bent on world domination.

The “world domination” bit, by the way, is not confined to the fevered imaginations of right-wing fanatics. In a recent interview with Religion New Service, Cardinal Raymond Burke said “there’s no question that Islam wants to govern the world.” “Islam,” he continued, “is a religion that, according to its own interpretation, must also become the State.”

Here’s what I had to say about the matter four years ago:

Does this [the 1st Amendment] make the exercise of religion an absolute right to do anything in the name of religion? Should the free-exercise clause be extended to protect suicide cults or virgin sacrifice? The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but one of the main purpose of Islam is to establish itself as the state religion. It can be argued that Islam’s raison d’etre is to be the established religion in every nation. Hence, another question must be asked: does the First Amendment protect its own abolishment?

Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer—a profession that requires one to choose words carefully. Hence, when he talks about Islam becoming the State, he should be taken seriously. According to him, “when they [Muslims] become a majority in any country then they have the religious obligation to govern that country.” As we have seen, however, long before Muslims become a majority they begin demanding that their fellow citizens comply with sharia laws regarding diet, dress, and blasphemy. Allowing Muslims the full and free exercise of their faith is tantamount to restricting the freedom of others. Or, as Dutch MP Geert Wilders likes to say, “more Islam” means “more intolerance” for everyone else.

Wilders is referring to the consequences that follow upon the mass migration of Muslims into Europe. Although his was once a lonely voice, numerous polls show that the majority of Europeans now believe along with him that Islam does not belong in Europe. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has been in the habit of chiding Christians for their opposition to accepting more Muslim immigrants. He recently went so far as to warn them that they will have to answer to Christ at the Last Judgment because he (in the guise of the migrant) was homeless, and they did not take him in.

But, although charity is the paramount Christian virtue, there is another virtue that governs the exercise of charity. It’s called “prudence.” And prudence would suggest that spiritual leaders and secular leaders should exercise caution when advocating acts of charity that put the lives of others at risk. In Europe, there are now numerous prudential reasons for slowing or halting the flow of Muslim immigration: the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Bataclan Theater massacre, the massacres at the Brussels airport and subway, the massacre at Nice, the Munich mall massacre, the axe attack aboard a German train, the bomb attack on a wine bar in the city of Ansbach, and the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults which targeted over 1,200 German women.

The most recent outrage was the slaughter of a French priest, Fr. Jacques Hamel, by two Islamic terrorists who burst into a church in Normandy during Mass and slit his throat. Pope Francis condemned the attack, but on the same day in Krakow he spoke once again about the need to welcome refugees. He called for “solidarity with those deprived of their fundamental rights, including the right to profess one’s faith in freedom and safety.”

But how about the right of Christians and Jews to profess their faith “in freedom and safety?” Fr. Hamel is no longer free to profess his faith, and now that the Islamic State has proclaimed its intention to target more churches in Europe, Christians are going to feel considerably less safe at Sunday service. Jews in Europe already know the feeling. Most synagogues in Europe are now protected by security guards during Saturday services.

But if you really want to see the European future, just look at those nations where Muslims are already a majority. In Nigeria, where Muslims make up about 60 percent of the population, Christians are regularly attacked during church services, and on some occasions entire congregations have been burned alive inside their churches.

All of which prompts a question: should Western nations passively stand by as their own population balance shifts in the direction of Nigeria’s? A curtailment or a moratorium on Muslim immigration is one of the obvious solutions to the problem of terrorism in the West. But, as I’ve suggested above, many Americans think that such a moratorium would be unconstitutional. After all, doesn’t the Constitution forbid a “religious test” in scrutinizing immigrants? Indeed today’s top news story concerns the attack on Donald Trump by the father of a slain Muslim soldier. At the Democratic Convention, Khizr Khan challenged Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration by asking: “Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?”

In fact, the Constitution has no ban on a religious test for immigration. In a recent National Review piece, Andrew McCarthy points out that Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The clause has nothing to do with immigration and, as our bien pensants like to say, it has nothing to do with Islam.

The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 actually gives the president wide latitude in restricting immigration:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

One of the main intents of the act was to prevent communist ideologues from entering the country, but it was also invoked in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter to keep Iranians out of the U.S. And—surprise—according to McCarthy, “under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum.” As McCarthy notes:

We have a right to require scrutiny of the beliefs of aliens who petition for entry into our country … this includes beliefs the alien may regard as tenets of his faith—especially if such ‘faith tenets’ involve matters of law, governance, economy, combat and interpersonal relations that in our culture’s separation of church and state are not seen as spiritual.

In short, if you believe your religion allows you to execute apostates or subjugate infidels, don’t bother to apply.

When Pope Francis visited Poland for World Youth Day, security in Krakow was at its highest level. Forty thousand security personnel were deployed and, according to The Guardian:

Mobile X-ray devices and metal detectors, as well as dogs trained to detect explosives, are in use at railway and bus stations, major road hubs and venues where papal events are due to take place. Police said that gas tankers and large trucks had been banned from Krakow following the use of a 19-ton truck in a terrorist attack in Nice earlier this month.

Does that suggest anything? Are the officials worried that Protestants or Jews are going to attack the Catholic youth? Are they fearful that Buddhist will attempt to bomb the popemobile? Before the era of mass Muslim immigration into Europe, such precautions would have been deemed as overkill. Now they seem like prudent measures to prevent overkill. The heightened security at World Youth Day and all over Europe is a tacit acknowledgement that Islam differs radically from all other religions. This is a point that Cardinal Burke made in his interview when he criticized Catholic leaders who “simply think that Islam is a religion like the Catholic faith or the Jewish faith.” Just so. It’s well past time to question whether a religion with totalitarian ambitions should be treated like all other religions.

In the Guardian story about the Pope’s visit to Poland, he is described as a “modern pope.” But in some respects he, along with many bishops, seems to belong to an earlier era—an era when it seemed that all people desired nothing more than peace and friendship. At a time when the world is faced with the resurgence of a seventh-century warrior religion, that sixties sensibility no longer seems so modern.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!