Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 24, 2016, 11:36:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96648 Posts in 2320 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20
51  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stewart Rhodes: Patriots Must Step Up to Protect Americans Against Assault. on: June 09, 2016, 07:45:33 PM
IN THE WAKE OF SAN JOSE, PATRIOTS MUST STEP UP TO PROTECT ALL AMERICANS AGAINST ASSAULT BY VIOLENT THUGS

An article posted in the morning hours of June 09, 2016, [HERE] is titled:

San Jose Undercover Cops: “Trump Supporters were running for their lives – We were unable to help”…

In light of several key factors arising from the article at Conservative Treehouse, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes wishes to issue a statement, which I will post below.  However, let us first set the tone by viewing a video clip from YouTube:



In addition to posting the above video in their article, the “Conservative Treehouse” also has furnished some police reports from City of San Jose, California, which include —

Under Cover San Jose Officer #1: […] Throughout the afternoon and evening I watched several individuals wearing “Trump” articles of clothing getting punched, kicked and pushed.

Under Cover #2: […] I was assigned to the Covert Response Unit and dressed in a plainclothes capacity. … As time came closer to 18:00 more protesters arrived; mostly younger males and females between the ages of 14 to 25.  … some began burning the United States flag in the middle of the street. It became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a hat or T-Shirt in support of Trump.  I observed Trump supporters being spit on, objects being thrown at them, punched, kicked and even robbed of their personal belongings.  In these instances I observed victims running for their lives because protesters began adopting the mob mentality and attacking people.  I was unable to make contact with any of these victims due to my undercover capacity and fear for my own safety as well.

I strongly recommend going to the original article and following their embedded links, where readers will learn about the Mayor’s complicity in the police stand-down and the official policy for police to allow this to take place outside a Trump for President rally on June 02.  Example:

San Jose Police Chief Garcia admitted his officers were instructed not to stop violent protesters from beating the Trump rally attendees. In addition the San Jose Mayor has openly admitted to approving the San Jose police departments plans, and blamed Donald Trump for having the audacity to have a rally in “his city“.

Do go to the original site and check the other embedded links to get yet more insight into what transpired, and did not transpire but should have. And if you want to go up a level or two in your perception of today’s America, check out Michael Shaw’s outstanding work on the Globalization of California.

Message From Stewart Rhodes

No American, anywhere, whether you agree with their views or not, should be attacked for expressing their God given (and Constitution protected) rights of free speech and assembly, and their right to participate in our political process. And no police officer, who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, should obey any order to not protect the rights of people to peaceably assemble and express their views, and should refuse any order to stand by and do nothing as violent, criminal thugs assault Americans who are simply exercising their rights. It is a disgrace to have the police obey such orders, and an act of treason for the politicians to give such orders.

If officers are so outnumbered that they are concerned for their own safety, that is one thing, but to not intervene because some oath breaking, partisan scumbag politician orders them to stand down, so the politician’s thuggish foot-soldiers have a free hand to terrorize and assault other Americans, is inexcusable. Whatever happened to “Protect and Serve”? The fundamental justification for having police, or having government at all, is to protect people against predatory violence. These violent communist and La Raza racist thugs are the true “Brownshirts” of modern America, attempting to use violence and intimidation to shut down free speech and assembly.

If the police will not protect Americans from violent assault meant to punish them for their political views, and meant to silence them by force, then Americans will have to protect themselves, and each other, from such violence.

I call on all patriotic Americans to step up and protect the weak, the elderly, the vulnerable among them against these thugs, wherever they strike. Veterans, you have a particular obligation and duty, under your oath, to step up and protect your fellow Americans by stepping in between them and these thugs.  In the absence of police protection, Veterans need to step in the gap and form up five to eight man security teams who can serve as escorts and rescue people from being beaten.

As anyone versed in defensive tactics or combatives will tell you, whenever anyone is sucker punched there is a very real and serious risk that they will fall and then hit their head on the concrete, on a parking block, on a curb, on a parked car, etc and that secondary impact can, and does, result in death.  A person can also be stomped and kicked to death by a mob in short order. These are deadly threat mob assaults and must be treated as such.

Anyone attending any event targeted by these radical leftist extremists needs to realize they are in a tactical situation that requires them to prepare for the worst and to take steps to protect themselves. They should go in groups of four or more, and among them needs to be people who are fit enough, and trained enough, to hold their own in a melee. If you are a fit, strong veteran, you have a duty to be the “sheepdog” and walk with those who are less able to defend themselves. Go in groups, and be ready to defend yourselves and others.

Any Oath Keeper who goes out and protects people who are under such threat of assault is doing the right thing. And we need to be willing to do that for ANY American under such threat, even if we disagree with their political views (for example, even if you disagree with Democrats who will be attending the DNC, or any other Democrat gathering, you should be willing to protect them if they are assaulted by violent radicals, and the same for Republicans attending the RNC). This org is non-partisan for a very good reason. We must stand for the rights of all Americans, at all times, in all places.

When we stepped up in Ferguson, MO and protected Natalie, of Natalie’s Cakes and More (who happens to be a black woman), and her neighbors, we didn’t ask them what political party they belonged to, or what their politics were. It didn’t matter. We protected them because it was the right thing to do, and because no American should be assaulted, murdered by arsonists, or raped, robbed, or looted. Same here.

I will be holding an urgent Oath Keepers BOD and leadership call tomorrow night to discuss this situation and how we can help. But all patriots, regardless of what group they are in, need to step up and protect people against such violence and attempts to use force to chill their speech.

These are intolerable acts of thuggery that must be stopped.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

PS – the San Jose Police Department has issued a statement, defending their inaction, saying:

While several physical assaults did occur, the police personnel on scene had the difficult task of weighing the need to immediately apprehend the suspect(s) against the possibility that police action involving the use of physical force under the circumstances would further insight the crowd and produce more violent behavior.

What a load of bull.  I just got off the phone with veteran police officers and tactical trainers Greg McWhirter (former Indianapolis cop and current Montana corrections) and John Karriman (Missouri Police Academy Defensive Tactics instructor) and both of them stated that standing down is exactly opposite of what the San Jose police should have done, and only emboldened the thugs, producing more violent behavior, since the thugs could clearly see that the police would do nothing to stop them.  The right answer was to drop a hammer on the first thugs to commit assault, including using less than lethal rubber baton shotgun rounds if needed (thugs hate and fear shotguns) and pepper balls.  Make an example of a few, and the rest tend to back off (just like any gaggle of bullies).  The excuse given by the department is akin to a cowardly husband saying “don’t resist Martha, or it will make them angry, just let them have their way” which usually results in rape and murder of both of them.   It gives the thugs a green light and the thrill of doing as they wish right in front of the police.  What’s next?   Will “politically correct” cops let someone be beaten to death in front of them out of fear of inciting the crowd to more violent behavior?   Given how fast someone can be beaten to death by a mob, that nobody was killed here was just blind luck, and certainly not because of anything the San Jose Police Department did.



52  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump is Right to be Suspicious of Judge... on: June 09, 2016, 01:54:03 PM
Trump Is Right to be Suspicious of Judge

And sorry, lefties: “La Raza” means “Master Race.”

June 9, 2016 - Matthew Vadum - frontpagemag.com


Donald Trump has every right to question the impartiality of a “pro-Mexican” judge presiding over the Trump University lawsuit and doing so does not make him a racist or a bigot of any kind.

The stampede of weak-kneed Republican office-holders tripping over each other in a frenzied rush to denounce the presumptive GOP nominee for president shows how the Left’s pathological ideas about race continue to dominate the thinking even of so-called conservatives who ought to know better. Yell “racist!” and Republicans run for the hills.

As Pat Buchanan opines, “[t]o many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.”

To recap, the real estate magnate has said that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an Indiana-born U.S. citizen whose parents emigrated from Mexico, is issuing unfair rulings against him in a high-profile class-action lawsuit. Trump claims the trial judge’s prejudice relates to his promise to crack down on illegal immigration and build a wall along the border with Mexico to keep illegal aliens out.

Curiel ordered that internal documents from Trump University be made public. The ruling caused elation among reporters, including 20 from the Washington Post who are digging for dirt about the candidate, as they began fantasizing about winning the Pulitzer Prize for taking down a Republican presidential candidate.

Trump said it is "just common sense" that Curiel’s connections to Mexico explain his anti-Trump rulings.

"He's a member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he's got bias," Trump said Sunday. "This judge has treated me very unfairly. He's treated me in a hostile manner, and there's something going on." Trump also said it is “possible” a Muslim judge might also be biased against him because he advocates a temporary ban on the entry of Muslims into the U.S.

Trump is right. Judges can be influenced, sometimes inappropriately, by their life experiences.

Besides, Trump was merely echoing remarks by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a person of Puerto Rican ancestry, who said her ethnicity and upbringing affect her rulings. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

So if Trump’s comments were racist – and in this writer’s opinion they were not – then so were Sotomayor’s. Sotomayor is met with applause; Trump is met with sputtering vituperation.


Despite the hysterical accusations against Trump coming from politicians in both parties, it needs to be pointed out that he never said that there is something about being Mexican or of Mexican ancestry that makes a person incapable of being an impartial judge. It’s not a congenital or a genetic thing. He said that this particular Obama-appointed judge, Gonzalo Curiel, who belongs to a left-wing Latino lawyers’ group, has an axe to grind because his parents came from Mexico.

Curiel is a member of a group called San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA). SDLRLA’s website identifies National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a race-baiting leftist group that strongly condemns Trump’s immigration policy proposals, as part of its “community.” The group is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) which called Trump “racist” last year for promising to secure the border and vowed to target Trump’s “business interests” with boycotts.

Identity politics and whiny racial grievance-mongering is what SDLRLA and possibly every group with la raza (“the race” in English) in its name is about.

The very concept of la raza is racist, but more on that in a moment.

Trump is right to be concerned about the fact that in 2014, when Curiel certified the class action, he appointed Robbins Geller to act for the plaintiffs. That firm has reportedly shelled out $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez (R), said the circumstances of the case “at least raise a legitimate question to be considered.”

“Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons.”

The litigation deals with consumer complaints regarding the now-defunct Trump University, a pricey 3-day seminar about selling real estate. The plaintiffs allege that the school was a scam but plenty of former students give it top marks.

It’s not like Trump can blow off questions about the case because it is before the courts. The legal case has become a political issue and Trump is absolutely entitled to defend himself. His opponents bark endlessly about it every day. During primary season, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called it a “fake university” and used it to support his argument that Trump was a “con artist.”

The presidential campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton has been pounding Trump for days. “Trump U is devastating because it’s a metaphor for his whole campaign: promising hardworking Americans a way to get ahead, but all based on lies,” campaign press secretary Brian Fallon wrote on Twitter.

The great irony in all of this is that the left-wing Latino groups accusing Trump of racism are the real racists.

Created by the far-left Ford Foundation in 1968, the National Council of La Raza argues that la raza “is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.” President Janet Murguia claims la raza “simply refers to the Hispanic people and it is a nod to our common heritage.”

Similarly, the SDLRLA claims la raza means “the people” or “the community.”

According to Google Translate, the Spanish noun raza means “race, breed, colorcast.” If these radical groups wanted to express the idea of “people” in their names they could have chosen gente, pueblo, personas, habitantes, nación, or súbditos. For “community,” they could have selected comunidad, colectividad, sociedad, común, union, or mancomunidad.

Of course, Murguia and Judge Curiel’s group are lying. La raza can be translated as “the master race,” and the concept of the “Hispanic” was only invented in 1972 by President Richard Nixon, four years after NCLR was founded.

As Mark Krikorian of the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has explained, the concept of la raza emerged as Nazism gained steam in the 1920s and was the brainchild of former Mexican secretary of public education Jose Vasconcelos. The politician and thinker has been called the “cultural caudillo” of the Mexican Revolution.

La raza “can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority,” New Mexico Highlands University professors Guillermo Lux (history) and Maurilio Vigil (political science) wrote.


They continued:

“Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case.”

(Mestizo, by the way, is a Spanish word used in Latin America to refer to someone who is of mixed race, usually the child of a person of Spanish descent and an American Indian. One third of U.S. Hispanics identify as mixed-race while mestizos “represent a racial majority in Mexico[.]”)

So la raza really does mean “the Master Race, but rather than based on notions of racial purity, La Raza’s inherent, biological superiority is based on its hybridity, on the mixing in Latin America of, in Vasconcelos’s words, ‘the black, the Indian, the Mongol, and the white,’” writes Krikorian. La raza really means that “Hispanics, and specifically Mestizos, are superior to those of us unfortunate enough not to be part of the cosmic race.”

La raza “was a source of pride for many Latinos, the most militant of whom adopted the motto: ‘Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada’ — ‘For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing,’" according to Jerry Kammer, also of CIS. This la raza ideology animates the reconquista movement which aspires to return the territory the U.S. took from Mexico to Mexican sovereignty. Some radicals wish to recreate Aztlan.

A hero of the Left, labor organizer Cesar Chavez, a natural born American of Mexican ancestry, thought la raza was a dangerous, un-American concept.

“I hear about la raza more and more,” he said.

“Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and our fear is that it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican.”

That Chavez viewed this kind of Mexican race-consciousness as destructive was reinforced by his lieutenant LeRoy Chatfield around 1970.

"Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It's phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. … He said to me just the other day, 'Can't they understand that that's just the way Hitler started?' A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit's sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it's related to Hitler's concept."

Donald Trump may not even realize just how right he happens to be.


53  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Do Our Leaders Sing the Praises of Ramadan??? on: June 09, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Hugh Fitzgerald: You Don’t Have To Be Muslim To Love Ramadan

June 8, 2016 3:48 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

Why is it that Western politicians, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and David Cameron, think they must send out messages of such heartfelt solidarity to the world’s Muslims on Ramadan? Of course they send out messages as well for Diwali (Hindus and Buddhists), Passover (Jews), Christmas and Easter (Christians), but not with the suggestion that this or that religious holiday is somehow meant to include all of us as well-wishers, when some of us only wish to be counted out, or – equally disturbing – to sing the praises of a religious observance that is insufficiently understood.

Why does Ramadan appear to get special treatment? And why do these politicians presume to speak for us, as when Hillary Clinton sends a brief message that starts “As we begin Ramadan,” with that “we” implicating non-Muslims in what is, after all, a religious observance for Muslims only. That “we” is properly a “they.” Why did she not write, more accurately because less inclusively: “As Ramadan begins, I wish all Muslims….”or “As Ramadan begins for Muslims, I wish them…,” thus being polite, but no longer implying that “we” all share in Ramadan?

David Cameron offered an especially treacly and “inclusive” Ramadan greeting this year, and the very first sentence of his message to Muslims everywhere insists on implicating all of us in what should only be their epithet:

    It’s the holy month of Ramadan…

Why did Cameron have to say that Ramadan is “holy” to non-Muslims? Why could he not have said “It’s Ramadan, that month holy to Muslims,” or “It’s the month of Ramadan, holy to Muslims”?

    – a time when mosques open their doors, community centers welcome in their neighbors, and even churches and synagogues offer up their spaces as Muslims break their fasts – and people of all faiths and none are often asked to join.” (But these open-to-all iftars are not just for simple breaking-bread fellowship, but occasions for propagandizing, or even proselytizing, for Islam, as those who have attended these affairs well know.)

    Coventry Cathedral is holding its own multi-faith iftar. In Manchester, they’re combining an iftar with England’s European Championships appearance. And homeless shelters up and down the country are holding ‘Iftars with the Homeless’.

    Of course, fasting is what comes to mind when we think of Ramadan.

Not all Muslims agree; what comes to mind for some of them, when they think of Ramadan, is that it’s the perfect time to conduct Jihad: “The month of Ramadan in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the righteous ancestors was a month of forthcoming. The greatest battles during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) occurred in this blessed month, the month of jihad, zeal, and enthusiasm.” For more on Ramadan as the month of Jihad, see here.

    It’s part of the month that really puts Muslims’ faith to the test, especially during these long, warm days. But there is much more to it. There is all the energy and money people donate to those who are less fortunate, and all the extra time spent in prayer and contemplation.

Cameron ought to know, but may not, that Muslim charity is directed only toward fellow Muslims; he ought to have said “all the energy and money Muslims devote to less fortunate fellow Muslims” — which changes the sense considerably.

    Uppermost in all our minds…

“All our minds”? Are we all Muslims now?

    …this Ramadan are those whose lives have been torn apart by the twin evils of Assad and Daesh,…

Are these equivalent evils — the Alawite aligned with Shi’a Muslim Iran and hereditary despot, Assad, and the Sunni Muslim fanatics of Daesh (the Islamic State)? Or are the latter far more dangerous to non-Muslims than the former?

    …all those families spending this holy month…

The epithet is again imposed on non-Muslims for whom Ramadan is not “holy.” Why?

    …in refugee camps, mourning loved ones, yearning to go back to school or to work…

News of the scandal of the “Syrian refugees,” so many of whom are not from Syria, but assorted Muslims from as far away as Pakistan and Afghanistan, many of them seeking “refuge” in those European countries offering the most generous benefits, where they need not trouble themselves to seek work, has apparently not reached 10 Downing Street. Just consider the demonstration of the Muslim migrants’ “yearning for work” in Sweden where, last year, out of 162,000 “refugees” who arrived, exactly 464 are now employed. Some yearning.

    …wondering whether they’ll ever return home again.

And how many of those Muslim “refugees” have given any sign, over the last decade, of wanting to return home from Europe?

    Our thoughts, whatever our backgrounds or beliefs, are with them.

Again Cameron presumes to speak for all of us: “Our thoughts.” Notice, too, the casual feelgood dismissal of differences – “whatever our backgrounds or beliefs” — which no Muslim would endorse.

    And we must continue to support the people of Syria and the region, as we work towards a lasting political solution. Because that’s who we are as a country. We won’t walk on by again.

    So this Ramadan, let’s renew our resolve to help those victims. Let’s continue to come together for iftars and community events. Let’s celebrate the proud, multi-racial, multi-faith democracy we live in.

Cameron attributes to Ramadan a significance for non-Muslims that it does not as yet possess: it’s because it’s Ramadan that, he suggests, we renew, we continue, we celebrate. That is, all of us, in first-person-plural harmony. He might have written more to the real point: “Both Muslims and non-Muslims should renew their resolve to fight fanaticism and to ensure that minorities everywhere are safe.” Not a sentiment to which Muslims could openly object, even if they know to whom – themselves — it is really being addressed. And the distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim is usefully maintained.

    To everyone in Britain and around the world, Ramadan Mubarak.

Ramadan Mubarak “to everyone,” not just Muslims? Are we all Muslims now? And greetings not only in Britain but “around the world”? Why not at least limit greetings, if greetings there must be: “To Muslims in Britain, Ramadan Mubarak”?

Muslims would not have taken kindly to having Cameron presume to speak for them by having them appear to share in his Christmas or Easter or Passover or Diwali greetings, and he has been careful not to do so. Muslims are taught not to acknowledge the religious observances of others. But he does presume to speak for all non-Muslims in his specious sharing of the observance of Ramadan.

As for his “proud, multi-racial, multi-faith democracy,” this is a pollyannish figment of Cameron’s imaginative multicultural boosterism. Not everyone in Britain has forgotten the Muslim terrorist attacks on the buses and Underground, the butchering of Fusilier Rigby, and the sex-grooming gangs up and down the land, all contributing to a justified and growing anxiety over the Muslim presence in the country.

Barack Obama has issued his own equally fulsome Ramadan greetings:

    For many…

Should this not be “For many Muslims…”?

    …this month is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities.

To repeat yet again: “compassion” — i.e., charity — “for those less fortunate” is, in Islam, limited to fellow Muslims; Muslims are not supposed to give alms (zakat) to non-Muslims. This is often overlooked, because many non-Muslims are unaware of it, and even if they do know about the rules for Muslim “charity,” it seems churlish for non-Muslims to mention them (“Muslims are supposed to aid only other Muslims”), and Obama does nothing to set things straight. He might, however, simply have omitted that misleading phrase about “compassion for those less fortunate,” or he might have praised Muslims for “making a special effort during Ramadan to support less fortunate members of their own community,” which is less stark than “Muslims offering support for less fortunate Muslims.”

As for Ramadan being the perfect time to “focus on…unity across communities,” Obama presumably means a “unity” of Muslims with other faith groups. But Muslims are taught to regard themselves as the “best of peoples,” and non-Muslims as the “vilest of creatures” for whom all manner of punishments await. What “unity” could there possibly be between the “best of peoples” and the “vilest of creatures”?

Obama also remarks on the history of Muslims in America: “There are those whose heritage can be traced back to the very beginning of our nation, as well as those who have only just arrived.” This fits in with incessant Muslim attempts at backdating their presence in America, to insert themselves into the historical narrative much earlier, as a means of legitimizing their presence, and then pushing that “Islam has always been part of America” nonsense. This campaign reached its absurd zenith when State’s Phyllis McIntosh issued a report in 2004 entitled “Islamic Influence Runs Deep in American Culture.” In this report, she found a non-existent Muslim in Columbus’s crew: “Islamic influences may date back to the very beginning of American history. It is likely that Christopher Columbus, who discovered America in 1492, charted his way across the Atlantic Ocean with the help of an Arab navigator” (flatly untrue). “May date back” and “It is likely that” are weasel words designed to protect from criticism a claim that is made up entirely out of whole cloth. Then there is the other dubious claim — made with very slight supporting evidence — that, among the African slaves brought to America were some who had been Muslims in Africa. But even were that to have been true, a handful of Muslim slaves, living in an overwhelmingly Christian environment, outside a Muslim community, without either mosques or the texts necessary to help perpetuate the faith, would have had their Islam extinguished by the next generation.

In fact, a scarcely discernible, and very tiny, Muslim presence came very late to America. The first community of Muslims to have founded a mosque in the United States did so in a building borrowed for that purpose, in 1929; the first building erected as a mosque dates to 1935. Obama ought to have left out claims that Muslims arrived “at the very beginning of our nation,” rather than transmit what is a staple of Muslim propaganda. Or he might have written, with studied vagueness: “While many American Muslims have only just arrived, others can trace their heritage to earlier periods of our history.”

Then there is Obama’s parting remark about wishing “to honor the contributions of Muslims in America and across the world.” I have no idea what impressive contributions he has in mind, but along with others “in America and across the world,” I await with bated breath President Obama’s detailed list of Muslim Achievers.

To sum up:

Despite their extravagant expressions of solidarity with, and admiration for, Muslims on the occasion of Ramadan, nowhere in their remarks do either Cameron or Obama demonstrate real understanding of Islam. They should be – are they? — aware that Muslims are forbidden to reciprocate, that is, to offer similar greetings to non-Muslims on the occasion of any non-Muslim religious holiday – e.g., Christmas, Easter, Passover, Diwali. Some Muslims become incensed even at the non-religious observances of non-Muslims; campaigns by clerics to convince Muslims not to participate in such innocuous holidays as Valentine’s Day, or Thanksgiving, are not unknown. That being the case, there should be even less felt need or sense of obligation for non-Muslims to offer up such fulsome praise for this Muslim religious observance; a few sentences would have been quite enough.

In their choice of words, both Cameron and Obama make it appear that Muslim charity is extended to non-Muslims, but the only sanctioned object of Muslim alms-giving (zakat), during Ramadan (as at all other times), is fellow Muslims. And neither one explains why, during this month which – Obama informs us – “is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience,” Muslim violence does not recede, but surges.

One hopes that other commentators — freer to speak the truth than do our leaders, or those “taking a leadership role” — will continue to correct the record, dialing back on this insensate Infidel enthusiasm for Ramadan, both silly and sinister, before it becomes “not just for Muslims anymore.”
54  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ann Coulter: "Shocker! Media Calls Trump Racist!" on: June 08, 2016, 09:22:39 PM
STUNNING NEW DEVELOPMENT!!! MEDIA CALLS TRUMP RACIST

June 8, 2016 - Ann Coulter.

Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel's persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it's because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.


The entire media -- and most of the GOP -- have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he'll build a wall. Now they're outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he'll build a wall.


Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens' "human rights" are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association -- "La Raza" meaning THE RACE.


Let's pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people -- much less one with the words "THE RACE" in its title.


The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.


Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I've done some research and it turns out ... THAT'S ALL WE'VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.


The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking "white judges" and "all-white" juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.



Two weeks ago -- that's not an error; I didn't mean to type "decades" and it came out "weeks" -- the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: "All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence."


In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the "perception" of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.


Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck's entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can't question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford's death sentence was the "all-white jury."


On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he'd shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he'd had a .38 in his waistband -- the murder weapon was a .38 -- and the gunshot residue on Ford's hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.


So we know 1) the "real killers" were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.


Here's how the Times described Ford's trial: "A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race."


I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a "white judge" or "all-white jury," and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called "THE RACE."


Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.


I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women's and Latino voices?)


The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers' opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman's fault!


In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left's religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that's "textbook racism," according to Paul Ryan.


At least when we're talking about American blacks, there's a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You're not black.


Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her "wise Latina" speech, in which she said "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."


But Trump is a "racist" for saying the same thing.


Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that "[a]s a Hispanic," Restrepo would bring "ethnic ... diversity to the court."


You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it's vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can't be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that's "racist."


The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE'S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don't bring up everything we've said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)


They're betting they can intimidate Republicans -- and boy, are they right!


The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That's right, Wolf, I don't have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?


The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.


What do Republicans think they're getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.


55  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary - Career Criminal... on: June 08, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
Hillary Clinton has a decades-long documented history of dishonesty and outright disregard for the law.  Let's not forget that she was kicked off the subcommittee investigating Watergate by a DEMOCRAT, who called her "extremely dishonest."  That the press has covered for her all these years is despicable.  Donald Trump is correct that she should not even be eligible to run for President considering her history.  What she has done makes what Richard Nixon did pale in comparison - and yet he was crucified in the press and in the court of public opinion for those relatively minor offenses.  How far we have sunk as a nation from a moral sense when 70% of Democrats believe that Hillary should continue to run EVEN IF SHE IS INDICTED. 

I personally find the oft-repeated refrain that Trump is equally as bad as Hillary both laughable and disgusting.  A Hillary presidency would consign this nation to a 4 or 8-year continuation of Barack Obama's policies, from which we would never recover in our lifetimes.  That the anti-Trumpers can't see this obvious fact and see the obvious and easy choice to be made between the two bodes very badly for the future of this country.
56  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spencer: Ramadan: Month of Jihad... on: June 07, 2016, 05:24:16 PM
Ramadan: Month of Jihad

As Muslims struggle to increase their devotion to Allah, expect more mass murder.

June 7, 2016
Robert Spencer

Another Ramadan is upon us, and no less an authority on Islam than Barack Hussein Obama has assured us that “for many, this month is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities.” Meanwhile, a Muslim whom Obama would disparage as a “violent extremist” who has hijacked the religion of peace, Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, called on Muslims to use this Ramadan to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America.”

Ramadan 2016 began with the news that a group of Muslims in Jordan were so filled with pious fervor that they murdered five Jordanian intelligence officers in an attack on a security office. The perpetrators may have been acting upon the understanding of Ramadan that a jihad group enunciated back in 2012: “The month of Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators. One of our groups aided by Allah managed to bomb a bus full of Jewish tourists, plunderers of holy lands, after careful tracking. The holy war is not confined to a particular arena and we shall fight the Jews and the Americans until they leave the land of Islam.”

So which is it? Is Ramadan a time to “an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities,” or is it “a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers”?

In fact, it’s both. During Ramadan, Muslims are exhorted to renew and deepen their devotion to Allah. Hence it is a time when they’re supposed to grow more generous and kind toward their fellow Muslims. However, the Qur’an says: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves” (48:29). If the Ramadan imperative is to become more devout, the Muslim who applies himself diligently to the Ramadan observance will simultaneously become more both merciful to his fellow Muslims and more severe against the unbelievers.

Murdering infidels thus doesn’t contradict the spirit of Ramadan; it embodies it.
The Kavkaz Center, a website operated by Chechen jihadists, explained in a 2010 article that the idea of Ramadan as a time for warfare against infidels went back to Muhammad’s time: “The month of Ramadan in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the righteous ancestors was a month of forthcoming. The greatest battles during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) occurred in this blessed month, the month of jihad, zeal and enthusiasm.”

Obama is, true to form, severely misleading the American people when he focuses exclusively upon Ramadan’s exhortation to charity (the part of the Qur’an verse about being “merciful” to one’s fellow Muslims) without mentioning its imperative to terrorize infidels (the other part, about being “severe” toward the unbelievers). But as we have seen already in Jordan, all too many Muslims around the world are fully aware of that part of the Ramadan observance, and are ready to carry it out.

It is folly to pretend that the aspect of Ramadan that makes it a more dangerous time for non-Muslims doesn’t exist: dangerous, suicidal folly. But the fact that no one in the public square even thinks to question Obama’s Ramadan congratulations, which roll around every year in the same form, shows how widespread that folly is. Obama’s Ramadan message for this year concluded: “I can think of no better way to mark my Administration’s last celebration of Ramadan as President than to honor the contributions of Muslims in America and across the world for Eid. Ramadan Kareem.”

What contributions of Muslims in America? He has alluded to them before, but once again he didn’t bother to list any, and of course no one asked. That Muslims have made great contributions to America (beyond spurring tremendous developments in airline security, that is) is simply an unquestionable dogma of our silly and stupid age; no one needs ask the President for examples, because those contributions are taken as axiomatic, with only “Islamophobes” questioning them. That there aren’t any actual such contributions is an inconvenient fact, to be sure, but one so thoroughly obscured by propaganda that everyone feels it can be safely ignored.

The cognitive dissonance here equals that about Ramadan itself. And as our Ramadan follies and willful blindness continue, more Infidels will die.
57  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The False Comparison of Trump to Hillary... on: June 07, 2016, 12:00:35 PM
The False Comparison of Trump to Hillary

Unveiling the false equivalence.

June 7, 2016
Bruce Thornton

A lot of Republicans still upset over Donald Trump winning the nomination resort to a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton in order to justify sitting the election out or even voting for Hillary.

Take a recent example by the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. First he lists Hillary’s manifold sins that Trump is innocent of: lying to the parents of the Benghazi victims, promising to nominate hard-left jurists to the Supreme Court, and supporting Obamas’ high-tax economics and unconstitutional amnesty of illegal aliens.

Then Ponnuru offers a catalogue of Trump’s sins Hillary hasn’t committed: mocking a reporter’s disability, indulging a preposterous conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald, threatening a trade war with China, or threatening war crimes against the families of terrorists. Trump’s list presumably balances Hillary’s flaws, in order to make the point that both Trump and Hillary are equally distasteful, thus making the election a Hobson’s choice for principled conservatives.

But this comparison is false and misleading, for Trump and Clinton have had very different careers with different obligations and responsibilities.

Most obviously, Donald Trump is a private citizen who has never held public office. He is a businessman in a world where decorum and class often aren’t as important as sharp elbows and tough negotiating skills, where making a profit is more important than consistency or sparing people’s feelings. His goal is to make money, and his flamboyant life-style is our culture’s sign of his skills and success at doing so. Moreover, his flaws of personality and character, like his rude bluster and outrageous claims, are not, alas, that exceptional or different from those of millions of other private citizens, which may explain his populist appeal. And in his line of work, especially as a reality television star, such braggadocio and insensitivity may be assets. Intellectuals of more delicate sensibilities and refined manners may not like such déclassé qualities or grubby dealings, but most of them don’t live in a hard, risky world of tough negotiations and profit and loss.

Hillary Clinton is in a very different line of work from Trump’s. Her whole life has been spent as what we laughably call a public servant. In other words, she is supposed to be working not for profit or her own status and enrichment, but for the public weal. For progressives, that means striving for “social justice,” income equality, the abolition of prejudice and bigotry, the emancipation of women, the improvement of the middle class, and the salvation of the planet from the merchants of death by carbon. This is what she tells us over and over, and this is her case for why she should be president.

But while Trump’s character flaws have been assets in his profession, Hillary’s arrogant sense of entitlement, relentless money-grubbing, chronic mendacity, and obvious dislike of people other than her minions all undercut her claims to be a public servant, and help explain why she has serially failed at that role.

Of course, some presidents have shared the same flaws as Hillary, but they at least showed some restraint in exploiting their position for private gain, and at least could pretend to be a warm “people person,” as the ghastly phrase goes. Even Richard Nixon appeared on Laugh In. But Hillary has been inept at camouflaging her unseemly ambitions and even pretending to be a caring tribune of the people––in contrast, say, to Elizabeth Warren, who is just as much a hypocritical one-percenter as Hillary, but manages to come across as sincerely passionate. With Trump, however, you know exactly what you’re getting.

Finally, if a businessman like Trump fails, he reaps most of the damage. But if a “public servant” like Hillary fails, the security and interests of every single one of us are damaged, even as she advances her own political and fiscal interests as much as Trump does. Trump’s alleged shenanigans with Trump University are nothing compared to Hillary’s exploitation of her position as Secretary of State to steer money to her foundation, which is to say to herself, her husband, her daughter, her friends and political cronies, no matter the damage to America’s interests. Trump’s inconsistencies and alleged exaggerations about his net worth or charitable contributions are a dog-bites-man story compared to Hillary’s lies about Benghazi and her private email server. Nothing Trump has publicly said or done is as self-servingly despicable as Hillary’s implications that the grieving families of the four dead Americans in Benghazi are not telling the truth about her personal promise to them to “get” the obscure producer of the on-line video supposedly responsible for the attacks, when she knew that claim was untrue.

In short, Trump has been accountable to the bottom line. Hillary has been accountable to the people. Trump has succeeded in his job; Hillary has failed abysmally at hers. Making the two equally unpalatable to the principled voter is making a false equivalence between two different kinds of public life.

Perhaps Trump’s flaws would make him a bad president. But other presidents who had flaws equally distasteful––such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton––managed to do some good things as president regardless. With Trump there’s at least a chance he could turn out to be a better president than his bluster and insults suggest. Hillary, on the other hand, has a long public record of using her position for personal gain, and putting her ambition ahead of her responsibilities to the country she supposedly serves. Her role as First Lady was marked by bungling health care reform, indulging silly fantasies of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and allowing herself––an “I am woman hear me roar” feminist––to be publicly humiliated by her satyr husband while attacking his victims. Her tenure in the Senate lacked any substantive legislative achievements, and her stint as Secretary of State furthered Obama’s destruction of America’s global influence, power, and security from Syria to the South China Sea. It may be possible that she could experience a road-to-the-White House conversion and become a good president, but given everything we know from her 25 years of public “service,” the probability is close to zero.

With Trump, in contrast, we know that at least he won’t be as destructive to our political order as Obama has been. With Hillary the odds are much higher that she will continue Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of our country into an E.U.-like technocratic regime of smug elites whose aim is to erode individual freedom and compromise our country’s sovereignty. Worse yet, if she becomes president, she will most likely nominate two or three Supreme Court justices, creating a court that will gut the and First and Second Amendments and legitimize further the dismantling of the Constitution’s divided powers and limited executive. And don’t put your faith in the Republican Senate that confirmed Loretta Lynch to shoot down every one of Hillary’s picks, even if that means eight years of an eight-member court.

The November election is not a choice between two equally bad candidates. It’s the moment when we reject the candidate who we know, based on her long public record of corruption, lying, and grasping for power and wealth, will take us further down the road to political perdition.
58  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Greenfield: Trump's Islam Narrative is Just Reality. on: June 06, 2016, 12:48:36 PM
Trump’s Islam Narrative is Just Reality

Islam really does hate us.

June 6, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Former NSA head Michael Hayden recently joined a chorus of Trump’s critics blasting him for offending Muslims. “The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world, so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative," he said.

That’s true. It’s also meaningless because in this case the narrative is reality.

Jihadists do hate us. Islam has viewed the rest of the world with undying enmity for over a thousand years. Some might quibble over whether a 7th century obsession really counts as “undying”, but it’s a whole lot older than Hayden, the United States of America, our entire language and much of our civilization.

Islam divides the world into the Dar Al-Islam and the Dar Al-Harb, the House of Islam and the House of War. This is not just the jihadist narrative, it is the Islamic narrative and we would be fools to ignore it.

The White House is extremely fond of narratives. The past month featured Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, taking a victory lap for successfully pushing his “narrative” on the Iran deal. Rhodes takes pride in his narratives. His media allies love narratives. But none of the narratives change the fact that Iran is moving closer to getting a nuclear bomb. Narratives don’t change reality. They’re a delusion.

Narratives only work on the people you fool. They don’t remove the underlying danger. All they do is postpone the ultimate recognition of the problem with catastrophic results.

Islamic terrorism is a reality. Erase all the narratives and the fact of its existence remains.

Instead of fighting a war against the reality of Islamic terrorism, our leaders have chosen to fight a war against reality. They don’t have a plan for defeating Islamic terrorism, but for defeating reality.

So far they have fought reality to a draw. Ten thousand Americans are dead at the hands of Islamic terrorists and Muslim migration to America has doubled. Islamic terrorists are carving out their own countries and our leaders are focused on defeating their “narratives” on social media.

Hayden repeats the familiar nonsense that recognizing reality plays into the enemy narrative. And then the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by refusing to recognize its existence out of fear that we might play into its narrative. But Islamic terrorism doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.

You don’t have to believe in a bomb or a bullet for it to kill you. A plane headed for your office building or a machete at your neck is not a narrative, it is reality. If we can’t tell the difference between reality and what we believe, then reality will kill us. And nothing we believe will change that.

We are not fighting a war of narratives with Islam. This is a war of bombs and bullets, planes crashing into buildings and blades digging into necks. And yet the men in charge of fighting this war remain obsessed with winning a battle of narratives inside the Muslim world. They have no plans for winning the war. Instead they are occupied with managing the intensity of the conflict, taking out the occasional terrorist leader, bombing only when a jihadist group like ISIS has become too powerful, while waiting for their moderate Muslim allies to win the war of narratives for them by discrediting the jihadists.

The narrative mistake is understandable. The left remains convinced that it can get its way through propaganda. Its record is certainly impressive. But it’s strictly a domestic record. Getting Americans to believe seven strictly irrational social justice things before breakfast is very different than convincing the members of a devout tribal society with a deep sense of history that they really don’t want to kill Americans. All that the narrative war accomplished was to show that the propagandists who convinced Americans to vote for their own exploitation have no idea how to even begin convincing Muslims to do anything. Think Again Turn Away was an embarrassment. Various outreach efforts failed miserably. American politicians devoutly apologize for any disrespect to Islam, but Muslims don’t care.

Hayden isn’t wrong that there is a narrative. But Nazism also had a narrative. Once the Nazis had power, they began acting on it and their narrative became a reality that had to be stopped by armed force. But at a deeper level he is wrong because he isn’t reciting the Islamic or even the jihadist narrative, but a deceptive narrative aimed at us in order to block recognition of the problem of Islamic terrorism.

The Islamic narrative isn’t just that we hate them. More importantly, it’s that they hate us. Muslim terrorists are not passively reacting to us. They carry a hatred that is far older than our country. That hatred is encoded in the holy books of Islam. But that hatred is only a means to an end.

Hatred is the means. Conquest is the end.

Assuming that Muslims are oppressed minorities is a profound intellectual error crippling our ability to defend ourselves. Islamic terrorism is not an anti-colonial movement, but a colonial one. ISIS and its Islamic ilk are not oppressed minorities, but oppressive majorities. Islamic terror does not react to us, as men like Hayden insist. Instead we react to Islam. And our obsession with playing into enemy narratives is a typically reactive response. Rising forces generate their own narratives. Politically defeated movements typically obsess about not making things worse by playing into the narratives that their enemies have spread about them. That is why Republicans panic over any accusation of racism. Or why the vanilla center of the pro-Israel movement winces every time Israel shoots a terrorist.

Western leaders claim to be fighting narratives, but they have no interest in actually challenging the Islamic narrative of superiority that is the root cause of this conflict. Instead they take great pains not to offend Muslims. This does not challenge the Islamic supremacist narrative, instead it affirms it.

Rather than challenging Islamic narratives, they are stuck in an Islamic narrative. They are trapped by the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative of “Good Islamist” and “Bad Islamist” convinced that the only way to win is to appeal to the “Good Islamist” and team up with him to fight the “Bad Islamist”.

The “moderate” Muslim majority who are our only hope for stopping Islamic terrorism is an enemy narrative manufactured and distributed by an Islamic supremacist organization. When we repeat it, we distort our strategy and our thinking in ways that allow us to be manipulated and controlled.

It isn’t Trump who is playing into jihadist narratives, but Hayden and everyone who claims that recognizing Islamic terrorism plays into enemy narratives while failing to recognize that what they are saying is an enemy narrative.

The very notion that the good opinion of the enemy should constrain our military operations, our thinking and even our ability to recognize reality is an enemy narrative of unprecedented effect.

And this is the narrative that our leaders and the leaders of the world have knelt in submission to.

Narratives only have the power that we assign to them. No narrative is stronger than reality unless we believe in it. Not only have our leaders chosen to play into the enemy narrative, but they have accepted its premise as the only way to win. And so they are bound to lose until they break out of the narrative.





59  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Horowitz Destroys the "Never Trump" Argument... on: June 06, 2016, 11:20:18 AM
The Never-Trump Diehards

Time to admit defeat and fold your tents.

June 2, 2016
David Horowitz

Reprinted from Breitbart.

One would have though that having failed to stop Trump’s nomination and then failed to find a prominent figure to lead their third-party effort, the beltway renegades would have been embarrassed enough to crawl under a nearby rock where they might ponder their lost credibility and squandered influence. Who, after all, could take seriously a movement launched through a tweet announcing an “impressive” candidate with a “good chance” to alter a national election, who turned out to be an obscure writer with no footprint in the political world?

But if one expected the beltway boys to have second thoughts about their nihilism, one would have been wrong, at least for now. Eyebrows had barely settled when the magazine whose manifesto launched the movement published a list of reasons for their anti-Trump sentiment that others must have missed. Why did they miss them? Because they were “obscured by the fog of political war,” and therefore “insufficiently studied and understood.” Preposterous as this explanation might seem after seven or eight months of Trump-pounding by National Review, Commentary, the Weekly Standard and the vast liberal media conspiracy, the actual reasons proposed by Nicholas Frankovich are even more so.

I will confine myself to the three coherent ones:

“The so-called alt-right, a fusion of nationalism with anti-Semitism and white separatism, has attached itself to Trumpism. Feed the host, and you feed the parasite.” That’s the reason, according to Frankovich – insufficiently studied and understood. But this makes about as much sense as blaming Trump for the violent fascists who “protest” his speeches. To be fair, Frankovich concedes that Trump himself is not a racist or anti-Semite, and also that most of his supporters are innocent, as well. But then he leaps to absurdities like this: “One reason that conservative writers are more likely than the average conservative to be Never Trump may be that they know that the alt-right exists. They spend more time in the political corners of the Internet where that particular virus that the Trump campaign has emboldened is still largely confined.”

So the big, insufficiently understood reason for Never Trump is that somewhere in the political corners of the Internet is a virus that Trump has somehow emboldened, but which is still largely confined to those corners. Perhaps the Never Trumpers haven’t noticed that the virus of anti-Semitic, anti-white racism is out in the streets in large and violent numbers, protesting Trump rallies, or swelling the ranks of Bernie supporters, or that Bernie himself has picked three anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist allies to be on the platform committee of the Democratic Party. If Trump’s virus is still confined to fringe characters on the Internet and Bernie’s and Hillary’s are out in the streets and on the Democrats’ platform committee, what reason can there be for opposing the one man (because he’s the candidate, fellas) who can stop them?

This leads Frankovich “to a second under-examined reason that many conservatives oppose Trump’s candidacy: It has had the effect of legitimizing race-based grievance and of expanding the sphere of speech that is considered taboo, or politically incorrect.” In other words, since Trump has had the balls to blast through the orthodoxy of the left-wing party line, he has also expanded the sphere of politically incorrect speech, which includes racism! How about the racism of the Democratic Party, which remains, after all is said and done, politically correct?

Democrats support racial preferences in hiring, in school admissions — in fact, in virtually every aspect of public life. Democrats control every large inner city, every killing zone – Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis – and control them 100%, and have done so for fifty to a hundred years. Every racist oppression in inner-city America, the failed schools that deny minority children a shot at the American dream, the welfare systems that drive fathers out of the homes and encourage dependency at every level, are products of Democratic policies.

Yet, the Never Trumpers are upset not over the perpetuation of this racist nightmare, which their campaign could make possible, but over the fact that Trump has expanded the discourse – the freedom to speak! – of American politicians and their constituents.

Finally, according to Frankovich, “Trumpism reflects a degradation of American culture but also promotes it. Some of Trump’s fans thrill to his transgression of commonly accepted standards of decency and decorum. Others tolerate it, for the sake of some good they hope he might achieve.” Thinking about this transgression, I am put in mind of a quip from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall: “Lyndon Johnson is a politician. You know the ethics those guys have. It’s like a notch beneath child molester.”

The transgression is ongoing; only one side gets to do it more than the other. When Democrats warn voters that black churches will burn if Republicans are elected, as they have done in several presidential campaigns, or accuse Republicans of wanting to put blacks back in chains, as Joe Biden did in the last election, does that lie within the bounds of “accepted standards of decency and decorum”?

The degradation of the political culture is now a fact of political life, as Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton knows all too well. Does fighting back in kind equate to a promotion of degradation? If it does, should one not do it? Should Trump fight with one hand tied behind his back like other Republicans? Should Trump’s chief Republican rivals also have refrained from taunts in kind?

What Frankovich and the Never Trumpers refuse to see is that the political contest as waged by Democrats – and not only Democrats – is already a form of war. Trump’s political style and tactics have allowed him to prevail on a primary battlefield where no one thought he could survive.

Now the battle is with a racist party that wants to dismantle our borders and cripple our defenses in the holy war that Islamists are waging against us. There is no neutral ground. Nor is there a referee to impose rules of decorum and punish transgressors. Only the electorate can do that. The Republican electorate, however, has already spoken on this issue. Their nominee is Trump, and anyone who cherishes our constitutional system is bound to respect that.

Or have the honesty to declare their support for the other side. Or sit the battle out. What is not acceptable is to sabotage your own army in the field and pretend that you don’t want the enemy to win.








60  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Andrew Napolitano: Hillary on the Ropes... on: June 05, 2016, 09:00:03 PM
Hillary On The Ropes

By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, June 1, 2016
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a yearlong investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Mrs. Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Mrs. Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Mrs. Clinton, none used a private server and, though Gen. Powell and Miss Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Mrs. Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general’s report is damning to Mrs. Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Mrs. Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department information technology folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

In addition, the report rejects her argument — already debunked by the director of the FBI — that the FBI is merely conducting a security review of the State Department’s email storage and usage policies rather than a criminal investigation of her. The FBI does not conduct security reviews. The inspector general does. This report is the result of that review, and Mrs. Clinton flunked it, as it reveals that she refused to comply with the same State Department storage and transparency regulations she was enforcing against others.

Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act. She preferred to go dark, or back to the 19th-century technology of having documents read aloud to her.

This report continues the cascade of legal misery that has befallen her in the past eight months. The State Department she once headed has rejected all of her arguments. Two federal judges have ordered her aides to testify about a conspiracy in her office to evade federal laws. She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than grave.

We know that Mrs. Clinton’s own camp finally recognizes just how dangerous this email controversy has become for her. Over the Memorial Day weekend, John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, sent an email to her most important donors. In it, he recognizes the need to arm the donors with talking points to address Mrs. Clinton’s rapidly deteriorating support with Democratic primary voters.

The Podesta email suggests attempting to minimize Mrs. Clinton’s use of her private server by comparing it to Gen. Powell’s occasional use of his personal email account. This is a risky and faulty comparison. None of Gen. Powell’s emails from his private account — only two or three dozen — contained matters that were confidential, secret or top-secret.

Mrs. Clinton diverted all of her email traffic to her private server — some 66,000 emails, about 2,200 of which contained state secrets. Moreover, Gen. Powell never used his own server, nor is he presently seeking to become the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land.

The inspector general who wrote the report was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013, after Mrs. Clinton left office. He did a commendable job — one so thorough and enlightening that it has highlighted the important role that inspectors general play in government today.

Today every department in the executive branch has, by law, an inspector general in place who has the authority to investigate the department — keeping officials’ feet to the fire by exposing failure to comply with federal law.

If you are curious as to why the inspector general of the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s years as secretary did not discover all of Mrs. Clinton’s lawbreaking while she was doing it, the answer will alarm but probably not surprise you.

There was no inspector general at the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary — a state of affairs unique in modern history; and she knew that. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?


• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of seven books on the U.S. Constitution.
61  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama State Dept. Admits Doctoring Briefing Tape... on: June 05, 2016, 09:59:41 AM
Obama State Department admits briefing footage ACKNOWLEDGING DECEPTION on Iran deal INTENTIONALLY DELETED

Posted By Pamela Geller On June 4, 2016

The Obama administration can do whatever it wants. It can lie openly and brazenly to the American people — in service of Iran’s jihad — and there is never any accountability. And this comes after Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and a myriad of other scandals at which the lapdog media did everything it could to cover for this corrupt and feckless regime. Treason on a massive scale.



“State Department admits briefing footage on Iran deal intentionally deleted,” Fox News [1], June 1, 2016:

The State Department, in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal.

“There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment.

The State Department had faced questions earlier this year over the block of missing tape from a December 2013 briefing. At that briefing, then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked by Fox News’ James Rosen about an earlier claim that no direct, secret talks were underway between the U.S. and Iran – when, in fact, they were.

Psaki at the time seemed to admit the discrepancy, saying: “There are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.”

However, Fox News later discovered the Psaki exchange was missing from the department’s official website and its YouTube channel. Eight minutes from the briefing, including the comments on the Iran deal, were edited out and replaced with a white-flash effect.

Officials initially suggested a “glitch” occurred.

But on Wednesday, current State Department spokesman Kirby said someone had censored the video intentionally. He said he couldn’t find out who was responsible, but described such action as unacceptable.

While saying there were “no rules [or] regulations in place that prohibited” this at the time, Kirby said: “Deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability.”

Kirby said he learned that on the same day of the 2013 briefing, a video editor received a call from a State Department public affairs official who made “a specific request … to excise that portion of the briefing.”

Kirby says he has since ordered the original video restored on all platforms and asked the State Department’s legal adviser to examine the matter. He said no further investigation will be made, primarily because no rules were in place against such actions….
62  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Benghazi and related matters on: June 04, 2016, 08:40:46 PM
Crafty - where do you want it posted?
63  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama State Department Admits to Deleting Briefing Footage... on: June 04, 2016, 03:33:10 PM
Obama State Department admits briefing footage ACKNOWLEDGING DECEPTION on Iran deal INTENTIONALLY DELETED

Posted By Pamela Geller On June 4, 2016

The Obama administration can do whatever it wants. It can lie openly and brazenly to the American people — in service of Iran’s jihad — and there is never any accountability. And this comes after Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and a myriad of other scandals at which the lapdog media did everything it could to cover for this corrupt and feckless regime. Treason on a massive scale.



“State Department admits briefing footage on Iran deal intentionally deleted,” Fox News [1], June 1, 2016:

The State Department, in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal.

“There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment.

The State Department had faced questions earlier this year over the block of missing tape from a December 2013 briefing. At that briefing, then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked by Fox News’ James Rosen about an earlier claim that no direct, secret talks were underway between the U.S. and Iran – when, in fact, they were.

Psaki at the time seemed to admit the discrepancy, saying: “There are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.”

However, Fox News later discovered the Psaki exchange was missing from the department’s official website and its YouTube channel. Eight minutes from the briefing, including the comments on the Iran deal, were edited out and replaced with a white-flash effect.

Officials initially suggested a “glitch” occurred.

But on Wednesday, current State Department spokesman Kirby said someone had censored the video intentionally. He said he couldn’t find out who was responsible, but described such action as unacceptable.

While saying there were “no rules [or] regulations in place that prohibited” this at the time, Kirby said: “Deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability.”

Kirby said he learned that on the same day of the 2013 briefing, a video editor received a call from a State Department public affairs official who made “a specific request … to excise that portion of the briefing.”

Kirby says he has since ordered the original video restored on all platforms and asked the State Department’s legal adviser to examine the matter. He said no further investigation will be made, primarily because no rules were in place against such actions….
64  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How The Democrats Destroyed Atlanta... on: June 01, 2016, 12:46:45 PM
How the Democratic Party Ruined Atlanta

Corruption, tax-&-spend, and racial demagoguery: The familiar Democratic trinity claims another city.


June 1, 2016
John Perazzo

Atlanta, Georgia has not been governed by a Republican mayor since 1879. Most significant is the fact that the city has been led exclusively by Democrats since the 1960s and early '70s, the period when the Democratic Party emphatically broke away from centrist liberals and fell predominantly under the sway of its far left wing, a course which it still follows to this day.

One of Atlanta's more important political figures during this Democratic era was its first African American mayor, Maynard Jackson, who held office for three (non-consecutive) four-year terms: 1974-78, 1978–82, and 1990–94. In May 1974, the newly elected Jackson stoked racial tensions in Atlanta when he undermined the authority of the incumbent (white) police chief, John Inman, by making him subservient to the newly appointed “Public Safety Commissioner,” the black activist Reginald Eaves. Eaves was a longtime friend of Jackson's and had no law-enforcement experience whatsoever. Corrupt to his core and possessing an unparalleled sense of shameless entitlement, Eaves openly and defiantly used public money to purchase extra options on his fully loaded city vehicle, stating: “If I can’t ride in a little bit of comfort, to hell with it.” He sparked further controversy when he appointed an ex-convict as his personal secretary and instituted a quota system that gave preference to African Americans for hirings and promotions within the police department. Eventually, in 1978, Mayor Jackson was forced to fire Eaves for the role the latter had played in a scandal where he had helped police officers cheat on promotions exams.

In public works projects and municipal contracts, the race-obsessed Mayor Jackson pressed for vigorous affirmative-action programs and set-asides favoring black-owned enterprises. Numerous local businessmen were distressed by Jackson's very obvious race preferences.

By the late '70s, the Atlanta business community had become increasingly concerned about the city's rapidly rising crime rate. Between 1978 and 1979 alone, Atlanta experienced a 69% increase in homicides. It now had the highest murder rate—and the highest overall crime rate—of any city in the United States. The police force, meanwhile, dwindled in size by 25% between 1975 and 1979, causing the officers to be generally overextended and demoralized.

In January 1994, as Jackson's third and final term as mayor was winding down, one of the most politically explosive trials in Atlanta history centered on an affirmative-action program by which Jackson's administration had tried to increase the presence of black-owned shops and businesses at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. A federal court jury convicted a former airport commissioner and councilman on 83 counts of mail fraud, 4 counts of tax evasion, and 43 counts of accepting bribes from an airport concessionaire in return for favorable treatment, like reduced rent at the airport.

In 2002, an investigation by The Atlanta Journal Constitution found that friends of Jackson and another former Atlanta mayor, Bill Campbell (1994-2002), for years had received “the vast majority” of contracts awarded by the Atlanta airport which were supposed to go to members of the black community generally. In at least 80 of the 100 contracts reviewed during the probe, one or more of the business partners involved had cultivated a relationship with either Jackson, Campbell, or both. Further, most of those partners had contributed money to the Jackson and/or Campbell mayoral campaigns.

As for Mayor Campbell, by no means was this his only brush with political scandal. A seven-year federal corruption probe resulted, in 2006, in the convictions of no fewer than ten city officials tied to his administration. Campbell, for his part, was convicted of three counts of federal tax evasion.

Where political corruption runs rampant, it is often closely accompanied by gross financial mismanagement—Atlanta being a case in point. For many years the city's political leaders—in exchange for the slavish political support of unionized public-sector workers—promised an unending array of unsustainably exorbitant healthcare and pension benefits to those employees. Consequently, by 2011 Atlanta's city government owed no less than $1.5 billion in unfunded liabilities on the pensions of its public-sector workers. That ominous figure was expected to triple within ten years if left unchecked. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Atlanta City Council in 2011 approved a long-overdue restructuring of the city's pension system.

The mismanagement of Atlanta's finances is reflected also in the economic condition of city residents as a whole. Today, some 29.5% of those residents live in poverty. And according to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, Atlanta has a greater disparity between rich and poor than any other urban area in America.

As in so many Democrat-run U.S. cities, Atlanta's public-school system has grown, over time, into a bureaucratic monstrosity of waste and ineptitude—exhibiting efficiency only in its ability to separate taxpayers from their hard-earned money. Every year the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) system gobbles up some $15,000 in taxpayer funds—about 50% more than the national average—for the education-related expenses of each K-12 pupil in its jurisdiction. Notwithstanding these massive investments, APS students perform abysmally on achievement tests designed to measure their academic competence. In 2013, for example, proficiency rates for APS eighth-graders were a meager 22% in reading and 17% in math. Moreover, the high-school graduation rates of APS students in recent years have ranged between 51% and 59%, far below the national average of 78%.

No profile of Atlanta would be complete without a mention of the crime rates that have long plagued the city. To name just a few, Atlanta's rates of murder, robbery, and auto theft exceed the corresponding national averages by 355%, 405%, and 320%, respectively. In 2013, Atlanta ranked, statistically, as the twelfth most dangerous city in the United States. From a global perspective, the incidence of gun murders in Atlanta is about the same as in South Africa, a nation infamous for its exceedingly high homicide rate.

Atlanta is merely one of many Democrat-run cities whose economies, school systems, and quality-of-life indicators have been run into the ground by their political leadership. And yet, for decade upon decade, Atlanta voters have never questioned their blind devotion to the Democratic Party. If nothing else, they are living proof that, to many Americans, party loyalty is quite literally the emotional equivalent of religious faith. False gods are almost never recognized for being the frauds and imposters that they are.
65  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The "Never Trump" Lunatics... on: June 01, 2016, 07:58:43 AM
These people (Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, et. al.) are pathetic and detestable in my view.  They clearly value their own establishment connections and power base above the general welfare of the country, and are perfectly willing to see Hillary Clinton elected president.  In fact, I think many of them get a perverse schadenfreude moment just thinking about a Hillary victory.  See Erickson's latest article below.

Perhaps No Scapegoat

By Erick Erickson  |  June 1, 2016, 05:00am


Should David French make it on the ballot in Georgia, I would gladly vote for him. David French, unlike any other candidate for President, left his job after 9/11 and joined the military to fight for his country. He is a conservative scholar, has provided a lot of pro bono legal work to good causes, and is someone I could vote for as opposed to having others suggest I choose between the evils of two lessers.

I know who David French is, but had never spoken to him until around 10 o’clock on Monday evening. He appears to be the candidate behind Bill Kristol’s tweet about a third party candidate. I told David on Monday night I thought he needed to come out with a pile of money committed. Kristol’s tweet, however, along with an article mentioning David, rushed the story quicker than David wanted. It was an unforced error that forces David out quicker than I think he intended. A bit humorously, I suddenly find myself getting credit and blame for something I played no role in and did not know about until just over 24 hours ago.

Over the past few weeks a lot of names have circulated for an independent or third party run. I focused on Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney, neither of whom will do it. As friends of mine have increasingly become desperate for a candidate, i have moved more and more to thinking perhaps we should not offer up a candidate.

Donald Trump and his chief supporters have said over and over again that they do not need me or any other conservative in order to win in November. According to Trump, he is going to reshape the Republican coalition and beat the Democrats. More and more I am inclined to let him try.

I do not think Donald Trump will win. Should Trump lose in November, he and his supporters will be desperate to find someone to blame other than Trump himself. An independent candidate provides them a scapegoat to avoid responsibility.

It is very similar to Al Gore in 2000. Gore had Ralph Nader to blame and the Democrats never had to take seriously their fundamental problems. They had to again get clobbered with John Kerry in order to take a hint and find a happy warrior who was going to campaign on “hope and change” instead of piss, vinegar, and Mexican rapists like Trump is doing now.

The Republican Party, with Trump, is embracing a campaign of racism, nativism, and fear mongering wrapped in a Messiah complex of a man who promises everything without limits. If it wins in November, I will gladly say I had no role to play in that victory. If it loses in November, I will gladly cheer Donald Trump’s defeat. But I am increasingly convinced an independent candidate just gives Trump one more excuse and one more target of blame for what I think is his inevitable defeat.

Should David French raise the money and get out the ballot, I’d relish being able to support him and vote for him. I had to hold my nose for McCain. I had to hold my nose for Romney. I will not hold my nose for Trump. I will not vote for the man. I would gladly vote for David French — a man willing to drop everything to serve his country at war, a far more noble endeavor than anything Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump have ever done. I will contribute money to David French. For the first time in two cycles I’d have a candidate I want to vote for.

But more and more I wonder if, for the good of the conservative movement, we should watch Trump fall on his own instead of providing him a conservative scapegoat.
66  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Voter Fraud... on: June 01, 2016, 07:25:55 AM

The Zombie Voter Apocalypse: California Refuses to Admit Its Voter Fraud Problem

Hans von Spakovsky / Jana Minich / May 26, 2016

Hollywood has always loved making films about the walking dead, but in Southern California it appears they have a real life problem with “zombie” voters.

An investigation by CBSLA2 and KCAL9 found that hundreds of deceased persons are still on voter registration rolls in the area, and that many of these names have been voting for years in Los Angeles.

For example, John Cenkner died in 2003, according to Social Security Administration records, yet he voted in the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. His daughter told the station that she was “astounded” and couldn’t “understand how anybody” could get away with this.

Another voter, Julita Abutin, died in 2006 but voted in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. According to CBS, the county confirmed they have “signed vote-by-mail envelopes” from Abutin since she passed away. So either someone has been forging her signature or her ghost has quite an earthly presence.

The investigation revealed that 265 deceased persons voted in Southern California, 215 of them in Los Angeles County. Thirty-two were repeat voters, with eight posthumously-cast ballots each. One woman who died in 1988 has been voting for 26 years, including in the 2014 election.

This report comes 20 years after the contested election of Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., from this same area. An investigation by a U.S. House committee found that hundreds of illegal ballots were cast by noncitizens and improper absentee ballots.

In that 1996 election, when she defeated incumbent Bob Dornan, a winning margin of 979 votes was whittled down to only 35 votes or fewer when that voter fraud was factored in. In cases like these, where elections are decided by only a small number of votes, the harmful effects of voter fraud are most obvious.

Yet here, two decades later, California has still not taken the necessary steps to ensure the reliability of its electoral system.

As a result of the investigation, Los Angeles County supervisors called for an investigation into the findings. Even if these particular zombie voters did not change the outcome of an election, each fraudulently cast ballot stole and diluted the vote of a legitimate voter.

Cases like these and many others show that voter fraud is a real phenomenon and a potential threat to the integrity of the election process.

The Los Angeles County Registrar pointed to the 1200 to 2000 voter registrations removed every month to update records and told reporters, “There’s really no way to connect a person whose death is recorded with a person who is registered to vote unless we get some kind of notification from the family.”

But that is plain nonsense. Other states do frequent comparisons between their voter registration lists and the death databases maintained by the Social Security Administration, and other state agencies consult vital records departments in order to remove voters who have died.

The CBS investigation shows both that voter fraud exists and that this type of fraudulent voting is detectable through proper investigation.

CBS reports that California is the only state that does not comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, something the Obama administration has basically ignored.

The Help America Vote Act establishes mandatory minimum standards of accuracy for state voter registration lists and requires states to engage in regular maintenance and updates to remove ineligible voters who die or move away.

California is obviously not complying with these requirements.
67  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Horowitz: America is the World's Most Inclusive Nation - By Far... on: May 26, 2016, 09:43:50 PM
The biggest racial lie

Far from still racist, America is the world’s most inclusive nation

By David Horowitz - - Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Let's begin with two statements on race — one that is offensive and false, the other self-evidently true. Taken together, they illuminate the toxic state of the national dialogue on race.

The false statement is that America is a racist country or, in its unhinged version: America is a "white supremacist" nation. This accusation is one that so-called progressives regularly make against a country that outlaws racial discrimination, has twice elected a black president, two black secretaries of state, three black national security advisers and two successive black attorneys general along with thousands of black elected officials, mayors, police chiefs and congressmen. In addition, blacks play dominant roles in shaping America's popular and sports cultures, and thus in shaping the outlooks and expectations of American youth.

The claim that America is a white supremacist nation is not only deranged and racist against whites, but is an act of hostility toward blacks, who enjoy opportunities and rights as Americans that are greater than those of any other country under the sun, including every African nation and Caribbean country governed by blacks for hundreds and even thousands of years.

The self-evidently true statement about race in America is that America is not a racist country but, in fact, the most tolerant and inclusive nation embracing large ethnic minorities on earth. Yet this true statement cannot be uttered in public without inviting charges of "racism" against the speaker. Consequently, all public figures and most people generally, clear their throats before speaking about race by genuflecting to the claim that racism against blacks is still a prevalent and systemic problem even though there is no credible evidence to sustain either claim.

By contrast, the offensively false statement that America is a racist nation, is one that our current (black) president has endorsed. According to President Obama, "racism is still part of our DNA that's passed on." Variations of the claim are ubiquitous among self-styled liberals, progressives, so-called civil rights leaders and campus protesters. The title of a recent book by a black university professor summarizes this politically correct slander: "Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul." The core claim of the Black Lives Matter movement — which is the chief activist force in advancing this claim, and is "strongly supported" by 46 percent of Democrats, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll — is that America is a white supremacist nation, whose law enforcement agencies regularly gun down innocent blacks.

Contrary to Mr. Obama's malicious assertion about his own country, the DNA of America — unique among the nations of the world — is not racism but the exact opposite. In its very beginnings, America dedicated itself to the proposition that all men are created equal and were endowed by their Creator with the right to be free. Over the next two generations, America made good on that proposition, though this achievement is regularly slighted by "progressives" because it didn't take place overnight.

The historically accurate view of what happened is this: Black Africans were enslaved by other black Africans and sold at slave markets to Western slavers. America inherited this slave system from the British Empire, and once it was independent, ended the slave trade and almost all slavery in the Northern states within 20 years of its birth. America then risked its survival as a nation and sacrificed 350,000 mostly white Union lives, to end slavery in the South as well. In other words, as far as blacks are concerned, America's true legacy is not slavery, but freedom. As noted, American blacks today have more freedom, rights and privileges than blacks in any black nation in the world.

These are important facts that have been obscured in our politically correct university culture and throughout the K-12 systems whose teachers are trained in university schools of education. Our literary culture is itself infected with a crude anti-white racism that beggars belief. The National Book Award this year was given to a poisonous racial tract called "Between the World and Me," written by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the form of a letter to his son. In the book, Mr. Coates explains to his son that cops who murder innocent black teens "are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy." In an all-too-typical "history" lesson, Mr. Coates informs his son: "We did not choose our fences. They were imposed on us by Virginia planters obsessed with enslaving as many Americans as possible."

In fact, Virginia planters did not enslave blacks originally and could not buy more black slaves once America ended the slave trade in 1807. Mr. Coates singles out Virginia planters because some of America's most prominent Founders, in particular the author of the Declaration of Independence, were Virginians and owned slaves. But Mr. Coates and every other black in America and throughout the Western Hemisphere is free because of Virginia planters like Thomas Jefferson. We need to begin our racial discussions with these facts, and treat the claim that America is a "white supremacist" nation, for what it is: anti-American and anti-white racism.

• David Horowitz is the author of the newly published "Progressive Racism" (Encounter Books, 2016).
68  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Horowitz: America is World's Most Inclusive Nation By Far... on: May 26, 2016, 09:30:41 PM
The biggest racial lie

Far from still racist, America is the world’s most inclusive nation

By David Horowitz - - Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Let's begin with two statements on race — one that is offensive and false, the other self-evidently true. Taken together, they illuminate the toxic state of the national dialogue on race.

The false statement is that America is a racist country or, in its unhinged version: America is a "white supremacist" nation. This accusation is one that so-called progressives regularly make against a country that outlaws racial discrimination, has twice elected a black president, two black secretaries of state, three black national security advisers and two successive black attorneys general along with thousands of black elected officials, mayors, police chiefs and congressmen. In addition, blacks play dominant roles in shaping America's popular and sports cultures, and thus in shaping the outlooks and expectations of American youth.

The claim that America is a white supremacist nation is not only deranged and racist against whites, but is an act of hostility toward blacks, who enjoy opportunities and rights as Americans that are greater than those of any other country under the sun, including every African nation and Caribbean country governed by blacks for hundreds and even thousands of years.

The self-evidently true statement about race in America is that America is not a racist country but, in fact, the most tolerant and inclusive nation embracing large ethnic minorities on earth. Yet this true statement cannot be uttered in public without inviting charges of "racism" against the speaker. Consequently, all public figures and most people generally, clear their throats before speaking about race by genuflecting to the claim that racism against blacks is still a prevalent and systemic problem even though there is no credible evidence to sustain either claim.

By contrast, the offensively false statement that America is a racist nation, is one that our current (black) president has endorsed. According to President Obama, "racism is still part of our DNA that's passed on." Variations of the claim are ubiquitous among self-styled liberals, progressives, so-called civil rights leaders and campus protesters. The title of a recent book by a black university professor summarizes this politically correct slander: "Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul." The core claim of the Black Lives Matter movement — which is the chief activist force in advancing this claim, and is "strongly supported" by 46 percent of Democrats, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll — is that America is a white supremacist nation, whose law enforcement agencies regularly gun down innocent blacks.

Contrary to Mr. Obama's malicious assertion about his own country, the DNA of America — unique among the nations of the world — is not racism but the exact the opposite. In its very beginnings, America dedicated itself to the proposition that all men are created equal and were endowed by their Creator with the right to be free. Over the next two generations, America made good on that proposition, though this achievement is regularly slighted by "progressives" because it didn't take place overnight.

The historically accurate view of what happened is this: Black Africans were enslaved by other black Africans and sold at slave markets to Western slavers. America inherited this slave system from the British Empire, and once it was independent, ended the slave trade and almost all slavery in the Northern states within 20 years of its birth. America then risked its survival as a nation and sacrificed 350,000 mostly white Union lives, to end slavery in the South as well. In other words, as far as blacks are concerned, America's true legacy is not slavery, but freedom. As noted, American blacks today have more freedom, rights and privileges than blacks in any black nation in the world.

These are important facts that have been obscured in our politically correct university culture and throughout the K-12 systems whose teachers are trained in university schools of education. Our literary culture is itself infected with a crude anti-white racism that beggars belief. The National Book Award this year was given to a poisonous racial tract called "Between the World and Me," written by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the form of a letter to his son. In the book, Mr. Coates explains to his son that cops who murder innocent black teens "are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy." In an all-too-typical "history" lesson, Mr. Coates informs his son: "We did not choose our fences. They were imposed on us by Virginia planters obsessed with enslaving as many Americans as possible."

In fact, Virginia planters did not enslave blacks originally and could not buy more black slaves once America ended the slave trade in 1807. Mr. Coates singles out Virginia planters because some of America's most prominent Founders, in particular the author of the Declaration of Independence, were Virginians and owned slaves. But Mr. Coates and every other black in America and throughout the Western Hemisphere is free because of Virginia planters like Thomas Jefferson. We need to begin our racial discussions with these facts, and treat the claim that America is a "white supremacist" nation, for what it is: anti-American and anti-white racism.

• David Horowitz is the author of the newly published "Progressive Racism" (Encounter Books, 2016).
69  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Business Debt Delinquencies Are Now Higher Than In 2008... on: May 24, 2016, 09:27:54 PM
Business Debt Delinquencies Are Now Higher Than When Lehman Brothers Collapsed In 2008

Monday, 23 May 2016    Michael Snyder  www.alt-market.com/articles/2901-business-debt-delinquencies-are-now-higher-than-when-lehman-brothers-collapsed-in-2008

This article was written by Michael Snyder and originally published at The Economic Collapse

You are about to see more very clear evidence that a new economic crisis has already begun.  During economic recoveries, business debt delinquencies generally fall, and during times of economic recession business debt delinquencies generally rise.  In fact, you will see below that business debt delinquencies shot up dramatically just prior to the last two recessions, and the exact same thing is happening again right now.  In 2008, business debt delinquencies increased at a very frightening pace just before Lehman Brothers collapsed, and this was a very clear sign that big trouble was ahead.  Unfortunately for us, in 2016 business debt delinquencies have already shot up above the level they were sitting at just before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and every time debt delinquencies have ever gotten this high the U.S. economy has always fallen into recession.

In article after article, I have shown that key indicators for the U.S. economy started falling in either late 2014 or at some point during 2015.  Well, business debt delinquencies are another example of this phenomenon.  According to Wolf Richter, business debt delinquencies have shot up an astounding 137 percent since the fourth quarter of 2014…

Delinquencies of commercial and industrial loans at all banks, after hitting a low point in Q4 2014 of $11.7 billion, have begun to balloon (they’re delinquent when they’re 30 days or more past due). Initially, this was due to the oil & gas fiasco, but increasingly it’s due to trouble in many other sectors, including retail.

Between Q4 2014 and Q1 2016, delinquencies spiked 137% to $27.8 billion.

And we never see this kind of rise unless the U.S. economy is heading into a recession.  Here is more from Wolf Richter…

Note how, in this chart by the Board of Governors of the Fed, delinquencies of C&I loans start rising before recessions (shaded areas). I added the red marks to point out where we stand in relationship to the Lehman moment:


Business loan delinquencies are a leading indicator of big economic trouble.

To me, this couldn’t be any clearer.

Just like the U.S. government and just like U.S. consumers, U.S. businesses are absolutely drowning in debt.

In fact, a report that was just released found that debt at U.S. companies has been growing at a pace that is 50 times faster than the rate that cash has been growing.

Just imagine what it would mean for your family if your debt was growing 50 times faster than your bank account.  Needless to say, this is an extremely troubling development…

Well, American companies may just have a mountain’s worth of problems, according to a new report from Andrew Chang and David Tesher of S&P Global Ratings.

“At the same time, the imbalance between cash and debt outstanding we reported on last year has gotten even worse: Debt outstanding increased 50x that of cash in 2015,” wrote Chang and Tesher.

“Total debt rose by roughly $850 billion to $6.6 trillion last year, dwarfing the 1% cash growth ($17 billion).”

And the really bad news is that banks all across the country are starting to tighten credit to businesses.

In other words, they are beginning to become much more reluctant to loan money to businesses because debts are going bad at such an alarming rate.

When the flow of credit to the business community starts to slow down, it is inevitable that the overall economy slows down as well.  It is just basic economics.  So the deterioration of the U.S. economy that we have witnessed so far is just the beginning of a process that is going to take quite a while to play out.

And let us not forget that most of the rest of the world is already is much worse shape than we are.  Most global financial markets are officially in bear market territory right now, and some nations are already experiencing full-blown economic depression.

Now that the early chapters of the “next crisis” are here, most American families find themselves ill-equipped to deal with another major downturn.  In fact, USA Today is reporting that approximately two-thirds of the country is currently living paycheck to paycheck…

Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans’ finances remain precarious as ever.

These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill.

What are these people going to do when they lose their jobs or their businesses go under?

If you have any doubt that the U.S. economy is already in recession mode, just look at this chart over and over.

For months, I have been warning that the same patterns that immediately preceded previous recessions were happening once again, and this rise in debt delinquencies is another striking example of this phenomenon.

This stuff isn’t complicated.  Anyone that is willing to be honest with themselves should be able to see it.  As a society, we have been making very, very bad decisions for a very, very long period of time, and what we are watching unfold right now are the inevitable consequences of those decisions.
70  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fed Rate Hike Coming in June... on: May 24, 2016, 07:22:53 AM
Fed Minutes Indicate Rate Hike In June

Wednesday, 18 May 2016    Brandon Smith

As predicted right here at Alt-Market, the Federal Reserve is pressing for a second rate hike this June, right before the Brexit vote in the UK to determine if they will leave the EU.  As I have warned on numerous occasions, the Fed is ignoring all fundamental data and pretending as if a "recovery" is progressing in order to justify a rate move.  Markets stalled today after being slapped down the past week as hints of a rate hike hit the mainstream, and oil dropped quickly on the mere threat of a stronger dollar.  If a rate hike occurs (and I believe it will), expect markets to fall dramatically, back into the 15,000 point (Dow) range by the end of the second quarter.  Stocks have NOT priced in a rate hike in a realistic manner; in fact, the markets have essentially ignored the possibility and this is probably going to bite them on the ass.  If the Brexit passes as well, expect a GLOBAL market downturn.  June is going to be a very interesting month...

 

Federal Reserve policy makers indicated that a June interest-rate increase was likely if the economy continued to improve, boosting market expectations they will act next month.

“Most participants judged that if incoming data were consistent with economic growth picking up in the second quarter, labor market conditions continuing to strengthen and inflation making progress toward the committee’s 2 percent objective, then it likely would be appropriate for the committee to increase the target range for the federal funds rate in June,” according to minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee’s April 26-27 meeting released Wednesday in Washington.

Officials were divided over whether those conditions were likely to be met in time. “Participants expressed a range of views about the likelihood that incoming information would make it appropriate to adjust the stance of policy at the time of the next meeting,” the minutes stated.

Referring to the June meeting, officials “generally judged it appropriate to leave their policy options open and maintain the flexibility to make this decision” based on how the economy evolves, the minutes said.

“The tone was quite hawkish, and I think probably surprised many market participants,” said Tony Bedikian, managing director of global markets for Citizens Bank in Boston. “It looks like the Fed put the June hike relatively aggressively on the table, so long as the economic data continues to show positive signs.”

 

READ MORE HERE:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-18/most-fed-officials-saw-june-hike-likely-if-economy-warrants
71  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Oil Price Volatility and What It Portends... on: April 25, 2016, 10:16:32 PM
Oil Market Hype And Crisis Signal Greater Troubles Ahead

Wednesday, 20 April 2016   Brandon Smith - www.alt-market.com


Most people are not avid followers of economic news, and I don’t blame them. Financial analysis is for the most part boring and tedious and you would have to be some kind of crazy to commit a large slice of your life to it.

However, those of us who are that crazy do what we do (and do it independently) because underneath all the data and the charts and the overnight news feeds we see keys to future events. And if we are observant enough, we might even be able to warn people who don’t have the same proclivities but still deserve to know the reality of the world around them.

Most Americans and much of the rest of the planet probably were not aware of the recent oil producer’s meeting in Doha, Qatar this past Sunday, nor would they have cared. A bunch of rich guys in white dresses talking about oil production levels does not exactly spark the imagination. What the masses missed, though, was an event that could affect them deeply and economically for many months to come.

A little background highly summarized…

After the derivatives and credit crisis launched in 2007/2008 the Federal Reserve responded to disastrous levels of deflation with a fiat money printing bonanza. Everyone knows this. The problem was the central bankers never had any intention of actually using all that “cash” to support Main Street or the fundamentals of the economy.

Instead, they used their printing press and digital loan transfers to artificially re-inflate the coffers of banks and major corporations. It was a blood transfusion for vampires, if you will.

Through the use of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), quantitative easing, artificially low interest rates, and probably a host of secret actions we’ll never hear about, a steady stream of capital (or debt, to be more precise) was pumped through corporate conduits. The goal? To keep the U.S. from immediate bankruptcy through treasury bond purchases, to boost bank credit, and to allow companies to institute an unprecedented program of stock buybacks (a method by which a corporation buys back its own shares to reduce the amount on the market, thereby manipulating the value of the remaining shares to higher prices).

As the former head of the Federal Reserve Dallas branch, Richard Fisher admitted in an interview with CNBC:

“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."

Why would the Fed want to engineer a hollow rally in stocks? As I have said in the past, they did this because they know that the average American watches about 15 minutes of television news a day and gauges the health of the economy only on whether the Dow is green or red. From 2009 to 2015, the Fed felt it needed to support markets through fiat and keep the public placated and apathetic.

Stocks and bonds were not the only assets being propped up by the Fed, though. In tandem, oil markets were artificially inflated.

Oil suffered a historic spike in 2008, then collapsed to near $40 (WTI). Starting in 2009 and the initiation of major stimulus measures by the Fed, oil prices came back with a vengeance; almost as if the spike in 2008 was merely a measure to psychologically prepare the public for what was to come. In 2010 prices climbed near the $90 mark, then in 2011 they peaked at around $115 a barrel.

Then, something magical happened — in December, 2013, the Fed announced the Taper of QE3, something very few people predicted would actually happen (you can read this article breaking down why I predicted it would happen).

The taper involved slowly cycling out Fed purchases a month at a time. By mid-2014 the taper was nearing completion. Suddenly, oil markets began to tank. By October, 2014 the Fed finished the taper and oil collapsed, from $95 a barrel to a low of under $30 a barrel at the beginning of 2016. The correlation between the Fed taper and the overwhelming drop in oil prices is undeniable. Clearly, high oil prices were primarily dependent on Fed QE.



While equities fluctuated heavily after the end of QE3, they were still supported by the Fed’s other pillar – near zero interest rates. NIRP allowed the Fed to continue funneling cheap or free money to banks and corporations so they could keep stock buybacks rolling, but oil was done for.

Now, until recently, oil markets have NOT reflected the true state of the global economy. All other fundamental indicators have been in decline since the crash of 2008, including global exports, imports, the Baltic Dry Index, manufacturing, wages, real employment numbers, etc. Oil consumption in the U.S., according to the World Economic Forum, has sunk to lows not seen since 1997. Current levels of oil consumption are FAR below projections made in 2003 by the Energy Information Administration. By most tangible measurements, we never left the crisis of 2008.



Oil demand continued to fall but prices remained high because of Fed intervention. My theory: As with stocks, the Fed at that time needed to pump up the only other indicator the mainstream might notice as a sign of dangerous deflation – energy prices.  Dwindling demand is the real problem being hidden in chaos surrounding arguments over production.  The establishment prefers we focus completely on supply while ignoring the warnings of falling demand.

QE was the first pillar to be pulled from the false recovery, and oil markets plunged. At the end of 2015, the Fed removed the second pillar of NIRP and raised interest rates. OPEC members met to discuss a possible production freeze agreement but the conference failed to produce anything legitimate. This resulted in stocks crashing in extreme volatility to meet up with oil.

Then something magical happened once again. In mid-February, OPEC members and non-members arranged yet another meeting, this time with much fanfare and steady rumors hinting at a guaranteed production freeze deal. Oil began to climb back from the brink, and stocks rallied over the course of six more weeks.  All eyes were on Doha, Qatar and the oil agreement that would "save markets".

I bring up the recent history of oil markets because I want to give some perspective to those people who suffer from a disease I call "ticker tracking".  This disease causes extreme short attention span issues and loss of long term memory.  The dopamine addiction of ticker tracking makes people forget about long term trends and their relation to the events of today, to the point that they ignore all fundamentals in the name of watching little red and green lines day in and day out.

For example, the fact that the Doha meeting failed but did not result in an immediate and massive slide in oil and stocks sent ticker trackers crowing that the market "will never be allowed to fall".  Their affliction keeps them from realizing that the effects of Doha, like any other major financial event in the past, take TIME to set in.  Not to mention, they seem oblivious to the implications of oil struggling to move comfortably beyond $40 a barrel.

Remember, oil was around $60 (WTI) six months ago, and had held over $100 (WTI) for years before then.  The crash in oil markets has ALREADY happened, folks.  What we are witnessing today is the last vestiges of that crash playing out in extreme volatility.  Now we wait for equities to fall and meet oil, as they did at the beginning of 2016, and as they eventually will again.

Are stocks tracking oil prices? It may not be an absolute correlation, and they do tend to decouple at times, but the overall trend has been consistent; when oil falls, stocks loosely follow.

The Doha meeting was always a farce; that much was obvious before it even took place. Bloomberg along with other media outlets were planting rumors of backroom deals between Russia and Saudi Arabia before the Doha event which would solidify a production freeze. Numerous mainstream “experts” claimed an agreement was essentially a sure thing. Even some skeptics within the liberty movement were doubtless that a deal was certain because “the internationalists would never allow oil prices to continue to drag on the public perception of the economy.”

First, I am not a believer in the idea that global economic decisions are really made at these meetings. Any nation that has a central bank that is tied to the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund is a CONTROLLED nation. Period. Economic arrangements are handed down from on high, not debated spontaneously in open forums. Read Harper’s 1983 article on the BIS titled “Ruling The World Of Money” for more information on how globalists control the economic policies of nations.

Second, even if a person believes that such vital economic decisions as a global oil production freeze are decided in closed meetings while the press waits just outside, why would anyone buy into the Doha event?

I am not quite sure why some people were gullible enough to think that after 15 YEARS of oil producers refusing to come together on any form of meaningful agreement they would suddenly shake hands this year. The only hope markets had was the possibility that the Doha meeting would result in an empty deal that they could spin in the mainstream news as a legitimate “production freeze.” Apparently they won’t even be getting that.

The Doha talks ended in failure. All the signs said this would happen. As I wrote in my article “Lost Faith In Central Banks And The Economic End Game”:

For anyone who was betting on oil markets to continue their rally past the $40 per barrel mark, there was a lot of bad news. Saudi Arabia crushed optimism by announcing that it would not be entertaining a “production freeze” proposal unless ALL other oil producing nations, including Iran, also agreed to it.

Iran then doubly crushed optimism by announcing an increase in production rather than committing to a freeze.

Russia then administered the final blow by releasing data showing that their oil output had risen to historic levels, indicating that they will not be entering into any agreement on a production freeze.

Besides a recent overly optimistic (and rather suspicious inventory draw) which has caused a short term rebound, all indicators show that oil will be headed back to the lows seen at the beginning of this year.

The effects of the Doha failure were delayed by a convenient labor strike in Kuwait, which caused algo trading computers to buy en masse despite the negative news.  As I pointed out on Monday, though, the Kuwait situation would be very short lived.  Now, it is time to watch and wait for Saudi Arabia and Iran to begin battling over market share and increasing production even more.  These things take a little time to develop.

Currently oil has dropped back below $40(WTI) and markets are extremely volatile. I do not believe the failure of the Doha meeting alone will translate to a fantastic drop in stocks. But, I do believe that it is a very heavy straw added to the camel's back, and there is a negative trend developing before our very eyes that will become apparent in the next couple of months.

As I have said in the past, a market entirely supported by rumors and hearsay can rally quickly, but also lose all gains at the drop of a hat. What the Doha debacle represents is a signal that the establishment is incrementally abandoning support for market systems.  This is translating to a loss of faith in central banks and major financial institutions.

On top of this, look at the incredible amount of misinformation and misdirection that went into Doha, now completely exposed. The truth is crystal; the MSM lied and obfuscated helping the establishment to drive up oil prices and stocks, all for a mere six to eight weeks of market security.  As soon as these lies were revealed, volatility began to return.

If the oil market bubble can implode (as it already has) in such a way due to the striking of fundamentals, then stocks can also be destabilized as well. It will happen, and I believe 2016 is the year it will happen.

There are those out there that miscalled how the Doha meeting would end because they were blinded by a particularly dangerous bias; they have assumed that central banks and internationalists want or need to continue propping up markets indefinitely. This is not necessarily true. In fact, I have outlined time and again evidence showing that they are planning the opposite. That is to say, they are planning to deliberately bring down markets in a controlled manner.

Oil was the most recent system to be undermined, and stocks will likely follow before the year is out. The fall in oil and the circus at Doha signals a change in strategy by the globalists. It signals a shift towards the controlled demolition of our economy and the centralization of fiscal power into a single global administrative entity. Order out of chaos.

There is a steady stream of events in the next few months that can be used as a steam valve for sinking global markets. Watch the April Fed meeting carefully. The Fed recently held two “emergency meetings” along with a third surprise meeting between President Barack Obama and Fed Chair Janet Yellen. The last time such a meeting occurred the Fed hiked rates less than a month later. I expect that the Fed will raise rates once again either this month or in June.

Also, watch for the Brexit (the British exit from the EU) referendum in June. Such a development would greatly shock an already unsteady Europe as well as the rest of the West.

And, of course, watch for trends in oil and stocks, but do not get caught up in the day-to-day mindlessness of ticker tracking. It is pointless and will not help you to understand what is happening economically. In any economic crisis, stocks are the LAST indicator to turn negative and daily analysis by itself is in no way a crystal ball.

The next couple of months should be very interesting. Stay vigilant.
72  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim-Americans' "Enormous Contributions to our Country?" on: March 28, 2016, 10:07:24 PM
Obama: “We have to reject any attempt to stigmatize Muslim-Americans, and their enormous contributions to our country”

MARCH 27, 2016 8:48 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Obama’s timing is grotesque. After the Brussels jihad massacre, he should be talking about how he is ramping up our resistance to jihad terror, not about how we have to stop picking on the poor Muslims in America, whom no one is picking on in the first place.

“We have to reject any attempt to stigmatize Muslim-Americans,” i.e., we are not going to speak honestly about the motivating ideology of jihad terror, no matter how high the bodies pile up.

“…and their enormous contributions to our country and our way of life.” Yes, look at all the enormous contributions Muslims have made to our country and our way of life. Muslims remodeled the New York skyline. Muslims brought about the transformation of government buildings in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere into veritable fortresses, each with massive stone blocks outside to prevent jihadis from using truck bombs. Muslims provided the impetus for huge advances — and huge expenses — in the development of technology used to screen passengers in airports. Muslims are responsible for air travel being transformed from a glamorous, adventurous activity to a cramped, hectoring, inhospitable affair, with glum, shoeless hordes holding up their beltless trousers while being herded through intrusive and inefficient checkpoints. We also owe Muslims for insisting upon the political correctness that requires everyone to be humiliated equally. Passengers are poked, prodded, threatened, and treated as likely criminals while America is hamstrung from efficiently focusing on the true source of the problem.

We also must credit Muslims with increases in the U.S. government. It is now bigger, wealthier (on your tax money), and watching you more closely than it was on September 10, 2001. Muslims can take a bow for the creation of at least two government agencies — the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security — plus a massive expansion in the budgets of all manner of intelligence and law enforcement entities. Those bloated budgets are one manifestation of what is actually the greatest contribution that Muslims have made to our nation: the slow destruction of the American economy. Osama bin Laden explained that he mounted the 9/11 jihad terror attacks in order to weaken the American economy; in October 2004 he rejoiced at how he had induced the Americans to spend, spend, spend to try to stymie him: “Al-Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost — according to the lowest estimate — more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of al-Qaeda defeated a million dollars.”

And that was in 2004. How many more billions have been spent since then, even aside from the billions wasted on the nation-building misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? If Osama were alive today, he could look with satisfaction on an America that is poorer, uglier, meaner, more dangerous, less productive, and less efficient than it was on September 10, 2001.

Such an enormous contribution Muslims have made to our country!


“Obama: Stigmatizing Muslims ‘plays into hands’ of jihadists,” AFP, March 26, 2016:

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama has urged Americans not to stigmatize Muslims following this week’s deadly attacks in Brussels, saying that doing so is “counterproductive” in the fight against radical Islam.

In his weekly media address, Obama said Muslim-Americans are “our most important partners in the nation’s fight against those who would wage violent jihad.

“That’s why we have to reject any attempt to stigmatize Muslim-Americans, and their enormous contributions to our country and our way of life,” Obama said.

“Such attempts are contrary to our character, to our values, and to our history as a nation built around the idea of religious freedom. It’s also counterproductive,” he said.

“It plays right into the hands of terrorists who want to turn us against one another — who need a reason to recruit more people to their hateful cause.”

Obama made his remarks as the global community continues to reel from Tuesday’s attacks in Belgium, claimed by the Islamic State group, which killed 31 dead, including two Americans, and wounded 300….

73  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer Responds to $10K Offer...koran/Quran promotes terrorism on: March 28, 2016, 02:42:12 PM
Muslim Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Show That Qur’an Promotes Terrorism

March 28, 2016 - Robert Spencer

Dear Omar Alnatour:

Thank you so very much for offering “anyone $10,000 if they can find me a verse in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror.” My 1999 Toyota is on its last legs, and your generous gift will enable me to replace it with a modest but fully operational used midsize sedan. Or maybe (since it has been years since I’ve had a break), if I can keep the jalopy going for awhile, I will use your ten grand take a vacation to Paris and Brussels -- before it’s too late, you know?

Anyway, here is my entry, which I am confident will win the $10,000 prize. I’ll make sure of that by giving you even more than you asked for: you wanted just a single Qur’anic verse that “says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror,” I’ll give you more than one of each, just so there is no doubt:

    The Qur’an says it’s ok to kill innocent people

“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 9:5)

The verse says to kill the idolaters – mushrikun – those who worship others besides Allah. Now I don’t know, Mr. Alnatour, if you might think “idolaters” are by virtue of being “idolaters” are not innocent and therefore worth killing, but I’m with Thomas Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I don’t think my neighbor to have forfeited his innocence if he prays to gods I don’t recognize, and I hope you don’t, either.

Now I expect that you will say that this Qur’an verse refers not to all idolaters, but only to one very specific group of idolaters, the polytheist Quraysh tribe of Mecca that was making war against Muhammad, and that this verse has no force now that they have been conquered and Islamized, and doesn’t apply to any other idolaters. It would have been nice for Allah to make that clear in the pages of his perfect book, but who am I to question the will of a deity?

What’s more, classic Muslim commentators on this Qur’an verse give no hint that it has long expired. On the contrary, Ibn Juzayy notes that it cancels out peaceful verses; he says that it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). As-Suyuti agrees: “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except death or Islam.” He is offering this as instruction for Muslims in his day; he seems to have no idea that this verse doesn’t apply to them.

Neither does Ibn Kathir. He writes that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191.

So there you are, Mr. Alnatour: the Qur’an calling for the murder of those who are innocent, except for the crime of being “idolaters” – a “crime” that requires earthly punishment only in the Qur’an.

And there’s more:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)

The “People of the Book” are Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The verse doesn’t provide any reason why they should be fought and made to submit to the Muslims except that they are People of the Book and don’t acknowledge Islam. Here again, you might consider them not innocent on that basis, but I hope you don’t, as I’m sure you would agree that people may differ on key questions in good faith.

Ibn Juzayy, however, does believe that the People of the Book should be fought simply because they are not Muslims. He says that this verse is “a command to fight the People of the Book” and explains that they must be fought because of their “denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah” and the words of the Christians, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’” (cf. Qur’an 9:30). He adds that Muslims must also fight them “because they consider as lawful carrion, blood, pork, etc.” and because “they do not enter Islam.”

So the Qur’an says that the People of the Book must be fought because they believe differently from the Muslims. But that is not a crime. These people are innocent.

    The Qur’an says it’s ok to commit acts of terror

“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)

Now, Mr. Alnatour (may I call you Omar?), I know what you’ll say here: this is Allah saying he will terrorize the unbelievers, not commanding the Muslims to do so. Fair enough, although I can’t help but recall that the Qur’an also says: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands” (9:14). So if Allah is punishing the unbelievers by the hands of the believers, might part of that punishment involve casting terror into the hearts of the unbelievers? And that’s what terrorism is all about, right?

And yes, there is still more. “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)

Strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy. Now you no doubt have some explanation for this, Mr. Alnatour, but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers.

So there you have it. Not just one verse, but four, and I have plenty more. You don’t have to pay me $40,000 even though I fulfilled your requirements four times over; I’ll take the $10,000, and thank you very much for your generosity. I must say that I very much enjoyed your article in which you made this offer, “Why Muslims Should Never Have To Apologize for Terrorism"  (Huffingtonpost.com - 3-24-2016,)  if it is proper to say that one enjoyed such a lamentable tale as your own. It is lamentable to read about how your wife screams at you and your children hate you for matters beyond your control, and that then on top of that, Infidels have the temerity to want you to do something about Islamic terrorism beyond issuing pro forma condemnations.

My mind goes back, however, to those who were murdered by Islamic terrorists recently in Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino, and so many other places. I’m sure you would agree that the suffering of their families far exceeds that of Muslims who must suffer Infidels asking them (quite patiently, for over fourteen years now since 9/11) to clean their own house. I do hope that you will think a bit about them, and about your Qur’an. Instead of obfuscating its contents, as you’re writing out my check, you could do us all a favor by starting to ponder some strategies about how to limit the capacity of your holy book to incite murder and bloodshed. In light of my confidence that you will do that, I very much look forward to your next article.

With cordial best wishes from your fellow human being,

Robert Spencer

74  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 24, 2016, 04:25:58 PM
IMHO, Trump will beat Hillary or any Democrat easily.  I know this directly contradicts the poll data that is being reported - but I simply don't trust it.
Say what you will, but I simply don't believe Trump's negatives are anywhere near as bad as they are being portrayed by the media.  I am highly suspicious - since a Trump presidency would demonstrate that current presidential campaign advisors are devoid of value.  Add this to the fact that many K Street lobbyists would no longer be able to buy influence, and you have a recipe for the wholesale destruction of many high-dollar advisory, media, and influence-peddling careers inside the beltway.

The people who will be directly affected by this are NOT going to go quietly into the night.  They will fight tooth and nail to maintain relevancy.  Thus I believe you have a  massive disinformation campaign regarding Trump on the part of the media and traditional paid consultants.

Rush Limbaugh spoke about this at length on the air a couple of days ago.  Time will tell - but my gut tells me the idea that Trump will necessarily lose the general election to Hillary or any other Democrat is pure manufactured B.S.
75  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Layoffs... on: March 24, 2016, 01:48:55 PM
Doug: EXACTLY.

To Scott Grannis:  Thank you for that brilliant analysis, Captain F**cking Obvious!
76  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Arrest the Thugs... on: March 15, 2016, 04:19:09 PM
Arrest the Thugs

The Left’s bullies cannot be allowed to hijack freedom of speech for an entire nation.

March 15, 2016

Frontpage Editors

First the Left unleashed anti-war rallies against President Bush in support of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Then it brought out Occupy Wall Street to push the radical Marxist agenda that Bernie Sanders is now riding like a red wave through the Democratic Party. Finally, it unleashed the racist hate mobs that looted and burned neighborhoods and cities, singled out white people for harassment over the color of their skin, terrorized campuses and incited the murder of police officers.

The common agenda of all these hateful campaigns was to radicalize, intimidate and terrorize Americans into submitting to the totalitarians of the Left. From the inner city neighborhood to the Ivy League campus, from a couple having brunch in the morning to a police officer on patrol being shot in the head, from a political rally to the Thanksgiving Day parade, these thugs of the Left are out to enforce their tyrannical Party Line through political terror.

While the media call these so-called protesters “non-violent,” they completely ignore the fact that suppressing someone else's free speech is an act of intimidation. To prevent someone else from speaking is not a debate. It's the refusal to have a debate. Protesters have the right to be heard, but silencing views you disagree with is not a protest. It is the exercise of totalitarian power. And the Left’s organized efforts to prevent opposing points of view from being heard have now migrated from the campus to the city. The media call these crybullies the victims. But they are not victims. They are thugs who are using brute force to suppress the free speech and political freedoms of others.

Donald Trump has as much right to hold a rally as Bernie Sanders. His supporters have as much right to come out to hear him speak. The Left's refusal to accept this is a definitive rejection of freedom of speech and democracy.

For all his faults, Donald Trump is to be commended for standing up against all this, and for his cool under fire. When a leftist fascist attempted to attack him recently at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, and succeeded in grabbing his foot before he was subdued by Secret Service agents, Trump quipped: “I was ready for him but it’s much easier if the cops do it, don’t we agree?”

Trump’s opponents, both Republican and Democrat, and the Obama administration should realize what’s at stake – if, that is, they have any interest in preserving the American tradition of non-violent political disagreement. The unseemly haste of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich to blame Trump’s rhetoric for the violent shutdown of his Chicago rally is extraordinarily disappointing: they should realize that the same violence can and will be turned against them if they stray too far from the thugs’ idea of what constitutes acceptable political discourse.

There is only one answer to a movement that is determined to thuggishly shut down the speech of others. And that is prison. We can either have speech democracy or speech tyranny in which the biggest thugs and the nastiest bullies decide who gets to speak and who has to shut up. The leftist fascists who shut down Trump’s Chicago rally should be arrested and energetically prosecuted. Barack Obama, so quick to issue statements about black and Muslim victimhood, should (if he cared at all about the principles that allow for a republic) immediately issue a statement stressing the importance of civility and respect for political dissent, and decry the shutdown of the Trump rally.

Obama won’t issue any such statement, of course, and that’s a large part of the problem. Much, much more is at stake in the shutdown of Trump’s rally than most Americans realize. As it becomes increasingly perilous to dissent from the leftist line in America, we can only hope that a sufficient number of Americans will awaken to what is happening in time to hold today’s political and media elites to account for the damage they have done and are doing to the American public square.

The political thugs of the Left cannot be allowed to hijack freedom of speech for an entire nation. Either we arrest the thugs or we will all exist confined in a prison where a handful of thugs can tell us what to we may say and what we may think.
77  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Left-wing Fascists Go After Donald Trump... on: March 14, 2016, 10:27:29 PM
FROM FERGUSON TO CHICAGO

March 14, 2016  Matthew Vadum - frontpagemag.com

The riot planned and executed by the Left at the canceled Donald Trump campaign rally in Chicago on Friday was just the latest in a long series of mob disturbances manufactured by radicals to advance their political agendas.

Even so, it is a particularly poisonous assault on the American body politic that imperils the nation's most important free institution – the ballot.

"The meticulously orchestrated #Chicago assault on our free election process is as unAmerican as it gets," tweeted actor James Woods. "It is a dangerous precedent."

This so-called protest, and the disruptions at subsequent Trump events over the weekend, were not spontaneous, organic demonstrations. The usual culprits were involved behind the scenes. The George Soros-funded organizers of the riot at the University of Illinois at Chicago relied on the same fascistic tactics the Left has been perfecting for decades – including claiming to be peaceful and pro-democracy even as they use violence to disrupt the democratic process.

Activists associated with MoveOn, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street, all of which have been embraced by Democrats and funded by radical speculator George Soros, participated in shutting down the Trump campaign event. Soros recently also launched a $15 million voter-mobilization effort against Trump in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada through a new super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win. The title is a characteristic misdirection since Trump supports immigration that is legal. It’s the invasion of illegals who have not been vetted and are filling America’s welfare rolls and jails that is the problem.

Among the extremist groups involved in disrupting the Trump rally in Chicago were the revolutionary communist organization ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), National Council of La Raza (“the Race”), and the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Rights Reform. President Obama's unrepentant terrorist collaborator Bill Ayers, who was one of the leaders of Days of Rage the precursor riot at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, also showed up to stir the pot.

The goal was to help reinforce the media narrative that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian figure who needs to be stopped now before he upsets too many people and proclaims himself emperor, or some fevered fantasy like that. The organized rioters who showed up at UIC to taunt and bait Trump supporters, hoped to generate compelling TV clips that could be used to attack the Republican front-runner.

The people who infiltrated the Trump rally and attacked his supporters weren't mere protesters and were not nonviolent. By now, after decades of getting away with lawlessness and mayhem, nonviolent left-wing protesters are as rare as four-leaf clovers.

They are violent agitators, trained in Alinsky-style disruption, aiming to shut Trump and his supporters down by any means they can get away with. These modern-day brownshirts use force and the threat of force to harass and intimidate, and to provoke people who have come to a peaceful assembly to hear their candidate speak.

"Many of these people come from Bernie [Sanders]," Trump said, pointing out how since the 1968 riot at the Democratic convention street radicals and party radicals have become a seamless force. On "Face the Nation" Trump called them "professional disrupters" a polite name for incipient fascists.

Since the liberal media was already blaming him for the anti-Trump thuggery, he told them, "I don't accept responsibility," Trump said on Sunday TV. "I do not condone violence in any shape."

In speeches since Friday Trump regularly invokes Bernie Sanders when an activist disrupts. He calls them "Bernie's people." At one stop, Trump said, "Get 'em out. Hey Bernie, get your people in line."

Although Sanders supporters are well-represented among the anti-Trump thugs, the self-described socialist senator from Vermont denied the charge. But Bernie’s campaign is so focused on demonizing the rich and blaming them for America’s problems, the hatred he is retailing can reasonably be called an incitement to those who buy his propaganda and support him.

Sanders after all is a lifetime admirer of Communist states like the Soviet Union and Cuba where this kind of thuggery is a political norm.  So even if he’s telling the truth and did give the orders to his followers to be there, he’s lying. They came because they hate rich people too.

Major organizations of the left who are backing Sanders, like Moveon.org openly bragged about trampling on Trump's free speech rights in Chicago, and promised more of it.

Incredibly, instead of blaming the Left for the attacks on Trump, all three of Trump's remaining rivals for the GOP nomination are joining the left in blaming him for the violence that unfolded. If the roles were reversed, leftists would call it blaming the victim.

Continuing the scorched earth policy that has damaged his campaign Marco Rubio laid the blame at Trump’s door. "This is what a culture and a society looks like when everyone goes around saying whatever the heck they want. The result is, it all breaks down. It's called chaos. It's called anarchy and that's what we're careening towards."

Breaking of ranks on the right in order to blame Trump is a betrayal that has ominous implications for the future of the conservative cause.

Rubio and John Kasich have gone even further, wavering on their pledge to support Trump if he wins the party's nomination.

Rubio downplays the fact that it's the activist Left that is generating chaos, not Donald Trump and his supporters, a dagger aimed right at the heart of the Republican coalition.

Robert Spencer reflects that these Republican attacks "have tacitly encouraged the rioters by claiming that Trump is at least partially responsible for what they did." It’s a re-imposition of political correctness. Spencer explains: "In that scenario, you see, it becomes incumbent upon Trump not to say anything that Leftist thugs might dislike, or he will bear partial responsibility for what they do. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, of course, will also have to be careful not to 'create an environment' that might force the Left-fascists to shut them down as well. But unless they become clones of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, they will inevitably end up creating that 'environment' anyway, despite their being more decorous and careful than Trump. And then they will be responsible for what they get, won’t they?"

The left didn’t need a Trump provocation. For the left, the issue is never the issue: the issue is always the revolution, that is, the war against Amerikkka, as an SDS radical put it many years ago. Everything is an excuse to advance the radical cause.

Meanwhile, leftist Alex Seitz-Wald wrote a glowing review at NBC.com of the activists' anti-democratic efforts in Chicago, as if silencing candidates were a legitimate form of political activity as American as apple pie. "What made Chicago different,” Seitz wrote, were its scale and the organization behind the effort. Hundreds of young, largely black and brown people poured in from across the city, taking over whole sections of the arena and bracing for trouble. And as the repeated chants of 'Ber-nie' demonstrated, it was largely organized by supporters of Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has struggled to win over black voters but whose revolutionary streak has excited radicals of all racial demographics.”

Seitz urged his readers to "'Remember the #TrumpRally wasn't just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work,' tweeted People for Bernie, a large unofficial pro-Sanders organization founded by veterans of the Occupy movement and other leftist activists."

Chicago is overrun by radical leftists and is in a constant state of turmoil nowadays so throwing together a demonstration against anyone to the right of Che Guevara wasn't too difficult a task. Sanders backers and Black Lives Matter thugs were easy to find on social media. At the UIC campus, the Black Student Union and a group called Fearless and Undocumented got to work recruiting disrupters.

Illegal alien Jorge Mena, a graduate student at UIC, started a petition at MoveOn.org demanding the school cancel the event. It garnered in excess of 50,000 signatures including UIC faculty. MoveOn paid for signs and a banner and emailed its Chicagoland members, urging them to get involved.

On the night of the rally, activists snuck into the venue and assembled at "designated multiple rallying points around the venue to avoid arousing suspicion of authorities with large congregations," Seitz-Wald writes.

"As activists slipped into the lines, they were told to blend in with the crowd and act natural. Inside, about 100 protesters received coveted orange wristbands allowing them access to the floor. Even as organizers tried to maintain calm, some scuffles with Trump fans started right away, and police began removing people." And that was all that was necessary. The powder was in place and the fuse was lit. But then Trump consulted with his security people and cancelled the event.

This is only the beginning, regardless of whether Trump secures the GOP nomination for president. Socialism is coming to America – at the ballot box and in the streets.

Editors’ note: The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.
78  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Crafty... on: March 14, 2016, 06:15:58 PM
I think what the author is trying to say is that the REAL VALUE of a currency-denominated debt is reduced by inflation.  Thus - if you have a debt of say, $1,000 - and let's say the inflation rate over 10 years (when the debt is due) is cumulatively 100%, then you would be paying back that $1,000 debt with dollars that have an actual value of only $500.  Thus, the lower you keep interest rates (even to zero) and the higher the inflation rate - the faster the actual value of the debt decreases.
79  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro Defends Trump Against Blame for Chicago Protests... on: March 14, 2016, 08:09:35 AM
Frankly, though I prefer Ted Cruz over Donald Trump, I was disgusted over the weekend with BOTH Rubio and Cruz - not to mention the media - for blaming Trump for the violence at the rally in Chicago, which Trump wisely - in my opinion - cancelled.  Free speech is the bedrock of this republic.  The First Amendment is first for a reason - the Founders understood its importance.  Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio know better - but they are choosing to leverage this to their own political advantage by blaming Trump and his supporters.  MANY of those protesters who participated in the altercations at the Chicago event were holding Bernie Sanders signs and chanting "Bernie! Bernie!"  Yet no one in the media or anywhere else is placing blame on Bernie Sanders - and rightly so.  So reverse the situation for a moment - what if TRUMP supporters were filmed physically assaulting others in the crowd at a Bernie Sanders rally.  Do you think we would hear condemnation of Trump for "inciting" this violence?  You damn well better believe we would.  There is a clear double-standard here, and Trump-haters - including other candidates and the media - are doing their best to promote the absurd idea that Trump is to blame for this situation by "inciting" his supporters.  This was CLEARLY an organized protest designed to garner exactly the type of media attention and condemnation of Trump that it did.

Judge Jeanine Pirro did a SUPERB job of exposing this in her opening statement this past Saturday night:  http://video.foxnews.com/v/4799320342001/judge-jeanine-words-are-not-an-excuse-to-become-violent/?playlist_id=937116552001#sp=show-clips
80  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Disturbing Movement Targets U.S. Evangelical Christians... on: March 09, 2016, 05:29:38 PM
Evidently George Soros and the heir to the Hobby Lobby fortune are behind this propaganda campaign.  I can't imagine that many U.S. Christians believe this garbage.  Today was literally the first I'd ever heard of this "replacement theology" crap.  How ignorant/stupid and/or evil does one have to be to be taken in by this blatant distortion of Scripture?  Sounds like a new variation on "Liberation Theology" (Jeremiah Wright's twisted brand of Christianity.)


The Subversion of American Evangelicals

March 9, 2016 - Caroline Glick - frontpagemag.com

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

Monday the Bethlehem Bible College, an Evangelical Christian college in Jesus’s hometown, opened its fourth biennial Christ at the Checkpoint conference. The conference, which is directed specifically toward US Evangelicals, will run through the week.

Today, Evangelical communities in the US number anywhere between 60 and 150 million people, depending on who is counting. They form the backbone of American support for the Jewish state. It is the support of the Evangelical community, rather than the Jewish community in the US that ensures that come hell or high water, no matter how Israel is demonized in the media and in academia, the majority of Americans continue to support Israel.

But will this support last? One of the more surprising aspects of the 2016 elections is Evangelical support for businessman Donald Trump. Trump in many ways personifies everything that people who take the Bible seriously are supposed to oppose. He owns casinos. He curses and uses profanity in his public appearances. He has donated to Planned Parenthood and forcefully supported abortions on demand.

Trump has also insisted repeatedly that he will be neutral toward Israel.

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of Evangelical support for Trump is that he takes these positions as he runs against primary opponents who all wear their faith on their sleeves. All of his opponents have records of standing with the Evangelicals on social and other salient issues – including support for Israel.

What are we to make of this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon? At least as far as Israel is concerned, the readiness of Evangelicals to support the most anti-Israel candidate running for the Republican presidential nomination is no surprise.

To understand why this is the case, the Christ at the Checkpoint conference taking place this week in Bethlehem is a good place to look.

According to its website, the mission of the biennial conference “is to challenge Evangelicals to take responsibility to help resolve the conflicts in Israel/ Palestine by engaging with the teaching of Jesus on the Kingdom of God.”

The problem begins with the organizers’ interpretation of those teachings. College officials, among them keynote speakers at the conference, embrace and teach replacement theology. That theology maintains that God’s covenant with the Jews ended with Christianity.

In recent years, replacement theology has extended its biblical revisionism from Jews as people reviled for their rejection of Jesus and their supersession by Christians to Israel. The Jewish state is reviled as a religiously prohibited entity whose very existence is a sin against God.

According to current replacement theology, Jesus was not a Jew. He was a Palestinian. The Jews are not a people. They have no rights to the land of Israel.

Israel, it is asserted, has no historical or theological right to exist. Rather, according to the rewritten scriptures, the Palestinians are the chosen people.

Jews are colonialist invaders who have taken the land of Israel away from their rightful, biblically sanctioned owners.

This basic view is encapsulated in the very name “Christ at the Checkpoint.”

Today a Jewish Jesus would be prohibited from entering Bethlehem. Jews are barred from entering Palestinian population centers because Palestinians have a habit of murdering them. Indeed, just last week two IDF soldiers who accidentally entered a Palestinian village north of Jerusalem escaped a lynch mob by the skin of their teeth.

On the other hand, a Palestinian Jesus can be in Bethlehem. But to leave he has to go through an Israeli checkpoint (to ensure that he isn’t a terrorist, to be sure, but whatever).

So the image evoked by the name “Christ at the Checkpoint” ignores the reality of Palestinian terrorism.

And it leaves us with an image of the repression of a Palestinian Jesus at the hands of the Jews.

The replacement theology at the heart of the conference was made explicit by Rev. Jack Sara, president of the Bethlehem Bible Conference, at the 2012 conference. In his speech Sara edited Chapter 37 of the book of Ezekiel to transform the dry bones prophecy. That prophecy, of course, is one of the most Zionist passages in the Bible. God speaks to Ezekiel and tells him that the people of Israel will be reborn. They will be gathered from the four corners of the earth, return to Israel and restore the Davidic kingdom.

Yet in Sara’s revised version, the people of Israel, the descendants of Jacob, are replaced by the Palestinians.

Sara preached, “The hand of the Lord was on me and He brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and sent me in the middle of the West Bank – Bethlehem, Jenin and Salvit and Nablus and Ramallah.

It was full of bones.... He asked me, ‘Son of Man, can these bones live? Can the Palestinian people live?’ Then He said to me ‘prophesy to these bones and same to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.’” Sara then said, “You see, the Palestinian people were and are a lot like this valley of dry bones that is in need of the Church to come and prophesy life on them.”

Last March the Bethlehem Bible College posted a promotional video ahead of a summer Christ at the Checkpoint conference directed toward young adults.

As Tricia Miller, who works as a senior research analyst for CAMERA noted, Christ at the Checkpoint director Munther Issac billed the conference as a means to empower Palestinian Christians.

The conference website said that the conference’s aim was “to motivate Palestinian Christian youth to take an active role as followers of Christ in spreading justice and peace, through discussing the challenges of our societies from a biblical perspective.”

Yet, as Miller noted in an article in The Times of Israel, the promotional video for the conference made clear that the conference had no intention of “spreading justice and peace.”

The video interlaced footage of Palestinians walking in heavy traffic and waiting to cross into sovereign Israel with footage from Islamic State (ISIS) videos showing hostages about to be beheaded and burned alive. Israeli flags flapping in the wind were juxtaposed with the ISIS flag.

And then, apropos of nothing, the video showed the cellular structure of the H1N1 swine flu virus.

The implied message was clear. Just as Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as viruses, so the Christ at the Checkpoint video depicted Israel as the moral equivalent of ISIS and the medical equivalent of swine flu.

In 2014, David Brog published in article in Middle East Quarterly detailing the key role the Bethlehem Bible College plays in a wider campaign directed toward American Evangelicals whose goal is to undermine and eventually end their support for Israel.

Key figures in this undertaking bring American church leaders and academics to Bethlehem and feed them a diet of anti-Israel propaganda and outright lies masquerading as biblical teaching and objective assessments of reality. These American Christian leaders have taken up the cause of ending support for Israel among Evangelicals upon their return home.

Key financiers, like Mart Green, the heir of the Hobby Lobby fortune and the chairman of the board of trustees of Oral Roberts University, and financier George Soros have been instrumental in disseminating these positions to all levels of the Evangelical community in the US.

In September 2014, Senator Ted Cruz spoke before Middle Eastern Christians, who convened in Washington ostensibly to discuss the genocide of Christians in the Middle East. Cruz was booed off the stage after telling the audience, “Today Christians have no greater ally than the Jewish state.”

Cruz added, “The very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians, who behead children, are the very same people who target and murder Jews for the very same reason.”

Cruz’s statement marked the first time a major US political leader stood up to the Jew hatred of Middle Eastern Christians and pointed out its irrationality and self-defeating core.

It could have been a seminal moment in the discourse on Islamic persecution of Christians. But rather than be embraced for his willingness to speak the truth to those who reject it even in the face of genocide, Cruz was assaulted as undiplomatic by Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin. His message was largely ignored outside of policy circles.

To be sure, the largest Evangelical communities remain solidly supportive of Israel, and their size dwarfs that of the rising forces of replacement theology and its concomitant hatred of Israel. Yet, as Brog noted, the long-term trends are discouraging.

Moreover, the readiness of Evangelical voters to support the only Republican candidate who says he will be neutral in his handling of the Palestinian conflict with Israel indicates that anti-Israel Christians may already be having a profound impact on their communities.

This trend represents a strategic threat to US-Israel relations. Those who wish to maintain those relations in the long term must fight this trend head on, beginning with this week’s Christ at the Checkpoint conference.
81  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islamic "radicalization"... on: March 07, 2016, 05:48:53 PM
The reason, GM, is that the whole notion of "radicalization" is nonsense to begin with.  The violent elements of Islam are explicitly taught in the Koran and Hadith.  They are integral to the faith.  To the extent that there are Muslims who do not believe in, or act upon these violent precepts of the religion, those Muslims are either ignorant of them, or are choosing to ignore them.  Authentic, orthodox Islam is inherently violent, repressive, and expansionistic.  It tolerates no other belief system.  It recognizes no inherent human rights.  It is a comprehensive totalitarian world-view and political system.  Therefore - whenever anyone chooses to study Islam and follow its teachings more closely, i.e., become "more devout,"  by definition they adopt this predator mindset toward all non-Muslims.  No other "religion" incorporates these totalitarian fundamentals.

To phrase it more simply - while there are certainly peaceful people who call themselves Muslim, there IS NO PEACEFUL ISLAM.
82  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Walter Williams on Taxes... on: March 03, 2016, 03:30:20 PM
What Is the Fair Share of Taxes?

Why voters fall victim to political charlatans

March 3, 2016    Walter Williams


Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, along with President Obama, say they want high-income earners, otherwise known as the rich, to pay their fair share of income taxes. None of these people, as well as the uninformed in the media and our campus intellectual elites, will say precisely what is the "fair share" of taxes. That is because they would look ignorant and silly, so they stick with simply saying that the rich should pay more. Let's you and I take a peek at who pays what in federal income taxes.

The following represents 2012 income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service, compiled by the Tax Foundation (http://tinyurl.com/j5yr8cd). The top 1 percent, 1.37 million taxpayers earning $434,682 and more, paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those earning $175,817 and more, paid 59 percent. The top 10 percent of income earners, those earning $125,195 and up, paid 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 25 percent, those earning $73,354 and up, paid 86 percent. The bottom 50 percent, people earning $36,055 and less, paid a little less than 3 percent of federal income taxes. According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, slightly over 45 percent of American households have no federal income tax liability.

With this information in hand, you might ask the next person who says the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes: Exactly what percentage of total federal income taxes should the 1-percenters pay? I seriously doubt whether you will get any kind of coherent answer. By the way, since 1-percenter income starts at $435,000, it might be pointed out that $400,000 or $500,000 a year is not even yacht or Learjet money. Plus, if one has two kids in college, a big mortgage and car payments, I doubt he would declare himself rich.

Our demagogues also claim that corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter, which even leftist economists understand but might not publicly admit, is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics, called tax incidence, says the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the full burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if the corporation hopes to survive, it will have one of three responses to that tax or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case a flesh-and-blood person is made worse off. The important point is that a corporation is a legal fiction and as such does not pay taxes. As it turns out, corporations are merely tax collectors for the government.

Politicians love to trick people by suggesting that they will not impose taxes on them but on some other entity instead. To demonstrate the trick, suppose you are a homeowner and a politician tells you that he is not going to tax you, he is just going to tax your land. You would easily see the political chicanery. Land cannot and does not pay taxes. Again, only people pay taxes.

Leftist politicians often call for raising the death tax, euphemistically called inheritance tax. The inheritance tax brings in less than 1 percent of federal revenue. It is on the books because it serves the interests of jealousy, envy and our collective desire to tax the so-called rich. The effects of inheritance taxes are economically damaging. It has this impact because in order for people to pay the death tax, they often must sell producing assets, such as farms, factories, stocks and bonds. These are high-powered dollars that are shifted from productive activity to government consumptive activity.

Too many Americans are ignorant of tax issues and thus fall easy prey to the nation's charlatans and quacks.
83  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Sensible People Are Bothered When Women Wear Hijabs... on: February 18, 2016, 10:28:26 AM
Why Sensible People Are Bothered When Women Wear Hijabs

Thursday - www.citizenwarrior.com


There are Muslim women all over the world who don't wear a hijab, yet consider themselves Muslim. But the doctrine says a believing woman should cover herself.

So when Muslim women begin to cover themselves, it is a visible signal of increasing orthodoxy. In other words, if there are Muslims in your area, and the women start covering themselves, it is an indication that the Muslims in your area are beginning to take the written doctrine more seriously.

And it is never just that particular written doctrine only — it is all the written doctrine, which includes hatred toward non-Muslims, political action to put the reins of power in Muslim hands, increasing demands for Islamic standards of dress, behavior, Islamic limits on free speech, etc. Because of the political nature of Islamic doctrine, these Islamic standards are not to be only applied to Muslims; as Muslims gain political power, those standards are to be applied to everyone.

Already in some parts of European countries where there is a high Muslim percentage, non-Muslim women are harassed (or worse) if they don't cover themselves.

Many of the signs of increasing devotion to Islamic ideals cannot be seen by non-Muslims. But the hijab can be seen by everyone.
84  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Will Market Selloff Turn Into Worldwide Recession? on: February 09, 2016, 07:54:05 AM
Will A Market Selloff Turn Into Worldwide Recession?

Tuesday, 09 February 2016 Bob Adelmann

EDITOR'S NOTE: It's nice that the mainstream academic economists are finally getting with the program in terms of collapsing demand across the financial spectrum.  Of course, it's too little too late.  By the time this information is digested by the general public, it will be far too late for any of them to properly prepare for what's in store.  Hopefully, the efforts  of alternative economic analysts have educated enough people to make a difference when global fiscal mechanics grind to a halt.  After all is said and done, it has been the mainstream financial media that has played a considerable role in the misdirection of the American public in particular, and such people deserve to be punished for it.

Regards,

Brandon Smith, Founder Of Alt-Market.com

 

This article was written by Bob Adelmann and originally published at The New American

Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said back in October that his biggest fear is the “herd” mentality of investors who sell even if they don’t have any news to back up their decision: "Investors worry that other investors know something bad, and so they just sell, although they themselves have no new information."

At bottom, it is said, markets are driven by expectations and not by numbers. When the numbers get bad enough, the “herd” mentality takes over, and investors who have been holding losing positions, finally cave, and liquidate, taking their losses.

The numbers are bad enough. Thomas Thygesen, the head of economics at the Swedish banking conglomerate SEB, told 200 commodity brokers and analysts last month that a global recession is on the way. He then recounted signals of recession:

• Commodity prices — not just oil — have dropped by two-thirds since the summer of 2014;

• Oil has suffered the worst price decline in recent history;

• Crude fell to $10 a barrel in the late 1990s in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, suggesting that the same could happen again;

• The impact of the collapse in crude should have a positive impact as industry relies heavily on energy to drive itself, but it’s not;

• The “tail” of the oil price decline is causing bankruptcies that are negatively impacting banks and forcing them to recast their balance sheets, cut back on loans to the oil industry, and, in some cases, cut their dividends;

• The decline is “imperiling the finances of producer nations from Nigeria to Azerbaijan”; and

• China’s reports of 6 percent growth are increasingly being written off as unrealistic, perhaps even fraudulent.

Blanchard added to this litany, that the world economy may have reached a “tipping point,” noting, “This would be a serious shock. My biggest fear is precisely that the dramatic shift in mood becomes self-fulfilling.”

First, the average business cycle is five years. The start of the Great Recession was seven years ago. Second, the wave of bankruptcies in the oil sector will gain in number and ferocity, according to Blanchard. Third, the high-yield bond index “is now vulnerable” thanks to oil prices that are low and likely to remain low or even fall further.

In addition, the amount of debt that the oil and gas industry has accumulated worldwide is staggering: The industry has issued $1.4 trillion of bonds and borrowed another $1.6 trillion from banks for a total of $3 trillion. With net free cash flows declining and in some cases disappearing altogether, the industry is increasingly threatened by its inability to service that debt. The ripple effect would reach far beyond the industry itself.

Bronka Rzepkowski of Oxford Economics is equally concerned: "Conditions that usually pave the way for mounting defaults — such as growing debt, tightening monetary conditions, tightening of corporate credit standards and volatility spikes — are currently [being] met in the U.S."

And then there’s history itself. Over the last 45 years the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) has suffered a loss of more than 12 percent on 13 occasions. Six of these have led to a recession in the United States, nearly half the time.

The same goes for Europe, according to Dennis Jose at Barclays Bank: “Of the 14 previous occasions [when] equities have had a similar decline, seven have been associated with recession.”

Michael Pento of Pento Portfolio Strategies and author of The Coming Bond Market Collapse points out that the average drop in stock prices — peak to trough — during the last six recessions has been 37 percent. That would take the SPX, currently trading at 1835, all the way down to 1300.

But, says Pento, “This one will be worse.” China, considered the driver of global economic growth for decades, has multiplied its debt by an astonishing 28 times since 2000. As that massive buildup is unwinding, the Shanghai stock market has declined 40 percent since June 2014, and the rout isn’t yet complete. The problem, says Pento, is that China “has accounted for 34 percent of global growth” but without that, the global economy is in trouble.

There’s the U.S. housing market, where the home price to income ratio is currently 4.1, way above the average of 2.6. This not only makes it increasingly difficult for first-time home buyers, it also means that existing home owners looking to move up can’t find buyers.

There’s the stock market in the United States, which, despite the recent selloff, has a “market capitalization to GDP” ratio of 110, compared to its long-term average of 75.

There’s the debt taken on since 2007: Household debt is back to its former record of $14 trillion; business debt has grown from $10.2 trillion to $12.6 trillion during that period; the national debt has ballooned from $9.2 trillion to $19 trillion; and the Fed’s balance sheet is off the charts, moving from $880 billion to $4.5 trillion.

As the recession becomes more obvious, the Fed is left with few options. If it begins another program of monetary expansion — QE 4 — it “would cause an interest rate spike that would turn the recession into a devastating depression,” said Pento, adding, “Faith in the ability of central banks to provide sustainable GDP growth [has] already been destroyed, given their failed eight-year [previous] experiments in QE.”

Even economists at Citigroup, the third largest bank holding company in the country, are getting nervous. Jonathan Stubbs reported for the bank on Thursday, “The world appears to be trapped in a … death spiral,” adding,

[A] stronger U.S. dollar, weaker oil/commodity prices, weaker world trade/petrodollar liquidity, weaker [emerging markets and global growth] and repeat, ad infinitum. This would lead to Oilmageddon, a “significant and synchronized” global recession and a proper modern-day equity bear market.
85  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: February 08, 2016, 10:23:07 AM
Rush Limbaugh talked about this on Friday.  "First-time unemployment numbers" is what Obama quoted.  Translation:  "Not counting the 94 million plus workers who have stopped looking for work."  Complete fraud.

86  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: February 07, 2016, 11:14:11 PM
I missed the first 30 minutes of the debate.  Overall, I thought the moderators did a surprisingly fair job, considering we are talking about ABC.  For the most part it was substantive, but very little new information was presented by any of the candidates.  Crafty's observations about Cruz are on the money.  His personal disclosure about his sister's heroin addiction was welcome and moving.  

As for his analysis of the North Korea situation and waterboarding likely going over most viewers' heads, that's possible, but methinks we here on this forum tend to underestimate the intelligence and common sense of much of the voter base - at least those who take an interest in these Republican debates.  

It's very easy to be influenced by the narrative that media spin and selective reporting creates.  For example, though I'm not a big fan of Rubio, and don't trust him after his "gang of eight" betrayal despite his protestations that he's rethought his position on amnesty - I thought the Fox News media piled on a bit much over his exchange with Christie and the fact that he repeated his line about Obama being very deliberate in his destruction of the economy and diminishing the U.S. on the world stage.  The pundits insisted that this made Rubio look weak and as though he were simply reciting memorized talking points. They said Christie landed a decisive blow and diminished Rubio in that exchange.  What crap. To the contrary, I think that point needed to be made and deserved emphasis.  

Finally, yes - Trump's evasive non-answer to the eminent domain challenge issued by Bush was frustrating and cause for concern.  

Can't see this debate making any difference whatsoever in the voting results on Tuesday.  All this media hype and minute-by-minute analysis strikes me as nothing more than B.S. designed to fill air time and convince viewers they're getting deep insights where none exist.  Not unlike stock analysts with horribly wrong predictions' Monday morning quarterbacking explaining why the market moved up or down in retrospect.  How convenient for a gullible audience.  What these pundits say prior to the vote is often diametrically opposed to the explanations they offer after the results have come in, yet they never seem to be held to account for this.
87  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Last Night's Democrat Debate... on: February 05, 2016, 03:05:36 PM
Bernie Sanders Beats Hillary in a Lying Contest

The angry old leftist future of the Democrats.

February 5, 2016


Daniel Greenfield - frontpagemag.com


The future of the Democratic Party was two angry old leftists screaming at each other for two hours to decide who hates capitalism more.


With the MSNBC and the Democratic Party's logos on a red background, the stage was set for a redder than red debate. Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.


Bernie Sanders promised to end “a rigged economy” with Socialism, which is the very definition of a rigged economy. Both candidates showed their Socialist bona fides by rattling off the names of the corporations they hated the most. Bernie Sanders cheered normalizing relations with Cuba, ridiculing the idea that being Communist is objectionable. But he did express some concerns about the nuclear weapons being held by his fellow Socialists in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.


NBC’s Chuck Todd, who was born for Archie Bunker to call him “Meathead”, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, whose giant fake eyelashes made it impossible for her to wear her trademark glasses, moderated a debate that had no reason for existing because none of the participants had developed a new idea since the 1970s (and in Bernie Sander’ case, possibly even the 1870s) and were just yelling the same things that they had yelled at all the previous debates, only louder, as if we hadn’t heard them the first time. The MSNBC audience applauded every line as if it were the only job they were qualified for.


Except maybe teaching gender justice or reviewing organic cruelty-free smoothie places on Yelp.


Meanwhile Bernie Sanders picked his ear and Hillary Clinton nodded frantically during every question as if she were a bobblehead doll that had come to life and wanted to go right from plastic to president.


Anyone who had the misfortune to sit, stand or sleep through the previous Democratic debates kept hearing the same tired lines both candidates have been repeating for months; rigged economy, Donald Trump's kids, the middle class bailed out Wall Street, a progressive is someone who gets thing done, political revolution, not radical ideas, not only did I vote against the bill and “Moozlimb” countries.


Maybe it’s too much to expect two career leftists with a combined total age of 142 to come up with any new ideas, but would it really have killed Bernie and Hillary to come up with some new lines?


Instead the future of the Democratic Party recited their memorized lines and rants from the previous debates. It got so bad that in response to a question about Afghanistan, Bernie Sanders reeled off the same exact rant about ISIS, Muslim souls and the King of Jordan that he had recited in the last debate until Chuck Todd gave up on the senile Socialist as a hopeless case and switched to Hillary Clinton.


The only thing that Bernie Sanders appeared to know about foreign policy was that Hillary Clinton had voted for the Iraq War twelve years ago and he hadn’t. That is the only thing he will ever know.


Don’t ask Bernie Sanders to find Afghanistan, Iran or Ukraine on a map. But wake him up in the middle of the night and he’ll tell you that he voted against the Iraq War and that we need to raise taxes.


But what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders lacked in the way of ideas, they more than made up for in volume. Hillary Clinton screamed, "I can get things done" as if she were pitching a product on an infomercial. Bernie Sanders ran his own telethon, stumbling over words as he boasted how much moolah he had taken in, “a million people” and “27 bucks a piece”.


Eat your heart out, Wall Street. Bernie is better at suckering small-time investors than you are.


Hillary Clinton compensated for her complete lack of likability by falling back on playing the victim. She accused Bernie Sanders of ignoring feminism, black people and gay rights. She sputtered that, “Senator Sanders is the only one who would describe me, a woman running to be president, as exemplifying the establishment.” Somehow a fabulously wealthy woman who is backed by the entire Democratic political establishment isn’t the “establishment” because of her gender.

Hillary Clinton had tried to use 9/11 as a shield for her Wall Street donations and now she switched to using Obama's Wall Street donations as her human shield. Accusing her of being bought by special interests was engaging in an “artful smear”, she indignantly insisted. Like Picasso or Jackson Pollock.


It was neither artful, nor a smear though. It was just common sense that no one was giving Hillary Clinton money because of 9/11. And a genuinely honest opponent would have made that case.


But when Hillary Clinton dared Bernie Sanders to accuse her of being bought off by special interests, the courageous political revolutionary turned tail and fled. Instead of confronting her with the facts, he began mewling something about Republicans and the Koch Brothers. Just as with the emails, Bernie Sanders backed off his criticism and showed that he didn’t have the spine to stand up to Hillary Clinton.


Under all the “authenticity”, Bernie Sanders is just as fake as Hillary. He paradoxically insists that he wants a political revolution, but that his ideas are not radical. After all his rants about the SuperPAC devil, he admitted that he had contemplated setting up his own SuperPAC.


Between Hillary Clinton’s painfully tight smiles and Bernie Sanders checking his watch, this debate was just another infomercial for a fake election between two candidates who voted the same way 93 percent of the time. All that was left was the inane rhetoric and memorized applause lines.


“A progressive is someone who makes progress,” Hillary Clinton blathered. No one asked her what progress she had ever made. Besides the progress from defending a 12-year-old girl’s rapist in Arkansas to defending her rapist husband in the White House.


“I want to see major changes in the Democratic Party,” Bernie Sanders demanded. He could just rename it the Communist Party.


“I have a record,” Hillary Clinton boasted. But that’s really up to the FBI. She promised the country half-a-billion solar panels, which it needs about as much as it needs another Clinton in the White House.


There was no truth in the New Hampshire Democratic debate, but it was child’s play to spot the three biggest lies.

“I say what I believe,” Hillary Clinton said. And somehow, no one laughed.


“I have been moved by my heart,” Hillary Clinton said in her closing statement. “I will bring my heart with me.” Medical records have already revealed that Hillary Clinton has no heart.


“I love this country,” Bernie Sanders said. And for once, someone else beat Hillary in a lying contest.

88  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Latest Disastrous Program... on: January 22, 2016, 01:00:08 PM
Obamanomics in Catastrophic Action

How Obama's new mortgage program is steering America toward another housing-market collapse.

January 22, 2016 - John Perazzo - Frontpagemag.com


Remember a few years ago, when the American housing market collapsed as a direct result of government policies that—in the name of racial justice—pressured banks to approve mortgage loans for massive numbers of underqualified nonwhite applicants? Remember how that collapse set in motion the financial crisis that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama repeatedly called “the worst economy since the Great Depression”? And remember how Obama—who had long been a leading proponent of precisely the policies that had triggered the crisis—cast himself as the savior who was going to restore fiscal sanity and untangle the whole big mess?

Well, now Savior Obama and his White House are excitedly introducing Americans to their latest brainchild, the “HomeReady” mortgage program—offered through Fannie Mae and designed to help borrowers in “low-income” and “high-minority” census tracts. “For the first time,” boasts Fannie Mae, “income from a non-borrower household member [e.g., a roommate or family member] can be considered to determine an applicable debt-to-income ratio for the loan.” And if those combined incomes aren't enough to qualify an applicant for a mortgage loan, HomeReady comes with additional built-in “flexibilities” like “allowing income from non-occupant borrowers, such as parents.” In other words, just keep rounding up everyone you know, until you can scrape together a 3% down payment and show a combined income that's high enough to qualify for an individual loan. This makes the slipshod lending standards that caused the crisis of 2008 look exacting by comparison.

What about minority applicants with bad credit? No problem there, either! As Investor's Business Daily notes, “You can qualify with a FICO credit score as low as 620, which is subprime.” In fact, even the term “subprime loan”—meaning a loan that has a high interest rate and less favorable terms in order to compensate the lender for the high credit risk incurred—has received a thorough makeover from Obama & Company. From now on, such transactions are going to be called “alternative loans.” See? No more “subprime” crises—ever again! Ain't it grand?

The government policies that led to the housing market collapse of 2008 initially emerged in the mid-1970s, when Democrats in Congress began a campaign to help low-income minorities become homeowners. This led to the passage, in 1977, of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a mandate for banks to make special efforts to seek out and lend to borrowers of meager means. Founded on the premise that government intervention is necessary to counteract the fundamentally racist and inequitable nature of American society and the free market, the CRA was eventually transformed from an outreach effort into a strict quota system by the Clinton administration. Under the new arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low-income minorities, it ran the risk of getting a low CRA rating from the FDIC. This, in turn, could derail the bank's efforts to expand, relocate, merge, etc.  From a practical standpoint, then, banks had no recourse but to drastically lower their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials. As Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell explains, this led to “skyrocketing rates of mortgage delinquencies and defaults,” and the rest is history.

The CRA was by no means the only mechanism designed by government to impose race-based lending quotas on financial institutions. For instance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) instituted rules encouraging lenders to dramatically hike their loan-approval rates for minority applicants and began bringing legal actions against mortgage bankers who failed to do so, regardless of the reason. Moreover, HUD pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a steeply rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers. Many of these were subprime mortgages.

Additional pressure was applied by community organizations like ACORN, which routinely and frivolously accused banks of engaging in racially discriminatory lending practices that violated the mandates of the CRA. These groups often sued banks to prevent them from expanding or merging as they wished. Barack Obama, ACORN's committed ally, was strongly in favor of this practice. In a 1994 class-action lawsuit against Citibank, Obama represented ACORN in demanding more favorable terms for subprime homebuyer mortgages. After four years of being dragged through the mud, a beleaguered Citibank—anxious to put an end to the incessant smears (charging racism) that Obama and his fellow litigators were hurling in its direction (to say nothing of its mounting legal bills)—agreed to settle the case.

Forbes magazine puts it bluntly: “Obama has been a staunch supporter of the CRA throughout his public life.” In other words, he has long advocated the very policies that reduced the real-estate market to rubble. And now, because he is a socialist ideologue who reveres big-government interventionism and deplores the free market, he is actively pushing those very same practices again.

Obama claims, of course, to be motivated only by a desire to help downtrodden minorities get a fair shake. But in practice, his approach has served only to devastate those purported “beneficiaries.” For example, by 2009, as a result of the government policies that had brought about the housing crisis, the median net worth of black and Hispanic households nationwide had declined by 53% and 66%, respectively—whereas white net worth had fallen by a mere 16%. These disparities, explains the Federal Reserve, were largely due to the fact that African Americans and Hispanics—“because of their comparatively poor credit ratings”—were disproportionately represented among those who had fallen into the financial trap of the subprime mortgages encouraged by the CRA and similar government policies.

It's a story we've seen many times: Leftist masterminds come up with a scheme to bring “justice” to the downtrodden. But when the dust eventually settles, there is only misery all around.

89  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Christian Argument Against Trump... on: January 22, 2016, 10:47:02 AM
For your consideration.  I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this analysis:

Trump’s Essence Is Winning, Christ’s Is Sacrifice, Now Choose

By Steve Berman  |  January 21, 2016


I daresay more words have been spilled on the topic of Donald Trump in the past six months than on any candidate in any race since Ronald Reagan, but it’s been difficult to get to what Aristotle called the “teleology” of Trump. Teleology: It’s the reason for his existence.

Aristotle asked “what causes something to be what it is, to have the characteristics that it has, or to change in the way that it does?” And from that question, he developed his philosophical concepts of substance and form.

We know a table is a table when we look at it because of its form, but the substance is wood, glue and nails.

The substance of Trump is a man obsessed with success. It doesn’t matter what endeavor he’s in, he wants to win. He discards whatever is not advancing him toward a win, and acquires what does advance him. He wakes up every morning with that same belief and goes to bed knowing he’s done all he can do achieve it that day.

And now the form: a man shaped by the power of positive thought. Trump’s religion is the Christianity of Norman Vincent Peale, author of “The Power of Positive Thinking.”

    “The great Norman Vincent Peale was my minister for years,” Trump told CNN last July, a sentiment he repeated in Atlanta and in Iowa during stops in Ames and Dubuque.

    Peale, for his part, described Trump as “kindly and courteous” with “a streak of honest humility,” and touted him as “one of America’s top positive thinkers and doers.” The minister also called Trump “ingenious” and predicted that he would be “the greatest builder of our time.”

Peale preached a Christianity styled on what today is called “Word of Faith.” I’ve been to some churches where Jesus is the name, but the game is “name it, claim it.” This brand of faith relies on verses like John 14:13-14 “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”

Oh, and do they ask.

For Trump, who answered “I try not make mistakes where I have to ask forgiveness” when asked for his views on asking for God’s forgiveness by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, it’s all about living for the purpose for which he believes God placed him here. And to Trump, that purpose is to succeed in everything he does.

To win.

He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t smoke. He doesn’t do drugs. And he doesn’t believe that his relationships are as important as the service he can give to his country by succeeding. For that, Trump feels he owes no apology to man or to God. Psychologists might call this a narcissistic personality disorder, but it’s really not. It’s his personal brand of faith, based not so much in the Bible as it is in his own ability to picture his success, and then attain it.

Trump has been planning this run for president for a very long time. He’s kicked it around since he was in his late 20’s. It’s never been far from his peripheral gaze: A prize of all prizes, and the success of all successes. That’s his essence. That’s the reason Trump believes God made him for such a time as this.

Substance, form, purpose were Aristotle’s tools. The substance of Trump running for president versus him being president are two different things. But the form and the essence are the same: Trump wants to win, and that’s problematic.

Jesus cautioned against too much success in this life. Matthew 19:23-24:

    Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul wrote:

    Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Making the deal, building the wall, whatever it is that Trump wants to do is not what God’s Word recommends. Should he become president, Trump will stay true to form, in the Aristotelian sense. Bible-believing Christians must be careful about supporting Trump. It brings to mind the story of the scorpion and frog, which I’ve used before as an illustration.

    One day, a scorpion decided he wanted to leave his desert home and live in a forest, so he set out on a journey.  Reaching a river he could not cross, he came across a frog, and asked for help.  Here’s how their conversation went.

    “Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

    “Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

    “Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

    Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

    “This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

    “Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

    “Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

You can guess what happened.  Halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog.

    “You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

    The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drowning frog’s back.

    “I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

    Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

We cannot expect Trump to suddenly change his nature or his faith. We can pray for him (we should pray for him, and for President Obama also and a number of leaders who need Jesus), but we should not base our assumptions on what the man says, but on who he really is.

Trump will do what he needs to do to succeed. I don’t believe those who say he’ll trash the Constitution, or go for an authoritarian style. That’s not his nature. He wants his opponents to agree with him and to make the deal. He’ll stake a position, summon supporters, build consensus, fight off attacks, and move forward until the deal is done. That’s what he’s always done, and that’s what he will continue to do.

But for Christians, be careful what you ask for, because it might not be what you’re really getting. To “make America great,” Trump will sacrifice Biblical values, sink the country to a moral low point (defining success as winning in monetary, military, and nationalistic terms), and attack anyone who opposes him.

As one pastor (who I will leave unnamed) put it, “if we elect this man to the White House, the first time Christians disagree with him, we will get everything that’s coming to us.”

Scary words. Now choose.


90  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Gordon? on: January 22, 2016, 01:56:24 AM
I'd like to see his rationale as well.  There is overwhelming evidence (see Brandon Smith article in my earlier post) that this is shaping up to be WORSE than 2008.
Where is his evidence to the contrary?
91  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Economic Meltdown Being Led By U.S., Not China... on: January 21, 2016, 01:28:51 AM
The U.S. Is At The Center Of The Global Economic Meltdown

January 20, 2016   Brandon Smith


While the economic implosion progresses this year, there will be considerable misdirection and disinformation as to the true nature of what is taking place. As I have outlined in the past, the masses were so ill informed by the mainstream media during the Great Depression that most people had no idea they were actually in the midst of an “official” depression until years after it began. The chorus of economic journalists of the day made sure to argue consistently that recovery was “right around the corner.” Our current depression has been no different, but something is about to change.

Unlike the Great Depression, social crisis will eventually eclipse economic crisis in the U.S. That is to say, our society today is so unequipped to deal with a financial collapse that the event will inevitably trigger cultural upheaval and violent internal conflict. In the 1930s, nearly 50% of the American population was rural. Farmers made up 21% of the labor force. Today, only 20% of the population is rural. Less than 2% work in farming and agriculture. That’s a rather dramatic shift from a more independent and knowledgeable land-utilizing society to a far more helpless and hapless consumer-based system.

What’s the bottom line? About 80% of the current population in the U.S. is more than likely inexperienced in any meaningful form of food production and self-reliance.

The rationale for lying to the public is certainly there. Economic and political officials could argue that to reveal the truth of our fiscal situation would result in utter panic and immediate social breakdown. When 80% of the citizenry is completely unprepared for a decline in the mainstream grid, a loss of savings through falling equities and a loss of buying power through currency destruction, their first response to such dangers would be predictably uncivilized.

Of course, the powers-that-be are not really interested in protecting the American people from themselves. They are interested only in positioning their own finances and resources in the most advantageous investments while using our loss and fear to extract more centralization, more control and more consent. Thus, the hiding of economic decline is enacted because the decline itself is useful to the elites.

And just to be clear for those who buy into the propaganda, the U.S. is indeed in a speedy decline.

In 'Lies You Will Hear As The Economic Collapse Progresses', published in summer of last year, I predicted that “Chinese contagion” would be used as the scapegoat for the downturn in order to hide the true source: American wealth destruction. Today, as the Dow and other markets plummet and oil markets tank due to falling demand and glut inventories, all we seem to hear from the mainstream talking heads and the people who parrot them in various forums is that the U.S. is the “only stable economy by comparison” and the rest of the world (mainly China) is a poison to our otherwise exemplary financial health. This is delusional fiction.

The U.S. is the No. 1 consumer market in the world with a 29% overall share and a 21% share in energy usage, despite having only 5 percent of the world’s total population. If there is a global slowdown in consumption, manufacturing, exports and imports, then the first place to look should be America.

Trucking freight in the U.S. is in steep decline, with freight companies pointing to a “glut in inventories” and a fall in demand as the culprit.

Morgan Stanley’s freight transportation update indicates a collapse in freight demand worse than that seen during 2009.

The Baltic Dry Index, a measure of global freight rates and thus a measure of global demand for shipping of raw materials, has collapsed to even more dismal historic lows. Hucksters in the mainstream continue to push the lie that the fall in the BDI is due to an “overabundance of new ships.” However, the CEO of A.P. Moeller-Maersk, the world’s largest shipping line, put that nonsense to rest when he admitted in November that “global growth is slowing down” and “[t]rade is currently significantly weaker than it normally would be under the growth forecasts we see.”

Maersk ties the decline in global shipping to a FALL IN DEMAND, not an increase in shipping fleets.

This point is driven home when one examines the real-time MarineTraffic map, which tracks all cargo ships around the world. For the past few weeks, the map has remained almost completely inactive with the vast majority of the world’s cargo ships sitting idle in port, not traveling across oceans to deliver goods. The reality is, global demand has fallen down a black hole, and the U.S. is at the top of the list in terms of crashing consumer markets.

To drive the point home even further, the U.S. is by far the world’s largest petroleum consumer. Therefore, any sizable collapse in global oil demand would have to be predicated in large part on a fall in American consumption. Oil inventories are now overflowing, indicating an unheard-of crash in energy use and purchasing.

U.S. petroleum consumption was actually lower in 2014 than it was in 1997 and 25% lower than earlier projections predicted. A large part of this reduction in gas use has been attributed to fewer vehicle miles traveled. Though oil markets have seen massive price cuts, the lack of demand continued through 2015.

This collapse in consumption is reflected partially in newly adjusted 4th quarter GDP forecasts by the Federal Reserve, which are now slashed down to 0.7%.  And remember, Fed and government calculate GDP stats by counting government spending of taxpayer money as "production" or "commerce".  They also count parasitic programs like Obamacare towards GDP as well.  If one were to remove government spending of taxpayer funds from the equation, real GDP would be far in the negative.  That is to say, if the fake numbers are this bad, then the real numbers must be horrendous.

And finally, let’s talk about Wal-Mart. There is a good reason why mainstream pundits are attempting to marginalize Wal-Mart’s sudden announcement of 269 store closures, 154 of them within the U.S. with at least 10,000 employees being laid off. Admitting weakness in Wal-Mart means admitting weakness in the U.S. economy, and they don’t want to do that.

Wal-Mart is America’s largest retailer and largest employer. In 2014, Wal-Mart announced a sweeping plan to essentially crush neighborhood grocery markets with its Wal-Mart Express stores, building hundreds within months. Today, those Wal-Mart Express stores are being shut down in droves, along with some supercenters. Their top business model lasted around a year before it was abandoned.

Some in the mainstream argue that this is not necessarily a sign of economic decline because Wal-Mart claims it will be building 200 to 240 new stores worldwide by 2017. This is interesting to me because Wal-Mart just suffered its steepest stock drop in 27 years on reports that projected sales will fall by 6% to 12% for the next two years.

It would seem to me highly unlikely that Wal-Mart would close 154 stores in the U.S. (269 stores worldwide) and then open 240 other stores during a projected steep crash in sales that caused the worst stock trend in the company’s history. I think it far more likely that Wal-Mart executives are attempting to appease shareholders with expansion promises they do not plan to keep.

I am going to call it here and now and predict that most of these store sites will never see construction and that Wal-Mart will continue to make cuts, either with store closings, employee layoffs or both.

As the above data indicates, global demand is disintegrating; and the U.S. is a core driver.

The best way to sweep all these negative indicators under the rug is to fabricate some grand idea of outside threats and fiscal dominoes. It is much easier for Americans to believe our country is being battered from without rather than destroyed from within.

Does China have considerable fiscal issues including debt bubble issues? Absolutely. Is this a catalyst for global collapse? No. China’s problems are many but if there is a first “domino” in the chain, then the U.S. economy claims that distinction.

China is the largest exporter in the world, not the largest consumer. If anything, a crash in China’s economy is only a REFLECTION of an underlying collapse in U.S. demand for Chinese goods (among others). That is to say, the mainstream dullards have it backward; a crash in China is a herald of a larger collapse in U.S. markets. A crash in China is a symptom of the greater fiscal disease in America. The U.S. is the primary cause; it is not the victim of Chinese contagion. And the crisis in the U.S. will ultimately be far worse by comparison.

I wrote in 'What Fresh Horror Awaits The Economy After Fed Rate Hike?', published before Christmas:

"Market turmoil is a guarantee given the fact that banks and corporations have been utterly reliant on near-zero interest rates and free overnight lending from the Fed. They have been using these no-cost and low-cost loans primarily for stock buybacks, purchasing back their own stocks and reducing the number of shares on the market, thereby artificially elevating the value of the remaining shares and driving up the market as a whole. Now that near-zero lending is over, these banks and corporations will not be able to afford constant overnight borrowing, and the buybacks will cease. Thus, stock markets will crash in the near term.

This process has already begun with increased volatility leading up to and after the Fed rate hike. Watch for far more erratic stock movements (300 to 500 points or more) up and down taking place more frequently, with the overall trend leading down into the 15,000-point range for the Dow in the first two quarters of 2016. Extraordinary but short lived positive increases in the markets will occur at times (Christmas and New Year’s tend to result in positive rallies), but shock rallies are just as much a sign of volatility and instability as shock crashes."

Markets moved immediately into crash territory after the new year began. This was an easy prediction to make and one that I have been reiterating for months — just as the timing of the Fed rate hike was an easy prediction to make, based on the Fed’s history of deliberately increasing instability through bad policy as the economy moves into deflationary spirals. The Fed did it during the Great Depression and is doing it again today.

It is no coincidence that global markets began to tank after the first Fed rate hike; no-cost overnight lending to banks and corporations was the key to maintaining equities in a relatively static position.  As the U.S. loses momentum, the world loses momentum.  As the Fed ends outright stimulation and manipulation, the house of cards falls.

I have said it many times and I’ll say it yet again: If you think the Fed’s motivation is to prolong or protect the U.S. economy and currency, then you will never understand why it takes the policy actions it does. If you understand and accept the fact that the Fed is a saboteur working carefully and incrementally toward the destruction of the U.S. to make way for a new globally centralized system, everything falls into place.

To summarize, the U.S. economy as we know it is not slated to survive the next few years. Read my article 'The Economic Endgame Explained' for more in-depth information on why a collapse is being engineered and what the openly admitted goal is, including the referenced 1988 article from The Economist titled “Get Ready A World Currency In 2018,” which outlines the plan for a reduction of the dollar and the U.S. system in order to make way for a global basket reserve currency (Special Drawing Rights).

It is astonishingly foolish to assume that even though the U.S. has held the title of king of global consumption share for decades, that our economy is somehow not a primary faulty part in the sputtering global economic engine.  Economies are falling because demand is falling.   Demand is falling because Americans are not buying.  Americans are not buying because Americans are broke. Americans are broke because central bank policy has created an environment of wealth destruction. This wealth destruction in the U.S. has been ongoing, but only now is it becoming truly visible.  The volatility we see in developing nations is paltry compared to the financial chaos we now face.  Anyone who attempts to dismiss the dangers of a U.S. breakdown or the threat to the unprepared public is either an idiot, or they are trying to divert and distract you from reality. The coming months will undoubtedly verify this.
92  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Nation That Gave Us The Magna Carta Is Dead... on: January 20, 2016, 07:30:38 AM
Geller: The Nation That Gave the World the Magna Carta Is Dead

by PAMELA GELLER January 18, 2016

The British Parliament on Monday debated whether or not to ban Donald Trump from the country for the crime of saying that in light of jihad terrorist attacks, there should be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the U.S.

I did not expect for one moment that the Brits would ban the U.S. presidential candidate who may very well be the next President of the United States. A nation whose national self-esteem (or what’s left of it) is rooted deeply in its place in history would be infamous for having banned the leader of its closest ally, the one that saved her from the Nazi onslaught.

On the other hand, maybe they will ban Trump. After all, the British government banned me from entering the country for standing up against jihad terror. To ban Trump for calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration would just be more of the same. The British government, egged on by the left, seems determined to silence any and every voice against jihad terror and Islamization. The consequences for Britain will be catastrophic.

According to documents released in our lawsuit against the British government under the Duty of Candor, my support for Israel was also cited as grounds for the ban. An official in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote that the dossier that the government had assembled as the case for banning me was “particularly citing pro-Israeli views.” If supporting Israel can get you banned from Britain, opposing the unrestricted entry of Muslims (including jihad terrorists) into the U.S. certainly can.

In not allowing me into the country solely because of our true and accurate statements about Islam and support of Israel, the British government was behaving like a de facto Islamic state.

By the time my ban was officially announced, however, the Home Office had scrubbed the material about it being because I was pro-Israel. The British government explicitly stated that I was banned because my presence was “not conducive to the public good” and that I represented a “threat to security of our society.” What were the criteria? CNN “journalist” Mona Eltahawy was soon afterward scheduled to speak in the UK at a women’s conference sponsored by two sharia-compliant media orgs, Reuters and the New York Times. Yet Mona Eltahawy was arrested after attacking a complete stranger in the New York subway and defacing our American Freedom Defense Initiative pro-Israel ad. Is that acceptable behavior and conducive to the public good? The British government apparently thinks so. They also let a notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader take refuge in London, and readily admit preachers of jihad terror.

The Home Office also cited security concerns – that is, if I were admitted, Muslims might riot, and rather than keep the Muslims rioting, they banned me. As Laura Rosen Cohen says, “security concerns” are the new “shut up.” My real crime was my principled dedication to freedom. I am a human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and individual rights for all before the law. I fiercely oppose violence and the persecution and oppression of minorities under supremacist law. I deplore violence and work for the preservation of freedom of speech to avoid violent conflict. I have never been convicted of any crime. I have never been arrested. I became a writer and activist in the wake of 9/11. For this, I am banned from Britain. I shed no tears. I am banned from Mecca, too.

Things have not improved in the two and a half years since I was banned. Monday’s Parliamentary “debate” was more like a clown contest, with Islamic apologists competing to see which one could out-bootlick Britain’s Islamic supremacists.

Why did this once great country agree to hold such a debate in the first place? Now in the birthplace of the principle of the freedom of speech, holding opinions that are unpopular with the elites can get you banned from the country. Apparently over 500,000 people signed a petition demanding that Trump be banned. Mind you, another petition calling for a halt to the massive Muslim migration into the United Kingdom gained a similar number of signers, but there was no Parliamentary debate, or any significant political discussion, of that one.

Where also is the Parliamentary debate about the hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as a million, young British girls who were brutalized by Muslim rape gangs? These girls were sacrificed on the altar of Islamic supremacism. For years these little British girls went to the authorities about these Muslim child sex trafficking gangs and the authorities did nothing for fear of appearing “Islamophobic” or racist. But they sprang into action and banned me when they heard I would be laying a wreath at the site of the Lee Rigby beheading on Armed Services Day.

What’s bitterly ironic is that Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, a lapdog of Islamic supremacists, has just called on immigrants to learn English within two-and-a-half years of arriving in Britain, or face deportation. If Trump had said that, the British left would be working up another petition denouncing him. Will Cameron be banned from the country?

The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead.

93  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Recession Worse Than 2008 Is Imminent... on: January 15, 2016, 01:46:08 PM
A recession worse than 2008 is coming

Michael Pento   

The S&P 500 has begun 2016 with its worst performance ever. This has prompted Wall Street apologists to come out in full force and try to explain why the chaos in global currencies and equities will not be a repeat of 2008. Nor do they want investors to believe this environment is commensurate with the dot-com bubble bursting. They claim the current turmoil in China is not even comparable to the 1997 Asian debt crisis.

Indeed, the unscrupulous individuals that dominate financial institutions and governments seldom predict a down-tick on Wall Street, so don't expect them to warn of the impending global recession and market mayhem.

But a recession has occurred in the U.S. about every five years, on average, since the end of WWII; and it has been seven years since the last one — we are overdue.

Most importantly, the average market drop during the peak to trough of the last 6 recessions has been 37 percent. That would take the S&P 500 down to 1,300; if this next recession were to be just of the average variety.

But this one will be worse.

A major contributor for this imminent recession is the fallout from a faltering Chinese economy. The megalomaniac communist government has increased debt 28 times since the year 2000. Taking that total north of 300 percent of GDP in a very short period of time for the primary purpose of building a massive unproductive fixed asset bubble that adds little to GDP.

Now that this debt bubble is unwinding, growth in China is going offline. The renminbi's falling value, cascading Shanghai equity prices (down 40 percent since June 2014) and plummeting rail freight volumes (down 10.5 percent year over year), all clearly illustrate that China is not growing at the promulgated 7 percent, but rather isn't growing at all. The problem is that China accounted for 34 percent of global growth, and the nation's multiplier effect on emerging markets takes that number to over 50 percent.

Therefore, expect more stress on multinational corporate earnings as global growth continues to slow. But the debt debacle in China is not the primary catalyst for the next recession in the United States. It is the fact that equity prices and real estate values can no longer be supported by incomes and GDP. And now that the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing and zero interest-rate policy have ended, these asset prices are succumbing to the gravitational forces of deflation. The median home price to income ratio is currently 4.1; whereas the average ratio is just 2.6.

Therefore, despite record low mortgage rates, first-time homebuyers can no longer afford to make the down payment. And without first-time home buyers, existing home owners can't move up.

Likewise, the total value of stocks has now become dangerously detached from the anemic state of the underlying economy. The long-term average of the market cap-to-GDP ratio is around 75, but it is currently 110. The rebound in GDP coming out of the Great Recession was artificially engendered by the Fed's wealth effect. Now, the re-engineered bubble in stocks and real estate is reversing and should cause a severe contraction in consumer spending.

Nevertheless, the solace offered by Wall Street is that another 2008-style deflation and depression is impossible because banks are now better capitalized. However, banks may find they are less capitalized than regulators now believe because much of their assets are in Treasury debt and consumer loans that should be significantly underwater after the next recession brings unprecedented fiscal strain to both the public and private sectors.

But most importantly, even if one were to concede financial institutions are less leveraged; the startling truth is that businesses, the federal government and the Federal Reserve have taken on a humongous amount of additional debt since 2007. Even household debt has increased back to its 2007 record of $14.1 trillion. Specifically, business debt during that time frame has grown from $10.1 trillion, to $12.6 trillion; the total national debt boomed from $9.2 trillion, to $18.9 trillion; and the Fed's balance sheet has exploded from $880 billion to $4.5 trillion.

Banks may be better off today than they were leading up to the Great Recession but the government and Fed's balance sheets have become insolvent in the wake of their inane effort to borrow and print the economy back to health. As a result, the federal government's debt has now soared to nearly 600 percent of total revenue. And the Fed has spent the last eight years leveraging up its balance sheet 77-to-1 in its goal to peg short-term interest rates at zero percent.

Therefore, this inevitable, and by all accounts brutal upcoming recession, will coincide with two unprecedented and extremely dangerous conditions that should make the next downturn worse than 2008.

First, the Fed will not be able to lower interest rates and provide any debt-service relief for the economy. In the wake of the Great Recession, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke took the overnight interbank lending rate down to zero percent from 5.25 percent and printed $3.7 trillion. The Fed bought longer-term debt in order to push mortgages and nearly every other form of debt to record lows.

The best the Fed can do now is to take away its 0.25 percent rate hike made in December.

Second, the federal government increased the amount of publicly-traded debt by $8.5 trillion (an increase of 170 percent), and ran $1.5 trillion deficits to try to boost consumption through transfer payments. Another such ramp up in deficits and debt, which are a normal function of recessions after revenue collapses, would cause an interest-rate spike that would turn this next recession into a devastating depression.

It is my belief that, in order to avoid the surging cost of debt-service payments on both the public and private-sector level, the Fed will feel compelled to launch a massive and unlimited round of bond purchases. However, not only are interest rates already at historic lows, but faith in the ability of central banks to provide sustainable GDP growth will have already been destroyed, given their failed eight-year experiment in QE.

Therefore, the ability of government to save the markets and the economy this time around will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Look for chaos in currency, bond and equity markets on an international scale throughout 2016. Indeed, it already has begun.

Michael Pento produces the weekly podcast "The Mid-week Reality Check,"is the president and founder of Pento Portfolio Strategies and author of thebook "The Coming Bond Market Collapse."

94  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Phyllis Schlafly: "Trump Is America's Last Hope" on: December 20, 2015, 06:58:52 PM

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: TRUMP IS 'LAST HOPE FOR AMERICA'

'I don't see anyone else who's eager to fight'

World Net Daily - December 20, 2015


Phyllis Schlafly, an icon of the conservative movement who has been active for half a century, is warning the nation: Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

Schlafly unloaded on Republicans in Congress for passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill last week, a move she called a “betrayal.”

“This is a betrayal of the grassroots and of the Republican Party,” Schlafly said in an exclusive interview with WND. “We thought we were electing a different crowd to stand up for America, and they didn’t. We’re extremely outraged by what Congress has done. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have engineered it any better. I think the people are going to react by electing Donald Trump.”

Trump put out a statement Friday to ABC News saying, “If anyone needs more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent president, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.”

Trump continued, “Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?”

Schlafly applauded the GOP front-runner’s fighting spirit.

“It sounds like Donald Trump is the only one who has any fight in him,” she said. “He will fight for the issues that we really care about and are very hot at the present time, such as the immigration issue. I don’t see anyone else who’s eager to fight.”

The Republican-controlled Congress just sold America down in river in the “worst kind of betrayal,” Schlafly told WND.

“It’s the worst kind of a betrayal because we thought we elected a bunch of good guys who would shape up the party,” she said. “We had a lot of fancy promises that the Republicans were going to shape up and change course. And they disappointed us. Betrayal is an appropriate word to describe it.”

WND asked Schlafly if she believes Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

“He does look like he’s the last hope [for America],” Schlafly said. “We don’t hear anybody saying what he’s saying. In fact, most of the people who ought to be lining up with him are attacking him. They’re probably jealous of the amount of press coverage he gets. But the reason he gets so much press coverage is the grassroots are fed up with people who are running things, and they do want a change. They do want people to stand up for America. It really resonates when he says he wants to ‘Make America Great Again.’”

Schlafly said it’s not only Republicans who feel betrayed, but Democrats, too.

“They are betrayed,” she said. “There’s no doubt about it. The working man and woman have been betrayed by both parties. They’re ready for a change … anything they think would be better.”

The conservative superstar also blasted leaders of both parties who advocate lax immigration policies while American workers continue to struggle in a tepid economy.

“The rich guys are putting the money in. They want to bring in the low-wage people. That’s the way they think they’ll make money,” she said. “But that’s not the way America will prosper. America was built because we had a great growing and prosperous middle class. We need to rebuild that again. I’m willing to give a new try to somebody else.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/top-conservative-trump-is-last-hope-for-america/#aEW0gY9owK0jpyyd.99
95  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Raymond Ibrahim: The Root Cause of Islamic Terrorism in the West... on: December 18, 2015, 10:14:47 PM
Islamic Jihad: Symptom of a Western Cause

By Raymond Ibrahim - December 18, 2015


As someone specializing in Islamic jihadism, one would expect I’d have much to say immediately after jihadi attacks of the sort that recently occurred in San Bernardino, or Paris, or Mali, where a total of about 180 dead.  Ironically, I don’t: such attacks are ultimately symptoms of what I do deem worthy of talk, namely, root causes.  (What can one add when a symptom of the root cause he has long warned against occurs other than “told you so”?)



So what is the root cause of jihadi attacks?  Many think that the ultimate source of the ongoing terrorization of the West is Islam.  Yet this notion has one problem: the Muslim world is immensely weak and intrinsically incapable of being a threat.  That every Islamic assault on the West is a terrorist attack—and terrorism, as is known, is the weapon of the weak—speaks for itself.

This was not always the case.  For approximately one thousand years, the Islamic world was the scourge of the West.  Today’s history books may refer to those who terrorized Christian Europe as Arabs, Saracens, Moors, Ottomans, Turks, Mongols, or Tatars[1]—but all were operating under the same banner of jihad that the Islamic State is operating under.

No, today, the ultimate enemy is within.  The root cause behind the nonstop Muslim terrorization of the West is found in those who stifle or whitewash all talk and examination of Muslim doctrine and history; who welcome hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants while knowing that some are jihadi operatives and many are simply “radical”; who work to overthrow secular Arab dictators in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” only to uncork the jihad suppressed by the autocrats (the Islamic State’s territory consists of lands that were “liberated” in Iraq, Libya, and Syria by the U.S. and its allies).

So are Western leaders and politicians the root cause behind the Islamic terrorization of the West?

Close—but still not there yet.

Far from being limited to a number of elitist leaders and institutions, the Western empowerment of the jihad is the natural outcome of postmodern thinking—the real reason an innately weak Islam can be a source of repeated woes for a militarily and economically superior West.

Remember, the reason people like French President Francois Hollande, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in power—three prominent Western leaders who insist that Islam is innocent of violence and who push for Muslim immigration—is because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West.

In this context, the facilitation of jihadi terror is less a top down imposition and more a grass root product of decades of erroneous, but unquestioned, thinking.  (Those who believe America’s problems begin and end with Obama would do well to remember that he did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in—twice.  This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview.  He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.)

Western empowerment of the jihad is rooted in a number of philosophies that have metastasized into every corner of social life, becoming cornerstones of postmodern epistemology.  These include the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism on the one hand, and anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment on the other.

Taken together, these cornerstones of postmodern, post-Christian thinking hold that there are no absolute truths and thus all cultures are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect.  If any Western person wants to criticize a civilization or religion, then let them look “inwardly” and acknowledge their European Christian heritage as the epitome of intolerance and imperialism.

Add to these a number of sappy and silly ideals—truth can never be uttered because it might “hurt the feelings” of some (excluding white Christians who are free game), and if anything, the West should go out of its way to make up for its supposedly historic “sins” by appeasing Muslims until they “like us”—and you have a sure recipe for disaster, that is, the current state of affairs.

Western people are bombarded with these aforementioned “truths” from the cradle to the grave—from kindergarten to university, from Hollywood to the news rooms, and now even in churches—so that they are unable to accept and act on a simple truism that their ancestors well knew: Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant creed that cannot coexist with non-Islam (except insincerely, in times of weakness).

The essence of all this came out clearly when Obama, in order to rationalize away the inhuman atrocities of the Islamic State, counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that their Christian ancestors have been guilty of similar if not worse atrocities.  That he had to go back almost a thousand years for examples by referencing the crusades and inquisition—both of which have been completely distorted by the warped postmodern worldview, including by portraying imperialist Muslims as victims—did not matter to America’s leader.

Worse, it did not matter to most Americans.  The greater lesson was not that Obama whitewashed modern Islamic atrocities by misrepresenting and demonizing Christian history, but that he was merely reaffirming the mainstream narrative that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing.  And thus, aside from the usual ephemeral and meaningless grumblings, his words—as with many of his pro-Islamic, anti-Christian comments and policies—passed along without consequence.

—–

Once upon a time, the Islamic world was a super power and its jihad an irresistible force to be reckoned with.   Over two centuries ago, however, a rising Europe—which had experienced over one millennium of jihadi conquests and atrocities—defeated and defanged Islam.

As Islam retreated into obscurity, the post-Christian West slowly came into being.  Islam didn’t change, but the West did: Muslims still venerate their heritage and religion—which impels them to jihad against the Western “infidel”—whereas the West learned to despise its heritage and religion, causing it to be an unwitting ally of the jihad.

Hence the current situation: the jihad is back in full vigor, while the West—not just its leaders, but much of the populace—facilitates it in varying degrees.  Nor is this situation easily remedied.  For to accept that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant is to reject a number of cornerstones of postmodern Western thinking that far transcend the question of Islam. In this context, nothing short of an intellectual/cultural revolution—where rational thinking becomes mainstream—will allow the West to confront Islam head on.

But there is some good news.  With every Islamic attack, the eyes of more and more Western people are opened to the true nature of Muhammad’s religion.  That this is happening despite generations of pro-Islamic indoctrination in the West is a testimony to the growing brazenness of the jihad.

Yet it still remains unclear whether objective thinking will eventually overthrow the current narrative of relativism, anti-Westernism, and asinine emotionalism.

Simply put, celebrating multiculturalism and defeating the jihad is impossible.

However, if such a revolution ever does take place, the Islamic jihad will be easily swept back into the dustbin of history.  For the fact remains: Islam is terrorizing the world, not because it can, but because the West allows it to.

96  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Myth of Christian Pacifism... on: December 10, 2015, 11:08:56 AM
This is an excellent book explaining the Biblical rationale for self-defense, and putting to rest the idea that Christians should be pacifists.  Extensive scriptural references are provided.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982215150?keywords=a%20time%20to%20kill%20book&qid=1449767016&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

97  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dubious Value of College To Many Workers... on: December 09, 2015, 01:39:28 PM
SQUANDERED RESOURCES ON COLLEGE EDUCATION

The dubious benefit of college degrees to workers over the next decade.

December 9, 2015  Walter Williams

Most college students do not belong in college. I am not by myself in this assessment. Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson said, "It's time to drop the college-for-all crusade," adding that "the college-for-all crusade has outlived its usefulness." Richard Vedder, professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University, reports that "the U.S. Labor Department says the majority of new American jobs over the next decade do not need a college degree. We have a six-digit number of college-educated janitors in the U.S." Vedder adds that there are "one-third of a million waiters and waitresses with college degrees." More than one-third of currently working college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, such as flight attendants, taxi drivers and salesmen. College was not a wise use of these students', their parents' and taxpayer resources.

What goes on at many colleges adds to the argument that college for many is a waste of resources. Some Framingham State University students were upset by an image of a Confederate flag sticker on another student's laptop. They were offered counseling services by the university's chief diversity and inclusion officer.

Campus Reform reports that because of controversial newspaper op-eds, five Brown University students are claiming that freedom of speech does not confer the right to express opinions they find distasteful.

A Harvard University student organization representing women's interests now routinely advises students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence and that might therefore be traumatic. Such students will be useless to rape victims and don't belong in law school.

And some college professors are not fit for college, as suggested by the courses they teach. Here's a short list, and you decide: "Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing," Swarthmore College; "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity," University of Virginia; "Oh, Look, a Chicken!" Belmont University; "Getting Dressed," Princeton University; "Philosophy and Star Trek," Georgetown University; "What if Harry Potter Is Real?" Appalachian State University; and "God, Sex, Chocolate: Desire and the Spiritual Path," University of California, San Diego.

The fact that such courses are part of the curricula also says something about administrators who allow such nonsense.

Then there is professorial "wisdom." Professor Mary Margaret Penrose, of the Texas A&M University School of Law, asked, during a panel discussion on gun control, "Why do we keep such an allegiance to a Constitution that was driven by 18th-century concerns?"

Perhaps the newest "intellectual" fad is white privilege. Portland State University professor Rachel Sanders' "White Privilege" course says "whiteness" must be dismantled if racial justice is ever to be achieved. Campus Reform reports on other whiteness issues (http://tinyurl.com/oof9wu3). Harvard's classes on critical race theory combine "progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed."

Back to those college administrators. Dartmouth College's vice provost for student affairs, Inge-Lise Ameer, said, "There's a whole conservative world out there that's not being very nice." She did, however, issue "an unequivocal apology" for stoking tensions with such a disparaging comment about conservatives to Black Lives Matter protesters.

After a standoff with other Black Lives Matter protesters, Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber acceded to demands that former Princeton President Woodrow Wilson's name be removed from the campus because of his behavior as U.S. president. President Wilson was a progressive and an avowed racist who racially segregated the civil service and delighted in showing D.W. Griffith's racist "The Birth of a Nation" to his White House guests. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo's recent column suggests that a worthier target for Black Lives Matter protesters would be Abraham Lincoln, who he says was "the most publicly outspoken racist and white supremacist of all American presidents" (http://tinyurl.com/jza7ntf).

The bottom line is that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, "There are notions so foolish that only an intellectual will believe them."
98  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump's statement re: Muslims... on: December 09, 2015, 09:32:57 AM
I might add that for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Trump's "ban Muslims" comment, FDR (the Left's HERO)  did this with other groups, and we ended immigration ENTIRELY from 1929 - 1965.  So as usual, Trump is using his finely-honed negotiation skills to lead with the most outrageous proposal which he KNOWS will get massive airtime, and will flesh it out with details as time goes on.  What he is saying is essentially true.  Most of the media - including Fox News - is clueless, and screaming "unconstitutional," when Trump's proposal absolutely is NOT.

Funny how they only seem to be interested in issues of constitutionality when a presidential CANDIDATE is talking about an issue, but couldn't care less when a SITTING PRESIDENT violates the document on an almost daily basis.
99  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Farooks - The Modern Jihad Family... on: December 09, 2015, 08:17:42 AM
MEET THE FAROOKS: THE MODERN JIHAD FAMILY

How did this anything-but-moderate family not attract any law enforcement attention?

December 9, 2015  Robert Spencer

When Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered fourteen people and wounded twenty-one at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, Farook’s family, having lawyered up, instructed its legal representatives to tell the world how shocked – shocked! – they were by the massacre. However, just as Captain Renault is handed his winnings immediately after telling Rick Blaine of his shock that gambling was going on in Rick’s Café Americain, so also in this case did the family’s shock seem increasingly less genuine the more that became known about them.

Initially, however, the lie was fed easily to a credulous mainstream media. One of the Farook family lawyers, David Chesley, immediately found the nearest microphone and declared: “None of the family members had any idea that this was going to take place. They were totally shocked.”

Even in stories that reported this, however, the story started to unravel. No sooner had the Associated Press quoted Chesley that it noted that he and another Farook family lawyer, Mohammad Abuershaid, said that “Farook’s mother lived with the couple but she stayed upstairs and didn’t notice they had stockpiled 12 pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition.”

Farook’s mother didn’t notice the twelve pipe bombs and well over 4,500 rounds of ammunition because she “stayed upstairs”? Was she an invalid, then, who never ventured downstairs at all? If so, why did the couple leave their six-month-old daughter in her care when they went off to shoot Infidels for Allah?

And now it has come out that Mom did venture downstairs now and again after all, and that her eye may indeed have caught the site of a stray pipe bomb or two. According to the Daily Mail, “FBI agents found an empty GoPro package, shooting targets and tools inside a car belonging to” Rafia Farook, Syed’s mother. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik mounted GoPro cameras on their body armor before they began their jihad massacre; apparently, like other jihad killers before them, they hoped to cheer and encourage the faithful with scenes of the bloodbath. Authorities are investigating the possibility that Rafia Farook aided in the planning and preparation of the San Bernardino jihad massacre.

Rafia might have taken this car to meetings of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), of which she was an active member. ICNA openly supports Sharia and the caliphate, and has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to the Pakistani jihad group Jamaat-e-Islami.

The family’s shock at the murders appears even more feigned in light of revelations from Syed Rizwan Farook’s father, who is also named Syed Farook. The elder Syed has characterized his ex-wife Rafia as “very religious,” like the killer, to whom he referred as Rizwan. “Rizwan was the mama’s boy,” he recounted, “and she is very religious like him. Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end.” The son insisted on the divorce because he considered the father an “unbeliever.”

What’s more, old man Farook said that his son was an open supporter of the Islamic State, and, of course, hated Israel: “He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel.” Moderate “unbeliever” Papa then told his son to bide his time since, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, everybody hated the Jews: “I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there.” Moderate!

So right in the heart of sunny Redlands, California, where Syed Rizwan and Tashfeen lived with their baby and Rafia (however safely ensconced upstairs, away from the pipe bombs, Grandma may have been), there was an open supporter of the Islamic State and an open supporter of the concept of the caliphate. Then we must not forget the winsome Tashfeen, who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, was linked to a jihadi mosque in Pakistan, and who had become, in one of her teacher’s words, “a religious person” who often told people “to live according to the teachings of Islam.”

Despite all that and more, Tashfeen passed FBI and DHS background checks and was allowed to enter the United States. And as she and her loving hubby amassed pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition, authorities didn’t bat an eye. No report has indicated that they were ever questioned, or were under any kind of surveillance, or were on any watch list.

After all, they were just pious Muslims – and anyone who believes that pious Muslims who are assembling pipe bombs might be up to no good is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe, right? But now the Farooks, the modern jihad family, and the fourteen dead left in their wake, stand as a lesson as to how urgently our law enforcement and intelligence operations need to adopt a realistic approach to the jihad threat, and to discard today’s prevailing politically correct fantasies. But the dead bodies are going to have to be piled up much higher for that reform even to become a possibility.
100  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: December 09, 2015, 08:13:22 AM
In-Store Sales Collapse 10% Over Black Friday Weekend

Tuesday, 01 December 2015   Brandon Smith  Alt-Market.com

There are dozens of excuses and rationalizations for why this has happened, including the nonsensical lie that it has been caused by stores "spreading sales out over the entire Christmas season".  I'm sorry, but retail outlets plugged Black Friday just as hard this year, from my observations, as any other year.  And, Americans for some insane reason still treat Black Friday as a kind of "tradition".  People were out in force on Black Friday weekend, but they are BUYING LESS.  Once this Christmas shopping season is over, it will likely be rated as one of the worst in years.  Online sales are also well below predictions for this year and have not nearly filled the hole that has been left by brick and mortar stores.  I predicted this development in my article 'Economic Crisis Goes Mainstream - What Happens Next?', based on the fact that global shipping rates and numbers have plunged, signalling crumbling demand.  Where demand falls, so falls the economy...

 

Sales at brick-and-mortar stores between Nov. 26 and Nov. 29 totaled an estimated $20.43 billion, 10.4% lower than 2014, according to ShopperTrak, a consumer research and analytics company. "There are several contributing factors, including fewer available store hours on Thanksgiving Day and a later Hanukkah that is anticipated to push sales into December," said ShopperTrak founder Bill Martin in a statement. Sales on Thanksgiving day were an estimated $1.76 billion, a 12.5% decrease from last year. Sales on Black Friday were about $10.21 billion, about 12% down from last year. With seven key shopping days left in the year, ShopperTrak said it maintains its 2.4% brick-and-mortar sales growth forecast for the holiday season.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 20
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!