Uncategorized
Wow, this is one powerful article. This writer exposes the fraud, corruption and lawlessness that is destroying the country. It is the largest theft of wealth from the people in world history.
The “fiscal cliff” is a myth.
Instead, what we are facing is a descent into lawlessness
In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.
Indeed, the IMF has already performed a complete audit of the whole US financial system, something which they have only previously done to broke third world nations.
Economist Marc Faber calls the U.S. a “failed state“. Indeed, we no longer have a free market economy … we have fascism, communist style socialism, kleptocracy, oligarchyor banana republic style corruption.
Let’s look at some specific examples of our descent into lawlessness.
…..read the rest HERE
Christmas certainly has evolved, at least in this culture, from the religious and commercial intensity that were its main characteristics in my now-distant youth.
Christmas also happens to be as good a time as any to take stock of how much worse an un-Christian world would be.
To start….
……read more HERE
In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.
In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
— Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
— Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
— Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
— Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
— Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
— Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org
Economic policymakers aren’t lacking in intelligence – so why are their ideas so bad…?
The question has haunted savants, wives and bartenders throughout the ages. But at least we have a hypothesis.
A guy gets a PhD in physics. You ask him a simple question. He comes up with one of the dumbest answers you ever heard.
Another guy becomes a world chess champion. The next thing you know he’s promoting a cause you know is moronic.
And what about Warren Buffett? There’s a smart guy. He must be smart; he’s made a lot of money.
The French admire intellectuals. The English admire people who can hold their tongues. The Australians admire people who can hold their liquor. But Americans admire people who make money.
A man who can make money is assumed to have qualities of judgment, brains and energy that set him apart from his fellows. Let drop the news that you have made a few million and the local paper will want to ask your opinion on the Egyptian politics or global warming.
And so someone must have asked Mr. Buffett what he thought about taxes.Bloomberg reports:
‘Billionaire investors Warren Buffett and George Soros are calling on Congress to increase the estate tax as lawmakers near a decision on tax policies that expire Dec. 31.
‘In a joint statement today, Buffett, Soros and more than 20 other wealthy individuals asked Congress to lower the estate tax’s per-person exemption to $2 million from $5.12 million and raise the top rate to more than 45 percent from 35 percent.
‘Obama has used Buffett’s call for higher taxes on capital gains to promote the “Buffett rule”, which would require a minimum tax rate for top earners.
‘Soros, 82, is chairman and founder of Soros Fund Management LLC. He is worth $21.6 billion, placing him at 24th on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He has donated more than $3 million to Democrats and has financed groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
OK. So two rich dudes want to increase taxes. Do they really believe that federal bureaucrats and elected politicians will do a better job of allocating scarce resources than the rightful owners of it?
The story continues:
‘Other signers of the statement include Bill Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft chairman; Richard Rockefeller, chairman of Rockefeller Brothers Fund Inc.; and Leo Hindery, managing partner of InterMedia Partners LP.’
Wait, Leo Hindery? The name rings a bell. Oh yes, is this the same Leo Hindery writing in the Financial Times and proving our point. Mr Hindery must be a smart guy. But what has gone wrong with his brain?
In his FT article on Wednesday of last week, Mr Hindery is as sharp as a baseball bat, bluntly pounding through dull ideas and leaving one hell of a mess behind him. He recites the facts as he sees them: unemployment is high; wages are stagnant and so forth.
And then he moves, like Custer to the Little Big Horn, onto the ground where meddlers cause disasters. In his simpleminded way, he imagines a world where results follow intentions, like marriage follows love. He sees no need for a pre-nup.
No need for second guesses or arrières pensées. It will work out. Why? Because he has thought it out thoroughly! He has used his large brain.
What is his solution to high unemployment and low wage growth? Government! No kidding:
‘The creation of a department of business would be a reflection of enlightened political and corporate leadership,’ says he.
What would this new bureaucracy do? It would, yes… you guessed it, be responsible for a new ‘manufacturing and industrial policy…’ Central planning, in other words. He endorses President Obama’s ‘one-stop shop reform of the commerce-side of the executive branch’. And he rejects the ‘discredited libertarian canard that government has no meaningful role to play in the nation’s commerce’.
The man is a deep thinker. Deeeep.
In the itals beneath his article we get his credentials. As might be anticipated, he is ‘chair’ of one worthy group and ‘co-chair’ of another. On the board of numerous trusts, non-profits, and other organizations, he is a smooth operator. The man is a fast-talking zombie, in other words.
He was brought in briefly to run Global Crossing. When he took the job, the stock was $61. A month later, it was $25. Later, after Hindery was removed, the company went bankrupt. Hindery probably had no idea what was going on.
And then…what about the geniuses at the central banks? A report in the Wall Street Journal tells us that a small group of central bankers all went to MIT… all believe they can engineer an economy, almost as if it were a jet engine.
Bernanke, Draghi at the ECB, King at the BoE, Fischer at the Israeli central bank – all are MIT men. Together, they and colleagues, have added $10trn to the world’s monetary footings in the last four years. None has any experience with this sort of thing – it’s never been done before. All admit that they really don’t know what they’re doing.
‘There’s a lot we just don’t know,’ says former Fed man, Donald Kuhn.
And yet, they plunge on…forward…confident that the will figure it out as they go.
Hindery, Buffett, Soros, Bernanke… to say nothing of Nobel Prize winners Krugman and Stiglitz – they’re all such smart guys. What’s wrong with them? Are they so good at getting their names in the paper…or making money… or whatever it is that Mr. Hindery does…that they have no brainpower left for common sense?
Or, are their smarts the real source of the problem. They are capable of remembering, manipulating and connecting ideas…does this give them the confidence to want to manipulate the entire world and create a better one?
A strong man trusts brute force. A wily man thinks he will win by his cunning. A man with a silver tongue expects to seduce and persuade his listeners.
And the smart man? He thinks he can figure things out…and use his brain to create the kind of world he wants.
Why can’t he? Because no matter how smart you are… the world is far more complex and far more nuanced than you will ever understand. Trying to control it always leads to disaster.
Exactly 2 years ago a group of singers assembled at a shopping mall in Southern California to delight everyone present with an incredibly special performance: