Problems Unaddressed In America

AMERICA IS BEING DESTROYED BY PROBLEMS THAT ARE UNADDRESSED

Washington’s financial policy is forcing families to gradually extinguish themselves

Paul Craig Roberts | Infowars - DECEMBER 31, 2015

One hundred years ago European civilization, as it had been known, was ending its life in the Great War, later renamed World War I.

Millions of soldiers ordered by mindless generals into the hostile arms of barbed wire and machine gun fire had left the armies stalemated in trenches. A reasonable peace could have been reached, but US President Woodrow Wilson kept the carnage going by sending fresh American soldiers to try to turn the tide against Germany in favor of the English and French.

The fresh Amerian machine gun and barbed wire fodder weakened the German position, and an armistance was agreed. The Germans were promised no territorial losses and no reparations if they laid down their arms, which they did only to be betrayed at Versailles. The injustice and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty produced the German hyperinflation, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and the rise of Hitler.


Hitler’s demands that Germany be put back together from the pieces handed out to France, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, comprising 13 percent of Germany’s European territory and one-tenth of her population, and a repeat of French and British stupidity that had sired the Great War finished off the remnants of European civilization in World War II.

The United States benefitted greatly from this death. The economy of the United States was left untouched by both world wars, but economies elsewhere were destroyed. This left Washington and the New York banks the arbiters of the world economy. The US dollar replaced British sterling as the world reserve currency and became the foundation of US domination in the second half of the 20th century, a domination limited in its reach only by the Soviet Union.

The Soviet collapse in 1991 removed this constraint from Washington. The result was a burst of American arrogance and hubris that wiped away in over-reach the leadership power that had been handed to the United States. Since the Clinton regime, Washington’s wars have eroded American leadership and replaced stability in the Middle East and North Africa with chaos.

Washington moved in the wrong direction both in the economic and political arenas. In place of diplomacy, Washington used threats and coercion. “Do as you are told or we will bomb you into the stone age,” as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told President Musharraf of Pakistan. Not content to bully weak countries, Washington threatens poweful countries such as Russia, China, and Iran with economic sanctions and military actions. Consequently, much of the non-Western world is abandoning the US dollar as world currency, and a number of countries are organizing a payments system, World Bank, and IMF of their own. Some NATO members are rethinking their membership in an organization that Washington is herding into conflict with Russia.

China’s unexpectedly rapid rise to power owes much to the greed of American capitalism. Pushed by Wall Street and the lure of “performance bonuses,” US corporate executives brought a halt to rising US living standards by sending high productivity, high value-added jobs abroad where comparable work is paid less. With the jobs went the technology and business knowhow. American capability was given to China. Apple Computer, for example, has not only offshored the jobs but also outsourced its production. Apple does not own the Chinese factories that produce its products.

The savings in US labor costs became corporate profits, executive renumeration, and shareholder capital gains. One consequence was the worsening of the US income distribution and the concentration of income and wealth in few hands. A middle class democracy was transformed into an oligarchy. As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, the US is no longer a democracy; it is an oligarchy.

In exchange for short-term profits and in order to avoid Wall Street threats of takeovers, capitalists gave away the American economy. As manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs flowed out of America, real family incomes ceased to grow and declined. The US labor force participation rate fell even as economic recovery was proclaimed. Job gains were limited to lowly paid domestic services, such as retail clerks, waitresses, and bartenders, and part-time jobs replaced full-time jobs. Young people entering the work force find it increasingly difficult to establish an independent existance, with 50 percent of 25-year old Americans living at home with parents.

In an economy driven by consumer and investment spending, the absence of growth in real consumer income means an economy without economic growth. Led by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve in the first years of the 21st century substituted a growth in consumer debt for the missing growth in consumer income in order to keep the economy moving. This could only be a short-term palliative, because the growth of consumer debt is limited by the growth of consumer income.

Another serious mistake was the repeal of financial regulation that had made capitalism functional. The New York Banks were behind this egregious error, and they used their bought-and-paid-for Texas US Senator, whom they rewarded with a 7-figure salary and bank vice chairmanship to open the floodgates to amazing debt leverage and financial fraud with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall destroyed the separation of commercial from investment banking. One result was the concentration of banking. Five mega-banks now dominate the American financial scene. Another result was the power that the mega-banks gained over the government of the United States. Today the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve serve only the interests of the mega-banks.

In the United States savers have had no interest on their savings in eight years. Those who saved for their retirement in order to make paltry Social Security benefits liveable have had to draw down their capital, leaving less inheritance for hard-pressed sons, grandsons, daughters and granddaughters.

Washington’s financial policy is forcing families to gradually extinguish themselves. This is “freedom and democracy “ America today.

Among the capitalist themselves and their shills among the libertarian ideologues, who are correct about the abuse of government power but less concerned with the abuse of private power, the capitalist greed that is destroying families and the economy is regarded as the road to progress. By distrusting government regulators of private misbehavior, libertarians provided the cover for the repeal of the financial regulation that made American capitalism functional. Today dysfunctional capitalism rules, thanks to greed and libertarian ideology.

With the demise of the American middle class, which becomes more obvious each day as another ladder of upward mobility is dismantled, the United States becomes a bipolar country consisting of the rich and the poor. The most obvious conclusion is that the failure of American political ledership means instability, leading to a conflict between the haves—the one percent—and the dispossessed—the 99 percent.

The failure of leadership in the United States is not limited to the political arena but is across the board. The time horizon operating in American institutions is very short term. Just as US manufacturers have harmed US demand for their products by moving abroad American jobs and the consumer income associated with the jobs, university administrations are destroying universities. As much as 75 percent of university budgets is devoted to administration. There is a proliferation of provosts, assistant provosts, deans, assistant deans, and czars for every designated infraction of political correctness.

Tenure-track jobs, the bedrock of academic freedom, are disappearing as university administrators turn to adjuncts to teach courses for a few thousand dollars. The decline in tenure-track jobs heralds a decline in enrollments in Ph.D. programs. University enrollments overall are likely to decline. The university experience is eroding at the same time that the financial return to a university education is eroding. Increasingly students graduate into an employment environment that does not produce sufficient income to service their student loans or to form independent households.

Increasingly university research is funded by the Defense Department and by commercial interests and serves those interests. Universities are losing their role as sources of societal critics and reformers. Truth itself is becoming commercialized.

The banking system, which formerly financed business, is increasingly focused on converting as much of the economy as possible into leveraged debt instruments. Even consumer spending is reduced with high credit card interest rate charges. Indebtedness is rising faster than the real production in the economy.

Historically, capitalism was justified on the grounds that it guaranteed the efficient use of society’s resources. Profits were a sign that resources were being used to maximize social welfare, and losses were a sign of inefficient resource use, which was corrected by the firm going out of business. This is no longer the case when the economic policy of a counry serves to protect financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and when profits reflect the relocation abroad of US GDP as a result of jobs offshoring. Clearly, American capitalism no longer serves society, and the worsening distribution of income and wealth prove it.

None of these serious problems will be addressed by the presidential candidates, and no party’s platform will consist of a rescue plan for America. Unbridled greed, short-term in nature, will continue to drive America into the ground.

Mises

MISES: AN AUDACIOUS CHAMPION OF FREEDOM

He revealed the Federal Reserve would harm business and people to aid the government and its cronies

Lew Rockwell | Mises.org - DECEMBER 29, 2015

Ideas are all-important. Indeed, they are more powerful than armies, as Victor Hugo noted. But ideas are advanced by specific individuals, and inculcated in them, and historically tied to them.

How blessed are we that we have not a criminal like Marx nor a monster, like Keynes to follow, but Ludwig von Mises, a hero as well as a genius.

Mises was not only a dazzling economist and champion of liberty, but no Communist, nor Nazi, nor central banker could pressure him into doing the wrong thing.


Born in 1871 in the city of Lemberg, then part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, he moved with his family to Vienna as a young man. Mises’s father was a high executive in the Austro-Hungarian railways.

The grammar schools and gymnasiums he attended—super high schools in our terms—still have his records. He was recognized as extraordinary from the first.

Mises excelled as a student at the University of Vienna, earning a doctorate in economics and law. He wrote a book on housing policy before encountering Menger’s Principles and becoming an Austrian economist.

Mises clerked for judges and practiced law before getting a job as an economist at the professional housing association. While there, he demonstrated that high real estate taxes were hindering new construction, a serious problem in housing-short Vienna. Through his papers and lectures, that is, the pure power of his mind, he brought about a cut in taxes, leading to more investment in housing, exactly as he had predicted.

Mises was denied a paid position at the university, despite publishing his astounding Theory of Money and Credit. Before the founding of the Fed, he demonstrated that such a central bank would harm business and people to aid the government and its cronies, as well as bring on the business cycle of artificial booms followed by busts.

Mises was an army officer during the war, and we are privileged to have his medals at the Institute. At first, Mises was an economic advisor to the general staff. Then he was sent to the most dangerous duty in the war and almost killed. Guido Hülsmann, author of the great Mises biography, discovered that the power of Mises’s free-market analysis led to his corrupt and statist opponents hoping to kill him. There was a lot of money at stake. Still, the wounded Mises was decorated for bravery under fire, and as a great leader of men under brutal attack.

After the war, Mises secured a position as an economic advisor to the government for the Vienna Chamber of Commerce. He had been blocked from a position at the university by powerful socialists, and instead worked as a privatdozent and later a prestigious associate professor at the university, both unpaid positions. Unpaid or not, he used it to teach students and host his famous private seminar, which attracted top intellectuals from all over Europe. They remembered it as the most intense, rigorous, and fun experience of their academic lives.

Though working in effect two full-time jobs, Mises threw himself into his work as an economic advisor to call for a fully redeemable gold standard. The central bank was furious. It turned out that the then-current system allowed officials to have a secret slush fund for themselves and friendly economic journalists. The vice president of the central bank even hinted at a bribe for Mises if only he would be more accommodating to compromise. Of course, then and throughout his life, he never would.

The power of Mises’s influence as an economic advisor was shown in two more important ways. Austria threatened to follow Germany into hyperinflation. Almost singlehandedly his persuasion prevented a repeat in his country, if not of all inflation, of the speed and depth of the German catastrophe.

After the war, a coalition government, in part Marxist, came to power in Austria. Otto Bauer, a leader of the Austrian Social Democratic party and foreign minister, intended to introduce Bolshevism in Austria, but he listened to his old school chum Mises, something Bauer resented bitterly in later years.

Evening after evening, Mises persuaded Bauer and his equally Marxist wife that Bolshevism would mean mass starvation. Bauer was convinced.

All this time, Mises was also trying to do his scholarly work. And he did, while also paying full attention to his day job. In what would normally be his leisure time, for example, he wrote first his world historic article and then his book on Socialism. Just after the establishment of Bolshevism in Russia, he proved that with no private property in the means of production, socialism would be a chaotic and poverty-producing disaster. No planning board could substitute for property and market. Tragically for the world, it took decades before socialists would admit, after his death, “Mises was right.”

But the evil of statism also grew from another direction, and Mises was the first to see what was in store for Austria with the National Socialists. Many colleagues credited him with saving their lives, because they left in time. In 1934, Mises secured the first and only paid professorship of his life, at the International Graduate School in Geneva. It was a happy time for Mises, who lectured in accentless French and wrote in German. But by 1940, it was getting very uncomfortable in Switzerland.

Already in 1938, the invading Nazis had ransacked his Vienna apartment, and stolen his library and papers. Mises and his wife Margit—later first chairman of the Mises Institute—decided to go to America.

They crossed France barely in front of advancing German troops, just making it into neutral Portugal and a ship to New York. Once here, in an academic community offering professorships to all the European Marxists and Keynesians, there was nothing for the “Neanderthal,” “reactionary,” and “caveman” Mises. The intellectual climate of the New Deal was bitterly hostile. Even when the libertarian Volker Fund offered to pay his entire university salary, Mises was shunned for defending freedom and capitalism.

Finally, businessman Lawrence Fertig, later a benefactor of the Mises Institute, was able to persuade NYU, where he was on the board, to allow Mises to be an unpaid, permanent “visiting professor.” Even so, Keynesian deans gave him the worst offices and class hours, and tried to persuade students not to take his courses.

Yet, though in a new country at almost sixty, of whose language he had only a reading and writing knowledge to begin with, Mises was undefeated. He restarted his weekly seminar, attracting such participants as Henry Hazlitt, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. Important business leaders, journalists, and financiers audited his classes. This drove other professors, said Robert Nozick, wild with envy.

But Mises, never compromising his principles, just moved ahead, uncomplaining, undismayed, and unhindered. And it was in the 1940s that Mises completed his monumental treatise Human Action, in which he reconstructed all of economic analysis on a sound individualistic foundation.

Any of the books I’ve mentioned—and he wrote many more—would be a significant lone achievement for a lifetime. It was one of the great moments of my life to have dinner with Mises and his wife while serving as his editorial assistant. He was eighty-six, and magnificent. I can testify that Rothbard was right: he was trailing clouds of glory from a lost and better civilization: pre-WWI Vienna. In looks, speech, dress, bearing, and manners, he was a great European gentleman.

Because Mises was intransigent on matters of principle, some of his critics have denounced him as “obnoxious”! He might have had reason, but as Rothbard, Hazlitt, Hayek, Fertig, Leonard Read, and so many others confirmed to me, he was kind, funny, and generous, no matter what he was put through. He was especially good with students. Or to a twenty-three-year-old kid helping bring some of his books back into print, as well as to publish a new paper.

In the years after he died in 1973, I worried that his scholarly work was being neglected, as well as his moral stature, and the Austrian school was shrinking. We all need heroes, and he was a great one. So in 1982, I asked his widow for her blessing to start a Mises institute, and asked her to serve as our chairman. She was already a “one-woman Mises industry,” in Murray’s words, and she was thrilled.

Thanks to you and all our donors, our scholars and students, our supporters and readers, my fears have not come true. Today, the Austrian school is worldwide and growing in influence. Mises is increasingly recognized for the creator and hero that he was.

As we carry the banner of Mises and the Austrian school, there is increasing interest in socialism. Keynesianism remains the official ideology of the regime. We have our work cut out for us. But despite everything, we are making great progress with young people here and around the world.

They know they are being fed honeyed lies. They don’t trust the professors who might as well be White House propagandists. And the political correctness on campus and social media repels every person of taste, intelligence, and judgment. Our young people, and our faculty, will not be silenced, and with your help, neither will we.

We not only honor Mises, and the greatest Misesian, Rothbard, we try to emulate the men they were, and the example of lives well and truly lived, no matter what the obstacles.

Won’t you help us to do so? Your most generous and tax-deductible donation would be magnificent. We have young people to teach, scholars to encourage, books and journals to publish, a great library and archives to maintain, and ideals to advance. How the world needs them. How the future needs them.

Fluoride May Have No Benefit

Adding fluoride to water supply may have no benefit, say experts

Critics call for end to scheme designed to prevent tooth decay in children, saying its effectiveness remains unproved

By Haroon Siddique

Friday 25 December 201517.00 EST

Water fluoridation has been in place in England for more than 40 years, and now covers about 6 million people. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls adding fluoride to drinking water one of the 10 great public health achievements in the 20th century.

Public Health England (PHE) describes it as “a safe and effective public health measure” to combat tooth decay in children and, alongside dentists’ groups, has called for it to be implemented more widely.

Related: Call for water fluoridation across England to cut childhood tooth decay

But health experts are calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation, claiming that the benefits of such schemes, as opposed to those of topical fluoride (directly applied to the teeth), are unproved.

Furthermore, critics cite studies claiming to have identified a number of possible negative associations of fluoridation, including bone cancer in boys, bladder cancer, hyperthyroidism, hip fractures and lower IQ in children.

Stephen Peckham, director and professor of health policy at Kent University’s centre for health service studies, said: “Water fluoridation was implemented before statistics had been compiled on its safety or effectiveness. It was the only cannon shot they had in their armoury. It gets rolled out, becomes – in England – policy and then you look for evidence to support it.

“The fat debate [whereby fat used to be the big enemy in food before that was revised] is an example of evidence getting built up to support a theory. It’s a dental health policy that’s got up a head of steam and people have been reluctant to see it criticised.

“You can’t really confidently say that water fluoridation is either safe or effective. There is a problem where the evidence is seen as either totally in favour or totally negative and it’s more murky than that.”

Earlier this year, the Cochrane collaboration, a respected not-for-profit organisation of 14,000 academics, reviewed the evidence but failed to settle the debate.

It said data indicated fluoridation was effective in reducing tooth decay in children, but that the studies deemed admissible were nearly all pre-1975, and the estimated size of the positive effect was limited by their observational nature, high risk of bias and the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles.

The experts also found a “significant association” between dental fluorosis (tooth staining) and fluoride level.

PHE said in 2014 it had found that as many as 45% fewer children aged one to four were admitted to hospital for tooth decay in areas where water is fluoridated than in those where it is not, but added that “potential problems with data quality means that this observation should be treated with caution”.

Peckham led research on hyperthyroidism being possibly linked to fluoridation but says there are problems with academic papers on both sides of the debate.

“It’s been going on since 1950 and we are still having the same arguments over the same research,” he said. “We don’t have the information to address this. I think they should have a moratorium.”


Peckham would like to see a study following similar groups of children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

Paul Connett, a Briton who taught chemistry at St Lawrence University, in New York, for 23 years, and helped set up the Fluoride Action Network in the US, saidstudies describing fluoride as a “neurotoxicant” should ring alarm bells.

“They have to justify forcing this on people who don’t want it – it’s a violation of the principle of informed consent,” he said. “You can couple that with the fact that once you put it in the water you can’t control the dose or who it goes to. Also, is it effective? At least demonstrate that it’s effective and then demonstrate that it’s safe.”

Related: US lowers fluoride levels in drinking water for first time in over 50 years

The UK remains among a small minority of countries that permit fluoridation. In the US, the maximum concentration was lowered in April, for the first time in 50 years, to 0.7mg fluoride per litre of water (UK schemes aim to deliver 1mg), amid concerns people are getting too much now it is also in products such as toothpaste and mouthwash.

Some of the risks identified in studies are based on higher concentrations but Connett says no credible margin of safety has been established. He suggests alternatives such as Childsmile, a Scottish scheme, which includes supervised toothbrushing in primary schools and nurseries in deprived areas are preferable.

PHE’s director of dental public health, Dr Sandra White, said: “Reviews of the evidence from around the world agree that water fluoridation is a safe and effective measure to help reduce tooth decay. None of the reports on water fluoridation by international health bodies have identified any evidence of harm.

“Water fluoridation is one of a range of actions, including supervised tooth brushing, that councils can consider to improve oral health in their area. Ultimately it’s beneficial to get fluoride from toothpaste when brushing teeth as well as from water which offers a background level throughout the day.”

New Gun Ban Bill Hits Congress

NEW BAN BILL HITS CONGRESS: TARGETS SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES & HANDGUNS: “TO ENSURE THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS NOT UNLIMITED”

It started with ammunition tax proposals

Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com - DECEMBER 28, 2015

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings we warned that sweeping changes were in the works for Americans’ right to bear arms.

It started with ammunition tax proposals, restrictions on firearm accessories imports and most recently Governors began bypassing Congress altogether by banning gun ownership for those on any of the government’s many watchlists. The Obama administration has also targeted licensed firearms sellers across the United States by forcing banks to treat them like pornography businesses and impeding their access to transaction processing systems and business banking accounts.

States like California already ban “assault weapons” and outlaw “high capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. But the kinds of restrictive laws that strike at the very heart of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution have thus far been limited to just a dozen or so heavily liberal states.


Until now.

While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description, which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:


“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United Statesincluding handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.

Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds.

And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States.


Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

…

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

Click for full text of bill

To be clear, the new bill puts all half measures aside and goes for the jugular.

This is the worst case scenario that many Americans have feared.

If you own a weapon on the ban list or have accessories as described by the bill, your firearm will be outlawed in the United States of America.


SEC. 3.RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

“(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

…

“(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—

“(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

…

“(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

The bill was introduced in Congress on Decemeber 16, 2015 and currently has 123 co-sponsors – all democrats.

We know that gun bans don’t work but one can’t help but think the agenda goes much further than the notion that they want to make us safer. If that were the case then our lawmakers wouldn’t allow drug cartels, gang members and Islamic terrorists to cross into the U.S. through our porous southern border.

The reality is that a cloud of tyranny has descended upon America. For it to be successful the American people must first be disarmed.

As history has proven time and again, a disarmed populace can easily be led to slaughter. But unlike the tens of millions executed in ethnic, religious and political cleansings of the 20th century, Americans have a rich tradition of personal liberty and the right to bear arms. It is embedded in our culture and our founding document. And as Texas police chief Randy Kennedy recently warned, if the government pushes too far they may well incite a revolution.

There's No Such Thing As A Neutral Government

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT

What, then, was the distinctive contribution of liberalism?

David Gordon | Mises.org - DECEMBER 23, 2015

Peter Simpson is a distinguished classicist and philosopher, known especially for his work on Aristotle’s ethics and politics. (He is also, by the way, a mordant critic of Leo Strauss and his followers.) In Political Illiberalism, he poses a fundamental challenge to philosophical justifications of modern liberalism, culminating in the vastly influential Political Liberalism (1993) of John Rawls. Though Simpson cannot be classed as a libertarian, his bold arguments will be of great use to all of us who, like Lew Rockwell, are Against the State.

According to a familiar tale, states before the inception of liberalism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were fatally flawed. They sought to impose on their subject populations a political and religious orthodoxy. The Protestant Reformation brought some progress, but all too often, control by the monarch replaced dominance by the Catholic Church. Premodern illiberal states “taught and imposed on society a distinctive view of the good life. … Those who disagreed with this view of religion imposed by the state had to be resisted or expelled or incarcerated or killed.”

What was the distinctive contribution of liberalism? According to this view, the state must not rule on the basis of what Rawls calls a “conception of the good.” By this he means a comprehensive view of the good life for human beings. Religions are prime examples of conceptions of the good, but not the only ones. The all-embracing theory of life taught in Soviet Russia in the glory days of Lenin and Stalin would be a secular example of what liberalism deplores and seeks to eradicate.


Instead, liberals maintain, the state must remain neutral in the battle between such competing conceptions of the good. People must be allowed to work out their own salvation, religious or secular, as their own consciences dictate.

The recent Rawlsian account of liberalism rests itself on a notion of a neutral core of morality … which all such visions [of the good] are supposed to be able to accept and live by. … The core morality sets down conditions of respect and tolerance that, while permitting each person to pursue their vision as they wish, forbids them so to pursue it so they forcibly prevent others from pursuing other visions.

What is wrong with that? Is it not simple common sense? Who can reject freedom of conscience? Simpson exposes a crucial weakness in this seemingly impregnable argument for liberalism. The supposedly neutral state does not ensure freedom of conscience. It itself imposes its own ideology, namely liberalism, on everyone. The state is not an impartial umpire, standing above competing conceptions of the good: it is a powerful and malevolent force.

The paradox is that while liberalism claims to free people from the oppression of states that impose on everyone the one true doctrine espoused by the state, liberalism itself imposes on everyone such a doctrine: namely liberalism itself. … All those in professedly liberal states who, for whatever reason, do not accept the liberal doctrine, or are suspected of not doing so, become enemies of the state. … The liberal state has proved itself as ruthless against its opponents as any illiberal state is supposed to have done.
Even if Simpson’s argument is right, though, is there not an obvious objection he must confront? Is it not better to have a “neutral” state, which at least professes the ideal of freedom of conscience, than an avowedly ideological state that openly demands conformity?

Simpson has a brilliant response to this objection. The state is not necessary at all. To the contrary, he says, the state is an invention of the modern world. In what sense is this true? Simpson has in mind Max Weber’s famous definition of the state as an organization that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

Note, too, the novelty of this idea, for what Weber brings to our attention … is the difference between what existed before and what exists now. Before the modern emergence of the state, no institutional structure had a monopoly of coercive enforcement.
In past times, people to a large measure protected their persons and property by their own efforts.

One sign of the accuracy of Weber’s definition [of the modern state] is the absence of organized police forces in the pre-modern world. … The functions we now depute exclusively to the police were performed previously by the citizens, who relied on themselves and their relatives and friends for the enforcement of rights and for defense and protection.
In the face of the tyrannical contemporary state, Simpson places special emphasis on the private ownership of guns.

Weapons of self-defense … and nowadays primarily guns, belong naturally to the family. … By the situation of present times, the first defense is against the state. … Weapons, therefore, naturally belong in the hands of the people, and it is intrinsically unjust for any higher authority to confiscate or forbid them.
The monopoly state, supposedly needed to protect us, harms rather than benefits us. The record of the state is no better in foreign affairs. The modern liberal state has brought death and destruction, far more than it has protected us from foreign invaders.

One cannot even say that it was the totalitarian and not the liberal version of the state that caused total war. In the world wars of the twentieth century that were fought between liberal and totalitarian states, the liberal states caused at least as much death and destruction as the totalitarian ones, and these liberal states also pursued war when the totalitarian ones would have preferred peace. … So how, then, is liberalism better as regards war, since all systems will fight when they think they must? The only difference seems to be that liberalism will fight total wars, while most of these other systems will not be able to, which is an argument against liberalism and the state, not for them.
In his account of the rise of the state and the ideology that purports to justify it, Simpson brings to the fore the philosophy of Hegel, who remarked that the state “is the march of God in the world.” I would add to Simpson’s fine discussion that Hegel, incredibly, regarded the decline of the “divided conscience,” when the Church was an independent source of authority apart from the monarch, as a part of the growth of freedom. Now people were “free” to obey the state, without the distraction of a competing authority.

Simpson applies his anti-state perspective to American history. He does not view the Constitution with favor. Its adoption was a coup for centralizers and a blow against the dispersal of power.

The Constitution, therefore, makes two different changes [from the Articles of Confederation] at the same time: from a league to a national government and from a congress of delegates to a congress of individuals whose collective power, because it is the coercive power of the state and because in extremis it is unlimited, amounts to autocracy or despotism.
Simpson highlights to great effect the warnings of the Anti-Federalists against the potential for tyranny inherent in the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists knew far more about political realities than the Federalists did, or at least that the Federalists admitted (for one may suspect that the actual results that the Ant-Federalists foresaw and feared were foreseen and perhaps in part welcomed by the Federalists).

As mentioned earlier, Simpson is no libertarian; and Austrians and libertarians will differ with some of his remarks about the economy. It is all the more remarkable, then, that Simpson’s views on the state converge so substantially with views that we at the Mises Institute have long defended. In our efforts to do so, we now have the help of the arguments of this original thinker and distinguished scholar.

Do We Need The Fed?

DO WE NEED THE FED?

When the Fed floods the market with artificially created money, it lowers the interest rates, which are the price of money

Ron Paul - DECEMBER 22, 2015

Stocks rose Wednesday following the Federal Reserve’s announcement of the first interest rate increase since 2006. However, stocks fell just two days later. One reason the positive reaction to the Fed’s announcement did not last long is that the Fed seems to lack confidence in the economy and is unsure what policies it should adopt in the future.

At her Wednesday press conference, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen acknowledged continuing “cyclical weakness” in the job market. She also suggested that future rate increases are likely to be as small, or even smaller, then Wednesday’s. However, she also expressed concerns over increasing inflation, which suggests the Fed may be open to bigger rate increases.

Many investors and those who rely on interest from savings for a substantial part of their income cheered the increase. However, others expressed concern that even this small rate increase will weaken the already fragile job market.


These critics echo the claims of many economists and economic historians who blame past economic crises, including the Great Depression, on ill-timed money tightening by the Fed. While the Federal Reserve is responsible for our boom-bust economy, recessions and depressions are not caused by tight monetary policy. Instead, the real cause of economic crisis is the loose money policies that precede the Fed’s tightening.

When the Fed floods the market with artificially created money, it lowers the interest rates, which are the price of money. As the price of money, interest rates send signals to businesses and investors regarding the wisdom of making certain types of investments. When the rates are artificially lowered by the Fed instead of naturally lowered by the market, businesses and investors receive distorted signals. The result is over-investment in certain sectors of the economy, such as housing.

This creates the temporary illusion of prosperity. However, since the boom is rooted in the Fed’s manipulation of the interest rates, eventually the bubble will burst and the economy will slide into recession. While the Federal Reserve may tighten the money supply before an economic downturn, the tightening is simply a futile attempt to control the inflation resulting from the Fed’s earlier increases in the money supply.

After the bubble inevitably bursts, the Federal Reserve will inevitability try to revive the economy via new money creation, which starts the whole boom-bust cycle all over again. The only way to avoid future crashes is for the Fed to stop creating inflation and bubbles.

Some economists and policy makers claim that the way to stop the Federal Reserve from causing economic chaos is not to end the Fed but to force the Fed to adopt a “rules-based” monetary policy. Adopting rules-based monetary policy may seem like an improvement, but, because it still allows a secretive central bank to manipulate the money supply, it will still result in Fed-created booms and busts.

The only way to restore economic stability and avoid a major economic crisis is to end the Fed, or at least allow Americans to use alterative currencies. Fortunately, more Americans than ever are studying Austrian economics and working to change our monetary system.

Thanks to the efforts of this growing anti-Fed movement, Audit the Fed had twice passed the House of Representatives, and the Senate is scheduled to vote on it on January 12. Auditing the Fed, so the American people can finally learn the full truth about the Fed’s operations, is an important first step in restoring a sound monetary policy. Hopefully, the Senate will take that step and pass Audit the Fed in January.

CIA Planned A Muslim Invasion Of Russia

DID YOU KNOW THE CIA PLANNED A MUSLIM INVASION OF RUSSIA?

It is clear the CIA was involved in antagonizing Afghan Uzbeks against the Soviets

Wayne Madsen | Infowars.com - DECEMBER 21, 2015

According to its own formerly TOP SECRET Central Intelligence Bulletin, dated December 4, 1952, during the waning days of the Harry Truman administration, the Central Intelligence Agency had embarked on a program to foment nationalism among the Uzbek tribes of Afghanistan in order that it might spill across the border into the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, a constituent republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

This revelation means that the current attempt by such anti-Russian U.S. official and quasi-official intelligence policy makers, including former Jimmy Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, hedge fund tycoon George Soros, and CIA director John Brennan, to bring about a radical Muslim destabilization of the Russian Federation is nothing new.

Buried in the 1952 report on increased Chinese Communist aid to the Viet Minh, pleadings from Tonkin governor Nguyen Huu Tri for the French not to abandon to the Viet Minh French-held territory in his province, Communist disturbances in Nepal, and a Saudi attempt to bring the Trucial States (now the United Arab Emirates) under its control is a reference to a band of Afghan Uzbeks secretly supported by the CIA. While the first reference to the band is redacted, a second is not.

The Afghan Uzbek group, called the Mogul Band by the CIA, was reported by the CIA to have had “considerable strength in the northern part of the country” and “hoped to ‘reunite’ Afghan Uzbeks with fellow tribesmen across the Soviet frontier.” The CIA also reported that the Afghan Uzbeks “tried to attract support” from mainly Shi’a Hazara tribal leaders in northern Afghanistan.


It is clear that the CIA was involved in antagonizing Afghan Uzbeks against the Soviets in response to what the CIA deemed “Soviet subversion” of Uzbek tribes inside Afghanistan. The reference to the Mogul Band is the earliest example of the CIA using external Muslim forces against the Soviet Union. In the 1970s, the overthrow of the Afghan king and the establishment of a socialist republic in Afghanistan prompted the CIA to organize a jihadist army to fight against the secular Afghan government and its Soviet protectors. The jihadist army that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan was the embryo out of which the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and, ultimately, the Islamic State (or Da’esh) arose.


The CIA screwed up when it first redacted the name of its Afghan Uzbek tribal guerrilla force targeting the USSR, the Mogul Band, and then named it.

The declassified CIA document shows that the roots of the CIA’s jihadist army began long before the intervention in the Soviet-mujaheddin war in Afghanistan but in the early days of the Cold War in what was then the neutral Kingdom of Afghanistan.

Get It On!

GUN CONTROL EXECUTIVE ORDERS EXPECTED WITHIN WEEKS

Obama actively working to circumvent Congress

Daily Sheeple | JOSHUA KRAUSE - DECEMBER 20, 2015 1884 Comments

After countless mass shootings during his time as president, all of which failed to inspire the public to yield on gun rights issues, Obama has had enough with our political system.

He’s actively working to circumvent Congress, and instate the gun control measures he’s always wanted by decree. We now have a timeline for when that will occur.

White House communications director Jen Psaki told Bloomberg that within a matter of “weeks, not months” Obama will review the recommendations for executive orders he’s been given by the Department of Justice. The DOJ is currently trying to figure out what options Obama has, which could legally circumvent Congress and survive any lawsuits that gun rights groups are sure to throw at the order.

Psaki further added that gun violence is “probably the issue that has touched him most personally over the course of his presidency.” For now it’s unclear what he plans to do precisely, though he has frequently called for more thorough background checks in the past, and more recently has called for preventing people on the no-fly list from owning firearms.

According to Psaki, Obama is planning a “range of steps that can be taken as it relates to the people who have access to guns [and] how people gain access to guns,” and that he “will not be satisfied” unless some kind of action is taken on firearms before the end of his term.

Ludwig Von Mises Is Winning

LUDWIG VON MISES IS WINNING

Brazilians took to the streets demanding "Less Marx, More Mises!"

Tho Bishop | Mises.org - DECEMBER 15, 2015

As a young man Alexander Hamilton once wrote, “There is a certain enthusiasm in liberty, that makes human nature rise above itself, in acts of bravery and heroism.” While it is tragic that Hamilton would grow up to advocate all sorts of government policies contrary to liberty — America would be better off had he read Cantillion — there is a power in these words that has always resonated with me.

No man better embodies this heroic nature of liberty than Ludwig von Mises.

My favorite example of Mises’s legendary dedication to his principles is his experience during WWI.

Even though he was already an accomplished scholar, his masterpiece Theory of Money and Credit was published in 1912, the Great War brought Mises to the field of battle. As a commanding officer of an Austrian artillery regiment, Mises and his men were tasked with defending the Northern Front of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the marching Russians.

Not only were Mises and his men outnumbered, but manning the cannons meant being the prime targets of Russian fire. The result was horrific. As Guido Hülsmann details in Mises: Last Knight of Liberalism, “In the first few weeks and months of the war, almost no day went by that did not see entire [Austrian] batteries (about 100 men each) and even regiments (about 500) being wiped out.”

Mises and his men held the line and the Russians were driven back in December of 1914.

After receiving honors for his actions on the battlefield, First Lieutenant Ludwig von Mises was extended an invitation to join a team of fellow economists on the Viennese war council. Though glad to be away from the canons of war, Mises was horrified by what he found — his nation’s greatest minds, men who knew better, becoming apologists for a bureaucratic government seeking to tighten its grip on the economy.

Writes Hülsmann:

Montesquieu once said that although one had to die for one’s country, one was not obliged to lie for it. This seems to have been Mises’s maxim too. He had already demonstrated his readiness to give his life for his country. Now he showed his will to honor the truth even if it brought him in conflict with powerful opponents. … Mises argued that, “from a purely economic standpoint,” the case for free trade and against protectionism was unassailable.

The power of the argument … made it impossible for the war party to ignore Mises. Trouble lay ahead.

The trouble came in the form of orders to return back into combat. The government’s message was clear — Mises needed to go. Not for the last time, his decision to stand firm in his defense of liberty put his very life in danger.

Luckily for us all, Mises survived the war and went on to live a life that fundamentally altered the world. He overcame the Nazis, academic blacklists, and the personal hardships that tends to haunt any man who refuses to sacrifice his principles.

While some like Milton Friedman viewed Mises intransigence as a burden to Mises’s influence, I believe his example is vital to the resurgence of Misesian thought today.

We see this on the streets of Brazil, where earlier this year young Brazilians took to the streets demanding “Less Marx, More Mises”! Thanks to the work of people like Helio Beltrão, Mises is now the most popular economist in the country.

We see this in China, where translations of Mises and fellow Austrians have made it into the hands of students and scholars. Even Murray Rothbard is openly discussed in influential circles.

We see it in the incredible growing international network of young Austrian scholars, complete with university programs dedicated to Austrian insights in topics such as entrepreneurship.

Though it rests far away from the halls of power, and apart from any larger political machine, the Mises Institute stands today the most influential libertarian organization in the world, a testament to the power of Mises’s ideas and a commitment to stay true to principle.



Though there is still much to be done, we should never lose sight of the gains we have made — nor lose hope for the future.

In the words of Lew Rockwell:

Mises never tired of telling his students and readers that trends can change. What makes them change are the choices we make, the values we hold, the ideas we advance, the institutions we support.

Unlike Mises, we do not face obstacles that appear hopelessly high. We owe it to his memory to throw ourselves completely into the intellectual struggle to make liberty not just a hope, but a reality in our times. As we do, let us all adopt as our motto the words Mises returned to again and again in his life. “Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.”

For as little as $7 a month, you can become a Sustaining Member of the Mises Institute and be a part of this movement. Together, we can follow Mises’s example and change the world.

Cancer Is Caused By Lifestyle, Not Genes

Cancer ISN'T all in your genes: Up to 90% of cases 'could be wiped out by avoiding triggers caused by our unhealthy lifestyles'

Study found factors like sunlight and diet play a bigger role than DNA
Healthy habits dramatically reduce the chances of getting cancer
Scientists are divided over how much cancer is caused by genes/ lifestyle

By FIONA MACRAE SCIENCE EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 13:16 EST, 16 December 2015 | UPDATED: 10:15 EST, 17 December 2015

Most cases of cancer are down to unhealthy lives, rather than bad genes, doctors said last night.

They said that factors in the world around us, from diet, to sunlight, cigarettes and disease, play a far bigger role in fuelling cancer than dodgy DNA.

Up 90 per cent of cancer cases would be wiped up if all these triggers could be avoided.

Dr Emma Smith, of Cancer Research UK, said: ‘Healthy habits like not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, eating a healthy diet and cutting back on alcohol are not a guarantee against cancer, they do dramatically reduce the risk of developing the disease.’

The new study claims that up to nine in ten cancers could be avoided if triggers linked to lifestyle were avoided

While the advice may not seem surprising, scientists are divided about how much cancer is caused by what we do and how much is unavoidable.

The controversy was stoked a year ago by research that claimed that most cases are caused by errors in DNA that are generated at random as the body ages and its cells divide.

The researchers said this meant that most cases of cancer were down to ‘bad luck’, rather than an unhealthy lifestyle.

It said that for or two out of three cancer victims, the cumulative effect of random mistakes in genes is to blame for the disease rather than poor choices about how they lived their lives or ‘chose’ their parents.

The latest study involved four analyses of the causes of cancer and used some of the same data as the first piece of research.

However, it came to the opposite conclusion, suggesting that cancer incidence is far too high to be explained by simple mutations in cell division alone.

They said that, if random mutations were to blame, there would be far fewer cases of cancer than there are.

Dr Yusuf Hannun, of Stony Brook University in the US, said that while luck plays a role, factors in the world around us are much more important.

These include diet, alcohol, cigarettes, sunburn, some viruses, pollution and likely other factors that have yet to be identified.

Previous studies have shown that people moving from low cancer incidence to countries with high cancer rates develop the same tumour incidences, which also suggests the risks are caused more by environment than genes.

Scientists also looked at patterns in the mutations associated with certain cancers and found that mutations during cell division rarely build up to the point of producing cancer, even in tissues with relatively high rates of cell division.

The team found that some exposure to environmental factors would be needed to set off the disease.

The Johns Hopkins University study earlier this year also failed to include common cancers such as prostate, breast, stomach, and cervix, which have been heavily linked to environmental causes.

In 2012, there were almost 339,000 of new cancer cases of cancer recorded and almost 162,000 deaths, according to figures from Cancer Research UK.

The chances of beating cancer in England is improving but still lags behind countries elsewhere in Europe, official figures revealed last month.

Previously experts have estimated that 30-40 per cent of cancer cases would be avoided given a better lifestyle, but there has been no similar calculation about whether the remainder can be prevented.

Writing in the journal Nature, he said that the genes we inherit from our parents only account for a very small number of cancer cases.

He concluded: ‘These results are important for strategizing cancer prevention, research and public health.’

Other experts said he had built a ‘compelling case’ for his argument.

Professor Kevin McConway, of the Open University, said: ‘The authors’ aim is to calculate what percentage of cancers would not arise, if we could wave a magic wand and get rid of all possible external risk factors.

‘There would still be cancers, because of the way that cells divide in the body. But there would be fewer of them.’

Dr Jian-Min Yuan, of the University of Pittsburgh in the US, said: ‘These results demonstrate that a large proportion of cancer is caused by environmental factors and are preventable if their underlying causes are identified.’

Rand Paul: 'The Greatest Threat To Our National Security Is Our Debt'

Rand Paul: 'The Greatest Threat to Our National Security Is Our Debt'

By Susan Jones | December 16, 2015 | 6:12 AM EST

(CNSNews.com) - While Syria, Russia and other national security issues featured prominently in Tuesday's Republican debate, only one candidate brought up the nation's crushing debt load.

"The greatest threat to our national security is our debt," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in his closing statement. "We borrow a million dollars a minute. And whose fault is it? Well, frankly, it's both parties' fault.

"You have those on the right who clamor and say, oh, we will spend anything on the military, and those on the left who say the same for domestic welfare.But what most Americans don't realize is there is an unholy alliance. They come together. There's a secret handshake. We spend more money on everything. And we are not stronger nation if we go further into debt. We are not projecting power from bankruptcy court.

"To me, there is no greater threat than our debt. I'm the only fiscal conservative on the stage because I'm willing to hold the line on all spending," Paul concluded.

The other candidates, in their 30-second closing statements, chose to discuss other issues, as excerpted below, and in the following order:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich: "No Republican has ever been elected president of the United States without winning Ohio. Let me give you a little tip on how you win Ohio, it's reform, it's hope, it's growth, it's opportunity, and it's security."

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie: "Terrorism -- radical jihadist terrorism is not theoretical to me. It's real. And for seven years, I spent my life protecting our country against another one of those attacks. ...I will protect America from the wars that are being brought to our door step."

Carly Fiorina: "...We need to unify our party, we need a real Conservative in the White House, and we need to beat Hillary Clinton to take our country back and keep our nation safe."

Jeb Bush: "...Hillary Clinton has aligned herself with Barack Obama on ISIS, Iran and the economy. It's an alliance doomed to fail. My proven record suggests that -- my detailed plans will fortify our national and economic security. And my proven record as governor makes -- will give you a sense that I don't make false promises. I deliver real results."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): "...This election is about electing a president that will restore our economic vibrancy so that the American dream can expand to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. And rebuild our Military and our intelligence programs so that we can remain the strongest nation on earth."

Sen. Ted Cruz: "...Ronald Reagan reignited the American economy, rebuilt the Military, bankrupted the Soviet Union and defeated Soviet Communism. I will do the same thing. Cutting taxes, cutting regulation, unleashing small businesses and rebuilding the Military to defeat radical Islamic terrorism -- our strategy is simple. We win, they lose."

Ben Carson: "I've been fortunate enough to travel to 58 different countries and I thank God everyday that I was born in this country...And I want to make sure that we preserve that exceptionalism for the next generation. My mother told me if I work hard and I really believed in American principles and I believed in God, anything is possible. I believe that is true, and that's why I'm not anxious to give away American values and principles for the sake of political correctness."

Donald Trump: "Our country doesn't win anymore. We don't win on trade. We don't win on the military. We can't defeat ISIS. We're not taking care of our great people, the veterans. We're not taking care of them. We have to change our whole way, our health care system is a disaster. It's going to implode in 2017, just like you're sitting there. It doesn't work. Nothing works in our country. If I'm elected president, we will win again. We will win a lot. And we're going to have a great, great country, greater than ever before."

Obama Concedes To Putin

OBAMA CONCEDES TO PUTIN AFTER NATO’S SUPPORT OF ISIS EXPOSED

W.H. stops demanding Assad's removal after news reports reveal West backing ISIS

Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - DECEMBER 16, 2015

The Obama administration is no longer publicly asking for “regime change” in Syria after multiple news reports revealed how NATO and its allies have spent years supporting Islamic jihadists to try and topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he accepted Russia’s request that the U.S. let the Syrian people decide Assad’s political fate.

“The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change,” Kerry told reporters on Tuesday after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

This is a huge concession from the Obama administration considering the president spent the past several years stating “Assad must go.”

“Obama wants regime change. Putin doesn’t want regime change. Regime change canceled,” as hotair.com so eloquently stated.

But why this sudden shift in public policy? Well, Czech President Milos Zeman recently stated that Turkey is friendly to the Islamic State, and there’s truth to that.

“I think Turkey is indeed a member of NATO, but sometimes behaves as if it’s more an ally of the Islamic State,” Zeman said, as quoted by Czech newspaper Parlamentni Listy. “It removes oil from Syria which finances the Islamic State.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi said nearly the exact same thing.

“[Turkey] promised us that they would stop the entry of terrorists, however we need more action in order to stop the pumping of terrorists from Turkey into Syria and into Iraq,” he stated. “Also the stopping of the smuggling of petrol from Syria and Iraq and the financing of Daesh [the Arabic name for IS] in a general sense through this illegal trade.”

And Russia presented evidence of Turkey’s theft of oil from Syria using thousands of oil tankers operating on three major smuggling routes into Turkey.


Credit: syria.mil.ru

“One thing is clear: the role that Turkey is playing in this area is in many ways destructive and it’s affecting the European security, it’s affecting its neighbors,” former Mossad agent Uzi Arad told RT. “Ultimately it’s affecting its own society.”

A major scandal erupted in Turkey last year when Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was caught shipping arms to ISIS, then attempted to cover it up by ordering a media blackout.

Not long after, the Obama administration signed an agreement with Turkey to openly train and arm “moderate” Syrian rebels, but virtually all of the rebels fighting Assad in Syria have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State since at least 2013.

“The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, the vaunted bulwarks of the moderate opposition, only really exist in hotel lobbies and the minds of Western diplomats,” journalist Ben Reynolds wrote. “There is simply no real separation between ‘moderate’ rebel groups and hardline Salafists allied with al-Qaeda.”

Reynolds wasn’t just making a baseless accusation.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun [in Syria],” Bassel Idriss, the commander of a Free Syrian Army rebel brigade, told the Lebanese Daily Star in 2014. “ISIS wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area.”

“After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the hills, many units pledged allegiance to ISIS.”

Another rebel, Abu Ahmed, also said his unit was willing to collaborate with ISIS and its affiliates.

“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra [an ISIS affiliate] because that means power and influence,” he told the Guardian.

A secret U.S. government document obtained by Judicial Watch also revealed the U.S. and other NATO nations deliberately backed al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups to overthrow Syrian president Bashir al-Assad.

“The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the Pentagon documentstated. “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.’”

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, confirmed the document’s importance.

“I don’t know that [the Obama administration] turned a blind eye [to ISIS], I think it was a decision; I think it was a willful decision,” he said.

And if that isn’t enough evidence Obama is supporting ISIS, remember the administration gave Islamic State militants a 45-minute warning prior to bombing their oil tankers.

“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the warning leaflets given to ISIS read.

U.S. military pilots also confirmed they were ordered not to drop 75% of their ordnance on ISIS targets because they couldn’t get clearance from their superiors.

“We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.)

If You Want Security, Pursue Liberty

IF YOU WANT SECURITY, PURSUE LIBERTY

Thousands of Americans have been mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list

Ron Paul | Infowars.com - DECEMBER 15, 2015

Judging by his prime-time speech last week, the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency will be marked by increased militarism abroad and authoritarianism at home.

The centerpiece of the president’s speech was his demand for a new law forbidding anyone on the federal government’s terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm. There has never been a mass shooter who was on the terrorist watch list, so this proposal will not increase security. However, it will decrease liberty.

Federal officials can have an American citizen placed on the terrorist watch list based solely on their suspicions that the individual might be involved in terrorist activity. Individuals placed on the list are not informed that they have been labeled as suspected terrorists, much less given an opportunity to challenge that designation, until a Transportation Security Administration agent stops them from boarding a plane.


Individuals can be placed on the list if their Facebook or Twitter posts seem “suspicious” to a federal agent. You can also be placed on the list if your behavior somehow suggests that you are a “representative” of a terrorist group (even if you have no associations with any terrorist organizations). Individuals can even be put on the list because the FBI wants to interview them about friends or family members!

Thousands of Americans, including several members of Congress and many employees of the Department of Homeland Security, have been mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list. Some Americans are placed on the list because they happen to have the same names as terrorist suspects. Those mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list must go through a lengthy “redress” process to clear their names.

It is likely that some Americans are on the list solely because of their political views and activities. Anyone who doubts this should consider the long history of federal agencies, such as the IRS and the FBI, using their power to harass political movements that challenge the status quo. Are the American people really so desperate for the illusion of security that they will support a law that results in some Americans losing their Second Amendment rights because of a bureaucratic error or because of their political beliefs?

President Obama is also preparing an executive order expanding the federal background check system. Expanding background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists. However, it will make obtaining a firearm more difficult for those needing, for example, to defend themselves against abusive spouses.

Sadly, many who understand that new gun control laws will leave us less free and less safe support expanding the surveillance state. Like those promoting gun control, people calling for expanded surveillance do not let facts deter their efforts to take more of our liberties. There is no evidence that mass surveillance has prevented even one terrorist attack.

France’s mass surveillance system is much more widespread and intrusive than ours. Yet it failed to prevent the recent attacks. France’s gun control laws, which are much more restrictive than ours, not only failed to keep guns out of the hands of their attackers, they left victims defenseless. It is thus amazing that many American politicians want to make us more like France by taking away our Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

Expanding government power will not increase our safety; it will only diminish our freedom. Americans will have neither liberty nor security until they abandon the fantasy that the US government can provide economic security, personal security, and global security.

Oil Prices Could Drop To $20

Oil Prices Could Drop to $20 a Barrel Next Year

by Jonathan Chew @sochews NOVEMBER 23, 2015, 11:46 AM EST

According to an OPEC minister and Goldman Sachs.

Oil prices could drop to as low as $20 per barrel next year, according to both an Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) minister and a Goldman Sachs analyst.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Eulogio del Pino said that OPEC could not enter a price war and needed to find a way to stabilize the oil market. “OPEC has to do something very soon … We don’t agree with the position that says the market some way is going to dictate the price of crude oil. We don’t agree with that position of Saudi Arabia,” del Pino said on the sidelines of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) Summit in Tehran on Sunday, as reported byReuters.


In June, OPEC chose to keep its production targets at 30 million barrels a day in an effort to maintain market share and in response to the shale boom in the U.S. With Iran set to announce its production targets after sanctions are lifted, del Pino said the current market is “destroying the price of crude oil.” When asked how low it could go next year with no change in OPEC’s policy, del Pino’s response was: “Mid-20s.”

This echoes a report released by Goldman Sachs in September cautioning that oil prices could fall near the $20-per-barrel mark if OPEC production levels persist. “The oil market is even more oversupplied than we had expected and we now forecast this surplus to persist in 2016 on further OPEC production growth, resilient non-OPEC supply and slowing demand growth,” the report stated.

Goldman Sachs analyst Michele Della Vigna repeated thison BBC Radio 4’s Today show Monday, saying it could fall to that price level because of a shortage of storage facilities. However, he emphasized that there was probably a 15% probability that it would happen, and that it would only present a temporary “shock to the system” before the market stabilized.

Oil prices rallied briefly after Saudi Arabia said in astatement Monday that the kingdom was willing to work with other oil-producing countries to stabilize prices. U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures touched a session-high of $42.75 following that statement, beforedropping to its current price of $40.41. Benchmark January Brent futures hit an intraday high of $45.73, before also dropping to $45.51.

The next OPEC meeting will take place in Vienna on Dec. 4.

Are You On A Government Watchlist?

THE WATCHLIST GUN BANS BEGIN: OBAMA ENLISTS GOVERNORS TO BYPASS CONGRESS: “BY EXECUTIVE ORDER”

Now governors are abusing executive orders to trample on the 2nd Amendment as well

Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com - DECEMBER 12, 2015

With strong resistance in Congress to gun control measures, Obama has taken to working outside his constitutional authority yet again.

But he, his pen and his phone, are not alone this time.

To bring teeth to his pending executive orders, President Obama is working to enlist the help of many of the state governors who he hopes will sign their own executive orders.

To that end, Gov. Dannel Malloy in Connecticut is taking the first plunge in this end run around that pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights. Of course, Connecticut, home to the Sandy Hook shootings, has already seen its gun rights eviscerated:

NBC Connecticut reports:


Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy plans to sign the first executive order in the nation to ban the sales of guns to people on federal government watch lists.

“We intend to prevent, by executive order through my powers as governor, those on government watch lists from obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm in Connecticut,” the Democratic governor said in a news conference Thursday.

Anyone who wishes to buy a gun in Connecticut must first apply for a permit from a public safety agency, then a thorough background check is conducted, Malloy said.

“The executive order would add an additional level of protection and require those who apply for a permit to be screened against government watch lists,” Malloy said during the news conference.

It’s not clear how many people this executive order would cover, but the governor said he has reason to believe people living in the state are on watch lists and the state should be in a position to deny permits to those individuals.

The state created some of the strictest gun laws in the country after 20 students and six educators were killed in a 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Those laws banned assault weapons in Connecticut.

Gov. Malloy also discussed his intent to take away legally-purchased guns from owners on the watch list, as well, though others in Connecticut are already questioning his legal authority to do enact any of these policies.(See video here)

As SHTF explained the other day, the federal No Fly terror watch list is one of the worst instruments that could possibly be used. Firstly, it is has never stopped a terrorist from acting, though some may have been indentified ahead of time.

But, more importantly, the No Fly watch list has put thousands of people on its list for reasons of mere suspicion alone – it is not based upon past crimes or direct accusations based on evidence. The practices for being added to the list are secretive, and there is virtually no way of appealing, or being taken off the list. That is despite the fact that many of the people on the no fly list – who have been barred from getting on a plane and traveling – are on the list simply because they share a last name with a suspect, or a similar name.

In short, it is a civil rights disaster that is fewer degrees away from Nazi Germany than it is from Kevin Bacon. Using this No Fly list to bar people from buying a gun – a constitutionally protected right – is compounding that problem and denying due process to Americans.

Gov. Malloy has said that those who are denied will be able to appeal the decision, but nevertheless, it seems like something very close to this:

(cue at :36 seconds)

San Bernardino Witnesses

Eyewitness To San Bernardino Terror Attack Still Says ‘Three Tall White Men Did It’

December 7, 2015 11:26 am·

The controversy over what really happened in San Bernardino last week is just beginning to heat up. Right after the lawyers for the alleged attacker’s family said that they do not believe the suspects did it, yet another eyewitness to the attacks maintained that the real attackers were three, tall, athletic Caucasian men in tactical gear.

“It looked like their skin color was white […] they appeared to be tall”, the eyewitness said.


Investigators with the ATF recovered police issued firearms from the alleged shooters.

This detail was accidentally mentioned by 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina during a press interview. After this was stated, the mainstream media never mentioned it again.

There were also widely-reported active shooter drills that had been taking place near the crime scene. Early reports claimed these were taking place hours before the attack. Later the narrative changed to the day before.

One eyewitness to the attacks, Sally Abdelmageed, was an employee at Inland Medical Center where the attack occurred.

How could she have interpreted two shooters, a man and a petite woman who weighed less than 100 lbs, as three Caucasian, athletic-built military men?


Abdelmageed explained to CBS News that “I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon.”

She added that it was all “very unusual. Why would we hear shots?”

“As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off […] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles,” she continued.

“As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”

She explained that while she “couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […]huge assault riffle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”

The reporter then asked again, to be sure, “You are certain you saw three men?”

“Yes,” Abdelmageed reaffirmed.

“It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”

The CBS reporter then shot down her eyewitness account, reminding views that the FBI just told them that one of the shooters was a woman, and that the third shooter didn’t exist.

“And of course we just learned that one suspect was a woman,” they dismissed.

Watch the video report below…

Can anyone explain why eyewitness sources are being dismissed in favor of one of the most bizarre narratives in the history of law enforcement and counter-terrorism?

No Libertarian Case For Empire

NO LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR EMPIRE

Keep Americans out of the tragedy of war

Doug Bandow | Cato - DECEMBER 10, 2015

Before becoming wedded to statism in America, liberalism was a philosophy of liberation. Around the world it stood for liberty and tolerance, battling equally against conservative aristocracy and radical socialism. A global community of those who believe in this older, or classical, liberalism remains active, generally championing free markets, expansive immigration, civil liberties, free speech, and social tolerance. But while leading liberals of the past, such as Great Britain’s John Bright and Richard Cobden, advocated peace, many foreign liberals today favor war—at least, if conducted by Americans at American expense.

For instance, Garry Kasparov, perhaps the greatest chess player ever, has heroically taken on the thankless task of battling for democracy in his Russian homeland. Less commendably, he is surprisingly generous with other people’s lives. He recently declared in the Wall Street Journal: “Anything less than a major U.S. and NATO-led ground offensive against ISIS will be a guarantee of continued failure and more terror attacks in the West. It is immoral to continue putting civilians—Syrian and Western alike—instead of soldiers on the front line against terrorists.”

Kasparov is confused over cause and effect, since terrorism most often follows intervention, as did the recent Islamic State strikes against France, Hezbollah and Russia. But there is a more basic point. It’s easy for a celebrity Russian living in the West to argue that it is the job of Americans, with maybe a couple Europeans tossed in, to destroy ISIS, save Syria, pacify the Mideast, contain Russia, save Ukraine, and more. But there’s actually nothing liberal in pushing a broader, longer war on others.

Kasparov is not alone. Slovak Dalibor Rohac, ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute, argued that non-intervention “is unwise and reckless, and would ultimately jeopardize libertarian principles of individual freedom.” He cited three Europeans—Lithuanian, Russian, Swedish—who established a website criticizing former Rep. Ron Paul. They contended that “compelling [libertarian] arguments can be made for both advocates of globalist and non-interventionist foreign policy positions.”

Actually, that’s true only so long as one isn’t paying the cost of the foreign policy. As foreigners typically do not for American intervention, unless it is directed at them. In the abstract wars for liberty sound pretty grand. In practice they typically break down. Foreign policy is specific, not general. That is, it only makes sense tied to a particular nation at a particular time in a particular set of circumstances.


“Americans who want liberty at home should be wary of expats who seek U.S. intervention abroad.”

In contrast, economic principles are universal: free markets work irrespective of person or place. Different cultures may generate different institutions, but incentives operate the same. The essence of the human person, any human person, demands respect for life, liberty, and dignity. But when should a government impose sanctions, create an alliance, threaten attack, or launch a war? That depends on many things. And today, for the United States, non-interventionism is the policy most consistent, indeed the only one genuinely consistent, with a commitment to liberalism, meaning limited government and individual liberty.

For the most part those foreign liberals who call for intervention do not support intervention by their nations. Rather, their discussion usually is about one other country: America.

After all, the Russian government is interventionist—“globalist,” if you will—but not in a way supported by Kasparov and other Russian liberals. Sweden is a wealthy, sophisticated nation, but has precisely 15,300 men under arms. That’s not going to result in a lot of globalism, whatever that means. Slovakia has a few more men at the ready, 15,850, but is notably poorer than Sweden. That explains why no one even cares whether Slovakia has a foreign policy. Lithuania’s military comes in at 10,950 people. Better than none, perhaps. Although not by much.

About the only foreign policy option for all three is to ask someone else, namely America, to defend them. (Slovakia is part of NATO, but isn’t likely to answer Vilnius’ call and send its few troops to patrol the borders of the Baltic States.) There’s nothing wrong with asking for defense charity. Indeed, I probably would make the same plea in the same position. But it represents nationalism more than liberalism. Lithuanians, Slovaks, and Swedes don’t want to be swallowed by Russia. Fair ‘nuff. Some people want to preserve whatever liberties are present. Others don’t want to be ruled by outsiders. It works out about the same in practice.

Thus, when Rohac argued that libertarians should support “creation of collective security arrangements and investment into military capability that can deter predatory behavior,” he really meant Americans should do the creating and investing—and, ultimately, fighting. Slovakia, which devotes a tad over 1 percent of GDP to the military, isn’t likely to do so. Nor will Lithuania—which last year spent less than one percent of GDP on defense despite complaining mightily about the Russian threat. Nor Sweden, which also barely breaks the one percent level.

But American liberals of the classical variety have no obligation to do what foreign liberals desire. That is, U.S. foreign policy should, indeed, must, be guided by what is in the interest of those doing the paying and dying, namely the American people. Any government action should be constrained by moral principles. But the Pentagon exists to protect the American people, and the liberal republic which governs them, not conduct grand “liberal” crusades around the world, no matter how attractive in theory. Thus, support for limited government and individual liberty at home necessitates a commitment to a foreign policy of restraint, even humility, to quote George W. Bush before he gave in to the Dark Side.

There are several reasons to make intervention and war a last resort to protect only the most serious interests. First, as social critic Randolph Bourne warned, “War is the health of the state.” Military spending is the price of one’s foreign policy, since it’s hard to fight without men and materiel. This is why Washington accounts for around 40 percent of the world’s military outlays. It is expensive to try to dominate the entire globe. It is far more expensive to project power than to deter intervention.

Moreover, war kills, disables, and wounds. Today the home front also becomes a battlefield, since unconventional adversaries find unconventional ways to strike back, most commonly terrorism. The national security state generates economic controls, restraints on civil liberties, and restrictions on political freedoms. This is hardly a policy consistent with creating a government of limited power which respects citizens’ abundant liberties. Americans pay the costs of intervention, while those cheering from outside America’s borders typically contribute little or nothing.

Second, U.S. alliances act as a form of international welfare. Washington doing it ensures that no one else will do it. This is why circumstances are so important. It made sense for the U.S. to protect war-devastated Western Europe at the end of World War II. But not today, when the European Union enjoys a greater GDP and population than America. Indeed, the Pentagon has become an endless defense dole for wealthy allies throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East which are capable of protecting themselves. Classical liberals around the world might enjoy benefiting from someone else’s largesse, but there’s no libertarian reason for the U.S. government to redistribute money from Americans to other peoples who seek to lighten their military burdens.

Third, an interventionist, warlike policy kills. Not just Americans, but foreigners. By embarking on a gloriously foolish crusade into Iraq while botching the occupation, Washington unleashed sectarian war that killed perhaps 200,000 Iraqis before ebbing, only to flare again under the Islamic State, a malign force spawned by the conflict. Forcibly dismembering Yugoslavia saved some Kosovar lives while killing many Serbs. Tepid intervention in Libya lengthened a bloody low-tech civil war and left chaos afterwards.

It’s easy to spend one’s time in a Washington think tank arguing over whether the benefits ultimately exceed the costs. But sacrificing some lives for others, deciding who will live and die, isn’t properly Americans’, let along the American government’s, role. People, whether American service personnel or foreign civilians, should not be treated as gambit pawns in someone else’s grand geopolitical game, liberal or otherwise. A good standard for U.S. foreign policy would be the medical principle, first do no harm.

Fourth, Washington does badly at social engineering at home. It does far worse attempting to remake the world. Indeed, it beggars belief that the same faithless politicians and selfish bureaucrats routinely excoriated for their domestic failings magically metamorphose into far-seeing statesmen and women able to transcend religion, geography, history, culture, tradition, ethnicity, and more able to transform other nations into a lands of milk and honey in which opposing sides sing Kumbaya by the fire every evening.

The vision is simply mad when applied to the Middle East. Kasparov’s apparent belief in Washington’s ability to defeat the Islamic State and fix Syria is either charmingly naïve or criminally negligent considering the extraordinary hash America has made of just about every alliance and war in the Middle East. After all, ISIL wouldn’t exist absent George W. Bush’s misguided invasion of Iraq. Which Washington once supportedin an aggressive war against Iran. One thing of which Americans can be certain about the war against the Islamic State: there will be blowback and unintended consequences, which will be used to justify future interventions.

Given these realities, the kind of aggressive U.S. policy toward Russia desired by many foreign liberals—in fact, the most important issue seemingly motivating Kasparov, Rohac, and others—would be foolish and, yes, illiberal, for America. Russian activities harm the liberties of other peoples. But doing more to stop Moscow would do greater damage to the liberties of Americans. And that should be the primary focus of the U.S. government.

Yes, Vladimir Putin is a thug. Russia’s actions are unjustified. Moscow manipulates the facts. Putin’s intentions are malign. Russia uses ethnic grievances for its own advantage. Liberals around the globe believe that Moscow should stop doing what it is doing. Nevertheless, American policy first and foremost should protect the lives, liberty, prosperity, and territory of Americans.

Thus, Washington should calibrate its response to the interest affected. Which isn’t much. Russia doesn’t pose a threat to the U.S. The former ain’t the Soviet Union. There is no global military contest, no world-spanning ideological battle, no international military confrontation, no comparable global ambitions. The much faded Evil Empire’s behavior demonstrates that it has receded to traditional great power status—insisting that other states treat it with respect, take its global interests into account, and accept its territorial security.

Nor does Moscow any longer even threaten to dominate Europe. The continent enjoys around eight times the GDP and three times the population of Russia. No one imagines a revived Red Army marching on Berlin, Paris, Rome, and London. Europe’s eastern border lands remain vulnerable to pressure, but the American purpose is not to risk war with nuclear powers to rescue states in bad geopolitical neighborhoods. During Russia’s war with Georgia—which started the shooting, according to European observers—the Bush administration reportedly debated striking the tunnels through which Moscow was sending its combat forces. Such a policy might have stirred the hearts of European liberals, but would have been complete madness for Americans. After getting through the entire Cold War without triggering a hot conflict, the U.S. would commit an act of war that almost certainly would spark bloody retaliation. Washington has no more reason to court war with Moscow over Ukraine, which is viewed as a vital rather than peripheral interest by Russia.

Is the result a nice, just, fair, pleasant, or good outcome? No. But nothing in liberal philosophy requires residents of the globe’s most powerful “liberal” nation to bankrupt themselves, sacrifice their liberty, and court national destruction to try to make the earth a better place. Rohac spoke of America’s leaders having “responsibility for the world that exists outside of America’s borders.” Foreign policy involves sacrificing other people’s money and lives. That should be done by the U.S. government only when those paying the cost, the American people, have something fundamental at stake.

The dilemma is nicely captured by the American revolutionaries who sought French military assistance against Great Britain. They did so not to fulfill their liberal philosophy, but on eminently practical, essentially nationalistic, grounds: absent outside aid the British Empire likely would prevail. Paris responded, but not out of any liberal sentimentalities. After all, the French monarchy was decidedly illiberal. France acted out of perceived self-interest. Americans benefited, but only because the French thought they would do so as well.

Undoubtedly, liberals from other nations will continue to lobby Washington to advance their home countries’ interests. No surprise there. But they shouldn’t complain if American liberals choose priceless domestic peace and prosperity over costly international charity and conflict. An American who values individual liberty and advocates limited government should oppose further inflating the Washington Leviathan to “do good” elsewhere. The U.S. government should concentrate on keeping Americans out of the tragedy of war rather than eagerly looking for new conflicts to join. Choosing peace might seem churlish, but actually is the true application of classical liberalism. The lion may not yet be ready to lie down by the lamb, but at least the U.S. government could avoid feeding more Americans to the marauding jungle king.