Right?!?!

The NSA will no longer collect your metadata starting tonight

By Lulu Chang | Digital Trends – Sat, Nov 28, 2015

Ending an infamous era of Big Brother-esque surveillance, the National Security Agency’s …


Ending an infamous era of Big Brother-esque surveillance, the National Security Agency’s bulk phone surveillance program will officially be discontinued by Sunday, November 29, the Obama administration announced Friday evening.

The program was brought to public attention (and disparagement) by Edward Snowden in 2013; it drew considerable criticism for its vast, largely unknown collection of the metadata of most Americans. And now, the final deadline for the program is timestamped 11:59 p.m. Saturday.

The conclusion of the vast surveillance system comes as the result of the USA Freedom Act, which Congress passed back in June. At the time, the NSA was allotted 18o days to end its controversial practices and find new ways to keep Americans safe (that hopefully don’t include spying on ordinary citizens). Now, the government agency is out of time, and the White House says that it has a less invasive process ready to replace the old program.

Though it’s been two years since Snowden first brought the surveillance to public attention, the end of the program marks a considerable victory for privacy watchdog groups, who have long lambasted the government for what some considered an abuse of power. Now, should a certain phone number be deemed suspicious by government officials, they must make a specific request to the appropriate telephone company in order to retrieve the data. No longer will the NSA have its own records of this sort of information.

Voicing support for the newly revised version of the program, National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said that the act “struck a reasonable compromise which allows us to continue to protect the country while implementing various reforms.”

Of course, not all members of Congress are pleased with the demise of this data collection. In fact, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio hoped to extend the surveillance program through 2017, citing the recent spike in terror attacks and the tragedy in Paris as proof for more security.

But security experts — including James Clapper from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — seem confident about the next phase of U.S. intelligence. “With the transition period ending, the intelligence community has fulfilled an important presidential commitment,” Clapper said, “that allows national security professionals to retain the capabilities necessary to continue protecting the country, while strengthening the civil liberties protections that the American people cherish.”

Russia "Fully Mobilized"

RUSSIA “FULLY MOBILIZED,” STRIKES TURKISH TARGETS IN SYRIA

Will use electronic warfare to protect aircraft

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 28, 2015

“The president is mobilized, fully mobilized, mobilized to the extent that circumstances demand,” Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Saturday.

“The circumstances are unprecedented. The gauntlet thrown down to Russia is unprecedented. So naturally the reaction is in line with this threat,” he told Russia’s “News on Saturday” TV program.

In addition to placing S-400 missiles in Syria on Thursday and deploying the Moskva missile cruiser, Russia is preparing to wage electronic warfare.


According to Lieutenant-GeneralEvgeny Buzhinsky Russia will begin using land and air-based jamming systems to protect its aircraft.

“Regarding the possible impact of this incident on the further developments of the operation in Syria, I think that from now on, our pilots will be more attentive and if the Turks continue behaving in such a manner, Russia will have to resort to electronic jamming and other warfare equipment, including special aircraft with special equipment on board, in order to protect our pilots from being stricken with missiles,” Buzhinsky told Sputnik, the Russian news service.

Russia has reportedly struck more than 450 targets in Syria since its Su-24 warplane was shot down on the Syria-Turkey border. The strikes are concentrated primarily in the Latakia and Idlib provinces.

On Thursday Russia bombed the Bab al-Hawa border crossing used by the Turkish government to transfer weapons and money to the jihadists. According to the Israeli source DEBKAfile, targets on the Syrian side of the border post included trailers belonging to the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation, an organization accused of ties to al-Qaeda.

“DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that since Wednesday night, Nov. 25, Russian heavy bombers and warplanes have been hitting every Turkish vehicle moving or stationary inside Syria,” the website reported on Friday.

Turkey has suspended military flights over Syria and the United States halted airstrikes after Russia deployed its S-400 anti-aircraft system at the Khmeimim airbase.

On Friday a spokesperson for the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve said the halt “has nothing to do with the S400 deployment” in Syria.

“The fluctuation or absence of strikes in Syria reflects the ebb and flow of battle,” the spokesperson said.

Former CIA Operative: Get Ready For WWIII

FORMER CIA OPERATIVE: GET READY FOR WWIII

Expect Putin to respond to provocations by Turkey

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 27, 2015

Bob Baer, a former CIA operative, believes the situation in the Middle East is out of control and shaping up to look like the beginning of World War III.

“This mosaic in the Middle East of conflict is getting out of control,” Baer told CNN. “It’s not just Russia and Turkey, it’s Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is expanding rather than contracting, and nobody has a strategic plan.”

Baer said Vladimir Putin is likely to react to the Turkish shoot down of a Russian warplane.

On Thursday Putin said the United States knew the flight path of the aircraft and may have fed this information to Turkey.


Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has announced expansive economic sanctions against Turkey and Russia’s military shut down all communication channels with the Turkish military, including a “hot line” to help avoid air incidents.

Turkey remains intransigent on the shoot down and has vowed to respond if Russia targets its planes violating Syrian airspace.

On Thursday Moscow deployed its advanced S-400 air defense system in Syria. The weapon will be used to protect the Russian Hmeimim airbase in Latakia. The Russian defense ministry posted a video of the deployment on its Facebook page.

Baer said we should expect Putin to respond to provocations by Turkey. “I wouldn’t put it past him. He’s not going to back down,” he said.

“That’s the way he framed this conflict,” Baer said. “The chances of this escalating from here without deconfliction of any sort are pretty good.”

The True Meaning Of Thanksgiving

THE TRUE MEANING OF THANKSGIVING

Triumph of Capitalism over the failure of Collectivism in all its forms

Richard Ebeiling | Zero Hedge - NOVEMBER 26, 2015

This time of the year, whether in good economic times or bad, is when Americans gather with their families and friends and enjoy a Thanksgiving meal together. It marks a remembrance of those early Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the uncharted ocean from Europe to make a new start in Plymouth, Massachusetts. What is less appreciated is that Thanksgiving also is a celebration of the birth of free enterprise in America.

The English Puritans, who left Great Britain and sailed across the Atlantic on the Mayflower in 1620, were not only escaping from religious persecution in their homeland. They also wanted to turn their back on what they viewed as the materialistic and greedy corruption of the Old World.
Plymouth Colony Planned as Collectivist Utopia

In the New World, they wanted to erect a New Jerusalem that would not only be religiously devout, but be built on a new foundation of communal sharing and social altruism. Their goal was the communism of Plato’s “Republic,” in which all would work and share in common, knowing neither private property nor self-interested acquisitiveness.

What resulted is recorded in the diary of Governor William Bradford, the head of the colony. The colonists collectively cleared and worked the land, but they brought forth neither the bountiful harvest they hoped for, nor did it create a spirit of shared and cheerful brotherhood.


The less industrious members of the colony came late to their work in the fields, and were slow and easy in their labors. Knowing that they and their families were to receive an equal share of whatever the group produced, they saw little reason to be more diligent in their efforts. The harder working among the colonists became resentful that their efforts would be redistributed to the more malingering members of the colony. Soon they, too, were coming late to work and were less energetic in the fields.
Collective Work Equaled Individual Resentment

As Governor Bradford of the Plymouth Colony explained in his old English (though with the spelling modernized):


“For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it.”

Because of the disincentives and resentments that spread among the population, crops were sparse and the rationed equal shares from the collective harvest were not enough to ward off starvation and death. Two years of communism in practice had left alive only a fraction of the original number of the Plymouth colonists.
Private Property as Incentive to Industry

Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.

As Governor Bradford put it:


“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end . . . This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only did many families produce enough for their own needs, but also they had surpluses that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and improvement.

In Governor Bradford’s words:


“By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their planting was well seen, for all had, one way or other, pretty well to bring the year about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”
Rejecting Collectivism for Individualism

Hard experience had taught the Plymouth colonists the fallacy and error in the ideas that since the time of the ancient Greeks had promised paradise through collectivism rather than individualism. As Governor Bradford expressed it:


“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of the vanity and conceit of Plato’s and other ancients; — that the taking away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

Was this realization that communism was incompatible with human nature and the prosperity of humanity to be despaired or be a cause for guilt? Not in Governor Bradford’s eyes. It was simply a matter of accepting that altruism and collectivism were inconsistent with the nature of man, and that human institutions should reflect the reality of man’s nature if he is to prosper. Said Governor Bradford:


“Let none object this is man’s corruption, and nothing to the curse itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

The desire to “spread the wealth” and for government to plan and regulate people’s lives is as old as the utopian fantasy in Plato’s “Republic.” The Pilgrim Fathers tried and soon realized its bankruptcy and failure as a way for men to live together in society.

They, instead, accepted man as he is: hardworking, productive, and innovative when allowed the liberty to follow his own interests in improving his own circumstances and that of his family. And even more, out of his industry result the quantities of useful goods that enable men to trade to their mutual benefit.
Giving Thanks for the Triumph of Freedom

In the wilderness of the New World, the Plymouth Pilgrims had progressed from the false dream of communism to the sound realism of capitalism. At a time of economic uncertainty and growing political paternalism, it is worthwhile recalling this beginning of the American experiment and experience with freedom.

This is the lesson of the First Thanksgiving. This year, when we, Americans sit around our dining table with family and friends, we should also remember that what we are really celebrating is the birth of free men and free enterprise in that New World of America.

The true meaning of Thanksgiving, in other words, is the triumph of Capitalism over the failure of Collectivism in all its forms.

Turkey Is Supporting ISIS

FORMER NATO COMMANDER: ‘TURKEY IS SUPPORTING ISIS’

Wesley Clark says Islamic State is "serving the interests of Turkey"

Paul Joseph Watson - NOVEMBER 25, 2015

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark responded to yesterday’s shoot down of a Russian fighter jet by pointing out that Turkey is supporting ISIS.

Appearing on CNN, Clark asserted that there was a “larger context” to the incident, pointing out that ISIS is a Sunni terrorist organization and therefore targets Shia nations.

“That means it’s serving the interests of Turkey and Saudi Arabia even as it poses a threat to them because neither Turkey or Saudi Arabia want an Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon bridge that isolates Turkey and cuts Saudi Arabia off,” said Clark.

Asked whether he agreed with Vladimir Putin that Turkey was aiding ISIS, Clark responded, “All along there’s always been the idea that Turkey was supporting ISIS in some way,” before going on to accuse Ankara of funneling ISIS terrorists through Turkey and buying ISIS’ stolen oil in the black market.

“Someone’s buying that oil that ISIS is selling, it’s going through somewhere, it looks to me like it’s probably going through Turkey,” said Clark, before also going on to accuse Putin of supporting terrorists through his allegiance with Bashar Al-Assad.

“There’s no good guy in this, this is a power struggle for the future of the Middle East,” concluded Clark.

As we previously highlighted, $800,000,000 worth of ISIS oil has been sold in Turkey, a supposed U.S. ally. ISIS trucks are routinely allowed to cross back and forth between the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa and Turkey.

As Nafeez Ahmed documents, a large cache of intelligence recovered from a raid on an ISIS safehouse this summer confirms that “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable.’”

A former ISIS communications technician also told Newsweek that part of his job was to, “Connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions.”

“ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks,” he said.

Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet

RUSSIAN JET SHOOT DOWN: NATO SHOULD INVESTIGATE TURKEY’S SUPPORT OF JIHADISTS

Documented support of the Islamic State

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 24, 2015

Following the shoot down of a Russian Su-24 jet over Syria, Turkey has called for an emergency meeting of NATO.

NATO will assign blame for the take down on Russia. The establishment media in the United States is already blaming Russia although Russia insists its aircraft did not invade Turkish airspace.

NATO might want to take the opportunity to investigate Turkey for its support of terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra.

Francis Ricciardone, who was until last June the US ambassador to Ankara, told journalists Turkey supported al-Nusra.

It might also want to take a look at collusion between Turkey and the United States in the effort to arm Islamist groups in Syria.

A highly classified report released to the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Benghazi assault in September 2012 details an agreement between Obama and Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdoğan to transport military supplies from Libya through Turkey and into the hands of Islamists in Syria. The arms transfer “rat line” was documented by journalist Seymour Hersh, who was dumped from The New Yorker for dispelling the myth spun by the United States on Osama bin Laden’s death.

According to The Telegraph Jamal Maarouf, the leader of the Syrian Revolutionary Front, a group created by the CIA, Saudi and Qatari intelligence, was instructed to transfer weapons to al-Nusra.

Turkey helps jihadi fighters—including those from the Islamic State—along its border with Syria. “Turkey’s support was vital for the jihadists in getting in and out of the country,” Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a Turkish newspaper columnist, said last year.

The transport of men and materiel across the border constitutes a “two-way jihadist highway,” writes Turkish journalist Kadri Gursel.

In April 2014 a photo surfaced showing ISIS commander Abu Muhammad in a Hatay State Hospital bed receiving treatment for battle wounds.

A Turkish opposition politician estimates that Turkey has paid $800 million to ISIS for oil shipments. Meanwhile, France and the United States boast about taking out ISIS controlled oil facilities in Syria.

NATO might want to ask Erdoğan why he met on three separate occasions with Yasin al-Qadi, who has close ties to ISIS and has funded the terror group.

Turkey’s complicity with al-Nusra and the Islamic State will not be mentioned during the emergency meeting.

Turkey’s war against Kurdish civilians and its brutal ethnic cleansing will also not be on the agenda. Turkey stands accused of displacing over 4 million Kurds and engaging in severe human rights violations, including rape, property destruction, beatings and extrajudicial executions. NATO is not concerned its valued member is a terror state. The media in the United States rarely discusses Turkey’s ongoing violations of human rights.

The establishment media and its stenographers will exonerate Turkey and blame Russia for the shoot down of a jet along the border. It will be interesting to see how France reacts now that it has joined Russia in its effort to eradicate IS jihadists in the wake of the attacks in Paris.

Hillary Clinton and her Republican rivals have called for a no-fly zone in Syria. Ben Carson and Chris Christie have called for shooting down Russian aircraft if it intrudes on a no-fly zone.

It remains to be seen how Russia will respond to the shoot down of the jet. It is unlikely it will target Turkish anti-aircraft batteries. Not doing so, however, will allow Turkey a free pass and Islamists will continue to move into the country.

Law Enforcement Bigger Burglars Than Burglars

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year

By Christopher Ingraham November 23

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week.

Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.

Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.

One other point: Those asset forfeiture deposit amounts are not necessarily the best indicator of a rise in the use of forfeiture. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.

For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.

Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year.

One final caveat is that these are only the federal totals and don't reflect how much property is seized by state and local police each year. Reliable data for all 50 states is unavailable, but the Institute of Justice found that the total asset forfeiture haul for 14 states topped $250 million in 2013. The grand 50-state total would probably be much higher.

Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total value of property stolen by criminals in 2014. That represents something of a sea change in the way police do business — and it's prompting plenty of scrutiny of the practice.

ISIS Threatens D.C.

ISIS Threatens Direct Attack Against Washington In New Video

By David Gilbert  November 16 2015

The Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS) has warned that any country involved in ongoing airstrikes against the group's positions in Iraq and Syria will suffer the same fate as France, directly threatening an attack on Washington.

Reuters is reporting that ISIS, which carried out the deadliest terrorist attack in Western Europe in over a decade in Paris Friday, has published a new video that threatens all countries involved in airstrikes against it. France retaliated against the terrorist attacks Sunday night with airstrikes against the Syrian city of Raqqa.

The video was published by a group calling itself “Wilayah Kirkuk” or “State of Kirkuk” -- an ancient city in northern Iraq currently under ISIS control. The group has published dozens of other videos in the name of ISIS.

In the video, according to the Independent, militants show footage of French President Francois Hollande speaking in the wake of Friday’s atrocities. It also shows footage of police operations and bodies being loaded into an ambulance, adding that other countries may "suffer the same fate." A militant speaks to the camera saying: “We say to the states that take part in the crusader campaign that, by God, you will have a day God-willing, like France’s, and by God, as we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington.”

The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes in Syria since 2014 and according to the New York Times, has hit 2,600 targets. As well as the U.S. and France, the U.K. has carried out some attacks against ISIS in Iraq but has yet to carry out any in Syria. Russia has also been carrying out attacks in Syria, but they have been targetting "moderate rebels" as opposed to ISIS positions.

U.S. politicians have been reacting to the attacks in Paris, warning that more action is needed to prevent similar attacks there: "I'm trying to protect America from another 9/11, and without American boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, we're gonna get hit here at home," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican presidential candidate from South Carolina, told CNN’s New Day Monday morning. "And if you don't understand that, you're not ready to be commander-in-chief in my view,” he said.

Paris Massacre Only The Beginning?

SPECIAL REPORT: PARIS MASSACRE ONLY THE BEGINNING

Globalists fueling ISIS to create exploitable hysteria

Jon Bowne | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 14, 2015

Although it’s likely the U.S. and NATO will use the Paris attacks as an excuse to launch military operations in Syria, the Pentagon admitted in 2012 that NATO was backing Islamic extremists in a proxy war to topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

The Re-enserfment Of Western Peoples

THE RE-ENSERFMENT OF WESTERN PEOPLES

There is no longer any point in legislatures, presidents, prime ministers, judges

Paul Craig Roberts | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 13, 2015

The re-enserfment of Western peoples is taking place on several levels. One about which I have been writing for more than a decade comes from the offshoring of jobs. Americans, for example, have a shrinking participation in the production of the goods and services that are marketed to them.

On another level we are experiencing the financialization of the Western economy about which Michael Hudson is the leading expert (Killing The Host). Financialization is the process of removing any public presence in the economy and converting the economic surplus into interest payments to the financial sector.

These two developments deprive people of economic prospects. A third development deprives them of political rights. The Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic Partnerships eliminate political sovereignty and turn governance over to global corporations.

These so called “trade partnerships” have nothing to do with trade. These agreements negotiated in secrecy grant immunity to corporations from the laws of the countries in which they do business. This is achieved by declaring any interference by existing and prospective laws and regulations on corporate profits as restraints on trade for which corporations can sue and fine “sovereign” governments. For example, the ban in France and other counries on GMO products would be negated by the Trans-Atlantic Partnership. Democracy is simply replaced by corporate rule.

I have been meaning to write about this at length. However, others, such as Chris Hedges, are doing a good job of explaining the power grab that eliminates representative government.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-Most-Brazen-Corporate-by-Chris-Hedges-American-Hypocrisy_Americans-For-Prosperity_Corporate-Citizenship_Corporate-Crime-151107-882.html


The corporations are buying power cheaply. They bought the entire US House of Representatives for just under $200 million. This is what the corporations paid Congress to go along with “Fast Track,” which permits the corporations’ agent, the US Trade Representative, to negotiate in secret without congressional input or oversight.http://www.opednews.com/articles/Almost-200-Million-Donate-by-Paola-Casale-Banking_Congress_Control_Corporations-150620-523.html

In other words, a US corporate agent deals with corporate agents in the countries that will comprise the “partnership,” and this handful of well-bribed people draw up an agreement that supplants law with the interests of corporations. No one negotiating the partnership represents the peoples’ or public’s interests. The governments of the partnership countries get to vote the deal up or down, and they will be well paid to vote for the agreement.

Once these partnerships are in effect, government itself is privatized. There is no longer any point in legislatures, presidents, prime ministers, judges. Corporate tribunals decide law and court rulings.

It is likely that these “partnerships” will have unintended consequences. For example, Russia and China are not part of the arrangements, and neither are Iran, Brazil, India, and South Africa, although seperately the Indian government appears to have been purchased by American agribusiness and is in the process of destroying its self-sufficient food production system. These countries will be the repositories for national sovereignty and public control while freedom and democracy are extinguished in the West and the West’s Asian vassals.

Violent revolution throughout the West and the complete elimination of the One Percent is another possible outcome. Once, for example, the French people discover that they have lost all control over their diet to Monsanto and American agribusiness, the members of the French government that delivered France into dietary bondage to toxic foods are likely to be killed in the streets.

Events of this sort are possible throughout the West as peoples discover that they have lost all control over every aspect of their lives and that their only choice is revolution or death.

Sun's Solar Flares Could Make Earth Like Mars

NASA: SUN’S SOLAR FLARES COULD MAKE EARTH LIKE MARS

Scientists say solar winds post threat to Earth's atmosphere

The Alex Jones Show - NOVEMBER 12, 2015

Never Enough War

US NEEDS BOOTS ON THE GROUND TO ‘OCCUPY & GOVERN’ SYRIAN TERRITORIES – AIR FORCE SECRETARY

Secretary Deborah Lee James stressed the importance of the US-led air campaign, but admitted that airstrikes need to be backed by ground forces

RT - NOVEMBER 11, 2015


Washington needs “boots on the ground” in Syria in addition to its air campaign against ISIS, which is not fruitful despite some progress. US Air Force secretary has admitted that “ground forces” is a must in order to “occupy” and “govern” parts of Syria.

In her comments, Secretary Deborah Lee James stressed the importance of the US-led air campaign, but admitted that airstrikes need to be backed by ground forces.

“Air power is extremely important. It can do a lot but it can’t do everything,”James said, just two days after Secretary of Defense Ash Carter supported President Obama’s “willingness to do more” in terms of US troops on Syrian ground.


“Ultimately it cannot occupy territory and very importantly it cannot govern territory,” James told reporters at the Dubai Airshow.“This is where we need to have boots on the ground. We do need to have ground forces in this campaign.”


When it comes to support, the US should assist the “Iraqi army, the Free Syrians and the Kurds” in the fight against Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL), James said.

Joined at the news conference by the head of Air Force’s Central Command, Lt. Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, the civilian chief of the US Air Force also said that the US sought to speed up the resupply of munitions used by its allies in campaigns against IS militants in Syria and Iraq.

“That’s a key message that I’m going to be taking back to Washington, and it’s one that we are working pretty hard,” she told reporters, stressing that the Air Force is committed to a quicker process of approving foreign military sales.

“We need to redouble our efforts and get the message delivered back home that it is important to give much more quick consideration if at all possible,” she said.

Last week, Secretary Carter said that the US needed “much more than airstrikes” to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria.

“I don’t think it’s enough. I think we’re looking to do more. But the fundamental strategy in Iraq and Syria for dealing with ISIL and dealing a lasting defeat to ISIL is to identify then train, equip, and enable local forces that can keep the peace,” Carter said.

On October 30 the White House announced that it is planning to send up no “more than 50 troops” [special forces] to advise “moderate opposition”in Syria on the ground.

The White House spokesman Josh Earnest stressed that “these forces do not have a combat mission” while telling the reporters that the US has shown “a desire to intensify those elements of our strategy that have shown the most promise.”

According to a report from Lebanon’s satellite television channel, Al Mayadeen, American military advisors already arrived in Syria last week and started training “moderate rebels” near the city of Salma, located in the western province of Latakia.


The recent development contradicts President Obama’s 2013 promise not to put any “American boots on the ground in Syria” while also bringing up the issues concerning the previous failures of the US train and equip program.

The Pentagon gave up on the training part of the project in October, after senior Obama administration officials admitted that the US had only trained a handful of fighters, despite the program’s $500 million budget.


In September, it was revealed that one group of trainees had surrendered one quarter of their US-supplied weapons, ammunition, and vehicles in exchange for safe passage through territory held by another rebel group affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

The rebel training program’s $500 million budget in 2015 was in addition to the $42 million the Pentagon had already spent in 2014 to set it up.

This Will Come Everywhere

CHINA INTRODUCES INTERNET DRIVERS LICENSE

Communists want to control people's thoughts, speech

The Alex Jones Show - NOVEMBER 10, 2015 

The Internet has become a tool for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to keep its citizens in place.

Through the web, the government surveils their every move and puts them behind bars if their online behavior is not in-line with Beijing’s sentiment.

Trident II Nuclear Missle Fired Off The Coast Of California

WHY DID THE U.S. LAUNCH A NUCLEAR MISSILE THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM L.A. WITHOUT ANY WARNING?

Just after sunset, an unarmed Trident II nuclear missile was fired from a ballistic missile submarine just off the coast of southern California

Michael Snyder | End Of The American Dream - NOVEMBER 9, 2015

Was the U.S. government trying to send a message to someone on Saturday night?

Just after sunset, an unarmed Trident II nuclear missile was fired from a ballistic missile submarine just off the coast of southern California that was later identified as the USS Kentucky. It was the absolutely perfect time to attract the attention of millions of people living in the Los Angeles area. If it had been fired during the day, the missile would have been far less visible. If it had been fired in the middle of the night, most residents of southern California would have been asleep. Those that planned the firing of this nuclear missile knew that it would be seen by hundreds of thousands of people and that it would make headlines all over the planet. So why was this done?

When the U.S. military established a no-fly zone west of Los Angeles for a week, it raised the eyebrows of many.


But nobody expected this.

The unarmed Trident II missile that was fired from the USS Kentucky normally carries a nuclear warhead, and this launch was so visible that it could even be seen by people living in Arizona and Nevada…


The event was seen in Northern California (Santa Rosa) and as far east as Nevada and Arizona (though it was very low to the western horizon from there). This shows just how high up the missile must have been; a couple of hundred kilometers at least, I’d think. It was seen west of Los Angeles, moving roughly south to north. That too makes sense; it was probably launched from the ocean hundreds of kilometers west of LA, sent to the north, away from populated areas. I’m not sure why they didn’t do this even farther west, where no one would see it, but I assume the military has their reasons.

Once the missile was launched, photographs and videos of this strange phenomenon were very quickly posted on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Others alerted law enforcement agencies and their local news stations.

Nobody knew exactly what was going on, but everyone seemed to recognize that this was not normal. The following comes from a report that was posted on CNN…


Panic and speculation spread Saturday night when a bright white light shot through the night skies in Southern California.

Residents posted a flurry of videos on social media, together with theories of aliens or meteors. Others made panicked calls to law enforcement officials.

Today the Navy is trying to assure all of us that this was perfectly “normal”, but very few people are buying that explanation.

Clearly this was done at a time and in a location that would create a massive amount of attention.

So what kind of message was the government trying to send?

Was this a message to the American people?

Some are suggesting this, but I tend to agree with Mike Adams of Natural News that this was likely a message to our enemies…


Last night’s test launch of the Trident missile over Orange County was staged near a high population area for a tactical reason: To have as many witnesses (and videos) as possible, sending a very visible warning message to China that says, “We can destroy you if you don’t back off.”

The Trident missile, built by Lockheed Martin, is a thermonuclear missile system (Fleet Ballistic Missile) with a range of at least 4,000 nautical miles. See the Trident missile page on the U.S. Navy website. Just one Trident missile launched from somewhere in the Pacific Ocean could devastate China with a nuclear strike on Beijing.

I also find that it is an incredibly strange “coincidence” that it was a “Trident” nuclear missile that was fired considering the fact that the largest NATO military exercise in 13 years named “Trident Juncture” is also coming to an end right now…


The biggest military exercise NATO has held in 13 years, “Trident Juncture” will end tomorrow.

DW.com claims that, even though 36,000 soldiers from various NATO countries including the U.S. have participated in the exercise to defend against “Russia’s military ambitions,” (or what other outlets are simply referring to as “Russian aggression”), the organization is actually at a big disadvantage against Russia, not only because its trying to coordinate 28 member states with different priorities, but Russia’s training events in the last two years have involved up to 80,000 soldiers, more than twice that of NATO.

This all comes at a time when our relationships with both China and Russia are going downhill very rapidly. For much, much more on this, please see the following two articles which I published within the last month…

Most Americans don’t realize this, but there is a very real possibility that we could eventually go to war with China. In fact, Mike Adams of Natural News believes that we are already “in an undeclared state of war” with China…


Right now, the United States and China are in an undeclared state of war. China stands ready to strike the USA with nuclear warheads or high altitude EMP weapons that would destroy the U.S. power grid and cause 90% casualties across the unprepared population. Legendary American journalist Ted Koppel has even written a book about this entitled Lights Out: A Cyberattack, A Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath.

Let us certainly hope that World War III does not start any time soon, but without a doubt our “leaders” are becoming increasingly reckless, and at some point there may be an “accident”.

I think that an incident that just happened up in Montana is a perfect metaphor for how reckless the U.S. has become. An article posted by the Air Force Times is reporting that a vehicle that “may or may not” have been carrying a nuclear weapon was recently rear-ended by a security vehicle…


It’s possibly the most heart-stopping fender bender ever posted to YouTube: An Air Force tractor trailer that may or may not be carrying a nuclear weapon rear-ended by a security vehicle.

Great Falls, Montana, resident Aaron Tedford videotaped the convoy of at least two police vehicles, a security forces truck, a Humvee and six security forces BearCat vehicles escorting a white tractor trailer through Great Falls when the minor accident happened Monday afternoon. Tedford later wrote on Facebook that several helicopters were also flying overhead at the time.

The Air Force would not say what was inside the tractor trailer that was rear-ended, but Tedford believes it was a nuclear weapon. Malmstrom Air Force Base, which is located nearby Great Falls, is home to the 341st Missile Wing. Humvees and Bearcats from Malmstrom’s 341st Security Forces Group often escort nuclear weapons when they are being transported.

You can watch video of this particular incident right here.

I don’t know about you, but I have a really bad feeling about what is ahead.

Our government is acting very irrationally, and both Russia and China are becoming very angry with us.

White House Prepares For EMP

WHITE HOUSE PREPARES FOR EMP THAT WOULD “WIPE OUT POWER, RENDER CELLPHONES AND INTERNET USELESS”

They know something is coming… and so do you. Are you as ready as you could be?

Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com - NOVEMBER 7, 2015

Every prepper knows about the possibility – even eventuality – of an EMP attack, and most have taken some basic precautions.

Washington and the powers that be know about the threat of an EMP, too, of course, which could come from a powerful solar flare or more dramatically from a foreign enemy.

Nearly everyone admits that such an event would take out the grid, and leave the mass population without power, food, water and other essential services, triggering riots, chaos and mass death within days and weeks.


A number of people in Congress,Homeland Security, the Pentagonand now the White House are strategizing for the big one, and war gaming out how to protect their critical infrastructure, and perhaps salvage mainstream society as well.

The Daily Mail reports:

"The U.S. government are preparing for a catastrophic solar flare which could wipe out power across the world for months.

The massive electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from solar flares could wipe out power grids, bringing an end to modern civilization as we know it as cellphones, credit cards and the internet were rendered useless.

In the U.S, alone researchers estimate the cost on the fragile economy would be up to $2.6 trillion, according to a 2008 National Academy of Sciences study.

The report warned that power outages after an extreme solar storm could last months or even longer if it wiped out the transformers.

A catastrophic solar storm came terrifyingly close in 2012… With scientists predicting a 12 per cent chance that one could hit by 2022, the White House is preparing a contingency plan."

Perhaps the real reason the White House is preparing is to guard against the growing tensions with Russia and China, both of whom have been testing some new EMP weapons and other sophisticated gadgets. Any nation or terrorist group with a nuke could potentially also set off an EMP.

Then again, it could be the equally threatening potential for a massive and “catastrophic” solar flare to render electromagnetic pulse damage.

They know something is coming… and so do you. Are you as ready as you could be?

Same Old Story

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES CALL FOR WAR

Republicans want intervention in Syria, Iraq and Libya.

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - NOVEMBER 6, 2015


Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are calling for military intervention in response to the suspected downing of a Russian airliner last week.

Rubio, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wants to re-intervene in Libya. He said the country, now a failed state following a previous intervention by NATO and the United States, is a “safe haven” for the Islamic State.

“I would be targeting their safe havens everywhere including in Libya,” Rubio said. “If we don’t wipe out that operational status that they now have in Libya they’re going to use it to ramp up more operations in Sinai, more in Egypt and eventually it will cross over the Mediterranean into Europe itself.”

“And I would just say that irrespective of that, their threat in Libya has now grown to an almost crisis level that’s almost on par with what we see in Iraq,” he added.

Jeb Bush said the United States needs a “strategy to take them (ISIS) out.” He said without direct U.S. intervention, “they’ll continue to gain power.”

“Every day that they exist in the form of a caliphate is another day they gain energy, so I think the President needs to acknowledge this is a threat to our national security interests, he needs to create a strategy, he needs to explain to the American people what that strategy, what that objective is,” Bush said during an event in New Hampshire. “And I believe we need to take out ISIS and create a more stable Iraq and a more stable Syria. American leadership is required for that to happen.”

John Kasich said boots on the ground are required and there needs to be an international bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

“We’ve got to face facts: either you’re going to pay me now or you’re going to pay me a lot more later. And I would just hope that our Western friends and people that share our western values would realize that the time has come to destroy ISIS as part of a coalition,” Kasich said. “To allow this to linger, to put this off, to think that somehow this is going to go away is naïve at best.”

Ben Carson said the surveillance state has prevented a repeat of the downing of the Russian plane here in the United States. “We haven’t had any bombs on any of our planes for that reason. Obviously you don’t want to relax the surveillance that we have,” he said.

Ideas Are Bulletproof

If Your Looking For The Guilty, You Need Only Look Into A Mirror

US Prepares For War Against Russia

U.S. PREPARES WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IN SYRIAN BATTLEFIELD

This could get interesting. It might even get catastrophic

by ERIC ZUESSE | INFOWARS.COM | NOVEMBER 4, 2015

On Tuesday November 3rd, U.S. Defense Department spokesperson Laura Seal told The Daily Beast that twelve F-15C air-to-air combat planes are being sent to the Incirlik Turkey Air Base for deployment in Syria against Russia’s Su-30 air-to-air combat planes. Neither the F-15C nor the Su-30 can destroy ground-targets, only air-targets — enemy planes.

In other words: U.S. President Barack Obama is telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that unless Putin is willing to go to war against the United States, he must stop what he’s now doing in Syria. Obama is saying this in the only language whose meaning cannot be denied or misinterpreted: sending in counter-force to specifically what Russia has already sent into Syria.

If it were not the case that both the F-15C and the Su-30 are equipped only for air-to-air-combat, then the meaning of Obama’s move here wouldn’t be so clear and unambiguous. Ms. Seal made her point even clearer by volunteering to tell The Daily Beast’s reporter David Axe, “I didn’t say it wasn’t about Russia.” Axe then commented in his article, that this statement of hers “hinted at its the deployment’s true purpose.” But one would need to be a fool in order to deny it. The only real question here is why Obama has made this decision, which is quite likely to be fateful. So: that’s the subject: Why did he do this?

On 11 October 2015, CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired a segment, “Steve Kroft questions President Obama on topics including Russia’s incursion in Syria”, and the U.S. President was challenged there by Mr. Kroft regarding whether he’s “weak” on the Syria matter:


Steve Kroft: A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it’s also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States — America leads. We’re the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.

President Barack Obama: In what way? Let — let’s think about this — let — let —

Steve Kroft: Well, he’s moved troops into Syria, for one. He’s got people on the ground. Two, the Russians are conducting military operations in the Middle East for the first time since World War II —

President Barack Obama: So that’s —

Steve Kroft: — bombing the people — that we are supporting.

President Barack Obama: So that’s leading, Steve? Let me ask you this question. When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin. Syria was Russia’s only ally in the region. And today, rather than being able to count on their support and maintain the base they had in Syria, which they’ve had for a long time, Mr. Putin now is devoting his own troops, his own military, just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally. And in Ukraine —

Steve Kroft: He’s challenging your leadership, Mr. President. He’s challenging your leadership —

President Barack Obama: Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy. To the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work.

Steve Kroft: My point is — was not that he was leading, my point is that he was challenging your leadership. And he has very much involved himself in the situation. Can you imagine anything happening in Syria of any significance at all without the Russians now being involved in it and having a part of it?

President Barack Obama: But that was true before. Keep in mind that for the last five years, the Russians have provided arms, provided financing, as have the Iranians, as has Hezbollah.

Steve Kroft: But they haven’t been bombing and they haven’t had troops on the ground —

President Barack Obama: And the fact that they had to do this is not an indication of strength, it’s an indication that their strategy did not work.

Steve Kroft: You don’t think —

President Barack Obama: You don’t think that Mr. Putin would’ve preferred having Mr. Assad be able to solve this problem without him having to send a bunch of pilots and money that they don’t have?

Steve Kroft: Did you know he was going to do all this when you met with him in New York?

President Barack Obama: Well, we had seen — we had pretty good intelligence. We watch —

Steve Kroft: So you knew he was planning to do it.

President Barack Obama: We knew that he was planning to provide the military assistance that Assad was needing because they were nervous about a potential imminent collapse of the regime.

Steve Kroft: You say he’s doing this out of weakness. There is a perception in the Middle East among our adversaries, certainly and even among some of our allies that the United States is in retreat, that we pulled our troops out of Iraq and ISIS has moved in and taken over much of that territory. The situation in Afghanistan is very precarious and the Taliban is on the march again. And ISIS controls a large part of Syria.

President Barack Obama: I think it’s fair to say, Steve, that if —

Steve Kroft: It’s — they — let me just finish the thought. They say your —

President Barack Obama: You’re —

Steve Kroft: — they say you’re projecting a weakness, not a strength–

President Barack Obama: — you’re saying “they,” but you’re not citing too many folks. But here —

Steve Kroft: No, I’ll cite — I’ll cite if you want me, too.

President Barack Obama: — here — yes. Here —

Steve Kroft: I’d say the Saudis. I’d say the Israelis. I’d say a lot of our friends in the Middle East. I’d say everybody in the Republican party. Well, you want me to keep going?

President Barack Obama: Yeah. The — the — if you are — if you’re citing the Republican party, I think it’s fair to say that there is nothing I’ve done right over the last seven and a half years.

Apparently, the U.S. President is taking this matter so much to heart, he’s now willing to start World War III over it, so as to prove that he’s not “weak.”

The Cold War was never this hot except at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. But in that particular instance, the U.S. faced a potential Soviet nuclear attack upon the United States, by Soviet missiles being placed near the U.S. in Cuba. This time around, it’s starting very differently: there is no danger that Russia is posing to the United States. Indeed, Putin had repeatedly requested the U.S.’s cooperation with the war against jihadists in Syria, but Obama has repeatedly refused.

Now, Obama is going farther than merely refusing to cooperate: he’s ordering Putin to stop. Obama is doing this by his action, demanding that Putin allow Sunni jihadists to take control in Syria, a nation that under Assad has a secular non-sectarian government, most of whose chief officials are Shiites (though the Prime Minister, Wael Nader al-Halqi, is Sunni), and where the Constitution is entirely non-religious and keeps a wall of separation between church-and-state (the only one like that in the entire Middle East) — which all of the opposition-organizations that are warring against it oppose, because they’re all jihadist Sunni organizations.

Obama is, in effect, now telling Putin that the United States is willing to go to war against Russia in order to be able to eliminate Syria’s non-jihadist government — a government that was founded not only as anti-jihadist but as entirely non-religious. He’s saying this in the clearest language possible, but Putin could simply ignore it. What then will be the response when American and Russian fighter-pilots fire at each other in a Syrian sky, and one of them gets killed in the process, and his plane goes down, perhaps in flames? Will the loser (either Obama or Putin) of that battle, simply quit World War III immediately after it started, before it goes nuclear? Or, will he not? And, if not, then what will his response be? And when would that mutual test of “strength” end — and how would it end?

This could get interesting. It might even get catastrophic.

Gun Sales At Record High

GUN SALES AT RECORD HIGH FOR 6TH STRAIGHT MONTH

“Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the best gun salespeople on the planet."

by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS.COM | NOVEMBER 4, 2015

The level of FBI firearm related background checks in October again hit a record high, indicating that Americans have been buying firearms at all time highs for six months in a row now.

The FBI released October’s figures, showing that it carried out 1,976,759 Instant Background Checks. This makes it the sixth consecutive month to see a record number of checks.



It also constitutes a a 373,290 increase in checks on figures from this time last year.

While the figure, almost 2 million, does not represent a one to one calculation for gun sales, it is considered a reliable indicator of overall gun sales. Sales between private parties are not subject to background checks.

The FBI stats also show that 17,584,346 firearms related checks have been carried out in 2015, with two months still to go, the overall figure should easily surpass 2013’s record of 21,09,273 checks.

The reason for record gun sales, say gun rights activists, is the push for further gun control by Democrats.

“Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the best gun salespeople on the planet,” said Alan Gottlieb, the head of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“The more they scream for new gun control laws the more guns walk off the shelves at gun stores,” Gottlieb added.

“To quote the lyrics of Peter, Paul and Mary, ‘When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.’” he concluded.

The findings dovetail with a new poll that finds most Americans doubt the sincerity of politicians who raise gun issues.

Rasmussen recorded the finding, noting that Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Likely U.S. Voters in nearly every demographic category believe most politicians raise gun issues just to get elected rather than to address real problems.

Why We Need Private Property

WHY WE NEED PRIVATE PROPERTY TO DEAL WITH SCARCE RESOURCES

We need private property to build capital

by PATRICK BARRON | MISES.ORG | NOVEMBER 2, 2015

Scarcity of resources exists in many forms and is the problem in economics.

If resources were not scarce, there would be no need to economize. The existence of scarcity is true of all resources (such as time, human energy, and natural resources). However, it is not necessarily intuitive that allowing scarce resources to be owned privately is the solution to this problem.

Consequently, socialism appears attractive to many and they turn to having all resources owned collectively for the “common good.” Unfortunately, a society which spurns private property — and hands resources over to government planners instead — often learns the terrible lessons of central planning and the tragedy of the commons (i.e., commonly held resources will be plundered to extinction).

If society spurns allowing private ownership of resources, it must find some other means to prevent the tragedy of the commons and to allocate goods. Historically, the means chosen is the use of force and central planning. Throughout history, most of mankind has been divided into a hierarchical system of masters and slaves with some gradations between the two extremes. The masters (pharaohs, emperors, kings, sultans, warlords, etc.) devised complex rules-based systems for resource distribution that were decided by a small number of people and not by markets. And ultimately, these plans depended upon pure terror for enforcement. But this so-called solution to the problem of scarcity — restricting the people’s liberty through the use of force — does not work.

Problem 1: We Can’t Economize Without Effectively Ordering Our Preferences First

The gradual growth in the understanding of what we now regard as basic economics eventually ended thousands of years of subsistence existence for the masses in the West. Modern economics explained that without private ownership of resources, there was no mechanism for observing or acting on ordinal preferences in which persons prioritize desires from highest to lowest. Without a way to allocate goods according to ordinal preferences, there is no rational means to economize for the betterment of society.

In other words, without markets and prices, there is no way to know what people really want or need, so the masters never really knew what to order the slaves to produce, what technical means to use, what alternative materials to use, the quality desired, or how much to produce. Thus, the commissars of the Soviet Union ordered the production of inefficiently produced, shoddy goods. The Soviet empire collapsed, despite the fact that Russia is blessed with vast natural resources and an industrious population.

Problem 2: Few Raw Materials Are Ready to Consume

A second fatal problem with common/government ownership of resources is that few readily available, consumable resources actually exist. There are no resources on the planet that do not require at least a minimum of effort to transform into a consumable product. Even edible berries growing in the wild must be harvested, meaning that someone must transport himself to the berries’ location and pull them from the bush at just the proper time. The cost of doing so is the value one places on forfeiting his leisure. Of course, other natural resources require much more effort to convert to consumable products, passing through many stages of production.

For example, timber and minerals must be extracted, harvested, etc. and then molded into something that can be consumed. Consider a hiker lost in the wild. It matters not at all to him that great stands of timber lie within easy reach or that valuable minerals lie under foot. These natural resources require great effort over very long time periods to be converted into something consumable, as is the case with converting timber into a shelter or crude oil into gasoline. A lost hiker does not have the knowledge, time, or previously produced means to convert these basic resources into consumable products to ensure his survival. All this is far beyond anyone’s autarkic abilities.

Now let us assume that someone did harvest trees by felling them, transporting them to a lumber mill, milling them, storing them in a ventilated and dry place for many months before kiln-drying them (all processes that are required to turn trees into useable lumber), advertising their availability to contractors, keeping sales records, sending out bills, and collecting the bills, only to have a socialist call him a plunderer and confiscate his lumber for free distribution to whomever the masters deemed to be politically advantageous to their continued privileged position. No one other than the favored cronies of government would ever harvest another tree. In other words, production of usable lumber would be monopolized, and as with all cases of monopolies, prices would increase and quality would decline. Moreover, with no voluntary market at work in timber and forest land, there would be no means of knowing if these resources were being used in a way valued by those who valued them most.

At the same time, the central planners could not let just anyone harvest the trees or access the land. If the trees had no owners, great forests would be denuded in short order because there would be no social mechanism to prevent what would amount to a tragedy of the commons by order of the state.

Problem 3: We Need Private Property to Build Capital
Without the ability to profit from privately owned property, there would be no incentive to provide or withhold capital for any endeavor. Also, a system of private ownership is necessary to determine if that capital is being used in a way the consumers value. The consequences of ignoring this fact of economic science is most evident today in China’s ghost cities, where resources, both natural and human, have been expended for no observable benefit except to advance the careers of politicians who can claim to have met the requirements of the latestFive Year Plan. Timber and other resources were provided to build ghost cities, not because the owners of the resources sought to be economical with their resources, but because government edicts required that timber, concrete, gasoline, and more be used to produce what are now empty cities.

The opposite case of resource waste comes from special interest groups who capture the political apparatus of the state and prohibit exploitation of resources by private individuals. In the name of protecting Mother Gaiafrom being plundered, modern environmentalists have convinced the political class that most progress is unsustainable, dangerous to our health, or any number of other specious claims. Society is prevented from benefiting from their conversion to consumable products. The poor suffer the most from these policies as the prices of raw materials — and thus finished consumer goods — are driven up.

Private ownership insures that valuable resources will never be plundered to extinction, because their value will have been capitalized. Instead, private owners will seek to make resources as widely available as possible without endangering the long-term prospects for future harvesting of resources. The process of determining a resource’s capitalized value is impossible absent free-market capitalism with strict defenses of property rights.

Despite both the theoretical and empirical evidence to the contrary, socialists tell us the opposite; i.e., thatstateownership of all resources will prevent their plunder and ensure prosperity for all. As Ludwig von Mises explained, though, socialism is not an alternative economic system of production. It is a system of consumption only, and a system of economic ignorance and economic plunder.

Israel And Russia Engage In Electronic Warfare

ISRAEL AND RUSSIA ENGAGE IN ELECTRONIC WARFARE AS OPERATIONS EXPAND IN MIDDLE EAST

Electronic countermeasure systems used as bombing raids increase

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | NOVEMBER 2, 2015

On Sunday Syria announced Israeli aircraft entered its airspace and attacked Hezbollah near the Lebanon-Syria border in the Qalamoun Mountains region.

The Jerusalem Post reported the attack marks the first time Israel has conducted airstrikes in the area since the Russian military began operating there.

“Estimated targets included a weapons convoy destined for Hezbollah fighters traveling through Syria,” the newspaper reported.

On October 24 Infowars.com reported the possibility of Israel air activity over Syria. The reports were unconfirmed and few details were available at the time.

It was reported that “Hezbollah fighters are already along the border with Israel on the Golan Heights and have seized the so-called UN Hill opposite the Druze town of Magdal Shams on the Israeli Golan Heights. They have taken control of the strategically important mountain to release pressure on the Syrian city of al-Baath that houses an important military base, and are now expected to advance in the direction of the town of (Quneitra) opposite the observation point on the Israeli Golan Heights.”

“Israel has turned a blind eye to repeated Russian air strikes in the last few days against rebel positions in the southern Syrian town of Deraa and Quneitra opposite IDF Golan positions,” the Israeli intelligence source DEBKAfile reports today.

DEBKAfile believes it is unlikely Russia would allow the Israelis to enter their “anti-access/area denial bubble” inside Syria and the Israelis may have used “electronic warfare measures to jam the tracking systems installed in Russian spy planes and air defense missile systems in Syria.”

In late October the Russian media reported the Russian military has deployed in Syria a new Russian electronic jamming system “which can reportedly blind radar, disrupt electronic guidance systems, and interfere with satellite imagery as well.”

Sputnik reported:

This latest revelation follows the earlier report of the Russian cruiser mounted S-300 missile defense system deployed in the shore of Latakia. Both of these systems amount to what NATO’s supreme commander General Philip Breedlove described as the Russian A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) bubble in Syria, writes OSNet Daily.

As a result, NATO is effectively blinded inside a bubble of 600 km in diameter centered on the Russian base at Latakia, reports, Thierry Meyssan from Damascus.

According to DEBKAfile the Russians cannot match the jamming technology used by Israel.

Sputnik, however, claims Russia’s technology, based on the KRET Richag-AV system, has “no global equivalent.” The “electronic countermeasures system is designed to jam radar, sonar and other detection systems in the aims of defending aircraft, helicopters, drones, ground and naval forces against air-to-air and surface-to-air defense systems within a radius of several hundred kilometers.”

It is not clear if this technology was used near the Lebanon-Syria border when Israel attacked Hezbollah.

The use of electronic countermeasure systems in the expanding war increases the probability of blind encounters between Russia, Israel and possibly the United States.

US Invasion of Syria Begins

US INVASION OF SYRIA BEGINS

Admission of Special Forces in Syria is Just the Beginning

by TONY CARTALUCCI | NEO | OCTOBER 31, 2015

As previously warned about in June of 2015, the United States has announced that it will officially begin ground operations in Syria through the use of special forces.

The Washington Post in its article, “Obama seeks to intensify operations in Syria with Special Ops troops,”would report that:


President Obama is sending a small number of Special Operations troops to northern Syria, marking the first full-time deployment of U.S. forces to the chaotic country.

The mission marks a major shift for Obama, whose determination to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been balanced by an abiding worry that U.S. troops not be pulled too deeply into the in­trac­table Syrian conflict.

The latest deployment will involve fewer than 50 Special Operations advisers, who will work with resistance forces battling the Islamic State in northern Syria but will not engage in direct combat, Obama administration officials said.


Admission of Special Forces in Syria is Just the Beginning

While the US claims this move is to “defeat the Islamic State (ISIS),” it is instead clearly a move to establish long-sought “buffer zones” or “safe zones” in Syria where the Syrian government can no longer operate. US airpower will also undoubtedly be used to cover these special forces, creating a defacto no-fly-zone wherever they operate.



The map accompanying the Washington Post article clearly shows ISIS territory straddling the last remaining supply corridor being used to supply the terror group as well as others including Al Qaeda’s al Nusra Front from NATO-member Turkey’s territory. US special forces will likely begin operating in these areas, and zones carved out as US operations expand.

The eventual outcome, if these operations are successful, will be the division and destruction of Syria as a nation-state. This is more than mere speculation – this is a conclusion drawn by signed and dated policy papers produced by the Brookings Institution, who has called for such zones since as early as 2012, but under different contrived pretexts.

In the March 2012 Brookings Institution”Middle East Memo #21″ “Assessing Options for Regime Change” it is stated specifically (emphasis added):


An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

More recently, in a June 2015 Brookings document literally titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” it is stated that (emphasis added):


The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the presence of special forces as well. The approach would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack through a combination of technologies, patrols, and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.

Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal of the outside special forces, he would be likely to lose his air power in ensuing retaliatory strikes by outside forces, depriving his military of one of its few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.

Unfortunately for US policymakers, it is no longer only Syria that US special forces and accompanying airpower must worry about. Russia, by invitation of Damascus, is now operating militarily across Syria, including along Turkey’s border where the US has long sought to establish its “safe zones.”

The US has openly committed to the invasion and occupation of Syrian territory. It does so with the intent of carving Syria up into a series of dysfunctional, weak zones to literally “deconstruct” Syria as a functioning nation-state. It is doing this unable to cite any credible threat Syria poses to US national security and without any semblance of a mandate granted by the United Nations. It also does so with the prospect of triggering direct war with nuclear-armed Russia in a region Russia is operating legally.

A Desperate Move to Save a Bankrupt Agenda

America’s latest actions are a desperate move sought by an increasingly hysterical political and corporate-financier establishment in Washington and on Wall Street. Recent hearings conducted by the US Senate Committee on Armed Services have struggled to produce a credible response to America’s unraveling criminal conspiracy aimed at Syria, particularly in the wake of Russia’s recent intervention. The committee and witnesses brought before it, have struggled to formulate a response – however – no-fly-zones and US troops on the ground have been discussed at length.

It is a poorly calculated bluff. The presence of US special forces and US airpower operating illegally in and above Syria, meant to deny Syria access to its own territory will take time to implement. The official number of US special forces being sent into Syria is said to not exceed 50. Syria and its allies could insert an equal or larger number of forces into these same areas to essentially create a “safe zone” from “safe zones.” Bringing America’s illegal actions before the UN would also be a sound measure ahead of potential confrontations with US forces operating uninvited in Syria.

The premise that ISIS must be fought and defeated by striking them in Iraq and Syria is betrayed by America’s own admission that the organization has already spread far beyond the borders of either nation. ISIS is clearly not supporting itself on the limited resources found within either country. Were the US truly interested in stopping ISIS, it would strike at its sponsors in Ankara and Riyadh. Of course, it was clear, well over a year ago, that the appearance of ISIS would be used intentionally to accomplish US geopolitical objectives in both Syria and Iraq, serving as a pretext for wider, long-sought after direct Western military intervention.

The myth that dividing and destroying Syria while deposing its sitting government will somehow alleviate the violence in Syria and reduce the ongoing migrant crisis Europe faces, is betrayed by the fact that a similar premise used to sell intervention in Libya has only led to greater chaos in North Africa, and the creation of the migrant crisis in the first place.

If the world, including Europe, seeks to prevent the spread of ISIS and the expansion of an already growing migrant crisis, stopping the United States and its partners before they create another “Libya” in the Levant must become top priority. And while it is unlikely that Europe will show any resolve in doing so, it would be hoped that Syria and its allies realize the consequences of failing now, at this juncture, and to whom’s borders the chaos will attempt to cross over into next.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Will There Ever Be Enough War?...I Doubt It

AFTER PROMISING NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA, OBAMA DEPLOYS BOOTS ON THE GROUND

"He's broken all other promises, why would this be any different?"

by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS.COM | OCTOBER 30, 2015

US officials have confirmed today that special forces soldiers will be deployed on the ground in Syria, despite the fact that Obama promised he wouldn’t deploys ‘boots on the ground’.

A senior administration official told the BBC that there will be “fewer than 50” forces deployed in the region to “train, advise and assist” vetted opposition forces.

According to the official, this does not mark a change US strategy, but rather an “intensification” of the campaign in Syria.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest also said that the decision was made by Obama in order to provide additional support for Syrian rebels fighting against the government there.

“There are now moderate opposition forces that are 45 miles (72km) outside Raqqa,” Earnest said. “The president is prepared to intensify the elements that have shown promise.”

He said: “This is an intensification of a strategy he discussed a year ago.”

Something else Obama discussed previously was his decision to not “pursue an open ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan.” He also promised not to send in ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria or pursue an open ended air campaign.

Turns out that was all BULLSHIT… again!