FIGURES. DEMOCRATS’ “FREEDOM OF CHOICE” ABORTION MOVEMENT WAS STOLEN FROM THE NAZIS
by JIM HOFT | GATEWAY PUNDIT | AUGUST 14, 2015
What a surprise.
The Democrats’ “freedom of choice” abortion movement was stolen from the Nazi regime.Nazis and Abortion — The Launch of the Pro-Choice Movement
Via Angelfire:
ABORTION PROMOTED FOR NON-ARYAN WOMEN
When the Nazis entered Poland (a Roman Catholic country) in 1939 abortion for any reason was illegal. The use of contraceptives was also illegal in Poland (because the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to abortion and to contraception as well). The Nazis conquered half the country (the other half went to the Russians), and they immediately did away with the anti-abortion laws. Hitler wanted to limit and reduce all non-Aryan populations. In late 1939 a decree was issued encouraging Polish women to seek abortions. The campaign was called “Auswahlfeiheit” (“Freedom of Choice”).
Hitler himself promoted abortions for the non-native women.
Hitler himself said:
“They may use contraceptives or practice abortion–the more the better. In view of the large families of the native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. Active trade in contraceptives ought to be actually encouraged in the Eastern territories, as we could not possibly have the slightest interest in increasing the non-Germanic population.” (Harvest of Hate, 1954, pp. 273-4 emphasis added)
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
Wake Me Up When September Ends
A DEATH CROSS, WILD MARKET SWINGS AND A CURRENCY WAR – AND WE HAVEN’T EVEN GOTTEN TO SEPTEMBER YET
Things continue to line up in textbook fashion for a major financial crisis by the end of 2015
by MICHAEL SNYDER | ECONOMIC COLLAPSE | AUGUST 13, 2015
Things continue to line up in textbook fashion for a major financial crisis by the end of 2015. This week, Wall Street has been buzzing about the first “death cross” that we have seen for the Dow since 2011. When the 50-day moving average moves below the 200-day moving average, that is a very important psychological moment for the market. And just like during the run up to the stock market crash of 2008, we are starting to witness lots of wild swings up and down. The Dow was up more than 200 points on Monday, the Dow was down more than 200 points on Tuesday, and it took a nearly 700 point roundtrip on Wednesday. This is exactly the type of behavior that we would expect to see during the weeks or months leading up to a crash. As any good sailor will tell you, when the waters start getting very choppy that is not a good sign. Of course what China is doing is certainly not helping matters. On Wednesday, the Chinese devalued the yuan for a second day in a row, and many believe that a new “currency war” has now begun.
So what does all of this mean?
Does this mean that the time of financial “shaking” has now arrived?
Let’s start with what is happening to the Dow. When the 50-day moving average crosses over the 200-day moving average, it is a very powerful signal. For example, as Business Insider has pointed out, if you would have got into stocks when the 50-day moving average moved above the 200-day moving average in December 2011, you would have experienced a gain of43 percent by now…
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been on an unrelenting upward trajectory since its October 2011 low.
The signal that convinced many traders that the market was now moving with a bullish bias was when the 50-day moving average of the index price rose above the 200-day moving average a couple of months later at the end of December.
Since then the market rallied 6,200 points to a high of 18,333 before pulling back to last night’s close of 17,404. That’s a gain of around 43% even though the market is 5% off its high.
But now a cross is happening in the other direction. That is why it is called a “death cross”. It is quite understandable why a lot of investors are freaking out about the fact that the 50-day moving average has moved below the 200-day moving average for the first time in four years. Every major stock market in history has been preceded by a death cross.
Of course no indicator is perfect. Sometimes these death crosses come just before market crashes, and other times nothing much seems to happen. The following comes from MarketWatch…
The 50-day moving average (or “MA”) crossed below a rising 200-day MA on July 7, 2010, when the Dow closed at 10,018.28. The Dow’s closing low for 2010 was actually hit two sessions earlier, at 9,686.48.
But the Dow fell another 5.9% over six weeks after the Aug. 24, 2011 death cross, and tumbled as much as 50% over 14 months after the one appearing on Jan. 3, 2008.
And keep in mind that when the January 2008 death cross appeared, the Dow had lost just 7.8% from its Oct. 9, 2007 peak. That means the bull market was still firmly in place, as the rule of thumb is a bear market is defined by a decline of at least 20% from a significant peak. In addition, the 200-day moving average didn’t turn lower until two weeks after the death cross appeared.
But this is not the only indicator pointing to trouble ahead. Even while we have many stocks hitting 52-week highs, we also have an extraordinary number hitting 52-week lows. This is called a “split market”, and this is a very ominous sign. In fact, according to Peter Boockvar 62 percent of all stocks on the New York Stock Exchange are already trading below their 200-day moving average…
Peter Boockvar, market strategist at Lindsey Group, said he believes the market is in a correction that began a few weeks ago, starting with commodities names getting hit. The small-cap Russell 2000 was also a leader of the declines. “The key is it’s infecting other areas of the market. You have every headwind and every reason to continue this correction,” he said.
“Going into today, 62 percent of the NYSE stocks were trading below the 200-day moving average,” said Boockvar. “More and more companies are dropping out of the bull market.”
At this point, we have already had more than 50 “split days” this year. King World News has just released an article which has pointed out this has only happened four times before, and a major stock market crash has followed each occurrence…
The only other times in history we’ve seen more than 50 split days during the past year were March 1968, August 1972, October 2000 and July 2006.
After all four of those, stocks lost more than a third of their value at some point during the next two years.
Are you starting to see?
A stock market crash is coming.
Another thing that has investors concerned is the fact that we have seen a large divergence between high yield credit and stocks. As Bloomberg has pointed out, when this happens a significant stock market decline follows more than 70 percent of the time…
While not without precedent, instances when anxiety in bonds didn’t seep into equities are rare.More than 70 percent of the time since 1996, as spreads widened as much as they have since April, the S&P 500 has fallen, with the average decline exceeding 10 percent, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
“This is something that sooner or later is going to impact the stock market,” said Russ Koesterich, global chief investment strategist at New York-based BlackRock Inc., which oversees $4.7 trillion. “Credit market conditions have not been benign and easy as where they were last summer.”
On top of everything else, it looks like a global currency war could be erupting.
According to USA Today, this desperate move by China to devalue the yuan may indicate that the Chinese economy is in far worse shape than most had thought…
One, China’s move suggests that its economy is in worst shape than believed. “It highlights the fragility of the global economy,” says Donald Luskin, chief investment officer at TrendMacro. Second, a weaker yuan means a stronger dollar, and a stronger dollar means U.S. products sold in China are more expensive, which means fewer sales of Apple iPhones, hotel rooms offered by Wynn Resorts and computer chips made by Micron Technology.
Lastly, there is a fear that other nations will respond to China by devaluing their own currencies to stay competitive.
“When people start talking about ‘currency wars,’ it’s never a good thing,” says Michael Farr, president of money-management firm Farr, Miller & Washington. “China’s move to devalue its currency could be the first shot across the bow towards a wider currency war.”
As I discussed yesterday, it seems like the phrase “currency war” has been thrown around a lot lately.
But what would that look like, and what would that mean for the global economy?
Well, former IMF economist Stephen Jen is suggesting that we could soon see major currencies all over the planet being devalued by up to 50 percent…
[The] devaluation of the yuan risks a new round of competitive easing that may send currencies from Brazil’s real to Indonesia’s rupiah tumbling by an average 30 percent to 50 percent in the next nine months, according to investor and former International Monetary Fund economist Stephen Jen.
Volatility measures were already signaling rising distress in emerging markets even before China’s shock move. An index of anticipated price swings climbed above a rich-world gauge at the end of July, reversing the trend seen for most of the past six months.
The surging U.S. dollar combined with crashing prices for commodity exports has already created a state of crisis in South America. If emerging markets such as Brazil are forced to devalue their currencies to stay competitive with nations such as China, that is going to just exacerbate the problems.
For a long time, things in the financial world were pretty quiet.
But now events are beginning to accelerate.
A lot of people are extremely concerned about what is going to happen in September, and I think that there are very good reasons to be concerned.
Throughout our history, the majority of our stock market crashes have happened in the fall. Just remember what happened in 1929, 1987 and 2008.
Now we are approaching that time of the year once again, and things are lining up perfectly for a major financial crisis.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
WW3 is Only a Matter of Time
NATO AND RUSSIA PREPARE FOR WAR
Probability of all-out conflict increasingly likely says think tank
by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 12, 2015
On Wednesday a London-based think tank said war games by NATO and Russia increase the possibility of “dangerous military encounters” and war on the European continent.
According to Ian Kearns, director of the London-based European Leadership Network, war games and military preparation “are contributing to a climate of mistrust” that has “on occasion become the focal point for some quite close encounters between the NATO and Russian militaries.”
“While spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise: Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia,” Kearns said.
NATO and Russia have conducted huge military exercises since the coup in Ukraine.
The report highlights two: NATO’s “Allied Shield” exercise in June and Russia’s “snap exercise” held in March that involved 80,000 military personnel.
“These tensions are further aggravated and elevated into a sense of unpredictability when the exercises are not pre-notified or publicly announced beforehand, as is apparently the case with a number of Russian exercises,” the report states.
Numerous “near encounters” have occurred, including a narrowly-avoided collision between an airliner and a Russian aircraft near Copenhagen.
The encounters reveal “the fact that both NATO and Russia have moved significant air assets into closer proximity to each other,” according to Dangerous Brinkmanship, a report issued in November by theEuropean Leadership Network.
“It is also worrying that military deployments and exercises along the joint NATO-Russia border proceed on what appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle of action-reaction.”
by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 12, 2015
On Wednesday a London-based think tank said war games by NATO and Russia increase the possibility of “dangerous military encounters” and war on the European continent.
According to Ian Kearns, director of the London-based European Leadership Network, war games and military preparation “are contributing to a climate of mistrust” that has “on occasion become the focal point for some quite close encounters between the NATO and Russian militaries.”
“While spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise: Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia,” Kearns said.
NATO and Russia have conducted huge military exercises since the coup in Ukraine.
The report highlights two: NATO’s “Allied Shield” exercise in June and Russia’s “snap exercise” held in March that involved 80,000 military personnel.
“These tensions are further aggravated and elevated into a sense of unpredictability when the exercises are not pre-notified or publicly announced beforehand, as is apparently the case with a number of Russian exercises,” the report states.
Numerous “near encounters” have occurred, including a narrowly-avoided collision between an airliner and a Russian aircraft near Copenhagen.
The encounters reveal “the fact that both NATO and Russia have moved significant air assets into closer proximity to each other,” according to Dangerous Brinkmanship, a report issued in November by theEuropean Leadership Network.
“It is also worrying that military deployments and exercises along the joint NATO-Russia border proceed on what appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle of action-reaction.”
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Corn, Corn, Corn
COULD THIS NEW ‘ORGANIC READY’ CORN HELP END GMO CROSS POLLINATION AND MONSANTO?
It could be released as early as one year
by CHRISTINA SARICH | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 11, 2015
In the world of Round Up Ready corn and other genetically modified crops, we’re in dire need of another ‘solution.’ Frank Kutka has been working on ‘Organic Ready’ corn for over 15 years as an all-around answer to biotech’s cancer causing crops.
Kutka is a plant breeder who has been attempting to grow corn that naturally resists GM crop contamination through cross-pollination, thus eliminating Monsanto’s prevalently grown GMO corn from infesting organic farmer’s crops.
Kutka has been searching for traits in the ancient grain teosinte which makes it very unlikely that GM pollen can enter corn silk, thus making cross-pollination nearly impossible. He explains:
“The trait has been known and used for decades. It was first used in popcorn in the 1950s and then in white corn varieties in the 1970s… It greatly reduces the risk of out-crossing.”
Kutka has been searching for this pollen-blocking trait since 2001, when he was a student at Cornell University. If he is successful, then it will make the job of organic farmers much easier, since many of them face contamination of crops that they work very hard to keep organic, paying exorbitant fees to obtain a USDA organic label.
Needless to say, Kutka, like all farmers growing organic crops, faces an enormous challenge. U.S. farmers currently plant millions of acres of GMO corn, among other GMO crops. Around 93% of the year’s corn crop was genetically modified.
While this makes Monsanto happy, it leaves those looking for non-contaminated, heirloom, organic, non-GMO corn a little miffed, to say the least. These millions of acres of corn can also easily contaminate other crops – including those which are not even corn, just because Mother Nature continues to work. GMO genes cross over into other plants, causing them to contain variant DNA like the mother plant. This is many argue that GMO crops must be banned, and that GMO labeling simply isn’t enough.
In 2014, a survey of organic farmers from 17 states, predominantly in the Midwest, shows 67% of farmers planned to delay planting corn so their crops would pollinate later than their neighbors’ GM corn, at an average cost of $16,000. Delaying the growing season is just one expense organic farmers have to contend with in competition with corporate seed monopolies.
Kutka hopes his ‘Organic Ready’ corn will be able to remedy cross-pollination of ‘Roundup Ready’ crops within the year.
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.
by CHRISTINA SARICH | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 11, 2015
In the world of Round Up Ready corn and other genetically modified crops, we’re in dire need of another ‘solution.’ Frank Kutka has been working on ‘Organic Ready’ corn for over 15 years as an all-around answer to biotech’s cancer causing crops.
Kutka is a plant breeder who has been attempting to grow corn that naturally resists GM crop contamination through cross-pollination, thus eliminating Monsanto’s prevalently grown GMO corn from infesting organic farmer’s crops.
Kutka has been searching for traits in the ancient grain teosinte which makes it very unlikely that GM pollen can enter corn silk, thus making cross-pollination nearly impossible. He explains:
“The trait has been known and used for decades. It was first used in popcorn in the 1950s and then in white corn varieties in the 1970s… It greatly reduces the risk of out-crossing.”
Kutka has been searching for this pollen-blocking trait since 2001, when he was a student at Cornell University. If he is successful, then it will make the job of organic farmers much easier, since many of them face contamination of crops that they work very hard to keep organic, paying exorbitant fees to obtain a USDA organic label.
Needless to say, Kutka, like all farmers growing organic crops, faces an enormous challenge. U.S. farmers currently plant millions of acres of GMO corn, among other GMO crops. Around 93% of the year’s corn crop was genetically modified.
While this makes Monsanto happy, it leaves those looking for non-contaminated, heirloom, organic, non-GMO corn a little miffed, to say the least. These millions of acres of corn can also easily contaminate other crops – including those which are not even corn, just because Mother Nature continues to work. GMO genes cross over into other plants, causing them to contain variant DNA like the mother plant. This is many argue that GMO crops must be banned, and that GMO labeling simply isn’t enough.
In 2014, a survey of organic farmers from 17 states, predominantly in the Midwest, shows 67% of farmers planned to delay planting corn so their crops would pollinate later than their neighbors’ GM corn, at an average cost of $16,000. Delaying the growing season is just one expense organic farmers have to contend with in competition with corporate seed monopolies.
Kutka hopes his ‘Organic Ready’ corn will be able to remedy cross-pollination of ‘Roundup Ready’ crops within the year.
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Currency Wars
CHINA “LOSES BATTLE OVER YUAN”, AND NOW THE GLOBAL CURRENCY WAR BEGINS
The real global currency war is only just starting
by ZERO HEDGE | AUGUST 11, 2015
Almost exactly seven months ago, on January 15, the Swiss National Bank shocked the world when it admitted defeat in a long-standing war to keep the Swiss Franc artificially weak, and after a desperate 3 year-long gamble, which included loading up the SNB’s balance sheet with enough EUR-denominated garbage to almost equal the Swiss GDP, it finally gave up and on one cold, shocking January morning the EURCHF imploded, crushing countless carry-trade surfers.
Fast forward to the morning of August 11 when in a virtually identical stunner, the PBOC itself admitted defeat in the currency battle, only unlike the SNB, the Chinese central bank had struggled to keep the Yuan propped up, at the cost of nearly $1 billion in daily foreign reserve outflows, which as this website noted first months ago, also included the dumping of a record amount of US government treasurys.
And with global trade crashing, Chinese exports tumbling, and China having nothing to show for its USD peg besides a propped and manipulated stock “market” which has become the laughing stock around the globe, at the cost of even more reserve outflows, it no longer made any sense for China to avoid the currency wars and so, first thing this morning China admitted that, as Market News summarized, the “PBOC lost Battle Over Yuan.”
That’s only part of the story though, because as MNI also adds, the real, global currency war is only just starting.
And now that China is openly exporting deflation, and is eager to risk massive capital outflows, the global currency war just entered its final phase, one where the global race to the bottom is every central bank’s stated goal. Well, except for one: the Federal Reserve. We give Yellen a few months (especially if she indeed does hike rates) before the US too is back to ZIRP, maybe NIRP and certainly monetizing even more things that are not nailed down.
Here are some additional views from Market News that summarize what just happened in China:
China PBOC Loses Battle Over Yuan; War Continues
The People’s Bank of China said Tuesday that the yuan will from now on better reflect market forces, but the central bank is unlikely to tolerate sustained depreciation so long as it feels it needs to maintain financial stability and avoid spooking capital flows.
The near-2% depreciation engineered via the central parity fixing on Tuesday was described by the PBOC as a “one-off revision.” The yuan’s real effective exchange rate has risen nearly 15% over the past year and the central bank said it wanted to correct this deviation. Tuesday’s depreciation was presented as a reform step designed to improve the central parity fixing mechanism.
But the fixing rate, and the bank’s explanation, rocked regional markets as investors sold off on concerns that China will now competitively devalue the yuan to help prop up its flagging economy. Domestic asset prices also weakened because a weaker yuan risks worsening capital outflows, leading to tighter onshore monetary conditions and possibly destabilizing the financial system.
A person familiar with exchange rate policy accepted that the move increases depreciation speculation but said the authority will continue to stabilize the yuan.
“The yuan may keep falling as the market needs time to understand but the central bank will keep the exchange rate stable because it is in China’s interest to do so,” he said.
Another person stressed the market reforms imbedded in Tuesday’s statement and said “we cannot simply understand the yuan central parity from this depreciation angle.” Tuesday’s announcement comes ahead of an International Monetary Fund decision later this year on whether to include the yuan in the basket used to value its Special Drawing Right.
Traders in the interbank market noted big dollar sales by large institutions at around 6.3000 on Tuesday morning and suggested these banks could be acting on the quiet orders of the PBOC.
“It’s the PBOC’s invisible hand — it looks like this is the first line of defense now,” said a trader with one of the Big Four state banks. Another trader said the PBOC may step up intervention for now, but said the longer-term outlook is for a more market-oriented — and presumably weaker — yuan.
The central bank has kept the yuan stable for months in a quiet peg to the U.S. dollar precisely because of its concerns about capital flows and the need to maintain financial system stability.
It has faced mounting pressure from within the bureaucracy to allow the yuan to weaken to help support the export sector, MNI reported last week. July’s dismal trade report — showing an 8.3% y/y plunge in exports — made the PBOC’s ongoing resistance to depreciation untenable.
The new method for fixing the morning central parity rate does promise greater input from market forces. The PBOC instructed market makers that their central parity quotes “should refer to the closing rate of the inter-bank foreign exchange market on the previous day, in conjunction with demand and supply condition in the foreign exchange market and exchange rate movements of the major currencies.”
But those bids will still be calculated by the PBOC for publication by the bank at 0915, giving the bank considerable scope to manage the exchange rate according to China’s economic needs.
The PBOC may have lost the battle on the State Council, but it will continue fighting the war to maintain currency stability, particularly in the run-up to a Federal Reserve meeting next month which many now expect will result in the first increase in the federal funds rate in nine years.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Ron Paul Talking Education
REAL EDUCATION REFORM LEAVES THE GOVERNMENT BEHIND
Among the items awaiting Congress when it returns from its August break is reconciling competing House and Senate bills reauthorizing No Child Left Behind
by RON PAUL | INFOWARS | AUGUST 10, 2015
Among the items awaiting Congress when it returns from its August break is reconciling competing House and Senate bills reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. These bills passed early this spring. Each bill is being marketed as a huge step toward restoring state and local control over education. However, an examination of both bills shows that both provide local schools with only limited relief from a few federal mandates.
The biggest problem with these so-called reform bills is that they do not significantly reduce federal education spending. Congress and the executive branch use the promise of “free” money — which they have taken from the American taxpayer — to convince state and local governments to allow the federal government to control the classrooms. The only way to protect American schoolchildren from schemes like Common Core is to repeal, not replace, the federal Department of Education.
Restoring local control over education would be a good step toward restoring constitutional government. However, simply replacing federal bureaucrats with state, or even local, bureaucrats will not create an education system capable of leaving no child behind.
The key to real education reform is to give parents control over education by giving them control over the education dollar. When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that children receive a quality education that meets their unique needs. Therefore, if Congress was serious about improving education, it would defund the warfare-welfare state, which would then allow dramatically reduced taxes. Congress could also end the Federal Reserve, thus freeing middle and working class Americans from the regressive inflation tax.
In order to make parental control meaningful, parents must be able to choose from a variety of education alternatives. Thus, private schools, religious schools, and homeschools must be allowed to compete in a free market without government interference. This would allow parents to choose an appropriate education for their child.
The growing popularity of homeschooling has already created a thriving market in homeschooling curricula. Working with a team of scholars, I have developed my own homeschooling curriculum. My homeschooling curriculum provides students with a rigorous education in history, math, English, foreign languages, and other subjects. The curriculum is designed to benefit both college-bound students and those interested in pursuing other educational or career opportunities.
The curriculum features three tracks: natural science/math, social sciences/humanities, and business. Students may also take courses in personal finance and public speaking. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. Unlike the curricula in too many government-run schools, my curriculum never sacrifices education quality to ideological indoctrination.
The curriculum is free for students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Families with a student above the fifth grade pay $250 a year, plus $50 per course.
I am offering three special deals to allow parents to see if my curriculum is right for their child. One is an academic boot camp, designed especially for college-bound students. This is a six-week course that should help students raise their grade point average by at least a full point.
The curriculum is also offering special courses in phonics and mathematics for preschoolers. Both courses consist of 40 video-based lessons designed to teach children basic math and reading in two months.
If you are a parent searching for an appropriate homeschool curriculum for your child, please consider enrolling your child in my academic boot camp, my preschool mathematics program, or my preschool phonics program. Go to ronpaulcurriculum.com for more information.
by RON PAUL | INFOWARS | AUGUST 10, 2015
Among the items awaiting Congress when it returns from its August break is reconciling competing House and Senate bills reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. These bills passed early this spring. Each bill is being marketed as a huge step toward restoring state and local control over education. However, an examination of both bills shows that both provide local schools with only limited relief from a few federal mandates.
The biggest problem with these so-called reform bills is that they do not significantly reduce federal education spending. Congress and the executive branch use the promise of “free” money — which they have taken from the American taxpayer — to convince state and local governments to allow the federal government to control the classrooms. The only way to protect American schoolchildren from schemes like Common Core is to repeal, not replace, the federal Department of Education.
Restoring local control over education would be a good step toward restoring constitutional government. However, simply replacing federal bureaucrats with state, or even local, bureaucrats will not create an education system capable of leaving no child behind.
The key to real education reform is to give parents control over education by giving them control over the education dollar. When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that children receive a quality education that meets their unique needs. Therefore, if Congress was serious about improving education, it would defund the warfare-welfare state, which would then allow dramatically reduced taxes. Congress could also end the Federal Reserve, thus freeing middle and working class Americans from the regressive inflation tax.
In order to make parental control meaningful, parents must be able to choose from a variety of education alternatives. Thus, private schools, religious schools, and homeschools must be allowed to compete in a free market without government interference. This would allow parents to choose an appropriate education for their child.
The growing popularity of homeschooling has already created a thriving market in homeschooling curricula. Working with a team of scholars, I have developed my own homeschooling curriculum. My homeschooling curriculum provides students with a rigorous education in history, math, English, foreign languages, and other subjects. The curriculum is designed to benefit both college-bound students and those interested in pursuing other educational or career opportunities.
The curriculum features three tracks: natural science/math, social sciences/humanities, and business. Students may also take courses in personal finance and public speaking. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. Unlike the curricula in too many government-run schools, my curriculum never sacrifices education quality to ideological indoctrination.
The curriculum is free for students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Families with a student above the fifth grade pay $250 a year, plus $50 per course.
I am offering three special deals to allow parents to see if my curriculum is right for their child. One is an academic boot camp, designed especially for college-bound students. This is a six-week course that should help students raise their grade point average by at least a full point.
The curriculum is also offering special courses in phonics and mathematics for preschoolers. Both courses consist of 40 video-based lessons designed to teach children basic math and reading in two months.
If you are a parent searching for an appropriate homeschool curriculum for your child, please consider enrolling your child in my academic boot camp, my preschool mathematics program, or my preschool phonics program. Go to ronpaulcurriculum.com for more information.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Traveling is a Right, Not a Privilege
US War on Your Passport Continues
Written by Daniel McAdams
July 23, 2015
Just the other day we wrote about a US House "suspension" bill that would give the Secretary of State the authority to cancel your passport if he decided that you had "aided" an organization that he rules is terrorist. There is no definition of what "aided" means, no chance to dispute the Secretary's decision, no trial or presentation of evidence, and in fact any evidence the government has can be classified as secret so that you may not see it. In effect the Secretary of State can unilaterally consign you to internal exile and there is nothing you can do about it.
Because Members of the US House were too cowardly to go on record voting for such an anti-American piece of legislation, the bill passed by a voice vote.
Today the US Senate plans to one-up its counterparts on the lowlier side of Capitol Hill. Buried inside the US highways funding bill is a provision to revoke or deny issuance of a US passport to anyone who has a large outstanding tax debt to the US Internal Revenue Service. According to a Senate Finance Committee summary (PDF) acquired today, the measure provides for:
Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes. This provision would authorize the Federal government to deny the application for a passport when an individual has more than $50,000 (indexed for inflation) of unpaid federal taxes which the IRS is collecting through enforcement action. It would also permit the Federal government to revoke a passport for such individuals. Before revocation, however, the Federal government would be allowed to limit a previously issued passport only for return travel to the United States or to issue a limited passport that only permits return travel to the United States. The provision would be effective on January 1, 2016, and is estimated to raise $0.398 billion over 10 years.As can be seen from the summary, this measure threatening to imprison Americans within (or outside) US borders is simply viewed as a means by which to raise revenue. The hoped-for increase in revenue coming from this threat is considered an "offset" to the money being spent on the highway bill -- in other words the threat to imprison US citizens within their own country or freeze them out is considered appropriate incentive to force them to pay what the government claims it is owed.
Unconvinced that the US government would do such a thing? Check the bill coming to the Senate Floor. Section 52102 of the Highway Funding bill, to be taken up by the Senate today, states:
If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 52102(d) of the Transportation Funding Act of 2015.Tax "deadbeats" will be either denied entry into the United States or forbidden from leaving the United States.
The use of citizenship rights as a weapon against Americans is becoming increasingly common as Washington is ever more desperate for control of its passport holders.
The last time Ron Paul ran for president, the mainstream media ridiculed him for claiming that US government's border control strategy is most likely designed to keep Americans from leaving the country rather than to keep illegals from entering. These two measures within a week's time pretty clearly confirm what was once laughed off as a "paranoid" view that the US government was building a virtual Berlin Wall to keep its citizens from departing. Perhaps that is why this year a record number of Americans are renouncing their passports and getting out of the country...while they still can.
July 23, 2015
Just the other day we wrote about a US House "suspension" bill that would give the Secretary of State the authority to cancel your passport if he decided that you had "aided" an organization that he rules is terrorist. There is no definition of what "aided" means, no chance to dispute the Secretary's decision, no trial or presentation of evidence, and in fact any evidence the government has can be classified as secret so that you may not see it. In effect the Secretary of State can unilaterally consign you to internal exile and there is nothing you can do about it.
Because Members of the US House were too cowardly to go on record voting for such an anti-American piece of legislation, the bill passed by a voice vote.
Today the US Senate plans to one-up its counterparts on the lowlier side of Capitol Hill. Buried inside the US highways funding bill is a provision to revoke or deny issuance of a US passport to anyone who has a large outstanding tax debt to the US Internal Revenue Service. According to a Senate Finance Committee summary (PDF) acquired today, the measure provides for:
Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes. This provision would authorize the Federal government to deny the application for a passport when an individual has more than $50,000 (indexed for inflation) of unpaid federal taxes which the IRS is collecting through enforcement action. It would also permit the Federal government to revoke a passport for such individuals. Before revocation, however, the Federal government would be allowed to limit a previously issued passport only for return travel to the United States or to issue a limited passport that only permits return travel to the United States. The provision would be effective on January 1, 2016, and is estimated to raise $0.398 billion over 10 years.As can be seen from the summary, this measure threatening to imprison Americans within (or outside) US borders is simply viewed as a means by which to raise revenue. The hoped-for increase in revenue coming from this threat is considered an "offset" to the money being spent on the highway bill -- in other words the threat to imprison US citizens within their own country or freeze them out is considered appropriate incentive to force them to pay what the government claims it is owed.
Unconvinced that the US government would do such a thing? Check the bill coming to the Senate Floor. Section 52102 of the Highway Funding bill, to be taken up by the Senate today, states:
If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 52102(d) of the Transportation Funding Act of 2015.Tax "deadbeats" will be either denied entry into the United States or forbidden from leaving the United States.
The use of citizenship rights as a weapon against Americans is becoming increasingly common as Washington is ever more desperate for control of its passport holders.
The last time Ron Paul ran for president, the mainstream media ridiculed him for claiming that US government's border control strategy is most likely designed to keep Americans from leaving the country rather than to keep illegals from entering. These two measures within a week's time pretty clearly confirm what was once laughed off as a "paranoid" view that the US government was building a virtual Berlin Wall to keep its citizens from departing. Perhaps that is why this year a record number of Americans are renouncing their passports and getting out of the country...while they still can.
Friday, August 7, 2015
Visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 Years Later
Was Nuclear Weapon Use in Hiroshima Really a Turning Point in World War 2?
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki did little to convince Japanese leaders to end the war.
By Ankit Panda
August 06, 2015
U.S. President Harry S. Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stands as one of the most consequential uses of weaponry in human history, a watershed moment in the twilight days of World War II, and a perennial question of moral and strategic ambiguity. In fact, all contemporary conversations about the dangers of nuclear weapons and their proliferation inevitably evoke their two uses in wartime on August 6 and August 9, 1945.
What is commonly overlooked, however—and I don’t put this forward as an attempt at revising history—is the influence the bombings themselves actually had on Japan’s decision to surrender on August 15. Indeed, the conventional understanding of the use of the bombs is that they shocked the Japanese leadership so much that they could not help but surrender in the face the awesome might of these new weapons. Those who argue in favor of Truman’s decision to use the bomb build off this to note that countless lives—Japanese and Americans—were saved by the fact that Allied forces did not proceed with Operation Downfall, the planned amphibious invasion of Japan, which in some estimates would have cost millions of lives for the Allies and tens of millions for the Japanese.
But based on what evidence we have of what Japanese leaders were writing and thinking at the time, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a threshold event for convincing Imperial Japan to acquiesce to unconditional surrender. This is important because on a very fundamental level, the hallowed place nuclear weapons occupy in our contemporary security discourse is based on their ability to deter conflict and encourage compliance — it is assumed that these weapons work like no other. For Imperial Japan, the late spring and early summer of 1945 were already hellish. The Imperial Japanese Army suffered catastrophic losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa; Tokyo, along with over 60 other Japanese cities, was bombed with incendiary explosives. In the case of the latter, civilian deaths were comparable to the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the fire-bombings of Tokyo are thought to have claimed over 100,000 lives while Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in 120,000 and 80,000 civilian deaths respectively).
Despite the combined carnage of weeks of incendiary bombing, which reduced Japanese cities to ash, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s leaders at the time appeared undeterred. Korechika Anami, the Japanese minister of war at the time, noted that the atomic bombings were ”no more menacing than the firebombing[s]” that came before them. Toroshiro Kawabe, deputy chief of staff of the Imperial Japanese Army, remarked that while the nuclear weapons caused a “serious stimulus (shock or jolt),” Japan “must be tenacious and fight on.”
Kawabe’s dairy contains another entry on August 9, 1945–the day Nagasaki was bombed–that “The Soviets have finally risen!” With the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, Japanese military leaders immediately convened to declare martial law and raised the possibility of instituting all-out military rule over Japan, supplanting the civilian leadership. In essence, for these Japanese military planners, the fact that Stalin’s Soviet Union had joined the campaign was a more significant strategic event than the bombings themselves. Even after Hiroshima had been flattened, Japanese soldiers stood prepared on the shores on Honshu, Kyushu, and Hokkaido for the impending amphibious assault. For them, the fight hadn’t ended.
The most thorough treatment of this topic–of whether the bombs actually worked in influencing Japan’s thinking at the twilight of the World War II–comes from Ward Wilson, an analyst working on nuclear weapons. Indeed, in a post for The Diplomat last year, Wilson rounds up some other evidence that our focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki misses the mark given the broader destruction across the country. Wilson’s quantitative take on the topic last year is worth revisiting:
The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people immediately killed in those 68 attacks, Hiroshima is not the attack that killed most. It is second, behind Tokyo, an attack using conventional bombs. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th. The attack on Hiroshima was not that different from other attacks. The means were different. But the ends were much the same.
As the region approaches the 70th anniversary of the war’s end in Asia in less than two weeks, it is worth recalling the historic context surrounding Truman’s decision to use the bomb. You’ll note that I’ve left out largely the broader normative question of whether bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons was the right call. That continues to be a topic of immense and impassioned contemporary debate. Indeed, for Japan, the horrors of nuclear weapons, as understood from the experiences of the survivors of those two bombings, is woven into the country’s national fabric. Yes, 70 years after Hiroshima, the world is no closer to forgetting the destructive power of nuclear weapons and renewed tensions between the United States and Russia, each with arsenals of over 7,000 warheads, will ensure that we don’t for some time. However, it’s worth recalling that nuclear weapons use against Japanese civilians in the final days of the war may not have been the turning point it’s often thought to be.
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki did little to convince Japanese leaders to end the war.
By Ankit Panda
August 06, 2015
U.S. President Harry S. Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stands as one of the most consequential uses of weaponry in human history, a watershed moment in the twilight days of World War II, and a perennial question of moral and strategic ambiguity. In fact, all contemporary conversations about the dangers of nuclear weapons and their proliferation inevitably evoke their two uses in wartime on August 6 and August 9, 1945.
What is commonly overlooked, however—and I don’t put this forward as an attempt at revising history—is the influence the bombings themselves actually had on Japan’s decision to surrender on August 15. Indeed, the conventional understanding of the use of the bombs is that they shocked the Japanese leadership so much that they could not help but surrender in the face the awesome might of these new weapons. Those who argue in favor of Truman’s decision to use the bomb build off this to note that countless lives—Japanese and Americans—were saved by the fact that Allied forces did not proceed with Operation Downfall, the planned amphibious invasion of Japan, which in some estimates would have cost millions of lives for the Allies and tens of millions for the Japanese.
But based on what evidence we have of what Japanese leaders were writing and thinking at the time, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a threshold event for convincing Imperial Japan to acquiesce to unconditional surrender. This is important because on a very fundamental level, the hallowed place nuclear weapons occupy in our contemporary security discourse is based on their ability to deter conflict and encourage compliance — it is assumed that these weapons work like no other. For Imperial Japan, the late spring and early summer of 1945 were already hellish. The Imperial Japanese Army suffered catastrophic losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa; Tokyo, along with over 60 other Japanese cities, was bombed with incendiary explosives. In the case of the latter, civilian deaths were comparable to the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the fire-bombings of Tokyo are thought to have claimed over 100,000 lives while Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in 120,000 and 80,000 civilian deaths respectively).
Despite the combined carnage of weeks of incendiary bombing, which reduced Japanese cities to ash, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s leaders at the time appeared undeterred. Korechika Anami, the Japanese minister of war at the time, noted that the atomic bombings were ”no more menacing than the firebombing[s]” that came before them. Toroshiro Kawabe, deputy chief of staff of the Imperial Japanese Army, remarked that while the nuclear weapons caused a “serious stimulus (shock or jolt),” Japan “must be tenacious and fight on.”
Kawabe’s dairy contains another entry on August 9, 1945–the day Nagasaki was bombed–that “The Soviets have finally risen!” With the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, Japanese military leaders immediately convened to declare martial law and raised the possibility of instituting all-out military rule over Japan, supplanting the civilian leadership. In essence, for these Japanese military planners, the fact that Stalin’s Soviet Union had joined the campaign was a more significant strategic event than the bombings themselves. Even after Hiroshima had been flattened, Japanese soldiers stood prepared on the shores on Honshu, Kyushu, and Hokkaido for the impending amphibious assault. For them, the fight hadn’t ended.
The most thorough treatment of this topic–of whether the bombs actually worked in influencing Japan’s thinking at the twilight of the World War II–comes from Ward Wilson, an analyst working on nuclear weapons. Indeed, in a post for The Diplomat last year, Wilson rounds up some other evidence that our focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki misses the mark given the broader destruction across the country. Wilson’s quantitative take on the topic last year is worth revisiting:
The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people immediately killed in those 68 attacks, Hiroshima is not the attack that killed most. It is second, behind Tokyo, an attack using conventional bombs. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th. The attack on Hiroshima was not that different from other attacks. The means were different. But the ends were much the same.
As the region approaches the 70th anniversary of the war’s end in Asia in less than two weeks, it is worth recalling the historic context surrounding Truman’s decision to use the bomb. You’ll note that I’ve left out largely the broader normative question of whether bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons was the right call. That continues to be a topic of immense and impassioned contemporary debate. Indeed, for Japan, the horrors of nuclear weapons, as understood from the experiences of the survivors of those two bombings, is woven into the country’s national fabric. Yes, 70 years after Hiroshima, the world is no closer to forgetting the destructive power of nuclear weapons and renewed tensions between the United States and Russia, each with arsenals of over 7,000 warheads, will ensure that we don’t for some time. However, it’s worth recalling that nuclear weapons use against Japanese civilians in the final days of the war may not have been the turning point it’s often thought to be.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Is it Time?
SECESSION: THE REASONABLE OPTION EVERYONE RESISTS
Liberty, peace, and prosperity
by TOM WOODS | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 5, 2015
The growing number of secession movements around the world gives rise to our topic: breaking away from current government structures that do so much harm to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Recorded at “Breaking Away: The Case for Secession”—the Mises Circle in Houston, Texas, on 24 January 2015.
by TOM WOODS | INFOWARS.COM | AUGUST 5, 2015
The growing number of secession movements around the world gives rise to our topic: breaking away from current government structures that do so much harm to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Recorded at “Breaking Away: The Case for Secession”—the Mises Circle in Houston, Texas, on 24 January 2015.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
War is Good for the Soul
Pentagon ramps up airstrikes in Syria to help U.S.-backed rebels
By PATRICK J. MCDONNELL AND W.J. HENNIGANcontact the reporters
U.S. officials Monday confirmed an expanded bombing campaign in Syria that increases the risk of confrontation with forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad, possibly drawing Washington more deeply into that country’s punishing four-year war.
The Obama administration authorized the Pentagon to use force to help defend a small, U.S.-trained Syrian rebel unit against other insurgent factions — or against fighters allied with the Syrian government, officials said.
U.S. warplanes already struck last week, bombarding Al Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels who had attacked the Pentagon-backed force.
Until now, the U.S.-led air campaign that began last August has focused almost exclusively on Islamic State, the breakaway Al Qaeda faction that controls huge parts of Syria and neighboring Iraq. President Obama has called on Assad to step down, but the U.S. military has refrained from targeting pro-Assad forces.
U.S. officials emphasized that the expanded mission was defensive in nature and did not signal an offensive push against Assad's military, which is also fighting Islamic State. The Pentagon downplayed the possibility of a confrontation with Assad’s forces, though the Syrian air force is active in northern Aleppo province, where the U.S.-backed forces are operating.
“We are not at war with the Assad regime,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. “This is not something we view as inviting confrontation with Assad in any way.”
There was no official comment from Damascus. But wary Syrian officials have long viewed the U.S. bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria as a possible precursor for bombardment of pro-government forces.
The move also raises the possibility that Assad’s military may be forced to pull back its air power to avoid confrontation with U.S. forces, thus neutralizing Damascus’ major strategic advantage against myriad opposition groups, including Islamic State.
The policy shift came to light after the first group of several dozen U.S.-vetted and trained fighters in northern Syria was attacked Friday by Al Nusra Front, the official Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. U.S. warplanes soon swept in to help defend the Pentagon-trained unit, marking the first time that American aircraft had directly supported the trainees.
Additional airstrikes are likely, officials said, as the U.S.-trained unit seeks ways to confront Islamic State, which Obama has vowed to destroy.
“We won't get into the specifics of our rules of engagement, but have said all along that we would take the steps necessary to ensure that these forces could successfully carry out their mission,” said Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. “We demonstrated our resolve in this respect on Friday.”
The newly trained Syrian force was “being provided with a wide range” of support, said White House National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey. He called the airstrikes another measure “to protect them.”
The Al Nusra Front attack represents the latest setback for the Pentagon’s faltering effort to field what it calls a “moderate” force amid a disparate Syrian rebel movement now dominated by hard-core Islamists.
The Obama administration's $500-million initiative to train and arm an opposition force in Syria has been beset by problems and delays and thus far has produced fewer than 60 fighters.
In several statements, Al Nusra Front denounced the new U.S.-trained force as Western “agents” and vowed to “cut the hand … of the Americans.” The attack on the U.S.-trained force occurred in the strategic town of Azaz, close to the Turkish border, according to various reports.
The area is part of a new, U.S.-Turkish plan for a “safe zone” in northwestern Syria that would use U.S. airstrikes and Western-backed rebels to expel Islamic State from a strip of contested territory south of Turkey’s border with Syria. But Al Nusra Front and other hard-line Islamic groups have a major presence in the proposed safe zone.
Al Nusra Front also said it had captured several members of a Western-backed rebel faction known as Division 30 in attacks last week. But U.S. officials denied that any members of the Pentagon-trained unit had been taken prisoner.
It is not the first time that Al Nusra Front has turned its guns on U.S.-backed rebel factions in northwestern Syria. Al Nusra Front fighters have previously routed a pair of high-profile Western-backed proxy fighting forces, the Harakat Hazm movement and the Syria Revolutionaries Front. Al Nusra Front said it had captured U.S.-provided weapons, including sophisticated TOW antitank missiles, in its attacks on Harakat Hazm.
In Moscow, a staunch ally of Assad, Russian officials warned Monday that the U.S. decision to back allied Syrian rebels with airstrikes threatens to unleash wider chaos in Syria and set back the fight against Islamic State.
Russia has “repeatedly underlined that help to the Syrian opposition, moreover financial and technical assistance, leads to further destabilization of the situation in the country,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
The expanded U.S. bombing mission comes as an independent monitoring group, Airwars.org, released the results of a six-month investigation that found U.S.-led coalition aircraft have probably killed at least 459 civilians in Syria and Iraq since the air war began last August. The Pentagon has confirmed only two civilian deaths, both children, from more than 5,600 coalition airstrikes.
The U.S. military reviews all allegations of civilian casualties to determine whether the charges are credible, said Sgt. 1st Class Sheryl L. Lawry, U.S. Central Command spokeswoman.
The military has six active investigations open, including four in Iraq and two in Syria. Four other investigations have been completed, including the one involving the two children.
“We apply very rigorous standards in our targeting process to avoid or to minimize civilian casualties in the first place,” Lawry said. “We take great care — from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements — in order to minimize the risk of collateral damage, particularly any potential harm to noncombatants.”
Although U.S. airstrikes have almost exclusively focused on Islamic State, a number of attacks in northern Syria have also hit Al Nusra Front-affiliated operatives whom the Pentagon collectively calls the Khorasan Group. The Pentagon describes the group as seasoned Al Qaeda terrorists who have been plotting attacks against the West from parts of Syria held by rebels.
Under the new Syrian rebel training program announced in June 2014, the Pentagon initially envisioned 5,400 graduates within a year.
The four countries where the training takes place — Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — sharply disagree with Washington on what the proxy force should do. Leaders of those nations want the newly trained troops to focus first on ousting Assad; the White House wants the fighters to target Islamic State.
By PATRICK J. MCDONNELL AND W.J. HENNIGANcontact the reporters
U.S. officials Monday confirmed an expanded bombing campaign in Syria that increases the risk of confrontation with forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad, possibly drawing Washington more deeply into that country’s punishing four-year war.
The Obama administration authorized the Pentagon to use force to help defend a small, U.S.-trained Syrian rebel unit against other insurgent factions — or against fighters allied with the Syrian government, officials said.
U.S. warplanes already struck last week, bombarding Al Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels who had attacked the Pentagon-backed force.
Until now, the U.S.-led air campaign that began last August has focused almost exclusively on Islamic State, the breakaway Al Qaeda faction that controls huge parts of Syria and neighboring Iraq. President Obama has called on Assad to step down, but the U.S. military has refrained from targeting pro-Assad forces.
U.S. officials emphasized that the expanded mission was defensive in nature and did not signal an offensive push against Assad's military, which is also fighting Islamic State. The Pentagon downplayed the possibility of a confrontation with Assad’s forces, though the Syrian air force is active in northern Aleppo province, where the U.S.-backed forces are operating.
“We are not at war with the Assad regime,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. “This is not something we view as inviting confrontation with Assad in any way.”
There was no official comment from Damascus. But wary Syrian officials have long viewed the U.S. bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria as a possible precursor for bombardment of pro-government forces.
The move also raises the possibility that Assad’s military may be forced to pull back its air power to avoid confrontation with U.S. forces, thus neutralizing Damascus’ major strategic advantage against myriad opposition groups, including Islamic State.
The policy shift came to light after the first group of several dozen U.S.-vetted and trained fighters in northern Syria was attacked Friday by Al Nusra Front, the official Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. U.S. warplanes soon swept in to help defend the Pentagon-trained unit, marking the first time that American aircraft had directly supported the trainees.
Additional airstrikes are likely, officials said, as the U.S.-trained unit seeks ways to confront Islamic State, which Obama has vowed to destroy.
“We won't get into the specifics of our rules of engagement, but have said all along that we would take the steps necessary to ensure that these forces could successfully carry out their mission,” said Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. “We demonstrated our resolve in this respect on Friday.”
The newly trained Syrian force was “being provided with a wide range” of support, said White House National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey. He called the airstrikes another measure “to protect them.”
The Al Nusra Front attack represents the latest setback for the Pentagon’s faltering effort to field what it calls a “moderate” force amid a disparate Syrian rebel movement now dominated by hard-core Islamists.
The Obama administration's $500-million initiative to train and arm an opposition force in Syria has been beset by problems and delays and thus far has produced fewer than 60 fighters.
In several statements, Al Nusra Front denounced the new U.S.-trained force as Western “agents” and vowed to “cut the hand … of the Americans.” The attack on the U.S.-trained force occurred in the strategic town of Azaz, close to the Turkish border, according to various reports.
The area is part of a new, U.S.-Turkish plan for a “safe zone” in northwestern Syria that would use U.S. airstrikes and Western-backed rebels to expel Islamic State from a strip of contested territory south of Turkey’s border with Syria. But Al Nusra Front and other hard-line Islamic groups have a major presence in the proposed safe zone.
Al Nusra Front also said it had captured several members of a Western-backed rebel faction known as Division 30 in attacks last week. But U.S. officials denied that any members of the Pentagon-trained unit had been taken prisoner.
It is not the first time that Al Nusra Front has turned its guns on U.S.-backed rebel factions in northwestern Syria. Al Nusra Front fighters have previously routed a pair of high-profile Western-backed proxy fighting forces, the Harakat Hazm movement and the Syria Revolutionaries Front. Al Nusra Front said it had captured U.S.-provided weapons, including sophisticated TOW antitank missiles, in its attacks on Harakat Hazm.
In Moscow, a staunch ally of Assad, Russian officials warned Monday that the U.S. decision to back allied Syrian rebels with airstrikes threatens to unleash wider chaos in Syria and set back the fight against Islamic State.
Russia has “repeatedly underlined that help to the Syrian opposition, moreover financial and technical assistance, leads to further destabilization of the situation in the country,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
The expanded U.S. bombing mission comes as an independent monitoring group, Airwars.org, released the results of a six-month investigation that found U.S.-led coalition aircraft have probably killed at least 459 civilians in Syria and Iraq since the air war began last August. The Pentagon has confirmed only two civilian deaths, both children, from more than 5,600 coalition airstrikes.
The U.S. military reviews all allegations of civilian casualties to determine whether the charges are credible, said Sgt. 1st Class Sheryl L. Lawry, U.S. Central Command spokeswoman.
The military has six active investigations open, including four in Iraq and two in Syria. Four other investigations have been completed, including the one involving the two children.
“We apply very rigorous standards in our targeting process to avoid or to minimize civilian casualties in the first place,” Lawry said. “We take great care — from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements — in order to minimize the risk of collateral damage, particularly any potential harm to noncombatants.”
Although U.S. airstrikes have almost exclusively focused on Islamic State, a number of attacks in northern Syria have also hit Al Nusra Front-affiliated operatives whom the Pentagon collectively calls the Khorasan Group. The Pentagon describes the group as seasoned Al Qaeda terrorists who have been plotting attacks against the West from parts of Syria held by rebels.
Under the new Syrian rebel training program announced in June 2014, the Pentagon initially envisioned 5,400 graduates within a year.
The four countries where the training takes place — Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — sharply disagree with Washington on what the proxy force should do. Leaders of those nations want the newly trained troops to focus first on ousting Assad; the White House wants the fighters to target Islamic State.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
I Pledge Allegiance to the Oligarchy...
AMERICAN OLIGARCHY – 400 FAMILIES REPRESENT 50% OF MONEY RAISED BY 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES THUS FAR
The U.S. in nothing more than an oligarchy
by MICHAEL KRIEGER | LIBERTY BLITZKRIEG | AUGUST 4, 2015
Ever since I started this website in 2012, one of my primary objectives was to convince readers that the American system of government is nothing like what we are told in school and via the oligarch-owned mainstream media. That the country has become so captured and corrupted by sociopathic oligarchs, that a neo-feudal modern serfdom was emerging where the opportunities to enjoy rising standards of living for the vast majority of people was rapidly becoming a pipe dream.
I think many readers appreciated my warnings, but it wasn’t until an academic study from Princeton and Northwestern came out and factually proved it, that it become undeniable to many people. Here’s a brief excerpt from that post titled, New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Ever since that study came out, I’ve noticed more and more people publicly admitting that the U.S. in nothing more than an oligarchy. Even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said it last week.
Meanwhile, just today, I came across the latest shocking proof of how bought and paid for “our” political system really is. We find out from theNew York Times, that only 400 families account for nearly half of all spending on the 2016 Presidential election so far. The Dark Ages almost look democratic by comparison.
From the NY Times:
Fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.
The vast majority of the $388 million backing presidential candidates this year is being channeled to groups that can accept unlimited contributions in support of candidates from almost any source. The speed with which such “super PACs” can raise money — sometimes bringing in tens of millions of dollars from a few businesses or individuals in a matter of days — has allowed them to build enormous campaign war chests in a fraction of the time that it would take the candidates, who are restricted in how much they can accept from a single donor.
A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms racehas made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans.
And that’s exactly how the oligarchs like it.
To peruse the top donors in presidential politics is to take a cross section of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. At least 67 are billionaires or married to one, according to Forbes.
“In the donor world, it is primarily a love of economic freedom,” said Chart Westcott, a Dallas private equity investor who has contributed $200,000 to Unintimidated PAC, a group backing Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. “That’s the biggest drive for most donors — more prosperity for the country as a whole, as well as for themselves.”
“More prosperity for the country as a whole…”
Really? Where is this widespread prosperity, at the end of the rainbow in a leprechaun’s hat?
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, has raised the most cash from the fewest donors. A collection of super PACs supporting Mr. Cruz raised $37 million, nearly all of it from three families. Robert Mercer, a deeply private hedge fund investor from New York, contributed $11 million, making him the top known political donor in the country so far this election cycle.
Ted Cruz knows how to say the right things, but he knows where his bread is buttered.
But millions of dollars also came from corporate entities with no clear link to a known individual or business: One million-dollar donor to the pro-Bush super PAC is Jasper Reserves, a limited liability corporation established two years ago in West Virginia, where records provided few clues about its owners.
Big donors are not only patrons of the candidates but also confidantes, with great access to the candidates — and, sometimes, business before them.
Mr. Braman has previously subsidized Mr. Rubio’s salary, and employed his wife. Mr. Fernandez, who became a billionaire after building several health care companies, emailed with Mr. Bush often when he was governor of Florida to ask about doing business with the state, Mr. Bush’s emails show.
The largest single donation to America Leads, a group supporting Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, came from a Boston investor seeking to build a $4 billion casino resort there. At least five donors to Mr. Walker’s super PAC are companies that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid from Wisconsin’s economic development agency, according to state records.
“Are they going to return people’s phone calls? Yeah, I’m sure they’re going to return people’s phone calls,” Mr. Keating said. “But I don’t think it’s going to drive policy.”
Apparently Mr. Keating never heard of a little family called “The Clintons.”
The U.S. in nothing more than an oligarchy
by MICHAEL KRIEGER | LIBERTY BLITZKRIEG | AUGUST 4, 2015
Ever since I started this website in 2012, one of my primary objectives was to convince readers that the American system of government is nothing like what we are told in school and via the oligarch-owned mainstream media. That the country has become so captured and corrupted by sociopathic oligarchs, that a neo-feudal modern serfdom was emerging where the opportunities to enjoy rising standards of living for the vast majority of people was rapidly becoming a pipe dream.
I think many readers appreciated my warnings, but it wasn’t until an academic study from Princeton and Northwestern came out and factually proved it, that it become undeniable to many people. Here’s a brief excerpt from that post titled, New Report from Princeton and Northwestern Proves It: The U.S. is an Oligarchy:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Ever since that study came out, I’ve noticed more and more people publicly admitting that the U.S. in nothing more than an oligarchy. Even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said it last week.
Meanwhile, just today, I came across the latest shocking proof of how bought and paid for “our” political system really is. We find out from theNew York Times, that only 400 families account for nearly half of all spending on the 2016 Presidential election so far. The Dark Ages almost look democratic by comparison.
From the NY Times:
Fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era.
The vast majority of the $388 million backing presidential candidates this year is being channeled to groups that can accept unlimited contributions in support of candidates from almost any source. The speed with which such “super PACs” can raise money — sometimes bringing in tens of millions of dollars from a few businesses or individuals in a matter of days — has allowed them to build enormous campaign war chests in a fraction of the time that it would take the candidates, who are restricted in how much they can accept from a single donor.
A New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission reports and Internal Revenue Service records shows that the fund-raising arms racehas made most of the presidential hopefuls deeply dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans.
And that’s exactly how the oligarchs like it.
To peruse the top donors in presidential politics is to take a cross section of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. At least 67 are billionaires or married to one, according to Forbes.
“In the donor world, it is primarily a love of economic freedom,” said Chart Westcott, a Dallas private equity investor who has contributed $200,000 to Unintimidated PAC, a group backing Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. “That’s the biggest drive for most donors — more prosperity for the country as a whole, as well as for themselves.”
“More prosperity for the country as a whole…”
Really? Where is this widespread prosperity, at the end of the rainbow in a leprechaun’s hat?
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, has raised the most cash from the fewest donors. A collection of super PACs supporting Mr. Cruz raised $37 million, nearly all of it from three families. Robert Mercer, a deeply private hedge fund investor from New York, contributed $11 million, making him the top known political donor in the country so far this election cycle.
Ted Cruz knows how to say the right things, but he knows where his bread is buttered.
But millions of dollars also came from corporate entities with no clear link to a known individual or business: One million-dollar donor to the pro-Bush super PAC is Jasper Reserves, a limited liability corporation established two years ago in West Virginia, where records provided few clues about its owners.
Big donors are not only patrons of the candidates but also confidantes, with great access to the candidates — and, sometimes, business before them.
Mr. Braman has previously subsidized Mr. Rubio’s salary, and employed his wife. Mr. Fernandez, who became a billionaire after building several health care companies, emailed with Mr. Bush often when he was governor of Florida to ask about doing business with the state, Mr. Bush’s emails show.
The largest single donation to America Leads, a group supporting Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, came from a Boston investor seeking to build a $4 billion casino resort there. At least five donors to Mr. Walker’s super PAC are companies that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid from Wisconsin’s economic development agency, according to state records.
“Are they going to return people’s phone calls? Yeah, I’m sure they’re going to return people’s phone calls,” Mr. Keating said. “But I don’t think it’s going to drive policy.”
Apparently Mr. Keating never heard of a little family called “The Clintons.”
Monday, August 3, 2015
Thinking About This Should Make Your Stomach Turn
Human Trafficking: A Crime Hard to Track Proves Harder to Fight
July 29, 2015, 4:00 pm ET by Caroline Reilly
Oksana was promised a good job with good pay when she came to the United States from Ukraine. But when she arrived in Philadelphia to meet her new boss, things were not as she expected.
“About time you arrive, bitch,” was the first thing he said to her, she says.
“The deal was, I come here, I work for three years, and I pay him off with my work. I pay off my debt, and then I would be on my own,” Oksana said. “That was my understanding.”
What she eventually learned was that she had been swept up in a human trafficking organization that according to the FBI, “smuggled young Ukrainian migrants into the United States and forced them to work for … little or no pay.”
But that was hardly the worst of it. As is often the case with human trafficking, her boss had also been beating and sexually assaulting the women she’d be working with — including her own sister-in-law.
With human trafficking now generating an estimated $150 billion each year in illegal profits, according to United Nations data, the trafficking in persons has become one of the fastest growing criminal industries worldwide.
“Trafficking in persons is an insult to human dignity and an assault on freedom,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in the State Department’s 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report, which was released Monday. In the annual report, Kerry called trafficking “modern slavery,” and linked the problem to everything from extreme poverty and discrimination against women, to government corruption and the reach of transnational organized crime.
Oksana was promised a good job with good pay when she came to the United States from Ukraine. But when she arrived in Philadelphia to meet her new boss, things were not as she expected.
“About time you arrive, bitch,” was the first thing he said to her, she says.
“The deal was, I come here, I work for three years, and I pay him off with my work. I pay off my debt, and then I would be on my own,” Oksana said. “That was my understanding.”
What she eventually learned was that she had been swept up in a human trafficking organization that according to the FBI, “smuggled young Ukrainian migrants into the United States and forced them to work for … little or no pay.”
But that was hardly the worst of it. As is often the case with human trafficking, her boss had also been beating and sexually assaulting the women she’d be working with — including her own sister-in-law.
With human trafficking now generating an estimated $150 billion each year in illegal profits, according to United Nations data, the trafficking in persons has become one of the fastest growing criminal industries worldwide.
“Trafficking in persons is an insult to human dignity and an assault on freedom,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in the State Department’s 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report, which was released Monday. In the annual report, Kerry called trafficking “modern slavery,” and linked the problem to everything from extreme poverty and discrimination against women, to government corruption and the reach of transnational organized crime.
TRACKING THE PROBLEM
Here in the U.S., detailed data on trafficking can be hard to come by, but the State Department report has provided new detail on efforts to prosecute the crime and provide relief to victims.
One takeaway from the report is the challenge of prosecuting a human trafficking case. In 2014, for example, a federally-funded hotline for trafficking victims received more than 21,000 calls. During that same period, the Department of Justice secured 184 convictions for trafficking, up from 174 in 2013. Of those cases, 157 involved sex trafficking and 27 cases focused on labor trafficking.
One reason the crime can be so hard to prosecute, say advocates for victims rights, is that the kind of work that victims do — such as agricultural jobs, service jobs, or janitorial work — is often perfectly legal by nature. The women in the trafficking ring that Oksana worked in, for instance, cleaned big box stores like Targets and Walmarts throughout the Northeast.
It is instead the working conditions of trafficking victims, often invisible to the public and law enforcement, which qualifies their situation as trafficking.
Many victims enter the U.S. legally on an H-2 visa, which enables employers to bring immigrants into the country on a temporary basis to fill jobs. As Amy Farrell, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University, explained, they come under the impression that their employer will help them gain permanent residence.
“Once they get here, they were basically told, in a variety of different ways, if you keep working, if you don’t complain, if you keep doing all the things we told you you’d be doing – even though we’re not paying you what we told you we’d be paying you, we’re working on this green card process.”
But all too often, she said, “that’s never going to come.”
Often, the guest worker visa system can leave workers vulnerable to abuse. A recent investigation by BuzzFeed News, for example, found H-2 guest workers routinely “cheated out of their wages, threatened with guns, beaten, raped, starved, and imprisoned. Some have even died on the job.”
The dynamic between workers and their bosses under the H-2 system essentially binds immigrants to their employer, and this can make it harder for them to come forward when abuse does occur. That’s because as soon as someone with an H-2 visa leaves their job, they are no longer considered to be in the country legally.
“It’s like stepping off a cliff, and you’re going to fall to the bottom and that’s deportation,” said Farrell.
Beyond deportation, there are other potential risks involved in coming forward. In the case of agricultural work especially, immigrants live where they work, so giving up their employment would also mean being without somewhere to live or a means to provide for themselves or their family.
Here in the U.S., detailed data on trafficking can be hard to come by, but the State Department report has provided new detail on efforts to prosecute the crime and provide relief to victims.
One takeaway from the report is the challenge of prosecuting a human trafficking case. In 2014, for example, a federally-funded hotline for trafficking victims received more than 21,000 calls. During that same period, the Department of Justice secured 184 convictions for trafficking, up from 174 in 2013. Of those cases, 157 involved sex trafficking and 27 cases focused on labor trafficking.
One reason the crime can be so hard to prosecute, say advocates for victims rights, is that the kind of work that victims do — such as agricultural jobs, service jobs, or janitorial work — is often perfectly legal by nature. The women in the trafficking ring that Oksana worked in, for instance, cleaned big box stores like Targets and Walmarts throughout the Northeast.
It is instead the working conditions of trafficking victims, often invisible to the public and law enforcement, which qualifies their situation as trafficking.
Many victims enter the U.S. legally on an H-2 visa, which enables employers to bring immigrants into the country on a temporary basis to fill jobs. As Amy Farrell, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University, explained, they come under the impression that their employer will help them gain permanent residence.
“Once they get here, they were basically told, in a variety of different ways, if you keep working, if you don’t complain, if you keep doing all the things we told you you’d be doing – even though we’re not paying you what we told you we’d be paying you, we’re working on this green card process.”
But all too often, she said, “that’s never going to come.”
Often, the guest worker visa system can leave workers vulnerable to abuse. A recent investigation by BuzzFeed News, for example, found H-2 guest workers routinely “cheated out of their wages, threatened with guns, beaten, raped, starved, and imprisoned. Some have even died on the job.”
The dynamic between workers and their bosses under the H-2 system essentially binds immigrants to their employer, and this can make it harder for them to come forward when abuse does occur. That’s because as soon as someone with an H-2 visa leaves their job, they are no longer considered to be in the country legally.
“It’s like stepping off a cliff, and you’re going to fall to the bottom and that’s deportation,” said Farrell.
Beyond deportation, there are other potential risks involved in coming forward. In the case of agricultural work especially, immigrants live where they work, so giving up their employment would also mean being without somewhere to live or a means to provide for themselves or their family.
GAPS IN SCREENING
Another challenge, say victims rights advocates, is a lack of sufficient screening procedures within federal agencies to identify immigrants who have been trafficked. This gap, they say, can leave victims who would be otherwise eligible for federal protections instead open to deportation.
A 2014 study from the Urban Institute, for example, found instances where human trafficking victims were placed into deportation proceedings, threatened by immigration officials or arrested and then placed into a detention center for being unauthorized. Of the victims in the study’s case data, 14 percent were jailed or put through the deportation process instead of being identified as someone who had been illegally trafficked.
There are a number of agencies that can become involved in identifying victims and prosecuting traffickers — including Homeland Security, Border Patrol and the Department of Justice — and this can sometimes complicate the process.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security has two departments that could potentially engage with human trafficking victims. The office of Enforcement and Removal Operations is charged with apprehending and deporting illegal immigrants, while Homeland Security Investigations works to combat criminal organizations within the immigrations system — including human traffickers.
However according to an ICE spokeswoman, there is no standard system in place where the two offices communicate regarding the screening and identifying of human trafficking cases. If Enforcement and Removal Operations encounters an obvious case of trafficking or a victim self-identifies, it is possible that the departments would communicate, said the spokeswoman.
“There is no standard screening process at all,” said Dree Collupy, a partner and expert on asylum proceedings at Benach Ragland, an immigration law firm based in Washington, D.C. She said people either have to self-identify or be identified by a service provider, which can be anyone from a pro bono attorney to someone working for a non-profit. But expecting victims to self-identify, she said, is “very unrealistic.”
Another challenge, say victims rights advocates, is a lack of sufficient screening procedures within federal agencies to identify immigrants who have been trafficked. This gap, they say, can leave victims who would be otherwise eligible for federal protections instead open to deportation.
A 2014 study from the Urban Institute, for example, found instances where human trafficking victims were placed into deportation proceedings, threatened by immigration officials or arrested and then placed into a detention center for being unauthorized. Of the victims in the study’s case data, 14 percent were jailed or put through the deportation process instead of being identified as someone who had been illegally trafficked.
There are a number of agencies that can become involved in identifying victims and prosecuting traffickers — including Homeland Security, Border Patrol and the Department of Justice — and this can sometimes complicate the process.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security has two departments that could potentially engage with human trafficking victims. The office of Enforcement and Removal Operations is charged with apprehending and deporting illegal immigrants, while Homeland Security Investigations works to combat criminal organizations within the immigrations system — including human traffickers.
However according to an ICE spokeswoman, there is no standard system in place where the two offices communicate regarding the screening and identifying of human trafficking cases. If Enforcement and Removal Operations encounters an obvious case of trafficking or a victim self-identifies, it is possible that the departments would communicate, said the spokeswoman.
“There is no standard screening process at all,” said Dree Collupy, a partner and expert on asylum proceedings at Benach Ragland, an immigration law firm based in Washington, D.C. She said people either have to self-identify or be identified by a service provider, which can be anyone from a pro bono attorney to someone working for a non-profit. But expecting victims to self-identify, she said, is “very unrealistic.”
PROTECTIONS FOR VICTIMS
While a variety of legal protections exist for trafficking victims, they can be difficult to secure. The main protection, the T visa, grants temporary legal status to undocumented victims for up to three years, at which point they can apply for permanent legal status. Victims can also seek continued presence, which offers temporary residence to anyone who law enforcement identifies as a victim of trafficking.
But obtaining a T visa or continued presence can take months or even years, according to the Urban Institute study, which blamed the lag, in part, to a lack of communication between the agencies involved in the approval process.
“The agencies do not communicate with each other, and even within the agencies there’s very little communication from the headquarters, for example, to the officers on the ground,” said Collupy.
The study also found that the Department of Labor was rarely involved in identifying labor trafficking victims, or investigating trafficking cases. However in April the agency announced it would expand visa certification for victims of human trafficking and additional “qualifying crimes.”
The challenge in obtaining a T visa or continued presence was reflected in this week’s report from the State Department. According to the report, T visas were granted to 613 victims and 788 eligible family members in 2014, down from 848 and 975 respectively in 2013. DHS issued continued presence to 130 victims who were “potential witnesses,” a 24 percent drop from 2013.
U visas are another protection available for undocumented victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence. But obtaining a U visa can likewise prove problematic. By law, there are only 10,000 U visas awarded each year, but in 2014 alone more than 45,000 people applied, including victims and their family members.
This type of disparity shows, said Collupy, that when it comes to combatting human trafficking, the need outweighs the resources available.
“There’s not enough pro bono attorneys to help all of the victims currently in immigration proceedings,” she said. “And that leaves people in a situation where they might not even know what they’ve gone through would give them an immigration benefit.”
While a variety of legal protections exist for trafficking victims, they can be difficult to secure. The main protection, the T visa, grants temporary legal status to undocumented victims for up to three years, at which point they can apply for permanent legal status. Victims can also seek continued presence, which offers temporary residence to anyone who law enforcement identifies as a victim of trafficking.
But obtaining a T visa or continued presence can take months or even years, according to the Urban Institute study, which blamed the lag, in part, to a lack of communication between the agencies involved in the approval process.
“The agencies do not communicate with each other, and even within the agencies there’s very little communication from the headquarters, for example, to the officers on the ground,” said Collupy.
The study also found that the Department of Labor was rarely involved in identifying labor trafficking victims, or investigating trafficking cases. However in April the agency announced it would expand visa certification for victims of human trafficking and additional “qualifying crimes.”
The challenge in obtaining a T visa or continued presence was reflected in this week’s report from the State Department. According to the report, T visas were granted to 613 victims and 788 eligible family members in 2014, down from 848 and 975 respectively in 2013. DHS issued continued presence to 130 victims who were “potential witnesses,” a 24 percent drop from 2013.
U visas are another protection available for undocumented victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence. But obtaining a U visa can likewise prove problematic. By law, there are only 10,000 U visas awarded each year, but in 2014 alone more than 45,000 people applied, including victims and their family members.
This type of disparity shows, said Collupy, that when it comes to combatting human trafficking, the need outweighs the resources available.
“There’s not enough pro bono attorneys to help all of the victims currently in immigration proceedings,” she said. “And that leaves people in a situation where they might not even know what they’ve gone through would give them an immigration benefit.”
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Why Do You Pay Taxes?
WHY DO LIBERTARIANS PAY TAXES?
Libertarians pay taxes so they don’t get killed by an IRS agent for resisting arrest
by LAURENCE M. VANCE | LEWROCKWELL.COM | JULY 29, 2015
It never fails. Every time I write anything about taxes I get long, rambling e-mails from tax trolls who scour the Internet looking for articles about taxes so they can contact the writers and impress them with their knowledge of the tax code.
These tax trolls usually call themselves “non-taxpayers.” They say things like: paying taxes is voluntary, the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, most Americans aren’t required to pay income tax, many Americans have gotten refunds of all the money withheld from their paychecks, and the income tax is a classical liberal tax on federal employments, offices, and privileges. Sometimes they boast that they haven’t paid taxes for 10, 15, or 20 years and the IRS hasn’t done anything about it.
Let’s review the libertarian view of taxes.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that taxes should be fair, adequate, sufficient, constitutional, uniform, flat, simple, efficient, apportioned equally, or low.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that the tax code should help the poor, benefit the middle class, and be business friendly.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that taxes should not be used for social engineering purposes and income redistribution schemes.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that the tax code should not have loopholes so that everyone pays their “fair share.”
The libertarian view of taxes is simply that taxes should not exist in the first place. There should be no tax code because taxation is theft and violates the non-aggression principle.
The libertarian view of taxes is that tax increases of any kind, tax reform that is revenue neutral, tax base broadening, tax replacement of one tax with another, and tax shifting from one group of taxpayers to another are not in the least bit desirable.
The libertarian view of taxes is that the lower the taxes the better and the greater number of deductions, credits, exemptions, and loopholes the better.
This is all much ado about nothing, says the “non-taxpayer.” Libertarians miss the point on the income tax because they are not enlightened like “non-taxpayers” are. Libertarians don’t have a proper understand of the tax code.
These “non-taxpayer” tax trolls misunderstand why libertarians pay taxes. But so do liberals and conservatives. Some might reason that, on a philosophical level, if taxation is government theft, then why do libertarians pay taxes? And on a practical level, unless someone makes a lot of money, the chances of an IRS audit are low. So why do libertarians bother to pay taxes?
There are some important reasons why libertarians pay taxes. But before looking at them, perhaps it would be beneficial to look at reasons why libertarians don’t pay taxes; that is, erroneous reasons why libertarians pay taxes.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe it is just what Americans do.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are confused about the tax code.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the government is entitled to them for services provided.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the U.S. income tax cannot tax earnings from the common, ordinary occupations of life.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe paying taxes is the right thing to do.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes in the United States are lower than they are in other countries.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes are a necessary evil.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the tax code requires them to.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they aren’t aware that most Americans aren’t legally required to pay income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the tax code.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because millions of Americans are dependent on government handouts.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are not educated tax scholars.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the Constitution gives the government the power to tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t know how to read the tax code.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they think it is patriotic.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they haven’t yet figured out how to lay a proper factual evidentiary foundation on how not to pay the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the federal government has no constitutional power to tax the wages of ordinary Americans.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they think the government needs the money.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t believe the income tax is part of the contract involved with acceptance of a government privilege.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t know the history of the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they never noticed in the withholding statute in Subchapter C of the tax code that the only people subject to withholding are government employees.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are not enlightened about the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the constitutional functions of government should be funded.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t realize what an excise tax is.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they would feel guilty if they didn’t and other Americans did.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand from Title 26, Subtitle A, that most Americans aren’t engaged in engaged in ordinary occupations liable for the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the difference between a privilege and a right.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they have misinterpreted the Supreme Court tax cases.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t realize that paying taxes is voluntary.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t read the tax code with the understanding of the history of the tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe they have engaged in an excise taxable activity.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the income tax is a classical liberal tax on federal employments, offices, and privileges.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe “non taxpayers” are screwballs.
Why, then, do libertarians pay taxes?
Libertarians pay taxes so they don’t end up in a cage like Irwin Schiff.
Libertarians pay taxes so their property doesn’t get seized by the IRS.
Libertarians pay taxes so the IRS doesn’t garnish their wages.
Libertarians pay taxes so they are not ruined financially by the IRS.
Libertarians pay taxes so they don’t get killed by an IRS agent for resisting arrest.
Libertarians pay taxes for the same reason you would hand over your wallet to someone who pointed a gun in your face and said: “Give me your money or else.”
The Constitution, the Sixteenth Amendment, Supreme Court decisions, tax court rulings, and the tax code have nothing to do with it.
by LAURENCE M. VANCE | LEWROCKWELL.COM | JULY 29, 2015
It never fails. Every time I write anything about taxes I get long, rambling e-mails from tax trolls who scour the Internet looking for articles about taxes so they can contact the writers and impress them with their knowledge of the tax code.
These tax trolls usually call themselves “non-taxpayers.” They say things like: paying taxes is voluntary, the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, most Americans aren’t required to pay income tax, many Americans have gotten refunds of all the money withheld from their paychecks, and the income tax is a classical liberal tax on federal employments, offices, and privileges. Sometimes they boast that they haven’t paid taxes for 10, 15, or 20 years and the IRS hasn’t done anything about it.
Let’s review the libertarian view of taxes.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that taxes should be fair, adequate, sufficient, constitutional, uniform, flat, simple, efficient, apportioned equally, or low.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that the tax code should help the poor, benefit the middle class, and be business friendly.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that taxes should not be used for social engineering purposes and income redistribution schemes.
The libertarian view of taxes is not that the tax code should not have loopholes so that everyone pays their “fair share.”
The libertarian view of taxes is simply that taxes should not exist in the first place. There should be no tax code because taxation is theft and violates the non-aggression principle.
The libertarian view of taxes is that tax increases of any kind, tax reform that is revenue neutral, tax base broadening, tax replacement of one tax with another, and tax shifting from one group of taxpayers to another are not in the least bit desirable.
The libertarian view of taxes is that the lower the taxes the better and the greater number of deductions, credits, exemptions, and loopholes the better.
This is all much ado about nothing, says the “non-taxpayer.” Libertarians miss the point on the income tax because they are not enlightened like “non-taxpayers” are. Libertarians don’t have a proper understand of the tax code.
These “non-taxpayer” tax trolls misunderstand why libertarians pay taxes. But so do liberals and conservatives. Some might reason that, on a philosophical level, if taxation is government theft, then why do libertarians pay taxes? And on a practical level, unless someone makes a lot of money, the chances of an IRS audit are low. So why do libertarians bother to pay taxes?
There are some important reasons why libertarians pay taxes. But before looking at them, perhaps it would be beneficial to look at reasons why libertarians don’t pay taxes; that is, erroneous reasons why libertarians pay taxes.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe it is just what Americans do.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are confused about the tax code.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the government is entitled to them for services provided.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the U.S. income tax cannot tax earnings from the common, ordinary occupations of life.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe paying taxes is the right thing to do.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes in the United States are lower than they are in other countries.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe taxes are a necessary evil.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the tax code requires them to.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they aren’t aware that most Americans aren’t legally required to pay income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the tax code.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because millions of Americans are dependent on government handouts.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are not educated tax scholars.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the Constitution gives the government the power to tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t know how to read the tax code.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they think it is patriotic.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they haven’t yet figured out how to lay a proper factual evidentiary foundation on how not to pay the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the federal government has no constitutional power to tax the wages of ordinary Americans.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they think the government needs the money.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t believe the income tax is part of the contract involved with acceptance of a government privilege.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t know the history of the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they never noticed in the withholding statute in Subchapter C of the tax code that the only people subject to withholding are government employees.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they are not enlightened about the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe the constitutional functions of government should be funded.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t realize what an excise tax is.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they would feel guilty if they didn’t and other Americans did.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand from Title 26, Subtitle A, that most Americans aren’t engaged in engaged in ordinary occupations liable for the income tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the difference between a privilege and a right.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand the difference between direct and indirect taxes.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they have misinterpreted the Supreme Court tax cases.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t realize that paying taxes is voluntary.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t read the tax code with the understanding of the history of the tax.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe they have engaged in an excise taxable activity.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they don’t understand that the income tax is a classical liberal tax on federal employments, offices, and privileges.
Libertarians don’t pay taxes because they believe “non taxpayers” are screwballs.
Why, then, do libertarians pay taxes?
Libertarians pay taxes so they don’t end up in a cage like Irwin Schiff.
Libertarians pay taxes so their property doesn’t get seized by the IRS.
Libertarians pay taxes so the IRS doesn’t garnish their wages.
Libertarians pay taxes so they are not ruined financially by the IRS.
Libertarians pay taxes so they don’t get killed by an IRS agent for resisting arrest.
Libertarians pay taxes for the same reason you would hand over your wallet to someone who pointed a gun in your face and said: “Give me your money or else.”
The Constitution, the Sixteenth Amendment, Supreme Court decisions, tax court rulings, and the tax code have nothing to do with it.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
'Terror' Watchlist
‘TERROR’ WATCHLISTS ERASING AMERICAN RIGHTS: FEDS TO “REVOKE PASSPORTS WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL”
Another small step for authoritarian bureaucracy, another massive leap forward in the destruction of Americans rights to due process and full protection under the law
by MAC SLAVO | SHTFPLAN.COM | JULY 31, 2015
Another small step for authoritarian bureaucracy, another massive leap forward in the destruction of Americans rights to due process and full protection under the law.
Increasingly, designations on watchlists, but official and unofficial, are replacing due process of suspicion, investigation, arrest, charge and trial, and skipping ahead to simply blacklist individuals and deny them equal rights.
This time, the legislation centers around passports, which would now be revoked upon any suspicion, whatsoever and despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing, of links to foreign terrorists groups. But these links to ‘terrorism’ are not legally defined or limited, nor do they result as a penalty for criminal convictions, but from being added to a list. Gestapo, anyone?
Police State USA reports:
A bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would allow the government to restrict Americans’ travel through the revocation of passportsbased upon mere suspicions of unscrupulous activity. This bill represents another dangerous step forward in the war on terror and the disintegration of American due process.
H.R. 237, the “FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) Passport Revocation Act of 2015,” will allow the U.S. Secretary of State the unchecked authority to prohibit individuals from traveling internationally. According to the bill, the Secretary may unilaterally revoke (or refuse to issue) a passport from “any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).”
The bill did not bother to define what the terms “aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped” actually mean, in legal terms. The power has been left open-ended so that it can mean whatever the secretary wants it to mean. Needless to say, a bill like this would be easily abused.
The travel restriction requires no presumption of innocence for the targeted individual; no explanation; no public presentation of evidence; no opportunity for a defense; no checks and balances on the power. The bill does not outline any appeals process for the targeted individual. The only stipulation is that the Secretary of State must issue a report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs — “classified or unclassified.” The bill does not state that either committee can reverse the secretary’s decisions.
In over the top language, the bill’s sponsor Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) vows to go after “turned Americans” and subjecting them to a legal status backwards enough to predate the Magna Carta:
“The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe said in a press release. “These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”
Poe’s statement about “losing all rights” is rather startling, considering that about half of the Bill of Rights is explicitly written to protect people suspected of crimes from being abused by overzealous government! The dangers of a government wantonly revoking the rights of citizens just because the a bureaucrat puts them on a list would be severe indeed; fitting of a police state. Recall that these individuals can be targeted without even facing official charges of wrongdoing.
If trying to defend”freedom”, he has missed the point.
If owing allegiance to the fascist oligarchy, then be warned. Anyone deemed an “enemy” of the state, rightly or wrongly, has been targeted, while the entire population has been designated a potential enemy, monitored for suspicion and “examples.”
Poe’s bill is in close keeping with Sen. Lindsay Graham’s stunning endorsement of the NDAA, adamantly stating that “enemy combatants” do not get American rights, and do not get a lawyer, regardless of birthplace.
Consider what this could mean in cases where the person of interest is not a suspected member of ISIS, but a suspected patriot/militia/Constitutionalist/sovereign citizen. Can you be stripped of your rights for criticizing your leaders or speaking out about issues?
Already, millions of Americans have been placed on watchlists; many have found themselves denied the right to travel or participate in other activities, and unable to get off the watchlist, even if they were placed on the list by mistake, or if they were placed there without any legal charge of wrongdoing.
These concepts, even if cheered on in the context of fighting a terrorist enemy, are poorly defined and inviting abuse, and speeding up the destruction of our rights.
Another small step for authoritarian bureaucracy, another massive leap forward in the destruction of Americans rights to due process and full protection under the law
by MAC SLAVO | SHTFPLAN.COM | JULY 31, 2015
Another small step for authoritarian bureaucracy, another massive leap forward in the destruction of Americans rights to due process and full protection under the law.
Increasingly, designations on watchlists, but official and unofficial, are replacing due process of suspicion, investigation, arrest, charge and trial, and skipping ahead to simply blacklist individuals and deny them equal rights.
This time, the legislation centers around passports, which would now be revoked upon any suspicion, whatsoever and despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing, of links to foreign terrorists groups. But these links to ‘terrorism’ are not legally defined or limited, nor do they result as a penalty for criminal convictions, but from being added to a list. Gestapo, anyone?
Police State USA reports:
A bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would allow the government to restrict Americans’ travel through the revocation of passportsbased upon mere suspicions of unscrupulous activity. This bill represents another dangerous step forward in the war on terror and the disintegration of American due process.
H.R. 237, the “FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) Passport Revocation Act of 2015,” will allow the U.S. Secretary of State the unchecked authority to prohibit individuals from traveling internationally. According to the bill, the Secretary may unilaterally revoke (or refuse to issue) a passport from “any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).”
The bill did not bother to define what the terms “aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped” actually mean, in legal terms. The power has been left open-ended so that it can mean whatever the secretary wants it to mean. Needless to say, a bill like this would be easily abused.
The travel restriction requires no presumption of innocence for the targeted individual; no explanation; no public presentation of evidence; no opportunity for a defense; no checks and balances on the power. The bill does not outline any appeals process for the targeted individual. The only stipulation is that the Secretary of State must issue a report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs — “classified or unclassified.” The bill does not state that either committee can reverse the secretary’s decisions.
In over the top language, the bill’s sponsor Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) vows to go after “turned Americans” and subjecting them to a legal status backwards enough to predate the Magna Carta:
“The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe said in a press release. “These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”
Poe’s statement about “losing all rights” is rather startling, considering that about half of the Bill of Rights is explicitly written to protect people suspected of crimes from being abused by overzealous government! The dangers of a government wantonly revoking the rights of citizens just because the a bureaucrat puts them on a list would be severe indeed; fitting of a police state. Recall that these individuals can be targeted without even facing official charges of wrongdoing.
If trying to defend”freedom”, he has missed the point.
If owing allegiance to the fascist oligarchy, then be warned. Anyone deemed an “enemy” of the state, rightly or wrongly, has been targeted, while the entire population has been designated a potential enemy, monitored for suspicion and “examples.”
Poe’s bill is in close keeping with Sen. Lindsay Graham’s stunning endorsement of the NDAA, adamantly stating that “enemy combatants” do not get American rights, and do not get a lawyer, regardless of birthplace.
Consider what this could mean in cases where the person of interest is not a suspected member of ISIS, but a suspected patriot/militia/Constitutionalist/sovereign citizen. Can you be stripped of your rights for criticizing your leaders or speaking out about issues?
Already, millions of Americans have been placed on watchlists; many have found themselves denied the right to travel or participate in other activities, and unable to get off the watchlist, even if they were placed on the list by mistake, or if they were placed there without any legal charge of wrongdoing.
These concepts, even if cheered on in the context of fighting a terrorist enemy, are poorly defined and inviting abuse, and speeding up the destruction of our rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)