Sunday, September 30, 2012

VIDEO: Confiscatory Tax Hikes Coming And The End of Independent Wealth






VIDEO: Circuses For The Hoards! NFL Ref's Don't Matter When The Fix Is In!





VIDEO: Brain-dead Zombie Sheeple Clueless About The Federal Reserve





VIDEO: Brain-dead Zombie Sheeple Clueless About The Federal Reserve

Taxation Without Representation! UN Pushes Global Tax

George Russell
Fox News
Friday, September 28, 2012

A 1 percent tax on billionaires around the world. A tax on all currency trading in the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound sterling. Another “tiny” tax on all financial transactions, including stock and bond trading, and trading in financial derivatives. New taxes on carbon emissions and on airline tickets. A royalty on all undersea mineral resources extracted more than 100 miles offshore of any nation’s territory.
The United Nations is at it again: finding new and “innovative” ways to create global taxes that would transfer hundreds of billions, and even trillions, of dollars from the rich nations of the world — especially the U.S. — to poorer ones, in line with U.N.-directed economic, social and environmental development.
These latest global tax proposals have received various forms of endorsement at U.N. meetings over the spring and summer, and will be entered into the record during the 67th U.N. General Assembly session, which began this week. The agenda for the entire session, lasting through December, is scheduled to be finalized on Friday.
How to convince developed countries wracked by economic recession and spiraling levels of government debt – especially the U.S. — is another issue, which the world organization may well end up trying to finesse.

Full story here.

Forget Your Free Obama Phone, Obama Has Screwed The Poor

“Everybody got Obama phone!”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 28, 2012

A video clip posted by the Drudge Report that has since gone viral which shows an Obama supporter semi-incoherently blathering about how she is voting for Obama because the government gave her a free phone tragically underscores how the state exploits dependency by offering poor people trinkets while simultaneously stealing their entire economic future.
 
Once you have recovered from the hilarity of the video clip, the awful truth behind it begins to sink in. While this Obama voter screeches about her government-provided cellphone, Obama has been busy screwing the poor at every turn.
To clarify, the “Obama Cell Phone” program has provided 269,000 poor Americans with free phones and monthly service at a cost of over $1.6 billion dollars to the taxpayer, a figure that keeps rising every year.
The video harks back to a 2008 clip during which an Obama voter gushed about how Obama’s election victory meant she no longer had to worry about paying her mortgage or filling her car with gas.
 
The delusion that these people are living under knows no bounds.
Under Obama that the poor have got poorer. Poverty levels have increased to levels approaching the 1960′s.
Obama didn’t pay for your mortgage, he bailed out the mortgage companies, the predatory lenders, the big banks, and then the Federal Reserve paid them not to lend.
Obama didn’t pay for your gas, but he did pay for General Motors to ship your jobs to China.
Obama gave the green light for Ben Bernanke to engage in QE Infinity - driving up gasoline prices and driving down the value of the dollar. Under Obama, the cost of living has soared.
The only people benefiting from Obama and the Fed’s economic holocaust are the super rich who are invested in the casino stock market.
The gap between rich and poor has never been greater than under Obama. The fraction of growth for the top one percent grew at 95 per cent under Obama compared to 65 per cent under Bush.
Obama has screwed the poor.
But forget all that – “Everybody got Obama phone!”
While their entire economic future has been sold down the river, these people have allowed their votes to be bought by a free phone.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

VIDEO: The Criminality Of Fake Environmentalism! Tax Funded Land Grabs For Private Profits





VIDEO: Fake News CNN Style! Obama's Suppression Of Whistle-blowers






Friday, September 28, 2012

Great Expectations, Dating, and the Battle of the Sexes

by Samuel J. Scott
Oct 5, 2007
http://www.samueljscott.com/2007/10/05/great-expectations-dating/

In the so-called war between the sexes, men had been on the offen­sive by wield­ing most of the power in rela­tion­ships for thou­sands of years — but women had been turn­ing the tide back over the last forty. The result? Now, the two armies have stopped mov­ing. They have com­pletely sep­a­rated from each other, sit­ting motion­less while star­ing at each other across a no-man’s land of lone­li­ness and bro­ken hearts as a result of great expec­ta­tions in dat­ing.
How do I know this? I see the headlines.
A major­ity of mar­riage­able women are liv­ing with­out hus­bands. An increas­ing num­ber of sin­gle women are pur­chas­ing homes by themselves. The total num­ber of sin­gle Amer­i­cans is also grow­ing. More men say they never want to get mar­ried. In Britain, there are more sin­gle men than unat­tached women. Hun­dreds of web­sites offer advice for sin­gles rang­ing from pick­ing up a one-night stand to find­ing the love of one’s life.
More and more dat­ing web­sites exist for those who are unable to find a part­ner. (In busi­ness par­lance, the size of the mar­ket is increasing.) There are dozens of blogs on dat­ing on just this one list. Teenagers, col­lege stu­dents, and recent grad­u­ates are hooking-up rather than form­ing sig­nif­i­cant rela­tion­ships. Men and women are mar­ry­ing at increas­ingly older ages — now twenty-seven for men and twenty-five for women. “Starter mar­riages” are becom­ing more common.
Well, what’s going on in online dating-services, online-dating web­sites, and friend-finder dat­ing?
Argu­ments Against Feminism
First, we need to under­stand the basic men­tal­i­ties of men and women in the con­text of evo­lu­tion­ary psy­chol­ogy.* For tens of thou­sands of years, men were the providers of resources and pro­tec­tion while women took care of hearth and home. Nature pro­grammed men to spread their seed as far as pos­si­ble while women wanted men to stay and take care of their chil­dren. So, soci­ety founded the insti­tu­tion of mar­riage to get men to stay with the chil­dren. (I believe there are spir­i­tual aspects to mar­riage as well, but its prac­ti­cal­ity can­not be overstated.)
These needs and desires were pro­grammed into our soci­eties – and our brains — over mil­len­nia. Men and women needed each other because each half of a cou­ple pro­vided things that the other could not. Women wanted men who would pro­vide resources, and men wanted fer­tile women who would bear and raise their chil­dren. Women date up; men date beauty. Forty years of fem­i­nism can­not change these sub­con­scious attitudes.
Over the last sev­eral decades, how­ever, the roles have changed. Women have become inde­pen­dent, and men have become less nec­es­sary. (New York Times colum­nist Mau­reen Dowd even wrote a book with that as its title.) The end result — and the rea­son for the increas­ing preva­lence of sin­gle­ness – is sim­ple. Men and women feel that they no longer need each other, and this atti­tude is sep­a­rat­ing men and women:
That bat­tle of the sexes, accord­ing to Pro­fes­sor Andrew Hacker, a New York soci­ol­o­gist, will not be won any time soon. In a 2003 book Hacker argued that mar­riage rates may con­tinue to fall if young pro­fes­sional women seek only their finan­cial equals as mates.
There is a greater divide between the sexes than at any time in liv­ing mem­ory,” Hacker said. “The result will be a greater sep­a­ra­tion of women and men, with ten­sions and recrim­i­na­tions afflict­ing beings once thought to be nat­u­rally companionable.”
Fem­i­nism Essay

What caused this? Fem­i­nism. More specif­i­cally, the unin­tended con­se­quences of fem­i­nism. Fem­i­nism helped women to over­come their lowly, unde­served sta­tus as non-voting cit­i­zens whose only duties were to get mar­ried and have kids, but like every social move­ment, it has had effects that no one could have foreseen.
First, we must start with women. After all, women make the choices in the dat­ing game: Women choose which suit­ors have a chance, but men hit on every sin­gle girl above a cer­tain gen­eral thresh­old of attrac­tive­ness. When a man makes the “first move,” he is usu­ally respond­ing to a sub­con­scious sign of inter­est that the woman has already sent. This is an impor­tant prin­ci­ple. Women make most of the choices in the dat­ing scene because they must be picky: They only have one fer­tile egg per month, and they lit­er­ally live with the con­se­quences of sex. Now that women are becom­ing equal to – and even sur­pass­ing – men in school and in the work­place, they can take care of them­selves. They do not need a provider.
How­ever, this con­flicts with the sub­con­scious atti­tudes that women have. Girls are raised with tales of a per­fect Prince Charm­ing who will res­cue them. They idol­ize their fathers (for bet­ter or worse, depend­ing on what type of men they were). They are treated like princesses. Most impor­tantly, they have the evo­lu­tion­ary impulse to “date up.” They want some­one amazing. Women, indeed, want it all. (This atti­tude can lead to more regret later in life when they real­ize that no one can have it all.)
This desire, how­ever, works against a woman’s inter­ests. Women are pro­gress­ing along a set path – high school, col­lege, grad­u­ate school/career, mar­riage, and then fam­ily – and only worry about hav­ing fun while they are teenagers and twen­tysome­things. Mar­riage and fam­ily now seem to be bur­dens to delay as long as pos­si­ble rather than won­drous joys. The irony of the sit­u­a­tion is that women have the great­est chance of attract­ing a part­ner before the age of twenty-five, roughly when they are most attrac­tive. Biol­ogy, after all, is work­ing against them. There is noth­ing wrong with get­ting mar­ried in col­lege or grad­u­ate school and wait­ing to have chil­dren, but this thought rarely crosses anyone’s mind.

Focus­ing on one’s career for a long time also poses another risk. The more suc­cess­ful a woman becomes, the smaller the pool of accept­able men becomes. In other words, suc­cess­ful, career-oriented women price them­selves out of the mar­ket unless they date men who earn less money or have less edu­ca­tion. Authors like Bar­bara White­head com­plain that “there are no good men left,” but the real­ity is sim­ple: Men have not fallen; women have risen. It is hard to “date up,” for exam­ple, when one grad­u­ates from Har­vard and works on Wall Street. Many suc­cess­ful women are unhappy because they feel that they must hide their suc­cess (see here as well), or they sub­con­sciously resent their hus­bands or boyfriends if they earn lower salaries. Fem­i­nism, in a nut­shell, has made women pickier.

Cri­tiques of Feminism

Now, I’m not only blam­ing women. Men, too, are at fault. Fem­i­nism also made men pick­ier — but for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. Adver­tis­ers have always used sex to sell prod­ucts, but one unin­tended result of fem­i­nism is that overt sex­u­al­ity and pornog­ra­phy have become main­stream. (Pornog­ra­phy, accord­ing to one school of fem­i­nism, empow­ers women. I disagree.)
Men are bom­barded with images of fake, doc­tored, unre­al­is­tic women in tele­vi­sion pro­grams, adver­tis­ing and pornog­ra­phy. Their stan­dards have become higher, even though the vast major­ity of men should not rea­son­ably expect to date a Per­fect Ten (or even an Imper­fect Seven). Still, women have adapted to this trend by look­ing and act­ing like porn stars in order to attract men: expos­ing them­selves for Girls Gone Wild video crews; pos­ing in soft-core porn mag­a­zines like FHM and Maxim; mak­ing out with each other; wear­ing slutty clothes; and oth­er­wise act­ing like pieces of meat. (By the way, read this pro­file of Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Fran­cis. It will make you cringe.)
Fem­i­nism made men pick­ier, and it also made pre-marital sex accept­able and com­mon. How­ever, we have now trav­eled to the oppo­site end of the spec­trum. Men, by allow­ing their base instincts to take over, have allowed women to degrade them­selves rather than be treated respect­fully. In the end, women suf­fer because of the Madonna-Whore Com­plex: men want to hook-up with these women, but no man would ever marry one of them. Evo­lu­tion has taught men to value mar­i­tal fidelity — from a bio­log­i­cal standpoint, a man wants to be con­fi­dent that his chil­dren are, well, his. No guy wants to have sex with the girl whom every­one in the bar has already done. I won­der how many women are now alone because of this sen­ti­ment, but I imag­ine that the Madonna-Whore line is dif­fi­cult to tread.
The ease with which men can obtain sex is another rea­son for the lack­lus­ter dat­ing scene. Men, as a result of women’s liberation, can now have sex with women who are just as promis­cu­ous as they are. Why buy the cow when the milk is free? In fact, an unin­tended con­se­quence of fem­i­nism has been to remove any moti­va­tion for men to get mar­ried. Men do not need to take care of women. Men can get com­pan­ion­ship from his friends. Men can watch sports and play video games on flat-screen televisions. Men can have sex and hook-up with untold num­bers of avail­able women (or down­load free pornog­ra­phy). Men can cook for them­selves, or they can order take-out. Men can hire clean­ing services.
The only prac­ti­cal rea­son for mar­riage, it seems, is to raise chil­dren — but fewer and fewer men have that desire as well. Birth rates in the United States, as well as West­ern Europe, have been steadily declin­ing. I can­not pro­vide a sat­is­fac­tory expla­na­tion, but it seems that peo­ple have gen­er­ally become more self­ish and unwill­ing over the last sev­eral decades to spend their money and time on children. To para­phrase a line from a recent Econ­o­mist arti­cle, I guess club­bing is more fun than chang­ing diapers.
How­ever, there may be darker rea­sons for an anti-marriage bias among men. Recent hys­te­ria in the United States and Great Britain over sex­ual preda­tors has led soci­ety to view all men as poten­tial crim­i­nals who pose threats to chil­dren. Men have even had to develop cop­ing strate­gies as a result, and fewer of them are vol­un­teer­ing to work in edu­ca­tion and help chil­dren in need. Accord­ing to sev­eral reports, boys also face dis­crim­i­na­tion at school. I’m not sure that I would feel com­fort­able rais­ing chil­dren in this environment.
Male chil­dren may have a harder time at school, but men in gen­eral are now told that they are noth­ing more than idiots and buf­foons. Most tele­vi­sion com­mer­cials and nightly sit­coms por­tray men (and hus­bands) as stu­pid boors and women (and wives) as intel­li­gent and sexy. Women used to be stereo­typed as flakes, but now the tables have turned. Per­haps each gen­der will be treated with respect one day.
My gen­er­a­tion, the one that grew up in the sev­en­ties and eight­ies, became known as the Divorce Gen­er­a­tion for a rea­son. This upbring­ing has inter­fered, in para­dox­i­cal ways, with our searches for spouses. Since we grew up in bro­ken homes, we des­per­ately want to cre­ate the sta­ble homes that we never had. At the same time, we are extremely picky because we do not want to choose wrongly and endure a divorce again.
Men, however, fear divorce mainly because the courts are stacked against them. Fam­ily law comes from a time when women were depen­dent on men, so most divorce set­tle­ments included alimony and an equal divi­sion of assets. (Oh, and ex-wives always seem to get the chil­dren.) Despite the fact that men and women can now take care of themselves, women will still receive the house, the children, and half of her ex-husband’s salary. In a world in which half of all mar­riages will end in divorce, can men be blamed if they think that the ben­e­fit of mar­riage is not worth the risk?


Where We Stand

So, after all of the changes that fem­i­nism brought to soci­ety, this is where the two armies stand. Women are frus­trated because their worldly suc­cess has hin­dered their search for the manly provider that their genes and upbring­ing have told them to want. They are increas­ingly picky. They feel pres­sured to act in a hyper­sex­ual man­ner while know­ing that most men, in the end, will only marry the Madonna, not the Whore. Women real­ize that by becom­ing as inde­pen­dent as pos­si­ble, they are los­ing their abil­ity to become part of a code­pen­dent cou­ple. Women try to “have it all” — a full-time career with devot­ing enough time to raise a fam­ily well – while know­ing that it is prac­ti­cally impos­si­ble. Women think that all men are lazy slobs at best and poten­tial crim­i­nals at worst.
Men believe that they will all get a woman with the looks of a model and the abil­i­ties of a porn star, and they do not want to set­tle for any­thing less. At the same time, they want a vir­tu­ous woman who will raise chil­dren prop­erly and cre­ate a nice home. Men feel inad­e­quate because they are den­i­grated in the media, and they are unsure of their place in soci­ety because the role that evo­lu­tion has told them to play – that of manly provider — no longer exists. Men see lit­tle need for mar­riage because its ben­e­fits can be gained else­where, and they stand a fifty-fifty chance of los­ing their chil­dren and half their assets if they were to get married.
Many of the prac­ti­cal ben­e­fits of mar­riage are no longer applic­a­ble because both men and women are self-sufficient, so peo­ple may be look­ing pri­mar­ily for love. (See here as well.) While this is a nice thought, any­one who has been in the dat­ing scene for a while knows that it is extremely rare to find some­one with whom one imme­di­ately “clicks.” It is no won­der the peo­ple are remain­ing sin­gle for so long. But the longer that peo­ple are sin­gle and inde­pen­dent, the harder it is for peo­ple to com­pro­mise, change, leave their com­fort zones, and become part of an inter­de­pen­dent cou­ple (see this post, par­tic­u­larly the com­ment by 2 cents).
Now, the two armies – men and women – are sit­ting and fac­ing each other across the des­o­late no-man’s land. Each side wants to raise a neu­tral flag, stop the fight­ing, and offer terms of nego­ti­a­tion, but each side is too proud to make the first move. They would just rather talk amongst them­selves while com­plain­ing about the enemy — it’s eas­ier, of course. But no con­flict has ever been solved that way.
Other Essays: The True Clash of Civ­i­liza­tions and In Defense of Free Trade and Globalization
*Clar­i­fi­ca­tion: When I say “men” and “women,” I do not mean all men and women. I mean the major­ity of men and women. In addi­tion, I am dis­cussing gen­der rela­tions only in a het­ero­sex­ual con­text.

14 Signs That The World Economy Is Getting Weaker

Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse
Sept 28, 2012

The United States is not the only one with massive economic problems right now.
The truth is that just about wherever you look around the globe things are getting even worse.  China is experiencing a substantial economic slowdown, and Japan has resorted to yet another round of money printing in an effort to keep the Japanese economy moving.  Unemployment in Europe continues to get even worse, and the riots this week in Spain and in Greece have been absolutely frightening at times.  In the United States there are a whole host of signs that another recession is approaching, and the number of American CEOs that say that they plan to eliminate jobs in the coming months is rapidly rising.  The world economy is more interconnected today than ever before, and that means that we are all in this together.  Just remember what happened back in 2008 and 2009.  The economic pain that started on Wall Street was felt in every corner of the planet.  So anyone that believes that the United States (or any other major nation for that matter) is going to escape the next wave of the economic crisis is simply not being realistic.  Why do you think central banks all over the world are in “panic mode” right now?  They are firing all of their ammunition and printing money like there is no tomorrow in an attempt to keep the system together.  Unfortunately, it is not going to work.
If the powers that be had an “easy button” that would quickly fix everything, they would have pressed it by now.  But despite all of their efforts things continue to unravel.  If you want to get an idea of where we are headed,  just look at what is already happening in Europe.   Unemployment has risen above 24 percent in Greece and above 25 percent in Spain.
Those two nations are on the “bleeding edge” of the next wave of economic problems.  Unemployment is rising almost everywhere else in Europe as well, and things are eventually going to get really bad in Asia and in North America too.
So hold on to your seat belts – it is going to be a bumpy ride.
The following are 14 signs from around the globe that the world economy is getting weaker….
#1 Things in China do not look good right now.  The Shanghai Composite index fell to its lowest point in over 3 years earlier this week.  Will the S&P 500 soon follow suit?
#2 The Bank of Japan has resorted to yet another round of money printing in a desperate attempt to try to bolster the faltering Japanese economy….
In Asia, the Bank of Japan has long been manufacturing money out of thin air. It has just announced an eighth round of money printing to prop up the ailing Japanese economy. The Bank of Japan is to purchase 10 trillion yen of bonds to add further liquidity into the financial system. Now it has 80 trillion yen of bonds in its portfolio, equivalent to 20 per cent of Japan’s gross domestic product.
#3 In Spain, violent demonstrations over the state of the Spanish economy just outside the national Parliament building in Madrid on Tuesday evening made headlines all over the globe.  You can view video of police brutally beating young Spanish protesters during those demonstrations right here.
#4 As unemployment hovers around the 25 percent mark, foraging through garbage bins for food has become so rampant in Spain that one city has actually started putting locks on supermarket garbage bins “as a public health precaution“.
#5 Despite all of the money printing that the ECB has been doing, the yield on 10 year Spanish bonds has risen back up to about 6 percent again.
#6 The economic protests in Greece are getting completely and totally out of control.  Just check out this descriptionof the “Day of Rage” that took place in Greece earlier this week….
Police fired stun grenades and tear gas at protesters yesterday as tens of thousands poured into the streets of Athens as part of a nationwide strike to challenge a new round of austerity measures that are expected to cut wages, pensions and healthcare once again.
Dozens of youths, some masking their faces with helmets and T-shirts, hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police who fired back in an effort to scatter the angry crowds around the parliament building. More than 50,000 people are believed to have participated in the mass walk-out in Athens alone.
#7 The unemployment rate in France has risen for 16 months in a row and is now the highest that it has been in over a decade.
#8 As I wrote about recently, the number of unemployed workers in Italy has increased by more than 37 percentover the past year.
#9 New orders for durable goods in the United States fell by a whopping 13.2 percent in August.  That was the largest decline that we have seen since the middle of the last recession (January 2009).
#10 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. GDP only grew at a 1.3 percent annual rate during the second quarter of 2012 as opposed to the 1.7 percent annual rate previously reported.
#11 The U.S. Postal Service is about to experience its second financial default in just the past two months….
The U.S. Postal Service will default this week on a $5.6 billion congressionally mandated obligation to pre-fund retiree health benefits, marking the second time in two months the cash-strapped agency has done this.
#12 It looks like General Motors is on a path that will lead to bankruptcy (again).
#13 According to a recent survey conducted by State Street Global Advisors, 71 percent of “investors in a survey of 300 around the world, including the largest pension funds, asset managers and private banks, fear an imminent Lehman-like event.”
#14 According to a recent survey of American CEOs by Business Roundtable, the number of CEOs that plan to eliminate jobs has risen significantly from earlier this year….
The CEOs’ decline in confidence comes alongside a worsening employment outlook. Thirty-four percent of the 138 CEOs surveyed said in this quarter’s survey that they expected their companies to cut jobs in the next six months, compared to just 20 percent in the second quarter. Likewise, only 29 percent say they expect employment to grow in the next half year, down from 36 percent last quarter.
But the mainstream media in the United States would like us to believe that everything is getting better.
The mainstream media would like us to believe that QE3 is going to stimulate lots of new hiring all over America, and they are greatly celebrating the fact that the S&P 500 hit a five year high on Thursday.
 
Well, those on Wall Street should celebrate this monetary “sugar high” while they still can.  Of course QE3 was going to cause stock prices to rise in the short-term, but the reality of the matter is that QE3 is not going to do a thing to stop the financial markets from crashing when the time comes for them to crash.
Economies tend to flourish in a stable, predictable environment.  When you start recklessly printing money, it may help your economic numbers in the short-term, but it disrupts the stability of the system.
And once you have created a tremendous amount of instability, it is really, really hard to convince people that you can create stability once again.

When it comes to economics, confidence is one of the most important ingredients.  If people lose confidence in the system, it almost does not matter what else you do.
As I wrote about the other day, quantitative easing worked for the Weimar Republic for a little while, but in the end it resulted in total disaster.
It will also end in total disaster for us.
All over the globe financial authorities are playing all sorts of games in an attempt to keep the system functioning smoothly.  But these games are going to steadily undermine confidence in the system, and that is going to prove to be absolutely deadly.
Take advantage of this period of relative stability while you still can, because when it is gone it is not coming back.

VIDEO: Corporate Fascism On Steroids! What The Gov't Doesn't Want You to Know About GMO Frankenfood

VIDEO: David Icke Speaks On The Totalitarian Tiptoe And The Emerging Global Fascist Dictatorship


Thursday, September 27, 2012

A Lesson In Chinese Property Rights! Man Crushed by Steamroller On Orders of Chinese Officials

Villager attempted to resist forced government relocation

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 25, 2012

A villager in northern China attempting to resist a forced government relocation by remaining on his land was brutally crushed to death by a road flattening truck on the orders of a Chinese government official.


 The story, which was censored in China’s state controlled media, has caused outrage amongst users of Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, given it’s horrifying similarity to what happened to student protesters who were crushed to death by tanks during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.
The victim, He Zhi Hua, refused to accept a paltry payment from the government which has forcefully evicted Changsha Village locals in order to re-appropriate their land for commercial use.
When Hua began a protest by lying down on the spot through which construction vehicles had to pass, the local Vice Mayor ordered workers for the state-owned company to murder Hua by driving over his body with a huge road-flattening truck.
Shocking images show Hua’s pulverized brains and his mangled body in the aftermath of the state-sponsored execution.
Fearing unrest if the story got out to a wider audience, the government sent in 200 men to keep angry locals at bay and hide the remains of the body. The man’s family was offered a sum of money in order to keep quiet about the incident.

China is routinely rocked by riots staged by residents furious at the arbitrary theft of their land by the state, which under the Communist system claims that the government owns all land and that private property rights are non-existent. However, the state-owned media ensures that news of the protests does not reach a national audience.
In another similar case in Pan Jin City, when villager Wang Shi Jie tried to prevent workers hired by local government officials destroying his crops and confiscating his land before harvest, he was shot dead. When Jie’s father attempted to rush to his son’s aid, he was shot in the leg twice.
After the incident, hundreds of police officers were sent to dispose of the body and beat up villagers who complained about the man’s murder. The dispute started after it emerged that the agricultural land was being sold by the government to developers without the villagers having been notified.
Hua’s and Jie’s brave efforts in standing up to the savage Communist Party officials also brings to mind the courageous actions of Wang Weilin – otherwise known as ‘Tank Man’ or ‘The Unknown Rebel’. Weilin blocked the path of a column of Chinese tanks the morning after the Tiananmen Square massacre – footage that has become an iconic representation of the individual standing up against an oppressive state.
  
Tank Man, or the Unknown Rebel, is the nickname of an anonymous man who stood in front of a column of Chinese Type 59 tanks the morning after the Chinese military forcibly removed protestors from in and around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989. The man achieved widespread international recognition due to the videotape and photographs taken of the incident. 

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

VIDEO: Peter Schiff Explains How The U.S. Economy Was Destroyed. A Major Crash Is Coming!

VIDEO: You Might be A Conspiracy Theorist if.....

VIDEO: You Might be A Conspiracy Theorist if.....

VIDEO: EPA Caught Illegaly Experimenting on Human Subjects

EU Bank Run News: Panic cash withdrawals in Spain drain banks; Greece-style economic implosion now imminent

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
September 24, 2012

Spain appears poised to become the next Greece in the ongoing European Union (EU) implosion, as Spaniards are withdrawing record amounts of funds from Spanish banks to avoid a potential insolvency situation. According to the New York Times (NYT), the equivalent of $94 billion was withdrawn from Spanish banks in July, an amount that equals seven percent of the country’s overall economic output.
Though stronger overall compared to Greece in terms of economic diversity and debt levels, Spain is undeniably on a downward economic spiral that is sending many of its people and their money to other countries like England, Germany, and Singapore, where economic conditions are much more favorable. Just like in Greece, there is a growing fear among Spaniards that their nation could revert from the euro to its former currency, pesetas, which would greatly devalue their personal wealth.
“The macro situation in Spain is getting worse and worse,” said Julio Vildosola to the NYT. Vildosola, a former senior executive at a large multinational company, recently moved all his money — and is now in the process of moving his entire family — to a small village near Cambridge, England. “There is just too much risk. Spain is going to be next after Greece, and I just don’t want to end up holding devalued pesetas.”


Vildosola’s opinion is shared by many others in Spain who are also moving their funds and families elsewhere in anticipation of an eventual collapse. Despite all the empty promises being made by EU officials, including a commitment to inject 100 billion euros into the Spanish banking system, the Spanish people, including many from the country’s upper echelons, have lost faith in their country’s ability to stay afloat in the long term.
“The wealthy people have already taken their money out,” says Spanish economist Jose Garcia Montalvo about the ongoing capital flight. “Now it’s the professionals and mid-range people who are moving their money to Germany and London. The mood is very, very bad.”
During the recent festival of “Diada de Catalunya,” or Day of Catalonia, which celebrates the end of the siege on Barcelona during the War of the Spanish Succession, an estimated 1.5 million people took to the streets to demand that Catalonia, a wealthy region of Spain that includes the city of Barcelona, secede from the country and form its own independent state. (http://latino.foxnews.com)
The European Central Bank recently announced that it will buy short-term bonds from member states that agree to abide by certain rules and conditions when applying for assistance (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com). But Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has announced his rejection of these conditions, though he has yet to indicate whether or not his country will still request a bailout. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19553002)

Sources for this article include:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48889555

VIDEO: The Feds Have Rigged The System to Ensure Fraud! Tom Woods Speaks with Infowars

Lawrence Lindsey: Fed Virtually Funding the Entire US Deficit

Justin Menza
CNBC
September 27, 2012

The latest round of extraordinary Federal Reserve stimulus is risky and leaves little room to maneuver should another crisis hit, economist Lawrence Lindsey told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday.
Lindsey said that with the Fed purchasing at least $40 billion a month in mortgage debt through QE3, “they are buying the entire deficit.”
“I have no problem doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times,” said Lindsey, a former White House economic advisor under former president George W. Bush who now runs his own consulting firm
.
Read full article

NJ Attempts to Strip Parental Rights with Vaccine Anti-Exemption Bill

State wages war on vaccine refuseniks, demands control over children through color of law

Melissa Melton
GCN Live.com
September 23, 2012
All 50 states across the nation offer parents the ability to exempt their child(ren) from vaccination requirements. This week, however, New Jersey legislators advanced a bill that would make such exemptions harder for parents to acquire in an attempt to crackdown on “easy exemption policies”.
Senate Bill 1759 was approved 6-2 by the state’s Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee last week. The bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D – Bergen) and Senator Joseph Vitale (D – Middlesex), would place a greater burden on parents to clarify a “valid reason” for not wanting their kids vaccinated. It would define and further restrict what the definition of a valid reason is, limiting options for opting out.
For example, parents would no longer be able to claim concerns about the safety of vaccines. A parent having a legitimate health concern over vaccine adjuvants and chemicals negatively impacting their child, potentially forever, would no longer count under the new law. Senator Vitale was quoted at the hearing as saying, “We cannot allow widespread exemption from immunization based on fear and false science.”
New Jersey, which allows for both medical and religious exemptions, would also require physician documentation “indicating that the vaccine is medically contraindicated for a specific period of time.”
The bill was supposedly drawn up due to a whooping cough outbreak in addition to a rise in parents claiming exemptions throughout the state in recent years. However, as reported previously by Natural News, research released earlier this year showed strong evidence that whooping cough outbreaks among vaccinated children were actually higher than in unvaccinated children.
In addition, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) admitted the company’s whooping cough vaccine had never been tested for long-term efficacy, and that the shot does not provide long-term protection against the illness. It should be noted that a single injection of GSK’s Boostrix vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) would dose the average 11-year-old with 100 micrograms of formaldehyde and 400 micrograms of the heavy metal aluminum according to the National Vaccine Information Center.
Placing further burden on parents who want to opt out of vaccinations is a thinly veiled intimidation tactic states are now utilizing to dissuade parents from exempting their child(ren) from vaccinations. Like similar legislation that passed in Washington and that is in the process of passing in California, this bill serves only to further harm parental rights and perpetuate the idea that it is the state, and not parents, that knows what is best for a child.
The bill is now set to go to the full New Jersey Senate for a vote.

VIDEO: Food Industry Insider Tells All

World Health Organization Mulling Global Cigarette Tax

CJ Ciaramella
Freebeacon.com
Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a global excise tax of up to 70 percent on cigarettes at an upcoming November conference, raising concerns among free market tax policy analysts about fiscal sovereignty and bureaucratic mission creep.
In draft guidelines published this September, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control indicated it may put a cigarette tax on the table at its November conference in Seoul, Korea.
“First we had doctors without borders,” said David Williams, president of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. “Now you could have taxes without borders. … This is a new frontier in taxes. If they’re successful with this, consumers and taxpayers should be concerned about what’s coming down the pipe.”
Although WHO does not have any power to mandate taxes on sovereign nations, it is considering two proposals on cigarette taxes to present to member countries. The first would be an excise tax of up to 70 percent.

Full story here.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

VIDEO: Paul Craig Roberts Calls America The Next Banana Republic! No Economic Recovery Possible!!

VIDEO: A Planetary Dictatorship Run by Mad Scientists! We Have Been Captured By Criminals!!

More Frankencorn News! The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GMO corn

Mike Adams
Natural News
Sept 26, 2012

By now, nearly everyone interested in healthy living is aware of the recent research linking Monsanto’s GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. News of the research is spreading like wildfire across the ‘net, and support for Proposition 37 — which seeks to label GMOs in foods — is growing by the day.
But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto’s genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.
According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.
The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.
Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.
The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GM corn

Continue reading here: http://www.naturalnews.com/037315_Monsanto_GM_corn_breakfast_cereals.html

Is the Fiscal Cliff “Taxmageddon,” or Too Little, Too Late?

Thomas R. Eddlem
The New American
Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The anti-tax foundation Americans for Tax Reform has labeled the end of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year — in conjunction with the start of new taxes, such as those brought on by ObamaCare mandates —  “Taxmageddon,” but would the tax increases built into the law by Congress actually be a catastrophe for the economy, keeping in mind that automatic spending cuts are set to begin as well?
In 2010, Congress renewed the temporary Bush tax cuts for a year, and it did the same in 2011 through the end of this year. But with a budget crisis looming last summer, Congress passed a separate law called the Budget Control Act of 2011 that built in a series of automatic spending cuts into the law (called “sequestrations”) that would cut some $120 billion per year over 10 years from discretionary spending compared with expected spending increases. The sequestrations would also take effect January 1. The Budget Control Act of 2011 would cut half ($60 billion) from defense spending and half from other domestic spending across the board.
The combination of expiring tax cuts and the beginning of spending cuts is more popularly called the “fiscal cliff,” and it would bring about a slight cut in federal spending (less than two percent overall) and a 12-percent increase in federal tax revenue beginning on January 1, 2013.
Americans for Tax Reform summed up the looming tax increases the following way: “The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15%, The 25% bracket rises to 28%, The 28% bracket rises to 31%, The 33% bracket rises to 36%. The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%.” The FICA payroll tax for Social Security would rise back to 7.65 percent of income, from its current 5.65 percent. In addition, several key middle-class income-tax exemptions will diminish, such as the $1,000 per child tax credit, which will be reduced to $500. These would be the main direct impacts on the budgets of middle-class Americans.
But the impact of the government actions on economic growth is difficult to assess. The capital gains tax would also increase from 15 percent to 23.8 percent, an increase that would definitely discourage investment. And there’s little disagreement that failure of Congress to remove the “fiscal cliff” would result in a short-term recession. The Wall Street Journal opined September 21 that the “fiscal cliff” would bring on a recession: “Pretty much everyone — Ben Bernanke, the Congressional Budget Office, both presidential candidates — seems to agree that the policies are a recipe for a sure-fire recession, although there’s far less agreement about what to do to replace them.” But the threat of the “fiscal cliff” has not yet led to layoffs, according to the Wall Street Journal, which reported,“So far, though, there’s little sign of a surge in layoffs.”
Though free-market economists believe the “fiscal cliff” will bring a measure of needed fiscal discipline to Washington, they also believe there will be some short-term pain. Frank Shostak, an adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, regards the fiscal cliff as a positive development in the economy, though it would nevertheless likely lead to a necessary recession to correct the economy. “We suggest that a cut in government outlays should be seen as great news for wealth generators. It is of course bad news for various artificial forms of life that emerged on the back of increases in government outlays.” Shostak notes that deficit spending is a tax increase already, as taking on new debt requires higher taxes later, but that real spending cuts would benefit the economy. Indeed, interest charges on the national debt already drain some $450 billion annually from the federal treasury, and these charges can only increase when interest rates inevitably rise.
Meanwhile a debate, sponsored by the National Association for Business Economics, between Obama and Romney advisors resulted in predictable political grandstanding. Romney stand-in Kevin Hassett predictably claimed that he opposed all tax increases, favoring additional tax cuts — yet refused to name specific cuts of the size needed to bring the budget into balance. The Obama underling Jeffery Liebman called for ever-greater spending and soaking the “rich” with more taxes, under the guise that this would balance the budget, though there’s no chance of that happening. The debate followed release of a poll by business economists, which showed that most business economists believe the deficit needs to be closed by a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

The Declining Economic Freedom Of The United States

Zero Hedge
Sept 26, 2012

The United States, long considered the standard bearer for economic freedom among large industrial nations, has experienced a remarkable plunge in economic freedom during the past decade. From 1980 to 2000, the US was generally rated the third freest economy in the world, ranking behind only Hong Kong and Singapore. The ranking of the US has fallen precipitously; from second in 2000 to eighth in 2005 and 19th in 2010. By 2009, the United States had fallen behind Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Chile, and Mauritius, countries that chose not to follow the path of massive growth in government financed by borrowing that is now the most prominent characteristic of US fiscal policy. By 2010, the United States had also fallen behind Finland and Denmark, two European welfare states. Moreover, it now trails Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Estonia, Taiwan, and Qatar. The Fraser Institute’s massive volume on the Economic Freedom Of The World – based on the following five factors: Size of Government, Legal System & Property Rights, Sound Money, Freedom to Trade Internationally, and Regulation – covers 42 variables with the goal of quantifying the key ingredients of economic freedom.

Continue reading here:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-09-25/decling-economic-freedom-united-states

VIDEO: Protests in Spain and Greece spark market sell-off amid fears efforts to save euro are doomed

55 percent of small business owners would not start company today, blame Obama

Joel Gehrke
Washington Examiner
Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Fifty-five percent of small business owners and manufacturers would not have started their businesses in today’s economy, according to a new poll that also reports 69 percent say President Obama’s regulatory policies have hurt their businesses.
“There is far too much uncertainty, too many burdensome regulations and too few policymakers willing to put aside their egos and fulfill their responsibilities to the American people,” said Jay Thomas, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, which commissioned the poll along with the National Federation of Independent Businesses. “To fix this problem, we need immediate action on pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that put manufacturers in the United States in a position to compete and succeed in an ever-more competitive global economy.”
The poll reports another ominous statistic for job creation: “67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.”
Why? Because “President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers,” according to 69 percent of the business owners surveyed.

Full story here.

VIDEO: Attorney Risk All With Lawsuit Against Obama's NDAA Aimed At Secret Arrest Of U.S. Citizens Without Charges

VIDEO: Globalists Want Chinese-Style Control for Americans Under Agenda 21

VIDEO: “Bernanke Is Now A Kamikaze Pilot”

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

QE4? The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Complaining That QE3 Is Not Enough

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Sept 25, 2012

QE3 has barely even started and some folks on Wall Street are already clamoring for QE4.  In fact, as you will read below, one equity strategist at Morgan Stanley says that he would not be “surprised” if the Federal Reserve announced another new round of money printing by the end of the year.  But this is what tends to happen when a financial system starts becoming addicted to easy money.  There is always a deep hunger for another “hit” of “currency meth”.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was probably hoping that QE3 would satisfy the wolves on Wall Street for a while.  His promise to recklessly print 40 billion dollars a month and use it to buy mortgage-backed securities is being called “QEInfinity” by detractors.  During QE3, nearly half a trillion dollars a year will be added to the financial system until the Fed decides that it is time to stop.  This is so crazy that even former Federal Reserve officials are speaking out against it.  For example, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker says that QE3 is the “most extreme easing of monetary policy” that he could ever remember.  But the big Wall Street banks are never going to be satisfied.  If QE4 is announced, they will start calling for QE5.  As I noted in a previous article, quantitative easing tends to pump up the prices of financial assets such as stocks and commodities, and that is very good for Wall Street bankers.  So of course they want more quantitative easing.  They always want bigger profits and bigger bonus checks at the end of the year.
But at this point the Federal Reserve has already “jumped the shark”.  If you don’t know what “jumping the shark” means, you can find a definition on Wikipedia right here.  Whatever shreds of credibility the Fed had left are being washed away by a flood of newly printed money.
Those running the Fed have essentially used up all of their bullets and the next great financial crisis has not even fully erupted yet.
So what is the Fed going to do if the stock market crashes and the credit market freezes up like we saw back in 2008?
How much more extreme can the Fed go?
One can just picture “Helicopter Ben” strapping on a pair of water skis and making the following promise….
“We are going to print so much money that we’ll make Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic look like wimps!”
Sadly, the truth is that money printing is not a “quick fix” and it never has been.  Just look at Japan.  The Bank of Japan is on round 8 of their quantitative easing strategy, and yet things in Japan continue to get even worse.
But that is not going to stop the folks on Wall Street from calling for even more quantitative easing.
For example, the top U.S. equity strategist for Morgan Stanley, Adam Parker, made headlines all over the world this week by writing the following….
“QE3 will likely be insufficient to significantly boost equity markets and we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Fed dramatically augment this program (i.e., QE4) before year-end, particularly if economic and corporate news continue to deteriorate as they have over the past few weeks.”
Did you get what he is saying there?
He says that QE3 is not going to be enough to boost equity markets (the stock market) so more money printing will be necessary.
But wasn’t QE3 supposed to be about creating jobs and helping the middle class?
I can almost hear many of you laughing out loud already.
As I have written about before, QE3 is unlikely to change the employment picture in any significant way, but what itwill do is create more inflation which will squeeze the poor, the middle class and the elderly.
The truth is that quantitative easing has always been about bailing out the banks, and the hope is that this will trickle down to the folks on Main Street as well, but that never seems to happen.
Wall Street is not calling for even more quantitative easing because it would be good for you and I.  Rather, Wall Street is calling for even more quantitative easing because it would be good for them.
A CNBC article entitled “Fed May Need to Boost QE ‘Dramatically’ This Year: Pros” discussed Wall Street’s desire for even more money printing….
The Federal Reserve’s latest easing move has been nicknamed everything from “QE3″ to “QE Infinity” to “QEternal,” but some on Wall Street question whether the unprecedented move will be QEnough.
And of course everyone pretty much understands that QE3 is definitely not going to fix our economic problems.  Even most of those on Wall Street will admit as much.  In the CNBC article mentioned above, a couple of economists named Paul Ashworth and Paul Dales at Capital Economics were quoted as saying the following….
“The Fed can commit to deliver whatever economic outcome it likes, but the problem is that  the crisis in the euro-zone and/or a stand-off in negotiations to avert the fiscal cliff in the U.S. may well reveal it to be like the proverbial Emperor with no clothes”
An emperor with no clothes?
I think the analogy fits.
The Federal Reserve is going to keep printing and printing and printing and things are not going to get any better.
At this point, economists at Goldman Sachs are already projecting that QE3 will likely stretch into 2015….
The Federal Reserve’s QE3 bond buying program announced earlier this month could last until the middle of 2015 and eventually reach $2 trillion, according to an estimate from economists at Goldman Sachs.
The Goldman economists also wrote in a report that they believe the Fed will not raise the federal funds rate until 2016. This rate, which is used as a benchmark for a wide variety of consumer and business loans, has been near 0% since December 2008. The Fed said in its last statement that it expected rates would remain low until mid-2015.
So why is Wall Street whining and complaining so loudly right now?
Well, even with all of the bailouts and even with all of the help from the first two rounds of quantitative easing, things are still tough for them.
For example, Bank of America recently announced that they will be laying off 16,000 workers.
In addition, there are rumors that 100 highly paid partners at Goldman Sachs are going to be getting the axe.  It is said that Goldman will save 2 billion dollars with such a move.
We haven’t even reached the next great financial crisis and the pink slips are already flying on Wall Street.  Meredith Whitney says that she has never seen anything quite like this….
“The industry is as bad as I’ve seen it. So it’s certainly not a great time to be on Wall Street.”
But of course Wall Street is not going to get much sympathy from the rest of America.  The truth is that things have been far rougher for most of the rest of us than things have been for them.
When the last crisis hit, they got trillions of dollars in bailout money and we got nothing.
So most people are not really in a mood to shed any tears for Wall Street.
But of course the Federal Reserve is definitely hoping to help their friends on Wall Street out by printing lots of money.
You never know, by the time this is all over we may see QE4, QE5, QE Reloaded, QE With A Vengeance and QE The Return Of The Bernanke.
Meanwhile, Europe is gearing up to print money like crazy too.
A couple months ago, European Central Bank President  Mario Draghi made the following pledge….
“Within our mandate, the European Central Bank is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro, and believe me, it will be enough.”
And of course the Bank of Japan has joined the money printing party too.  The following is from a recent article by David Kotok….
The recently announced additional program by the BOJ includes a fifty-percent allocation to the purchase of ten-year Japanese government bonds. The other fifty percent will buy shorter-term government securities. Thus, the BOJ is applying half of its additional QE stimulus to extracting long duration from the government bond market, denominated in Japanese yen.
All of the central banks seem to be getting on the QE bandwagon.
But will this fix anything?
Unfortunately it will not, at least according to Paul Volcker….
“Another round of QE is understandable – but it will fail to fix the problem. There is so much liquidity in the market that adding more is not going to change the economy.”
Sadly, most Americans have a ton of faith in the people running our system, but the truth is that they really do not know what they are doing.  Just check out what Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said the other day….
“The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy. Nobody really knows what will work to get the economy back on course. And nobody – in fact, no central bank anywhere on the planet – has the experience of successfully navigating a return home from the place in which we now find ourselves. No central bank – not, at least, the Federal Reserve – has ever been on this cruise before.”
Can you imagine the head coach of a football team coming in at halftime and telling his players the following….
“Nobody on the coaching stuff really has any idea what will work.”

That sure would not inspire a lot of confidence, would it?
Perhaps the Fed should be open to some input from the rest of us.
Actually, back on September 14th the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco posted a poll on Facebook that asked the following question….
What effect do you think QE3 will have on the U.S. economy?
The following are the 5 answers that got the most votes….
-”Long term, disastrous”
-”Negative”
-”Thanks for $5 gas”
-”I can’t believe you think this will work!”
-”Fire Bernanke”
So what do you think about the quantitative easing that the Federal Reserve is doing?
Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….

For Rent: Your Very Own Agenda 21 “Shoebox” Apartment

Cities across the U.S. are marketing “micro”-apartments scarcely bigger than jail cells. Any takers? (It’s for the Earth.)

Melissa Melton
Prison Planet.com
September 25, 2012

While some people are still debating whether or not the United Nations’ Agenda 21 plan is real, major cities all over the country are about to offer more proof of its implementation in the form of tiny, “shoebox-style” housing units barely big enough for one person to live in.
New York and Boston are already beta testing itty bitty apartments, and yesterday the LA Times reported that San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors is considering official revisions to the city’s building code to allow for even less living space.
If approved, the new quarters — branded as “affordable by design” — would drop minimum housing code requirements to a mere 220 square feet from 290, only 150 of which could be considered actual living space (unless sleeping in a closet counts). To give some perspective on just how small 220 square feet of space really is, the inside of an average school bus is approximately 250 square feet. A person’s entire apartment would be small enough to fit inside the bus — bathroom, kitchen, and closet included. This vision of an austere lifestyle could hardly accommodate one person, let alone someone with a spouse, children, or pets.
While such housing is designed to dissuade people from owning a car in favor of bicycles and mass transit use, opponents are right to note that such a move could spike population density and strain both community spaces and public transportation systems.
The question remains, will anyone actually go along with this scheme? In a recent man-on-the-street report for Infowars Nightly News, I asked people if they would live in these prison-like units if it would benefit the Earth. As you can see below, many said they would:



 Although such ridiculously small spaces are being publicized as cheaper, more plentiful housing that will help protect the environment, the intent behind such moves is clear. Using adjectives like “micro” to sell tiny living spaces as cute and trendy does not change the fact that concentrating growth and density in urban areas is one of the main tenets of Agenda 21′s control grid takeover.
Many have pointed out the fact that these initial developments are no big deal because people residing in large metro areas like New York City and San Francisco already live in smaller places on average. However, the truth is that the practice of building jail cell-sized accommodations under Agenda 21 was never intended to stop at just big cities — this is only the beginning.
The ultimate plan is a trickle down takeover where “smart growth” is concentrated in every city in the country. As extensively reported on by Infowars.com, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in league with the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are gracing towns all across the U.S. with grants to promote sustainable development. People are told it is in their community’s best interest to focus a town’s resources on eco-friendly “concentrated and balanced growth.” This is despite the fact that some of these towns, such as Elgin, Texas, have less than 9,000 people residing in them.
The ultimate goal of Agenda 21 is to end national sovereignty and private property rights, restructure the family unit, and increase limitations on individual movement and opportunity. The plan works at the local level and uses Delphi technique manipulation and “green guilt” — the idea that humans are overpopulating the Earth, causing global warming, and straining resources regardless of a lack of valid proof to substantiate such a claim — to repeatedly force feed people the idea that living in a hole in the wall is the best thing they can do for the environment. One brazen planner at a recent Hutto, Texas sustainable development meeting told the townspeople, “This is your vision for your community,” even though the plans had been put in motion by unelected local boards years before they were even made public.
As with the new rules imposed by Mayor Bloomberg in New York City which would cut salt in restaurant food and ban the purchase of sugary drinks over 16 ounces, all of these new policies and regulations are about one thing: control. Herding people into smaller and smaller housing in tighter and tighter areas allows them to be more easily controlled while the system ratchets up its plan for domination.
So, is you and your family and neighbors living in a 220-square-foot space in a densely populated urban area with limited freedom under the tight grip of government control “your vision for your community”?

VIDEO: Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Speaks Truth To Power

Monday, September 24, 2012

Panic cash withdrawals in Spain drain banks; Greece-style economic implosion now imminent

Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News
Sept 24, 2012

Spain appears poised to become the next Greece in the ongoing European Union (EU) implosion, as Spaniards are withdrawing record amounts of funds from Spanish banks to avoid a potential insolvency situation. According to the New York Times (NYT), the equivalent of $94 billion was withdrawn from Spanish banks in July, an amount that equals seven percent of the country’s overall economic output.
Though stronger overall compared to Greece in terms of economic diversity and debt levels, Spain is undeniably on a downward economic spiral that is sending many of its people and their money to other countries like England, Germany, and Singapore, where economic conditions are much more favorable. Just like in Greece, there is a growing fear among Spaniards that their nation could revert from the euro to its former currency, pesetas, which would greatly devalue their personal wealth.
“The macro situation in Spain is getting worse and worse,” said Julio Vildosola to the NYT. Vildosola, a former senior executive at a large multinational company, recently moved all his money — and is now in the process of moving his entire family — to a small village near Cambridge, England. “There is just too much risk. Spain is going to be next after Greece, and I just don’t want to end up holding devalued pesetas.”
Spaniards pulling out their cash en masse
Vildosola’s opinion is shared by many others in Spain who are also moving their funds and families elsewhere in anticipation of an eventual collapse. Despite all the empty promises being made by EU officials, including a commitment to inject 100 billion euros into the Spanish banking system, the Spanish people, including many from the country’s upper echelons, have lost faith in their country’s ability to stay afloat in the long term.
“The wealthy people have already taken their money out,” says Spanish economist Jose Garcia Montalvo about the ongoing capital flight. “Now it’s the professionals and mid-range people who are moving their money to Germany and London. The mood is very, very bad.”
During the recent festival of “Diada de Catalunya,” or Day of Catalonia, which celebrates the end of the siege on Barcelona during the War of the Spanish Succession, an estimated 1.5 million people took to the streets to demand that Catalonia, a wealthy region of Spain that includes the city of Barcelona, secede from the country and form its own independent state. (http://latino.foxnews.com)

The European Central Bank recently announced that it will buy short-term bonds from member states that agree to abide by certain rules and conditions when applying for assistance (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com). But Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has announced his rejection of these conditions, though he has yet to indicate whether or not his country will still request a bailout. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19553002)
Sources for this article include:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48889555

Agenda 21 News! Unelected EU Marxist "Green Commissioner" Calls For The Genocidal Destruction Of Free Markets To Save The Environment

Jurriaan Maessen
Prisonplanet.com
Sept 24, 2012

Unelected European commissioner for the environment calls for de-industrialization of the West and centralization of power to govern free markets

Speaking at a recent European summit on the future of plastics in the world economy, the European Commission’s “green” commissioner Janez Potočnik stated that markets can and must be governed by the European Commission if the earth’s resources are to keep up with global population growth.
In a transcript of his speech on the EC’s website, marked “check before delivery”, Potočnik quoted his “good friend” Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, as saying the idea of governing markets was agreed upon when Agenda 21 was formally created in 1992 at the original Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
“Twenty years ago, we agreed what to do, now we have the tools to do it. If we do not go into the heart of economic policy, we will meet here at Rio+40 even more culpable. Markets are social constructs. They are not a force like gravity. They can be governed.”
In these couple of sentences effect, the UNEP Secretary-General reveals several things. First, that current economic disparity offers “the tools” to roll out an agenda (21) which was already “agreed” upon in the early 1990s; second, that our dear Secretary-General wants to go “into the heart of economic policy”; and third, that from the onset of Agenda 21 the idea was to govern free markets.
In response to the quote by his “good friend” at the UN, the European environmental commissioner piled some more absolutism onto this already formidable stack of proposals by stating:
“Yes they can be governed and they must be governed. And for that we need also your help and your support. Your vision which goes beyond the short term interests and takes into account the unavoidable changes needed in our production and consumption patterns.”, the commissioner said.

We may not be wholly surprised that the European Commission’s communication department wants this particular speech checked before delivery to the press. The commissioner is after all quite upfront about the prospect of a de-industrialization campaign under the guidance of unelected commissions. His talk is littered with words as “governed”, “growth models”- not to mention “overpopulation.”
O yes, the “green” commissioner starts out his speech by quoting population matters patron Jonathan Porritt, who wrote: “‘Human population growth and the per-capita consumption rate underlie all of the other present drivers for global change“. I know that Jonathan (Porritt) has long argued for attention to population and family planning in relation to sustainability, particularly as patron of the “Population Matters” charity. But this was quite an astounding statement… I repeat; it would “underlie all of the other present drivers for global change.”, Potočnik said.
The rest of Potočnik’s speech was related to the issue at hand, namely the future of plastics and what to do about all those consumers, especially in the West.
“I’m afraid that one cannot govern the world of the 21st Century without taking into account the longer term picture and consequences. It would be simply self-destructive. We need industry and investors on board. Rather than fighting the power of capital, or trying to legislate away its environmental downsides, we need to harness market forces to turn economies onto a track that is sustainable economically, financially, socially and environmentally. We need green economics… also in the plastic industry.”
The commissioner also stressed that for him “this is the new industrial policy. We must recognize that our future competitiveness will depend increasingly – perhaps overwhelmingly – on our ability to do more with less.”
More with less. Agenda 21 in a nutshell. More carbon taxes, less freedom. Or: more resources, less people. It’s important to point your attention to the pre-planned nature of this agenda unfolding, and the population-aspect dominating this agenda. A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship under Agenda 21. As the author Ignacy Sachs states in the policy paper:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”
In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. Sachs:
“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”, the professor states.
“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:
“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”
In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability”:
“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”
This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”
The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world.”
To make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
In order to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:
“Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21.”

This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced” world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment.”
Then Sachs plunges into his most revealing statement:
“However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”
Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?
“The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure “at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts.”
Over time, so proposes Sachs, these taxes should increase:
“Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D.”
Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:
“In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system.”
This almost literally echoes the recent call by a group of scientists for the upcoming UN Earth Summit to create “a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.”
The underlying, more sinister element of Agenda 21 is of course the concerted effort on the part of the professors and unelected commiczars of this world, through multilateral treaties and regulations, to not only control the populations of the world but to cull them.

Jurriaan Maessen is the writer and editor at http://explosivereports.com/