Monday, March 30, 2015

The 'Big Event' in America: JADE HELM 15 (New World Order Plan For 2016)

What does “Master the human domain” mean? Is it a euphemism for the complete subjugation of the civilian population of the United States?

DaveHodges

From July 15th to September 15th, 2015, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command is conducting a massive military drill in an area covering the entire American    
Southwest. At first glance, I thought this drill was a response to the massive military drills being conducted by Russia. I wrongly assumed that Jade Helm 15 was a drill designed to protect the Southwest from an invasion by Russian-backed Latin American military forces (i.e. Red Dawn). However, after reading the operational plan of Jade Helm, it is clear that this drill is about the brutal martial subjugation of the people of Texas, Utah and Southern California who have risen up against some unspecified tyranny. Further, this drill is also about martial law being used as a preventative measure in states which “might” lean towards civil war against the United States government (i.e. California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico).
The operational elements and impact of Jade Helm 15 cannot be considered in isolation. A careful analysis reveals how this drill is connected to Army policies associated with the confinement of detainees in what is commonly called FEMA camps! This drill is undoubtedly the most frightening thing to occur on American soil since the Civil War.   

(Story continues below don't miss video)

Jason A

Red Dawn or Martial Law Preparations?

Jade Helm’s Purpose Defined

“Jade Helm is a challenging eight-week joint military and Interagency (IA) Unconventional Warfare (UW) exercise conducted throughout Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.”

The term, “unconventional warfare (UW)” makes it clear that this exercise is not dealing with a Russian-backed “Red Dawn” invasion of the Southwestern United States by Russian backed Latin American partners. UW speaks to the guerrilla warfare (asymmetrical) nature of the anticipated and rehearsed conflict. Subsequently, it can be conclusively stated that Jade Helm is not preparing for a Red Dawn invasion, rather, they are preparing for a Red, White and Blue invasion. This is a massive rehearsal for martial law implementation as well as implementing the proverbial and much rumored Red and Blue List and the “snatch and grab” extractions of key resistance figures from the Independent Media as well as uncooperative political figures. The various provisions of Jade Helm make it clear just how dangerous this drill truly is.


Composition of Jade Helm Forces Reveals the True Purpose of the Drills

Thomas Mead, the operations planner for the U.S. Army’s Jade Helm realistic military training has publicly stated that “We have Army Green Berets, Navy Seals, Marine Special Operations Command, the 82nd Airborne Division and we also have some of our interagency partners such as the DEA, FBI and the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) that will be working with us.”
The use of Green Berets, Navy Seals and Special Operations Command forces speaks to the unconventional composition of the overall makeup of this group. Among the many duties for these three Special Operations groups include infrastructure raids, assassination of key enemy personnel, reconnaissance, and extraction of key enemy personnel for detention and/or intelligence gathering. It is the latter duty that has me concerned as there has been much discussion over the execution of a “Red List” in which key resistance figures would be kidnapped and “dealt with” in advance of the implementation of martial law. A detailed analysis of the language of Jade Helm has convinced me that we are looking at the implementation of the “snatch and grab” of key resistance figures to the coming marital law. My sources have told me that in past drills of this nature, Red List extraction troops are helicoptered in the early morning hours (e.g. 3AM) land, offload personnel and extract the intended targets, SWAT team style.
In the Jade Helm section entitled What to Expect, operation planners state that the public should anticipate “Increased aircraft in the area at night“, and “May receive noise complaints“. What aircraft would be loud enough at night to guarantee noise complaints? My vote would be the helicopters. And who would be on these helicopters at night? What time are snatch and grab activities historically held? And who typically conducts snatch and grab arrests? The answer to these questions would be the special operation forces, which in martial law, would be the Gestapo version of the Green Berets, the Navy Seals and Marine Special Forces as they arrive at your home at 3AM.
Role players will be participating in Jade Helm. In fact, the same section goes on to state that “Some individuals (i.e. civilian insurgents) may conduct suspicious activities…..” What would constitute a “suspicious activity for the purpose of this drill? Would it consist of pretending to be dragged off to a FEMA camp? Would it be engaging in simulated insurgency activities associated with guerrilla war strategies? There are so many possibilities and they are all associated with civilian resistance against a tyrannical force.
Not only is the use of three special operations forces suspicious with regard to Jade Helm, but more notably is the announced use of JPRA, and this is frightening event. The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) maintains a series of training school sites whose subject matter includes:
“Prisoners of war; hostages and DETAINEES (emphasis added); evasion and escape; search and rescue; Prison survival techniques and experiences; geography and cartography, natural science, ethnology, and country studies; terrorism; military and Naval science; natural and emergency medicine.”
 The majority of the above definition makes it clear that the intent of JPRA is to teach POW survival skills, at least until they use the word “detainee”. Please allow me to call your attention to the term “detainee”. In layman’s language, the term “detainee” simply means someone who is a prisoner of the military occupation force (U.S. government). To the average person, the use of the term detainee would not raise an eyebrow, but to someone who is tune with the connotations and denotations of military parlance, the term “detainee” holds specific meaning as evidenced by the following document which is considered by many to be a blueprint manual, created by the Army, for martial law and FEMA camp incarceration for political prisoners (e.g. dissenters).


Restricted U.S. Army Internment and Resettlement Operations Manual

May 2, 2012

FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations


fema leaked document  FM 3-39.40 1-5In section 1-10 of 3-39.40, “A Civilian detainee is a civilian who is interned during armed conflict, occupation, or other military operation for security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”
In section 3-56 of 3-39.40, the following draconian provisions are applied to “detainees“:
  • “Develops PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations (Author’s note: “PSYOP Products” such as the use of torture such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation).
  • Gains the cooperation of detainees to reduce the number of guards needed.
  • Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.
  • Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes (i.e. brainwashing of detainees).
  • Identifies political activists.
  • Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.”
The use of the word “detainee” is conspicuous and as the reader can clearly see, it has specific meaning with regard to a Red List extraction action. In effect, this is the black site for political dissidents. Both Jade Helm 15 and the FM 3-39.40 are both Army manuals written exclusively on dealing with civilian personnel in martial law settings. Under the NDAA, designating select citizens as a detainee and holding them indefinitely is legal under this unconstitutional legislation. 

States Participating in Jade Helm

Jade Helm is an eight-week joint military and interagency unconventional warfare exercise that will be conducted in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. A clearer copy of this map is available at this link.
Jade Helm 15 Color Coded Legend Red Denotes a "hostile state" Brown is uncertain, leaning towards hostile. Dark Blue is "Permissive" meaning supportive of the government. Light Blue is "Uncertain, leaning friendly". .
Jade Helm 15  participants
.

This map contains the reason as to why we can be certain that this is not a “Red Dawn” invasion emanating from Latin America. The unconnected pockets of “hostile states” is how we know this a martial law/possible civil war map. The color codes of the states listed in the map presented above, can be deciphered as follows:
civil war1The Red States of Utah and Texas are listed as hostile states as is part of Southern California. These states are not geographically contiguous. Subsequently, we are looking at Jade Helm 15 as being the suppression of civil resistance. The use of the 82nd Airborne is also suggestive of the fact that the authorities anticipate that there could be civilian militias rising up, perhaps in combination with veterans groups and possibly military units loyal to the citizens of the United States.
- The Brown State of New Mexico is listed as leaning towards being hostile.
-The Blue States of California, Nevada and Colorado are listed as being loyal, “permissive”, to military authority and martial law.
-The Light Blue State of Arizona is listed as “unknown”, but leaning toward being friendly.
This reads like a civil war scorecard, similar to the one that President Lincoln must have constructed in 1861 after the attack upon Ft. Sumter.

The Participation of Certain Interagency Partners Are Very Troubling

Repeated reference is made about the cooperation between the Department of Defense (DoD) and local law enforcement (LEA) in the Jade Helm document. After reading this document, Program 1033 started to make a lot of sense. Program 1033 is the militarization of local police with former military equipment (tanks, machine guns, etc.). It is interesting to note that it was the NDAA legislation that created Program 1033. Obviously, the purpose of this is to turn the local police into a martial law occupation force.
"CNN and FOX propagandists have nothing on us." Kate Zickel a host for the Voice of Russia.
“CNN and FOX propagandists have nothing on us.” Kate Zickel a host for the Voice of Russia.

I am not surprised, but very concerned that DHS, listed as an interagency partner, is a part of this drill for the following reasons: I believe a significant number of American military will NOT fire upon American citizens. Subsequently, this is the reason for the Russian troop presence in our country and they will fulfill the role of a martial law occupation force. When I have previously mentioned this, the Russian media (e.g. Voice of Russia) has attacked me in the past as if they have something to hide and evidence of these attacks can be accessed here and here.
What seems logical and something that should frighten all Americans is to wonder if DHS and the Russian partners will be a part of Jade Helm 15? Again, I refer to the video production put together by Sherrie Wilcox in which Russian soldiers have been seen in Tennessee traveling in DHS vehicles as they entered into Western Kentucky. As this related to Jade Helm and martial law, this is ominous. Russian troops will fire upon American citizens. Russian troops will extract American citizens from their beds in the middle of the night. What do you want to bet that Russian troops will be included in Jade Helm 15? Russian troops were included in Grid EX II and the RIMPAC war games, so why not Jade Helm. Yes, I am talking about treason and it is coming from the top.


Why would the Drug Enforcement Agency become involved in a martial law operation?This makes no sense unless you read the connection of the compromised DEA to various Central and South American factions (e.g. the possible 5th column presence of MS-13) that I revealed in July of 2014.

Conclusion

With regard to the thematic components to this article, there is no conclusion, this is only the beginning. It is quite clear that the Army fully believes, as do their superiors at the Pentagon and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that there is the belief that there is going to be something so catastrophic that an American Civil War II will ensue. The reasons behind this event(s) are not the focus of this article. However, I think it is a safe bet that it will have to do with the seizure of bank accounts and retirement accounts.  This is a topic that will be explored in a future article. Meanwhile, Americans in the Southwest need to be concerned that this drill does not go live like so many of these drills seem to in advance of a false flag drill. Every political activist, “uncooperative” politician and member of the Independent Media need to be thinking about where they want to be from July 15 to September 15. It would be best to be where “they” ain’t!

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Congress Passes Bill That Gives Police Unlimited Access to Citizens’ Private Communications

TruthandAction
h/t Nena S.

The legislation was scheduled to be held as a “voice vote,” which means that no record is kept on the voting.
After Rep Justin Amash (R-MI), after discovering this sneak attack, went to the House floor and demanded a roll call vote so that representatives would have their vote recorded.
The fact that this important piece of legislation was handled in this way indicates that this was done intentionally to sneak it past the public eye. It becomes even more suspicious when you realize that it was done concurrently with the CIA torture report being released and the Gruber hearing.
It seems clear there was an effort made to slip the vote by without having to answer to the American people, as Congress is well aware that Americans do not want to be spied upon by their government after the revelations by Edward Snowden.
Congressman Justin Amash stated that when he learned this bill was “being rushed to the floor for a vote… I asked my legislative staff to quickly review the bill for unusual language.”
What he says next should raise red flags for every American citizen.
He claims what his staff discovered was:
“One of the most egregious sections of law I’ve encountered during my time as a representative: It grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American.”
The bill in question is H.R. 4681.
Rep. Amash wrote a last minute letter to all of his colleagues in Congress to implore them to vote “NO” on H.R. 4681.
Here is the text of that letter:
Dear Colleague:
The intelligence reauthorization bill, which the House will vote on today, contains a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process.
Last night, the Senate passed an amended version of the intelligence reauthorization bill with a new Sec. 309—one the House never has considered. Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations.
To be clear, Sec. 309 provides the first statutory authority for the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. persons’ private communications obtained without legal process such as a court order or a subpoena. The administration currently may conduct such surveillance under a claim of executive authority, such as E.O. 12333. However, Congress never has approved of using executive authority in that way to capture and use Americans’ private telephone records, electronic communications, or cloud data.
Supporters of Sec. 309 claim that the provision actually reins in the executive branch’s power to retain Americans’ private communications. It is true that Sec. 309 includes exceedingly weak limits on the executive’s retention of Americans’ communications. With many exceptions, the provision requires the executive to dispose of Americans’ communications within five years of acquiring them—although, as HPSCI admits, the executive branch already follows procedures along these lines.
In exchange for the data retention requirements that the executive already follows, Sec. 309 provides a novel statutory basis for the executive branch’s capture and use of Americans’ private communications. The Senate inserted the provision into the intelligence reauthorization bill late last night. That is no way for Congress to address the sensitive, private information of our constituents—especially when we are asked to expand our government’s surveillance powers.
I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorization bill, when it comes before the House today. /s/
Justin Amash Member of Congress
This bill will allow information gained from domestic spying by the feds, in the name of “terrorism,” to be transferred to local law enforcement for criminal investigations without any type of court order, subpoena or warrant.
This is one of the most drastic changes in U.S. law in our lifetimes and has the potential to turn the U.S. into a true police state.
When the feds take what is claimed to be a means of fighting “terrorism” and use it as means of forwarding criminal prosecutions against American citizens, without any court order or warrant, we are on the brink of total tyranny.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Undercover Investigation: Terrorist Training Camp on Cornell Campus is Great!

Cornell University is not the exception here, but rather the rule.  It is Liberalism run amok.
The real "training camp" threats are college universities themselves that are continuing to usher in the next generation of liberals, where all is tolerated... but intolerance.    If you are intolerant of anything, then you are a either a racist or evil, and likely both.  -W.E.

ChristianVideoChanne
777

Thursday, March 26, 2015

'Huge Surge' of 'Unscreened' Muslims Flooding U.S.

WND

Muslim immigration from dangerous nations is dramatically higher in recent years, and government assurances that immigrants are being properly screened is “a farce,” according to accomplished author and columnist Paul Sperry.
“It’s a huge surge under Obama. In the last three years, he’s averaged 100,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations a year. That is very alarming. It’s more than we’re importing both from Central America and Mexico combined. This is a big shift in immigration flows,” said Sperry, who is the author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” and co-author of “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

Monday, March 23, 2015

The Real Reason The American Dream In Unraveling

ZeroHedge

Marketwatch posted an article this week titled Why the American Dream is Unraveling, in 4 charts. As usual, the MSM journalist and the liberal Harvard academic can create charts that reveal a huge problem, but they completely misdiagnose the causes and offer the typical wrong solution of taking more money from producers and handing it to the poor, with no strings attached. 
This has been the standard operating procedure since LBJ began his War on Poverty 50 years ago. Do these control freaks ever step back and assess how that war is going?
The poverty rate had plunged from 34% in 1950 to below 20% before LBJ ever declared war. It continued down to 15% just as the welfare programs began to be implemented. The percentage of people living in poverty hasn’t budged from the 15% range since the war began. This war has been just as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Any time a politician declares war on something, expect a huge price tag and more of the “problem” they are declaring war upon.

The Federal government runs over 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Over 100 million Americans received benefits from at least one of these programs. Federal and state governments spent $943 billion in 2013 on these programs at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient (not including Social Security & Medicare). That is 27% of the total Federal budget. Welfare spending as a percentage of the Federal budget was less than 2% prior to the launch of the War on Poverty.
In the 50 years since this war started, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. In terms of LBJ’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has utterly failed. In fact, a large proportion of the population is now completely dependent upon government handouts, incapable of self-sufficiency, and enslaved in a welfare mentality that has destroyed their communities.
The primary cause of their poverty and dependency on government are the policies implemented by liberal politicians which have destroyed the family unit, promoted deviant behavior, encouraged the production of bastard children, eliminated the need for personal responsibility, provided no consequences for bad life choices, and bankrupted the nation. The rise of the welfare state has coincided with the decline of the American state. The proliferation of welfare programs has broken down the behaviors, social norms and cultural standards that lead to self-reliance, generating a pattern of growing inter-generational reliance upon government handouts. By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater succor in the future.
So let’s get to the four charts that supposedly reveal why the American dream is unraveling. The Marketwatch article makes the following claim:
The upper-middle-class families Putnam profiles separate themselves into affluent suburbs, with separate public schools and social spheres from those of their poorer counterparts. As a result, the poorer children not only face greater hardships, but they also lack good models of what is possible. They are effectively cut off from opportunity.
The faux journalist makes the laughable argument the reason poor children don’t succeed in life is because people who have studied hard, graduated college, succeeded in life, and moved out of poor neighborhoods have left the poor children to face hardship and lack of opportunity. This is a classic liberal storyline. Blame those who have succeeded through their own blood, sweat and tears for the failure of those who languish in poverty due to their own life choices, lack of respect for education, and lack of work ethic. Chart number one reveals one thing to the Harvard academic Robert Putnam and another to me. He believes kids of people who have a college education have some sort of unfair advantage over kids of lesser educated parents:
“The most important thing about the experience of being young and poor in America is that these kids are really isolated, and really don’t have close ties with anybody. They are completely clueless about the kinds of skills and savvy and connections needed to get ahead.”
Why are poor kids isolated, with no ties with anybody? Isolated from whom? They don’t have ties to their family? That is a ludicrous contention, supported with no facts. All kids are completely clueless. You don’t get ahead in life through savvy and connections. You have the best chance to get ahead in life through opening a book, studying hard, and getting good grades, all with the support of concerned involved parents. There are no guarantees in life, but education, involved parents, and working hard dramatically increase your odds of success. It’s not a secret formula. Putnam believes the chart below reveals that kids in households with college educated parents have an unfair advantage over kids in households without college educated parents. To me it reveals the complete and utter failure of LBJ’s Great Society programs and the feminist mantra that men aren’t necessary to raise children.

The percentage of children living in single parent households with a college educated parent is virtually the same today as it was in the early 1960’s, just under 10%. The percentage of children living in single parent households with a high school educated parent in the early 1960’s was 20%. Today that number has risen to 65%. Liberals purposely misdiagnose the problem because admitting the true cause of this disastrous trend would destroy their credibility and reveal the failure of their beloved welfare programs. The key point is that prior to LBJ’s War on Poverty less than 10% of ALL children grew up in a single parent households. Today, that number is 33%. The lesson is you get more of what you encourage and incentivize. The liberal academic solution is for college educated households to give more of their money to the high school or less educated households. Academics with an agenda never ask why their solutions haven’t worked in 50 years.
The number of households in the U.S. in 1960 totaled 53 million and there were 24 million traditional married couple with children households, or 45%. There were 3 million single parent households with children, or 6%. Today the total number of households in the U.S. is approximately 122 million and there are only 25 million with traditional married couple with children households, or 20%. Meanwhile single parent families with children households have skyrocketed to 13 million, or 11%. The war on traditional two parent families by the government, liberal mainstream media, Hollywood, feminists, and academics has been far more successful than the War on Poverty.
The drastic increase in households with fatherless children, especially in the black community, is the primary reason the poverty rate hasn’t dropped over the last 50 years. It is the primary reason poor children remain poor. It is the primary reason why every urban enclave in America continues to degenerate into dangerous, filthy, lawless ghettos.  The statistics tell the story of decline, depravity, failure, and an endless loop of poverty.
  • An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father.
  • Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39% (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers.
  • 57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
  • Among children who were part of the “post-war generation,” 87.7% grew up with two biological parents who were married to each other. Today only 68.1% will spend their entire childhood in an intact family.
Annual divorce rates are only marginally higher today than they were in the early 1960’s. So that does not account for the drastic increase in fatherless households. But, the differences among races is dramatic. Blacks divorce at a rate twice as high as whites and three times as high as Asians.

Marriage rates of Asians are almost three times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Marriage rates of whites are two times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Is it really surprising that Asian children score the highest on all educational achievement tests?

The facts prove that people (no matter what race) who marry and stay married offer their children a tremendously better opportunity to succeed academically, thereby giving them a much higher chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. This doesn’t mean that children from a single parent household can’t succeed. It just means they have a better chance with two parents. It’s just simple math. Two adults working together can provide higher income, more help with school work, and offer a more stable environment for the child. The liberal media and those with a social agenda scorn the traditional family as if it precludes people from living however they choose. The results of the war on families can be seen in the chart below.

The unwed birth rate stayed below 5% from 1945 through the early 1960’s. As soon as the government began incentivizing people to not get married and to have children out of wedlock, the rates skyrocketed. Today, four out of ten children are born out of wedlock. Seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock. Only two out of ten black children were born out of wedlock in 1964. These births out of wedlock are not the result of dumb teenagers making a mistake. Almost 80% of these births are to mothers over the age of 20, with 40% of the births to mothers over the age of 25. And these horrific results are after the 55 million abortions since 1973. This didn’t happen because of women’s rights or women feeling empowered to raise children on their own. Knowledge about and access to contraceptives is not a reason for unwed pregnancies. Poor women and the men who impregnate them receive more welfare benefits by remaining unmarried and receive additional benefits by having more children out of wedlock.
Children Living with Mother Only-bwh graph
So all of the data confirms the fact children who grow up in two parent households do better in school, are far less likely to be enslaved in poverty, and have a chance to succeed in life, not matter what the educational level of their parents. In the early 1960s there were very few households with college educated parents. My Dad was a truck driver and my mother was a stay at home mom until we were in high school. We were lower middle class, but all three of their children attained college degrees by studying hard, working part-time jobs to help pay for their education, and having the support of concerned parents. Could we have gotten college degrees if we had been raised by only my mother? I doubt it.
Harvard Professor Putnam prefers to ignore the politically incorrect fact that a return to traditional families would begin to reverse the 50 years of damage caused by the War on Poverty. He believes it is in the moral interest of wealthier families to help improve the economic prospects of poorer children. Liberals also don’t think the $13,000 spent per student per year is enough to educate them properly. He actually believes taking more money from producers and handing it to non-producers will boost the U.S. economy.
“The U.S. economy would get a major boost if the opportunity gap were closed. We cannot continue to live in our own bubbles, or compartments on a plate, without consequences. What I hope people take away is that helping poor kids, giving them more skills and more support would economically benefit their kids.”
The country has spent $22 trillion on the war on poverty and spends approximately $1 trillion per year, but liberal academics think if we just spend more, the complete and utter failure of their solutions will be reversed. They ignore the fact a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress instituted welfare reform in 1996 that temporarily stopped the increase in spending, halted the rise in unwed births, and put poor people back to work. Today only one welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), effectively promotes self-reliance. Reforms that created TANF in 1996 moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs. Those gains were reversed as the Obama administration and congressional leadership undid the employment and training requirements enacted 14 years ago. Liberals think it is cruel and inhumane to make poor people work.
Putnam’s final three charts just reinforce the fact traditional families, involved parents, and higher education lead to higher incomes and upward mobility for children in these settings. The reason children in households with college educated parents get more daily attention is because those households are far more likely to have two parents. The time was equal in the early 1970s when two parent families were more prevalent. Having strangers raise kids in government subsidized daycare centers as a substitute for fathers hasn’t worked out so well.

In another shocker, poor children, who are predominantly from single parent households, without a role model to replace their missing fathers, score far worse in tests that predict success in college. The key attribute to educational success is not the educational level of the parents, it’s the need for poor, middle class or wealthy households to have two parents invested in the future of their children.

Attributing obesity rates of children from non-college educated households to the parents’ eduction is quite a reach. In the early 1970’s the obesity rates were very close between high school educated households and college educated households. So why has it surged? The liberals claim the poor go hungry and don’t have enough food. Shouldn’t that lead to higher malnutrition rates and not higher obesity rates? Maybe the surging obesity rates are due to the government lunch programs, the fast food culture in urban ghettos, no fathers around to encourage outside activities, and using food stamps to buy junk food rather than healthier foods. Bad choices generally lead to bad outcomes. Obesity is a choice. Of course liberals now classify it as a disability which needs to be subsidized by the government.

The American dream has unraveled for many reasons. Not spending enough on welfare programs is not one of the reasons. The welfare/warfare state is bankrupt. We spend $1 trillion on welfare programs, $1.4 trillion on Social Security and Medicare, and over $1 trillion on the military/surveillance apparatus. It’s a bipartisan bankruptcy, as Republicans agree to increase the welfare state as long as the Democrats agree to increase the warfare state. The only thing sustaining this debt based house of cards is a Federal Reserve which provides zero interest financing and a never ending willingness to debase our currency to keep the status quo in power. The current rate of spending on the welfare/warfare state is unsustainable. We could voluntarily reduce the spending before the financial collapse or the spending will stop abruptly when our country undergoes a catastrophic financial implosion that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.
Voluntarily putting the country back on a path of self reliance could be done if there was a will to do so. Reversing the culture of dependency would require a major dose of tough love that would upend the entire ideology of liberalism. Able-bodied, non-elderly adult recipients in all federal welfare programs would be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving food stamps or housing assistance. This would promote personal responsibility and provide the recipients with some self respect.  Obama is a big proponent of national service, why not national service for recipients of welfare?
Anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The welfare system needs to be revamped to reduce these counterproductive incentives. The appeal of welfare programs as an alternative to work and marriage could be reduced by requiring able-bodied parents to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Today government advertises in an effort to get more people to sign up for food stamps and dozens of other welfare programs. Government should be promulgating the facts on how marriage prevents social ills – poverty, poor education, juvenile crime – associated with children born to unmarried women.
Lastly, we need to cutoff the illegal influx of low-skill immigrants from the South, whose children will receive far more in welfare benefits than they pay in taxes, if they pay any taxes. The country must reject blanket amnesty or “earned citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants who then could access the welfare system. The welfare system is already unsustainable and adding millions of illegals into the system would be the tipping point.
Lyndon B. Johnson’ s goal was not to create an ever increasing welfare state, but to give the poor a helping hand towards self-sufficiency. His idealistic aim was to cure and prevent poverty. But, once a program is put into the hands of politicians looking to get re-elected every two years, the unintended negative consequences expand exponentially. $22 trillion later the American Dream is virtually non-existent for the 47 million Americans languishing in poverty and the once prosperous middle class who have seen their real wages stagnate due to Federal Reserve created inflation and taxes increase to pay for the ever expanding welfare/warfare state. One chart provides a major explanation of why the American Dream has unraveled, but you won’t see Obama, liberals or the mainstream media talking about it. Traditional married, two parent families are the antidote to poverty, not government welfare programs.

The debate on how to help the poor has raged for centuries. A wise Founding Father told us how the war on poverty would unfold.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Benjamin Franklin

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Streets So Filled With Surveillance, No One Even Knows What All That Tech Junk Is

"It's so persuasive in our entire society. Our schools right now, school Districs are putting in infrastructure with grants from Homeland Security where they get to put in thousands of cameras, thousands of cameras in a school and then they build a building, it's like this security building that is a hub for the school district and someone sits there and watches all these cameras. And then they give these schools MRAPS.  And all these kids end up going to school everyday and they are brainwashed to believe that it is normal for them to be recorded, tracked and traced everywhere they go."

TRUTHstreammedia

WILL THIS START WW3?


"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…" - Albert Pike, Letter to Mazzini, 1871

Saturday, March 21, 2015

The Ferguson Hoax and Media Truth-telling

GulagBound

You know the standards of the media have hit rock bottom when a liberal commentator makes news for telling the truth.  
Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and MSNBC has become a media star for his belated recognition of the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie out of Ferguson, Missouri. Better late than never, except for the fact that this liberal narrative was always in dispute. There was never any legitimate reason to believe that Police Officer Darren Wilson had simply fired on Michael Brown for no reason.
The appropriate reaction to Capehart’s Damascus Road conversion to the truth should be: What took you so long? And what will you do to make sure you never fall for such a vicious lie again?
Don Irvine, the chairman of Accuracy in Media, notes in his blog on the AIM website that Capehart admitted the narrative was wrong after the Department of Justice found Wilson’s side of the story to be true. Capehart said, “What DOJ found made me ill.” Irvine commented, “I would be ill too if I had helped push a false narrative that gave fuel to the riots in Ferguson that have cost businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars, and ruined the career of Officer Wilson.”
The people who should be ill are those who depend on Capehart and others like him for the truth. Capehart is just trying to recover some of the credibility he never had in the first place.
Those of us who don’t take Capehart and his ilk seriously as arbiters of truth are watching this celebration of his one-time truth-telling as an example of how, for much of the media, lies and distortions are the standard fare. Otherwise, why would telling the truth be so controversial?
But this case is much more than a few liberal commentators like Capehart taking the side of dishonesty and then waking up, months later, to what actually happened.
Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.
“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.
“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.
Flaherty adds, “The racial grievance industry and their beards in the press put on and took off each lie like a cheap suit. Cute kids made viral videos with the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ pose, and reminded white people of their relentless racism. Members of Congress followed from the floor of the House.
“The President talked about racists in Ferguson at the United Nations. The parents of Michael Brown were honored guests at the gala dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus. The President greeted them from the podium during his keynote speech to extended applause. Then he talked about Ferguson racism.
“The Attorney General traveled to Ferguson and made [a] ‘personal promise’ that he would stand with the people of Ferguson. As long as those people were not cops.”
Flaherty goes on, “Entire cable networks repeated the lie day after day, guest after guest, promo after promo. Death. Murder. White racism. How could we not see it? Were we so blind, so immersed in white privilege, like a fish unaware of the water?”
It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.
The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.
Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.
The media moved on to another issue, without bothering to emphasize how wrong they had been in the months before. This is the performance of a media that promotes and even prefers lies over the truth. The lies, after all, gin up racial controversy and ratings.
Flaherty asks: what about the CNN anchors who were holding the “Hands up, don’t shoot” signs on the air?
That’s a good question indeed. These included what we called a prominent example of the “fake conservatives” in the media, such as when Margaret Hoover joined her fellow CNN panelists in a “Hands up, don’t shoot” display based on the fiction that Brown was surrendering to the police when he was shot.
Hoover has written a book titled, American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party. This self-described conservative thinks she has the answer to saving the Republican Party. She engaged in that display despite the fact that she said the narrative had been discredited because of witness testimony from the grand jury.
So Hoover engages in something she knows to be untrue, simply because it is the fashionable thing to do. What does this say about her ethical standards? “As a reform Republican, who works for the GOP to broaden its base and reach new constituencies, I see no contradiction between supporting law enforcement and the policy solutions highlighted by these protesters,” Hoover says.
The “protesters” were not highlighting “policy solutions,” but a deadly and false narrative about alleged police violence. She could have told the truth. Instead, she participated on the air in a display of a false narrative.
Why doesn’t she have the decency to apologize? Why doesn’t CNN apologize?
Flaherty also wonders why, after the hoax was exposed, we didn’t hear one apology from the media. It’s because our media have no standards of ethical behavior and conduct. Instead, the media went on with their business, acting as if traffic tickets “justified all the rioting, vandalism, fire-bombing, looting, assaulting, attacks on police, gunfire and other mayhem in and out of Ferguson.”
The praise for Capehart for eventually telling the truth may be one way the media can attempt to atone for their sins in this coverage. But it’s not good enough.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

REPORT: Ferguson Police LESS LIKELY to Pull Over Black Drivers Compared to National Average

‘Hands up, Don’t Shoot’ was one big lie

See also:  DINESH D'SOUZA: The "Wily Agitators" Behind The Ferguson Shooting

GatewayPundit

On March 4, 2015 Attorney General disclosed his findings from the Department of Justice investigation of the Ferguson police force. The Department of Justice concluded that Officer Darren Wilson did not violate Michael Brown’s civil rights and acted in self defense when he shot Brown dead. The report also found that Michael Brown did not have his hands up and was not surrendering when he was shot by Officer Wilson.
.
AG Holder did not apologize to Darren Wilson or the City of Ferguson. Rather focusing on Wilson’s innocence, which was the reason for the investigation, Holder spent the majority of his time berating the Ferguson police department with stories of harassment and abuse compiled in his report.
But now we know the truth.
The Ferguson police were actually less likely to pull over black drivers compared to the national average.

John R. Lott at The New York Post reported:
The Justice report doesn’t prove disparate treatment, let alone discrimination.
“Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African-Americans account for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and 93 percent of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67 percent of Ferguson’s population.”
Those statistics don’t prove racism, because blacks don’t commit traffic offenses at the same rate as other population groups.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey indicates that, nationwide, blacks were 31 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over for a traffic stop.
Ferguson is a black-majority town. If its blacks were pulled over at the same rate as blacks nationally, they’d account for 87.5 percent of traffic stops.
In other words, the numbers actually suggest that Ferguson police may be slightly less likely to pull over black drivers than are their national counterparts. They certainly don’t show that Ferguson is a hotbed of racism.
Critics may assert that that “31 percent more likely” figure simply shows that racism is endemic to police forces nationwide.
Hmm: The survey also reveals that men are 42 percent more likely than women to be pulled over for traffic stops. Should we conclude that police are biased against men, or that men drive more recklessly?
In fact, blacks die in car accidents at a rate about twice their share of car owners.
A 2006 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study found that black drivers who were killed in accidents have the highest rate of past convictions for speeding and for other moving violations. This suggests that there are a lot of unsafe black drivers, not racism.
The Justice report on Ferguson continues, “African-Americans are at least 50 percent more likely to have their cases lead to an arrest warrant, and accounted for 92 percent of cases in which an arrest warrant was issued by the Ferguson Municipal Court in 2013.”
Again, this pretends that a mere difference is evidence of discrimination.
But the report’s statistic doesn’t even look at whether people pay their fine or appear in court — something that makes a big difference in whether to issue a warrant.
Could it be that blacks are more likely to face particularly serious charges?
Another figure that was not included in Holder’s report was that the white population in Ferguson and North County tends to be older than the rest of the community. This would also account for the lower rate of arrest among white citizens.
It’s too bad the Justice Department was not honest enough or aware enough to understand how Ferguson stacked up against the rest of the country.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Virulently Anti-American: 81 Percent Of Russians Now View The United States Negatively

MichaelSnyder

Russians view the United States much more unfavorably today than they did during the end of the Cold War era.  As you will read about below, an astounding 81 percent of all Russians now view the United States negatively, and only 13 percent have a positive opinion of this country.  
In all of the years when Russians have been surveyed on their attitudes toward the U.S., they have never been this negative.  But of course Americans generally do not view the Russian people unfavorably.  So why is this happening?  Well, it all comes down to the actions of the Obama administration.  The Russian people are convinced that U.S. organizations organized, funded and armed the rebels that violently overthrew the democratically-elected Ukrainian government.  And once it was overthrown, the Obama administration immediately recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of Ukraine.  And now most Russians are convinced that the U.S. government is trying to promote a similar revolution inside Russia.  In recent years, the Russian people have become increasingly nationalistic, and at this point they view U.S. meddling in their affairs as a direct threat to their way of life.  Even while most Americans are extremely apathetic about what is going on over in Russia, an increasingly large chunk of the Russian population is angry enough to go to war.
Anti-American sentiment inside Russia has grown so strong that even the mainstream media is starting to report on it.  For example, the following quote comes from a recent article in the Washington Post
Thought the Soviet Union was anti-American? Try today’s Russia.
After a year in which furious rhetoric has been pumped across Russian airwaves, anger toward the United States is at its worst since opinion polls began tracking it. From ordinary street vendors all the way up to the Kremlin, a wave of anti-U.S. bile has swept the country, surpassing any time since the Stalin era, observers say.
For the recent survey that I mentioned above, Russians were asked this question: “What is your general attitude toward the United States?”
81 percent of Russians responded negatively, and only 13 percent had a positive response.
That is the most negative that Russians have been toward the U.S. since polling began back in 1988.
And this could potentially be just the beginning.
For a moment, I want you to imagine a scenario.  I want you to imagine how the U.S. government and the U.S. population would respond if the Russians organized, funded and armed rebels that overthrew the Canadian government.  And then imagine how the U.S. government and the U.S. population would respond if the Russians started shipping heavy military vehicles and sophisticated military equipment to those rebels after they had established a new pro-Russian government.
I can just see it now – people everywhere would be screaming “Red Dawn” and warning of imminent war with Russia.
Well, the truth is that Ukraine is Russia’s most important neighbor, and the two nations have ties that go back for thousands of years.
When we meddled in Ukraine, we poked Russia right in the eye, and now we have a very angry Russian bear to deal with.
For much more on how angry Russians are at this moment, please see my previous article entitled “This Is How Much Russians Hate America“.
And if Barack Obama decides to start sending heavy military vehicles and equipment to the government in Kiev, that is going to escalate things to a completely new level.
If you do not think that could happen, you should consider what the Washington Post is reporting
President Obama said Monday that he is considering providing Ukraine with lethal weapons to defend the country against Russian aggression if diplomatic options fail.
Of course it is not just Obama that is thinking this way.  In fact, there is lots of pressure on Obama from both sides of the aisle to arm the Ukrainians…
The pressure on Obama from the Republicans, but also from his own political camp, is intense. Should the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine not hold, it will likely be difficult to continue refusing Kiev’s requests for shipments of so-called “defensive weapons.” And that would represent a dramatic escalation of the crisis. Moscow has already begun issuing threats in anticipation of such deliveries. “Any weapons deliveries to Kiev will escalate the tensions and would unhinge European security,” Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s national security council, told the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on Wednesday.
In the end, I believe that this is going to happen.  And when it does, all hell is likely to break loose.
If you believe that cooler heads will somehow prevail, you should consider what is already happening.  At this point, U.S. tanks and military vehicles have already rolled into Latvia
Latvia has confirmed more than 120 armored units, including tanks, have been delivered by the US. According to the Latvian Ministry of Defense, these include M1A2 Abrams tanks and M2A3 Bradley armored vehicles.
The move to deploy yet more tanks and armored vehicles was welcomed by Latvian Minister of Defense Raymond Vejonis.“The presence of our allies (US and NATO) in Latvia is a confirmation of solidarity and security in the region,” Vejonis said in a statement on Twitter.
How would we feel if Russian tanks were rolling into northern Mexico?
And many in Europe seem to be quite hawkish these days as well.  For instance, the president of the European commission says that an EU army is needed to deal with the potential Russian threat
The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
Jean-Claude Juncker said such a move would help the EU to persuade Russia that it was serious about defending its values in the face of the threat posed by Moscow.
All of this posturing could ultimately lead to something far worse than the Cold War.
If we keep pushing Russia, we could someday end up with a real war on our hands.
But don’t just take my word for it.  Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by Stephen Lendman
Ukraine is ground zero. Ongoing conflict risks the unthinkable – direct US confrontation with Russia risking nuclear war.
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warned Ukraine’s conflict could “unavoidably lead to a nuclear war..”
Nuclear arms expert Steven Starr warned about things headed recklessly toward this possibility.
Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott believes US/Russian confrontation risks nuclear war. Things today are more dangerous than any previous time in the post-WW II period.
Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said “(n)othing is more dangerous than the aggressive US/NATO troop movements right on the borders of Russia.”
To most Americans, the threat of nuclear war with Russia is a joke.  Most people in this country believe that it could never possibly happen.
But an increasing number of experts are starting to wake up and realize that if we stay on this road that it could be a very real possibility.  For example, author Daniel Estulin had some very interesting things to say during one recent interview…
The United States and its European allies are seeking to overthrow the Russian government by escalating the confrontation with Moscow up to the “threshold of a thermonuclear war,” an author in Madrid says.
US President Barack Obama is orchestrating a regime change to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, said Daniel Estulin, author of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group.
The US and Britain have “reactivated a policy of threatening tactical nuclear warfare against Russia and China to force them to submit to the crumbling transatlantic financial empire,” Estulin said during a phone interview with Press TV on Wednesday.
“That submission will not happen, however, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly made clear,” he added.
For much more on a potential war with Russia, please see my previous article entitled “While Obama Guts The U.S. Military, Russia Prepares For War“.
But before a shooting war happens, Russia will attempt to use other means at their disposal to hurt us if we start shipping military equipment to the government in Ukraine.
So let us hope that does not happen.
If the Obama administration backs off, things may have a chance to cool down.
However, if the Obama administration publicly announces that we will be arming the new Ukrainian government, that will be an absolutely critical moment for U.S.-Russian relations.  Once that happens, there will be no turning back.
So let us keep a close eye on what Obama decides to do, because what he decides to do next could literally set us on a course toward World War III.