Telling the truth has become a revolutionary act, so let us salute those who disclose the necessary facts.
17 Dec 2012
Neil Barofsky on UBS Criminal Charges for LIBOR and HSBC Money Laundering Wrist Slap
US Politicians already capitalizing on tragic Newtown shooting to push gun control
By Madison Ruppert: In the wake of the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, politicians have not wasted a moment in their effort to use the tragedy to achieve their own questionable goals.
The mainstream media has also jumped on the bandwagon, publishing pieces with wonderful titles like, “Put reason back in America’s gun debate,” which, unsurprisingly, advocates for more strict gun control.
The author of the piece goes as far as to call people advocating a strong defense of the Second Amendment unreasonable, arguing instead that people should only be able carry weapons if they can demonstrate “a reasonable fear of imminent violence.”
In other words, unless you can prove you’ll soon be the victim of a violent crime of some sort, you shouldn’t be able to bear arms. That makes about as much sense as saying you should only be able to have a deadbolt if you can demonstrate reasonable fear of imminent robbery.
While the above is obviously absurd, we must remember that the Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about having to prove why you need to carry a weapon.
Just two days after the tragic shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California promised “that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Feinstein’s bill is reportedly to be a version of the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
President Barack Obama has also used the tragedy to present himself as “comforter-in-chief,”
The mainstream media has also jumped on the bandwagon, publishing pieces with wonderful titles like, “Put reason back in America’s gun debate,” which, unsurprisingly, advocates for more strict gun control.
The author of the piece goes as far as to call people advocating a strong defense of the Second Amendment unreasonable, arguing instead that people should only be able carry weapons if they can demonstrate “a reasonable fear of imminent violence.”
In other words, unless you can prove you’ll soon be the victim of a violent crime of some sort, you shouldn’t be able to bear arms. That makes about as much sense as saying you should only be able to have a deadbolt if you can demonstrate reasonable fear of imminent robbery.
While the above is obviously absurd, we must remember that the Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about having to prove why you need to carry a weapon.
Just two days after the tragic shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California promised “that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Feinstein’s bill is reportedly to be a version of the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
President Barack Obama has also used the tragedy to present himself as “comforter-in-chief,”
Ted Butler: My Worst Fear- CFTC Confirms it Doesn’t Understand Silver Manipulation
Submitted by Ted Butler: Recently,
I have received a good number of emails containing conversations
between readers and CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton about the allegations
of a silver price manipulation because of the large concentrated COMEX
short position held by JPMorgan. Chilton had previously led the
move to begin the current silver investigation in September 2008 and
has always been quick to respond to those writing to him, a rarity for
high officials. I couldn’t help but notice that Commissioner
Chilton had recently begun to say things that seemed to try to explain
away the allegations of a silver manipulation, much different from his
former stance of promising to look into it. I found this change
disturbing and it has influenced my thinking that the CFTC would never
do anything about the silver manipulation. One particular response from
Chilton to a reader prompted me to write to the Commissioner myself
(aside from sending him all my articles) -
In simple terms, Commissioner Chilton’s response to the reader confirms my worst fear – the reason the CFTC hasn’t moved against the silver manipulation is that they don’t understand it. Even though the agency publishes remarkably detailed and accurate data on concentration in their weekly COT reports, they apparently don’t comprehend what it is they are publishing. As a big believer in the premise that recognition of a problem is 50% of the ultimate solution; I also believe that if a problem is not recognized, it is unlikely to be remedied. I’ve always considered Chilton to be one of the “good guys” at the Commission, so it is quite disheartening to see him so misinterpret his own agency’s data.
This is no small matter. The CFTC’s main mission is to guard against price manipulation, the most serious market crime possible.
In simple terms, Commissioner Chilton’s response to the reader confirms my worst fear – the reason the CFTC hasn’t moved against the silver manipulation is that they don’t understand it. Even though the agency publishes remarkably detailed and accurate data on concentration in their weekly COT reports, they apparently don’t comprehend what it is they are publishing. As a big believer in the premise that recognition of a problem is 50% of the ultimate solution; I also believe that if a problem is not recognized, it is unlikely to be remedied. I’ve always considered Chilton to be one of the “good guys” at the Commission, so it is quite disheartening to see him so misinterpret his own agency’s data.
This is no small matter. The CFTC’s main mission is to guard against price manipulation, the most serious market crime possible.
Jim Sinclair: System Will Collapse When Goldman Decides to Pull the Plug on Confidence in the US Dollar
From Jim Sinclair:
Hi Jim,
In his last report, John Williams expects hyperinflation by the end of 2014. He has advised (in an interview separate from his most recent report) that when this happens, the purchasing power of the US Dollar will collapse and in about six months a new currency will be issued. All of this leads to a lower US dollar in an intact trend channel that goes to and below .5600 on the meaningless USDX index.
You’ve talked about a new, two-tiered currency regime (if I understand correctly) that will consist of a basket-type currency traded among central banks and national or multinational-basket currencies used by the rest of us.
My question is, after the new currency regime is created, what will happen to transfer-payment programs like SS, unemployment comp and the like? Will these payments resume in whatever currency the US uses next? How about public-sector employees? They, effectively, receive transfer payments too. Will they still be paid? I know the private sector will be FUBARed because it’s subject to market forces.
Don’t laugh at this next question: can this be handled seamlessly or should we assume Petunia is taking flying lessons?
Thanks,
CIGA MG
CIGA MG,
Think of it as a virtual reserve currency only available to central banks to trade in. Think of it as the same currency system we have now with very different currency cross rate values. Think of it as the euro, ruble, rupee and yuan as a currency trading block, not a unified currency.
This is how you reduce international dollar debt and insular dollar entitlement payments to almost meaningless levels, all in one great arm wave on a singular day. It will also cure the health cost problem by removing the most sickly from the equation, the pensioner, by accelerated attrition. Timing is a question of when our masters via GS decide to pull the plug on confidence in the US dollar as there is no other practical solution in the minds of our masters.
Repealing The 2nd Amendment Would Start Another Civil War
Iran indicts 18 US officials over crimes: Judiciary spokesman
Press TV: Iran’s Prosecutor
General and Judiciary Spokesman Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei says Tehran
has issued indictments for 18 American officials for involvement in
Washington’s crimes against the Islamic Republic.
Speaking at a Monday press conference, Mohseni-Ejei noted that before and after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the US has directly and indirectly committed myriad crimes against Iran, and many terrorist activities and coups have been carried out through direct or indirect involvement of Washington.
“In this regard, indictments have been issued for a number of US officials, including some CIA officials, and have been sent to Tehran Justice Department to be pursued according to regulations,” he added.
Mohseni-Ejei also noted that Iran Judiciary plans to issue separate indictments for a number of Israeli officials.
UK record industry seeks to financially ruin leaders of the Pirate Party
Cory Doctorow: Ever since the UK record labels got a court to order our national ISPs
to censor The Pirate Bay, the UK Pirate Party has been offering a proxy
that allows Britons to connect to the site and all the material it
offers, both infringing and non-infringing.
The record industry has finally struck back. Rather than seeking an injunction against the proxy, or suing the party, it has individually sued the party's executives, seeking to personally bankrupt them and their families. It's an underhanded, unethical, and unprecedented threat to democracy -- essentially a bid to use their financial and legal might to destroy a political party itself.
There's a fundraiser, and I've given more than I can afford to it -- £500 -- because this is plain, old fashioned, corporate bullying. I don't always agree with everything the Pirate Parties do, and I'm not a member of the UKPP, but I'm glad the Pirate Party exists, and I believe that hosting a proxy to the Pirate Bay was a political act, and that the record industry has gone after the personal lives of the executive in order to terrorise people who organise against them. They mustn't be allowed to do this.
The record industry has finally struck back. Rather than seeking an injunction against the proxy, or suing the party, it has individually sued the party's executives, seeking to personally bankrupt them and their families. It's an underhanded, unethical, and unprecedented threat to democracy -- essentially a bid to use their financial and legal might to destroy a political party itself.
There's a fundraiser, and I've given more than I can afford to it -- £500 -- because this is plain, old fashioned, corporate bullying. I don't always agree with everything the Pirate Parties do, and I'm not a member of the UKPP, but I'm glad the Pirate Party exists, and I believe that hosting a proxy to the Pirate Bay was a political act, and that the record industry has gone after the personal lives of the executive in order to terrorise people who organise against them. They mustn't be allowed to do this.
Judge Arrested In Court For Treason By UK Citizens
Live Leak: Not seen it on LL so sharing it here. This was ignored by the mainstream media in the UK. They don't want us realising the difference between common law of the land and maritime law.
"Arrest that judge!"
'British Constitution Group' Roger Hayes arrests the judge for refusing to produce his oath of office over illigal council tax fraud committed by the local council with the help of citizens from the UK.
Gun Control? No, Drone Control - azizonomics
Aziz: The terrible massacre committed by a mentally-disturbed man in Newtown, Connecticut last Friday has prompted lots and lots of calls for gun control in the United States, as well as some calls for more help for the mentally ill.
There are some problems with both suggestions. First of all, the evidence shows that certain “treatments” for the mentally ill — specifically, SSRI antidepressants — are associated with shooting sprees. A 2006 study in the UK showed that antidepressants can cause severe violence in a small number of individuals. It is possible that increasing the screening and “treatment” for mental illness may result in more incidences of severe violence. (On the other hand some therapies like psychotherapy, music therapy, and art therapy might help certain individuals, but these are almost certainly less profitable for big pharma…)
But what about gun control? There is little doubt that in the coming years the gun-show loophole will be closed and Canadian-style longer waiting periods will be introduced. Semi-automatic weapons may well be banned. Buyback programs may be attempted. The Supreme Court might well even be stacked to achieve a majority that interprets away individual gun rights.
But America already has huge quantities of guns, far more than anywhere in the world:
There are some problems with both suggestions. First of all, the evidence shows that certain “treatments” for the mentally ill — specifically, SSRI antidepressants — are associated with shooting sprees. A 2006 study in the UK showed that antidepressants can cause severe violence in a small number of individuals. It is possible that increasing the screening and “treatment” for mental illness may result in more incidences of severe violence. (On the other hand some therapies like psychotherapy, music therapy, and art therapy might help certain individuals, but these are almost certainly less profitable for big pharma…)
But what about gun control? There is little doubt that in the coming years the gun-show loophole will be closed and Canadian-style longer waiting periods will be introduced. Semi-automatic weapons may well be banned. Buyback programs may be attempted. The Supreme Court might well even be stacked to achieve a majority that interprets away individual gun rights.
But America already has huge quantities of guns, far more than anywhere in the world: