Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
From 2008 - Bill Moyers Interviews Fritz Hollings
and it seems to be getting more whacko every day.
South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers
A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.
"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.
Jensen did not return calls to his home or his office requesting comment on the bill, which is cosponsored by 22 other state representatives and four state senators. UPDATE: Jensen spoke to Mother Jones on Tuesday morning, after this story was published. He says that he disagrees with this interpretation of the bill. "This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide," said Jensen in an interview, repeating an argument he made in the committee hearing on the bill last week. "If you look at the code, these codes are dealing with illegal acts. Now, abortion is a legal act. So this has got nothing to do with abortion." Jensen also aggressively defended the bill in an interview with the Washington Post's Greg Sargent on Tuesday morning. We have more on Jensen's position here.
"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers," says Vicki Saporta, the president of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers. Since 1993, eight doctors have been assassinated at the hands of anti-abortion extremists, and another 17 have been the victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes have tried to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. "This is not an abstract bill," Saporta says. The measure could have major implications if a "misguided extremist invokes this 'self-defense' statute to justify the murder of a doctor, nurse or volunteer," the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families warned in a message to supporters last week.
The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.
Jensen, the bill's sponsor, has said that he simply intends to bring "consistency" to South Dakota's criminal code, which already allows prosecutors to charge people with manslaughter or murder for crimes that result in the death of fetuses. But there's a difference between counting the murder of a pregnant woman as two crimes—which is permissible under law in many states—and making the protection of a fetus an affirmative defense against a murder charge.
"They always intended this to be a fetal personhood bill, they just tried to cloak it as a self-defense bill," says Kristin Aschenbrenner, a lobbyist for South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women. "They're still trying to cloak it, but they amended it right away, making their intent clear." The major change to the legislation also caught abortion rights advocates off guard. "None of us really felt like we were prepared," she says.
Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress about abortion legislation, says the bill is legally dubious. "It takes my breath away," she says in an email to Mother Jones. "Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."
South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure. (Click here for an interactive map of abortion restrictions.)
Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision.
The South Dakota legislature has twice tried to ban abortion outright, but voters rejected the ban at the polls in 2006 and 2008, by a 12-point margin both times. Conservative lawmakers have since been looking to limit access any other way possible. "They seem to be taking an end run around that," says state Sen. Angie Buhl, a Democrat. "They recognize that people don't want a ban, so they are trying to seek a de facto ban by making it essentially impossible to access abortion services."
South Dakota's legislature is strongly tilted against abortion rights, which makes passing restrictions fairly easy. Just 19 of 70 House members and 5 of the 35 state senators are Democrats—and many of the Democrats also oppose abortion rights.
The law that would legalize killing abortion providers is just one of several measures under consideration in the state that would create more obstacles for a woman seeking an abortion. Another proposed law, House Bill 1217, would force women to undergo counseling at a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) before they can obtain an abortion. CPCs are not regulated and are generally run by anti-abortion Christian groups and staffed by volunteers—not doctors or nurses—with the goal of discouraging women from having abortions.
A congressional investigation into CPCs in 2006 found that the centers often provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"—alleging ties between abortion and breast cancer, negative impacts on fertility, and mental-health concerns. "This may advance the mission of the pregnancy resource centers, which are typically pro-life organizations dedicated to preventing abortion," the report concluded, "but it is an inappropriate public health practice." In a recent interview, state Rep. Roger Hunt, one of the bill's sponsors, acknowledged that its intent is to "drastically reduce" the number of abortions in South Dakota.
House Bill 1217 would also require women to wait 72 hours after counseling before they can go forward with the abortion, and would require the doctor to develop an analysis of "risk factors associated with abortion" for each woman—a provision that critics contend is intentionally vague and could expose providers to lawsuits. A similar measure passed in Nebraska last spring, but a federal judge threw it out it last July, arguing that it would "require medical providers to give untruthful, misleading and irrelevant information to patients" and would create "substantial, likely insurmountable, obstacles" to women who want abortions. Extending the wait time and requiring a woman to consult first with the doctor, then with the CPC, and then meet with the doctor again before she can undergo the procedure would add additional burdens for women—especially for women who work or who already have children.
The South Dakota bills reflect a broader national strategy on the part of abortion-rights opponents, says Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a federal reproductive health advocacy and research group. "They erect a legal barrier, another, and another," says Nash. "At what point do women say, 'I can't climb that mountain'? This is where we're getting to."
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers
Hacking Democracy - The disturbingly shocking HBO documentary HACKING DEMOCRACY bravely tangles with our nation's ills at the heart of democracy. The film the Diebold corporation doesn't want you to see, this revelatory journey follows tenacious Seattle grandmother Bev Harris and her band of extraordinary citizen-activists as they set out to ask one simple question: How does America count its votes? From Florida and California to Ohio and Washington State, filmmakers Simon Ardizzone, Robert Cohen, and Russell Michaels starkly reveal a broken system riddled with secrecy, incompetent election officials, and electronic voting machines that can be programmed to steal elections. Equipped only with a powerful sense of righteous outrage, the activists take on voting machine industry, exposing alarming security holes in America's trusted voting machines. They even go dumpster diving at a county election official's office in Florida, uncovering incendiary evidence of miscounted votes. But proving our votes can be stolen without a trace culminates in a duel between Diebold voting machines and a computer hacker from Finland -- with America's democracy at stake.
Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
As Revolt Grows against Yemen’s Dictator, U.S. Expands Training of Yemeni Military
In the wake of public overthrows of two longtime Arab dictators, the United States has stepped up military assistance to the regime governing Yemen out of concern that al-Qaeda may seek to exploit the volatile situation in the strategically important nation.
American military advisers are expected to launch a new training program with Yemen’s counterterrorism unit so it can thwart any terrorist plots aimed at the U.S. The $75-million plan calls for doubling the size of the 300-member Yemeni anti-terror force and reorienting its mission, which until now has been to protect the capital, including President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in power since 1978.
When WikiLeaks began releasing State Department cables, it proved particularly embarrassing for Saleh. In December 2009, U.S. forces bombed al-Qaeda camps inside Yemen. In order to avoid anti-American protests, Saleh told visiting U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours”
The increased American help comes at a time when thousands of students and human rights protesters have taken to the streets calling for Saleh to step down, mirroring developments in Tunisia and Egypt before their authoritarian leaders were forced to flee.
Saleh recently cancelled a planned trip to the U.S. citing “circumstances in the region” for the decision.
U.S. intelligence officials in Washington insist the new training program is designed to keep the local al-Qaeda presence, AQAP, from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them against Americans.
President Barack Obama’s newly unveiled budget for FY 2012 includes an additional $35 million for Yemen’s military and $69 million in economic aid.
Obama Pencils In $37 Billion Budget Increase For DHS, Naked Body Scanners
The Obama administration is to propose a $37 billion increase in federal spending for the Department of Homeland Security, earmarking funds for more radiation firing naked body scanners in airports around the country.
The DHS’ budget will grow by almost 3 percent over the 2011 budget level, as Reuters reports, while the overall national security budget will increase by almost 2 percent.
The 2012 budget proposal requests $43.8 billion for homeland security across the entire federal government, excluding the Defense Department, up $800 million from 2011.
The DHS plans to add an additional 275 naked body scanners to the 500 already installed and operated by the TSA at 78 airports nationwide.
The administration has proposed deploying 1,275 body scanners in airports by the end of 2012.
“The U.S. Transportation Security Administration hopes to buy more full-body scanners to detect explosives and other weapons potential attackers may hide on their bodies that cannot be detected by traditional metal detectors.” the Reuters reports suggests, failing to highlight the fact that the body scanners do not even have such capabilities according to their manufacturers.
Experts have dismissed the devices as “useless”, have repeatedly warned that the machines cannot detect explosive material effectively and would not have prevented the Christmas Day bomber from boarding Flight 253.
Add to this the ongoing safety concerns of respected scientists, and one is left asking why is the government ploughing billions into technology that is ineffective and potentially dangerous?
The answer is security theatre.
A largely manufactured and over hyped threat is being met with a manufactured response, the net effect of which is an overwhelming stripping away of the basic freedoms of Americans while lining the pockets of security contractors.
The DHS is instituting a complete takeover of society, with it’s Walmart telescreens, its active citizen spy programs, its armies of agents frisking crowds at sports events, and even extending it’s tentacles into parking restrictions and the like.
In addition, at the same time as the announcement that a further $3 billion will be pumped into the DHS for protection against a chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological attack, a strange story has emerged of a port official in San Diego suggesting that such weapons have been found inside the U.S. by federal authorities.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-pencils-in-37-billion-budget-increase-for-dhs-naked-body-scanners/
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Factbox: Demands of Bahrain's protesters
Clashes broke out in Bahrain this week as security forces tightened their grip on Shi'ite communities in anti-government protests
Bahrain, a non-OPEC oil-producer and home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, has a Shi'ite Muslim majority population but is governed by the Sunni Muslim Al Khalifa dynasty.
King Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa rules the island kingdom, where half of the 1.3 million people population are expatriates.
Here is a list of the opposition and protesters' demands:
SHI'ITE MAJORITY
* Many Bahraini Shi'ites say they face discrimination in housing, healthcare and access to government jobs, a charge the government denies. Discontent has been expressed in on-and-off unrest since the mid-1990s.
* The introduction of a new constitution and parliamentary elections a decade ago helped quell the Shi'ite unrest, but tensions have risen again in recent years as Shi'ites have been disappointed with the assembly's limited clout.
* The main Shi'ite opposition group, Wefaq, won all 18 seats it contested in parliamentary elections in October, out of a total of 40. It competes with Sunni Islamist groups and the secular group Waad in parliament.
* The Shi'ite majority want the government to stop granting Sunnis from outside Bahrain citizenship and jobs in the armed forces and national security services to try to change the demographic balance.
* Night clashes between security forces and young Shi'ite protesters burning tires and throwing petrol bombs worsened last year.
YOUTHS' OPPOSITION
* A statement from Bahraini activists said the revolution would begin on February 14 with peaceful rallies around Bahrain and continue until their demands were met.
* They called for changes and reforms in the country's governance and administration system.
The key demands:
* Dissolving the constitution of 2002.
* Formation of a council made up of experts and people of both the Sunni and Shi'ite sects to create a new constitution.
* Release of all political prisoners and activists and investigation of torture allegations.
* Freedom of expression, an end to judicial prosecution of journalists, and to restricting the internet and blogging.
* An independent judicial system that is not politicized.
* Investigation of claims of political naturalization and removal of Bahraini citizenship to those who have obtained citizenship illegally or due to political motives"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-bahrain-protesters-idUSTRE71E3YN20110215
House Votes to Extend Patriot Act Provisions
The House on Monday voted to reauthorize and extend through Dec. 8 three ways in which Congress expanded the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterterrorism powers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Last week, an effort to extend these provisions of the so-called Patriot Act and a related intelligence law failed to pass after falling just short of the two-thirds’ majority needed under a special rule. On Monday, however, the bill was able to pass with only a simple majority — and it did so, 275 to 144.
The provisions allow investigators to get “roving wiretap” court orders allowing them to follow terrorism suspects who switch phone numbers or providers; to get orders allowing them to seize “any tangible things” relevant to a security investigation, like a business’s customer records; and to get national-security wiretap orders against non-citizen suspects who are not connected to any foreign power.
Without new legislation, the provisions would expire on Feb. 28. House Republicans pressed the short-term extension so the Judiciary Committee, which is now under Republican control, could hold hearings on them.
During the debate on Monday, most Republicans argued in favor of the bill, while many Democrats criticized it. Still, the debate did not break down entirely along partisan lines.
Sixty-five Democrats voted for it, including Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who argued that he thought it would be better to go even further and extend the provisions through 2013 — as the Obama administration wants to do.
And 27 Republicans voted against it, including Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who said the American people had “a legitimate fear of out-of-control prosecutors and out-of-control spy networks.”
Because there is little time left before the provisions expire, it is likely that the Senate will approve the House’s bill — putting off a larger debate over the provisions until later in the year.
Senators have been debating their own proposals, which include reauthorizing the provisions through 2013 but imposing greater safeguards on them, or making the provisions permanent without modifications.
Congress overwhelmingly passed the original Patriot Act in October 2001. Over time, it became a symbol of eroding civil liberties and privacy rights for those who believed that government power had expanded too far. Supporters of the law have often accused its critics of exaggerating its risks and of being willing to endanger the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15terror.html
Your Life According to the Government
Algeria shuts down internet and Facebook as protest mounts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/8320772/Algeria-shuts-down-internet-and-Facebook-as-protest-mounts.html
Fannie, Freddie bailout: $153 billion ... and counting
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/11/news/companies/fannie_freddie_losses/index.htm
Major Food Distributor Sysco: “Immediate Volatile Prices, Expected Limited Availability, and Mediocre Quality at Best”
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/major-food-distributor-sysco-immediate.html
Happy to share.. Too bad John Hagelin doesn't maintain his website anymore. Another series by him:
John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousness
Nanothermite - Physicist Steven Jones, one of the scientists have found thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center explains in detail the scientific method at the base of his discovery and discusses the origin of the samples of WTC dust and the nanothermite.
This interview features one international experts from hitting documentary coming Architects and Engineers entitled "Evidence of explosives on 11 / 9 - The Experts Speak"
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson
Montana House votes to repeal medical marijuana law
The Montana House of Representatives voted 63-37 yesterday to overturn that state’s medical marijuana law. The State Senate is expected to follow suit soon. Both houses are controlled by Republicans.
Montana politicos say they aren’t sure what to expect from Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.
From today’s New York Times:
“We were duped,” said the House speaker, Mike Milburn, a Republican and sponsor of the repeal bill, who said he thought that the arguments about medical use had been a pretext for encouraging recreational use and creating a path to full legalization. He said he feared gang drug wars in Montana’s cities and debilitation of its youth.
“This bill says, Shut down everything — it’s gone way too far,” Mr. Milburn told the chamber before the vote.
The State Senate, also controlled by the Republicans, will also consider the measure, and House members will have an opportunity to vote on it again as early as Friday before sending it there. If passed by the Senate it would face an uncertain fate on the desk of Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.
Mr. Schweitzer has said he believes the laws need to be tightened, but he has not taken a position on repeal. His spokeswoman, Sarah Elliott, said in an e-mail, “The business has gotten out ahead of the regulatory environment, and we need to build some boundaries.”
In Colorado Thursday a bill that would have prohibited the sale of edible marijuana was pulled for revisions that will keep ingestible marijuana legal in Colorado.
http://coloradoindependent.com/74842/montana-house-votes-to-repeal-medical-marijuana-law
True, with so many factors keeping gasoline relatively cheap in the US, it seems inevitable that prices have no where to go but up, especially if 'peak-oil' is true. With real estate continuing to lose value, we could see the cost of transportation exceed the cost of housing. The feds have automobile business cost at .50$ a mile. I live 35 miles from downtown. 70 miles a day * 22 working days per month average, those numbers put me at potential $770 per month Just to drive to and from work, without any accidents.
Useful tool to keep the masses in wage-slavery.
WHO Study: Alcohol Is International Number One Killer, AIDS Second
Today the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that alcohol is to blame for just about 4% of, or 2.5 million deaths worldwide annually. Alcohol attributable injuries are of a growing concern to the public health community, with alcohol-related injuries such as road traffic accidents, burns, poisonings, falls and drownings making up more than a third of the disease burden attributable to alcohol consumption. AIDS was a close second with 2.1 milion deaths in 2009.
Yet alcohol control policies are weak and remain a low priority for most governments despite drinking's heavy toll on society from road accidents, violence, disease, child neglect and job absenteeism.
Thirty percent of alcohol is illegally produced globally and is often extremely toxic to say the least.
The multi-layered report states:
"The harmful use of alcohol is especially fatal for younger age groups and alcohol is the world's leading risk factor for death among males aged 15-59. Worldwide, about 11% of drinkers have weekly heavy episodic drinking occasions, with men outnumbering women by four to one. Men consistently engage in hazardous drinking at much higher levels than women in all regions."
Alcohol is a causal factor in 60 types of diseases and injuries, according to WHO's first report on alcohol since 2004. Its consumption has been linked to cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, poisonings, road traffic accidents, violence, and several types of cancer, including cancers of the colorectum, breast, larynx and liver.
Binge drinking, which often leads to risky behavior, is now prevalent in Brazil, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine, and rising elsewhere. Some countries restrict marketing of alcoholic beverages or on the industry's sponsorship of sporting events.
The report continues:
"Yet not enough countries use these and other effective policy options to prevent death, disease and injury attributable to alcohol consumption."
One solution is to raise taxes, such as governments have enforced upon the tobacco industry. In the United States for example, a 10% price increase reduced cigarette consumption about 4%. In 2009, companies began raising prices to cover the tax increase. Marlboro maker Philip Morris raised prices by at least 71 cents a pack. R.J. Reynolds, maker of Camel, did so by at least 42 cents. This put picking up the habit or even continuing out of reach.
Alcoholism (alcohol dependence) and alcohol abuse are two different forms of problem drinking. Alcoholism occurs when a person shows signs of physical addiction to alcohol (for example, tolerance and withdrawal) and continues to drink, despite problems with physical health, mental health, and social, family, or job responsibilities. Alcohol may come to dominate the person's life and relationships. In alcohol abuse, a person's drinking leads to problems, but not physical addiction.
There is no known cause of alcohol abuse or alcoholism. The reason why some people drink in a responsible manner and never lose control of their lives while others are unable to control their drinking is not clear.
Some people are able to gain control over their alcohol abuse before it progresses to dependence, while others are not. No one knows which heavy drinkers will be able to regain control and which will not, but the amount of alcohol one drinks can influence the likelihood of becoming dependent.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/216328.php
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/alcohol/en/
Shocking New IMF Report: The U.S. Dollar Needs To Be Replaced As The World Reserve Currency And SDRs "Could Constitute An Embryo Of Global Currency"
The IMF is trying to move the world away from the U.S. dollar and towards a global currency once again. In a new report entitled "Enhancing International Monetary Stability—A Role for the SDR", the IMF details the "problems" with having the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the globe and the IMF discusses the potential for a larger role for SDRs (Special Drawing Rights). But the IMF certainly does not view SDRs as the "final solution" to global currency problems. Rather, the IMF considers SDRs to be a transitional phase between what we have now and a new world currency. In this newly published report, the IMF makes this point very clearly: "In the even longer run, if there were political willingness to do so, these securities could constitute an embryo of global currency." Yes, you read that correctly. The SDR is supposed to be "an embryo" from which a global currency will one day develop. So what about the U.S. dollar and other national currencies? Well, they would just end up fading away.
CNN clearly understands what the IMF is trying to accomplish with this new report. The following is how CNN's recent story about the new IMF report begins....
"The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world's reserve currency."
That is exactly what the IMF intends to do.
They intend to have SDRs replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.
So exactly what are SDRs?
Well, "SDR" is short for Special Drawing Rights. It is a synthetic currency unit that is made up of a basket of currencies. SDRs have actually been around for many years, but now they are being heavily promoted as an alternative to the dollar.
The following is how Wikipedia defines SDRs....
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) are international foreign exchange reserve assets. Allocated to nations by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a SDR represents a claim to foreign currencies for which it may be exchanged in times of need.
The SDR is a hybrid. SDRs are part U.S. dollar, part euro, part yen and part British pound. In particular, the following is how each SDR currently breaks down....
U.S. Dollar: 41.9%
Euro: 37.4%
Yen: 9.4%
British Pound: 11.3%
Now there are calls for other national currencies to be included in the basket.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has publicly called for the national currencies of Brazil, Russia, India and China to be included in the SDR.
In January, the Obama administration said that it fully supports the eventual inclusion of the yuan in the SDR.
So yes, it looks like we are definitely moving in the direction of the SDR becoming a true global currency.
But is this a good idea?
Globalist organizations such as the IMF say that having a true global currency would facilitate world trade, it would make currency wars less likely, it would stabilize the global economy and it would make the rest of the globe less reliant on what is going on in the United States.
In fact, there is a lot of discussion in international financial circles that oil should be traded in SDRs rather than in U.S. dollars.
In a recent interview, IMF Deputy Managing Director Naoyuki Shinohara even suggested that the IMF may actually consider issuing bonds that are denominated in SDRs. Apparently the goal would be to promote the use of the new "currency".
But once again, it is important to remember that the IMF does not see SDRs lasting forever either. Rather, the IMF considers the SDR to be an "embryo" from which a true global currency could emerge.
An IMF paper entitled "Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability" that was published last year even proposed that a future global currency be called the "Bancor" and that a future global central bank could be put in charge of issuing it....
"A global currency, bancor, issued by a global central bank (see Supplement 1, section V) would be designed as a stable store of value that is not tied exclusively to the conditions of any particular economy. As trade and finance continue to grow rapidly and global integration increases, the importance of this broader perspective is expected to continue growing."
In fact, at one point the IMF report from last year specifically compares the proposed global central bank to the Federal Reserve....
"The global central bank could serve as a lender of last resort, providing needed systemic liquidity in the event of adverse shocks and more automatically than at present. Such liquidity was provided in the most recent crisis mainly by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which however may not always provide such liquidity."
Yes, unfortunately this is what the IMF really has in mind for all of us. A one-world economic system with a one-world currency and a one-world central bank.
Is that what we really need?
A "global Federal Reserve" that dominates the currency and the economy of the entire planet?
At least with the U.S. Federal Reserve there is hope that someday the American people can convince Congress to shut it down.
A "global Federal Reserve" would not answer to anyone. Individual nations could attempt to pull out, but then they would potentially be isolated from the rest of the globe and potentially cut off from world trade.
That may sound very far-fetched now, but that is the direction we are headed.
And shifting away from the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world would be disastrous for the U.S. economy.
Right now the fact that the U.S. dollar is the primary reserve currency of the world is one of the only things holding it up. If you took that support away the U.S. dollar could end up collapsing quite quickly.
Let us hope that the American people wake up and start insisting that we have no part in a global currency. If we ever allow a world currency to start replacing the U.S. dollar to a large extent, we will lose a great deal of our economic sovereignty. Not that we haven't lost most of it already, but at least if we are still using our own national currency there is a greater chance that we can reclaim it.
What the IMF is proposing right now may seem very innocent, but the long-term consequences of going down the road they want to put us on could potentially be absolutely catastrophic.
The American people need to send a very clear message to their representatives in Washington D.C.....
#1 We do not want a one-world economy.
#2 We do not want a one-world currency.
#3 We do not want a one-world central bank.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/shocking-new-imf-report-the-u-s-dollar-needs-to-be-replaced-as-the-world-reserve-currency-and-that-sdrs-could-constitute-an-embryo-of-global-currency
100,000 sharks mass off Florida's beaches
Pilot Steve Irwin was astonished after spotting a mass of more than 100,000 sharks swimming just 100 yards off Florida's sandy beaches.
The long-time fisherman and marine technology expert was cruising 300ft above the clear waters in his helicopter on Sunday when he came across the astonishing scene.
The 50-year-old - who shares his name with the late Australian 'Crocodile Hunter' - whipped out his smartphone to capture the masses of deadly predators, which spanned a 20-mile stretch of water.
The sharks - believed to be Spinners, between 3ft and 7ft long - were heading north and swimming parallel to the east coast's idyllic white beaches between Fort Lauderdale and exclusive Jupiter Island.
Small groups of strays were even spotted milling around swimmers who appeared to be blissfully unaware of the danger, although no injuries were reported.
Experts say this is the time of year when sharks migrate and head for warmer waters, typically swimming close to the shore while chasing after bait-fish.
But Mr Irwin, who runs Island Marine Services in Fort Pierce, was baffled as to the staggering number of sharks gathered in the shallow waters.
'It was an truly amazing sight,' he said.
'I've been a fisherman for 20 years and I also kayak out there and it's common to see them twist and turn and shoot through the air.
'They're prevalent at this time of year but what amazed me was the sheer numbers of them.
'There were tens of thousands of them - I'd say maybe 100,000.
'I kept on flying for about 20 miles and they just kept on coming.
'It's common to see large predatory sharks come in and feed on schools of bait-fish - the odd thing was I didn't see any bait-fish at all!'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352758/100-000-sharks-mass-Floridas-beaches.html
Signs Egypt's uprising is spreading still further
Piracy ‘out of control’ after hijacking near Gulf
"the seizure of the Irene SL on Wednesday 350 nautical miles south-east of Muscat marked a “significant shift” in the impact of the piracy crisis. The vessel was carrying 2m barrels of oil from Kuwait to the US’s Louisiana Offshore Oil Port."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8a9e89e-3479-11e0-9ebc-00144feabdc0.html
Egyptians chase the police
Kucinich: "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me A Wiretap"
Dennis Kucinich on Patriot Act reauthorization from the House floor - Feb. 08, 2011
John Hagelin, Ph.D on Consciousness
Tunisia Egypt Global Revolution Tribute
Africa: Invasion of the Land Grabbers
U.S.-based multinational corporations are buying up massive chunks of Africa
Suppose that, one day, a foreign investor decided to buy a vast tract of fertile land in the United States. Suppose all that is grown or produced on that land, and all profits made, would be shipped directly overseas. Worse, imagine that those Americans who had been living off that land for decades, maybe centuries, would be forced to move and given little to no compensation.
Such an event would undoubtedly spark public outrage, yet this scenario is not far from reality—only the roles are reversed. American companies have recently been investing heavily in foreign land, and many involved in the worldwide struggle against hunger believe that is a cause for concern. What investors call “agricultural development” is described by critics as “land grabbing,” which they say undermines food security in developing countries.
Land grabbing is nothing new, according to Flavio Valente, secretary general of Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN) International, a nonprofit that advocates for the right to food. “But recently, the practice of land grabbing has been intensifying and affecting the most vulnerable—peasants, farmers and indigenous people,” Valente says.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates more than 75,000 square miles have been acquired by foreign interests in Africa alone. A 2010 field study conducted by FIAN in Ethiopia found that the equivalent of up to 20 percent of the country’s arable land has been bought by or made available to foreign investors.
American companies are among those making land deals in Africa. New York-based Jarch Capital, bought an area the size of Dubai from a warlord in South Sudan last year, and Dominion Farms Ltd., which bought swampland in Kenya in 2003 to turn it into a rice plantation, has reportedly intentionally flooded local farms to force the relocation of farmers.
Despite promises of creating jobs and increasing food production, foreign investment hardly ever benefits local communities because it aims to secure crops and profits for those back home, the FIAN report states.
Food security advocates say that even initiatives touted for presenting solutions to the land-grabbing problem, such as the World Bank’s Principles for Responsible Agricultural Development, fail to address the lack of concrete mechanisms to hold companies and governments accountable. “These principles, which are meant to be voluntary and self-regulated by the private sector, distract from the fact that what is needed is mandatory and strict state regulation of investors in several policy fields, such as financial markets and agriculture,” says Sofia Monsalve Suárez, land program coordinator at FIAN International.
Resolutions to regulate foreign land acquisition exist, but are ineffective and weak, Valente says. He is hopeful that the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), a United Nations body which last year became more attuned to indigenous and peasant interests, will act.
“The CFS is the only organization with a clear mandate to uphold food security, and each country gets one vote,” Valente says. “Facilitating the participation of those most affected [by land-grabbing] was the first step; now we must see if those voices will actually be heard.”
Joice Biazoto is a freelance journalist based in Germany.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23090
Keiser Report: Fiat Food (E119)
Ron Paul: How Corrupt Dictators Rip Off American Taxpayers
The Obama Fail
Awesome super bowl game, like so many other Packer games coming down to a final drive, late in the 4th quarter..
Super Bowl flyover costs taxpayers $450,000
Spray-On Skin: Stem Cell Gun Safely Heals Burns in Days