- The Government Is The Enemy Of Freedom
Via John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute,
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.” – George Carlin
My friends, we’re being played for fools.
On paper, we may be technically free.
In reality, however, we are only as free as a government official may allow.
We only think we live in a constitutional republic, governed by just laws created for our benefit.
Truth be told, we live in a dictatorship disguised as a democracy where all that we own, all that we earn, all that we say and do—our very lives—depends on the benevolence of government agents and corporate shareholders for whom profit and power will always trump principle. And now the government is litigating and legislating its way into a new framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
We’re in trouble, folks.
Freedom no longer means what it once did.
This holds true whether you’re talking about the right to criticize the government in word or deed, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to not have your person or your property subjected to warrantless searches by government agents, the right to due process, the right to be safe from soldiers invading your home, the right to be innocent until proven guilty and every other right that once reinforced the founders’ belief that this would be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves.
If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
The unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.
In other words, if we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws by voicing our opinions in public or on our clothing or before a legislative body—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.
What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.
Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors are conspiring to corrode our core freedoms purportedly for our own good.
For instance, the protest laws being introduced across the country—in 18 states so far—are supposedly in the name of “public safety and limiting economic damage.”
Don’t fall for it.
No matter how you package these laws, no matter how well-meaning they may sound, no matter how much you may disagree with the protesters or sympathize with the objects of the protest, these proposed laws are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent.
In Arizona, police would be permitted to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent.
In Minnesota, protesters would be forced to pay for the cost of having police on hand to “police” demonstrations.
Oregon lawmakers want to “require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.”
A proposed North Dakota law would give drivers the green light to “accidentally” run over protesters who are blocking a public roadway. Florida and Tennessee are entertaining similar laws.
Pushing back against what it refers to as “economic terrorism,” Washington wants to increase penalties for protesters who block access to highways and railways.
Anticipating protests over the Keystone Pipeline, South Dakota wants to apply the governor’s emergency response authority to potentially destructive protests, create new trespassing penalties and make it a crime to obstruct highways.
In Iowa, protesters who block highways with speeds posted above 55 mph could spend five years in prison, plus a fine of up to $7,500. Obstruct traffic in Mississippi and you could be facing a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.
A North Carolina law would make it a crime to heckle state officials. Under this law, shouting at a former governor would constitute a crime.
Indiana lawmakers wanted to authorize police to use “any means necessary” to breakup mass gatherings that block traffic. That legislation has since been amended to merely empower police to issue fines for such behavior.
Georgia is proposing harsh penalties and mandatory sentencing laws for those who obstruct public passages or throw bodily fluids on “public safety officers.”
Virginia wants to subject protesters who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse” with up to a year of jail time and a fine of up to $2,500.
Missouri wants to make it illegal for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.”
Colorado wants to lock up protesters for up to 18 months who obstruct or tamper with oil and gas equipment and charge them with up to $100,000 in fines.
Oklahoma wants to create a sliding scale for protesters whose actions impact or impede critical infrastructure. The penalties would range from $1,000 and six months in a county jail to $100,000 and up to 10 years in prison. And if you’re part of an organization, that fine goes as high as $1,000,000.
Michigan hopes to make it easier for courts to shut down “mass picketing” demonstrations and fine protesters who block entrances to businesses, private residences or roadways up to $1,000 a day. That fine jumps to $10,000 a day for unions or other organizing groups.
Ask yourself: if there are already laws on the books in all of the states that address criminal or illegal behavior such as blocking public roadways or trespassing on private property—because such laws are already on the books—then why does the government need to pass laws criminalizing activities that are already outlawed?
What’s really going on here?
No matter what the politicians might say, the government doesn’t care about our rights, our welfare or our safety.
How many times will we keep falling for the same tricks?
Every despotic measure used to control us and make us cower and fear and comply with the government’s dictates has been packaged as being for our benefit, while in truth benefiting only those who stand to profit, financially or otherwise, from the government’s transformation of the citizenry into a criminal class.
Remember, the Patriot Act didn’t make us safer. It simply turned American citizens into suspects and, in the process, gave rise to an entire industry—private and governmental—whose profit depends on its ability to undermine our Fourth Amendment rights.
Placing TSA agents in our nation’s airports didn’t make us safer. It simply subjected Americans to invasive groping, ogling and bodily searches by government agents. Now the TSA plans to subject travelers to even more “comprehensive” patdowns.
So, too, these protest laws are not about protecting the economy or private property or public roads. Rather, they are intended to muzzle discontent and discourage anyone from challenging government authority.
These laws are the shot across the bow.
They’re intended to send a strong message that in the American police state, you’re either a patriot who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates or you’re a pariah, a suspect, a criminal, a troublemaker, a terrorist, a radical, a revolutionary.
Yet by muzzling the citizenry, by removing the constitutional steam valves that allow people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world, the government is deliberately stirring the pot, creating a climate in which violence becomes inevitable.
When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say, because government representatives have removed themselves so far from their constituents—then frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.
Then again, perhaps that was the government’s plan all along.
As John F. Kennedy warned in March 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
The government is making violent revolution inevitable.
How do you lock down a nation?
You sow discontent and fear among the populace. You terrorize the people into believing that radicalized foreigners are preparing to invade. You teach them to be non-thinkers who passively accept whatever is told them, whether it’s delivered by way of the corporate media or a government handler. You brainwash them into believing that everything the government does is for their good and anyone who opposes the government is an enemy. You acclimate them to a state of martial law, carried out by soldiers disguised as police officers but bearing the weapons of war. You polarize them so that they can never unite and stand united against the government. You create a climate in which silence is golden and those who speak up are shouted down. You spread propaganda and lies. You package the police state in the rhetoric of politicians.
And then, when and if the people finally wake up to the fact that the government is not and has never been their friend, when it’s too late for peaceful protests and violence is all that remains to them as a recourse against tyranny, you use all of the tools you’ve been so carefully amassing—the criminal databases and surveillance and identification systems and private prisons and protest laws—and you shut them down for good.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, once a government assumes power—unconstitutional or not—it does not relinquish it. The militarized police are not going to stand down. The NSA will continue to collect electronic files on everything we do. More and more Americans are going to face jail time for offenses that prior generations did not concern themselves with.
The government—at all levels—could crack down on virtually anyone at any time.
Martin Luther King saw it coming: both the “spontaneous explosion of anger by various citizen groups” and the ensuing crackdown by the government.
“Police, national guard and other armed bodies are feverously preparing for repression,” King wrote shortly before he was assassinated. “They can be curbed not by unorganized resort to force…but only by a massive wave of militant nonviolence….It also may be the instrument of our national salvation.”
Militant nonviolent resistance.
“A nationwide nonviolent movement is very important,” King wrote. “We know from past experience that Congress and the President won’t do anything until you develop a movement around which people of goodwill can find a way to put pressure on them… This means making the movement powerful enough, dramatic enough, morally appealing enough, so that people of goodwill, the churches, laborers, liberals, intellectuals, students, poor people themselves begin to put pressure on congressmen to the point that they can no longer elude our demands.
“It must be militant, massive nonviolence,” King emphasized.
In other words, besides marches and protests, there would have to be civil disobedience. Civil disobedience forces the government to expend energy in many directions, especially if it is nonviolent, organized and is conducted on a massive scale. This is, as King knew, the only way to move the beast. It is the way to effect change without resorting to violence. And it is exactly what these protest laws are attempting to discourage
We are coming to a crossroads. Either we gather together now and attempt to restore freedom or all will be lost. As King cautioned, “everywhere, ‘time is winding up,’ in the words of one of our spirituals, corruption in the land, people take your stand; time is winding up.”
- Prisoners Explain Why A Pack Of Mackerel Is The Gold Standard Of Currencies In America's Prisons
In 2004, the U.S. banned cigarettes in all federal prisons and it was pretty much the best thing that could have happened to the packaged mackerel industry (yes, you read that correctly…the packaged fish).
So how did a smelly package of fish become the gold standard of America’s federal prisons? Well, for a variety of reasons (we’ll let your imagination run wild) prisoners are not allowed to possess actual currency. Up until 2004, they used cigarettes as their currency of choice to purchase anything from illicit goods such as stolen food and home-brewed “prison hooch,” as well as services, such as shoeshines and cell cleanings. But once cigarettes were banned, prisoners needed a replacement currency and the ‘mack’ was deemed to be the best choice because it was worth roughly $1 at the commissary and pretty much no one wanted to eat it.
As one prisoner notes in the Wall & Broadcast video below, the ‘mack’ was also “inherently inflationary” because its supply was limited to 14 macks per week per inmate….
“Mackerel had utility because it was inherently inflationary. A certain amount of macks came into circulation every day. Every inmate can only buy 14 mackerels per week. 14 times 500 inmates time 52 weeks is the amount of mackerels that are coming into circulation every year and that’s why it was a pretty good stable value of currency.”
“The reasons mackerel had value is because inmates believed it had value. Perfect example of that was mackerels expire after three years. But, people didn’t jut throw them away, these became known as “money macks” and retained 75% of the value of “eating macks” because people believed that they still had value and they were still being used in transactions.”
…that is at least until prison guards confiscated a massive supply of macks from one prisoner and essentially flooded the market creating a hyper-inflationary environment.
“I’ll never forget the day where the macks lost all their value almost overnight. Someone had a huge amount of money macks and they got confiscated and the administration left them sitting in a bucket. They essentially introduced hyperinflation. They flooded the market with money macks.”
Perhaps Yellen & Co. could learn a thing or two from this lesson in prison economics.
- US Begins Deployment Of Controversial THAAD Anti-Missile System To South Korea
Well that escalated quickly. Just a day after North Korea's test firing of 4 missiles towards US bases in Japan, and hours after North Korea warned the world was "on the brink of nuclear war" due to US-South Korea "maneuvers," CNN reports the first pieces of the controversial US-built missile defense system (designed to mitigate the threat of North Korean missiles) arrived at the Osan Air Base in South Korea Monday night, according to the US military.
The decision in January to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system, had angered both Russian and Chinese officials:
"We think the US-South Korean decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system has seriously threatened China's security interest. For the region, it will also break the strategic balance. So it's completely understandable to see countries in the region firmly oppose this decision," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said. "China and other countries have to address our own legitimate security concerns and take necessary measures to safeguard our security interest."
"Deployment of US missile defense systems in South Korea clearly goes beyond the tasks of deterring 'the North Korean threat,'" Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said in October, according to Russian state-run Tass news agency.
And now – dramatically faster than expected – the deployment has begun.
Some equipments including 2 launch pads for U.S. missile defense system known as Thaad arrived in South Korea on Monday and will continue to be brought in, Yonhap News says, citing unidentified South Korean military official.
"Continued provocative actions by North Korea, to include yesterday's launch of multiple missiles, only confirm the prudence of our alliance decision last year to deploy THAAD to South Korea," Adm. Harry Harris, commander, US Pacific Command, said in a news release.
US Secretary of Defense James Mattis and South Korean Defense Secretary Han Min-koo spoke over the phone last week and agreed that THAAD should be deployed "ASAP."
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer signaled the deployment Monday when he told reporters that the United States is "taking steps to enhance our ability to defend against North Korea's ballistic missiles, such as through the deployment of a THAAD battery to South Korea." U.S. defense officials confirmed to NBC News on Monday night that that meant delivery was already under way — not that the United States was simply restating its previous promises to send the system to South Korea sometime in the future.
The US and its allies in the region, notably South Korea and Japan, tend to focus on THAAD's defensive nature. They tout its value as a system to prevent a missile from hitting a target and killing people.
"This is purely a defensive measure that the alliance must take in light of the serious threat posed by North Korean missiles," Chris Bush, a spokesman for the US Forces in Korea said.
But Beijing and Moscow don't see it that way.
"We do not have any doubts that US, with support of their allies, will continue to build up the potential of the Asia Pacific segment of their global missile system, which will inevitably lead to disruption of established strategic balances both in the Asia Pacific and beyond."
Interestingly, it's not just Russian and Chinese officials that are against the US deployment of THAAD; South Korean presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung and mayor of Seongnam City commented:
"We have to realize clearly that THAAD cannot stop the nuclear missiles coming from the DPRK. How can the 48 missiles of THAAD stop the over 1,000 missiles from the DPRK? The north of Chungcheongbuk-do and the capital area jointly account for more than half of our population and most of our territory. THAAD cannot even cover these areas, but merely increases the regional military tensions. To be honest, deploying THAAD will hurt both us and China. No one will gain anything from it. The starting point of THAAD is wrong, so we have to reconsider it completely. Otherwise, our future will be gloomy, chaotic and insecure."
Clearly the rush to get THAAD deployed counters any pre-emptive rejection by Lee. We are sure China's response will be swift at this apparent 'retaliation' by the US.
As Strategic Culture's Nan Li previously noted, China is opposed to THAAD deployment for several reasons.
First, Chinese analysts believe that THAAD in South Korea is intended to intercept missiles launched, not from North Korea, but from China and Russia. THAAD has an operational range of 200 kilometers (km) and is designed to intercept missiles at altitudes between 40 and 180 km. Such altitudes, according to analysts from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), match the “terminal phase” of the intermediate, long-range and even intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), or those with ranges exceeding 3,500 km. PLA analysts also claim that they match the “mid-course phase” of medium-range missiles, or those with ranges between 1,000 and 3,500 km, including China’s DF-21 and DF-26 missiles. Because the direct threats to South Korea — including the Seoul area, where 40 percent of the South Korean population resides — are North Korea’s long-range artilleries and short-range ballistic missiles, THAAD, they believe, is clearly a mismatch against such threats.
Chinese analysts are particularly concerned about THAAD’s X-band radar. Even though it would be configured as a fire-control radar with a detection range of 600 km, it perhaps could be reconfigured as an early-warning radar, which allows a detection range exceeding 2,000 km. Such a range suggests that China’s missile activities on land and at sea in northern and eastern China may be mostly exposed. The radar allegedly can see the critical processes where warheads and decoys are released during China’s strategic missile tests. In times of war, it can undermine the reliability of China’s strategic deterrent because in comparison with Alaska-based radars, it is believed to be capable of acquiring more than ten minutes of early warning time against China’s strategic ballistic missiles. It can also differentiate real warheads from decoys. If integrated into the U.S. national missile defense network, this radar allegedly can increase the odds of success in intercepting Chinese missiles even at their “boost phase,” reducing further the reliability of China’s already small strategic deterrent and tilting the strategic balance in favor of the United States.
Moreover, Chinese analysts believe that the Korean Peninsula has historically been a nearby sphere critical to China’s security. They worry that by deploying THAAD, South Korea could share data with the United States and Japan on air traffic control, air defense, and early warning. This may help to integrate South Korea-based systems with U.S. and Japanese sensors and sea-based Aegis systems, with the goal of forming a trilateral strategic alliance to contain China at China’s door steps. Chinese analysts believe that North Korean nuclear tests were only an excuse used by the United States to deploy THAAD, the real U.S. intention being to drive a wedge between South Korea and China at a time when China-South Korea relations were improving substantially, as reflected in the countries’ booming bilateral trade and Park Geun-hye’s attendance at the Victory Day Parade in Beijing in September 2015. THAAD deployment would bring the United States and South Korea closer at the expense of China’s security. This could help the United States to stabilize U.S.-South Korea relations and prevent the possible loss of the U.S. military foothold on the Korean Peninsula.
Furthermore, Chinese analysts believe that THAAD deployment in South Korea may encourage Japan to import THAAD to compensate for the range deficiencies of its PAC-3 missile defense systems. They also believe that South Korea’s decision would not only harm South Korea-China relations, but also harm South Korea itself by removing its “strategic flexibility” in balancing among major powers and in handling North-South relations. By directly challenging China’s strategic security interests, some argue, South Korea has also set a bad example for China’s neighbors to follow if no substantial cost is incurred to South Korea. Finally, Chinese analysts claim that THAAD deployment would not deter North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, but instead may drive it to develop more and better nuclear weapons and missiles.Chinese analysts have proposed a wide range of countermeasures to retaliate against the THAAD deployment. They argue that to restore regional “strategic balance,” China should cooperate with Russia in developing strategic offensive weapons, particularly in developing “penetration” technologies that can defeat missile defense. Other proposed countermeasures include concealment and redeployment of China’s strategic capabilities to reduce their exposure to the THAAD radar, and accelerated development of China’s own missile defense systems. Other analysts argue for economic sanctions.
- Schlichter Warns "Watch The Liberals – All They Have Left Is Lies"
Via Kurt Schlichter of Townhall.com,
Suddenly the Democrats are coming out against their classic moves like cavorting with Russians to hack American elections and perjury (like you need a link), so who knows which of their foundational principles they will pull a 180 on and betray next: Climate scams? Free money for deadbeats? Jane Fonda?
But they don’t really mean it – hell, without perjury they could never testify to anything. If you want to know what the liberals are up to, just listen to the lies they are telling about conservatives. They used to be able to get away with it too, but thanks to the interwebs Al Gore invented between buffet deep dives and sweaty masseuse gropes, the political playing field for liberal liars is now covered in rakes.
Lying is what they do because that’s all they have left on the left. They have no foundational principles except power. Their entire ideology is transactional – it’s not based on ideas but on payoffs to Democrat sub-sets. Here’s some dough for the baby crunching industry! We’ll hassle some Christian bakers for the SJWs! Let’s put a bunch of cis-het males of pallor who don’t even listen to NPR out of work in West Tennetucky, or wherever they grow coal, to delight our global warming cultist pals!
But today the Democrats hold no levers of power, and they can’t dispense goodies anymore. All they can do now is howl, whine, and lie, and try to mobilize the parasites burrowed into the federal bureaucracy to undercut the will of normal Americans. They do this by falsely accusing us and those who represent us of doing exactly what they are doing and what they intend to do once Trump is ousted. Their goal is to seize power again and permanently disenfranchise us – and they are happy to take the risk of literally ripping the country apart.
Oh no, Jeff Sessions talked to a Russian then didn’t bring it up when not asked about it! Oh, we Democrats would never do that … except, thanks to us conservatives (and a President who’s willing to punch back twice as hard), here come the photos of Schumer and Ivan sharing a cup of Joe Stalin and here’s Pelosi’s partying with some Russkies after denying it and then the State Department turns out to have arranged it and FOR THE LOVE OF GAIA SOMEBODY SHUT DOWN THAT INTERNET MACHINE BECAUSE IT NEVER FORGETS!
Frankly, I don’t think Sessions should have dignified their nonsense by recusing himself. I think he should have strolled out before the cameras and said, “Hey Chuckie, I got a big, fat recusal for ya right here!”
We all kind of knew how the “Trump inspires anti-Semitic threats” meme was going to end up. Swedenpalooza was just a couple fake controversies ago and we all know how that went. Trump observes “Look at Sweden’s immigrant problem,” then the liberal media comes back with “Lies! Sweden is a herring-infused paradise of love and sharing!” at which point Sweden promptly gets on lit fire by Muslim refugees. All that’s missing was a woke, gender-fluid Viking wearing a “Flyktingar Välkommen” t-shirt blowing on a sad trombone.
Then Jewish Community Centers started getting threats and, of course, it had to be Trump supporters because fanatically pro-Israel people always threaten Jews or something. Facts, shmacts – the bogus narrative must be preserved! So Trump condemns this scummery, but also notes, “Sometimes it’s the reverse, to make people — or to make others — look bad.” Of course, the fake news media went nuts, because no hate crime has ever been a hoax except for almost all of them, so we conservatives settled down with our tea and waited for the ending we totally saw coming. And, of course – of course – as every non-Fredoriffic conservative predicted, the FBI busted the slug responsible for a bunch of the threats and it turned out to be …. wait for it!
Let’s see. Was it the conservative Trump supporter? Did he have a MAGA hat? Just like the media and the liberals would have you believe? Oh come on, we all knew it. Say it with me: “Leftist member of the media.”
Um, awkward! Hey, look on the bright side. At least this particular leftist member of the media didn’t murder anyone.
And, of course, there is the Trump the Authoritarian/Trump the New Hitler meme. Except Trump’s apparently not very good at authoritarianism, since no one seems to be being oppressed. He has a lot of policy ideas, which he openly explained to the American people in his speech, and which he will submit to Congress to be debated and voted upon before being enacted. That seems to correspond pretty closely to how I learned a bill becomes a law on Schoolhouse Rock.
Well, maybe his enforcing the duly enacted laws passed by Congress to deport illegal aliens counts as authoritarian Hitler stuff, except it seems odd that a leader who is doing what the people’s representatives passed into law instead of unilaterally deciding on his own not to do what the people’s representatives voted to do, and thereby effectively ruling by decree, is a hitlery authoritarian.
Obama unilaterally changed the immigration law by simply not enforcing it. That seems pretty undemocratic. He also seems to have tapped the communications of his political opponents and left some sleepers in the government dedicated to bringing down the new administration. Maybe I’m being fussy, but those seem super-undemocratic. Naturally, the mainstream media finds this all less disturbing than Kellyanne Conway’s Oval Office footwear.
Watch the liberals. Listen to what they say, because their lies and their slanders are a road map to their plans for the future. Straightforward from here, given the chance, they absolutely intend to impose the kind of quasi-fascist rule they falsely accuse Trump of contemplating. But their problem is that we now recognize their lies, and we see their endgame, and the collapse of the media gatekeepers means they can no longer keep us blind and isolated. So when they lie, we are going to throw their hypocrisy right back in their withered, pruny faces and there’s nothing they can do to shut us up. Sorry, you lying sacks of socialism, we’re not about to let you rip our country apart.
- Shocking Video Footage Of Sprawling California Tent City
California, 1 of only 6 states where Democrats control the governship, statehouse (with a super-majority nonetheless) and state supreme court, is perfectly setup to implement a Bernie Sanders-inspired socialist utopia where everyone makes the same amount of money, enjoys limitless social programs and is never exposed to the horrors of gender-based bathroom signs.
And while liberals would like for you to believe that their socialist agenda is the cure for poverty (in addition to pretty much every other problem plaguing the world), California’s reality paints a slightly different picture. In fact, in just the latest example that all is not well in California’s socialist utopia, Dan Lyman recently exposed this shocking video footage of a sprawling tent city that is ‘home’ to an estimated 1,000 residents.
As Lyman points out, what was once a beautiful bike trail along the Pacific Ocean has now been transformed into a tent city, rife with crime, that reeks of garbage and human feces.
Locals have become increasingly alarmed by the rapid spread of unregulated squatters and their belongings – and their waste.
“As a cyclist who uses the trail to ride to the beach often, over this last year it has gotten substantially worse. It is unsafe and unsanitary with loose dogs everywhere and human fecal matter scattered on the trail.”
“The area is disgusting and reeks of trash and feces.”
He reports that the bike trail, once popular with outdoors enthusiasts and families which runs for miles to beaches along the Pacific Ocean, has become unsafe as miscreants plot assaults and robberies on passing riders, even laying tripwires across the path.
But California’s Democrats aren’t just failing the poor people that have been relegated to tent cities, as we pointed out last fall (see “Americans Fleeing Expensive, Over-Taxed Metro Areas In Pursuit Of Affordability“) people of all income brackets are fleeing the state in droves. Not surprisingly, these domestic migrants are flocking to areas with a lower cost of living, lower/no state income taxes, less regulations and higher job growth (aka “Red” states).
Ironically, the dark areas on the map above seem to match perfectly with the dark areas on this map which indicate those with the highest state income tax rates.
But, if Jerry Brown can just get his $100 billion bullet train finished then we’re sure all will be well.
- CNN Does it Again: Network Suddenly Cuts Off Congressman After He Recited Refugee Crime Stats
What is with you lunatics on the left and your obsession with refugees? You fucking idiots.
CNN has a long rich history of suddenly losing connections to their guests, after said guests stumble on a series or words and phrases that goes against their talking points.
And just now.
Thank God for the ‘teevee gremlins.’
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
- How The Market Creates Jobs (And How Government Destroys Them)
Via Walter Block of The Mises Institute,
The Creation of Jobs
If the media tell us that "the opening of XYZ mill has created 1,000 new jobs," we give a cheer. When the ABC company closes and 500 jobs are lost, we're sad. The politician who can provide a subsidy to save ABC is almost assured of wide spread public support for his work in preserving jobs.
But jobs in and of themselves do not guarantee well-being. Suppose that the employment is to dig huge holes and fill them up again? What if the workers manufacture goods and services that no one wants to purchase? In the Soviet Union, which boasts of giving every worker a job, many jobs are just this unproductive. Production is everything, and jobs are nothing but a means toward that end.
Imagine the Swiss Family Robinson marooned on a deserted South Sea island. Do they need jobs? No, they need food, clothing, shelter, and protection from wild animals. Every job created is a deduction from the limited, precious labor available. Work must be rationed, not created, so that the market can create the most product possible out of the limited supply of labor, capital goods, and natural resources.
The same is true for our society. The supply of labor is limited. We must not allow government to create jobs or we lose the goods and services which otherwise would have come into being. We must reserve precious labor for the important tasks still left undone.
Alternatively, imagine a world where radios, pizzas, jogging shoes, and everything else we might want continuously rained down like manna from heaven. Would we want jobs in such a utopia? No, we could devote ourselves to other tasks – studying, basking in the sun, etc. – that we would undertake for their intrinsic pleasure.
Instead of praising jobs for their own sake, we should ask why employment is so important. The answer is, because we exist amidst economic scarcity and must work to live and prosper. That's why we should be of good cheer only when we learn that this employment will produce things people actually value, i.e., are willing to buy with their own hard,earned money. And this is something that can only be done in the free market, not by bureaucrats and politicians.
The Destruction of Jobs
But what about unemployment? What if people want to work, but can't get a job? In almost every case, government programs are the cause of joblessness.
Minimum Wage. The minimum wage mandates that wages be set at a government-determined level. To explain why this is harmful, we can use an analogy from biology: there are certain animals that are weak compared to others. For example, the porcupine is defenseless except for its quills, the deer vulnerable except for its speed.
In economics there are also people who are relatively weak. The disabled, the young, the untrained—all are weak economic actors. But like the weak animals in biology, they have a compensating advantage: the ability to work for lower wages. When the government takes this ability away from them by forcing up pay scales, it is as if the porcupine were shorn of its quills. The result is unemployment, which creates desperate loneliness, isolation, and dependency.
Consider a young, uneducated, unskilled person, whose productivity is $2.50 an hour in the marketplace. What if the legislature passes a law requiring that he be paid $5 per hour? The employer hiring him would lose $2.50 an hour.
Consider a man and a woman each with a productivity of $10 per hour, and suppose, because of discrimination or whatever, that the man is paid $ 10 per hour and the woman is paid $8 per hour. It is as if the woman had a little sign on her forehead saying, "Hire me and earn an extra $2 an hour."
This makes her a desirable employee even for a sexist boss. But when an equal-pay law stipulates that she must be paid the same as the man, the employer can indulge his discriminatory tendencies and not hire her at all, at no cost to himself.
Comparable Worth. What if government gets the bright idea that nurses and truck drivers ought to be paid the same wage because their occupations are of "intrinsically" equal value? It orders that nurses' wages be raised to the same level, which creates unemployment for women.
Working Conditions. Laws which force employers to provide certain types of working conditions also create unemployment. For example, migrant fruit and vegetables pickers must have hot and cold running water and modern toilets in the temporary cabins provided for them. This is economically equivalent to wage laws because, from the point of view of the employer, working conditions are almost indistinguishable from money wages. And if the government forces him to pay more, he will have to hire fewer people.
Unions. When the government forces businesses to hire only union workers, it discriminates against non-union workers, causing them to be at a severe disadvantage or permanently unemployed. Unions exist primarily to keep out competition. They are a state-protected cartel like any other.
Employment Protection. Employment protection laws, which mandate that no one can be fired without due process, are supposed to protect employees. However, if the government tells the employer that he must keep the employee no matter what, he will tend not to hire him in the first place. This law, which appears to help workers, instead keeps them from employment. And so do employment taxes and payroll taxes, which increase costs to businesses and discourage them from hiring more workers.
Payroll Taxes. Payroll taxes like Social Security impose heavy monetary and administrative costs on businesses, drastically increasing the marginal cost of hiring new employees.
Unemployment Insurance. Government unemployment insurance and welfare cause unemployment by subsidizing idleness. When a certain behavior is subsidized—in this case not working—we get more of it.
Licensing. Regulations and licensing also cause unemployment. Most people know that doctors and lawyers must have licenses. But few know that ferret breeders, falconers, and strawberry growers must also have them. In fact, government regulates over 1,000 occupations in all 50 states. A woman in Florida who ran a soup kitchen for the poor out of her home was recently shut down as an unlicensed restaurant, and many poor people now go hungry as a result.
When the government passes a law saying certain jobs cannot be undertaken without a license, it erects a legal barrier to entry. Why should it be illegal for anyone to try their hand at haircutting? The market will supply all the information consumers need.
When the government bestows legal status on a profession and passes a law against competitors, it creates unemployment. For example, who lobbies for the laws which prevent just anyone from giving a haircut? The haircutting industry—not to protect the consumer from bad haircuts, but to protect themselves against competition.
Peddling. Laws against street peddlers prevent people from selling food and products to people who want them. In cities like New York and Washington, D.C., the most vociferous supporters of anti-peddling laws are established restaurants and department stores.
Child Labor. There are many jobs that require little training—such as mowing lawns—which are perfect for young people who want to earn some money. In addition to the earnings, working also teaches young people what a job is, how to handle money, and how to save and maybe even invest. But in most places, the government discriminates against teenagers and prevents them from participating in the free enterprise system. Kids can't even have a street-corner lemonade stand.
The Federal Reserve. By bringing about the business cycle, Federal Reserve money creation causes unemployment. Inflation not only raises prices, it also misallocates labor. During the boom phase of the trade cycle, businesses hire new workers, many of whom are pulled from other lines of work by the higher wages. The Fed subsidy to these capital industries lasts only until the bust. Workers are then laid off and displaced.
The Free Market. The free market, of course, does not mean Utopia. We live in a world of differing intelligence and skills, of changing market preferences, and of imperfect information, which can lead to temporary, market-generated unemployment, which Mises called "catallactic." And some people choose unemployment by holding out for a higher paying job.
But as a society, we can insure that everyone who wants to work has a chance to do so by repealing minimum wage law, comparable worth rules, working condition laws, compulsory union membership, employment protection, employment taxes, payroll taxes, government unemployment insurance, welfare, regulations, licensing, anti-peddling laws, child-labor laws, and government money creation.
The path to jobs that matter is the free market.
- "The Reality Is, Half Of Americans Can’t Afford To Write A $500 Check"
The CEO of Assurant appeared on Bloomberg TV to explain why demand for his services is likely to increase: the chief executive of the mobile phone insurer said he expects a surge in demand as carriers charge customers more to replace their devices. “If you think back five years ago, you as a consumer didn’t know how much that phone cost, you thought it was free or close to free,” Assurant’s Alan Colberg said Monday. “Now you’re paying $600, that’s a lot. So we’ve actually seen the attachment rate, or the number of people buying the product, going up a little bit in the last couple of years.”
He then proceeded to give Bloomberg his traditional sales pitch: Assurant is counting on growth at its business covering phones and appliances to help counter a decline in the segment that insures foreclosed homes for lenders. While improvement in the real estate market has limited the number of vacant homes, Colberg said there are still many cash-strapped consumers.
It is what he said next that caught our attention: “The reality is, half of Americans can’t afford to write a $500 check,” Colberg said. He spun that stunning statistic by saying that when US customers sign up for a cellular plan, they’re willing to buy protection in case “they lose that phone or something happens to it.”
In other words, there are millions of Americans who don’t have $500 in the bank but are willing to dish out more than that on a cell phone, and then are stupid enough to make monthly payments that ultimately end up being far higher than $500 to protect their purchase… which they clearly couldn’t afford in the first place.
* * *
That said, we decided to look into the CEO’s claim about the woeful state of US finances. What we found is that according to a recent Bankrate survey of 1,000 adults, 57% of Americans don’t have enough cash to cover a mere $500 unexpected expense. Turns out the CEO was right. And while that may appear dire, it is a slight improvement from 2016, when 63% of U.S. residents said they wouldn’t be able to handle such an expense.
The survey’s findings have shed light on how the so-called recovery of the past 8 years has skipped about half of the US population, which literally live paycheck to paycheck, and reflects a country in which many households continue to struggle with their basic finances more than seven years after the official end to the recession.
Putting the numbers in context: despite steady job growth during the Obama administration – which have been focused on minimum wage industries – wages have been predictably slow to recover, with the typical American household still earning 2.4% below what they brought home in 1999, when income peaked. Meanwhile, costs for essentials such as housing and child care have surged faster than the rate of inflation, placing stress on household budgets and making the accumulation of wealth, i.e., savings, impossible.
The bottom line: About four out of 10 Americans said they had enough in savings to cover a surprise $500 expense. Another 21% said they would rely on a credit card, while 20% said they’d cut back on other expenses. Another 11% said they’d turn to family or friends for the money.
What is even more striking is that among Americans who earn more than $75,000 per year – a third more than the typical U.S. household earns – almost half also said they wouldn’t be able to cover a $500 surprise expense. Ironically, Millennials represent the generation most equipped to handle an emergency cost, with 47 percent saying they have enough in savings to cover one.
The Bankrate survey findings echoed research published last year by the Federal Reserve, which found that 46% of respondents said they would be challenged to come up with even less, or $400, to cover an emergency expense, and would likely borrow or sell something to afford it. When the Fed asked what types of emergency expenses Americans had actually faced in the last year, more than one out of five cited a major unexpected medical expense. The average expense: $2,782, or almost seven times higher than the Fed’s hypothetical $400 surprise bill.
How do cell phones fit in all of this? When it comes to reducing spending, dining out is the first place where consumers would cut back, with 6 out of 10 respondents saying they would eat out less. What is the “stickiest” expense? According to Bankrate, the least likely expense to face the chopping block are mobile phone plans, with the survey finding that only 35% said they would cut back on their wireless plans to save money.
In other words, Americans would rather be hungry than cell phone free. In retrospect, it may turn out be that Assurant’s CEO, whose business model is a big bet on human stupidity, just may have a goldmine on his hands.
- Wikileaks Releases Encrypted "Vault 7" Torrent, Will Unveil Password Tuesday 9am
Last month, following a series of seemingly random tweets by Wikileaks, we reported that starting on February 4th, each day Wikileaks began sending out a series of cryptic question Tweets teasing the world about “Vault 7”. The questions were framed in Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How format (but not in that order). Each came with an image “clue”.
Here they are in chronological order starting with the earliest.
- What: The first tweet shows a picture of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.
- Where: The second tweet shows a picture of a vault in a former salt mine in Merkers, Germany where Nazis stored money, gold, paintings, and other valuables during World War II. This mine vault was captured by the United States in April 1945.
- When: The third tweet shows a picture of a Pratt & Whitney F119 airplane engine, which is the engine for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The picture in the tweet was taken on April 9th, 2010 at Langley Air Force Base as part of a story published on April 12th about the soundproof “hush houses” used for jet engine testing.
- Who: The fourth tweet shows a picture of the Manning, Assange, and Snowden “infamous spies” posters released by the Defense Security Service.
- Why: The fifth tweet shows a picture from the article Keeping Structures Strong, which discusses the 509th Civil Engineer Squadron’s work repairing infrastructure on Whiteman Air Force Base. The specific picture tweeted is captioned “Staff Sgt. Adam Boyd, 509th Civil Engineer Squadron structural supervisor, welds a box blade for a snow plow, Feb. 27. Structures Airmen perform jobs such as this one to save the Air Force from having to possibly spend money on parts made by civilian companies.”
- How: Or, more specifically, “How did #Vault7 make its way to WikiLeaks?” The sixth tweet shows a picture of “Surveillance of mailboxes in Berlin”. The picture is caption “When mailboxes were being observed by Stasi agents, every person posting a letter was photographed. Some films found in the Stasi archives also show persons dressed in civilian clothing emptying the mailbox after the conclusion of the surveillance action.”
While it is possible that Vault 7 is directly related to one of these pictures, these pictures may just be representative images, part of some sort of pattern, or clues about the answers to the corresponding questions. As the pictures are images of entirely different things (and no longer just pictures of vaults), each individual picture being related to the answer of the question tweeted along with it seems quite plausible.
Then, after a flurry of appearances over a month ago, the topic of “Vault 7” faded away from the Wikileaks twitter account, until Monday evening, when in a tweet around 7:30pm, Wikileaks announced that it had released an encrypted ‘torrent’ file, just over 500 MB in size and which can be downloaded now at the following URL, will be made accessible for everyone tomorrow at 9am ET when Wikileaks releases the passphrase.
ENCRYPTED RELEASE
Use a ‘torrent’ downloader on: https://t.co/gpBxJAoYD5
And ‘7z’ to decrypt.
Passphrase will be made public at Tue 9am ET. pic.twitter.com/MxZQtoaCMK— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 7, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In subsequent tweets, Wikileaks provides further information on how to unzip the encrypted file contained in the torrent.
How to unarchive a “.7z” (7zip) file: Use a 7zip program. Many are available for Windows/Mac/Linux. Internet search for “7zip”.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 7, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
1) Install ‘transmission’ (https://t.co/DUxLqfVT74)
2) download https://t.co/gpBxJAoYD5
3) install ‘7zip’
4) use it to unpack ‘.7z’ file— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 7, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
To unpack Vault 7, part one: “Year Zero”, on a Mac, you can use this ‘.7z’ unarchiver https://t.co/nDNzMv4Gkn https://t.co/uRI8d0w1z1
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 7, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Why unveil the contents of “Vault 7”, which some have speculated is a form of an insurance policy for Julian Assange? It may have something to do with Saturday’s report that Guillermo Lasso, the frontrunner in Ecuador’s presidential election, whose runoff round will take place on April 2, has warned that he will ask “Assange to leave our [London] embassy.” Or it could be something totally different.
For now, there is no indication what is contained on the released torrent, although we are confident that many will have it downloaded and looking forward to tomorrow’s 9am release of the password to unlock the contents of the mysterious file.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...