The West Is Reduced To Looting Itself -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

The West Is Reduced To Looting Itself

Paul Craig Roberts

I, Michael Hudson, John Perkins, and a few others have reported the multi-pronged looting of peoples by Western economic institutions, principally the big New York Banks with the aid of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Third World countries were and are looted by being inticed into development plans for electrification or some such purpose. The gullible and trusting governments are told that they can make their countries rich by taking out foreign loans to implement a Western-presented development plan, with the result being sufficient tax revenues from economic development to service the foreign loan.

Seldom, if ever, does this happen. What happens is that the plan results in the country becoming indebted to the limit and beyond of its foreign currency earnings. When the country is unable to service the development loan, the creditors send the IMF to tell the indebted government that the IMF will protect the government’s credit rating by lending it the money to pay its bank creditors. However, the conditions are that the government take necessary austerity measures so that the government can repay the IMF. These measures are to curtail public services and the government sector, reduce public pensions, and sell national resources to foreigners. The money saved by reduced social benefits and raised by selling off the country’s assets to foreigners serves to repay the IMF.

Cont...... 

How The Masses Deal With Risk (And Why They Remain Poor) | Zero Hedge

How The Masses Deal With Risk (And Why They Remain Poor) | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Chris via Capitalist Exploits blog,

Last week I discussed how humans are wired to pay attention to scary things. In financial speak: risk. Darwinism has chastised those who ignore risk by rewarding them with an early grave, and by process of elimination rewarded those who stay out of the cross hairs.

Thing is, we no longer live in a world where saber-toothed tigers threaten our existence. In today’s world far greater risk lies in the truly enormous and disproportionate emotional attitude to (and assessment of) risk.

This has nothing to do with Darwin but rather more to do with an educational system designed and built for the industrial age. Education today is an advertising agency which leads us to believe we need the society on which it relies upon for its existence.

Beginning with the schooling system and followed by “higher education”, the middle and upper middle class in developed societies are by and large serfs. And they’re serfs because they don’t understand risk.

The overwhelming majority look at risk incorrectly. They look at it two dimensionally: “The more risk I take the more ‘volatility’ I have.”The fact is, risk is actually subjective to your own personal situation. Mismanaging your own personal situation increases risk disproportionately.

Cont...... 

The Biggest (Vote) Loser | Zero Hedge

The Biggest (Vote) Loser | Zero Hedge

What must the rest of the world think?

Source: Townhall.com

Is it a "Good Idea"? - EPautos

Is it a "Good Idea"? - EPautos



The other day, I wrote about ethanol – the corn-sourced alcohol that’s used as a fuel additive in almost all the “gas” sold in the United States. Air quotes used because the “gas” is actually 10 percent ethanol.



Or, more.



I got replies – mostly favorable, a few not.



Some of the nots touted the virtues of ethanol – and I will freely admit there are some. As I hope the nots would acknowledge ethanol’s downsides.



It’s neither here nor there.



Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that ethanol is the ideal fuel. It’s still an irrelevance… morally speaking.



The issue – whether it’s ethanol or Obamacare or some other “program” – is whether the use of violence (threatened or actual) is morally justifiable. Debating the utilitarian merits (and deficits) of whatever it is we’re talking about sidesteps this fundamental point and by doing that, concedes the field. Or at the very least, keeps the matter open for discussion when it ought to be closed.



This – debating the utilitarian pros and cons –  is key to the ongoing vitality (and viability) of the Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative puppet show.



There is no debate over the fundamental question. Just a discussion over how much violence will be visited on whom – and to what end. Who will benefit (and even profit)… and who will be compelled to provide those benefits (and profits).



This is why it doesn’t matter which candidate or party wins a given election. It’s the same as having an intermission at an auction – and announcing a new auctioneer for the second half of the auction. It’s why the debates are so tiresome – and why people (even though most probably don’t realize it) are so sick of it all. Everyone knows their lives and property are up on the block – that whether it’s Tweedledee or Tweedledum – they are going to be told what to do, how much they’ll pay and so on. It’s like being in a prison and always having to sleep with one eye open.



There is no “leave me be” option – and can’t be, so long as the question is even up for consideration. The very best one can hope for is a temporary respite or a slight decrease in the amount demanded or the control asserted. This is the sole and only difference between Team Red and Team Blue, between liberals and conservatives.whiskey plaque



Since at least the time of the Whiskey Rebellion (1791), the principle has been enshrined that it’s ok to take other people’s stuff or make them do what you like provided you have the political muscle; the votes or the “leaders” willing to make it so. Not by asking but by telling.



Some 225 years ago, the “Founding Father” of the United States, Toothless George – and his golem, Alexander Hamilton – marched on rural Pennsylvania to teach the veterans of the American Revolution a lesson about what they’d actually fought for.



Or rather, for whom.



It wasn’t for freedom from obnoxious taxation. It was for an exchange of auctioneers. They’d been bled for the cause of replacing the British ruling elite with a homegrown elite. Washington and Hamilton and the rest rather than George III and the rest. New boss, same as the old boss.



Most Americans do not know this – for very good reason – but the fact is taxes  on the average person were less oppressive (effectively nonexistent) under the original Team Red (King George and Parliament) than under the original Team Blue (President George and Congress). The Revolution was fought to benefit the colonial ruling class, crony capitalist finance shysters like Hamilton – not ordinary people like the Pennsylvania farmers – who had previously never been threatened with bayonets to hand over money they didn’t have to pay what amounted to federal income taxes on the whiskey they made and bartered among themselves as a medium of exchange.



It must have been a rude wake-up call.



Since that time, at least, the debate has always been: who shall pay… how much shall they pay… and to what end? Never whether anyone ought to be forced to pay anything.



The latter concept having been abandoned and the former embraced, it is today merely a question of degree. It is why we have a formal federal income tax, state taxes,local taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, motor fuels taxes, sin taxes, taxes on property, taxes on transactions, taxes on meals (and whiskey) as well as Obamacare and all the rest of it. There is no longer any end to it. How could there be? What would be the basis for drawing a line?Republican Candidates Take Part In Debates At Reagan Library In Simi Valley



Republicans believe in “less government” (so they say) but still demand your money and insist on their right to control your life. Democrats advocate the same, just tweaked a little here and there.  Both sides argue interminably over the spoils. Never whether they have any right to the spoils.



Ron Paul tried to put the debate on a moral rather than utilitarian level. If he’d been a younger, more charismatic man he might have been dangerous. Cue the Zapruder film.



Trump, on the other hand, isn’t.



Neither is Hillary or Bernie or Jeb or Ben or Marco.



Fundamentally, they are all in agreement.



Which is why the coming election doesn’t matter.



A year or so from now, we may have a more luxurious White House (it’ll be great, really) but what we absolutely will not have, ever, is a government that leaves us be. Because it’s a contradiction in terms, an impossibility. Government – as Washington himself admitted – is force. Organized, systematized. Expecting it to just sit there and leave us be is like expecting a lion to not eat the sheep just shoved into his cage. It’s what he does.



It’s the nature of the beast.

The Seneca Trap: Mineral resources and the limits to growth.

The Seneca Trap: Mineral resources and the limits to growth.: Originally published on Cassandra's legacy on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 This is a shortened version of a talk I gave in...

The Seneca Trap: The punctuated collapse of the Roman Empire

The Seneca Trap: The punctuated collapse of the Roman Empire: originally published on "Cassandra's Legacy" on Monday, July 15, 2013 I defined as the " Seneca Cliff "...

The Seneca Trap: The World is a Fountain

The Seneca Trap: The World is a Fountain: Originally published on Cassandra's legacy Wednesday, March 13, 2013 The world is complex, variegated, convoluted, multi-fa...

The Seneca Trap: Seneca's cliff goes iPad

The Seneca Trap: Seneca's cliff goes iPad: originally published on Cassandra's Legacy on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 My post on the " Seneca cliff " has inspi...

Cassandra's Legacy: A new blog dedicated to the Seneca Effect

Cassandra's Legacy: A new blog dedicated to the Seneca Effect: The Seneca Trap is a repository of the posts dedicated to the "Seneca Effect" that appeared, and will appear, on "Ca...

Gang of Masked Swedes Attack Migrant Children in Stockholm | The Daily Sheeple

Gang of Masked Swedes Attack Migrant Children in Stockholm | The Daily Sheeple

There’s no doubt that the migrant crisis is contributing to the breakdown of society in Europe, but it isn’t just the migrants who are contributing to social upheaval. The lack of legal response to what the migrants have done has led many Europeans to take matters into their own hands. In Sweden, this took the form of 50 masked menraiding a train station in Stockholm on Friday, to beat up the unruly Moroccan kids who live there.

The kids are often drunk, and routinely steal things and accost women. The attack was apparently a response to the stabbing deathof a 22-year-old asylum worker at the hands of a 15-year-old migrant. It started with a protest of around 200 people, who passed out pamphlets that called on Swedish citizens to deal with the migrants themselves, because the government has failed to do so.

“We refuse to accept the destruction of our once to safe society.” The pamphlet reads “When our political leadership and police show more sympathy for murderers than for their victims, there are no longer any excuses to let it happen without protest.” It goes on to say that“The justice system has walked out and the contract of society is therefore broken – it is now every Swedish man’s duty to defend out public spaced against the imported criminality.”

Together, the media and the government have blamed these attacks on the typical scapegoats of European society. They’re either calling them football hooligans or neo-nazis. Whatever they are, they’ve proven that law and order is rapidly disintegrating in every country that has accepted unfettered immigration from the Middle East.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-29

“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.”

Aldous Huxley

War Party On The Run - The Roots Of The Anti-Trump, Anti-Sanders Camps In Both Parties | Zero Hedge

War Party On The Run - The Roots Of The Anti-Trump, Anti-Sanders Camps In Both Parties | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

I haven’t had this much fun in years – of course I’m talking about the US presidential election season, with The Donald taking on all comers, and winning (at least so far), and Bernie Sanders burning up the self-satisfied mandarins of the Democratic party Establishment.

What’s great about this spectacle – and one must view it as a spectacle in order to gain maximum enjoyment from it – is that, as none other than Rush Limbaugh points out:

“Trump is so far outside the formula that has been established for American politics that people who are inside the formula can’t comprehend it. They don’t understand why somebody would want to venture so far outside it, because it is what it is, and there’s a ladder of success that you have to climb. And somebody challenging it like this in more ways than one, as Trump is doing, has just got everybody experiencing every kind of emotion you can: They’re angry, they are flabbergasted, they’re shocked, they’re stunned – and all of it because he’s leading.”

As I explained here, and here, one of the ways Trump is upending the rules is that he’s broken with the GOP mandarins on foreign policy. Yes, yes, I know he bloviates about how he’s “the most militaristic person” on God’s green earth, but the fact is there’s plenty of others out there who out-do him in that category. I’ve heard him say he wants to “bomb the s**t out of ISIS,” but aren’t we doing that already – to little effect? When Bill O’Reilly asked him why he didn’t support putting ground troops in Syria, he answered “Do you want to run Syria?” O’Reilly demurred. Trump puffs up his chest and announces he wants us to have “the strongest biggest baddest military on earth” – but you’ll note he invariably adds: “So we’ll never have to use it.”

Cont...... 

The Pentagon’s Pricey Culture of Mediocrity | War Is Boring

The Pentagon’s Pricey Culture of Mediocrity | War Is Boring



January 29, 2016 - Dan Grazier



When the tank crew under my command ran into trouble on the battlefield, I never doubted the ultimate success of the mission because the Marines I served with were among the finest people I knew.



But if we want to keep it that way, the Pentagon must stop mismanaging its talent and fix its personnel policies.



The problem is, far too many officers have become captives of the acquisition process. Instead of independently assessing weapons systems and other items on offer from the private sector, they get caught up in satisfying Pentagon contractors who peddle expensive new wares.





Consider the case of Air Force Capt. Joshua Wilson. When he discovered problems with the F-22’s oxygen system, he shared his concerns with his superiors, Congress, and eventually 60 Minutes. For his troubles, the Air Force held up his promotion — even though he’d received highly positive evaluations throughout his career.



That’s a major disincentive for any career-minded officer.



The current system mandates that officers either continue to get promoted or leave the service. The military calls this “up or out.” And if an officer is forced out before he qualifies for retirement benefits, he loses everything members count on in their golden years — including a monthly pension, medical care and commissary privileges. Such a system creates fewer people like Wilson at a time when we need more of them.



The root of the problem is the revolving door between the Pentagon and private military contractors.



Remember the big white blimp that broke free from its mooring in Maryland last year and floated across rural Pennsylvania? That’s a good example of an underperforming and expensive military program the government should have canceled years ago.



In fact, the Army did try to cut the program, officially called JLENS, in 2010 — only to have then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, rescue it. Shortly after his retirement from the Marine Corps in 2011, Cartwright joined the board of directors of Raytheon, the prime contractor for — you guessed it — the JLENS.



With billions of dollars at stake, who’s going to speak out against ineffective and wasteful Pentagon spending? Cuts to programs like the F-22 and JLENS not only threaten the boss’s next promotion, but also his or her ability to land a high-paying, lucrative job with a big military contractor after retirement from government service.



Meanwhile, it’s the taxpayers who get stuck paying for overpriced, underperforming weapons systems like the deeply troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive and unnecessary weapons program ever.



These policies undermine the military competence of the Pentagon’s own officer corps. They’re creating a system that self-selects a large cadre of mediocre conformists.



There have been piecemeal attempts at personnel reform in the past, but none have solved this problem. Replacing the “up or out” system was among the changes a committee led by Undersecretary of Defense Brad Carson proposed last year. But so far, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has remained silent on this issue.



Genuine reform wouldn’t just close the revolving door — it would cultivate officers who aren’t tempted by it. They’d be more independent-minded and more attuned to its deleterious effects on combat effectiveness. Such officers wouldn’t only grasp, say, just how useless the F-35 would be in combat due to its numerous and well-documented shortcomings. They’d also have the confidence to say so publicly.



The Pentagon chief and Congress need to act now to change this “up or out” system before we end up saddled with even more expensive and ineffective weapons systems — and there’s nobody left with the moral courage to call them out on it.



Dan Grazier is the Jack Shanahan Fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, where this article originally appeared.

UNEMPLOYMENTLAND « The Burning Platform

UNEMPLOYMENTLAND « The Burning Platform

Via Townhall

Hillary Unveils New Campaign Logo | Zero Hedge

Hillary Unveils New Campaign Logo | Zero Hedge

Going down? To The White House... or The Big House

Source: Investors.com

Corrupt US Government Accuses Putin Of Corruption - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Corrupt US Government Accuses Putin Of Corruption

Paul Craig Roberts

The most corrupt government on earth, a government so utterly corrupt that it allows former executives of a handful of corrupt mega-banks to run the economic policy of the US solely in the interest of their banks, denying tens of millions of American retirees any interest income on their savings for 7 years and denying hard-pressed Social Security recipients any cost-of-living adjustments by falsifying inflation measures, a government so totally corrupt that it has destroyed seven countries and millions of Muslims solely on the basis of lies, this irredeemably corrupt government has accused the most admired political leader on earth of corruption.
http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-corrupt-proclaims-most-corrupt-govt-earth/ri12490

The entire world outside brainwashed America, its EU vassals, and Nazified Ukraine is laughing.

The United States, once admired, then feared, is now the laughing stock of the world. The CIA-controlled German media is being abandoned by the German people who have figured out that their media is nothing but a Washington propaganda operation against Russia. The backlash is so strong that the German media might not survive. http://russia-insider.com/en/germany/germans-abandon-major-news-sites-anger-over-slanted-russia-coverage/ri885

Here is Stephen Lendman’s take on Washington’s latest attempt to demonize Putin:

Cont...... 

Tomgram: Ann Jones, Social Democracy for Dummies | TomDispatch

Tomgram: Ann Jones, Social Democracy for Dummies | TomDispatch

Water drips from a leaky roof. The heat brings on a “moldy, rancid odor.” A child volunteer is tasked with killing giant roaches. Welcome to the Detroit public school system, which,according to a recent New York Times report, is “run down after years of neglect” and “teetering on the edge of financial collapse.” And yet, last Thursday, this was the closest thing to a “good news” story about Michigan on the front page of that newspaper. A companion piece covered the even more dismal “water crisis in the poverty-stricken, black-majority city of Flint,” a penny-pinching state “austerity” measure turned public health emergency that has left children there with elevated levels of lead in their blood, putting them at risk of lifelong adverse health effects.

How did it come to this? An America dotted with feral cities left to decay into ruin? Man-made catastrophes spawned by harebrained austerity schemes? A country of crumbling roads,unsafe bridges, failing schools, a woefully neglected mental health system whose ample slack has been taken up by a disastrous criminal justice system? Take your pick when it comes to rotten institutions and rotting infrastructure, since the list goes on and on. Presidentialcandidates are vowing to “make America great again” or talking about “reigniting” its “promise,” but perhaps a counterfeit, sepia-tinged trip to the beginning of the road that got us here isn’t really the solution to twenty-first-century America’s problems. TomDispatchregular Ann Jones has a different idea. In her latest piece, a joint TomDispatch/Nation article which will appear in print in the new issue of that magazine, Jones takes a welcome detour to a place where welfare isn’t a dirty word, the social safety net isn’t the preferred place for budget cuts, and axe-wielding children are -- believe it or not -- fostered, not feared: Scandinavia.

A world citizen who has journeyed across Africa, spent years living in the Afghan war zone, and was most recently a Fulbright Fellow in Norway, Jones examines how a couple of Nixon-era decisions led the U.S. down the road to ruin, while Scandinavian nations charted a different course, embracing principles of uplift, equality, and humanity. Yes, some American-esque values seem to be seeping into the Scandinavian scene of late, from the rise of anti-immigration sentiment in Sweden to a Danish town attempting to stick it to Muslims by way of pork meatballs in school lunches. But even far-right parties in these Nordic nationschampion a robust welfare state and a generous social safety net. So let Jones, an intrepid journalist whose latest book, They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America's Wars -- The Untold Story, is already a classic of Iraq and Afghan War reporting, help explain why Norway, Denmark, and Sweden invariably top global indexes when it comes to affordable housing, education, health, life expectancy, and overall citizen satisfaction, while the United States has ended up with failing cities, crumbling schools, and poisoned water.Nick Turse

American Democracy Down for the Count 
Or What Is It the Scandinavians Have That We Don’t? 
By Ann Jones

[This is a joint TomDispatch/Nation article and appears in print in slightly shortened form in the new issue of the Nation magazine.]

Some years ago, I faced up to the futility of reporting true things about America’s disastrous wars and so I left Afghanistan for another remote mountainous country far away. It was the polar opposite of Afghanistan: a peaceful, prosperous land where nearly everybody seemed to enjoy a good life, on the job and in the family.

It’s true that they didn’t work much, not by American standards anyway. In the U.S., full-time salaried workers supposedly laboring 40 hours a week actually average 49, with almost 20% clocking more than 60. These people, on the other hand, worked only about 37 hours a week, when they weren’t away on long paid vacations. At the end of the work day, about four in the afternoon (perhaps three in the summer), they had time to enjoy a hike in the forest or a swim with the kids or a beer with friends -- which helps explain why, unlike so many Americans, they are pleased with their jobs.

Cont.....  

TOUGH GUY « The Burning Platform

TOUGH GUY « The Burning Platform

Via Investors.com

The Archdruid Report: Retrotopia: Lines of Separation

The Archdruid Report: Retrotopia: Lines of Separation: This is the fourteenth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrativ...

Circus Politics: Will Our Freedoms Survive Another Presidential Election? | Zero Hedge

Circus Politics: Will Our Freedoms Survive Another Presidential Election? | Zero Hedge

Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.” ? Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Adding yet another layer of farce to an already comical spectacle, the 2016 presidential election has been given its own reality show. Presented by Showtime, The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth will follow the various presidential candidates from now until Election Day.

As if we need any more proof that politics in America has been reduced to a three-ring circus complete with carnival barkers, acrobats, contortionists, jugglers, lion tamers, animal trainers, tight rope walkers, freaks, strong men, magicians, snake charmers, fire eaters, sword swallowers, knife throwers, ringmasters and clowns.

Truly, who needs bread and circuses when you have the assortment of clowns and contortionists that are running for the White House?

No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people.

Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, the 2016 presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system.

Anyone who believes that this election will bring about any real change in how the American government does business is either incredibly naïve, woefully out-of-touch, or oblivious to the fact that as an in-depth Princeton University study shows, we now live in an oligarchy that is “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.”

When a country spends close to $5 billion to select what is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified homecoming king or queen to occupy the White House, while 46 million of its people live in poverty, nearly 300,000 Americans are out of work, and more than 500,000 Americans are homeless, that’s a country whose priorities are out of step with the needs of its people.

Cont...... 

Cassandra's Legacy: Climate change and the alien gods of the Bible: an...

Cassandra's Legacy: Climate change and the alien gods of the Bible: an...: Fish-god and assorted alienities from an ancient Sumerian cylinder seal (image  from wikipedia ). Nothing real but, oh, so fascinating!...

Martin Armstrong Fears A Looming 'Dark Age' | Zero Hedge

Martin Armstrong Fears A Looming 'Dark Age' | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

Feudalism did not take place because of the greedy rich.

Government collapsed with the Roman Empire following Romulus Augustus. People abandoned their property in Rome and fled away from taxation to the suburbs. With no government, there was no rule of law. People thereby agreed to be serfs to work the land in return for security. This system lasted until the Black Death of the 14th century.

So it was not the “rich” that created the system or the collapse of government.

The rich have no power or desire to compel society to accept such a system. For that to emerge, we need a Dark Age with losses of probably 50% of the population through disease/plague, and in turn the collapse of government. Then the landscape would break up into small units for safety. Major corporations would collapse for they need a coherent society to sell products.

The danger of “socialism” is stepping in the direction of communism where it is the government that consumes everything for they have the army, guns, police, whatever.

Government seeks to sustain itself and thus consumes everything, which ultimately leads to revolution. The police are already moving toward being the enemy against the people by supporting the state rather than protecting the population. This was the PRECISE complaint Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence — protecting the agents of the king with mock trials.

So the danger (absent a drak age) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians.

No Republic has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

A Dark Age is a control-alt-delete; reboot and start all over again. The problem: Dark Ages have existed numerous times and they tend to last 600 years. When we look at such things, it is important to dig to the foundation to reveal how such trends emerge.

Former House Majority Leader Claims FBI Is "Ready To Indict" Hillary Clinton | Zero Hedge

Former House Majority Leader Claims FBI Is "Ready To Indict" Hillary Clinton | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Rachel Blevins via TheAntiMedia.org,

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been under investigation by the FBI for several months, and former U.S. House Majority leader Tom DeLay said Monday that the FBI is “ready to indict” her for using a private email server to conduct government business.

During an interview on “The Steve Malzberg Show,” DeLay, a Republican from Texas, said he has friends in the FBI who tell him “they’re ready to indict” the former Secretary of State.

“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public,” DeLay said.

Clinton’s use of personal email on a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State was revealed in March 2015, and while she has maintained that she never sent or received any classified information on the server, her claims have been contradicted by the Intelligence Community.

Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 14, revealing that not only did “several dozen” of Clinton’s emails contain classified information, but some of the information was classified as SAP or “special access programs,” which is beyond top secret.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element,” McCullough wrote. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

DeLay said he believes Clinton is “going to have to face these charges” eventually, whether it’s through an FBI indictment or through the “public eye.”

“One way or another either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign,” DeLay said. “One way or another she’s going to have to face these charges.”

23,144 Ways America Created Terrorists In 2015 | Zero Hedge

23,144 Ways America Created Terrorists In 2015 | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Don Shay via TheAntiMedia.org,

According to the Council of Foreign Relations, a pro-government think tank, the Obama Administration in the last year alone has dropped over 23,144 bombs on predominantly Muslim countries. Whether or not one believes the force is justified on any pragmatic grounds, the carnage is irrefutable. In just Iraq and Syria, two of the most troubled countries today, over 20,000 of those bombs were dropped.

The U.S. government and its fourth branch, the mainstream media, have tried in vain to thwart and undermine the civilian casualty figures resulting from the air operations carried out by the U.S.-led coalition. According to a government report, U.S.-led airstrikes across Syria, Iraq, and other countries have avoided civilians at an astonishingly profound rate: of the 25,000 reported casualties, only six were considered to be civilians. Believing such a statistic is pretty remarkable, especially when considering that 42 civilians died in a single airstrike when U.S. warplanes bombed a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

The claim that aggressive military action is required in order to effectively neutralize terror groups does not hold up to logical criticism. History shows us that military force has only strengthened the overall capability of those terror groups by exacerbating the conditions necessary for their success. In 2014, the CIA estimated the size of the Islamic State to be between 20,000 and 31,000 fighters, while as recently as January 6, officials again repeated the 30,000 estimate.  In other words, U.S.-led airstrikes appear to be weakening ISIS as much as they are avoiding civilian deaths!

The war on terror has been proven to strengthen the cause of jihadist groups in the region, providing them much-needed legitimacy, which they rely on for recruiting new members to bolster their ranks. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, the Taliban fighting U.S.-backed forces in Afghanistan today is stronger than it was at the onset of the war in 2001.

Billions of dollars have been spent and countless lives have been lost, and to whose benefit?  Jihadists such as ISIS or the Taliban thrive on creating a bipolar world of good versus evil, and the violence the United States has purveyed in the region exemplifies the illusion that the jihadists are a force for good.

This is a concept understood by those in the highest ranks of the CIA, and is known as ‘blowback,’ a term officially coined by CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson.  In his book, Nemesis, Johnson describes the implications of this phenomenon:

“This means that when the retaliation comes — as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 — the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia — the area of my academic training — than on the Middle East.”

The United States has currently undertaken a war on terror, a war without limits. This war has no clear definition of victory, unless victory means the the death or capture of every terrorist on earth — an impossibility. The ultimate irony of U.S. foreign policy is that in its pursuit to bring democracy and eradicate terrorism, it has only created more and more failed states and boosted the ranks of terrorist organizations internationally. It is a downward spiral towards death, and it feeds off itself.

Robert Lifton, an American psychiatrist who specializes in the psychological effects of war, writes:

“The Effort to purify the world is self-defeating; the United States becomes a Sisyphus with bombs, able to set off explosions, but unable to cope with its own burden, unable to roll its heavy stone to the top of the hill in Hades.”

The politicians, media pundits, and citizenry who keep insisting the world can be controlled and shaped in our image through militarism and aggression are logically and morally bankrupt. The more aggressive their attempts to eradicate evil, the stronger evil becomes on both sides. Each of the 23,144 bombs dropped on Muslim countries in 2015 potentially created another terrorist.

2015: record hot or not? | Energy Matters

2015: record hot or not? | Energy Matters

With the 2015 lower troposphere temperatures in, NASA and NOAA have declared without any caveats or doubts, that 2015 was the warmest year since records began. This short post updates my charts that compare satellite with surface thermometers temperatures. The differences between the two methodologies are in fact tiny and subtle. According to satellites, 2015 was the third warmest year, lagging 1999 by a fair margin. The main material difference, therefore, is that the satellite record would deprive the scaremongers at NASA and NOAA of their eye popping headlines.

Figure 1 Surface thermometer (GISS LOTI and HadCrut4) and satellite (UAH and RSS) records compared. It is plain to see that surface thermometers set a new record in 2015 while the satellites did not.

In this post I am looking at two of the surface thermometer records (GISS LOTI and HadCrut4) and the only two versions of the satellite record (UAH and RSS). The surface thermometer models are based to a large extent on the same surface thermometer data base where air temperature is measured over land and sea surface temperature (SST) is measured over the oceans. The results are area weighted with the SSTs contributing about 70% of the total. The satellite models are based on the exact same satellite recordings. We will see that there is no material difference between GISS LOTI and HadCrut4 and no material difference between UAH and RSS.

Cont.....