Monday, March 31, 2014

the state of the union - 1950s' vs 2000/2010's - 03.31.2014

I was going to write up a long diatribe about how flawed and narrow it is to think that based on economics alone, we're worse off then we were in the 1950's, but I've decided to just post some articles, and put it like this:

Just like people think it sucks to alive in today's America, I would never want to be alive during the time my parents lived in.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

================================================

24 Statistics To Show To Anyone Who Believes That America Has A Bright Economic Future
#7 To get the same purchasing power that you got out of $20.00 back in 1913 you would have to have more than $457 today.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/24-statistics-to-show-to-anyone-who-believes-that-america-has-a-bright-economic-future

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

====
 
Then and Now: How the Economy Has Changed Since 9/11
by Catherine New Sep 11th 2011 7:00AM

Updated Sep 12th 2011 12:07PM

Think back to the evening of Sept. 10, 2001: It's been 10 years, and in some ways, it's as if nothing has changed. That Monday night, the United States was coming off a recession stemming from a bursting bubble, consumer confidence was declining, and predatory lending was in the headlines.

But as we all know, everything did change the next morning, in ways that we are still working to understand.

The terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 were only one element of what shaped the last 10 years, but those traumatic events magnified and accelerated underlying trends already in motion in the U.S. economy, such as the shift from manufacturing to services, the move away from small businesses to big ones, and the opaque power of bubbles.

US economy

 Over the last decade, consumer confidence and housing prices have gone through a dramatic rise and fall, and two massively expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were initiated. We asked a number of economists to share their thoughts on two questions: What were the most significant economic shifts between 2001 and 2011; and if that decade had a headline, what would it be. Here is what they told DailyFinance.

more here:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/11/then-and-now-how-the-economy-has-changed-since-9-11/

====

60 Years of American Economic History, Told in 1 Graph
Jordan Weissmann Aug 23 2012, 3:17 PM ET

In the 60 years after World War II, the United States built the world's greatest middle class economy, then unbuilt it. And if you want a single snapshot that captures the broad sweep of that transformation, you could do much worse than this graph from a new Pew report, which tracks how average family incomes have changed at each rung of the economic ladder from 1950 through 2010.   

Here's the arc it captures: In the immediate postwar period, America's rapid growth favored the middle and lower classes. The poorest fifth of all households, in fact, fared best. Then, in the 1970s, amid two oil crises and awful inflation, things ground to a halt. The country backed off the postwar, center-left consensus -- captured by Richard Nixon's comment that "we're all Keynesians now" -- and tried Reaganism instead. We cut taxes. Technology and competition from abroad started whittling away at blue collar jobs and pay. The financial markets took off. And so when growth returned, it favored the investment class -- the top 20 percent, and especially the top 5 percent (and, though it's not on this chart, the top 1 percent more than anybody).  



more here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/60-years-of-american-economic-history-told-in-1-graph/261503/

====

U.S. Women on the Rise as Family Breadwinner
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: May 29, 2013

Women are not only more likely to be the primary caregivers in a family. Increasingly, they are primary breadwinners, too.

Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.

The shift reflects evolving family dynamics.

For one, it has become more acceptable and expected for married women to join the work force. It is also more common for single women to raise children on their own. Most of the mothers who are chief breadwinners for their families — nearly two-thirds — are single parents.

The recession may have played a role in pushing women into primary earning roles, as men are disproportionately employed in industries like construction and manufacturing that bore the brunt of the layoffs during the downturn. Women, though, have benefited from a smaller share of the job gains during the recovery; the public sector, which employs a large number of women, is still laying off workers.



Women’s attitudes toward working have also changed. In 2007, before the recession officially began, 20 percent of mothers told Pew that their ideal situation would be to work full time rather than part time or not at all. The share had risen to 32 percent by the end of 2012.

The public is still divided about whether it is a good thing for mothers to work. About half of Americans say that children are better off if their mother is at home and doesn’t have a job. Just 8 percent say the same about a father. Even so, most Americans acknowledge that the increasing number of working women makes it easier for families “to earn enough to live comfortably.”

more here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html?_r=0

====

4/26/2013 @ 9:07AM
Economically, Russia Is Roughly Where the United States Was In The 1950's

While Russia’s economy has, by its own standards, performed quite well over the past thirteen years, the country’s overall level of development remains very far behind the level of an advanced Western country. In looking around for some data to try and prove this point I came across a very interesting historical dataset of per capita GDP from The Conference Board. I put a chart together that gives a pretty clear indication of just how underdeveloped Russia remains in comparison to the United States. This chart shows US GDP per capita from 1948-58 and Russian GDP per capita from 1998-2008 (the last year available in the dataset).

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markadomanis/files/2013/04/USRussiaGDPPerCapita1.png

In the decade from 1998, as you can see, the Russian economy grew much more rapidly than the American economy did in the decade from 1948. But what interests me is that in 2008, at the peak of the energy boom and after a decade of run-away growth, Russia’s GDP per capita was still lower than the United States had been back in 1950. Think about that for just a moment. Despite all of the bluster about being an “energy superpower” and all of the hyperventilation that “the bear is back,” Russia’s economy is less developed than the United State’s was more than a half century ago.

And the United States in the 1950′s, as you might recall, had a couple of pretty serious issues. Across the South, African Americans were systematically disenfranchised and subject to political violence condoned, if not actively supported, by local power structures and state governments. Jim Crow was alive and well and, for a good portion of the decade, schools were still legally segregated. Women were limited from most high-end professions and most of the elite educational institutions, and sexism of a sort we have a hard time imaging these days was perfectly conventional. There was universal conscription, and the country spent something like 10% of GDP on the Pentagon and the global struggle against communism. Immigration laws explicitly discriminated against non-Europeans. Obviously the 1950′s weren’t all bad, there were clearly a number of redeeming features of the society at the time, but they nonetheless were a time before Martin Luther King Jr, before the Civil Rights act, and before any of the other major legal and political reforms that helped make the country we know today.

more here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/04/26/economically-russia-is-roughly-where-the-united-states-was-in-the-1950s/

====


40 'Frightening' Facts On The Fall Of The US Economy
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/27/2013 14:49 -0400

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

40 Statistics About The Fall Of The U.S. Economy That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe

If you know someone that actually believes that the U.S. economy is in good shape, just show them the statistics in this article.  When you step back and look at the long-term trends, it is undeniable what is happening to us.  We are in the midst of a horrifying economic decline that is the result of decades of very bad decisions.  30 years ago, the U.S. national debt was about one trillion dollars.  Today, it is almost 17 trillion dollars.  40 years ago, the total amount of debt in the United States was about 2 trillion dollars.  Today, it is more than 56 trillion dollars.  At the same time that we have been running up all of this debt, our economic infrastructure and our ability to produce wealth has been absolutely gutted.  Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of good jobs have been shipped overseas.  Our share of global GDP declined from 31.8 percent in 2001 to 21.6 percent in 2011.  The percentage of Americans that are self-employed is at a record low, and the percentage of Americans that are dependent on the government is at a record high.  The U.S. economy is a complete and total mess, and it is time that we faced the truth.

The following are 40 statistics about the fall of the U.S. economy that are almost too crazy to believe...

#1 Back in 1980, the U.S. national debt was less than one trillion dollars.  Today, it is rapidly approaching 17 trillion dollars...

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/National-Debt.png

more here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-27/40-frightening-facts-fall-us-economy

====

Cost of Living in the 1950’s as Compared to Today in 2011

Living Large

If you were to live like someone in the 1950s, you could live fairly comfortably. Indeed, by mid-twentieth century standards you’d be well-off, even with a modest income. However, living in a small house with one television, no cable or satellite service, one car, no air conditioning, and so on is seen as a low standard of living in 2011. You could certainly cut back some. Do you really need three high-definition TVs or a 3,000-square-foot house? You likely need a computer and Internet service, because that’s simply the way the world is now. Mobile phones are more of a necessity now as well. Have you looked for a pay phone lately?

Perhaps we need to assess what we really want from our standard of living, and adjust our expenditures accordingly. On average we are living better now than at any point in history, but the key to happiness may be in finding ways to make it more affordable.

more here:
http://yesiamcheap.com/2011/08/cost-of-living-1950-compared-to-2011/

====


Our high, high standard of living
by Philip Brewer on 9 September 2007

In the 1950s and 1960s, a working man could support a family at a middle-class standard of living with just one income. It might surprise you to learn that one person working full-time, even at minimum wage, can still support a family of four at that standard of living. Nowadays we call that "living in poverty."

According to John E Schwarz in Illusions of Opportunity:

    "In the early 1950s, fully two fifths of American households had no automobile, about a third did not have a private telephone or a television, and the homes of about a third of all Americans were dilapidated or were without running water or a private toilet and bath. Only a small minority of families enjoyed such basics as a mixer or had a hot-water heater."

Those dilapidated shacks without hot water improved over the years, but as late as 1970 the median single-family home was still less than 1400 square feet (versus over 2200 now).

more here:
http://www.wisebread.com/our-high-high-standard-of-living-1

====

5 Complaints About Modern Life (That Are Statistically B.S.)
By: Mark M.,  M. Asher Cantrell January 31, 2011

In general, it's easier to be negative. It's easier for us at Cracked, because it's easier to write jokes about terrible things than nice things. It's easier for us as a generation, because to admit that the world isn't that bad right now would be to admit that we have it easier than our grandparents did and that the world thus has the right to expect more from us.

But as much as we like to joke about the sorry state of the world, the facts really don't back us up.

#5. "Everything Is So Expensive."

The Complaint:

"The corporations and the government have us all living like slaves. I can back it up with numbers, too -- in 1950 you could buy a brand new nine-room brick home in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, for the whopping sum of $11,500. A decent family car was about $500, and the gas for it was about 25 cents a gallon. A large loaf of bread cost under 15 cents. A large coffee was a nickel, with a free refill. I could go on and on. But now between greedy corporations and the government confiscating our income with sky-high taxes, you have to work two jobs just to survive."


The Reality:

Let's start with the obvious: A low-end job in the service industry paid a dollar an hour in 1950. A fancy job in insurance or real estate? A buck-fifty an hour. You'd take home $50 a week after taxes. So please don't talk about the good old days of 50-cent steaks when people were getting paid what would now be Tooth Fairy money.

So how does this all average out, once you account for income? We don't have to guess. Punch anything into the cost of living calculator -- the one that uses the exact same formula that the government uses to decide things like tax rates -- and you'll see that the prices of most things have stayed pretty constant over the years. High-end manufactured goods have gotten cheaper. Much cheaper, as manufacturing costs drop.

In 1954, the cost of a high-end Westinghouse color TV, with a massive 15-inch screen, was $1,295. No, not adjusted for inflation. That was the actual price at the time -- half of the yearly income for some families. Everybody writes this off as if it's a constant of the universe ("of course new technology gets exponentially better and cheaper with time!") instead counting it among the benefits of the modern system. Why? This economic system has resulted in handheld devices that can access all of the porn ever created, at a price affordable to the working man, and all we can do is complain about the cost of unlimited data plans?

And the golden age of the $500 car... how many of you come from families with two cars? Statistically it's most of you, and far more than what it would have been in 1960, when there were half as many cars on a per-capita basis in the U.S. (it averaged about one car per household -- so if you had two, someone else had none).

And taxes? Again, the numbers don't lie -- in the U.S. taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, and now that the Bush-era tax cuts have been temporarily extended, they will continue to be until 2012 at the soonest. The government even threw you an extra two percent reduction in payroll tax as a cherry on top. The U.S. has the second-lowest taxes among developed countries.

Yes, we're going through a worldwide downturn and yes, a bunch of you are unemployed. Those of you who are reading this at a homeless shelter, we're not saying it's all in your head. But on the whole we could use a little perspective.

more here:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18983_5-complaints-about-modern-life-that-are-statistically-b.s..html


source(s):

A low-end job in the service industry paid a dollar an hour in 1950. -> http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/1950.pdf

cost of living calculator -> http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Westinghouse color TV $1,295 ->

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1954%20Westinghouse%20Color%20NYT%20Ad.JPG

compare that to this LED HDTV  ->

LG 55" 1080p 120Hz LED-LCD TV -> new link here:
$1,035.20 

LG 55LN5400 55" Class (54.6" Diagonal) 1080p TruMotion 120hz LED-LCD HDTV 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0ZX1927571

more screens here:
http://www.newegg.com/LED-TVs/SubCategory/ID-798

there were half as many cars on a per-capita basis in the U.S. ->
http://www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/courses/gately/DGS_Vehicle%20Ownership_2007.pdf

in the U.S. taxes are the lowest they've been since 1950, -> http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
The U.S. has the second-lowest taxes among developed countries. -> http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/


====


More than Half the Homes in U.S. Have Three or More TVs
July 20, 2009

New findings from Nielsen’s Television Audience Report show that in 2009 the average American home had 2.86 TV sets, which is roughly 18% higher than in 2000 (2.43 sets per home), and 43% higher than in 1990 (2.0 sets). In addition, there continue to be more TVs per home than people – in 2009 the average U.S. home had only 2.5 people vs 2.86 television sets.

Other Key Stats

There are 114.5 million TV homes in the U.S. in 2009

    * 38% of U.S. TV homes have digital cable.
    * 88% have a DVD player, while VCR fell to 72%.
    * 82% of homes have more than 1 television set.
    * 11% of U.S. TV homes only have the capability to receive TV reception “over the air”. These homes have neither cable nor ADS.

chart n stuff here:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/more-than-half-the-homes-in-us-have-three-or-more-tvs/

====

Poverty now comes with a color TV
Census data find an ever-growing material prosperity, with formerly high-dollar luxury items now commonplace in even poor households.

By Christian Science Monitor

In case there was any doubt, a study has confirmed that Americans have a lot of what economists know, technically, as stuff.

The computer has surpassed the dishwasher as a standard household appliance. The poorest Americans have posted a sharp rise in access to air conditioning. The richest Americans still own the most cars, but they are choosing to own slightly fewer of them than they used to.

These Census findings, released in December, were true even before gifts piled up under trees.

These nuggets provide a glimpse of American lifestyles that isn't captured in the raw data of monthly economic reports. At a time of concern about the standard of living for future generations, the study offers hopeful signs of tangible progress, even as the pace of income growth has slowed in recent years.

It's only one piece of the overall picture of economic progress and doesn't resolve the question about future generations. But it confirms that what the Census Bureau calls "material well-being" abounds for regular folks today in ways that Louis XIV -- for all his palaces, silk stockings and ruffled finery -- could barely have imagined.

True, most of us don't have an entourage of fawning servants, and while U.S. homes have expanded in square footage, they hardly rival Versailles. But modern appliances, in many ways, are robotic servants who sometimes break down but have yet to stage an organized revolt.

more stuff and a chart here:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/PovertyNowComesWithAColorTV.aspx

================================

In conclusion, the United States economy sucks according to the majority, so I guess it sucks.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Ronald Reagan and Gun Control - 01.16.2013

I hate to..

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif
but there's a lot about Reagan people are lying about.
*I know some of this is a little left/right paradigm, but there's no doubting the facts of the following articles.

=========

Who Was Tougher on Gun Control, Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan?

Ronald Reagan's statements on gun control would shock the current Republican party, who hold him up as a standard bearer.
By Brad Kava 2:32 pm

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.'' ---Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

On the day President Barack Obama outlined his plan to make the country safer from crazy people with assault weapons, Ronald Reagan has been invoked in the debate by both sides.

Obama cited Reagan's opposition to military-style weapons.

“And by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994 urging them — this is Ronald Reagan speaking — urging them to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons."

Reagan, who was shot while president in March, 1981, backed a ban on assault weapons and the Brady Bill, proposed by an anti-gun group formed by the family of Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, who was also shot.

Obama Wednesday signed executive orders to strengthen background checks on gun sales, research the causes of gun violence, encourage mental health providers to report patients who own guns and may be prone to violence.

He also encouraged Congress to ban assault weapons, step-up background checks on secondary sellers and purchasers and hire a director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms department, which has gone vacant for six years.

Reagan, cited by the likes of the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh as the modern president who most represented their values, is the center of debate. Gun control opponent Erich Pratt, implied that Reagan supported gun control "in his later years," implying that he was less in control of his facilities, as seen in this MSNBC clip.

Supporters of gun control point to the strict legislation Reagan signed as governor of California, such as the Mulford Act of 1967, which forbid open carrying of guns. The act came at a time when the Black Panthers openly carried weapons.

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time, according to Salon.com.

As with everything about this divisive issue, Obama's Wednesday speech got mixed reviews. Some, such as Earl Ofari Hutchinson, writing in Huffington Post, said he didn't go far enough. Others say he has gone too far and is breaching the Second Amendment. Missouri Republican representative Casey Guernsey, has proposed a state bill to ignore Obama's federal orders.

What do you think? Did the president go too far, or not far enough? What do you think of him citing Ronald Reagan?

sources here:
http://losaltos.patch.com/articles/who-was-tougher-on-gun-control-barack-obama-or-ronald-reagan

======================

Erich Pratt, Gun Owners Of America: Reagan Supported Gun Control Only 'In His Later Years'

The Huffington Post  |  By Luke Johnson    Posted: 01/16/2013 2:29 pm EST  |  Updated: 01/16/2013 2:35 pm EST

Erich Pratt, the communications director of Gun Owners Of America, had a testy interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Wednesday where he insisted that President Ronald Reagan only supported gun control because of his advanced age.

"President Reagan owned an AR-15, Senator Jay Rockefeller -- " Pratt said.

"And he supported gun control, and he advocated for it," Mitchell responded.

"In his later years, and I think we have to keep that in account," Pratt continued.

"In his later years he was almost killed by John Hinckley," shot back Mitchell, referring to the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life.

"All through his presidency, he opposed gun control, that's my point," Pratt replied.

Pratt's comment about the former president's "later years" appeared to be a reference to Reagan's well-known senility, which began while he was still president and worsened after his retirement.

Regardless, Reagan's record on gun control is not black and white. In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which according to the Hartford Courant, "was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed."

In 1967, as governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public. The Black Panthers protested the bill because they carried loaded weapons openly in police patrols. He also supported a 15-day waiting period. He supported the Brady Bill post-presidency, but did not support or oppose it as president.

video here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/erich-pratt-gun-owners-of-america_n_2488903.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

======================

The Secret History of Guns

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.

By Adam Winkler



The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.

The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must

    take careful note of the racist California legislature aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless Black people have begged, prayed, petitioned, demonstrated, and everything else to get the racist power structure of America to right the wrongs which have historically been perpetuated against black people The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.

Seale then turned to the others. “All right, brothers, come on. We’re going inside.” He opened the door, and the radicals walked straight into the state’s most important government building, loaded guns in hand. No metal detectors stood in their way.

It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement.

The text of the Second Amendment is maddeningly ambiguous. It merely says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yet to each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.

Gun-rights supporters believe the amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms and outlaws most gun control. Hard-line gun-rights advocates portray even modest gun laws as infringements on that right and oppose widely popular proposals—such as background checks for all gun purchasers—on the ground that any gun-control measure, no matter how seemingly reasonable, puts us on the slippery slope toward total civilian disarmament.

This attitude was displayed on the side of the National Rifle Association’s former headquarters: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “a well regulated Militia,” was conveniently omitted. To the gun lobby, the Second Amendment is all rights and no regulation.

more here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
(but the NRA had no problem taking guns from black people, amazing.)
===========

Firearm Owners Protection Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

==========

Mulford Act

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched on the California Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

===

White Panther Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Panther_Party

===

Black Panther Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

The Ten Point Program

1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our black Community.
2. We want full employment for our people.
3. We want an end to the robbery by the white man of our black Community.
4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.
5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society.
6. We want all black men to be exempt from military service.
7. We want an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of black people.
8. We want freedom for all black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails.
9. We want all black people when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their black communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.
10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the black colony in which only black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of black people as to their national destiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#The_Ten_Point_Program

===

This party is NOT a grass roots movement to protect black people from the crooked elite, it is totally controlled by the elite, just like Obama:

New Black Panther Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party

======================

Reagan revisionism can't whitewash his history with blacks
Opinion
by David A. Love | January 19, 2011 at 9:29 AM

What a way to mark Martin Luther King Day. Michael Reagan, son of Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, chose January 17 to suggest the unspeakable. On the Fox News website, Reagan argued that his father was more of a friend to black people than President Obama. He even suggested that he “could make an even stronger case for my father, Ronald Reagan, as ‘our first black president’”, the way that Clinton was called America’s first black president.

Either Michael Reagan is out of his mind, living in a fantasy world, or he is engaging in the whitewashing of his father’s troubling legacy on race.

According to Reagan, his father attended a colorblind college, and let his black teammates sleep at the Reagan house rather than sleep on the bus after a segregated hotel denied them a room. Under his father’s administration, he claimed, black unemployment fell, income rose, and the black middle class thrived. In contrast, Reagan argued that black unemployment has increased under Obama.

“Today, as our nation honor’s [sic] Dr. King, less than a month before the hundredth birthday of Ronald Reagan, it’s fitting to note that Ronald Reagan did more to improve the lives of African-Americans than any other president since Abraham Lincoln,”
Michael Reagan said. Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge that America’s first black president has made life worse for us all — and especially for black Americans. History does not judge presidents by the color of their skin, but by the content of their policies.

Now let’s return to the real world. In reality, the Reagan legacy is replete with examples of disrespect and outright hostility towards African-Americans. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the public carrying of firearms. The law was passed specifically as a direct response to the Black Panther Party.

During the 1976 presidential campaign, he conjured up the racist and sexist image of the Cadillac-driving “welfare queen” as anecdotal evidence of fraud in the welfare system. “She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands,” Reagan said. “And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.” The “welfare queen” fed into the worst stereotypes of black poverty and sexually promiscuous women.

more and video here:
http://thegrio.com/2011/01/19/reagan-revisionism-cant-whitewash-his-history-with-blacks/

======================

O’Donnell urges GOP to be Reaganites on gun control
Sarah Muller, @digimuller
11:15 pm on 12/19/2012

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell challenged wannabe “Reaganites” to live up to their hero by supporting Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s upcoming legislation to ban assault weapons.

In Wednesday’s Rewrite segment, The Last Word host reminded viewers that Ronald Reagan, the conservative role model Republicans still love to quote (although he raised taxes 11 times as president), supported gun control measures, including the now-expired assault weapons ban in 1994.

Reagan, himself a victim of gun violence, told the story of his shooting in a 1991 op-ed published in The New York Times. In the piece, he voiced his support for the Brady Bill–named for President’s Reagan’s press secretary Jim Brady, who was shot in the forehead in the assassination attempt.

Along with former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, Reagan co-wrote a letter to the House of Representatives lobbying for “a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons.”

“We know what President Reagan would be saying today if he were still with us. He would support Dianne Feinstein’s bill, just like he did in 1994,”
O’Donnell declared. “The Reaganite position is to support Feinstein’s assault weapons ban.”

O’Donnell called Newt Gingrich a “liar” for proclaiming himself a “Reaganite.”

“Newt Gingrich has not been talking about an assault weapons ban in the aftermath of the killing of women and children in Newtown, Connecticut, last week. Newt Gingirch doesn’t blame the easy availability of assault weapons in this country for the 26 murders at Sandy Hook Elementary,”
said O’Donnell. Instead, Gingrich blamed “an anti-religious, secular bureaucracy and secular judiciary seeking to drive God out of public life” for the massacre.

Newt Gingrich voted against the assault weapons ban in 1994, against President Reagan’s wishes.

video here:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/19/odonnell-urges-gop-to-be-reaganites-on-gun-control/

==============================

So, when I hear non-sense like this:

If Black People Had Guns 'from day one', There Were No Slavery - Gun Appreciation Day Chairman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiANAHd8eJs

I know they are trying to play me.
How can slaves own anything when they are property in the first place?

history that the gop/tea party choose to ignore - 10.20.2013


I saw this at the gop facebook page:
The Blacksphere 






discussion on facebook here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151703332382596&set=a.10150574031087596.370329.49867377595&type=1&theater

Don't get me wrong, it's true:
Official says CIA-funded weapons have begun to reach Syrian rebels; rebels deny receipt
There's just one problem with this image, it's only half truth.
The one "Father" the GOP look to is Reagan, and they act like he's done only good, and zero evil.

===================================

Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11
Posted on September 5, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog


Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)


Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

Preface:   The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom - noted:

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

Odom also said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

source and a whole lot more here:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html

Operation Cyclone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

===== I've already covered this, so here's some source information on the so-called 'obamaphone'

The Obama Phone's Roots in Government Deregulation

ELSPETH REEVE 7,574 ViewsOCT 2, 2012
The Obama Phone lady is many things in the eyes of conservatives. To Rush Limbaugh, she is the personification of government-fostered dependency: "She may not know who George Washington is or Abraham Lincoln, but she knows how to get an Obama phone." To others, such as reader John Kane, she symbolizes a corruption of the democratic process: "When a politician starts outright handing out toys for votes, to the tune of millions in a critical swing state, that's news." To others, such as reader Judy Helton, she symbolizes self-interested greed: "The cell phone lady IS a typical Obama voter, that being welfare thieves of every color, gender, age, sexual preference, religion and culture, hoping to use a voting booth to self enrich at the uncompensated expense of the entire American working population." Or, as reader David H. Lynch Jr. wrote, she represents a half of the country financing a cushy lifestyle with the other half's tax dollars: "47 percent of people are not going to vote for Romney — because they are getting bribed by government." For reader Renee McGhee, she represents the unjust winner in a zero-sum game of government handouts: "Will OBUMMER START to STIFF those on Social Security and STEAL FROM OUR bank accounts to MAKE it right with HIS PEOPLE???"

Of course, we doubt that anyone who's been passing around the Obama Phone video is thinking too deeply about the "issue" of Obama Phones. We think it's just a cheap attempt to dabble in racist stereotypes. But let's take them at their word: if the most pressing issue in the 2012 election is government-funded cell phones, and let's even set aside the misnomer of "Obama Phone." Why would someone in 2012 think that Barack Obama gave them a phone? The Obama Phone is a perfect example of the combustible mix of deregulation, lobbyists, and clever marketers: a more efficient system that's also expensive and wasteful.

But first, you have to go way, way back. The telephone business was once a regulated monopoly, which in practice meant the government could tell the phone companies to do things — like providing discount service for poor people or pay to string wires out to remote areas — in exchange for continuing to enjoy their monopoly. But over the course of the last 30 years, starting with the 1984 break-up of the AT&T monopoly of local telephone service into Baby Bells, regulations have eased as new telecommunication providers have emerged.

The creation of the Lifeline program -- which has now been dubbed the "Obama phone" -- during the Reagan administration was one of these attempts to ensure that the new fragmented and competitive telecom industry still provided the same public goods that the old monopoly did. Far from a government cheese handout, Lifeline was funded through a "universal service charge" on phone bills, and then administered by a private non-profit. While the distinction between a surcharge and a tax may seem technical, it was specifically selected to over a proposed welfare program — a straight-up handout referred to as "phone stamps." The Universal Service Fund was created to be a lean, nimble private sector beast.

The guys who came up with the idea for Lifeline were Republican Sen. Bob Packwood and Democratic Rep. John Dingell. The Reagan administration soon got on board, as The New York Times reported on December 27, 1983, in part because of "a growing recognition that the price of telephone service could become a 1984 campaign issue." Then other Republicans got on board -- Sens. John Heinz and John Chafee urged the Federal Communications Commission to "take concrete steps to ensure that local telephone companies offer lifeline programs designed to preserve affordable phone service," according to The Washington Post on September 15, 1985.

more here:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/obama-phone-roots-government-privatization/57415/

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
so, it looks like Reagan is embodied in Obama:

http://dakiniland.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/obama-reagan.jpg

=========================================

“The real Ronald Reagan said nothing when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, chemical weapons that the real Ronald Reagan actually helped him obtain.” – Lawrence O’Donnell

==================

O’Donnell: Reagan let Saddam buy– and use–chemical weapons
Evan Puschak
11:50 PM on 09/05/2013

“We have said as a responsible nation that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited,” Ros-Lehtinen said.  ”It is against the norms of international standards and to let something like this go unanswered, I think will weaken our resolve. I know that President Reagan would have never let this happen.”

Except that Ronald Reagan let exactly that happen, repeatedly, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the 1980s. But there’s more.

Ronald Reagan didn’t just look the other way when Saddam used chemical weapons–he sold the stuff to Saddam,”
said MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell in his Rewrite segment on Thursday. “The President of the United States was Saddam Hussein’s drug dealer.”

more here:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/05/odonnell-reagan-let-saddam-buy-and-use-chemical-weapons/?FB

public reaction here:
https://www.facebook.com/msnbc/posts/488947251201532

====================================

and one more thing:

I have a question for the gop/tea party - 10.19.2013

We've been socialist in America since 1933.
Medicare and Social Security are taken out of your check every single time you are paid.

Why did it take so long to get angry?

==============================


This is the video that got the wheels in my head turning, and brought up the question:

cnn - fareed zakaria: american conservatism is deception and distraction
October 19, 2013 1:50 PM
Fareed gives his take on American conservatism, and why it will cause more crises and standoffs in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jnMbzf2Rc

==============================

New Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Medicare (United States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

========================================
(my wife showed me this)

Adventures in Old Age
A candid look at aging, old age, and eldercare.
by Ira Rosofsky, Ph.D.

Medicare is Socialism
The beginning of socialized medicine
Published on August 17, 2009 by Ira Rosofsky, Ph.D. in Adventures in Old Age

"The American Medical Association said today that it was placing an advertisement in 100 newspapers to make its position clear on its opposition to health care reform. The advertisement calls health care reform ‘the beginning of socialized medicine.'"


Substitute "Medicare" for "health care reform" in the paragraph above and you have the verbatim quote of an article from the New York Times from June 8, 1965, only weeks before the passage of Medicare on June 30th.

Following passage, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons urged its 16,500 members to boycott Medicare. Henry E. Northam, executive director of the association said wherever socialized medicine had been tried, a deterioration of medical care followed.

The association also sent out a letter to its members that began, "Doctor, now is the time for you and every other ethical physician in the United States to individually and voluntarily pledge nonparticipation in HR-6675, the socialized hospitalization and medical care program for the aged."

Today, perhaps recognizing that Medicare and its covering of millions who would otherwise have no health care insurance created a huge and continuing gravy train without which many of today's doctors could not afford their BMWs, the AMA and other physician organizations are not unequivocally opposed to health care reform. Rather, they complain about low reimbursements, but argue for an expansion of coverage so that more money would be coming their way.

But political opposition was presciently similar to what you can hear and see everyday in the current debate.

Earlier in 1965, in May, a spokesman for private insurance companies predicted that any government insurance plan would drive most private concerns out of business. A Chicago physician, R. B. Robins-also a former Democratic National Committeeman-that the most sweeping change to medical care ever proposed "is being rushed through to passage, and with hardly more than a pro forma consultation with the medical profession."

Opposition, of course, was not confined to the medical profession.

Ronald Regan, on behalf of the AMA, released an LP record (remember those?), Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine, in which he said:

"Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country...And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

more here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-old-age/200908/medicare-is-socialism

===============

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/reagan%20against%20socialized%20medicine.jpg

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Speaks_Out_Against_Socialized_Medicine

10 minute video:

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

==========================================

GOP/Tea Party,

Your emotions are being played against you.
You've only believed what is being sold to you to make other Christians (The Saints) look completely retarded.

I mean, I get it, you want that old America back, but that old America was built on two World Wars which only purpose was allowing a Global Governmental body to be created:

World War I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Aftermath

World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Aftermath

the real agenda:

cnn - fareed zakaria - optimism, nostaglia, deception - globalization is here, america
September 10, 2012 1:30 AM
CNN's Fareed Zakaria gives his take on optimism in America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1BDp3kb10w

The Globalist Agenda - Official Newswatch Magazine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sanYokj2Kx0

==============================
and one more thing:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/23/us/politics/23palinkissinger.jpg

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Henry+Kissinger+Obama+Biden+Meet+Congressional+-4LQGB2_3c1l.jpg

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/06/04/john-mccain-s-surprising-toast-at-kissinger-s-90th-birthday-party/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1370348656229.cached.jpg
Ted Cruz, is cut from the same Ivy League cloth Obama and Kissinger are from:

Harvard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_University_people#Law_and_politics
http://media.salon.com/2013/05/ted_cruz2.jpg
think about it:

http://rackjite.com/wp-content/uploads/cruzmccarthy.jpg

putin and obama - the reality


In reality, they both answer to the pope.
Putin and Pope Francis:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02745/POPE-PUTIN_2745743b.jpg


Obama and Pope Francis:

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/MyUC.phV9tmVjUT8_GwMXQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQyMTtweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz03NDk-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2014-03-27T113601Z_666959526_GM1EA3R1I6D01_RTRMADP_3_POPE-OBAMA.JPG


World Government is coming....

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-meeting-at-the-g8-data.jpg

together.

Are you ready?

Monday, March 24, 2014

more left vs right paradigm - putin/romeny/bush/obama - 03.24.2014

Clearly, this entire Russia vs America thing is scripted, remember this?

==============

Was Mitt Romney right about Russia (and everything else)? A look back at his campaign predictions.

    By Jaime Fuller   
    March 20 at 8:45 am

Ever since the United States got involved in the dispute over Ukraine -- and ended up in a challenging place with Russia over it -- people have been quietly reviving statements that former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made during the 2012 election about his foreign policy concerns. When Russia decided they'd like to annex Crimea this week, the dig into the Romney archive began anew, with consensus from his co-partiers -- and from some people who would never admit to liking him -- generally falling along the lines of "oh my dear lord, Mitt was right all along!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/11/16/National-Politics/Images/515137907-7716.jpg

Mitt Romney arrives on stage to concede the election to President Barack Obama on November 7, 2012 in Boston.  (AFP PHOTO/Don EMMERTDON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

    First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not... excuse me. It's a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same -- in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin.

This is the Romney prediction that has been getting the most press lately. Over the course of the 2012 campaign, Romney repeatedly called Russia “our number one geopolitical foe.” However, when Obama pushed back against that statement in the Oct. 22, 2012, debate, Romney downgraded Russia to a geopolitical foe, as David Weigel pointed out last September. Romney decided in the end that he wasn't set on casting the former Soviet Union as the big baddie of his hypothetical administration. He just saw Russia as a foe for all geopolitical generations.

Was Romney right?

context, and more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/20/was-romney-right-a-look-back-at-his-campaign-predictions/


==============

Vladimir Putin, Russian Neocon

How Russia's president resembles the American hawks who hate him most.
PETER BEINARTMAR 24 2014, 10:22 AM ET



Ever since Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, American pundits have strained to understand his view of the world. Putin’s been called a Nazi; a tsar; a man detached from reality. But there’s another, more familiar framework that explains his behavior. In his approach to foreign policy, Vladimir Putin has a lot in common with those very American hawks (or “neocons” in popular parlance) who revile him most.

1. Putin is obsessed with the threat of appeasement

From Irving Kristol’s “The Politics of Appeasement” (Wall Street Journal, 1975) to Norman Podhoretz’s  “Appeasement by Any Other Name” (Commentary, 1983) to William Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “The Appeasement Gamble” (Weekly Standard, 2000) to Charles Krauthammer’s “The Wages of Appeasement” (Washington Post, 2011), hawks have attributed virtually every foreign-policy crisis of the last 40 years to America’s supposed habit of knuckling under to our foes. In 1975, Irving Kristol called America’s withdrawal from South Vietnam an act of “appeasement” that “to those of us who have even the vaguest memories of the 1930s … is all too chillingly reminiscent.” A generation later, his son, William Kristol, chalked up the September 11 attacks to “two decades of American weakness in the face of terror.” Last week, in The New York Times, John McCain explained Putin’s move on Crimea as the result of a global “perception that the United States is weak.” To Kristol, McCain, and their ilk, the United States is a nation perennially bullied by adversaries who are tougher, nastier, and more resolute than we are.

2. Putin is principled—so long as those principles enhance national power

In recent days, Putin has talked a lot about “democracy,” “freedom,” “self-determination” and “international law.” And conveniently for him, he insists that Russia’s annexation of Crimea scrupulously adheres to those principles while America’s behavior in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya violated them brazenly.

Sound familiar? In the United States, both hawks and doves like to claim that they’re promoting cherished principles like democracy and freedom. The difference is that doves are more willing to acknowledge that these principles can undermine American interests. For most hawks, by contrast, the fight for democratic ideals must serve American power. If it doesn’t, then what’s being spread isn’t really democracy at all.

3. Putin doesn’t understand economic power

Last week, Bill Clinton shrewdly noted that Putin is “deeply patriotic in terms of Russia, but he sees it more in terms of the greatness of the state and the country than what happens to ordinary Russians.” The Russian president’s maneuvers abroad have everything to do with the geopolitical glory of Russia and almost nothing to do with the economic welfare of Russians. In the wake of his takeover of Crimea, Standard & Poor’s is threatening to downgrade Russian bonds and Russia’s own deputy economy minister is warning of a growing economic “crisis.” Yet Putin has never looked happier.

Look closely at the way hawks write about American foreign policy, and you see something similar. In the early 1990s, Clinton argued that although America had won the Cold War, ordinary Americans, in their daily lives, were losing. The answer, he declared in 1994, was to “put our economic competitiveness at the heart of our foreign policy.” For large stretches during his presidency, Clinton’s most influential foreign-policy advisor was his treasury secretary.

the rest of each section, here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/vladimir-putin-russian-neocon/284602/

===========================================

earlier this month....

Mar 7, 2014 9:24AM ET / The Daily Show
'The Daily Show' Examines Fox News' Obsession with Putin's 'Leadership'
Ben Cosman

Image Comedy Central

If the world had a super-villain this week, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin. He continued to avoid questions of exactly what Russian soldiers were doing in Crimea, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she thought he had lost touch with reality. Yet there were a few loyal stalwarts who weren't afraid to heap praise upon Putin, despite his recent antics. "Who would be fooled by this guy's bullshit?" Stewart asked. Oh right – Fox News.

Here's how Stewart explained the current situation: "Much of the world sees Putin now for what he is: A semi-delusional autocrat who views the dissolution of the Soviet Union as one of the greatest tragedies of the late 20th century and has confused his own political propaganda for reality."

"Much of the world" does not, however, include Fox News.

First there was "Strategic Analyst" Ralph Peters who said, "Russia has a real leader, and our president is just incapable." Then there was Fox News Anchor Bill O'Reilly who said, "In a way, you got to hand it to Putin." And finally we had Rudy Giulianni, really laying it on: "Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half-a-day, he makes a decision and executes it quickly, then everybody reacts. That's what you call a leader."

Of course Putin deserves our praise. He's being a leader! He doesn't bother to think about his decisions! Only a feckless imbecile would do that. Except, not. Someone who acts without thinking? As Stewart explained: "That's not what you call a leader, that's what you call a toddler."

The real reason Fox News seems to admire Putin? Their ardent belief that President Obama is weak and incompetent. 

Here are some things Fox News had to say about Putin: "Putin likes to hang out with his shirt off," "People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears," "This is a guy that wrestles tigers." You know, like a real man.
What did they have to say about Obama? "Obama wears mom jeans."

Except when Obama does act, they call him "Emperor Obama" and label him a dictator.

There has to be some sort of psychological explanation for "this love-hate relationship with authoritarian figures." Let's see what Ralph Peters had to say: "Putin actually reminds me in a peculiar way of my mother."

That's it, pack it in.

watch the video here:
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/03/daily-show-examines-fox-news-obsession-putins-leadership/358927/

===========================================

It's already been on my mind to do an in-depth study into this term: "appeasement", which is clearly a code word.

from 2011:

cnn - barack obama: "ask bin laden about appeasement" - like a boss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8gWAE641s

cnn - rick santorum: barack obama's foreign policy is appeasement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mwu-lTxhPw

cnn - rick santorum: barack obama's foreign policy is appeasement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bnd3fIcY8s

Saturday, March 22, 2014

ted cruz, the lesser of two evils? - 03.22.2014

I don't think so.
I get it when people in Babylon post stuff like this:




https://www.facebook.com/ObamaWorstInHistory/photos/a.544546362245290.92051542.129879573711973/765881163445141/?type=1

However, when I see people who claim to have his spirit getting excited about someone being anti-obama, I get a little concerned.
(probably more so than I should)

The right, is just as crooked as the left.

http://peakengineering.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/hegel-synthesis.gif


Ted Cruz only exists to be the anti-thesis to the current thesis, that's all.
The synthesis is what we already have, and what will be coming:

World Government

===================================

Barack Obama
Community organizer and Harvard Law School

Two years after graduating, Obama was hired in Chicago as director of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale on Chicago's South Side. He worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.[31][33] He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[34] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[35] In mid-1988, he traveled for the first time in Europe for three weeks and then for five weeks in Kenya, where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time.[36][37] He returned to Kenya in 1992 with his fiancée Michelle and his half-sister Auma.[36][38] He returned to Kenya in August 2006 for a visit to his father's birthplace, a village near Kisumu in rural western Kenya.[39]

In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year,[40] and president of the journal in his second year.[34][41] During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as an associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.[42] After graduating with a J.D. magna cum laude[43] from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.[40] Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review gained national media attention[34][41] and led to a publishing contract and advance for a book about race relations,[44] which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father.[44]

more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Community_organizer_and_Harvard_Law_School

=====

Ted Cruz

After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor.[2][31] While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[5] Referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant."[12][32][33][34][35][36] At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.[37]

more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Education
=============

Does where he is born, REALLY, matter?
I've already chopped up this crap on Obama, you can re-read it here:
who's his daddy? - 06.26.2012
=============

Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.
The Calgary-born Texas senator is considering a bid for the Oval Office. Let's nip those birther questions in the bud right now.
David A. Graham May 1 2013, 1:23 PM ET

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/tedcruz.banner.ap.jpg

No one's as good at covering Congressional Republicans as Robert Costa, so if he says Ted Cruz is seriously considering a run for president, it must be true -- which is not to say that it makes sense, or that he would win.

Why is Cruz a longshot? He's a first-term senator (yes, yes, exceptions and rules, etc.). He's probably too conservative even to win a GOP primary, but particularly to win a general election: Even his backers portray him as a latter-day Barry Goldwater, only somehow able to win. In just a few short months, he has managed to consistently alienate even his Republican colleagues -- which, whatever you think of the merits of Senate courtesy, won't help in a primary campaign (although he's also vice chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee). David Frum paints a damned-if-he-can-raise-money, damned-if-he-can't scenario. Cruz even ran behind Mitt Romney in Texas last year, when both won handily. It's too early to see how the immigration bill that Cruz opposes will pan out; some Republicans fear that if it fails, the party will do even worse with Latinos, though Cruz's surname might dull the blow.

But what won't prevent Cruz from becoming president is his place of birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, while his parents were living there. His father is now an American citizen, but was not at the time; his mother, however, was born in the United States.

Helpfully, the Congressional Research Service gathered all of the information relevant to Cruz's case a few years ago, at the height (nadir?) of Obama birtherism. In short, the Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," the CRS's Jack Maskell wrote. So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized; therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo at bottom; here's a much longer and more detailed 2011 version.

This isn't the first time someone has questioned a candidate's citizenship -- and not just on bogus, Kenyan grounds. There were questions about John McCain's citizenship, because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone when his father was stationed there in the Navy. George Romney was born in Mexico to American parents, but faced no serious challenges to his bona fides in his 1968 run for the GOP nomination, though a few diehards even questioned his son Mitt's qualifications in 2012. There are birthers for prospective 2012 Republican candidates Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, too. On the Democratic side, there's no ground for any questions about Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is lucky to have been born in the New York borough of Queens, rather than an adjoining borough; everyone knows Manhattan isn't real America, either.

Still, questioning candidates' Americanism is a veritable trend -- and it's one that the nation could stand to leave behind. While there are more immigrants in absolute numbers in the U.S. than ever before, immigrants actually make up a smaller share of the U.S. population than during the 1890-1920 immigration wave, Pew points out. Few questions arose about presidential candidates' citizenship in those days for a simple reason: They were all old white Protestant men.* The greater diversity of candidates in both parties, reflecting more political buy-in across the ethnic spectrum, should be cause for celebration. With non-Hispanic whites making up an ever-smaller portion of the population, perhaps these birther flare-ups are the death rattle of nativism.

CRS meme, here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-born-in-canada-and-still-become-president-of-the-us/275469/

===========

So, would it REALLY matter if Ted Cruz became President?
No, he would do the same things Presidents before him have:
move us toward World Government.

more ridiculous Babylonian think, right here:
https://www.facebook.com/ObamaWorstInHistory


who's his daddy? - 06.26.2012

I recall a conversation I had with a friend concerning the origins of Barack Obama.
We joked that Barack Obama looks exactly like Frank Marshall Davis.



"1) Obama looks very much like Frank Marshall Davis. (I’ve posted all three of their photos above – Davis, Barack, Jr. and Barack, Sr. – for you to make your own decision about that.) "
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/youtube-andy-martin-discusses-his-2012.html

We didn't dig any deeper, because to us, it really doesn't matter.
A Socialist is Globalist, no matter where he/she is from.

That conversation took place via chat on 5/26/2011.

Then today, 06/26/2012, my friend sends me the following two videos:

####

(CNN) Andy Martin's discovery that Obama's father is communist Frank Marshall Davis
Uploaded by obambicom on Oct 27, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxrDlugBj4o&feature=related

Alex Jones video:

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert: Obama's Real Father Exposed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBtwR36G2Pg&feature=related

http://www.obamasrealfather.com/

Dude even died in Hawaii:

Frank Marshall Davis
Born    December 31, 1905 | Arkansas City, Kansas
Died    July 26, 1987 (aged 81) | Honolulu, Hawai'i
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis

####

What have we learned?

1) every single piece of information concerning "being born in Kenya" and "being a Muslim" was obviously fabricated to
2) distract us from looking at Frank Marshall Davis, and
3) even the the person who originally brought up the validity of the birth certificate, now believes he was born of another person:

Frank

Marshall

Davis


I learned that research and focusing on what is proven, and then proving that information is important.

Which is what I already do in the first place.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

gold, predictions, and the real agenda - 2013 - 12.31.2013

Two years ago, Freed Zakaria said that gold was nothing to put your hope in, and look at gold now:

cnn - fareed zakaria: beware the modern-day gold rush - the cfr speaks
Uploaded on Oct 3, 2011
CNN's Fareed Zakaria looks at the rush for gold and whether or not it's worth the investment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS2mDS1HHhY

One year ago, he said that american nostalgia is deception, and that who ever won the election would have a good economy:

cnn - fareed zakaria - optimism, nostaglia, deception - globalization is here, america
Published on Sep 9, 2012
CNN's Fareed Zakaria gives his take on optimism in America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1BDp3kb10w

cnn - fareed zakaria: who ever wins this election will have a good economy in 2013
Published on Nov 4, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxqM2PrlVfU
Two months ago, he explained something else....

cnn - fareed zakaria: american conservatism is deception and distraction
Published on Oct 19, 2013
Fareed gives his take on American conservatism, and why it will cause more crises and standoffs in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35jnMbzf2Rc

look at where Gold is now:

Gold Bulls Retrench as Price Drops Most in 32 Years: Commodities
By Debarati Roy  Dec 31, 2013 4:31 PM CT



One-kilogram gold bars are arranged for a photograph at a Tanaka Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K. store in Tokyo.

Hedge funds got less bullish on gold for the seventh time in eight weeks as the U.S. economy strengthens and inflation fails to accelerate, driving prices to the biggest annual drop in more than three decades.

The net-long position in gold fell 12 percent to 28,702 futures and options in the week ended Dec. 24, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data show. Short holdings gained 1.1 percent to 76,052, a three-week high. Net-bullish holdings across 18 U.S.-traded commodities climbed 4.5 percent to 768,354 contracts as copper wagers gained to a 34-month high.

Investors shunned gold in 2013, halting 12 straight years of price gains. Global equities rallied on improving growth prospects and inflation failed to accelerate, eroding demand for bullion as a preserver of wealth. Assets in exchange-traded products backed by bullion fell to the lowest since 2009 as holders including billionaires George Soros and John Paulson sold. The International Monetary Fund signaled this month the U.S. economy will expand more than forecast.

“Gold is something we avoid,” said Michael Shaoul, the chief executive officer of Marketfield Asset Management LLC, which oversees about $17 billion. “The developed economies are growing, and equities remain very interesting, so there is really no reason to be in gold.”

Futures in New York retreated 28 percent this year to $1,202.30 an ounce, the first loss since 2000 and the biggest since 1981. The Standard & Poor’s GSCI Spot Index of 24 raw materials slid 2.2 percent, while the MSCI All-Country World index of equities advanced 20 percent. The Bloomberg Dollar Index, a gauge against 10 major trading partners, rose 3.5 percent. The Bloomberg Treasury Bond Index fell 3.1 percent.

more here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/gold-bulls-retrench-as-price-drops-most-in-32-years-commodities.html

================================================

Do you think Ron Paul lost any money after he made the following statement?

Ron Paul on Gold: No One Knows Value; I'm Buying
Published on Apr 23, 2013
April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Ron Paul, Former Congressman from Texas, discusses his views on gold, central banks, and the weakened Republican Party. He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers." (Source: Bloomberg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Iwav9ldKvbg
Here's a question:
What will keep those who have items to sell you for gold from changing the price from one week to another?
One week that loaf of bread is one gold coin, then the next week its three gold coins...
Think about it.

==============================

unemployment:

2014 may be the year the job market sees real improvement

Published: Monday, 30 Dec 2013 | 11:10 AM ET
By: Nia Hamm, CNBC Clip Desk Producer



Christopher Furlong | Getty Images

The underemployed: More than 17 percent of the U.S. employed are part of the part-time economy.

Recent job gains and record highs in the stock market are signs that the U.S. economy is strengthening, leading many economists to believe job growth will continue into 2014.

"If we could maintain a 3 percent–plus pace next year … I'm thinking so far we have in the second half of this year ... then yes, jobs prospects for everyone should improve,"
said Joseph A. LaVorgna, managing director and chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities.

The job outlook should come as welcome news to millions of unemployed Americans as well as underemployed part-time workers who possess the skills to have higher-quality jobs and want to work full-time.

Yet there's a catch: Adding jobs isn't as big an economic driver as adding "quality" jobs.

With November's jobs report, the economy has added 2.1 million jobs this year. But nearly half have been in relatively low-wage sectors like retail, leisure and hospitality. These part-time, low-wage positions become important when analyzing the "underemployment rate"—a broader measure of joblessness that includes people who work part-time and people whose skills are not being fully utilized.

more here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101299505

========================================

Fiscal Fever Breaks
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 29, 2013

In 2012 President Obama, ever hopeful that reason would prevail, predicted that his re-election would finally break the G.O.P.’s “fever.” It didn’t.

But the intransigence of the right wasn’t the only disease troubling America’s body politic in 2012. We were also suffering from fiscal fever: the insistence by virtually the entire political and media establishment that budget deficits were our most important and urgent economic problem, even though the federal government could borrow at incredibly low interest rates. Instead of talking about mass unemployment and soaring inequality, Washington was almost exclusively focused on the alleged need to slash spending (which would worsen the jobs crisis) and hack away at the social safety net (which would worsen inequality).

So the good news is that this fever, unlike the fever of the Tea Party, has finally broken.

True, the fiscal scolds are still out there, and still getting worshipful treatment from some news organizations. As the Columbia Journalism Review recently noted, many reporters retain the habit of “treating deficit-cutting as a non-ideological objective while portraying other points of view as partisan or political.” But the scolds are no longer able to define the bounds of respectable opinion. For example, when the usual suspects recently piled on Senator Elizabeth Warren over her call for an expansion of Social Security, they clearly ended up enhancing her stature.

What changed? I’d suggest that at least four things happened to discredit deficit-cutting ideology.

First, the political premise behind “centrism” — that moderate Republicans would be willing to meet Democrats halfway in a Grand Bargain combining tax hikes and spending cuts — became untenable. There are no moderate Republicans. To the extent that there are debates between the Tea Party and non-Tea Party wings of the G.O.P., they’re about political strategy, not policy substance.

more here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/opinion/krugman-fiscal-fever-breaks.html?_r=1&

========================================
We talk about about the mark, and we (as a community) are not even watching for it.
I was just speaking to a friend about bitcoin, and I think his analysis is correct.
The global currency will be cryptographically locked to your DNA.

I've sent email concerning bitcoin since 2011, it might have been drowned in all the other stuff I've sent out:

The Cost of Virtual Currency
September 26, 2011 - 3:48pm
By Jake Perry



read here:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2011/09/26/cost-virtual-currency

So you'll know what Bitcoin is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Bitcoin Explained
http://vimeo.com/63502573

What's a Bitcoin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhFjfVQK3G8

Bitcoin: not your average currency
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWWnc0hAwMo

The technology exists for applications to human skin.
Think about it...

io9 - electronic circuits that are integrated with your skin - steps towards the mark
Uploaded on Aug 11, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRb-yLmE4Jk

===========================================
What's my point?

Fareed Zakaria gave more detail on the global scheme then most right-wing radio personalities.

People such as Lindesy Williams, Porter Stansberry, Alex Jones, and Glenn Beck, make strong predicitions about what they know when it comes to end times events, and they have been wrong for a solid 5 years running now.

Best thing to do this next year, watch and pray, don't put a timeline on it, because it only makes one look retarded.

Matthew 25:13
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

==========================================