Friday, January 28, 2011

Riots Around The World


World Gripped By Anti-Government Riots; America Next?

Global unrest causing spiraling food prices as regimes are toppled
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The planet is in a never-ending cycle of anti-government revolt as riots that plagued Europe last year now spread like wildfire through the Middle East and beyond, threatening to accelerate bloody clashes and force the hand of authorities as the risk of a new Tiananmen Square-style massacre grows ever likelier. Is America next in line to experience unrest that has touched almost every corner of the globe?
Our prediction three years ago, based on UN documents, which was made six months before the collapse of Lehman brothers, that the world would be hit by massive food riots and anti-government unrest in the aftermath of an economic collapse, is now unfolding at an astonishing pace.
The latest countries to be enveloped by the chaos are Tunisia, Egypt, and now Yemen, whose population are demanding the ouster of 30-year President Ali Abdullah Saleh in a protest against poverty and lack of political freedom.
The unrest in Yemen was inspired by a popular uprising in Tunisia earlier this month that led to the ejection of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, figurehead of a government accused of abusing their power to enrich themselves while the poverty gripped the rest of the country. Ben Ali was forced to flee the country and the interim government has now issued an international arrest warrant for the President and his wife.
Riots in Tunisia were quickly followed by mass protests in Egypt demanding an end to President Mubarek’s regime. Four people have died as demonstrators engaged in violent clashes with police and set fire to government buildings.
Besides America there has barely been an area of the globe that hasn’t been hit by riots and unrest in the last six months, as the fallout from the economic collapse begins to be felt amongst the victims of the financial terrorists that launched an assault characterized by falling wages, high unemployment, spiraling inflation and food prices as well as crippling austerity cuts.
The cost of staples like wheat, corn and soybeans is going through the roof as countries increasingly rely on imports from the U.S. to offset the impact of global unrest.
“In emerging markets, it’s leading to rising inflation, to reduction in disposable income, it’s leading to riots, demonstrations and political instability,” New York University economist Nouriel Roubini said in an interview in Davos, Switzerland, today with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse.” “It’s really something that can topple regimes, as we have seen in the Middle East.”

Back in early 2008, before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the start of the financial crisis, we warned that inflation and economic uncertainty would cause inflation to skyrocket and food prices to explode, which would lead to riots globally.
In June of last year, shortly before mass unrest hit Europe in countries like France, Italy and the United Kingdom, we forecast that, “The imminent onset of so-called austerity measures, which in reality represent nothing more than an elevated phase of government-run looting of the taxpayer, would herald an “age of rage,” leading to “riots and even revolutions as people react with fury in response to their jobs, savings, basic public services, pensions and welfare money being seized by the financial terrorists who caused the economic collapse in the first place.”
That “age of rage” is now playing out across the planet, with governments being toppled left, right and center as economic turmoil forces desperate people to revolt in a bid to rescue any kind of decent living standard.
We didn’t have the privilege of a crystal ball when we made these predictions, we were merely reading what globalist bodies and the elite themselves were saying would be the consequences of their agenda to eviscerate any kind of middle class and re-impose an archaic caste system of haves and have nots.
The only question left to be answered is if and when similar scenes will unfold on the streets of America, as notoriously accurate trend forecaster Gerald Celente warned would happen several years ago. Celente put the time frame on “tax rebellions and food riots” sweeping the US by 2012.
With even the likes of Time Magazine seriously entertaining the probability of social dislocation as a backlash to the crumbling economy leading to “civil war” in the United States, we stand on the precipice of bedlam.
In November 2008, right as the economic implosion was unraveling, the U.S. Army War College released a white paper called Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development. The report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” The “widespread civil violence,” the document said, “would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”
A British Ministry of Defence report struck a similar tone when it predicted that within 30 years, the growing gap between the super rich and the middle class, along with an urban underclass threatening social order would mean, “The world’s middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest,” and that, “The middle classes could become a revolutionary class.”
If the violent scenes we now witness unfolding across the planet are anything to go by, we won’t have to wait too long to find out whether or not the United States will become engulfed in the crisis, or whether the global elite will move to prevent such a scenario by coming to the realization that their war on the middle class and the poor threatens to provoke a reaction that even they may be unprepared to deal with.

But The Gov't Says There's No Inflation!


Grocery prices skyrocket faster than official inflation
Jan 27, 2011
Grocery prices increased at more than 50 percent the rate of inflation in 2010, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Food prices increased an average of 1.7 percent between November 2009 and November 2010, in comparison with a general inflation rate of only 1.1 percent. The greatest price increases were seen among meat, poultry, fish and eggs, which went up in cost by 5.8 percent. The price of sugar and sweets increased 1.2 percent, the price of fats and oils increased 3 percent and the price of dairy-based products increased 3.8 percent.
The only commodities to go up in price more than food were medical care and transportation.
“I noticed just this month that my grocery bill for the same old stuff — cereal, eggs, milk, orange juice, peanut butter, bread — spiked $25,” said Sue Perry, deputy editor of “ShopSmart” magazine. “It was a bit of sticker shock.”
The rises in price were caused in part by climate-related crop failures in several major food exporting countries. In addition, rising demand for corn from the biofuels industry has pushed up prices for animal feed, leading to higher meat, dairy and egg costs. Finally, rising fuel prices have increased food production and transportation costs as well.
Prices are only likely to keep rising. The Department of Agriculture has forecast a further 3 percent rise in food prices in 2011, but openly admits that the estimate is conservative.
“The USDA always plays it safe,” said Wells Fargo agricultural economist Michael Swanson. Swanson predicted price increases of 4 percent, the highest since the 5.5 percent increases that led to riots worldwide in 2008.
Major food producers including Kraft and General Mills have already announced plans to increase the prices of their products. Just how much of that increase will be passed along to consumers is uncertain, as retailers may try to force prices lower to keep shopper volume high.
“Food is a high-frequency driver,” Swanson said. “So if stores like Walmart and Kmart want to get shoppers in the door, it’s to their benefit to keep prices low.”

Oh Crap...................


Army base locked to solve ‘serious concern’
Jan 27, 2011
SALT LAKE CITY — The commander of an Army base in Utah, which works on how to protect troops against biological and chemical attacks, said it was on lockdown while trying to resolve a “serious concern.”
Military weapons are tested at Dugway Proving Grounds, located about 85 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The base, which covers around 80,000 acres of desert, according to KSL.com, has a primary mission of defending troops against biological and chemical attacks.
Colonel William E. King did not provide any details in a statement, but said food and beverages were being brought in.
“As you know measures like these (lockdown of our gates) are not taken lightly,” he said, according to KSL.com. “No one is in immediate danger but these steps are required.”

Sarkozy says IMF should supervise global imbalances


The International Monetary Fund's mandate should be expanded to measure, monitor and enforce new rules on global economic imbalances,

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Thursday.
He told bankers and business leaders at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos the first task was to develop a set of relevant indicators to define and measure imbalances in trade, currencies, current accounts and other factors.
"In the view of the French G20 presidency, there is only one appropriate international organization which is in a position to do this, which is the IMF," he said.
"So i think it's worthwhile rethinking the IMF statutes to make it the organization in charge of economic, financial and monetary policy coordination and of enforcing the indicators."

Trying To Subdivide America


Do Not Let The Establishment Divide Us – We Are All Americans

Jan 27, 2011
Have you ever noticed how almost all the mainstream news stories carried on the major news networks are slanted in a way that is intended to divide Americans? The truth is that the “establishment” is constantly trying to divide us and get us fighting with one another. They pit the Republicans against the Democrats (even as though control both sides). They pit one race against another. They pit one gender against another. We are told that the rich are against the poor, the north is against the south, urban is against rural and that there are even “generational battles” going on. Frustration and hate are rapidly growing in the United States today, and a lot of that frustration and hate is unfortunately aimed at the targets that the mainstream media has programmed all of us to hate. Meanwhile, those at the top of the pyramid who are controlling the whole game love it when we are divided because we can never become united and challenge their control.
But the truth is that we are all Americans. If this country goes down, it is going to take all of us down with it. A house that is divided can never stand.
Unfortunately, America is more divided today than ever. Many Democrats have an absolutely explosive hatred for the Republican Party. Many Republicans can’t stop thinking about how much they hate Barack Obama and the Democrats. Meanwhile, those that control both parties at the highest levels are loving it.
Why do you think they call them “establishment Republicans” and “establishment Democrats”? It is because the “establishment” controls them both.
So just who is the “establishment”?
Well, they are headed by the ultra-wealthy international banking elite. They fund the campaigns of “establishment” candidates from both political parties. The shadowy “think tank” organizations that they have founded have provided the vast majority of the personnel for all presidential administrations since World War 2.

If you don’t believe this, just check it out for yourself. Do some research on past presidential administrations and take a look at just how many cabinet members belonged to organizations such as The Bilderberg Group, The Trilateral Commission and The Council on Foreign Relations. You will be absolutely astounded.
You see, the truth is that the “Republican Party” and the “Democratic Party” are simply two franchises that are controlled by the exact same owners.
For much more on who “the establishment” is, the following are a few good points to start….
*Bilderberg Owned Publication The Economist: Yes, Powerful “Globocrat” Elites Are Running Things, It’s Not A Conspiracy
*The Rise of the New Global Elite
*Only 23 Percent Of Americans Believe That The Federal Government Has The Consent Of The Governed
But you never hear much about the “anti-Bilderberg” movement or the “anti-Federal Reserve” movement on the nightly news.
Instead, we are constantly being programmed that the real “fight” is the Republicans vs. the Democrats.
The vast majority of Americans are imprisoned within this artificial left/right paradigm and they can’t seem to break out of it.
But even when the establishment does not have us fighting about politics they are dividing us in other ways.
For example, it seems like almost every issue becomes about “race” these days. The mainstream media loves to play up tensions between the races.
And so what are we seeing in America today? Sadly, our country is becoming more divided among racial lines than ever before.
Take the issue of illegal immigration. The media portrays those that are against illegal immigration as a bunch of “anti-Mexican” racists and those that are in favor of illegal immigration as “pro-Mexican” human rights activists.
But the truth is that many of those that are most against illegal immigration are Americans of Mexican descent that came to America legally and that have worked hard to build a great life in the United States. They resent all of the cheaters that are just hopping over the border and taking advantage of the system.
The other day I wrote an article entitled “Is Illegal Immigration Destroying The Southwest United States? 19 Immigration Facts That Very Few People Are Talking About“, and I quickly received some comments claiming that I was a racist and that I was full of hate.
Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that all people are of equal value and deserve to be loved and respected. People on one side of a border are not more “valuable” than people on the other side of a border. I simply want everyone to come through the “front door” so that we can stop the endless parade of gang members and drug dealers that are constantly pouring into the United States unchecked.
So is wanting all immigrants to go through the same legal process an irrational demand?
Of course not.
But the establishment media wants to make every issue about hate and about division.
And if there are some voices that the establishment media does not control that makes them even more nervous.
Take the Tea Party movement for example. Now there are a lot of things about the Tea Party movement that are far from perfect, but in that movement there is just a hint of independence from the establishment.
So how has the mainstream media reacted to the Tea Party movement?
Well, they mock and demonize those in the movement every time they can.
Tea Party activists are called “crazy”, “loco”, “insane”, “wacky”, “kooky” and “extremists”. They are laughed at by network anchors while they are being interviewed. There were even several very highly publicized law enforcement documents that circulated around the Internet last year that referred to Tea Party activists as potential terrorists.
So why are Tea Party activists vilified by the mainstream media so much? Well, it is because that movement represents a sliver of a chance that the American people may take back control of the political process in this country.
The establishment cannot let that happen, because their whole system depends on control.
When this country was originally founded, we were not a divided nation. It was the founding fathers vs. the monarchy and the financial establishment of England. Our founders were mocked and ridiculed and very few people gave them any chance of succeeding. Fortunately our founding fathers won and they were able to establish this great nation.
Well, once again today those fighting against the “financial establishment” are being mocked and ridiculed. Politicians such as Ron Paul that point out that ultra-wealthy international bankers use the Federal Reserve to manipulate and control our financial system are marginalized by the mainstream media. But fortunately the American people are starting to wake up.
You just can’t keep truth down forever. Eventually it will rise.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

One Of Ann Coulter's Best - By Far


Hope, change and invest

I missed the middle section of Obama's State of the Union address when I took a break to read "War and Peace," but I gather he never got around to what I was hoping he'd say, which is: "What was I thinking?"
The national debt is $14 trillion, the Democrats won't stop spending and President Nero gave us a long, gaseous speech about his Stradivarius.
I feel so Southern whenever I watch a Democrat give a State of the Union address – and not just because it makes me want to secede. Consternating the rest of the family, my Kentucky mother always talked back to the TV. I do it only when a Democrat is giving a speech.
And if liberals didn't like Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true," they should be really happy I wasn't in the House chamber Tuesday night.
All I kept hearing was, "Ann pays more." That's all I ever I hear when Democrats start in with all that "investing."
Apparently the government will be "investing" in education, "investing" in technology, "investing" in roads and "investing" in lots and lots of government workers. Ann pays more, Ann pays more, Ann pays more.
Obama compared "investing" in education to our sending a man to the moon after the Russians launched Sputnik. Say, who was the president who recently gutted spending on NASA? Oh yes, that was Obama.
So he reminded us of the glory days of the space program, but now he's taking that money and funneling it to public-school teachers. As the Democrats say: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we hire another 10,000 public-school teachers?"
Also, solar panels. Obama said the government was already "investing" in solar panels! That's a total relief. This must be how the president who brought us "Recovery Summer" is going to dig us out of the second Great Depression.

But I do wonder why no private lender considered solar panels a wise investment, forcing solar-panel manufacturers to turn to the government for loans, followed by endless tax credits just to break even.
I guess people who work for the government are just smarter. We're so lucky to have them "investing" our money for us! Boy, egg must be on Warren Buffett's face!
Remember how massive government "investments" gave rise to the telephone, the light bulb, the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer ... OK, none of those.
But massive government expenditures did give us Amtrak and the TSA!
The only thing Obama vowed to cut were "earmarks." Yippee! The guy with the ears is against earmarks. Yes, the same president who quadrupled our deficit by giving money away to his UAW pals, Wall Street cronies and government workers is now lecturing us about earmarks. This is a bit like being scolded by Charlie Sheen for ordering a second wine cooler.
You knew it was bad when John McCain leapt up and enthusiastically applauded. The last time I saw McCain applaud Obama like that was when he debated him.
Obama said, "We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook."
And then the government outlawed Edison's great invention, made the Wright brothers' air travel insufferable, filed anti-trust charges against Microsoft and made cars too expensive to drive by prohibiting oil exploration, and right now – at this very minute – is desperately trying to regulate the Internet.
On the bright side, President Al Gore would have actually outlawed the cars in those driveways.
I especially enjoyed his pitch for high-speed trains where you "don't have to receive pat-downs." At least until one of those Muslims who is "part of our American family" blows one up – at which point they'll be staffed with armies of genital-fondling, unionized TSA agents on the public dime.
Still, I can't wait for Obama's America. An America where I can use lightning-fast, high-speed Internet to file electronically for my unemployment benefits. Or better yet, I can ditch my old "oil-powered" car and take a "sunlight and water"-powered high-speed train to the unemployment office for a change.
And I hear CalTech is working on biofuels to power "Recovery Summer 2011."
The big laugh line was when Nero said mockingly, "I heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about the health-care law." That's called "60 percent of the American public." It's not a joke, and it's not funny.
Here's one: Hey, Obama! Guy walks into a bar in the Gaza Strip. The bartender says, "What'll you have?" But the guy is killed instantly when an Iranian-made CT-28 missile strikes the bar, also killing a woman and small child next door. Get it, Obama? Ha ha!
Synthesizing Karl Marx and Ronald Reagan, Obama said the government will soon be taking over every aspect of our lives, and Republicans can't stop him – but gosh, isn't America a great country! Teachers are great, we need to innovate, children are our future, we need paved roads, kids should do their homework, Labrador puppies are cute, I like apple pie, I (heart) Justin Bieber, and how about them Yankees! Now, here's your 2011 tax bill – how would you like to pay for that?
Actually, I was glad to hear him say that "there isn't a person here" – which presumably included Democrats – who would live anyplace else.
Then why are they always trying to turn us into Western Europe?

The State Of The Union Address Doesn't Add Up



FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger
WASHINGTON – The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.
Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."
But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.
For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.
A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.
___
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill's $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.
It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.
___
OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.
Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has provided grants to test ideas aimed at reducing medical mistakes and resolving malpractice cases by negotiation, but has recommended no change in federal law.
Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases. In October 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted.
___
OBAMA: "The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes."
THE FACTS: Obama's fiscal commission did not simply recommend cutting excessive spending; it proposed that the deficit could only be tamed by cutting $3 for every $1 of new revenue raised — in other words, a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Instead, Obama proposed an overhaul of the corporate tax system that would eliminate loopholes and tax breaks but also reduce tax rates. The net effect would be neutral; it would not reduce or raise any revenue. Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
___
OBAMA: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations."
THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.
___
OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."
THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.
___
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP response: "Whether sold as 'stimulus' or repackaged as 'investment,' their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much, taxes too much and spends too much in order to do too much."
THE FACTS: The economic stimulus package passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in February 2009 didn't raise taxes. Instead, about a third of the package — nearly $300 billion — was made up of temporary tax cuts. The biggest was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which provided up $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples. There were dozens of other tax cuts, including a more generous child tax credit, a tax credit for buying a home and a sales tax deduction for buying a car. Many, but not all, of the tax cuts have since expired.
Obama's health care law imposed new taxes, including a penalty for some people who don't get qualified health insurance, starting in 2014. But Obama extended Bush-era tax cuts that were due to expire at the beginning of the year. He also enacted a new one-year cut in the payroll tax for 2011 for just about every wage earner.