I upload various mods to ModDB, so that they may gain some attention. If anyone needs any help with their profile pages send me a PM.
By WILLIAM PERRY PENDLEY, CONTRIBUTOR • 11/29/16 5:33 PM
Just when you thought the lawlessness of the most lawless administration in history couldn't get worse, the Department of Justice files another legal brief.
In response to a class action lawsuit by as many as 3,500 ready-to-hire air traffic controller applicants whose names were "purged" so the Federal Aviation Administration could hire based on race, federal lawyers asserted that the administration is immune from liability for denying constitutional equal protection because of sovereign immunity. In other words, they claim protection by the legal maxim rex non potest peccare, which means, "the king can do no wrong."
Beginning in 1991, the FAA collaborated with universities and colleges to create 36 accredited degree programs in diverse Collegiate Training Initiative schools. Then, the FAA hired those with CTI program degrees, references from CTI administrators and "well qualified" rankings on the challenging Air Traffic Selection and Training exam — a validated, proctored, eight-hour, computer-based test.
In 2013, however, to achieve racial diversity — notwithstanding that nearly 12 percent of those attending CTI programs were African Americans — the FAA abandoned that program, "purged" its files of the 2,000 to 3,500 CTI graduates, and began hiring any English-speaking citizen with a high school diploma, while screening new applicants to ensure their racial "diversity."
In late December 2015, Mountain States Legal Foundation responded with a class action lawsuit in Arizona federal district court on behalf of those who satisfied the FAA's time-tested and rigorous tests for prospective air traffic controllers, but whose names were purged after the FAA announced hiring plans favorable to minorities. The lawsuit charges violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The class is represented by Andrew Brigida, who holds two B.S. aviation degrees from Arizona State University and scored 100 percent on the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam. Mountain States Legal Foundation filed an amended complaint in April 2016 and a second amended complaint in August 2016, following congressional action that did nothing to remediate the constitutional and statutory injuries suffered by its clients.
That is when federal lawyers responded that their clients were like "kings."
Everyone is familiar with William Blackstone's famous aphorism, "That the king can do no wrong, is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution." But what does that have to do with us on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, we who revolted against a "God-King" with the words "all men are created equal," broke free and created a constitutional Republic?
As it turns out, precious little. In 1996, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that sovereign immunity is a judge-made doctrine that has been "thoroughly discredited" because it is founded on the notion "that a divinely ordained monarch 'can do no wrong.'"
Not surprisingly, "Sovereign immunity … is a right that cannot be found in the text or the framers' intent," wrote recognized legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky.
More importantly, whether the federal government is subject to the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection was asked and answered in 1995. In a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought by a small family business that installed guardrails on federal highway projects, federal lawyers argued that the federal government was exempt from the equal protection clause because of its responsibility to rectify racial injustice.
The Supreme Court rejected that notion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the 5-4 majority in Adarand v. Pena, "[A]ll governmental action ['by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor'] based on race ... should be subjected to detailed judicial inquiry to ensure that the personal right to equal protection of the laws has not been infringed."
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, writing, "In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."
Another day, another legal filing and yet another unconstitutional legal assertion by the Obama administration. The end cannot come soon enough...
I think we've been under Psy Ops for the past 3 years.. also the last Guccifer 2.0 dump since I didn't post about it:
You will find the Master-spreadsheet-ac-contributions which provides names and stolen TARP amounts that was given to the Clinton Foundation!!!!! Has been sent to Congressional Oversight Committee.
Some coverage of the stolen TARP funds:
also update on Pizzagate:
Now Legalized, US Propaganda Swears It’s ‘Fair and Accurate’John Glaser Posted on
July 15, 2013
In May of last year I noted at this blog reports that an amendment had been slipped into the 2013 NDAA bill that nullified two U.S. laws – the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987 – that ban domestic propaganda. This month marks the official repeal.
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran; self-immolation in Tibet; human trafficking across Asia; and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 70s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they “should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.” Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky who argued that such “propaganda” should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. “from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity.”
Hudson then goes on to interview a spokesman for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which produces government news for foreign audiences on “Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.” This spokesman promises, from the bottom of her heart, they don’t engage in propaganda.
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA “present fair and accurate news.”
“They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States,” she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: “Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible, discussion, and open debate.”
Straight from the horse’s mouth! The problem is, those engaged in propaganda for the government always deny – and indeed are virtually never aware – that they are engaged in propaganda. Today’s cable news companies, many of them owned by rent-seeking corporations with close ties and interests to the state, engage in propaganda all the time and continuously believe they are independent minds who report in a ‘fair and accurate’ way.
Take Glenn Greenwald’s recent appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. He accused host Mika Brzezinski of issuing White House talking points on Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks, while masquerading it as a balanced debate. She seemed shocked at the accusation, which was true despite her own ignorance of it.
Look at how confused this BBC journalist is when Noam Chomsky tries to explain the propaganda model to him:
He thinks he’s an adversarial journalist, clearly. But of course, if he was a different kind of journalist with a different set of views (say, anti-government views), he may not be working for the BBC.
And so, Ms. Weil’s protestations about being engaged in propaganda cannot be trusted simply because she says so. As Hudson writes, “if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons.”
Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firmconfessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported The Post.
A primer on the history of U.S. propaganda might help in convincing Americans that propaganda isn’t just another one of those horrible things that every other government does but ours is different, better.
During the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson set up the Committee on Public Information (CPI), a propaganda ministry meant to build public support for the war effort. The CPI distributed propaganda in news stories, street posters, advertisements, and hollywood films. It launched pro-war lecture circuits to mobilize public opinion, and publicly criticizing the president or the war effort was essentially criminalized.
“The propagandists in World War II,” writes historian Susan A. Brewer, “followed in the footsteps of the Committee on Public Information, while attempting to avoid their predecessor’s mistakes.”
The OWI’s [Office of War Information] objective, acknowledged privately, was the “coordination, synchronization, embellishment, emphasis, manipulation and distribution of facts as information rather than…gross overstatements and exaggerated misrepresentations.” To mobilize the population, the OWI drew on familiar advertising techniques such as repetition, catchy slogans, and celebrity endorsement.
…On December 16, 1941, President Roosevelt set up the Office of Censorship, headed by Associated Press executive news editor Byron Price. The Office of Censorship had authority over all civilian communication…Before news organizations released a story, Price wanted them to ask themselves, “Is this information I would like to have if I were the enemy?” In a 1942 press conference, he and [OWI Director Elmer] Davis explained the relationship of the Office of Censorship and the OWI with the news media. Price announced, “We tell what they cannot print.” Davis said, “We give them stuff we hope they will print.”
For those who still doubt we’re at greater risk now, the question arises: why were these laws repealed? The BBG spokesman admits they want to target, for example, Somali expats, to give them an alternative to the Al-Shabab propaganda and outlets like Russia Today. Hm.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Nov. 18, 2016 6:52 p.m. ET
It’s hard to think of Steve Bannon as a low-profile guy. He has garnered about as many headlines over the past week as Donald Trump—no small feat. He is the executive chairman of the hard-right Breitbart News, among the most aggressive voices online, its website an attack machine against Democrats and “establishment” conservatives. President-elect Trump chose Mr. Bannon this week as his chief strategist and senior counselor, a slot usually filed by someone eager to play a presidential surrogate on TV.
Yet Mr. Bannon—who joined the Trump campaign in mid-August to propel its thunderbolt victory—professes no interest in being the story. “It’s not important to be known,” he says in a telephone interview Thursday night, among his first public comments since the election. “It was Lao Tzu who said that with the best leaders, when the work is accomplished, the people will say ‘We have done this ourselves.’ That’s how I’ve led.”
Nor does he profess to care that Democrats and the media are portraying him as a “cloven-hoofed devil,” as he puts it. “I pride myself in doing things that matter. What mattered in the campaign was winning. We did. What matters now is pulling together the single best team we can to implement President-elect Trump’s vision.
He continues: “How can you take anything seriously from a media apparatus—paid the amount of money you people are paid—that systematically missed something that was so obvious, that missed Brexit, that missed the Trump revolution? You’d have thought they’d have learned their lesson on November 8.”
Slight pause. “They clearly haven’t.”
Here are a few things you’ve likely read about Steve Bannon this week: He’s a white supremacist, a bigot and anti-Semite. He’s a self-described Leninist who wants to “destroy the state.” He’s associated with the “alt-right,” a movement that, according to the New York Times, delights in “harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media.”
ENLARGEPHOTO: KEN FALLIN
You’ll have seen some of Breitbart’s more offensive headlines, which refer to “renegade” Jews and the “dangerous faggot tour.” You maybe heard that Breitbart is gearing up to be a Pravda-like state organ for the Trump administration.
Mr. Bannon is an aggressive political scrapper, unabashed in his views, but he says those views bear no relation to the media’s description. Over 70 minutes, he describes himself as a “conservative,” a “populist” and an “economic nationalist.” He’s a talker, but unexcitable, speaking in measured tones. A former naval officer, he thinks in military terms and likes to quote philosophers and generals. He’s contemptuous of the media, proud of Breitbart, protective of the “deplorables,” and—at least at the moment—eager to work with everyone from soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to House Speaker Paul Ryan.
At first Mr. Bannon insists that he has no interest in “wasting time” addressing the accusations against him. Yet he’s soon ticking off the reasons they are “just nonsense.”
Anti-Semitic? “Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America. I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement”—meaning boycott, divestment and sanctions—“in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.” He adds that given his many Jewish partners and writers, “guys like Joel Pollak, these claims of anti-Semitism just aren’t serious. It’s a joke.”
He blames the attacks on a lazy media, noting for instance that the “renegade Jew” line wasn’t Breitbart’s. Conservative activist David Horowitz (also Jewish) has taken responsibility for writing the headline himself, in a piece about Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.
The Lenin anecdote came from an article in the Daily Beast by a writer who claimed to have spoken with Mr. Bannon in 2013: “So a guy I’ve never heard of in my life claims he met me at a party, and then claims I said something about Lenin, and this is taken as gospel truth, with nobody checking it.”
What about the charge of white supremacism? “I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism.”
Mr. Bannon says the accusations miss that “the black working and middle class and the Hispanic working and middle class, just like whites, have been severely hurt by the policies of globalism.” He adds that he urged candidate Trump to reach out in his campaigning. “I was the one who said we are going to Flint, Michigan, we are going to black churches in Cleveland, because the thrust of this movement is that we are going to bring capitalism to the inner cities.”
Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? “They were ready to coronate Hillary Clinton. That didn’t happen, and I’m one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these attacks as an emblem of pride.”
Mr. Bannon is fiercely proud of the bomb-throwing Breitbart News, too. He credits it with “catching and understanding this populist movement” as far back as 2013, narrating the rise of the UK Independence Party in Britain, the exit movement for Scotland, and ultimately Brexit. “We were on to this change years before Donald Trump came on the scene,” he says.
He acknowledges that the site is “edgy” but insists it is “vibrant.” He offers his own definition of the alt-right movement and explains how he sees it fitting into Breitbart. “Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”
But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views.
All this said, Mr. Bannon explains he’s on sabbatical from Breitbart and has had “nothing to do with the site since August 15,” when he joined the Trump campaign. Now he will take an “extended leave of absence and cut all association with the site while I’m working at the pleasure of the president.” He adds that Breitbart “didn’t get a scoop from the campaign from the minute I took over; they’ve had to scramble like everybody else.”
Yet given its loyalty to Messrs. Bannon and Trump, won’t Breitbart serve as an attack dog against Republicans who defy the new president? Mr. Bannon says he believes the site will “call it as it sees it” and that even the Trump administration will be open for criticism if it doesn’t “stay true to its vision.” He adds: “If we don’t, I assume they will hammer us.”
As for how Breitbart will treat other Republicans: “Do I see them jumping in and backing Paul Ryan? Probably not. But I have no control over that. I’m sure if you look at some of the names being rumored for positions, walking through Trump tower, folks like [South Carolina Gov.] Nikki Haley, and you look at the comments section of Breitbart, I’m sure they aren’t exactly high-fiving. But that’s fantastic. The reason that Breitbart has gotten so big is because it has spirit.”
Mr. Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign was never made clear, though fellow adviser Kellyanne Conway called him the campaign’s “general” and a “brilliant tactician.” Mr. Bannon describes a close alliance of himself, Ms. Conway and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who developed a very “tight strategy” that relied on targeted speeches, rallies and social media. They envisioned two possible paths to the White House: one that hinged on Nevada and New Hampshire; the other that “leveraged Ohio” and rolled up Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. By the last week they saw the latter plan coming together.
The claim that the Trump campaign was chaotic in the final months is wrong, Mr. Bannon says. It benefited from “excellent data” furnished by the Republican National Committee and an operation in San Antonio set up by Mr. Kushner. The campaign was looking closely at “rural communities and the hinterlands that held a lot of votes,” which the Clinton campaign had “basically ceded” to Republicans. Mrs. Clinton also made the mistake of trying to “close the deal on a coalition” (minorities, millennials) that “she’d never closed on before.”
Mrs. Clinton aside, the reason Mr. Trump won, he says, “is not all that complicated. The data was overwhelming: This is a change election. People weren’t happy with the direction of the country. So all you had to do was to give people permission to vote for Donald Trump as an agent of change, make sure he articulated that message.” That, and paint Mrs. Clinton as “the guardian of a corrupt and incompetent elite and status quo.” Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the case, as “one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan.”
Now it’s a new world, and given his reputation it is interesting to hear Mr. Bannon talk about what he is “most proud of.” One thing is that “you see nothing but unity on the Republican side. I like saying that, having been a very anti-establishment leader of a very anti-establishment movement, that we were able to come together with people like Reince Priebus, to overcome our differences in a coalition. To have this great victory and realize that if we are going to put the policies of a President Trump into effect, we’ve got to continue to work as a coalition.”
His affinity for Mr. Priebus (“a terrific partner”) seems real, and he says bluntly that the Trump victory “would not have been possible without the RNC”—though he adds with a rare chuckle that the RNC “was a little anxious at times.” Mr. Bannon brushes off concerns that there will be a White House power struggle between him and Mr. Priebus, given that Mr. Trump says the two men will be “equal partners.”
“Listen, this is not Bush 41 or Bush 43 or Mitt Romney. This is a President-elect who gets information directly. He works in concentric circles.”
Mr. Bannon has confidence about passing big reforms. “Does Paul Ryan think that everything Breitbart stands for, Steve Bannon stands for, is great? No. Do I think that everything he stands for—in particular his omnibus [spending bill]—is great? No. Can we work together to implement Donald Trump’s vision for America? Can we do that? Oh yeah.”
He concedes that “there are going to be times when we really, really disagree.” But those are “in the future” and for now the priorities (tax reform, ObamaCare) “that we’re working 24 hours a day on here with Vice President-elect Pence, who is going to be our connection to Capitol Hill,” are energizing everyone.
He’s proud of the “broad scope of people” they are bringing in for talks: Ms. Haley, Mitt Romney. He’s proud that the first job offer—to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser—went to a “registered Democrat,” and that the country is going to see “a lot of interesting choices.” Mr. Trump “knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be.”
As for Mr. Bannon, don’t expect to see him on cable. “People say get out there. But I see no purpose in trying to convince a bunch of media elites who only ever talk to themselves. I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. I’d never tip my hand to the other side. And right now we’ve got work to do.”
Ms. Strassel is a member of the Journal editorial board and writes the Potomac Watch column.
“IQ is a metric of such dubiousness that almost no serious educational researcher uses it anymore,” the Guardian’s Ana Marie Cox wrote back in May. It was a breathtakingly ignorant statement. Psychologist Jelte Wicherts noted in response that a search for “IQ test” in Google’s academic database yielded more than 10,000 hits — just for the year 2013.
But Cox’s assertion is all too common. There is a large discrepancy between what educated laypeople believe about cognitive science and what experts actually know. Journalists are steeped in the lay wisdom, so they are repeatedly surprised when someone forthrightly discusses the real science of mental ability.
If that science happens to deal with group differences in average IQ, the journalists’ surprise turns into shock and disdain. Experts who speak publicly about IQ differences end up portrayed as weird contrarians at best, and peddlers of racist pseudoscience at worst.
I’m speaking from experience. My Harvard Ph.D. dissertation contains some scientifically unremarkable statements about ethnic differences in average IQ, including the IQ difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. For four years, the dissertation did what almost every other dissertation does — collected dust in the university library. But when it was unearthed in the midst of the immigration debate, I experienced the vilification firsthand.
For people who have studied mental ability, what’s truly frustrating is the déjà vuthey feel each time a media firestorm like this one erupts. Attempts by experts in the field to defend the embattled messenger inevitably fall on deaf ears. When the firestorm is over, the media’s mindset always resets to a state of comfortable ignorance, ready to be shocked all over again when the next messenger comes along.
At stake here, incidentally, is not just knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but also how science informs public policy. The U.S. education system, for example, is suffused with mental testing, yet few in the political classes understand cognitive ability research. Angry and repeated condemnations of the science will not help.
What scholars of mental ability know, but have never successfully gotten the media to understand, is that a scientific consensus, based on an extensive and consistent literature, has long been reached on many of the questions that still seem controversial to journalists.
For example, virtually all psychologists believe there is a general mental ability factor (referred to colloquially as “intelligence”) that explains much of an individual’s performance on cognitive tests. IQ tests approximately measure this general factor. Psychologists recognize that a person’s IQ score, which is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, usually remains stable upon reaching adolescence. And they know that IQ scores are correlated with educational attainment, income, and many other socioeconomic outcomes.
In terms of group differences, people of northeast Asian descent have higher average IQ scores than people of European lineage, who in turn have higher average scores than people of sub-Saharan African descent. The average score for Hispanic Americans falls somewhere between the white and black American averages. Psychologists have tested and long rejected the notion that score differences can be explained simply by biased test questions. It is possible that genetic factors could influence IQ differences among ethnic groups, but many scientists are withholding judgment until DNA studies are able to link specific gene combinations with IQ.
How can I be sure all of this reflects mainstream thinking? Because, over the years, psychologists have put together statements, reports, and even books aimed at synthesizing expert opinion on IQ. Many of these efforts were made in explicit response to the periodic media firestorms that engulfed people who spoke publicly about cognitive science. It’s worth reviewing some of those incidents and detailing the scholarly responses — responses that are invariably forgotten before the next furor begins. I’ll place my own experience in that context.
Let’s start 25 years ago, with the publication of The IQ Controversy, a book by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman. The authors surveyed more than 1,000 experts in the field of cognitive science to develop a picture of what the mainstream really looks like. It was very similar to the description I’ve supplied above.
Snyderman and Rothman then systematically analyzed television, newspaper, and magazine coverage of IQ issues. They were alarmed to find that the media were presenting a much different picture than what the expert survey showed. Based on media portrayals, it would seem that most experts think IQ scores have little meaning, that genes have no influence on IQ, and that the tests are hopelessly biased. “Our work demonstrates that, by any reasonable standard, media coverage of the IQ controversy has been quite inaccurate,” the authors concluded.
In conducting the expert survey and contrasting the results with media depictions of IQ research, one would think Snyderman and Rothman had performed a valuable service. Surely public discussion of IQ would now be more firmly grounded in science?
It didn’t happen. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve was published in 1994, and real science was hard to find in the media circus that ensued. Herrnstein and Murray’s central claim about IQ differences shaping class divisions continues to be the subject of reasoned debate among social scientists. But non-experts in the media questioned whether IQ is even a valid concept. Intelligence research – psychometrics — is a pseudoscience, they said. The tests are meaningless, elitist, biased against women and minorities, important only to genetic determinists. And even to discuss group differences in IQ was called racist.
In short, the media did everything Snyderman and Rothman had warned against six years earlier. As a consequence, the interesting policy implications explored by Herrnstein and Murray were lost in the firestorm.
The American Psychological Association (APA) tried to set the record straight in 1996 with a report written by a committee of experts. Among the specific conclusions drawn by the APA were that IQ tests reliably measure a real human trait, that ethnic differences in average IQ exist, that good tests of IQ are not culturally biased against minority groups, and that IQ is a product of both genetic inheritance and early childhood environment. Another report signed by 52 experts, entitled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” stated similar facts and was printed in the Wall Street Journal.
“These may be harbingers of a shift in the media’s treatment of intelligence,” an optimistic Charles Murray wrote at the time. “There is now a real chance that the press will begin to discover that it has been missing the story.”
He was wrong. The APA report fell down the memory hole, and the media’s understanding of IQ again fell back to that state of comfortable misinformation that Snyderman and Rothman had observed years earlier.
So when Larry Summers, then the president of Harvard University, speculated in 2005 that women might be naturally less gifted in math and science, the intense backlash contributed to his ouster.
Two years later, when famed scientist James Watson noted the low average IQ scores of sub-Saharan Africans, he was forced to resign from his lab, taking his Nobel Prize with him.
When a Harvard law student was discovered in 2010 to have suggested in a private email that the black-white IQ gap might have a genetic component, the dean publicly condemned her amid a campus-wide outcry. Only profuse apologies seem to have saved her career.
In none of these cases did an appeal to science tamp down the controversy or help to prevent future ones. My own time in the media crosshairs would be no different.
So what did I write that created such a fuss? In brief, my dissertation shows that recent immigrants score lower than U.S.-born whites on a variety of cognitive tests. Using statistical analysis, it suggests that the test-score differential is due primarily to a real cognitive deficit rather than to culture or language bias. It analyzes how that deficit could affect socioeconomic assimilation, and concludes by exploring how IQ selection might be incorporated, as one factor among many, into immigration policy.
Because a large number of recent immigrants are from Latin America, I reviewed the literature showing that Hispanic IQ scores fall between white and black scores in the United States. This fact isn’t controversial among experts, but citing it seems to have fueled much of the media backlash.
And what a backlash it was. It started back in May when I coauthored an unrelatedstudy that estimates the fiscal cost of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Opponents seeking to discredit that study pointed to my dissertation, and the firestorm was lit. Reporters pulled the dissertation quotes they found “shocking” and featured them in news stories about anti-immigration extremism. Well-established scientific findings were treated as self-evidently wrong — and likely the product of bigotry.
The professional commentators eagerly ran with that theme. Jennifer Rubin of theWashington Post called me a “fringe character.” Will Wilkinson of the Economistdecried my “repugnant prejudice.” The New York Daily News published an unsigned editorial describing me as “the most twisted sort of intellectual” who is “peddling offensive tripe.” The Guardian’s Ana Marie Cox, whose quote began this article, called me a “bigot” and a “more subtle and dangerous kind of extremist.”
As with all the past incidents, most reporters learned nothing about IQ and seemed indifferent to any lessons for public policy. The works of mainstream scholars designed to educate lay people — The IQ Controversy, the APA report, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” etc. — were nowhere to be found.
Not all the media coverage was divorced from real science. Journalists such asRobert VerBruggen and Michael Barone wrote insightful reaction pieces. And the science-oriented blogosphere, which is increasingly the go-to place for expert commentary, provided some of the best coverage.
But it’s difficult to have a mature policy conversation when other journalists are doing little more than name-calling. It’s like convening a scientific conference on the causes of autism, only to have the participants drowned out by anti-vaccine protesters.
For too many people confronted with IQ issues, emotion trumps reason. Some are even angry that I never apologized for my work. I find that sentiment baffling. Apologize for stating empirical facts relevant to public policy? I could never be so craven. And apologize to whom — people who don’t like those facts? The demands for an apology illustrate the emotionalism that often governs our political discourse.
What causes so many in the media to react emotionally when it comes to IQ? Snyderman and Rothman believe it is a naturally uncomfortable topic in modern liberal democracies. The possibility of intractable differences among people does not fit easily into the worldview of journalists and other members of the intellectual class who have an aversion to inequality. The unfortunate — but all too human — reaction is to avoid seriously grappling with inconvenient truths. And I suspect the people who lash out in anger are the ones who are most internally conflicted.
But I see little value in speculating further about causes. Change is what’s needed. And the first thing for reporters, commentators, and non-experts to do is to stop demonizing public discussion of IQ differences. Stop calling names. Stop trying to get people fired. Most of all, stop making pronouncements about research without first reading the literature or consulting people who have.
This is not just about academic freedom or any one scholar’s reputation. Cognitive differences can inform our understanding of a number of policy issues — everything from education, to military recruitment, to employment discrimination to, yes, immigration. Start treating the science of mental ability seriously, and both political discourse and public policy will be better for it.
Jason Richwine is a public policy analyst in Washington, D.C.
Russia reveals satellite evidence that 'proves' Turkey is buying ISIS oil - Thetimes.co.uk
Competing Gas Pipelines Are Fueling The Syrian War & Migrant Crisis - Zerohedge.com
Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad - Medium.com
Sanctions on Iran: Iranians face shortages of rice, corn, and cooking oil - Csmonitor.com
Rothchild ties to JFK assassination - Henrymakow.com
How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan's Attack on Pearl - Independent.org
Germany The Economic Boycott of 1933 - Wintersonnenwende.com
The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi - Wintersonnenwende.com
"Judea Declares War on Germany" - Youtube.com
This is How USA-Installed Puppets Go from Democratic Presidents to Despots & Terrorists When Their Time Comes
SIBEL EDMONDS | JANUARY 18, 2014
Have you heard this famous quote ‘Marketing is everything … and everything is marketing’? I know it was originally meant for product sales, because admit it, you can have the best product engineering, financial backing and operational mastery … but in the end the success of your product is determined by how your customers perceive your product-your brand. This principle of marketing applies equally as well to our domestic politics and politicians, and it is equally valid for world politics and leaders. The principle governs one of the main operations of the U.S. Empire: Regime Building & Puppet Installation. Not only that, it is also used in reverse as well. Think of it as reverse engineering. It is very similar: The Empire uses the same principle of marketing to bring down regimes and uninstall puppets. The reversal of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s world and domestic image provides a perfect example of the Empire’s reverse marketing.
In the United States, for over a decade, Turkey’s AKP Party and its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan had been branded, marketed, and promoted as truly democratic and fair, and the best model of a democratic government for the Islamic world. Please allow me to provide examples of this branding and marketing performed by the US media for the masters and planners of the Empire:
Let us begin with one of the top marketing arms of the Empire’s branding and marketing operations-CNN
…Turkey, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP), as a model of a modern, democratic and Islamic nation nurturing pluralist ideals.
Rather than viewing Turkey's increasing currency in the region as a challenge, America should see it as an opportunity. From its free-market economic system, which is registering Chinese-level growth, to its compatible ideals, the promotion of the Turkish model is in America's national interest. Turkey effectively counters militant groups by challenging them from within Muslim society while also representing a crucial bridge between the West and the Muslim world.
America can immediately take practical steps to promote the Turkish model by encouraging the Egyptian army to move the nation toward a genuine, civilian-elected government.
Now, let’s move to another significant marketing branch-this one disguised as independent and nonprofit:NPR
Then there are the middle-of-the-road marketing arms:
Turkey’s rising trajectory was highlighted by the rock-star reception accorded to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during his recent tour of the Arab Spring states of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and his high-profile meetings during the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Many find the Turkish model enticing, with the moderate Islamic Justice and Development Party, known as AKP, in office; a secular constitution in place; a strong military that is subservient to the elected civilian authority; and an economy that has been expanding.
Overall there’s hope that a new democratic era in the Middle East and North Africa will enable Arabs to develop a new paradigm for relations with the West. This paradigm would be based on equality and partnership – a position that Turkey has already achieved.
We must not leave out one of the major international marketing branches of the Empire: BBC: Turkey: a model of democracy for the Arab world
And, let us not forget or leave out the important role played by the symbolic head(s) of the Empire in its branding and marketing operations. Here is President Obama selling the world on the Empire’s own installed leader:
I just want to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to once again meet with my friend and colleague, Prime Minister Erdogan. I think it's fair to say that over the last several years, the relationship between Turkey and the United States has continued to grow across every dimension. And I find Prime Minister Erdogan to be an outstanding partner and an outstanding friend on a wide range of issues.
Of course, once that happens, when the symbolic Imperial President markets and sells an imperial product, the world echoes it: Obama Names Turkey’s Erdoğan among Top Five International Friends
That’s right. The U.S. Empire spent over a decade marketing and promoting its favorite puppet in the Middle East- the AKP Party & Erdogan, as the model for the Islamic World, Islamic Democracy, People’s Choice, Great Leader … And then, bam, suddenly the AKP Party and its leader reached their shelf-life. All of a sudden they reached their expiration date. Almost over-night the party and its leader went from democratic to despotic, from democracy-loving to dictator, from squeaky clean to utterly corrupt, from moderate to extremist … what the hell happened? How did the Empire-directed man of choice make a 180 degree turn overnight?
Let me give you some examples of the sudden reversal in branding and marketing, and have you compare and contrast them with those above. Please keep in mind, you are looking at a only few months between the decade-long branding-marketing and the now reverse branding-marketing.
The following is from the same uber branch of the Empire that spent over ten years promoting the opposite: CNN
Erdogan "is offering unfortunate proof that it is possible to be both elected and authoritarian."
Many journalists say press freedoms in Turkey have declined under his rule. Reporters Without Borders says Turkey "is currently the world's biggest prison for journalists, especially those who express views critical of the authorities on the Kurdish issue."
Many secular Turks complain that the Islamist-rooted government is intolerant of criticism and diverse lifestyles, as evidenced by the recent enactment of tight restrictions on the sale of alcohol, Fadi Hakura, manager of the Turkey Project at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said in a CNN.com column.
Let me just go ahead and list a few other headlines from thousands that have been filling the headlines on Turkey’s AKP & Erdogan for the last few months:
I know that even the idiots among us would not believe such a sudden and drastic change in a person. No one goes from being the most freedom loving leader to the most authoritarian despot. No human being can be transformed from democratic to dictator in a matter of few months. No person can switch from fair and squeaky clean to utterly dirty and corrupt. Nobody can convert from being a moderate Islamist to an extremist bigot in less than a year. But wait, there is even more.
The Empire has even resorted to the “Terrorist” label in the reverse branding-marketing of their previous puppet boy. You know what it means when they start using that card-terrorist. Right?
Here is an article on Erdogan’s ties to a famous man designated as a terrorist (only when it is convenient for the Empire):
Turkey’s political crisis took a dark turn this week. Photos of Prime Minister Erdoğan’s son meeting a suspected al-Qaeda financier in an Istanbul hotel were leaked to the press. The photos allegedly show Bilal Erdoğan meeting Saudi Arabian businessman Yasin al-Qadi, whom the US blacklisted in April 2013 as an al-Qaeda funder. According to media reports, Qadi, who visits Turkey frequently and was escorted by the Prime Minister’s security men, met Bilal to discuss a deal for a juicy piece of real estate worth $1 billion in Istanbul’s Etiler neighborhood.
Of course, Al Qadi’s refuge in Turkey and his activities there, and his ties to Erdogan and other high-level figures in Turkey, had been known for over ten years.
Qadi’s relationship with Turkey and the Erdoğan family goes back a few years. In 2004 the Wall Street Journal uncovered transactions worth more than $1 million between Qadi and Maram, a Turkish front company that funded terrorists in Yemen. Associates of Qadi’s, including managers at Maram, are known funders and founders of al-Qaeda. Qadi has frequently and vehemently denied the accusations and spent a lot of money trying to clear his name. But at the very least, his dealings in Turkey are suspicious. According to opposition lawmakers, his presence in the country is illegal.
No matter. It doesn’t matter whether this news is as old as a decade-old moldy loaf of bread. It doesn’t matter that the US government had zero problems with not only al Qadi but several other high-level terrorists operating out of Turkey for over a decade. It doesn’t matter at all. The branding-marketing branch of the Empire will continue to use the terrorist card [All Emphasis Mine]:
According to findings by investigators leaked to Turkish media, Yasin Al Qadi is suspected of involvement in a scandal over the sale of land in an upmarket neighborhood in Istanbul. His alleged meeting last year with Bilal Erdogan could implicate the prime minister’s family in the affair.
The allegations could not come at a worse time for Mr. Erdogan, whose government is reeling from a series of corruption allegations.
In 2008, Forbes Magazine, published a fairly lengthy article on Yasin Al Qadi and his Turkish ties [All Emphasis Mine]:
Not everyone agrees with this picture of Al Qadi. “I know Mr. Qadi,” Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan told a local television news station in July 2006. “I believe in him as I believe in myself. For Mr. Qadi to associate with a terrorist organization, or support one, is impossible.”
Back to Turkey: Al Qadi is not just a friend of Prime Minister Erdogan, but he’s close to a group of Islamic businessmen and politicians around the prime minister. It has already been widely reported in the press, mostly notably in a Wall Street Journal article in August 2007, that Al Qadi was a major and early investor in BIM, a food retailer originally founded in the mid-1990s by entrepreneurial brothers Aziz and Cuneyd Zapsu. According to Al Qadi’s lawyer, the Saudi exited BIM in 1999, despite reports to the contrary, and well before his controversial U.N. listing.
Kacar’s 2004 Al Qadi report, delivered under what the investigator said was intense pressure to complete his probe, cited evidence that Al Qadi’s companies in Turkey were transferring funds between 1997 and 2001 far in excess of both companies’ net incomes, and were still operating at the time of the report. Wired funds he traced from various companies and individuals went to, among others, a “charity” and other individuals branded terrorists or terrorist fronts by international investigators; there was reason to continue his investigations, Kacar wrote.
I strongly urge you to read the entire investigative article here. Before the terrorist attacks in September 2001, the FBI was fully aware of Al Qadi’s operations with key al Qaeda figures. Not only that, there were several investigations and operations targeting al Qadi and his network in the United States prior to 9/11. Some of these investigations were based in the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and others were being conducted from the FBI’s Chicago Field Office.
The State Department and the CIA pressured the Bureau prior and post 9/11 to close and cover-up those investigations pertaining to Turkey and Al Qadi, because exposing those operations would have resulted in exposure of covert CIA-NATO operations in Central Asia and the Caucasus during the period between 1996 and 2002. A few months ago, before these re-leaks found their way into the media as new news, I briefly discussed al Qadi during one of my Gladio interview series with James Corbett. Here is a segment from that interview:
Here is the link to our interview series on Gladio Operation B with James Corbett: Here
The terrorist card is being played by the Empire’s marketing arm, and it will continue to be played. The favorite puppet, who was previously characterized and promoted by the Empire as a favorite leader, moderate and democratic, is now being reintroduced to the public, here and abroad, as despotic, a dictator, corrupt, and even a terrorist. Now comes the real question: why?
CIA Operations via Imam Fethullah Gulen
The downfall of Turkey’s Erdogan began with a rift between him and the CIA-Created Muslim Preacher Imam Fethullah Gulen. One of our authors has been covering the rift for Boiling Frogs Post. You can read his latest analysis here and here. However, one cannot truly understand Erdogan’s downfall without knowing the importance and power of CIA’s Fethullah Gulen. Since 2009 I have been a lone voice in reporting, analyzing and exposing the Imam and his multi-billion dollar Islamic network and operations around the globe, fully orchestrated and backed by the Central Intelligence Agency-CIA. Allow me to provide you with a few highlights from my reports since 2009.
Here is a recent article that delves into Erdogan countering CIA’s Mullah Gulen’s operations and network in Turkey:
Turkish police raided offices of a government-backed Islamic charity in six provinces on Tuesday and detained at least 23 people accused of having links with Al Qaeda, local media reported. The coordinated operation against the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, or IHH, prompted the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to sack the senior police official responsible for conducting the raid at the charity's Kilis headquarters, the Hurriyet Daily News reported.
For Erdogan the rift with Imam Fethullah Gulen means a rift with the CIA. And we all know what happens to those puppets when they end up in a rift with the CIA. Don’t we? The rift always brings expiration. Once a puppet is considered expired, then lo and behold, all of a sudden, the reversal branding and marketing begins: All old skeletons are dug out of the deep closets and leaked to the media. His previously overlooked human rights violations are looked at and scrutinized under a microscope. The terrorist card is brought into the equation. And the list goes on …
Violating Imperial Commandments
All Empire-installed puppets and regimes must commit to the Empire’s commandments. This is a fact. It is the reality. Thou shall not violate the Imperial commandments. Because if you do, thou shall be disgraced, exposed, uninstalled, and may even be given death. All you have to do is look at the past century’s history. See what happens when an installed puppet gets too confident and inflicted with hubris, and ignores one or more commandments. This is when they are reborn as dictators, despots, torturers, and yes, terrorists. This is when their backyards get dug up to find a few grams of weapons of mass destruction. So did Erdogan get too confident? Did he violate a commandment or two? It seems that he did.
Turkey has said that it is likely to buy a new missile defense program from a Chinese firm, unnerving NATO and American diplomats. A Reuters report from earlier this month said that Turkey is “highly likely” to buy the $3.4 billion program, from a firm under American sanctions, no less.
Washington has reacted with concern over the decision of Turkey's Defense Industry Executive Committee (SSIK), the absolute authority on the country's defense projects and procurement, to acquire China’s FD-2000 system to fill the NATO member's high-altitude and long-range air defense gap. The committee met on Sept. 26 with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to enter into contract negotiations with the state-owned China Precision Machinery Export-Import Corporation.
Concern? Are you kidding me?! The puppet may as well sign his own death warrant. How dare he! This is violating one of the top Imperial commandments. Anyone who ever dares to be this reckless will be punished and made an example for all other installed-puppets.
Dear lord! Here comes another major commandment violation:
During a trip to Russia in November, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan once again said that Ankara would abandon its quest to join the European Union if it was offered full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan dropped that bomb on Jan. 25. With Turkish hopes for the EU membership diminishing, he declared the SCO to be a viable alternative to the European Union. “I said to Russian President Vladimir Putin, ‘You tease us, saying, ‘what [is Turkey] doing in the EU?’ Now I tease you: Include us in the Shanghai Five and we will forget about the EU.’”
Ouch! There goes another pledge to the Empire’s top commandments. Frankly, I am surprised he is still there-alive.
No matter how we look at it Erdogan’s days are numbered. One will not get away with having a major rift with the CIA. That’s one commandment. Violated. Thou shall not buy weapons from China or Russia regardless of quality or price advantage. Thou shall only feed the Empire’s own fat Military Industrial Complex players. That’s another major commandment. Violated. A puppet shall only be a member of clubs solely owned and operated by the Empire. Joining others’ clubs, even thinking of joining others’ clubs, shall come with severe retribution. This rule has been written with inerasable ink- Violated. Well, these should take care of the Empire’s three-strike rule. Erdogan should begin looking for a shelter; a refuge. Either it’s that, or the Turkish people taking the matters into their own hands-where they belong.
Going deeper in Wikileaks Creepy Podesta emails with T. S. Pettibone 1/3 - Youtube.com
BREAKING: From the anon who brought you the Laura Silsby connection: I have uncovered a pedophile with links to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, David Brock, George Soros, Marina Abramovic and the Podestas - Reddit.com
Clinton, Obama, Podesta, Soros and Abramovic linked to D.C. pedophile ring - Sott.net
BREAKING: MegaPost - Two new leads connecting podesta/clinton cabinet to childrens orphanage trafficking - Pastebin.com
Exposing the Buffalo Club (Brock Pierce and Marc Rector) - Bitcointalk.org
The Clinton investigation is now connected to a massive child trafficking and pedophile sex ring operating within Washington, D.C. Over the next few days, and this November 5th, we will be referencing evidence and exposing the Clinton foundations for multiple incidences of child trafficking and sex scandals.
Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for involvement in an elite Washington pedophile ring, according to veteran State Department official Steve Pieczenik. Youtube.com
Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, his relationship with Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and other famous names, and their connection to a high-level sex scandal is exposed by Conchita and Cristina Sarnoff. Bit.ly
Anthony Weiner Talking to FBI about underage Sex Island (Lolita)
The FBI wants to know everything about the Lolita Island that Jeffrey Epstein owns. Lucky for them Anthony Weiner knows a lot about the Underage sex Island that Bill Clinton would visit and Weiner is ready to Talk. Bit.ly
Hillary has a LONG history of interest in Ms. Silsby. Wikileak emails dating back till at least 2001 have been found in her archives discussing Laura's NGO. Laura had claimed she planned to build an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, but authorities in the country said she never submitted an application for this purpose. They instead located to Haiti.
Missionary Stumbles on Road to Haiti - Wsj.com
One of the first things Hillary did when she took over the scene in Haiti was to get Laura off the hook:
The attorney who represented Laura Silsby - A man who was himself convicted as a sex trafficker:
WikiLeaks: Pricing how much it costs to transport children:
Again, this was the same group that got busted by Haitian Authorities trying to Traffic kids.
They're in the Clinton Emails;
Pitch for funding or some shit, super sketchy.
This looks like Mills & co are drafting statements following extradition.
Thread 1 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 2 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 3 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 4 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 5 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 6 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 7 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 8 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 9 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 10 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 11 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 12 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 13 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 14 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 15 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 16 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 17 - Boards.4chan.org
Thread 18 - Boards.4chan.org
"The children were sent to the SOS Children's Village orphanage in Croix-des-Bouquets, a suburb of Port-au-Prince, and it became clear that most (if not all) of them were not orphans. NLCR missionaries maintained that they were told that the children were orphaned. In turn, people in Calebasse and SOS Children's Villages accused the missionaries of lying about their intentions. ,Although the children's relatives were told that they would be able to visit them and eventually take them back, the NLCR's mission statement clearly outlined plans for adoption." Bit.ly
"So, how was Hillary Clinton part of this, and where’s the child sex trafficking? Mostly in the fevered imaginations of the excitable internet detectives of r/The_Donald, who decided that since Clinton discussed the case in emails with Huma Abedin and other aides, she was going out of her way to help the child abductors escape justice. This leaves out one tiny detail: as secretary of State, Clinton’s job was to help American citizens arrested in other countries. Huma emailed her articles about the case, and from there, Reddit decided that can only mean they’re all child traffickers trading children all over the world for sex slaves, and probably hitching rides on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex plane, too.”
Wikileaks 28 'The DOJ-FBI--Huma Special' is out and the TREASON of Hillary Clinton has never been more evident or quantifiable, and now the 650,000 emails on Huma and Anthony Weiner's computer allegedly implicate Bill and Hillary in what is being described as a pedophile ring, and the CNN-CIA mockingbird media is IGNORING all of it. If Hillary Clinton is "elected" OR "selected" and placed in the White House as the felon she clearly is, we will be facing a Constitutional crisis like never before seen.
KEYWORDS - Twitter.com
Fwd: "HILLARY SHOULD TAKE LIE DETECTOR TEST" SAYS ALLEGED CLINTON SEX ASSAULT VICTIM - Wikileaks.org
CONVICTED CHILD ABDUCTOR WAS CAUGHT STEALING CHILDREN IN HAITI WITH THE CLINTONS - Youtube.com
WEINERGATE: ‘The Whole Thing Was A Setup…For The Good of The Country!’ - Bit.ly
FBI Insider Leaks All: Clinton Foundation Exposed! Involves Entire US Government! - Redflagnews.com
NYPD Has Pedophile Evidence On Clintons - Youtube.com
Wikileaks BOMBSHELL - Hillary Clinton Linked to Satanic Pedophile Cult - Bit.ly
Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring
NYPD Source: Weiner Laptop Has Enough Evidence “to Put Hillary ... Away for Life”
BREAKING: FBI Confirms Evidence Of HUGE Underground Clinton Sex Network
New Clinton emails found during Anthony Weiner sexting probe
NYPD Reveals CHILD-SEX RING in Hillary Clinton Campaign & DNC involving Members of Congress + Fed. Judges; Evidence of Bribery, Money-Laundering, Depraved-Indifference Murder
Clinton Emails Linked To Political Pedophile Sex Ring – FBI Insider
Hillary pedophile ring exposed on Weiner's laptop PC - Bit.ly
WHO IS JORGE PUELLO? - Dailybastardette.com
"It's time to start questioning everything you have been told in the past by MSM" - FBI NYPD INSIDERS LEAK - Bit.ly
Wikileaks Bombshell Reveals Clinton Email “Where They Are Literally Pricing How Much It Costs to Transport Children” - Bit.ly
Washington Post Hides Article About Podesta’s Nude Children Photo Collection - Infowars.com
NYPD INSIDER REVEALS HILLARY'S TRIPS TO PEDO ISLAND - Youtube.com
"I'm dreaming about your hotdog stand in Hawaii..." T.co
JOHN PODESTA LAUGHS AT DEATH - Imgur.com
HILLARY GETS CRANKY WITHOUT HER DAILY DOSE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST HER SUBORDINATES - T.co
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES CLINTON'S SATANIC NETWORK- Youtube.com
OCCULT EXPERT BREAKS DOWN CLINTON SATANISM - Youtube.com
“SPIRIT COOKING”: CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PRACTICES BIZARRE OCCULT RITUAL - Infowars.com
Wikileaks: First Clinton Campaign Email About Anthony Weiner Appears - Breitbart.com
FLASHBACK: OCCULTIC HILLARY SUMMONS THE DEAD, REFUSES TO SPEAK TO CHRIST - Infowars.com
HILLARY ‘REGULARLY’ ATTENDED WITCH’S CHURCH, CLINTON INSIDER CLAIMS - Infowars.com
"WALNUT PASTA SAUCE" - Wikileaks.org
"WALNUT PASTE SAUCE" 2 - Wikileaks.org
Hubris and Humiliation: Six Most Shocking Moments from Documentary Revisiting Anthony Weiner's Sex Scandal - Wikileaks.org
"PIZZA PARTY" - Imgur.com
Insiders Threaten To Expose “Alleged” Pedophile Sex Ring - Victuruslibertas.com
FLASHBACK: HILLARY LABELED ‘HIGH PRIEST,’ ‘GODDESS OF OCCULT’ IN GUCCIFER LETTER - Infowars.com
HILLARY TIED TO BIZARRE OCCULT “SPIRIT COOKING” RITUAL - Infowars.com
SEX MAGIC ON THE MENU AT “SPIRIT COOKING” PARTY ATTENDED BY JOHN PODESTA - Infowars.com
"HOTDOG STAND" - Imgur.com
$ 40,000 IN EXCHANGE FOR "PIZZA" - Imgur.com
WHY HILLARY IS DISQULIFIED FOR PRESIDENT - PEDO SCANDAL Wnd.com
CLINTONS INVOLVED IN SEX SLAVERY, CHILD SEX CRIMES, CHILD EXPLOITATION - Inquisitr.com
"Have her beat the _____ out of a punch doll" - Imgur.com
CLINTON AND ABEDIN BROKE CYBER-SECURITY PROTOCOL HABITUALLY - Pastebin.com
New revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
Money laundering, Child exploitation, Sex crimes with minors (children), Perjury, Pay to play through Clinton Foundation, Obstruction of justice, Other felony crimes: Youtube.com
PAST CONNECTIONS: Former 12-Year-Old Rape Victim: "Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell" Frontpagemag.com
Podesta - Spirit Cooking Dinner:
"Chairman Cash": John Podesta Paid $7,000/Month By Foundation Run by Banker With Ties To Financial Crisis
***THIS IS NOT THE ENTIRE THING***
Multiple parts will be posted.
BREAKING: From the anon who brought you the Laura Silsby connection: I have uncovered a pedophile with links to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, David Brock, George Soros, Marina Abramovic and the Podestas
The individual I have mentioned is one James Achilles Alefantis. Mr. Alefantis is the owner of the Washington DC pizza parlor Comet Ping Pong. There are disturbing indications that Mr. Alefantis is running some form of pedophile ring that involves quite a few public figures in Washington D.C. It would appear that he is the "Achilles heel" for all these people of stature.
Since the investigation began, Mr. Alefantis has deleted many of his posts and set his social media to private. We have archived the entirety of his online presence however. Links posted here are both archives and screenshots I took while helping to investigate.
First I will discuss Alefantis’ links to powerful people, then outline the preponderance of evidence that he is a pedophile and uses Comet Ping Pong as a front for his sex trafficking ring.
I. Connections between Power Brokers and Alefantis
David Brock, director of Correct the Record
James Alefantis is the owner of pizza joint Comet Ping Pong, he is the romantic partner of former CTR director David Brock. Here is a link confirming this and showing them caught up with another individual in some kind of blackmail love triangle:
Here is a photo of Brock on Alefantis' Instagram:
Here is a letter Alefantis posted from Hillary thanking him for helping with a fundraiser that involved the Podestas:
An FEC search also shows payments made to Alefantis from the Clinton Campaign and pro Clinton PACS
Here is a photo Alefantis posted showing Obama playing ping pong with a young boy:
Obama has also been identified in the Wikileaks Podesta dump as having held phone banks at Comet Ping Pong's location:
Alefantis is also listed in White House records as having visited a few times:
Yes, George Soros even is involved with this pizza parlor. He is listed as a major donor to the American Bridge 21st Century PAC:
This PAC is on record with the FEC as having made several donations to Comet Ping Pong:
Alefantis appears to have some form of relationship to spirit cooking "artist" Marina Abramovic as he references her in his instagram:
He also posted a photo which appears to possibly make a Moloch reference:
Here is Alefantis posting a photo of Tony Podestas house:
You may remember this "Arch of Agony" statue from the house of Tony Podesta, as seen in this Washington Post article:
Keep in mind that this house contains art showing child abuse by Biljana Djurdjevic:
II. Implications James Alefantis is running a pedophile ring out of Comet Ping Pong
A. Sexual references made in Comet Ping Pong and by Alefantis online
First. Comet Ping Pong advertises itself as a "family place for parents and their kids"
This website here shows that a reviewer mentioned the presence of hidden doors in the establishment (it also revealed that the Food Network show host Guy Fieri has done an episode there). Link and screenshot of relevant portion here:
The Washington Post has also run a story revealing that Comet Ping Pong has been accused by a Washington Neighborhood Commissioner of being a "haven for rape and murder:"
Despite it's claim to be "family friendly" the restaurant has a number of disturbing sexual references inside and James Alefantis makes a number of references to pedophelia both overtly and implicitly online. Alefantis actually posted a photo of an “art” photo piece which appears to show a man vaginally penetrating what could be an underage girl. I have decided not to share it here but it has been archived. He has since deleted the photo.
EDIT: People suggested I post an edited version of the photo. Here it is, with all NSFW parts removed:
EDIT: users saying this actually might is a self portrait of the artist and his pornstar wife. But I still think it's inappropriate that the owner of a "kid friendly" establishment was posting hardcore pornography to his Instagram at the very least.
Here is a photo showing the inside of Comet Ping Pong where graffiti saying “shut up and fuck” and “Amen” are clearly visible:
He posted a disturbing image of a little girl taped down to a table in Comet Ping Pong:
He joked about purchasing infants:
Here he posted a photo featuring a man wearing a shirt that says “I love children” in French:
Here he reference a “boom boom room” which sounds disturbingly like a play on the phrase “boom boom” used by foreign prostitutes to describe sex:
More on the above photo:
A photo showing children engaged in some strange ceremony or ritual:
Another odd photo someone tagged at Comet Ping Pong:
Here Alefantis posted a photo of a man with a yellow bead necklace around the head of a young boy. A quick search reveals yellow sex bracelets imply analingus, and the hashtag #chickenlovers in the instagram post is a pedophile reference to adult men who are attracted to underage boys. Links below:
B. References to pizza in a was that is either sexual or involved children
Alefantis and others clearly use the term “pizza” to allude, at the very least to sex (I believe it to mean sex with minors). Here are a number of references from Alefantis and others tagged at Comet Ping Pong making sexual innuendos about pizza and children:
C. Innuendos to systematic child abuse and trafficking
Comet Ping Pong’s posters for the “concerts” played at their venue show references to abuse and pedophilia.
Here is an poster which may refer to the out of body experience children have when experiencing extreme abuse:
Here is one showing a band called the “Lolitas” played at Comet Ping Pong:
More disturbingly Alefantis has posted a number of photos showing very suspicious rooms, construction of underground chambers and openly joked about “filling them” with his friends on Instagram.
Here is a photo Alefantis posted showing men digging a hole. Him and his friends joke about “filling it” and a commenter claims his hole has “been full for quite some time now.” They also joke about doing a “line up” at the hole in the near future.
Another photo he posted appears to shows a large freezer, which could appear to be a location used for some kind of imprisonment or torture. Commenters on the photo joke “rinse it off when you’re done” and “kill room.”
The man who commented “kill room” on the above photo has a number of images on his Instagram appearing to show he makes child sized coffins:
Here is a disturbing Wikileaks email where a "torture chamber" is referenced:
Finally, people have noticed that pro-Hillary groups own ALL the properties on the block where Comet Ping Pong is located.
As noted in the previous picture, some of the company logos of nearby groups who have offices near Comet Ping Pong look similar to known images used by pedophiles as per this FBI document:
What can we do about this?
It seems fairly likely that the DC police and FBI will not do anything about this situation. Raise public awareness! Our best tool to combat the people in power on this issue is to build publicity until the public demands a change. Get the word out!
Credits to all the anons on /pol/ who have been working around the clock on this, as well as our own nimble navigators, especially /u/dota2_scrub who found the Soros/Obama documentation.
EDIT: /u/omfgzlolz has pointed out that "ping ponging" is sexual slang for a threesome.
EDIT 2: A NEW LEAD shows that James Alefantis' sister, Susan Alefantis wrote a letter in support of a teacher who was convicted of molesting 5 girls:
Here is an article on the abuser:
Obama Uses UN to Bypass Senate’s Treaty Consent Authority
and now John Kerry is desperately trying to get Paris Agreement ratified by the other UN states before trump gets into power, eventhough it was never passed by congress. Trump is man of his word.
More on Climate Fraud:
President Obama has just committed his most flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution to date. He purported to commit the United States to a legally binding treaty without first obtaining consent by two thirds of the Senators present, as required under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Obama is using the United Nations to end run the Senate with regard to the Paris Agreement on climate change negotiated last December.
Last week, Obama submitted an instrument to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, for deposit with the UN, which he claims signifies official “acceptance” of the Paris Agreement by the United States. Obama said he and China’s President Xi Jinping together decided to “commit formally to joining the agreement ahead of schedule.”
Obama was constitutionally entitled to sign the Paris Agreement as an executive act, which he did in April of this year. However, signing the Paris Agreement was only the first step. In order for the Paris Agreement to actually take effect and enter into legal force, at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions need to formally join the Paris Agreement. This requires the further step of member states’ “ratification, acceptance or approval” of the Paris Agreement before their emissions can be counted towards fulfilling the 55 percent of global emissions threshold.
The United States is the second highest emitter of emissions, after China. Together the U.S. and China account for around 40 percent of global emissions. If the United States and China were to formally join the Paris Agreement via ratification, acceptance or approval, the 55 percent threshold target would be well within reach.
China presumably had no problem moving forward to formally join the Paris Agreement. However, in order to do his part so that the UN could declare the Paris Agreement to be in legal force sooner rather than later, Obama had to find a way to justify skipping over the constitutional requirement of U.S. Senate consent and still cause the U.S. to become bound to what amounts to a treaty. The answer was to pretend that what the UN itself regards as a treaty, to which its parties would be legally bound once it came into force, was not really a treaty after all. It was only an executive agreement, the Obama administration argues, that is within the president’s power to enter into without any congressional involvement.
White House senior adviser Brian Deese offered up this sophistry at a White House press conference, held before Obama’s visit to China for the G-20 summit where he would act on the power he was usurping from the legislative branch. Deese claimed that Obama was using “his authority that has been used in dozens of executive agreements in the past to join and formally deposit our instrument of acceptance, and therefore put our country as a party to the Paris Agreement.” Deese tried to distinguish between “treaties that require advice and consent from the Senate” and “a broad category of executive agreements where the executive can enter into those agreements without that advice and consent.”
This blatant deception is undercut by the fact that the Paris Agreement is listed in the United Nations’ Treaty Collectionunder the heading “Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General.”
Legally speaking, Obama should have followed the “ratification” route, which, according to the UN Treaty Collection website, “grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.”
However, Obama knew that would be impossible. He chose instead a shortcut. He deposited with the Secretary General an instrument of “acceptance,” which the UN website defines as expressing “the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty,” with no domestic constitutional ratification required first.
The Obama administration used similar tactics to commit the United States to Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The administration treated it as a non-binding political agreement which did not require Senate consent. Only after a bipartisan backlash from Congress did Obama agree to a congressional review period after which the Senate and House could pass a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval, or do nothing. The House passed a resolution of disapproval. The Senate would have also passed a resolution of disapproval, but was blocked from doing so by a Democratic filibuster, which spared Obama from having to exercise his veto power.
In the case of the Paris Agreement on climate change, Obama did not even go through the motions. He bypassed Congress altogether.
This matters because the Paris Agreement on climate change would drastically tie down our fossil fuel use in the immediate future and pick our pockets at the same time. In return, the developing countries offer meaningless voluntary pledges that they will do something about their own carbon emissions in their own time if they get paid to do it. Article 9 states that “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.” (Emphasis added) Article 9 is thus written in such a way as to be legally binding on the developed countries like the United States which become parties to the Paris Agreement.
President Obama is trying to use the United Nations treaty system to impose binding obligations under international law that he intends to outlive his presidency. As usual, the Constitution’s limits on his powers are of no consequence to him. Congress needs to step in immediately to make clear that his latest usurpation of power will not stand.
Trump on ethics reform:
At the end of October, Donald Trump spoke in Gettysburg, Pa., and released a plan for his first 100 days in office.
The plan (below) outlines three main areas of focus: cleaning up Washington, including by imposing term limits on Congress; protecting American workers; and restoring rule of law. He also laid out his plan for working with Congress to introduce 10 pieces of legislation that would repeal Obamacare, fund the construction of a wall at the Southern border (with a provision that Mexico would reimburse the U.S.), encourage infrastructure investment, rebuild military bases, promote school choice and more.
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellmostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. On Trump's proposal to impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate." McConnell has been a long-standing opponent of term limits, as NPR's Susan Davis reports. "I would say we have term limits now — they're called elections."
McConnell also threw some cold water on Trump's infrastructure plans, calling it not a top priority.
McConnell did say repealing Obamacare is a "pretty high item on our agenda" along with comprehensive tax reform and achieving border security "in whatever way is the most effective." But he also declined to discuss the Senate's immigration agenda further.
"We look forward to working with him," McConnell said. "I think most of the things that he's likely to advocate we're going to be enthusiastically for."
Below is the 100-day plan Trump's campaign released in October, called "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter."
What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington
Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;
* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);
* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;
* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:
* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator
* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately
* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward
* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back
* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:
On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.
This is my pledge to you.
And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.
How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs - Theguardian.com
Donald Trump Was Right: Mexico is sending... - Moddb.com
Remittances are monies sent by foreign-born workers (legal immigrants and illegal aliens) back to their home country. The transfers are facilitated by sending money through banks, making investments in the home country, or by returning to the home country while retaining bank accounts and other assets in the United States.
Remittances are essentially a tax-free transfer of wealth out of the U.S. Approximately $20 billion of Mexican remittances each year disappear from the U.S. economy via the institutionalized money transfer industry, never to return. While this massive amount may be considered virtual foreign aid, it is a non-sanctioned transfer of wealth that is based on a fundamental violation of America’s immigration and employment laws.
The massize size of remittances
Projecting $26 billion sent as tax-free remittances by illegal aliens to Mexico in 2014,44 the negative impacts of this loss on the American economy would be significant. That amount would purchase 1.5 million cars or 15-million computers, and $200 billion sent back to Mexico over the past 10 years would have purchased Americans an astounding number: 15 million cars along with 150 million additional computers.45 It well could have saved countless homeowners from foreclosure. Mexico received the largest amount of remittances in 2009). Of 10 countries receiving 40 percent of total remittances and related flows from the U.S., Mexico received about 61 percent of funds. Mexico’s central bank reported remittances totaling $21.27 billion in 2010. Remittances are indeed a significant source of income to Mexico. Remittance inflows of $25.3 billion to Mexico comprised approximately 3 percent of Mexico’s 2008 GDP.
The National Population Council estimates that more than one out of 10 Mexican families in approximately 1.3 million homes depends on remittances.28 In fact, according to a poll by the Inter-American Development Bank, as many as one in five Mexican adults receives money from relatives working in the U.S.29
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimated that 2009 migrants' remittances from the U.S. were approximately $48 billion, or approximately 70 percent more than total official development assistance provided by the United States. Of that amount, $38 billion consisted of personal transfers abroad. The remaining $11 billion consisted of wages paid to workers in the U.S., although some of those wages obviously were spent in the U.S.6
Remittances represent a staggering transfer of wealth worldwide. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated total global flows of remittances — including compensation, personal transfers, and capital transfers — to be approximately $407 billion in 2008. This represented an increase of about $250 billion since 2002.5
The BEA estimated that countries in the Western Hemisphere received two-thirds of remittances in 2003, and Asia and the Pacific received one-quarter, while the remaining amount went to Europe and Africa. Unfortunately, the BEA did not report remittance data for specific countries; only "net private remittances" (outflows minus inflows) were reported. However, BEA did estimate that in 2009, approximately $20 billion in remittances was sent from the United States to Mexico. These remittances grew by 3 percent per year in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars.5
Remittances are sensitive to economic fluctuations. From 1995 to 2003, the official count of Mexicans living in the United States increased by 56 percent and the median wage increased by 10 percent. Yet total remittances increased dramatically by 199 percent during those positive economic times.
Remittances to Mexico peaked at $26 billion in 2007, then declined during the subsequent recession. Even so, Mexican workers living in the United States did not return home in large numbers.9 One might conclude that a weakened economy in the U.S. still offered better wages than the Mexican economy.
The following chart is from a 2013 PEW research report revealing that $41 billion out of a total of $52.9 billion in remittances are sent to Latin America:46
Who makes remittances?
A 2007 survey by the Banco de Mexico found that one-fifth of migrants who sent remittances home worked in the U.S. construction sector.9 The amount of migrants’ remittances has increased by 3 percent per year since 2000 (see Table 1). The increase has been facilitated by increased ease of low-cost money transfers, coupled with a corresponding increase in the number of foreign-born workers in the U.S..
Although the Census Bureau estimated 23.9 million foreign-born workers in the U.S. in 2009, it should be noted that many believe Census Bureau numbers to be low, since for years the Bureau reported the number of illegal aliens in the United States to be an unvarying 8-12 million. The Social Contract addressed this issue in its Summer, 2007 issue, “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”13 In that issue, a number of authors presented convincing evidence that the number of illegal aliens in the United States may be closer to 30-40 million. (See the CAIRCO article How many illegal aliens reside in the United States?).
How remittances are sent
U.S. remittance agents include banks, credit unions, post offices, money transfer operators, individual businesses, and chain stores (convenience stores, groceries, department stores). Home town associations, known as clubes des oriundos, facilitate collective transfers, and also maintain social ties between U.S. workers and communities in their home country.15
In 1996, approximately 14 million remittances were sent to Mexico, averaging $320 each. In 2000, approximately 17 million remittances were sent, averaging $365 each. By 2003, the number had jumped to approximately 40 million remittances at an average of $321 each. In 2010, the amount of the average remittance remained about the same at $302.16
In 2004, small money transfer operators had a 60 percent market share while Western Union had a modest 15 percent market share.17 However, at that time, the mechanism for transferring remittances from the U.S. to Mexico was undergoing a massive shift from a largely informal industry to institutional electronic transfers.18 In 1994, money orders comprised over 46 percent of the value of all reported transfers. By 2003, the share of money orders decreased to 12 percent and 86 percent of remittances were being made electronically.19 This was a tremendous opportunity for companies such as First Data/Western Union to compete for market share and profit potential.
A Colorado perspective
On July 22, 2004, Colorado-based First Data Corporation hosted a fourth national public “immigration reform” forum at North High School in a predominantly Hispanic Denver neighborhood.1 The school recently had been the focus of a national controversy as a consequence of displaying the Mexican flag in its classrooms.
In the audience, an American woman whose lineage dated back to the Pilgrims was brutally beaten by a woman who proclaimed in a Spanish accent, “You should leave! This is for us.” Mike McGarry, of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, was told to “Go back to Ireland.” Nevertheless, after vociferously complaining about the forum’s obvious anti-immigration enforcement bias, he was given an impromptu seat on the panel. Not that it changed First Data’s business model.
The forums were not much more than targeted marketing events to promote wire transfers to immigrants and in particular to the illegal alien community. First Data Corporation, one of the world’s largest providers of money transfer services, reported that its second-quarter 2004 profit rose 32 percent as a direct result of revenue from Western Union, its money-transfer agency.2 This profit amounted to $1.1 billion in 2004 — from money transfers alone.
In the booming funds transfer industry, the number of Western Union agents world-wide grew from 30,000 in 1995 to 219,000 in 2004.3 Such phenomenal growth was worth fighting to protect. Indeed, in a vindictive political attempt to preserve their immense revenue stream, First Data subsequently formed a political action committee to oppose immigration reform candidate Tom Tancredo, who had reasonably suggested that remittances be taxed.
The larger view
The National Population Council estimates that more than one out of 10 Mexican families in approximately 1.3 million homes depends on remittances.28 In fact, according to a poll by the Inter-American Development Bank, as many as one in five Mexican adults receives money from relatives working in the U.S.
In Mexico, out-migration has devastated many Mexican villages.32 In rural areas that have been undermined by NAFTA, small agricultural communities have been particularly hard-hit as workers abandoned the locales.38 Rural agricultural systems have been impoverished by the double-whammy of NAFTA coupled with out-migration to the United States.
Illegal immigration is now much more closely associated with organized crime, which is creeping north into the U.S. Migratory routes into the U.S. have been taken over to a large extent by Mexican cartels. It is now quite common for illegal aliens to carry heavy loads of drugs — particularly marijuana — as they sneak across the border into the U.S. In 2007, $25 billion in cash from drug sales was smuggled out of the U.S. The amount quickly grew to $30 billion in 2008.39 It might be reasonable to investigate whether any of this drug money is transferred via the remittance infrastructure.
Mexico’s 2011 population was 114 million with a 1.4 percent rate of natural increase (births minus deaths). This seemingly low rate of constant increase would lead to a doubling of Mexico’s population in 50 years (per the Rule of 7035). Population is more accurately projected by the Population Reference Bureau to grow to 131 million by 2025 and to 143 million by 2050.36 With 28 percent of Mexico’s population under the age of 15 and 65 percent between the ages of 15 and 64, Mexico is a country of youth looking at a bleak future.37
Mass migration from Mexico to the U.S. acts as a two-fold safety valve. It reduces population pressure in Mexico while allowing population to continue to grow with less adverse effects, thus discouraging implementation of viable domestic population policies. Mass migration also encourages dissatisfied young males to leave their homeland, where they might agitate and fight for societal change if they remained at home. Remittances facilitate this mass migration, and indeed, the ease of making remittances can be considered a motivating factor for workers to leave the country.
Remittances - a Massive Transfer of Wealth, by Fred Elbel, The Social Contract, Spring, 2012.
Remittances Abet Mexican Officials Irresponsible Behavior, Center for Immigration Studies, September 26, 2013
Remittance-Senders (Mostly Illegals) Ship $25 Billion a Year Out of the U.S., Center for Immigration Studies, October 31, 2010
Remittances to Mexico (2009), FAIR, 2009
Note: While many civilians believe the myth that conservatives are pro-war, the truth is that many of the most highly-decorated military men in history – including conservatives – became opposed to war after seeing what really goes on. See this, this and this.
Those who call themselves “conservative” but advocate military adventurism are really “neoliberals” … and they are not really conservatives at all.
See also: Why Banksters hate peace - Washingtonsblog.com
Fed unable to hide economic decline after it claimed recession was over in 2009 - Youtube.com
US monetary policy documents:
A myth has arisen that true conservatives are pro-war, and only “weak-kneed liberals” are anti-war.
The truth is very different, however.
For example, Ron Paul has very strong conservative credentials. Paul won the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference last year. And yet Paul has repeatedly spoken out against the war in Iraq and all other unnecessary wars. See this and this.
Ron Paul points out that the Founding Fathers disliked foreign intervention, and those who advocate military adventurism are imperialists … not conservative Americans.
As Wikipedia notes:
Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.
George Washington’s farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
John Adams followed George Washington’s ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very realistic possibility of war with France.
President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” …
In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”
Another reason that Ron Paul opposes unnecessary wars is that – as I have repeatedly demonstrated – they are bad for the economy.
For example, Ron Paul said in a 2008 speech on the House floor:
In the last several weeks, if not for months we have heard a lot of talk about the potential of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. Energy prices are being bid up because of this fear. It has been predicted that if bombs start dropping, that we will see energy prices double or triple.
Indeed, the fact that war is bad for the economy is a very strong rationale for conservatives to oppose unnecessary wars.
As noted conservative Thomas E. Woods Jr. – a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and New York Times bestselling author – writes in the March 2011 issue of the American Conservative:
To get a sense of the impact the U.S. military has on the American economy, we must remember the most important lesson in all of economics: to consider not merely the immediate effects of a proposed government intervention on certain groups, but also its long-term effects on society as a whole. That’s what economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801–50) insisted on in his famous essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” It’s not enough to point to a farm program and say that it grants short-run assistance to the farmers. We can see its effects on farmers. But what does it do to everyone else in the long run?
Seymour Melman (1917–2004), a professor of industrial engineering and operations research at Columbia University, focused much of his energy on the economics of the military-oriented state. Melman’s work amounted to an extended analysis of the true costs not only of war but also of the military establishment itself. As he observed,
Industrial productivity, the foundation of every nation’s economic growth, is eroded by the relentlessly predatory effects of the military economy. …Traditional economic competence of every sort is being eroded by the state capitalist directorate that elevates inefficiency into a national purpose, that disables the market system, that destroys the value of the currency, and that diminishes the decision power of all institutions other than its own.
Yet these politicians and intellectuals [who warned against a cut in military spending as being bad for the economy] were focusing on the direct effects of discontinuing a particular spending stream without considering the indirect effects—all the business ventures, jobs, and wealth that those funds would create when steered away from military use and toward the service of the public as expressed in their voluntary spending patterns.The full cost of the military establishment, as with all other forms of government spending, includes all the consumer goods, services, and technological discoveries that never came into existence because the resources to provide them had been diverted by government.
Measurements of “economic growth” can be misleading if they do not differentiate between productive growth and parasitic growth. Productive growth improves people’s standard of living and/or contributes to future production. Parasitic growth merely depletes manpower and existing stocks of goods without accomplishing either of these ends.
Military spending constitutes the classic example of parasitic growth. Melman believed that military spending, up to a point, could be not only legitimate but also economically valuable. But astronomical military budgets, surpassing the combined military spending of the rest of the world, and exceeding many times over the amount of destructive power needed to annihilate every enemy city, were clearly parasitic. Melman used the term “overkill” to describe that portion of the military budget that constituted this kind of excess.
The scale of the resources siphoned off from the civilian sector becomes more vivid in light of specific examples of military programs, equipment, and personnel. To train a single combat pilot, for instance, costs between $5 million and $7 million. Over a period of two years, the average U.S. motorist uses about as much fuel as does a single F-16 training jet in less than an hour. The Abrams tank uses up 3.8 gallons of fuel in traveling one mile. Between 2 and 11 percent of the world’s use of 14 important minerals, from copper to aluminum to zinc, is consumed by the military, as is about 6 percent of the world’s consumption of petroleum. The Pentagon’s energy use in a single year could power all U.S. mass transit systems for nearly 14 years.
Still other statistics illuminate the scope of the resources consumed by the military. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, during the period from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation’s plants, equipment, and infrastructure (capital stock) at just over $7.29 trillion. In other words, the amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock.
Then there are the damaging effects on the private sector. Since World War II, between one-third and two-thirds of all technical researchers in the United States have been working for the military at any given time. The result, Melman points out, has been “a short supply of comparable talent to serve civilian industry and civilian activities of every sort.”
Meanwhile, firms servicing Pentagon needs have grown almost indifferent to cost. Theyoperate outside the market framework and the price system: the prices of the goods they produce are not determined by the voluntary buying and selling by property owners that comprise the market, but through a negotiation process with the Pentagon in isolation from market exchange.
Beginning in the 1960s, the Department of Defense required the military-oriented firms with which it did business to engage in “historical costing,” a method by which past prices are employed in order to estimate future costs. Superficially plausible, this approach builds into the procurement process a bias in favor of ever-higher prices since it does not scrutinize these past prices or the firm’s previously incurred costs, or make provision for the possibility that work done in the future might be carried out at a lower cost than related work done in the past.
This is not nit-picking: advancing technology has often made it possible to carry out important tasks at ever-lower costs, yet rising costs are a built-in assumption of the historical-cost method. Moreover, if some piece of military equipment—a helicopter, plane, or tank, for example—winds up costing much more than initial estimates indicated, that inflated price then becomes the baseline for the cost estimates for new projects belonging to the same genus. The Pentagon, in turn, uses the resulting cost hikes to justify higher budget proposals submitted to Congress.
Melman also found administrative overhead ratios in the defense industry to be double those for civilian firms, where such a crushing burden simply could not be absorbed. He concluded:
From the personal accounts of ‘refugees’ from military-industry firms, from former Pentagon staffers, from informants still engaged in military-industrial work, from the Pentagon’s publications, and from data disclosed in Congressional hearings, I have found consistent evidence pointing to the inference that the primary, internal, economic dynamics of military industry are cost- and subsidy-maximization.
“In one major enterprise,” Melman reported, “the product-development staffs engaged in contests for designing the most complex, Rube Goldberg-types of devices. Why bother putting brakes on such professional games as long as they can be labeled ‘research,’ charged to ‘cost growth’ and billed to the Pentagon?”
The American machine-tool industry can tell a sorry tale of its own. Once highly competitive and committed to cost-containment and innovation, the machine-tool industry suffered a sustained decline in the decades following World War II. During the wartime period, from 1939 to 1947, machine-tool prices increased by only 39 percent at a time when the average hourly earnings of American industrial workers rose by 95 percent. Since machine tools increase an economy’s productivity, making it possible to produce a greater quantity of output with a smaller input, the industry’s conscientious cost-cutting had a disproportionately positive effect on the American industrial system as a whole.
But between 1971 and 1978, machine-tool prices rose 85 percent while U.S. industrial workers’ average hourly earnings increased only 72 percent. The corresponding figures in Japan were 51 percent and 177 percent, respectively.
These problems can be accounted for in part by the American machine-tool industry’s relationship with the Defense Department. Once the Pentagon became the American machine-tool industry’s largest customer, the industry felt far less pressure to hold prices down than it had in the past.
In the short run, the American machine-tool industry’s woes affected U.S. productivity at large. Firms were now much more likely to maintain their existing stock of machines rather than to purchase additional equipment or upgrade what they already possessed. By 1968, nearly two-thirds of all metalworking machinery in American factories was at least ten years old. The aging stock of production equipment contributed to a decline in manufacturing productivity growth after 1965.
Another factor is at work as well: the more an industry caters to the Pentagon, the less it makes production decisions with the civilian economy in mind. Thus in the late 1950s the Air Force teamed up with the machine-tool industry to produce numerical-control machine-tool technology, a technique for the programmable automation of machine tools that yields fast, efficient, and accurate results. The resulting technology was so costly that private metalworking firms could not even consider using it. The machine-tool firms involved in this research thereby placed themselves in a situation in which their only real customer was the aerospace industry.
Some 20 years later, only 2 percent of all American machine tools belonged to the numerical-control line. It was Western European and Japanese firms, which operated without these incentives, that finally managed to produce numerical-control machine tools at affordable prices for smaller businesses.
Economist Robert Higgs wonders: “Why can’t the Department of Defense today defend the country for a smaller annual amount than it needed to defend the country during the Cold War, when we faced an enemy with large, modern armed forces and thousands of accurate, nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles?”
In fact, a great many military experts have begun to conclude that the enormously expensive and complicated equipment and programs that the Pentagon has been calling for would be of limited help even in fighting the Second Generation Warfare with which the American military seems most comfortable, and a positive detriment to waging the kind of Fourth Generation Warfare of which the war on terror consists. William Lind, a key theorist of Fourth Generation Warfare, says the U.S. Navy in the 21st century is “still structured to fight the Imperial Japanese Navy.”
The Department of Defense is the only federal agency not subject to audit.
It is not uncommon for the Pentagon not to know whether contractors have been paid twice, or not at all. It does not even know how many contractors it has. Meanwhile, so-called fiscal conservatives, who know nothing of this, continue to think the problem is excessively low military budgets. This, no doubt, is just the way the establishment likes it: exploit the people’s patriotism in order to keep the gravy train rolling.
Higgs suggests that the real defense budget is closer to $1 trillion.
Winslow Wheeler reaches a comparable figure. To the $518.3 billion, he adds the military-related activities assigned to the Department of Energy ($17.1 billion), the security component of the State Department budget ($38.4 billion), the Department of Veterans Affairs ($91.3 billion), non-Department of Defense military retirement ($28.3 billion), miscellaneous defense activities spread around various agencies ($5.7 billion), and the share of the interest payments on the national debt attributable to military expenditure ($54.5 billion). When we add the roughly $155 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Wheeler’s tabulation, we arrive at a grand total of $948.7 billion for 2009.
And we’re worried about trivialities like “earmarks,” which comprise such a small portion of spending that they barely amount to a rounding error in the federal budget?
Meanwhile, $250 billion is spent every year maintaining a global military presence that includes 865 facilities in more than 40 countries, and 190,000 troops stationed in 46 countries and territories. It is not “liberal” to find something wrong with this.
Out with the phony conservatives, the Tea Party movement says. We want the real thing. But the real thing, far from endorsing global military intervention, recoils from it. The conservative cannot endorse a policy that is at once utopian, destructive, impoverishing, counterproductive, propaganda-driven, contrary to republican values, and sure to increase the power of government, especially the executive branch.
As Patrick Henry said, “Those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power and splendor, have always fallen a sacrifice and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom.”
No blogs were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the blog list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Join now to share your own content, we welcome creators and consumers alike and look forward to your comments.