Jihad Report
Sep 10, 2016 Sep 16, 2016
Attacks
41
Killed
189
Injured
227
Suicide Blasts
6
Countries
14
The Agency Wars
When the constitution was first ratified, it was designed to form a government of, for, and by the
people. It was the world’s first national government allowed to form by the people, and it was
expressed in the founding document, that the presence and function of the government was at
the sole pleasure of the people. The preamble, like any doctrine drafted by the pen of man,
has been parsed down to the syllable.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.”
Sounds simple enough. Easy enough to memorize, right?
The phrase "People of the United States" has sometimes been understood to mean "citizens."
This approach reasons that, if the political community speaking for itself in the Preamble ("We
the People") includes only citizens, by negative implication it specifically excludes residents who
are not citizens. This means visitors on vacation or visas of any kind. It means people who
have crossed our borders without permission. It has also been construed to mean something
like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States." If a person who is
inside the United States is under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of another country, they
do not have legal access to our court system and cannot make use of the benefits of our
government. The Constitution establishes that the government gains its sovereignty from its
citizens.
The Constitution itself is in every real sense a law—the lawmakers being the people
themselves. 83 years ago, Agencies, Departments, Bureaus, and Administrations were formed
by executive fiat, without the permission or approval of the people, as a new lawmaking body.
This new body is not only able to write laws, they are able to assess taxes, fees, fines, and
other enforcement actions. They do not answer to the people. The people have no
representation in this Agency government. This Agency government gave themselves the
power to seize property from the States without due process. They have the power to write and
approve treaties without the purview of Congress. They can openly violate Federal, State, and
local laws, then destroy the evidence of their wrongdoing when it is subpoenaed, and then lie or
withhold information from Congress and the Department of Justice with impunity. They used to
operate in the shadows and the bowels of their castles throughout Washington DC, but now
their immunity allows them to strut around in the light of day, making their crimes, killing their
enemies, robbing trillions of the taxpayer, and accepting bribes from foreign countries for special
favors.
The Preamble's reference to the "United States of America" has been interpreted over the years
to explain the nature of the governmental entity that the Constitution created (i.e., the federal
government). In contemporary international law, the nation consists of sovereign States. A state
is said to be "sovereign," if any of its ruling inhabitants are the supreme authority over it; the
concept is distinct from mere land-title or "ownership." While each state was originally
recognized as sovereign unto itself, the Supreme Court held that the "United States of America"
consists of only one sovereign nation with respect to foreign affairs and international relations;
the individual states may not conduct foreign relations. Although the Constitution expressly
delegates to the federal government only some of the usual powers of sovereign governments
(such as the powers to declare war and make treaties), all such powers inherently belong to
the federal government as the country's representative in the international community. It is
through this inherent authority that the Agencies derive their power. It has become a smoky
battlefield littered with the carcasses of attorneys who dared to attack the trenches of the
Agencies.
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the
Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. This shift did not come through entirely peaceful
means. The sovereignty of States has been put to the test in America. In this transition, the
"Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to
act directly upon citizens. They acted with cannons, and rifles, and economic terrorism. The
Federal authority was established through victory on the battlefield, not in the halls of Congress
or the pews of a courtroom, like civilized people.
Our history was shifted as well to mask the true reason for this conflict behind the issue of
slavery. The shift has been effective, even if the truth about the practice as completely
entrenched in the Democrat Party was expunged from the propaganda taught to our children for
more than 50 years.
Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United
States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government
over the people, not an agreement between the States. It has been referred to as the rule of
law, but it is clear from its actions every hour of every business day that it is a rule by law. The
phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution
of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated or allowed by the Constitution. This
interpretation is not entirely accepted by the citizens of the sovereign States.
The Agencies are so often caught breaking the law that Congress has to resort to extreme
measures to control them. More often than not, they end up being powerless to stop them.
After all, they are entirely lawless organizations. LINK 1 But, the governing force behind the
Constitution is the people. And the people send their representatives to Congress to operate
the government at their pleasure. So, when the people’s representatives order those
lawbreakers to a committee to investigate and make their accusations, the Agencies provide
false information, claim that they do not recall, or forgot to bring the requested documents to the
hearing. They destroy subpoenaed documents, and utilize the 5th Amendment to protect
themselves from self-incrimination. LINK 2 They walk free. They keep their pensions. They get
paid in full. They laugh and thumb their noses at the people, because they know there is
nothing that can be done to stop them.
The Constitution Hangs by a Thread
Very close to this day in 1787, the founders of this nation finished writing a Constitution that in
the intervening 229 years has helped make America the greatest nation on earth. When voters
go to the polls on Nov. 8, the American people will decide whether that document will continue
to serve as the Supreme Law of the Land.
America declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. Then in 1777 the signers of the
Declaration adopted the Articles of Confederation, creating a common government that would
bind the 13 newly minted states together as a nation, forming a confederation of sovereign
states.
But it became clear that America would not survive under the Articles. Americans stuck together
through the Revolutionary War, united against a common enemy. But after Britain’s General
Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown in 1781, the new nation started to
unravel.
America’s leaders knew they needed a new national compact, one that would regulate interstate
commerce, guarantee a common defense, and empower the United States to speak with a
unified voice on the world stage.
Their solution was the Constitution. For the first time in human history, a people decided to
govern itself through a written document, one that would supersede every ruler and authority. All
public officials and military officers would be required to take an oath to support and defend this
Constitution before they could assume the powers of their office.
The Constitution was premised on the Framers’ mistrust of government power. They took that
power and broke it, separating it into two levels: federal and state. The states were left free as
sovereign institutions to structure their government however they wanted, so long as it was a
republican government.
For the federal government, they broke its power again, this time into three branches:
legislative, executive, and judicial. The Constitution defines the separate powers of each branch
(called the “separation of powers,”) and also gave each branch a way to restrain the other two
(called “checks and balances.”)
The Framers knew that the Constitution would not be perfect, so they also included a
mechanism for amending it. Then once the Constitution was ratified, the American people
immediately amended it with a Bill of Rights to specify certain rights that the American people
would possess (called “enumerated rights,”) including First Amendment rights to free speech
and religious liberty, the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment right
against unreasonable searches and seizures, and Fifth Amendment rights of due process,
property rights, and the right to avoid self-incrimination. Those who adopted these amendments
also reaffirmed in the Tenth Amendment that unless the Constitution specifically vests a matter
with the federal government, those matters were left with the states or the people (called
“federalism.”)
Unlike the average multi-thousand page laws we see today that unfold like an elaborate puzzle,
the Framers kept the Constitution short; it is only 4,440 words. The Framers wrote it in a way so
that the voters could read it and understand it, and then use it as the yardstick all new law could
be measured. And the laws that Congress writes are challenged and amended all the time. But
the laws written by the Agencies require specifically harmed individuals to file multi-million dollar
lawsuits and to wait for sometimes a decade to have their case fairly heard by the Supreme
Court.
That’s why originalism—the view that the words of the Constitution must be interpreted
according to the original public meaning of its words, the meaning which ordinary Americans
understood those words to carry—is the only legitimate way to interpret the Supreme Law of the
Land. What we have experienced, however, subverts the will of the American people and the
democratic process. In truth, the people are being taxed without representation. That is the
pure definition of tyranny. The Agency government has boldly and fervently strayed from the
Constitution, with only brief reprieves, such as during the Reagan years. They celebrate their
power under Obama.
With Obama’s leadership, the people have seen truly unprecedented threats to the
constitutional order:





The Obama administration argued for the first time that its power to regulate interstate
commerce includes the power to order Americans to buy certain things with their own
private money (e.g., health insurance).
Obama argued that he had the power to do an end-run around the Senate by making
recess appointments whenever senators weren’t literally on the Senate floor to do
business.
Obama launched a unilateral war against Libya without congressional approval.
Obama argued he had the power to change immigration law to grant amnesty to 4.5
million illegal aliens.
And now, Obama argues that current civil rights laws require all schools and employers
to embrace homosexuality and transgenderism, with the chairman of his civil rights
commission saying that terms like “religious liberty” are code words for illegal
discrimination.
Most of these issues have lost by a single vote at the U.S. Supreme Court. But now one of the
freedom-loving defenders of America’s constitutional order—Justice Antonin Scalia—has
passed away. If his seat is filled by a liberal who rejects originalism in favor of a “Living
Constitution”—essentially ignoring the Constitution’s text by saying its words must be
“reinterpreted” to agree with modern leftist ideas—then Americans will not recognize their
country four years from now.
Hillary Clinton places that beyond doubt. She openly heralds the day that the Supreme Court’s
Citizens United decision (which held that groups like the National Rifle Association have freespeech rights and can run ads during election season) will be overruled. She campaigns on the
idea that the Court was wrong in Heller to hold that law-abiding American citizens have a right to
own a gun at home.
She shouts with a voice that could etch glass in a sawmill that Christian beliefs on abortion,
marriage, sexuality, and gender roles “have to be changed.” Shockingly, she even says that
observant Christians and constitutional conservatives are “deplorable” and “irredeemable.”
She promises to grant not just legal status—but citizenship and voting rights—to 11 million
illegal aliens, and stop voter-ID laws and other measures that safeguard the ballot box, to
ensure that neither she nor her allies will ever be voted out of office. It would effectively
complete the transition of America from a Republic, to an oligarchy; run by multinational
billionaires who see Americans as the ultimate consumers, as long as they are unarmed.
And Clinton vows that she will appoint judges who will side with her when these assaults on the
Constitution are challenged in court.
Compare that pledge with Donald Trump’s commitment to appoint constitutionalists to the bench
and his list of potential Supreme Court justices that amounts to a conservative goldmine of
originalists.
The choice for our future could not be clearer. America is at a fork in the road on whether we
will return to a nation of sovereign States protected by a central government, or we dissolve our
national and State borders so that all assets become property of the President and the Agency
government. Forget the politics. Forget the rhetoric. The founding fathers decided to change
the course of prophecy by forming the world’s first nation of liberty and freedom with what has
now become the world’s oldest constitution. It defies the doom and gloom of eschatological
dogma where the people are nothing more than soldiers in an endless war between the seed of
Lucifer and the seed of Adam and then it is all destroyed by fire. They saw a different timeline.
They made it happen. We made it happen. Do not let the agents of Lucifer take it away from us
and force your children to grow up as slaves to drugs, entertainment, and propaganda. I am
asking you to do one thing. Start now, if have to. Lay your clothes out now, if you have to. Get
your butts to the polls on November 8th and vote for Donald Trump, or stop listening to this
network.
To the Edge of Space
In a spot in South America known for its powerful winds, scientists and engineers are gearing up
to attempt a record-breaking feat: to fly a human-carrying glider to the edge of space.
The expedition, known as Perlan Mission II, aims to take the glider up to an elevation of 90,000
feet (27,000 meters). The project is more than an attempt at aviation history; it's designed to
study the layers of Earth's atmosphere. The researchers plan to fly the glider on a series of
flights to measure electromagnetic fields, pressure, ozone and methane levels, and more.
To reach such great heights, the glider was built to take advantage of an atmospheric
phenomenon called stratospheric mountain waves. [Earth from Above: 101 Stunning Images
from Orbit]
Normal mountain waves form between cold and warm air masses as they move across
mountain ranges and create high-altitude winds. Stratospheric mountain waves, which the
researchers plan to ride, form when the polar vortex — a large, low-pressure and cold air
system — reaches peak strength, giving the high-altitude winds more energy.
"The strong winds will be perpendicular to the Andes, and as they come over the mountains,
they cause a wave in the air that's invisible unless there are clouds present," Jim Payne, chief
pilot for the Perlan Mission II project, told Avionics. "We fly in the area where the air is rising and
propagates all the way up to 90,000 feet, although meteorologists say it may go up to 130,000
feet [40,000 m]."
Stratospheric mountain waves occur at peak strength in the Southern Hemisphere's winter
months [summer in the Northern Hemisphere], so the Perlan Project team members recently
traveled to Patagonia, in South America, where they will await ideal conditions for their first
attempt at flying to the edge of space.
"Typically, the polar vortex, which causes the high-altitude wave, is best in August and
September," Payne said. "So far, August has been disappointing; we haven't had the highaltitude winds. The one downside of this is that we're totally at the mercy of the weather."
If conditions are right and the flight is successful, Perlan would surpass the world altitude record
for a fixed-wing aircraft. The current record of 85,068 feet (25,929 m) was set 50 years ago by
the SR-71 Blackbird, a jet-powered spy plane, National Geographic reported. Unlike the
Blackbird, the Perlan glider would achieve the feat without a drop of fuel.
Earlier this year, another aviation record was set without consuming any fuel. The Solar Impulse
2, a plane powered entirely by the sun, completed a journey around the world, becoming the
first solar-powered aircraft to circumnavigate the globe without using any fuel.
Druids Are Right: Trees Have Feelings
There's increasing evidence to show that trees are able to communicate with each other. More
than that, trees can learn.
If that's true — and my experience as a forester convinces me it is — then they must be able to
store and transmit information.
And scientists are beginning to ask: is it possible that trees possess intelligence, and memories,
and emotions? So, to cut to the quick, do trees have brains?
It sounds incredible, but when you discover how trees talk to each other, feel pain, nurture each
other, even care for their close relatives and organise themselves into communities, it's hard to
be sceptical.
I didn't always feel this way. In fact, when I began as a civil servant with the German forestry
commission in the Eighties, I knew next to nothing about the hidden life of trees.
It was my job to look at hundreds of spruces, beeches, oaks and pines every day, to assess
their readiness for the lumber mill and their market value.
About 20 years ago, while organising survival training and log cabin breaks for tourists, I began
to rediscover the love of nature I'd had as a six-year-old.
Next, I noticed that visitors were enchanted by crooked, gnarled trees — ones that I would have
dismissed because of their low commercial value.
I began to pay attention to more than just the quality of the trunks. I noticed bizarre roots,
strangely intertwined branches, mossy cushions on bark . . . all kinds of wonders. Including,
unbelievably, evidence of tree friendships.
In the forest that I manage (near the village of Hümmel, east of the Belgian border), I stumbled
on a ring of mossy stones, arranged in a circle about five feet across. They were an unusual
shape, gently curved with hollowed-out areas.
Scratching at the moss with a knife, I discovered a layer of bark — these were pieces of wood,
not stone. But they were hard as rock, and at first I couldn't understand why they were not
decomposing, until I tried to move one . . . and discovered it was rooted into the ground, still
alive.
What I'd found was the remains of a tree stump, the vestiges of an ancient forest giant. The
moss-covered 'stones' had grown where the outer ring had been, and the interior had long
rotted away completely. This tree must have been felled at least 400 years ago, perhaps much
more, but it was not completely dead.
HOW TREES DRINK 200 GALLONS IN A STORM
During a heavy storm, a mature deciduous tree can 'drink' a couple of hundred gallons of water,
which is funnelled to its roots. This water is stored in the surrounding soil, to help the tree
through future dry spells. Trees think ahead.
A single tree contains millions of calories in the form of sugar, cellulose, lignin (which helps to
make the structure 'woody') and other carbohydrates. But to insects and birds, a tree isn't so
much a grocery store as a guarded warehouse, because the food is surrounded by a thick
protective wall of bark. Trees think about security.
Every day in summer, trees release about 29 tons of oxygen into the air per square mile of
forest. A person breathes in nearly two pounds of oxygen each day, so that's the daily
requirement for tens of thousands of people. Trees don't care about us — but we should care
about them.
It had no leaves, however. Without leaves, a tree cannot absorb nourishment from the sunlight.
Living cells must have food in the form of sugar, and they must breathe. The roots of the stump
ought to have suffocated and starved to death long ago.
One possible answer existed. The other beeches around the stump had been pumping sugar
into it for centuries to keep it alive, through their tangled roots.
Most individual trees of the same species growing in the same copse or stand will be connected
through their root systems. It appears that helping neighbours in times of need is the rule, which
leads to the conclusion that forests are super-organisms, much like ant colonies.
But the support they give each other is not random. Research by Professor Massimo Maffei at
the University of Turin shows trees can distinguish the roots of their own species from other
plants, and even pick out their own relations from other trees. Some are so tightly connected at
the roots that they even die together, like a devoted married couple.
Diseased or hungry individuals can be identified, supported and nourished until they recover.
When the thick silver-grey beeches in my forest behave like this, they remind me of a herd of
elephants. Like the herd, they look after their own, helping the sick and the weak back onto their
feet.
And as those mossy wooden 'stones' revealed, they are even reluctant, like elephants, to
abandon their dead. Of course, this cannot be done for every stump. Most rot and disappear
within a couple of hundred years — which is not very long for a tree. But a few are maintained
on life support for centuries. It appears to be the closeness of connection, or even affection, that
determines how helpful the other trees will be.
It seems many species do this. I have observed oak, fir and spruce stumps as well as beeches
that have survived long after the tree was felled. But it's not just silent support that trees offer
each other.
Dr Suzanne Simard of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver has discovered that they
can also send warnings using chemical signals and electrical impulses through the fungal
networks that stretch under the soil between sets of roots — networks known as the 'wood wide
web'.
These fungi operate like fibre-optic internet cables. Their thin filaments penetrate the earth,
weaving through it in almost unbelievable density. One teaspoon of forest soil contains many
miles of these tendrils.
Over centuries, if left undisturbed, a single fungus can cover many square miles and create a
network throughout an entire forest. Through these links, trees can send signals about insects,
drought and other dangers.
News bulletins are transmitted by chemical compounds and also by electricity, travelling at an
inch every three seconds.
In comparison with the lightning impulses in mammal bodies, that is extremely slow. But there
are species, such as jellyfish and worms, whose nervous systems conduct impulses at similar
speeds.
This might help to explain how swarms of insect pests are able to identify trees becoming weak.
It's conceivable that some caterpillars and beetles tune in to the warnings flowing from tree to
tree, then test which individuals are failing to pass on the message, by taking a bite of their
leaves or bark.
A tree's silence might indicate that it is cut off from the fungal network, perhaps because it has
lost its ability to communicate, and so is unable to prepare for attack or call for help. So not only
do trees talk, insects eavesdrop.
Communication between trees and insects isn't all about defence and illness. There are also the
feelgood messages, the perfumed invitations issued by sweet smelling blossom.
These lovely scents are not to please us but to attract bees, which come for the sugar-rich
nectar and take away a dusting of pollen, to fertilise other trees.
And it's not just the smells: blossoms are vivid, gaudy splashes of colour. So trees are using
displays of erotic perfume and dazzling adornment for sexual purposes — just like many
animals and birds.
There's one more way that animals communicate, through sound. I was dubious at first that
trees could deliberately make noises, but the latest scientific research is persuading me
otherwise.
Dr Monica Gagliano from the University of Western Australia has been monitoring roots with
highly sensitive apparatus, and believes they crackle at a frequency of 220 hertz, which the
human ear hears as a low A note.
When this note was played back to seedlings, their roots tilted towards the sound. It appears
they could hear it, and were responding.
You might wonder, if trees can talk to each other in so many ways, what they have to discuss.
Among beech trees, at any rate, the conversation might be about when to feed the deer.
Deer are extremely partial to beechnuts, which help them put on a protective layer of fat for
winter.
The nuts contain up to 50 per cent oil and starch, making them more nutritious than any other
food source. And trees make a lot of them — every beech produces at least 30,000 nuts in a
year. It has to, because the odds of a beechnut growing into an adult tree are nearly two million
to one. Do the maths: a beech isn't sexually mature until it's between 80 and 150 years old,
depending on how much light it gets while growing.
Assuming it lives to be 400, it will fruit at least 60 times and produce a total of about 1.8m nuts .
. . the minimum number it needs to be sure of spawning one new tree.
But why produce nuts only 60 times in 400 years? Why not every year? The answer is that the
trees don't want to overfeed the deer, because big, hungry herds will strip the forest bare.
No sapling will stand a chance if the deer population explodes.
So the trees must co-operate, to ensure that they all withhold their nuts for several years at a
time, and then simultaneously come into fruit together. The deer will have a feast, it's true, but
the herds won't be able to rely on an annual bounty. Early human farmers spotted this
thousands of years ago. Like the deer, wild pigs gorge on beechnuts, too. Their bodies adapt so
their birth rate triples, because they're getting enough nutrition for big litters of piglets. When the
nuts arrive and the boars get fat, it's known as a 'mast' year.
The farmers would release their domestic pigs into forests during mast years.
The porkers gobbled the beech nuts, piled on plenty of meat, and had lots of chubby piglets.
Then the farmers would round them up, and there'd be pork on the table throughout winter.
If you think that needs clever communication, think about how umbrella thorn acacias on the
African savannah defend themselves against giraffes.
When they start picking at foliage, the acacias begin pumping foul-tasting toxins into the leaves
to deter them. It happens in minutes, which for a tree is instantaneous. The giraffes get the
message and move on.
But they don't go to the next acacia. They wander at least 100 yards before trying their luck
again. The reason is astonishing. As they come under attack, the acacias give off a warning gas
called ethylene that signals a crisis to neighbouring trees.
That triggers other acacias to dump toxins into their own leaves, as a defensive measure.
And the giraffes have learned that when one tree tastes bad, others in the vicinity will, too.
The exception is when the wind picks up and only trees downwind detect the ethylene in the air,
and react. Giraffes know it too, and head upwind.
Elms and pines use a different tactic. When an insect eats a leaf, electrical signals travel from
the damaged area to the roots — just as human tissue sends pain signals along the nervous
system.
It takes at least an hour for the roots to react and unleash the defences, by flowing bitter
compounds into the leaf to send the attacker packing. But something even more amazing is also
happening: the tree identifies the attacker by its saliva. Armed with this, the tree releases pheromones to summon specific predators, to prey on the insects. For example, elms and pines call
on parasitic wasps that lay their eggs inside leaf-eating caterpillars, condemning them to slow,
painful deaths. Trees are prepared to wait for revenge.
The main reason humans cannot perceive how clever and complex they are is because we exist
in such short time scales by comparison. There's a tree in Sweden for instance, a spruce, that is
more than 9,500 years old. That's 115 times longer than the average human lifespan.
A tree's childhood lasts ten times as long as ours. Activities that take us moments — waking up
or stretching our limbs, can last months for a tree.
It's hardly surprising that most of us see trees as practically inanimate, nothing more than
objects. But the truth is very different. They are just as intensely alive as we are . . . and for
much, much longer.
The Auto Loan Bubble
It does not take a great memory to go back to the year 2008 when the mortgage collapse
occurred. What I find amazing is that people I respect are already forgetting what caused the
meltdown. They think it was because the big banks went loan crazy and just let anyone borrow
money, even if they hadn’t had a steady job in years. Banks love to make money, but they hate
going broke. So, what caused it?
The Democrats have run Washington for all but 24 years since the country was established in
1787. Even when they are in the minority, they are able to marshal 100% vote loyalty in
Congress on every single bill. They swing 3 or 4 Republicans, and they get their bill passed.
Obama has only vetoed 6 bills in his entire presidency. That means he is getting nearly
everything he wants across his desk. The big stuff, Congress doesn’t even write. These bills are
written by think tanks owned by Obama. They are handed to his Speaker of the House, and then
they are crammed down the throats of Congress to pass.
In 1993, Bill Clinton signed the Community Reinvestment into law. It forces banks to reduce the
weight of credit and income as criteria for making home loans. Banks had to make 50% of their
loans in low income neighborhoods. Sandra L. Thompson, Director of the Division of
Supervision and Consumer Protection at the FDIC, lauded the positive impact of CRA, noting
that, "studies have pointed to increases in lending to low- and moderate-income customers and
minorities in the decades since the CRA's passage." She cited a study by the Joint Center for
Housing Studies at Harvard University, that found that "data for 1993 through 2000 show home
purchase lending to low- and moderate-income people living in low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods grew by 94 percent – more than in any of the other income categories. History
proves that the mortgage backed securities formed with these mortgages became worthless, due
to pervasive non-repayment. This was completely expected and completely preventable, but it
got Democrats elected for nearly two more decades in nearly every State. In 2008, the entire
world’s banking value base was flushed down the toilet, with the American taxpayer paying the
bill.
Well, this time around we are facing a subprime auto loan meltdown. In recent years, auto
lenders have been forced by the big car makers lobbying Congress to lend money to people that
should not be borrowing money to buy a new vehicle under any circumstances. Still, there are
thousands of acres around the country filled with tens of thousands of new cars that cannot sell,
because only 37% of the people can qualify for a loan, even with subprime interest rates.
Just like with subprime mortgages, this strategy seemed to pay off at first with high sales, but
soon economic reality will be felt in a major way. Delinquency rates are up by double digit
percentages, and the rate of change is going up as well. This means that very soon, 20% of auto
loans will default, and major auto lenders are bracing for billions of dollars of losses. We are a
nation that is absolutely drowning in debt, and we are most definitely going to reap what we
have sown.
The size of this market is larger than you may imagine. Earlier this year, the auto loan bubble
surpassed the one trillion dollar mark for the first time ever…
Americans are borrowing more than ever for new and used vehicles, and 30- and 60-day
delinquency rates rose in the second quarter, according to the automotive arm of one of the
nation’s largest credit bureaus.
The total balance of all outstanding auto loans reached $1.027 trillion between April 1 and June
30, the second consecutive quarter that it surpassed the $1-trillion mark, reports Experian
Automotive.
The average size of an auto loan is also at a record high. At $29,880, it is now just a shade under
$30,000.
In order to try to help people afford the payments, auto lenders are now stretching loans out for
six or even seven years. At this point it is almost like getting a mortgage.
But even with those stretched out loans, the average monthly auto loan payment is now up to a
record 499 dollars.
That is the average loan size. To me, this is absolutely infuriating, because only a very small
percentage of wealthy Americans are able to afford a $499 monthly payment on a single vehicle.
Many middle class American families are only bringing in three or four thousand dollars a month
(before taxes). How in the world do they think that they can afford a five hundred dollar
monthly auto loan payment on just one vehicle?
Just like with subprime mortgages, people are being taken advantage of severely, and the end
result is going to be catastrophic for the U.S. financial system.
Already, auto loan delinquencies are rising to very frightening levels. In July, 60 day subprime
loan delinquencies were up 13 percent on a month-over-month basis and were up 17 percent
compared to the same month last year.
Prime delinquencies were up 12 percent on a month-over-month basis and were up 21 percent
compared to the same month last year.
We have a huge crisis on our hands, and major auto lenders are setting aside massive amounts of
cash in order to try to cover these losses. The following comes from USA Today…
In a quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Ford reported in the first half
of this year it allowed $449 million for credit losses, a 34% increase from the first half of 2015.
General Motors reported in a similar filing that it set aside $864 million for credit losses in that
same period of 2016, up 14% from a year earlier.
Meanwhile, other big corporations are also alarmed about the economic health of average U.S.
consumers. Just check out what Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos had to say about this just the
other day…
I know that when we look at globally the overall U.S. population, it seems like things are getting
better. But when you really start breaking it down and you look at that core consumer that we
serve on the lower economic scale that’s out there, that demographic, things have not gotten
any better for her, and arguably, they’re worse. And they’re worse, because rents are
accelerating, healthcare is accelerating on her at a very, very rapid clip.
The stock market may seem to be saying that everything is fine (for the moment), but the hard
economic numbers are telling a completely different story. What we are experiencing right now
looks so similar to 2008, and this includes big institutions just dropping dead seemingly out of
the blue. On Tuesday, we learned that ITT Technical Institute is immediately shutting down and
permanently closing all locations. This is from a Los Angeles Times report…
The company that operates the for-profit chain, one of the country’s largest, announced that it
was permanently closing all its campuses nationwide. It blamed the shutdown on the recent
move by the U.S. Education Department to ban ITT from enrolling new students who use federal
financial aid.
“Two quarters ago there were rumors about the school having problems, but they told us that
anyone who was already a student would be allowed to finish,” said Wiggins, who works as the
assistant manager for a family-run auto parts business and went to ITT to open new
opportunities.
“Am I angry?” he said. “I’m like angry times 10 million.”
As a result of this shutdown, 35,000 students are suddenly left out in the cold and approximately
8,000 employees have lost their jobs.
This is what happens during a major economic downturn. Large institutions have been
struggling without the public knowing about it for years, and very soon they will give up and
drop a bomb on our economy, again. The major difference is that this time, unlike with singlefamily home mortgages, there is nothing to back the loan. Used cars are worth nothing when
there is no one who can qualify to buy them. This will be the biggest cash-for-clunkers sale in
world history when millions of used cars are sold for scrap, crushed, and sent to China to create a
new market for the major car makers.
Already, some of the biggest corporate names in America have been laying off thousands of
workers in 2016. Ford has already announced that it is moving 100% of its small car production
to Mexico. Mass layoffs and relocations are usually an early warning sign that big trouble is
ahead.
The stage is set for a crisis that will absolutely dwarf 2008. Our national debt has nearly doubled
since the beginning of the 2008 mortgage collapse, corporate debt has doubled, student loan debt
has crossed the trillion dollar mark, auto loan debt has crossed the trillion dollar mark, and
total household debt has crossed the 12 trillion dollar mark.
We are living in the greatest debt bubble in world history, and there are signs that this giant
bubble is now starting to burst. And when it does, the pain is going to be greater than most
people would dare to imagine. The only solution is to pay off your debts, sell the stuff you
cannot pay off, and get your cash out of the bank and convert it to money. I mean real money.
Silver and gold are the only true money. Cash is merely a promise to pay, a claim check on your
valet-parked car. You have months, not years to get this done.
The Solar Eclipse of 2017
In the travel industry we throw around the words “Once in a Lifetime” a lot, but sometimes that
is an exaggeration.
In this case, it will be the United States’ second visible total solar eclipse of my lifetime – and
the first since 1979. During a total eclipse, the Moon completely blocks the Sun, and turns day
into night, or at least into a deep twilight with only the Sun’s corona visible.
The eclipse path, where it will be most visible, sweeps in an arc from the Pacific Northwest to
South Carolina, and detailed info on all aspects of the event, including science, history and
viewing information, can be found here.
But it’s hard to imagine a better place to view nature’s spectacle than from one of nature’s great
spectacles, the Teton Mountains of Wyoming. The southern portion of Grand Teton National
Park and Jackson happen to be a perfect fit with the eclipse path, and will likely be one of the
nation’s best vantage points. The Park today includes a large amount of land donated by John D.
Rockefeller, who had spent much of his life visiting and appreciating some of the most beautiful
places on earth. With this informed perspective, he noted that the “Teton Mountains are, to my
way of thinking, quite the grandest and most spectacular mountains I have ever seen…When
viewed over the vast expanse of sagebrush which covers the valley, or with Jackson Lake and the
marshes in the foreground, they present a picture of ever-changing beauty which is to me beyond
compare.” You don’t have to be an alpinist to appreciate the eclipse from a summit in the Tetons,
you just have to ride the world famous tram at the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, one of
America’s greatest ski resorts. The ride and the view are so spectacular and desirable that tickets
just went on sale ($100 each) – nearly a year in advance – and will almost certainly sell out.
The spectacular eclipse will occur on August 21, 2017 and will be visible in Jackson at about
11:35AM and visitors will enjoy two minutes and twenty seconds of full cosmic bliss (weather
permitting), while the overall eclipse related visible phenomena should last two to three hours.
The Real Clinton Please Stand Up, if you can
Drs. Elizabeth Lee Vliet and Jane Orient are finding
inconsistencies in a letter written by Hillary Clinton’s doctor
that claims the Democrat presidential nominee is recovering
from “non-contagious bacterial pneumonia.”
Though neither Vliet nor Orient have personally examined Clinton, they’re giving Breitbart
News some insights into a letter written by Dr. Lisa Bardack, the chair of Internal Medicine at
CareMount Medical in Mount Kisco, New York, who said Clinton was being treated for “a mild
non-contagious bacterial pneumonia” after becoming “overheated” during a 9/11 Memorial event
when the nominee appeared to collapse and had to leave abruptly.
Vliet, who specializes in women’s health, and has a background in internal medicine,
neuropsychiatry, and neuroendocrinology, observes that Clinton is highly unlikely “to have
‘cleared’ a pneumonia within 90 minutes to suddenly appear for the photo op on the sidewalk,
walking like a healthy person.”
Video: Doctors: Pneumonia Shouldn't Impede Clinton
She referred to Clinton appearing as she left her daughter Chelsea’s apartment building – to
which she was taken after her apparent collapse – stopping to wave to the crowd and even
hugging a small child.
“She would have likely looked sicker if she really had pneumonia,” Vliet explains.
Bardack wrote:
On Friday, September 9, she was seen and evaluated in my office. A non-contrast chest CT scan,
including a CTA calcium score, was performed. This test allowed for specific imaging of her
lungs while also following up on cardiac risk stratification from 2010 given her family history of
heart disease. The results of the CT scan revealed a small right middle-lobe pneumonia; her
coronary calcium score was again zero. She was treated with antibiotics for pneumonia and
advised to rest. This was a mild non-contagious bacterial pneumonia. On Sunday, September 11
at the 9/11 Memorial event, she became overheated and dehydrated and as a result felt dizzy. I
examined her immediately upon her return home; she was re-hydrating and recovering nicely. I
advised her to stay home and rest for the next several days. Mrs. Clinton has since been
evaluated by me several times and continues to improve.
“My overall impression is that Mrs. Clinton has remained healthy and has not developed new
medical conditions this year other than a sinus and ear infection and her recently diagnosed
pneumonia,” Bardack continued. “She is recovering well with antibiotics and rest. She continues
to remain healthy and fit to serve as President of the United States.”
Dr. Jane Orient, who specializes in internal medicine, tells Breitbart News, “’bacterial
pneumonia’ covers a very broad field.”
“The type of bacteria is very important for antibiotic choice,” she notes, questioning whether
cultures were obtained.
“How can Dr. Bardack say she is not contagious when much of Clinton’s staff is sick?” Orient
asks as well.
As Breitbart News reported, a Clinton campaign source told People Magazine, “Everyone’s been
sick,” and described “a debilitating bug” that was causing at least six people – including Clinton
campaign manager Robby Mook – to fall ill.
To add to the media confusion, Bill Clinton said during an interview that his wife had the flu –
rather than pneumonia – but then backtracked on that statement later, Fox News reports.
“The mild pneumonia does not explain months of coughing, nor the reported confusion, strange
head movements, episodes of apparent inattention, or sudden falls,” Orient also observes,
emphasizing as well that Bardack’s letter “is not the ‘medical record.’”
“The letter is just one person’s very incomplete exam,” she continues. “Not even the basics like
vital signs (pulse, respiratory rate, blood pressure, pulse oximetry when acutely ill – though they
are there for her previous exam). There’s also no check of standing blood pressure and pulse,
though she was said to be dehydrated.”
Vliet also expresses concern about what she calls Clinton’s “movement” problems:
I think her dystonic movements, “freeze” falls, wooden movements (evident in the video of
Ground Zero when her team was trying to get her into the car), as well as her lack of usual
protective reflexes in multiple falls over several years, her abnormal eye movements,
vocalizations, difficulty swallowing/coughing spasms – all strongly suggest a neurodegenerative
movement disorder.
“The big issue is that pneumonia is treatable and curable,” notes Vliet. “But a neurodegenerative
disorder such as Parkinson’s disease is a terminal illness that before death causes dementia.”
Obama’s Third Term
Addressing the African Union last month, Barack Obama said, “I actually think I’m a pretty
good president. I think if I ran, I could win. But I can’t.” Obama is prevented from re-election by
the 22nd Amendment, which has limited presidents to two terms since 1951. The public is
strongly supportive of this restriction, but more divided in their perceptions of the effect of the
two-term cap on presidential second terms. From the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
Archives:
FDR: Happy Days Are Here Again - and Again
George Washington established the standard that presidents would limit themselves to two terms
in office, but no law prevented third terms until the 22nd Amendment was passed in reaction to
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four successful elections. Pollsters started asking about
an amendment in 1939, as FDR faced his third election in 1940. At this time, a slim majority of
51% opposed such an amendment and 37% supported it.
In 1940, when given three options in a Roper/Fortune poll, only 13% of the country thought the
idea that a president should not hold office for three terms was a silly and outworn tradition.
Twenty-nine percent believed that never under any conditions should a president hold office for
three terms, but 52% agreed that, while it may not generally be a good idea for a president to
serve three terms, there should be no rule preventing him at a time of national crisis. The
situation in Europe was likely such a crisis for many Americans, as Roosevelt won the 1940
election with 55% of the vote. In a 1944 Gallup poll, 54% favored adding a law to the
Constitution to prevent any future President from being reelected if he has already served two
terms. The exception for Roosevelt was made explicit with the phrase “after this year’s election”
for half the respondent sample, and among this group, support was 62%. Despite majority
approval of limiting presidential terms, Roosevelt won again in 1944, garnering 53.4% of the
popular vote. After this final victory, the country was divided on the issue, even as the
amendment passed Congress in 1947 and was ultimately ratified in 1951.
Believers in the Status Quo: Two Four-Year Terms
More than two-thirds of the public did not think Harry Truman, the last president eligible to be
elected to a third term, should run for re-election in 1952. However, given that Truman’s
approval ratings stood at a dismal 27% in the same poll, this result likely reveals more about
Truman’s support than that for the 22nd Amendment. By 1956, polling showed the country
solidly in favor of the amendment, with only a third favoring repeal through the mid-1980s and
even lower support in 2013.
After the two-term presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, occupants of the Oval Offices changed
with shocking frequency through the sixties and seventies. Alarmed by this state of affairs, a
bipartisan group led by former Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and former Secretary of the
Treasury William E. Simon formed the National Committee for a Single Six-Year Presidential
Term. A 1980 Harris poll found a surprisingly large minority of 43% favored this idea, though a
majority (54%) opposed. In contrast, a 1986 Gallup poll found only a quarter in support. A 1991
Gallup poll which provided arguments for and against a single six-year term found that just 31%
were in favor because “limiting a President to one term of 6 years would best serve the national
interest because he could devote all his energies to solving national problems rather than
spending a lot of time trying to get re-elected,” while 61% opposed because “they feel it takes a
president a long time learning how to do his job and that knowing that he will have to seek reelection will make him answerable to the wishes of the people.” In Time/CNN/Yankelovich polls
in 1990 and 1994, only under a quarter of the public favored limiting the President to one term
(of unspecified length) in office, while about seven in ten opposed. The idea of a six-year single
term was resurrected last year by Larry Summers in a Washington Post Op-Ed, but public
opinion has not been measured again.
Lame Ducks and Second Term Curses
Since the adoption of the 22nd Amendment, presidents in their second term have been widely
considered to suffer diminished power, particularly after the second midterm elections. The
contrary view also has proponents who argue that, without the need to win re-election, presidents
are freer to act. Political observers agree, however, that “[i]t is almost a truism that second terms
are less successful than first terms,” as Adam Clymer wrote in the New York Times.
The public, on the other hand, does not appear to perceive an overall decrease in effectiveness in
presidential second terms. Most Americans saw no difference in President Reagan’s
effectiveness in his first and second terms in a 1985 Gallup poll. In a 1997 ABC
News/Washington Post, 37% of the public thought Clinton was doing a better job in his second
term, 22% a worse job, and 34% volunteered that he was doing about the same. In the case of
George W. Bush, nearly half (48%) of the country thought he was doing a worse job in his
second term, only 4% thought better, and 47% said about the same in a 2006 PSRA/Newsweek
poll. But they did not necessarily tie that judgment to the fact of his second term - a slight
majority of 53% said he still have to power to get things done, while a lower proportion (42%)
saw him as a lame duck who had lost his power.
Comparing attitudes about the second terms of the last two presidents, just over half thought both
Bush and Obama would be better presidents as a result of the experience of their first terms,
while perceptions of effectiveness were more varied.
“I think if I ran, I could win.”
If Obama were correct, he would be the first since Roosevelt to garner such support. In polls
during their second terms, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton would have been supported in a
hypothetical third term by only about a third of the country - despite the fact that this pair were
the only post-WWII two-term presidents to have higher approval ratings in their second terms
than their first. Just 27% of Americans in a Monmouth University poll say they would vote for
Obama in a third term, the same proportion as said this about George Bush. Perhaps Obama
simply needs to wait. Both Reagan and Clinton third terms were supported by more of the public
in later polls.
Congress Goes After Anti-Israel Campaign by Obama
Congress on Friday launched a wide-ranging probe into a secret Obama administration-funded
campaign to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to information
exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The probe comes on the heels of an internal government report determining that the State
Department provided hundreds of thousands to an organization that plotted to unseat Netanyahu
in the country’s 2015 election.
Obama administration officials were found to have deleted emails from State Department
accounts containing information about its relationship with OneVoice, the non-profit group that
led the effort.
OneVoice, which was awarded $465,000 in U.S. grants through 2014, has been under
congressional investigation since 2015, when it was first accused of funneling some of that
money to partisan political groups looking to unseat Netanyahu. This type of behavior by nonprofit groups is prohibited under U.S. tax law.
A group of nine leading lawmakers led by Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) are now formally
petitioning the State Department to come clean about the effort and provide answers about how
U.S. taxpayer dollars were permitted to be spent on an organization working against the elected
leader of America’s closest Middle East ally, according to a readout of the investigation obtained
by the Free Beacon.
“State Department officials failed to properly vet the OneVoice grant proposal because they
failed to properly conduct an analysis of risks in the pre-award phase,” the senators wrote in a
letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. “Unfortunately, it seems that inconsistency and apathy
toward oversight of such grants at the State Department is not new. Our aid dollars should be
going toward solving real problems, not contributing to the destabilization of allied
governments.”
The lawmakers—including Sens. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Orrin Hatch (R.,
Utah), Mike Lee (R., Utah), and Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) among others—wrote that the State
Department turned a blind eye to OneVoice’s highly partisan activities and failed to perform
proper oversight about how U.S. funds were being spent by the group.
“State Department officials utterly failed to follow established procedures and guidelines to
properly identify, mitigate, or guard against any risk that OneVoice would misuse these funds
before, during, and after the grant period,” the letter said. “As a direct result of these failures,
OneVoice was able to use the more than $300,000 grant to build campaign infrastructure and
resources which later were deployed in support of a negative campaign against Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, his Likud Party, and the democratically elected coalition government of
Israel during the 2015 Israeli parliamentary election.”
State Department officials were aware of OneVoice’s partisan activities, but still permitted the
grant money to be awarded, according to the senators, who are pushing for the administration to
take disciplinary action against the officials involved.
“Despite knowledge of such activities, State Department officials failed to adequately document
any assessment of the risk that OneVoice might continue obstructive efforts against a certain
political party in the event of an election,” the letter stated.
“State Department grant policies and procedures are in place to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
used to fund U.S. government initiatives and further U.S. interests,” the letter said.
The senators require the State Department to answer a series of questions about the grant,
including how it vetted OneVoice and why proper oversight methods were not employed.
They also are seeking to determine what “disciplinary action” is being taken against U.S.
officials who knew about the plan to unseat Netanyahu but failed to take action to report this
behavior.
The Great Solar Boat Hoax
The €4.2m ($4.72 million) vessel—nicknamed the "Solar Impulse of the Seas"—aims to
circumnavigate the globe using only clean power, a feat similar to Solar Impulse 2's
historic, solar-powered flight around the world that was completed this past July.
The boat will sail for six years around the world as a floating exhibition and clean energy
laboratory, with stops in 50 countries and 101 ports of call.
"For the first time, Energy Observer will allow us to explore the oceans without leaving
any trace behind us," Jerome Delafosse, a director and co-captain of the expedition.
The multi-hulled catamaran, a former racing vessel that won the 1994 Jules Verne
Trophy for the fastest circumnavigation of the world, stands at 30 meters in length and
12.80 meters in width. Its green upgrade is currently in full swing at a shipyard in Saint
Malo, France where it awaits installation of 130 square meters of solar panels, two
vertical axis wind turbines, two reversible electric motors and electrolysis equipment—
all to help produce and store hydrogen onboard. "Hydrogen is not a fuel but a way of
storing energy," Delafosse told Tribune de Genève. "Instead of batteries, we fill highpressure hydrogen tanks and the hydrogen can power our fuel cell and generate
electricity."
The ship will also be the first in the world to produce hydrogen on board through
desalination of sea water, according to ENSTA Bretagne.
All this green technology onboard will allow the boat to power itself indefinitely with
emission-free energy.
As Agence France-Presse writes:
“We are going to be the first boat with an autonomous means of producing
hydrogen," says Frenchman Victorien Erussard, who is behind the project—
confidential until now—with compatriot Jacques Delafosse, a documentary filmmaker
and professional scuba diver.
The plan is for the boat's batteries, which will feed the electric motors, to be powered
in good weather by solar and wind energy, explained the 37-year-old merchant navy
officer.
“If there's no sun or wind, or if it's night, stored hydrogen—generated by electrolysis
powered by the solar panels and two wind turbines—will take over," he said.
As a result, the vessel's trip will not use any carbon-emitting fossil fuels, as is the
case for 96% of boats today.
Well, here are a few things the writers missed. First of all, Magellan did this already in
the 1500’s. Also, most calculations are that unless they have pedal power, this boat will
sit motionless for 70% of the day to make enough energy to get through the night. If
there is a storm, there is no way the boat can stay pointed into the waves. It will sink.
Also, what about wind. Anyway? Isn’t that renewable? Didn’t this boat already go
around the world by sailing? Why wouldn’t wind propulsion be green as well? BTW,
once the membranes are perforated by the hydrogen, the cells are useless. Also,
Hydrogen is enormously flammable. Not a good idea for a boat.
I think this boat is a multi-million dollar propaganda machine. It is not even as
sustainable as an old wooden ship. I like the boat in Waterworld.
The project was designed in partnership the research institute CEA-Liten in Grenoble.
"Energy Observer is emblematic of what will be the energy networks of tomorrow, with
solutions that could even be used within five years," CEA-Liten director Florence
Lambert said. "For example, the houses of tomorrow could incorporate a system of
hydrogen storage, which is produced during the summer months and then used in the
winter."
Erussard says in the video that the vessel stands out from others "in the fact that it will
operate using a mix of renewable energy, wind, solar and water."
"The aim is actually to achieve energy self-sufficiency," he added. "This self-sufficiency
can be transferred to land applications such as buildings, schools, hotels and so on."
A Type and a Shadow: The Aging Human Race
More than forty per cent of young singletons in Japan are virgins, according to a new
study that highlights concerns about the country's demographic challenges. Japan
already suffers from the world's oldest population and a shrinking birthrate, with the
government struggling to incentivise marriage and parenthood.
Now a survey of unmarried people aged 18 to 34 found that around 42 per cent of men
and 44.2 per cent of single women had never had sex.
The study is carried out by Japan's National Institute of Population and Social
Security every five years.
The country's government has worked hard to boost the birthrate in recent years,
providing incentives such as support for child care and tax breaks.
The new data however indicates, that, if anything Japanese men and women are
growing apart.
The last time the study was conducted in 2010, only 36.2 per cent of men and 38.7
percent of women said they were virgins.
Nearly 90 per cent of the respondents said they want to get married “sometime in the
future.”
But 30 per cent of the 2,706 men sampled and 26 per cent of the 2,570 female
respondents said they were not currently looking for a relationship.
“They want to tie the knot eventually. But they tend to put it off as they have gaps
between their ideals and the reality,” Futoshi Ishii, head researcher for the study, told
Japan Times. “That’s why people marry later or stay single for life, contributing to the
nation’s low birthrate.”
An organisation called Virgin Academia, set up by the non-profit organisation White
Hands, now offers lectures focusing on how to establish healthy relationships, as well
as activities such as nude life drawing classes.
The lack of sexual activity can seem at odds with a society saturated with sexual
images, from television and manga comics to city billboards.
But recent years have seen a shift in traditional family structures, and a protracted
economic slowdown as a global powerhouse, which has reportedly resulted in many
men struggling to hold down secure, full-time jobs.
The East Coast Pipeline Leak
A leak has caused the closure of a crucial pipeline that carries gasoline to the eastern
United States, a disruption that threatens to drive up prices and leave service stations
without fuel to sell.
A section of the Colonial Pipeline, which runs from Houston to New York, has been closed since
Sept. 9 after a spill of roughly 250,000 gallons was discovered in rural Shelby County, Ala.
The major pipeline, one pipe of which has been severed, provides gasoline for an estimated 50
million people on the East Coast each day, according to company estimates. The cause of the
leak has yet to be determined, according to the company's most recent statement.
The pipeline's operator has said full service will not be restored until at least next week. The
closure has set off an industry-wide scramble as suppliers seek alternative ways to transport
gasoline to the East Coast.
Prices have yet to move much. They're only up a penny or two in the last week in states such as
Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee, according to AAA.
But gas prices could spike by as much as 15 cents per gallon or more in those three states, as
well as North Carolina and Virginia, in the next week according to GasBuddy.com analyst
Patrick DeHaan.
Ships have already been dispatched to carry fuel from Texas to New York as part of the effort.
There are also likely to be far more tanker trucks on the road carrying gasoline than normal said
Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with the Oil Price Information Service. But pipelines are by far the
cheapest way to move gasoline or oil, so any alternative will raise costs. And not every station
will be able to get the gasoline it needs, he said.
"You're going to see some places without gasoline," he said. "It's like a mini-hurricane."
The pipeline operator said that based on its current projections, parts of Georgia, Alabama,
Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be the first markets to suffer potential supply
disruptions. That is the case. Many off-brand gas outlets have been exhausted, like QT and
Circle K. Company stores like Mobile and Shell and BP do not seem to be affected to badly.
The governors of Alabama and Georgia have already declared states of emergency. Although it
has not received much press, these pipelines are fully constructed and tested before they are
filled with gasoline. The safety guidelines that must be followed when there is a spill of this size
have to be rewritten every single time there is an incident. The actual repair is done by welding a
splice into the pipe. The movement of the pipeline due to thermal stress and earth movement is
really quite astonishing if you watch it with time lapsed photography. Bends and loops are
designed into the pipeline along with flexible portions of the pipe to allow for this movement,
but over time, the weakness will be exposed.
If you give some thought to welding a pipe that size that has been filled with gasoline, you begin
to feel what the welder feels the first time he strikes that arc. I have repaired small pipes filled
with Methanol before. Believe me, we didn’t weld. We threaded and we cut the pipe by hand
with a hacksaw while spraying water on the blade. It still was not fun, believe me.
Drone Wars Update
The United States has less warships, but the ones we are building are more powerful and almost
indestructible. We have less warplanes and the pilots who can fly them are few and not as well
trained as they should be. We have the fewest active duty warfighters since the beginning of the
second phase of the world war. So, where is the money being spent? For war appliances.
Especially is this true in these days of inventive science, when new firearms, new projectiles,
new methods of naval construction and engineering apparatus are daily displacing the old, handheld, manually aimed weapons.
No nation can afford be outdone by any other in the perfection of the material which it employs,
and hence a governmental activity in this department is incessantly going on. The war industry
demands results for a certain kind of manufacturing skill which the best scientific energy of the
day. Even if it means the traditional bullet and bayonet must be relegated to the history books,
the weapons of war and the money behind them is almost fictional, it is so far beyond belief.
Thus the latest scientific results, the finest artistic contrivances, and the most exact mechanical
appliances are, at the first moment of their discovery, impressed into the service of war. The
folks down at Wars R Us must press the button. They must put the latest toy into the field and
try it out. There is no need to lavish you with the technology or the materials science, or the
grants pumped into every university, or the complete failure of return on that investment. The
support of armies in peace as well as in war constitutes another channel into which flows the
wealth of nations; especially the USA.
Of all the political and economic forces that now operate in modern Europe, the armies made of
men and rifles and tanks are considered the most absolutely indispensable to the stability of the
government. That may be the biggest folly of all time. Let us consider their cost. It has been
estimated that the average sum expended for the training of a soldier is $500, while to support
him annually costs $150. In Europe alone, the force of the standing armies in time of peace is
approximately 4,000,000 men to which 500,000 recruits are added each year, thus making a total
annual expenditure of $850,000,000. I can tell you that the real cost is perhaps four times that
much for a force made of part time soldiers who will pee their pants and run as soon as the first
bomb explodes. The generation that would stand and fight has long since grown old and are
buried ignominiously in every spare meadow of Europe.
“From this array of figures, the mind instinctively retreats, and yet the undoubted tendency in
Europe at the present time is toward an enlargement rather than contraction of the system. The
conflict between these so called military exigencies and a better economic condition is every day
becoming more momentous, and if continued, must at some time assume so monstrous a form as
either to be no longer tolerated or to be tolerated only by the destruction of what are now the
most powerful states who can force their citizens to pay and pay and pay.
Economics & War are Inseparable
As I study this crate of an industry, I am holding onto a rope that is on fire. I am hurrying to
understand it and tell you about it before the crate falls into an abyss of debt that threatens the
very future of the world. Because in order for the crated industry to be worth the expense, it
must be uncrated. And I fear that once it is let out of its crates, it will kills all of us in a fury to
try to return that investment. It is interesting to turn another knob of understanding, to build on
the phrase ‘the numbers don’t lie’ by hearing insight about decision making and the human mind.
In order to grasp how the world functions politically, psychologically, and socially,
understanding the alchemical science of economics and having a basic understanding of the
financial markets of defense procurement is usually a good place to start. I am a student, just
like everyone else trying to learn about this without a single complete textbook. The folks at
Wars R Us don’t want any of us to fully understand what is really going on, I think.
Economics is defined as the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption
of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind. Sounds simple enough. If you have
been a plant manager, you have a microcosmic understanding of how this works. When making
a decision, it’s considered wise to consider the implications of what you are doing. We call it an
impact study. It’s also a question of motives, wants, and needs. Supply and demand.
Ah. Demand. The demand for Wars R Us is simple. Kill the entire enemy without being killed.
Surrender is even better, because the can only gets kicked a generation or so down the road, and
we can sustain the buying of smarter weapons. The same rules of economical thinking apply
when thinking about how the U.S.’s drone policy is either helping or hurting the economy. The
monthly Department of Defense expenditure/distillation reports provided by BFP’s Christian
Sorensen serve as a constant reminder that the U.S. government’s defense spending is ‘leading
the world market’ so to speak. We’re the most prolific drone killers on Earth.
“It is assumed that those who design and implement drone policy set aside private incentives and
construct policies to maximize the production of national defense and security,” says Abigail R.
Hall, an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Tampa. Her academic paper:
Drones: Public Interest, Public Choice, and the Expansion of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, is
the first of its kind to offer an examination of “the robustness of the assumption of publically
interested drone policy [by analyzing] UAVs in the Global War on Terror with a particular focus
on the broader institutional structure under which drone policy is formed. Policy is a clean
sounding word that is beautifully penned in blood and bone. It defines the terms under which
enemies are qualified and attrited. Attrited. It means to achieve attrition. To remove from
existence. To kill. Policy in warfighting means death.
“Academic scholars and policymakers have assumed, often implicitly, that the increased use of
UAV technology and decisions regarding drones have been, and will be, made in the ‘public
interest.’ That is, it is assumed that those who design and implement drone policy set aside
private incentives and construct policies to maximize the production of national defense and
security. The problem still exists, earth explorers, that when it comes to drones, the best defense
is a formidable and risk-free offense. That is to say, the pilot is not at risk. Only the humans
near the target are at risk, and that is no risk at all, as long as the press doesn’t see it.
The other thing to consider is the term “public interest.” Does that mean your interest? Really?
Are you consulted in the least as to the kill list? Do you get to vote on the targets? Do you even
know who is being killed, or why, or when? Ah. I see. That is the public’s interest. No body
bag. No POW’s. I see now.
“If drone policies are constructed solely to serve the public interest, we should expect to see
general agreement among experts on their implications. We call it impact, again. What happens
down the road? Well, we create jobs. We save American lives. We accomplish the mission. Or
do we? Evidence contrary to these conjectures, or substantial disagreement regarding these
claims would indicate that motivations outside the public interest are impacting the creation,
implementation, and ultimate use of drones.” Really? Do we mean corporate interests? Do we
mean banking interests? Do we mean lobbyist and thus lawmaker interests? Do we mean the
Agency that orders it, deploys it, and then uses it to kill? Those interests? Yes, I think so.
Listed below are the “public interest conjectures”, followed by Hall’s analysis and assessment of
each:
Conjecture 1: Defense expenditures on the production of UAV technology are allocated to
maximize defense and security for U.S. citizens. I find that the discussion of using a drone to
conduct assassinations morally acceptable when compared to the indiscriminate carpet bombing
of the previous wars, and especially to the one-size-kills-all nuclear weapons. If the humans
surrounding the person who knows he is a target are standing too close to him, it is their own
fault. I get it.
Conjecture 1.1: Producing drones is the most cost effective means, relative to known
alternatives, of achieving U.S. security objectives. I didn’t see a definition of cost in this paper.
Dollars per death? Forget it. Carpet bombing is much cheaper. Preserving the target from
collateral damage? I suppose a cost could be placed on that.
The evidence we manage to sneak out casts doubt on the suggested cost efficacy of drones. At
best, drones appear to provide a minimal cost advantage to comparable manned aircraft. At
worst, UAVs provide no more security than manned aircraft and are significantly more
expensive. Taken together, this suggests the public interest framework may be insufficient in
explaining the current utilization of drones by the U.S. government. In other words, it costs way
more money, but it keeps way more corporations fat and happy.
Conjecture 1.2 Drones provide a technically and operationally superior means of defense
relative to alternative technologies.
High tech murder? They have this one mastered, I think.
Conjecture 2: Ineffective or counterproductive drone policies would be eliminated or modified.
Like any production process. It goes through continuous improvement. Cheaper, more
standardized and mass-produced drones will become much more cost effective, but they will be
counteracted much more easily by the enemy.
Conjecture 2.1 Drones are superior at detecting, targeting, and dismantling terrorists and other
enemies better than manned aircraft or other means.
Evidence suggests that, at a minimum, drone strikes are not intrinsically better than other means
at targeting and eliminating terror threats. In the worst case, current UAV policy has led to an
increase in terrorist group membership and an expansion of terror activity. One study of over 250
terrorist groups found that most terrorist groups cease operations when group members decide to
join in the political process (43 percent) or local law enforcement dismantle key members of the
group (40 percent). Only seven percent of terrorist groups ended through military force,
suggesting that drones, and military strikes in general, are not the best method for eliminating
terrorists. They will scatter into the population. They will pose as refugees and walk right up to
the target they really wish to kill. They have no air force, no navy, and no space based assets.
They have an AK-47 and a 30 year old Yamaha 125 dirt bike. They don’t even have uniforms or
a regular paycheck.
Conjecture 2.2 Drones are more effective at reducing collateral damage, minimizing civilian
casualties, and at reducing potential harms to troops relative to alternative technologies.
Analysis indicates the narrative regarding casualty reduction is at best unclear and raises doubts
regarding the proposal that drones protect civilians or soldiers. At worst, drones not only increase
the number of civilian casualties, but also increase the number of U.S. personnel in the field. In
this case, current policy would be in direct conflict with the assumption of publically interested
policy. This is primarily a war of publicity. The enemy hides among children and hospitals.
Any attack on them will kill babies and grandmothers. Hamas has this tactic down to a science.
They launch a hundred homemade rockets from a school yard after setting up cameras and
inviting the children to watch the fireworks. When the Israelis shoot back, the cameras film the
children being blown to bits, and the Israelis lose the battle in the world press. It is a simple
tactic that has worked for decades at the expense of the poor Palestinian chidren.
Conjecture 2.3 Government officials responsible for constructing UAV policy will utilize the best
information available to create, evaluate, and alter drone policies to maximize social welfare.
In the case of drones and defense policies, we should expect policymakers seek out those with a
comparative advantage in military and counterterrorism experience and to incorporate this
feedback into their decision making. While it is impossible to know of all the correspondence
between the military and policymakers, there is evidence to suggest that the advice of experts
with regard to drones is being ignored. A variety of former military and counterterrorism experts
have pointed out a number of issues regarding technical and allocative issues, and called for
radical policy changes.
Prof. Hall then asks: “How may one explain the continued expansion of UAVs despite evidence
their use may not align with, or even contradict, the public interest?”
To answer this, she “examines two core groups from the public choice model—special interest
groups (namely, defense contractors) and politicians (Congress and other elected officials).” Of
course, she ignores the people who have the greatest interest in the end.
The conclusion of her paper presents four main implications:

We cannot be confident that drone technology is being developed and utilized in a way which
fully fulfills the public interest.

Despite the fact drones may not be the best means to serve the public interest in these and
other cases, the internal and external pressures faced by policymakers indicate further
development and manufacture of UAVs.

Given that the rules that govern drone policy are very similar to the rules which govern other
defense acquisitions, this indicates that the misalignment of defense policy with the public
interest may be substantial.

The standard narrative of benevolent public actors looking to maximize a larger social welfare
function may not be the appropriate lens for analyzing defense issues. Instead, it is necessary to
understand the individual incentives facing both private and public actors.
What the folks down at Wars R Us don’t seem to understand is that a drone to them is a multimillion dollar robot that keeps their hands clean and their pilot safe. A pressure cooker bomb is
a cheap copy of the same thing. The only difference is the discrimination of the target. Our
enemy is them. Their enemy is peace. Their enemy is security. Their enemy is liberty for the
citizens of the USA, because they are very remotely associated with the soldiers who seek their
lives. Death for them is only a means to that end. Their product is fear. The drones seek justice
only against the killer himself for crimes he has already committed with his own hands.
ISIS Coordinates Attacks with US Air Power
ISIS launched attacks on Syrian army positions in Deir Ezzur only 7 minutes after the US-led
coalition's airstrikes on Saturday, a military source said, adding that the air and ground assault
were highly coordinated.
The source said after the coalition's pounding of the Syrian army near Deir Ezzur airbase, the
ISIS could take full control of al-Tharda mountain and then Deir Ezzur military base, adding that
the army and national defense forces deployed near the airbase immediately won it back from the
terrorists by launching a counterattack.
Noting that Deir Ezzur is now almost in tranquility and no change has occurred in the military
map of the region, the source said by attacking the Syrian army positions, the US seeks to
prevent military operations to break the terrorists' siege on the city.
The source said the simultaneous raid of the ISIL terrorists immediately after the coalition
airstrikes is the best evidence of the high coordination done between the US and the terrorists.
Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday that four strikes against Syrian positions had been
delivered by US-led coalition aircraft, including two F-16 jet fighters and two A-10 support
aircraft.
The Syrian military called the bombing a "serious and blatant aggression" against Syrian forces,
and said it was "conclusive evidence" that the US and its allies support ISIS militants.
Also on Sunday, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman blasted Washington over the recent
airstrikes near Deir Ezzur, and said such moves serves the interests of the ISIS terror group.
"We demand a full and detailed explanation from Washington. That explanation must be given at
the UN Security Council," she added.
Russia has demanded full and detailed explanation from Washington over the incident in Deir
Ezzur, in which 62 Syrian troops were killed and over 100 injured.
US WALKS OUT OF UN MEETING
Instead of giving an explanation to the United Nations as reasonably sought by Syria and Russia,
United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Powers, WALKED OUT of the
meeting!
The last time a super-power walked out of a UN meeting, was when China walked out. Shortly
thereafter, the Korean War began and China sent hundreds of thousands across the border to
assist North Korea.
Thus, based upon past precedent, the fact that the US walked out is a very real indication that the
US intends to commence a war. Perhaps in Syria.
If that takes place, the US will face-off directly against Russia, and the likelihood of World War
3 breaking-out is very real.
ANALYSIS -- WHY CHOOSE WAR? ECONOMICS!
Why would anyone in their right mind choose war? Well, in the case of our United States, the
reasons are clear:
1) The US Federal Government is literally Bankrupt. They have amassed so much debt, they
cannot even hope to repay it. War washes away debt.
2) The powers-that-be on both the Democratic and Republican sides, see very clearly that
Donald Trump is heading for a landslilde victory n November, and when he wins,
the Establishment will be exposed and destroyed for all their backroom deals and dishonest
practices. A lot of government officials are looking at serious prison time once their shenanigans
are exposed. So rather than lose power and go to prison, it is likely they have adopted a
"Scorched Earth Policy." They want to get us into a destructive world conflict rather than be
ousted from power or sent to prison. As such, we are now in the most-dangerous 50 days in
the history of America.
What is taking place now inside Syria is simple to see. The US and its NATO allies are
intentionally trying to coax Russia into attacking them. Since the US mass-media has been
totally silent about the US having been caught assisting ISIS, the feds know that once Russia
takes the bait and attacks US or Coalition Forces for the nefarious things they're doing, the US
can publicly scream "We've been attacked by Russia" and thereby rile-up the American people
for war. A war the U.S. will have started.
Don't be fooled America. President Barack Hussein Obama is supporting ISIS terrorists with
material and logistical support. Obama is a material supporter of terrorism. He apparently
couldn't care less that he is risking all our lives in a war with Russia. Wait. Maybe he does
care. He did, after all, campaign on a promise of "change." Little did we know his "change"
meant our death.