Archive for May, 2010

Is The Sestak Job Offer A Bribe, Crime and An Impeachable Offense?

Posted on May 29, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, government, Law, liberty, Life, People, Philosophy, Politics |

The Sestak Affair: Grounds for Impeachment? (Part 1)

The Sestak Affair: Grounds for Impeachment? (Part 2)

Sestak vs. the White House: The American People Deserve to Know

President Obama vs. Joe Sestak

President Clinton Refuses to Comment on Sestak Offer

Issa Questions Legality of Sestak Job Offer

Sestak Job Offer Judge Napolitano Sounds Off

Barack Obama has a history of getting competition in pollitical races off the balot.

The offer of job such as Secretary of Navy to Sestak by a representative of President Barack Obama if he removed himself from the race for Senator, would constitute a bribe and therefore would be an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Posted on May 29, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: American Revolution, Battle of Lexington, Bunker Hill, Founding Fathers, Glenn Beck |

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-D

Background Articles and Videos

US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus

“…The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz in history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2795017/Sharp-US-money-supply-contraction-points-to-Wall-Street-crunch-ahead.html

Sharp US money supply contraction points to Wall Street crunch ahead

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

“…The US money supply has experienced the sharpest contraction in modern history, heightening the risk of a Wall Street crunch and a severe economic slowdown in coming months.

Data compiled by Lombard Street Research shows that the M3 ”broad money” aggregates fell by almost $50bn (£26.8bn) in July, the biggest one-month fall since modern records began in 1959. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2795017/Sharp-US-money-supply-contraction-points-to-Wall-Street-crunch-ahead.html

US money supply contraction only comparable to Great Depression

“…The M3 money supply in the US is contracting at a rate that is only comparable with the period 1929-1933. This is the hidden killer that the global economy now faces.

M3 began shrinking last summer and the pace has accelerated since then, reported The Daily Telegraph yesterday. In the three months to the end of April M3 contracted by 9.6 per cent to $13.9 trillion, and institutional money market funds fell at a 37 per cent rate, the biggest ever fall. …”

http://www.arabianmoney.net/global-economics/2010/05/28/us-money-supply-contraction-only-comparable-to-great-depression/

Ron Paul at SRLC 10! (Part 1/3)

Ron Paul at SRLC 10! (Part 2/3)

Ron Paul at SRLC 10! (Part3/3)

the story of paper money 1 of 3

the story of paper money 2 of 3

the story of paper money 3 of 3

Consumer Price Index -April 2010

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) declined 0.1 percent in April, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months,
the index increased 2.2 percent before seasonal adjustment.

The index for energy decreased 1.4 percent in April and accounted for
the seasonally adjusted decline in the all items index. The indexes
for gasoline and natural gas both decreased significantly,
outweighing increases in the indexes for fuel oil and electricity.

The food index increased 0.2 percent in April, while the index for
all items less food and energy was unchanged. The index for meats,
poultry, fish, and eggs rose sharply in April and accounted for the
food increase; other grocery store food groups were mixed and the
index for food away from home rose slightly. Within all items less
food and energy, the indexes for recreation, airline fares, and
medical care all rose in April. Offsetting these increases were
declines in the indexes for apparel and for household furnishings and
operations. The continuing stability of the index for all items less
food and energy has resulted in an increase over the last 12 months
of 0.9 percent, the smallest 12-month increase since January 1966.

Table A. Percent changes in CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city
average


                                  Seasonally adjusted changes from
                                          preceding month
                                                                          Un-
                                                                       adjusted
                                                                        12-mos.
                              Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.   ended
                              2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010   Apr.
                                                                         2010

All items………………    .2    .2    .2    .2    .0    .1   -.1      2.2
Food………………….    .0    .1    .1    .2    .1    .2    .2       .5
   Food at home………….    .0    .0    .2    .4    .1    .5    .2       .0
   Food away from home (1)..    .1    .2    .1    .1    .1    .0    .1      1.1
Energy………………..    .6   2.2    .8   2.8   -.5    .0 -1.4     18.5
   Energy commodities…….    .4   3.0   1.6   4.9 -1.3 -1.0 -2.1     37.0
    Gasoline (all types)….    .3   2.7   2.3   4.4 -1.4   -.8 -2.4     38.3
    Fuel oil (1)…………   2.2   7.4    .0   6.1 -2.4    .7   2.3     28.0
   Energy services……….    .8   1.1   -.3    .0    .5   1.4   -.5      -.2
    Electricity………….    .8   1.2   -.2 -1.1   -.5   2.1    .7       .6
    Utility (piped) gas
       service…………..    .7    .9   -.7   3.5   3.9   -.7 -4.4     -2.9
All items less food and
     energy……………..    .2    .0    .1   -.1    .1    .0    .0       .9
   Commodities less food and
      energy commodities….    .4    .2    .1    .1   -.1   -.1   -.3      1.2
    New vehicles…………   1.4    .5   -.2   -.5    .1    .1    .0      2.5
    Used cars and trucks….   3.1   1.9   2.2   1.5    .7    .5    .2     16.6
    Apparel……………..   -.3   -.3    .4   -.1   -.7   -.4   -.7      -.9
    Medical care commodities
       (1)………………    .2    .1   -.1    .7    .8    .4    .2      3.5
   Services less energy
      services…………..    .1    .0    .1   -.2    .1    .1    .2       .8
    Shelter……………..    .0   -.2    .0   -.5    .0   -.1    .0      -.7
    Transportation services     .5    .5    .3   -.3    .4    .4    .4      3.9
    Medical care services…    .2    .3    .2    .5    .4    .3    .3      3.7

1 Not seasonally adjusted.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Background Articles and Videos

Mexican President Calderon Asks Congress to Pass Immigration Reform

Background Articles and Videos

Author David Goodwillie’s previous occupations

William Ayers On Hardball

Fox News: Weatherman Bill Ayers Was Obama’s “Mentor”

Ayers Victims Speak Out about GMA Interview

The Real Story of the Weathermen

FBI Agent Talking About Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers Slams the Media

Weather Underground speaks (part 2) -2/2

The Weather Underground

Background Articles and Videos

Calderon trashes AZ immigration law on White House lawn

Rick Moran

“…Such blatant interference in the internal affairs of another country would usually be met with outrage from the left if the US was guilty of it.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon began his state visit to the White House this morning with a shot at the Arizona immigration law and a plea for continental solidarity against organized crime.Calderon drew applause from the crowd gathered on the South Lawn at the arrival ceremony when he said too many Mexican immigrants are “still living here in the shadows with such laws as the Arizona law that is placing our people to face discrimination.” In his remarks, President Obama hailed the “Mexican-American families [who] have been here for centuries.” He said immigrants “strengthen our American family.” He appealed to Calderon to work with him to “ensure that our common border is secure, modern and efficient, including immigration that is orderly and safe.”

The arrogance of the Mexican government is truly astonishing – as if the US exists solely to benefit Mexico and their citizens. It will be this way until the US government decides that controlling the border is more important than bailing out the Mexican government whose desperate people flee here because their own corrupt, socialist economy can’t possibly create enough jobs to employ them all….”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/calderon_trashes_az_immigratio.html

Rush Limbaugh on Illegal Immigration

Arizona Immigration Law Backlash – Follow up

President Obama and President Calderón Press Availability

Background Articles and Videos

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Milton Friedman on The Gold Standard

Gold Standard

“… The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Three distinct kinds of gold standard can be identified. The gold specie standard is a system in which the monetary unit is associated with circulating gold coins, or with the unit of value defined in terms of one particular circulating gold coin in conjunction with subsidiary coinage made from a lesser valuable metal. The gold exchange standard may involve only the circulation of silver coins, or coins made of other metals, but the authorities will have guaranteed a fixed exchange rate with another country that is on the gold standard, hence creating a de facto gold standard, in that the value of the silver coins has a fixed external value in terms of gold that is independent of the inherent silver value. The gold bullion standard is a system in which gold coins do not actually circulate as such, but in which the authorities have agreed to sell gold bullion on demand at a fixed price in exchange for the circulating currency.

The gold specie standard

A gold specie standard existed in some of the great empires of earlier times, such as in the case of the Byzantine Empire which used a gold coin known as the Byzant. But with the ending of the Byzantine Empire, the civilized world tended to use the silver standard, such as in the case of the silver pennies that became the staple coin of Britain around the time of King Offa in the year 796 AD. The Spanish discovery of the great silver deposits at Potosi in the 16th century, led to an international silver standard in conjunction with the famous pieces of eight, which carried on in earnest until the nineteenth century. In modern times the British West Indies was one of the first regions to adopt a gold specie standard. The gold standard in the British West Indies, that followed from Queen Anne’s proclamation of 1704, was a ‘de facto’ gold standard based on the Spanish gold doubloon coin. In the year 1717, Sir Isaac Newton, who was master of the Royal Mint, established a new mint ratio as between silver and gold that had the effect of driving silver out of circulation and putting Britain on a gold standard. But it wasn’t until the year 1821, following the introduction of the gold sovereign coin by the new Royal Mint at Tower Hill in the year 1816, that the United Kingdom was formally put on a gold specie standard. The United Kingdom was the first of the great industrial powers to switch from the silver standard to a gold specie standard. Soon to follow was Canada in 1853, Newfoundland in 1865, and the USA and Germany ‘de jure’ in 1873. The USA used the American Gold Eagle as their unit, and Germany introduced the new gold mark, while Canada adopted a dual system based on both the American Gold Eagle and the British Gold Sovereign. Australia and New Zealand adopted the British gold standard, as did the British West Indies, while Newfoundland was the only British Empire territory to introduce its own gold coin as a standard. Royal Mint branches were established in Sydney, New South Wales, Melbourne, Victoria, and Perth, Western Australia for the purposes of minting gold sovereigns from Australia’s rich gold deposits.

The gold exchange standard

Towards the end of the nineteenth century some of the remaining silver standard countries began to peg their silver coin units to the gold standards of the United Kingdom or the USA. In 1898, British India pegged the silver rupee to the pound sterling at a fixed rate of 1s 4d, while in 1906, the Straits Settlements adopted a gold exchange standard against the pound sterling with the silver Straits dollar being fixed at 2s 4d. Meanwhile at the turn of the century, the Philippines pegged the silver Peso/dollar to the US dollar at 50 cents. A similar pegging at 50 cents occurred at around the same time with the silver Peso of Mexico and the silver Yen of Japan. When Siam adopted a gold exchange standard in 1908, this left only China and Hong Kong on the silver standard.

The gold bullion standard

The gold specie standard ended in the United Kingdom and the rest of the British Empire at the outbreak of World War I. Treasury notes replaced the circulation of the gold sovereigns and gold half sovereigns. However, legally the gold specie standard was not repealed. The end of the gold standard was successfully effected by appeals to patriotism when somebody would request the Bank of England to redeem their paper money for gold specie. It was only in the year 1925 when Britain returned to the gold standard in conjunction with Australia and South Africa, that the gold specie standard was officially ended. The British act of parliament that introduced the gold bullion standard in 1925 simultaneously repealed the gold specie standard. The new gold bullion standard did not envisage any return to the circulation of gold specie coins. Instead, the law compelled the authorities to sell gold bullion on demand at a fixed price. This gold bullion standard lasted until 1931. In 1931, the United Kingdom was forced to suspend the gold bullion standard due to large outflows of gold across the Atlantic Ocean. Australia and New Zealand had already been forced off the gold standard by the same pressures connected with the Great Depression, and Canada quickly followed suit with the United Kingdom. …”

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

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Social Justice

“…Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale. The term appeared before the 1800s,^[1] including in the Federalist Papers and Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire‎. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. The concept was further expanded upon by John Rawls beginning in the 1960s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.

Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of group rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. …”

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

The Rise of Social Democracy [David Gordon]

Community Panel on Social Justice

Glenn Beck Predictions Coming True vs. Barack Obama’s Delusional Lies–The Obama Depression Road To Socialism and Revolution

Glenn Beck On Crime Inc and Subversion of The United States of America–Videos

G. Edward Griffin–Hidden Agenda–Videos

Glenn Beck On Maurice Strong and The American Power Act–The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Repackaged–A Huge Tax Increase–Skyrocketing Prices!

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

Maurice Strong–Videos

Glenn Beck–The Obama Con and Crimes Continue–American Citizen Tax Money Bailing Out Greece–Time To Throw The Progressive Radical Socialist Democrats Out Of Office!

The Coming Massive Failure of Progressive/Liberal Democrat State and Local Government Debt Obligations–No Federal Bailouts By American Taxpayers!

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Glenn Beck On Crime Inc., The Crime of The Century, and Crushing Capitalism and Consumer Sovereignty!–

Glenn Beck On The Rule of Law Or The Rule of Few By Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Glenn Beck Exposes The Crime of The Century By The Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party–The Global Warming Investment Fraud, Political Scam and Science Scandal–Extorting and Robbing The American People–Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Case!

These Boots Are Meant To Walk All Over You–Obama and Progressive Radical Socialist Salazar and Gibbs On Federal Government Boot On The Neck/Throat of British Petroleum/BP and American People!

What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Progressive Radical Socialist–Not Neo-Socialist–With Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

Obama’s Enemies List: Glenn Beck Exposes The Progressive Radical Socialist Attack On American People and Freedom Of Speech–Not Racist, Not Violent, Not Silent Anymore!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!

Glenn Beck’s Documentary On The Collectivists: Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Fascists, National Socialists–Progressive Radical Socialists of The Democratic and Republican Parties!

Cap and Trade

Glenn Beck Exposes The Crime of The Century By The Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party–The Global Warming Investment Fraud, Political Scam and Science Scandal–Extorting and Robbing The American People–Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Case!

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Global Warming Is Caused By Man: The Arrogance of Man–The Wrath Of Mother Nature–

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–A Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade Bill to be Voted in U.S. House on Friday–Kill The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Today! UPDATED

Green Government Gestapo Goons: Global Warming Police Force Invades Your Home And Living in Your Home May Be A Crime!

White House Memo: Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant and A Cap And Trade Program (Carbon Dioxide Tax) Serious Economic Impact –The Smoking Gun Video!

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov: Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck Predictions Coming True vs. Barack Obama’s Delusional Lies–The Obama Depression Road To Socialism and Revolution

Posted on May 18, 2010. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Transportation, Video, Wisdom | Tags: Economic Predictions, Exit Strategy, Financial Crisis, Obama Depression |

Glenn Beck-05/17/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/17/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/17/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/17/10-D

Background Articles and Videos

George Whitefield

“…George Whitefield (pronounced /ˈhwɪtfiːld/) (December 16, 1714 – September 30, 1770), also known as George Whitfield, was an Anglican itinerant minister who helped spread the Great Awakening in Great Britain and, especially, in the British North American colonies.

Early life

Whitefield was born at the bell Inn, Southgate Street, Gloucester^[1] in England. An influential figure in the establishment of Methodism, Whitefield was famous for his preaching in British North America, which was a significant factor in an 18th-century movement of Christian revivals there sometimes called “The Great Awakening.”

Whitefield was the son of a widow who kept an inn at Gloucester. At an early age, he found that he had a passion and talent for acting in the theatre, a passion that he would carry on through the very theatrical re-enactments of Bible stories that he told during his sermons. He was educated at the Crypt School, Gloucester, and Pembroke College, Oxford. Because Whitefield came from a poor background, he did not have the means to pay for his tuition. He therefore entered Oxford as a servitor, the lowest rank of students at Oxford. In return for free tuition, he was assigned as a servant to a number of higher ranked students. His duties included waking them in the morning, polishing their shoes, carrying their books and even assisting with required written assignments.^[2] He was a part of the ‘Holy Club’ at Oxford University with the Wesley brothers, John and Charles. After reading Henry Scougal’s The Life of God in the Soul of Man he became very religious. Following a religious conversion, he became very passionate for preaching his new-found faith. The Bishop of Gloucester ordained him before the canonical age.

Travels and evangelism

“Whitefield was a celebrity in his time and is considered by many to be the founder of the evangelical movement.”^[3] Whitefield preached his first sermon in the Crypt Church in his home town of Gloucester a week after his ordination. He had earlier become the leader of the Holy Club at Oxford when the Wesley brothers departed for Georgia. He adopted the practice of Howell Harris of preaching in the open-air at Hanham Mount, near Kingswood, Bristol. In 1738, before going to America, where he became parish priest of Savannah, Georgia he invited John Wesley to preach in the open-air for the first time at Kingswood and then Blackheath, London. After a short stay in Georgia he returned home in the following year to receive priest’s orders, resuming his open-air evangelistic activities.

Whitefield accepted the Church of England doctrine of predestination but disagreed with the Wesley brothers views on slavery and of the doctrine of Arminianism. As a result the Wesley brothers pursued their own religious movement.[citation needed] Whitefield formed and was the president of the first Methodist conference. At an early date Whitefield decided to concentrate on evangelistic work and relinquished the position.

Three churches were established in England in his name: one in Bristol and two others, the “Moorfields Tabernacle” and the “Tottenham Court Road Chapel”, in London. Later the society meeting at the second Kingswood School at Kingswood, a town on the eastern edge of Bristol, was also called Whitefield’s Tabernacle. Whitefield acted as chaplain to Selina, Countess of Huntingdon and some of his followers joined the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion, whose chapels were paid for at her sole expense and where a form of Calvinistic Methodism similar to Whitefield’s could be spread. Many of these chapels were built in the English counties and Wales, and one was erected in London — the Spa Fields Chapel.

In 1739 Whitefield returned to England to raise funds to establish the Bethesda Orphanage, which is the oldest extant charity in North America. On returning to North America he preached a series of revivals that came to be known as the Great Awakening of 1740. He preached nearly every day for months to large crowds of sometimes several thousand people as he travelled throughout the colonies, especially New England. His journey on horseback from New York City to Charleston was the longest then undertaken in North America by a white man.

Like his contemporary and acquaintance, Jonathan Edwards, Whitefield preached with a staunchly Calvinist theology that was in line with the “moderate Calvinism” of the Thirty-nine Articles.^[4] While explicitly affirming God’s sole agency in salvation, Whitefield would freely offer the Gospel, saying near the end of most of his published sermons something like: “Come poor, lost, undone sinner, come just as you are to Christ.”^{[5] …”}

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

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (1 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (2 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (3 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (4 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (5 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (6 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (7 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (8 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (9 of 10)

J.C. Ryle – Biography of George Whitefield (10 of 10)

Background Articles and Videos

Elizabeth Bentley

“…Elizabeth Terrill Bentley (January 1, 1908 – December 3, 1963) was an American spy for the Soviet Union from 1938 until 1945. In 1945 she defected from the Communist Party and Soviet intelligence and became an informer for the U.S. She exposed two networks of spies, ultimately naming over 80 Americans who had engaged in espionage for the Soviets.^[1] When her testimony became public in 1948, it became a media sensation and had a major effect on the popular anti-communism of the McCarthy era.^{[2] …”}

“…In a series of debriefing interviews with the FBI beginning November 7, 1945, Bentley implicated close to 150 people in spying for the Soviet Union,^[28] including 37 federal employees. The FBI already suspected many of those she named, and some of them had been named by earlier defectors Igor Gouzenko and Whittaker Chambers, so the FBI was fairly confident that her story was genuine. They gave her the code name “Gregory,” and J. Edgar Hoover ordered the strictest secrecy measures be taken to hide her identity and defection. Hoover advised Sir William Stephenson, head of British Security Coordination for the Western hemisphere, of Bentley’s defection, and Stephenson duly notified London. Unfortunately, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service’s (SIS or “MI6″) new Section IX (counter-espionage against the Soviet Union), was the Soviet double agent Kim Philby, who would flee to the Soviet Union in 1963. Philby promptly alerted Moscow, which immediately shut down all contact with Bentley’s people, just as the FBI was beginning surveillance of them.^[29] Bentley’s NKGB contact Gorsky once again recommended to Moscow that she be “liquidated”, and again Moscow rejected the idea.^[30]

The breach of secrecy around Bentley’s defection foiled a year-long attempt by the FBI to have her act as a double agent. Additionally, because of the shutdown of Soviet espionage activity, the FBI surveillance of the agents Bentley had named turned up no evidence that could be used to prosecute them.^[31] Some 250 FBI agents were assigned to the Bentley case, following up the leads she had provided and, through phone tap, surveillance and mail openings, investigating people she had named. The FBI, grand juries and congressional committees would eventually interview many of these alleged spies, but all of them would either invoke their Fifth Amendment right not to testify or maintain their innocence.

For J. Edgar Hoover and a few highly placed FBI and army intelligence personnel, the definitive corroboration of Bentley’s story came some time in the late 1940s to early 1950s, when the highly secret Venona project succeeded in decrypting some wartime cables sent between Soviet intelligence agents and Moscow. In these cables, Bentley was referred to by the codename she told to the FBI, and several of her contacts and documents she had collected were discussed.^[32]^[33] However, Venona was considered so secret that the US Government was unwilling to expose it by allowing it to be used as evidence in any trial. In fact, even presidents Roosevelt and Harry Truman were unaware of Venona; when Hoover delivered intelligence reports based on Venona data, the source of the information was not named. …”

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

Background Articles and Videos

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 1/7

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 2/7

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 3/7

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 4/7

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 5/7

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 6/7

Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 7/7

Maurice Strong

“…Maurice F. Strong (born 1929) “was named Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank in June 1995. From December 1992 until December 1995, Mr. Strong was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Hydro, North America’s largest utility. Until September 1992, Mr. Strong was Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations. During 1985 and 1986, he served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and Executive Coordinator of the United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Africa and was a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Born in Canada and a resident of Toronto, Canada, Mr. Strong has longstanding ties with both the private and public sectors. Mr. Strong served as the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment from November 1970 to December 1972, and subsequently became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, Kenya (January 1973-December 1975). He was then appointed President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Canada’s national oil company, Petro-Canada. He also has been President of Power Corporation of Canada, first President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre (IDCR) in Canada. Mr. Strong is an advisor to the United Nations, and serves on the board of several other public service organizations. He has been a director and/or officer of a number of Canadian, U.S. and international corporations.

“He has received a number of awards and honours including the Order of Canada, the Swedish Royal Order of the Polar Star, and honourary doctorates from 37 universities. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society (U.K.), the Royal Society of Canada and the Royal Architectural Society of Canada.Mr. Strong was born 29 April 1929, and educated in Manitoba, Canada. He is married to Hanne Marstrand and has four children, a foster child and eight grandchildren. His current appointments include: ^[1]

Under-Secretary General and Special Advisor to the Secretary-General, United Nations
Special Advisor to the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme
Chairman, Earth Council Institute
Chairman, International Advisory Board, CH2M Hill Group Inc.
Director, Foundation Board, World Economic Forum
Director, The Human Society of the United States
Member, Toyota International Advisory Board
Director, Zenon Environmental Inc.
Advisory Council, LEAD International ^[2]

Past appointments include:

Special Advisor to the President, World Bank
1998-2001 Mamber International Advisory Board, Federation of Korean Industry
1992-1995 Chairman, Ontario Hydro
1992 Secretary General, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
1985-1986 Executive Coordinator, United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Africa
1983-1987 Member World Commission on Environment and Development
1976-1978 President, Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Executive Committee, Petro-Canada
1973-1975 Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
1970-1972 Secretary-General, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
1970-1972, 1976-1980, Chairman, Board of Governors, International Development Research Centre, Membmer of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum
1966-1970 Headed Canada’s International Development Assistance Program as Director-General of the External Aid Office, and later as President and Chairman of the Board of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
1966-1970 Alternate Governor for Canada- International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), Chairman, Bureau of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources …”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_Strong

The American Power Act
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

“…After nearly a year spent trying to craft a tripartisan (Kerry-Graham-Lieberman) bill aiming to cut America’s contribution to the global greenhouse and reliance on fossil fuels, the remaining bill authors, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, have rolled out the “American Power Act” today.

As always, there are three questions.

Can it pass? Even with the added energy focus from the continuing oil eruption in the Gulf of Mexico, this appears very unlikely, according to a heap of analysts more attuned to Beltway machinations than I am.

Will it succeed? That depends on your definition of success, of course. The text and summaries circulating on the Web show that the bill contains plenty of mechanisms — some dubious — aimed at easing the path toward achieving the 2020 target of a 17-percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels. The long-term target of an 80-percent cut in emissions by 2050 is in the realm of fantasy baseball so is not worth pondering.

Will it matter? If it somehow becomes law and its provisions get carried out, will the bill matter in the broader context of global climate change and emissions trends? My sense is, with climate, the world is in the realm where a “ nudge” matters. Even with all the compromises aimed at political consensus, the bill would surely create more incentives for speeding deployment of energy options other than conventional burning of coal and oil. Yes, there will be more money for research on energy frontiers. But given that most revenues generated by the bill are slated to be sent back to consumers to blunt its impact on wallets, it’s hard to perceive this effort as sparking the kind of energy quest needed to decarbonize a world heading toward roughly 9 billion people seeking lives enabled by abundant energy. Still, a vote against the bill is, in essence, a vote for stasis unless naysaying lawmakers propose a serious new approach. …”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/the-american-power-act/?hp

**Table 8.1A – Types of Illicit Drug Use in Lifetime among Persons Aged 12 or Older: Numbers in Thousands, 2002-2008**
Drug	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Low precision; no estimate reported. ^a Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^b Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ¹ Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically. Illicit Drugs Other Than Marijuana include cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically. The estimates for Nonmedical Use of Psychotherapeutics, Stimulants, and Methamphetamine incorporated in these summary estimates do not include data from the methamphetamine items added in 2005 and 2006. See Section B.4.8 in Appendix B of the Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings*. ² Nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutics includes the nonmedical use of pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives and does not include over-the-counter drugs. ³ Estimates of Nonmedical Use of Psychotherapeutics, Stimulants, and Methamphetamine in the designated rows include data from methamphetamine items added in 2005 and 2006 and are not comparable with estimates presented in NSDUH reports prior to the 2007 National Findings report. For the 2002 through 2005 survey years, a Bernoulli stochastic imputation procedure was used to generate adjusted estimates comparable with estimates for survey years 2006 and later. See Section B.4.8 in Appendix B of the Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
ILLICIT DRUGS¹	108,255^b	110,205^b	110,057^b	112,085^b	111,774^b	114,275^a	117,325
Marijuana and Hashish	94,946^b	96,611^b	96,772^b	97,545^b	97,825^b	100,518	102,404
Cocaine	33,910^b	34,891^a	34,153^b	33,673^b	35,298	35,882	36,773
Crack	8,402	7,949	7,840	7,928	8,554	8,581	8,445
Heroin	3,668	3,744	3,145^a	3,534	3,785	3,780	3,788
Hallucinogens	34,314	34,363	34,333	33,728^a	35,281	34,215^a	35,963
LSD	24,516	24,424	23,398	22,433	23,346	22,656	23,547
PCP	7,418	7,107	6,762	6,603	6,618	6,140	6,631
Ecstasy	10,150^b	10,904^b	11,130^b	11,495^b	12,262	12,426	12,924
Inhalants	22,870	22,995	22,798	22,745	22,879	22,477	22,274
Nonmedical Use of Psychotherapeutics^2,3	47,958^b	49,001^b	49,157^b	49,571^a	50,965	50,415	51,970
Pain Relievers	29,611^b	31,207^b	31,768^b	32,692^b	33,472	33,060^a	34,861
OxyContin^®	1,924^b	2,832^b	3,072^b	3,481^b	4,098^b	4,354	4,842
Tranquilizers	19,267^b	20,220	19,852^a	21,041	21,303	20,208	21,476
Stimulants³	23,496^b	23,004^a	22,297	20,983	22,468	21,654	21,206
Methamphetamine³	15,365^b	15,139^b	14,512^b	12,663	14,206^b	13,065	12,598
Sedatives	9,960^a	9,510	9,891	8,982	8,822	8,396	8,882
ILLICIT DRUGS OTHER THAN MARIJUANA¹	70,300^b	71,128^b	70,657^b	71,822^b	72,906^a	73,494	75,573

**Table 8.1B – Types of Illicit Drug Use in Lifetime among Persons Aged 12 or Older: Percentages, 2002-2008**
Drug	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Low precision; no estimate reported. ^a Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^b Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ¹ Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically. Illicit Drugs Other Than Marijuana include cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically. The estimates for Nonmedical Use of Psychotherapeutics, Stimulants, and Methamphetamine incorporated in these summary estimates do not include data from the methamphetamine items added in 2005 and 2006. See Section B.4.8 in Appendix B of the Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings*. ² Nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutics includes the nonmedical use of pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives and does not include over-the-counter drugs. ³ Estimates of Nonmedical Use of Psychotherapeutics, Stimulants, and Methamphetamine in the designated rows include data from methamphetamine items added in 2005 and 2006 and are not comparable with estimates presented in NSDUH reports prior to the 2007 National Findings report. For the 2002 through 2005 survey years, a Bernoulli stochastic imputation procedure was used to generate adjusted estimates comparable with estimates for survey years 2006 and later. See Section B.4.8 in Appendix B of the Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
ILLICIT DRUGS¹	46.0	46.4	45.8^a	46.1	45.4^b	46.1	47.0
Marijuana and Hashish	40.4	40.6	40.2	40.1	39.8^a	40.6	41.0
Cocaine	14.4	14.7	14.2	13.8^a	14.3	14.5	14.7
Crack	3.6	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.5	3.5	3.4
Heroin	1.6	1.6	1.3	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
Hallucinogens	14.6	14.5	14.3	13.9	14.3	13.8	14.4
LSD	10.4^b	10.3^b	9.7	9.2	9.5	9.1	9.4
PCP	3.2^b	3.0	2.8	2.7	2.7	2.5	2.7
Ecstasy	4.3^b	4.6^b	4.6^b	4.7^a	5.0	5.0	5.2
Inhalants	9.7^b	9.7^b	9.5^a	9.4	9.3	9.1	8.9
Nonmedical Use of Psychotherapeutics^2,3	20.4	20.6	20.4	20.4	20.7	20.3	20.8
Pain Relievers	12.6^b	13.1^a	13.2^a	13.4	13.6	13.3	14.0
OxyContin^®	0.8^b	1.2^b	1.3^b	1.4^b	1.7^b	1.8	1.9
Tranquilizers	8.2	8.5	8.3	8.7	8.7	8.2	8.6
Stimulants³	10.0^b	9.7^b	9.3^b	8.6	9.1^a	8.7	8.5
Methamphetamine³	6.5^b	6.4^b	6.0^b	5.2	5.8^b	5.3	5.0
Sedatives	4.2^b	4.0^a	4.1^a	3.7	3.6	3.4	3.6
ILLICIT DRUGS OTHER THAN MARIJUANA¹	29.9	29.9	29.4	29.5	29.6	29.7	30.3

**Table 8.22A – Tobacco Product and Alcohol Use in the Past Month among Persons Aged 12 or Older, by Gender: Numbers in Thousands, 2002-2008**
Gender/Substance	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
*Low precision; no estimate reported. ^a Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^b Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ¹ Tobacco Products include cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (i.e., chewing tobacco or snuff), cigars, or pipe tobacco. ² Binge Alcohol Use is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion (i.e., at the same time or within a couple of hours of each other) on at least 1 day in the past 30 days. Heavy Alcohol Use is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of 5 or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users are also binge alcohol users. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
TOTAL
TOBACCO PRODUCTS¹	71,499	70,757	70,257	71,519	72,873	70,939	70,868
Cigarettes	61,136	60,434	59,896	60,532	61,565	60,069	59,781
Smokeless Tobacco	7,787^a	7,725^a	7,154^b	7,682^a	8,231	8,051	8,670
Cigars	12,751	12,837	13,727	13,640	13,708	13,263	13,126
Pipe Tobacco	1,816	1,619	1,835	2,190	2,321^a	2,046	1,877
ALCOHOL	119,820^b	118,965^b	120,934^b	126,028^a	125,309^b	126,760	128,974
Binge Alcohol Use²	53,787^b	53,770^b	54,725^b	55,090^b	56,575	57,778	58,096
Heavy Alcohol Use²	15,860^a	16,144^a	16,689	16,035^a	16,946	17,010	17,292
MALE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS¹	41,991	41,288	41,569	42,175	43,389	42,369	41,881
Cigarettes	32,636	32,263	32,278	32,312	33,220	32,607	31,942
Smokeless Tobacco	7,242^a	7,096^b	6,730^b	7,174^b	7,843	7,589	8,215
Cigars	10,669	10,372	11,375	11,355	11,092	10,940	10,900
Pipe Tobacco	1,487	1,400	1,579	1,877^a	2,023^a	1,797	1,486
ALCOHOL	65,210^b	65,927^b	66,317^b	68,497	68,025^a	68,088^a	69,989
Binge Alcohol Use²	35,456^b	35,565^b	36,195^b	36,025^b	37,298	38,128	38,292
Heavy Alcohol Use²	12,216	11,958	12,388	12,172	12,775	12,786	12,882
FEMALE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS¹	29,509	29,469	28,688	29,344	29,484	28,570	28,986
Cigarettes	28,500	28,171	27,618	28,220	28,345	27,462	27,839
Smokeless Tobacco	545	628	424	508	388	461	455
Cigars	2,082	2,465	2,352	2,285	2,616^a	2,323	2,226
Pipe Tobacco	330	219^b	256	313	298	249^a	391
ALCOHOL	54,610^b	53,038^b	54,616^b	57,531	57,283	58,672	58,986
Binge Alcohol Use²	18,331^a	18,205^b	18,530^a	19,065	19,276	19,651	19,805
Heavy Alcohol Use²	3,645^b	4,186	4,301	3,863^a	4,172	4,225	4,410

**Table 8.22B – Tobacco Product and Alcohol Use in the Past Month among Persons Aged 12 or Older, by Gender: Percentages, 2002-2008**
Gender/Substance	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
*Low precision; no estimate reported. ^a Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^b Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ¹ Tobacco Products include cigarettes, smokeless tobacco (i.e., chewing tobacco or snuff), cigars, or pipe tobacco. ² Binge Alcohol Use is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion (i.e., at the same time or within a couple of hours of each other) on at least 1 day in the past 30 days. Heavy Alcohol Use is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of 5 or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users are also binge alcohol users. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
TOTAL
TOBACCO PRODUCTS¹	30.4^b	29.8^b	29.2	29.4^a	29.6^a	28.6	28.4
Cigarettes	26.0^b	25.4^b	24.9^a	24.9^a	25.0^a	24.2	23.9
Smokeless Tobacco	3.3	3.3	3.0^b	3.2	3.3	3.2	3.5
Cigars	5.4	5.4	5.7^a	5.6	5.6	5.4	5.3
Pipe Tobacco	0.8	0.7	0.8	0.9	0.9^a	0.8	0.8
ALCOHOL	51.0	50.1^b	50.3^a	51.8	50.9	51.1	51.6
Binge Alcohol Use²	22.9	22.6	22.8	22.7	23.0	23.3	23.3
Heavy Alcohol Use²	6.7	6.8	6.9	6.6	6.9	6.9	6.9
MALE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS¹	37.0^b	35.9	35.7	35.8	36.4^a	35.2	34.5
Cigarettes	28.7^b	28.1^b	27.7^a	27.4	27.8^a	27.1	26.3
Smokeless Tobacco	6.4	6.2	5.8^b	6.1^a	6.6	6.3	6.8
Cigars	9.4	9.0	9.8^a	9.6	9.3	9.1	9.0
Pipe Tobacco	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.6^a	1.7^b	1.5	1.2
ALCOHOL	57.4	57.3	56.9	58.1	57.0	56.6	57.7
Binge Alcohol Use²	31.2	30.9	31.1	30.5	31.2	31.7	31.6
Heavy Alcohol Use²	10.8	10.4	10.6	10.3	10.7	10.6	10.6
FEMALE
TOBACCO PRODUCTS¹	24.3^b	24.0^a	23.1	23.4	23.3	22.4	22.5
Cigarettes	23.4^b	23.0^a	22.3	22.5	22.4	21.5	21.7
Smokeless Tobacco	0.4	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.4
Cigars	1.7	2.0^a	1.9	1.8	2.1^a	1.8	1.7
Pipe Tobacco	0.3	0.2^a	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.2^a	0.3
ALCOHOL	44.9	43.2^b	44.0^a	45.9	45.2	46.0	45.9
Binge Alcohol Use²	15.1	14.8	14.9	15.2	15.2	15.4	15.4
Heavy Alcohol Use²	3.0^a	3.4	3.5	3.1	3.3	3.3	3.4

Table 8.41A – Received Illicit Drug Treatment at a Specialty Facility in the Past Year among Persons Aged 12 or Older Who Needed Illicit Drug Treatment in the Past Year, by Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics: Numbers in Thousands, 2002-2008
Demographic/Socioeconomic Characteristic	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
*Low precision; no estimate reported. – Not available. NOTE: Respondents were classified as needing treatment for an illicit drug problem if they met at least one of three criteria during the past year: (1) dependent on illicit drugs; (2) abuse of illicit drugs; or (3) received treatment for illicit drug use at a specialty facility (i.e., drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility [inpatient or outpatient], hospital [inpatient], or mental health center). Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically, based on data from original questions not including methamphetamine items added in 2005 and 2006. NOTE: Estimates shown on this table correspond to Healthy People 2010 Objective Number 26-18a (http://www.healthypeople.gov/). ^a Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^b Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ¹ These racial categories do not distinguish among ethnic origin (i.e., Hispanic or Latino origin), so they include respondents who are either Hispanic or not Hispanic. ² Estimates are based on a definition of Poverty Level that incorporates information on family income, size, and composition and is calculated as a percentage of the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
TOTAL	1,412	1,103	1,427	1,280	1,576^a	1,343	1,209
RACE¹
American Indian or Alaska Native	*	*	8	*	*	*	*
Asian or Pacific Islander	13	*	*	*	*	*	*
Asian Only	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Only	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Black or African American	289	205	336^a	345^a	361^a	249	163
White	1,056	829	983	892	1,155	1,024	987
Two or More Races	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
HISPANIC ORIGIN AND RACE
Hispanic or Latino	172	89	142	182	304^a	91	130
Not Hispanic or Latino	1,240	1,014	1,285	1,098	1,272	1,253	1,079
Black or African American	285	202	334^a	343^a	299^a	245	162
White	894	757	845	722	919	943	867
GENDER
Male	826	732	914	748	979^a	917	712
Female	587	371	513	532	597	427	497
POVERTY LEVEL (% of Census Bureau Poverty Threshold)²
Less Than 100%	–	–	–	451	524	387	384
100-199%	–	–	–	301	361	272	333
200% or More	–	–	–	522	689	682	490
AGE GROUP
12-17	142	113	134	142	136	111	111
18 or Older	1,270	990	1,293	1,139	1,440^a	1,232	1,098

Table 8.41B – Received Illicit Drug Treatment at a Specialty Facility in the Past Year among Persons Aged 12 or Older Who Needed Illicit Drug Treatment in the Past Year, by Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics: Percentages, 2002-2008
Demographic/Socioeconomic Characteristic	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
*Low precision; no estimate reported. – Not available. NOTE: Respondents were classified as needing treatment for an illicit drug problem if they met at least one of three criteria during the past year: (1) dependent on illicit drugs; (2) abuse of illicit drugs; or (3) received treatment for illicit drug use at a specialty facility (i.e., drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility [inpatient or outpatient], hospital [inpatient], or mental health center). Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically, based on data from original questions not including methamphetamine items added in 2005 and 2006. NOTE: Estimates shown on this table correspond to Healthy People 2010 Objective Number 26-18a (http://www.healthypeople.gov/). ^a Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. ^b Difference between estimate and 2008 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ¹ These racial categories do not distinguish among ethnic origin (i.e., Hispanic or Latino origin), so they include respondents who are either Hispanic or not Hispanic. ² Estimates are based on a definition of Poverty Level that incorporates information on family income, size, and composition and is calculated as a percentage of the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
TOTAL	18.2	15.0	17.7	17.0	20.3^a	17.8	16.0
RACE¹
American Indian or Alaska Native	*	*	5.8	*	*	*	*
Asian or Pacific Islander	9.0	*	*	*	*	*	*
Asian Only	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Only	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Black or African American	22.1	21.1	26.2^a	24.7^a	25.8^a	20.8	13.8
White	17.4	14.0	15.8	15.6	19.6	17.3	16.4
Two or More Races	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
HISPANIC ORIGIN AND RACE
Hispanic or Latino	14.9	8.4	12.7	19.4	24.0^a	9.6	12.0
Not Hispanic or Latino	18.8	16.1	18.5	16.6	19.6	19.0	16.6
Black or African American	22.8	21.4	26.4^a	25.0^a	22.9	20.9	14.1
White	17.9	15.3	16.4	14.9	19.2	18.7	17.2
GENDER
Male	17.0	16.0	18.1	16.2	19.8	18.4	16.2
Female	20.4	13.4	17.1	18.2	21.3^a	16.8	15.7
POVERTY LEVEL (% of Census Bureau Poverty Threshold)²
Less Than 100%	–	–	–	24.3	28.2	22.6	23.2
100-199%	–	–	–	17.7	20.8	17.9	19.1
200% or More	–	–	–	13.3	16.8^a	16.1	12.0
AGE GROUP
12-17	10.1	8.5	9.6	11.3	11.2	9.9	9.3
18 or Older	20.1	16.5	19.4	18.1	22.0^a	19.2	17.2

Background Articles and Videos

Thucydides

“…Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 395 BC) (Greek Θουκυδίδης, Thoukydídēs) was a Greek historian and author of the History of the Peloponnesian War, which recounts the 5th century BC war between Sparta and Athens to the year 411 BC. Thucydides has been dubbed the father of “scientific history” because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods, as outlined in his introduction to his work.^[1]

He has also been called the father of the school of political realism, which views the relations between nations as based on might rather than right.^[2] His classical text is still studied at advanced military colleges worldwide, and the Melian dialogue remains a seminal work of international relations theory.

More generally, Thucydides showed an interest in developing an understanding of human nature to explain behaviour in such crises as plague, massacres, as in that of the Melians, and civil war. …”

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

Overview of Drug Use in the United States

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), estimates the prevalence of illicit drug use in the United States. Some of the more notable statistics from the 2004 study follow.

An estimated 19.1 million Americans age 12 years or older were current users of illicit drugs in 2004, meaning they used an illicit drug at least once during the 30 days prior to being interviewed. This represents 7.9% of the population 12–17 years. The rate declined slightly between 2002 and 2004 (8.3% in 2002 and 8.2% in 2003).
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, with a rate of 6.1% (14.6 million current users). There were 2.0 million current cocaine users, 467,000 of whom used crack. Hallucinogens were used by 929,000 people, and there were an estimated 166,000 heroin users. All of these estimates are similar to estimates for 2003.
Between 2002 and 2004, past-month marijuana use declined for male youths aged 12 to 17 (9.1% in 2002, 8.6% in 2003, and 8.1% in 2004), but it remained level for female youths (7.2%, 7.2%, and 7.1%, respectively) during the same time span.
The number of current users of Ecstasy (MDMA) had decreased between 2002 and 2003, from 676,000 to 470,000, but the number did not change between 2003 and 2004 (450,000).
In 2004, 6.0 million persons were current users of psychotherapeutic drugs taken nonmedically (2.5%). These include 4.4 million who used pain relievers, 1.6 million who used tranquilizers, 1.2 million who used stimulants, and 0.3 million who used sedatives. These estimates are all similar to the corresponding estimates for 2003.
Among youths aged 12 to 17, rates of current illicit drug use varied significantly by major racial/ethnic groups in 2004. The rate was highest among American Indian or Alaska Native youths (26.0%). Rates were 12.2% for youths reporting two or more races, 11.1% for white youths, 10.2% for Hispanic youths, 9.3% for black youths, and 6.0% for Asian youths.
In 2004, 19.2% of unemployed adults aged 18 or older were current illicit drug users compared with 8.0% of those employed full time and 10.3% of those employed part time. However, of the 16.4 million illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2004, 12.3 million (75.2%) were employed either full or part time.
About 22.5 million Americans aged 12 or older in 2004 were classified with past year substance dependence or abuse (9.4% of the population), about the same number as in 2002 and 2003. Of these, 3.4 million were classified with dependence on or abuse of both alcohol and illicit drugs, 3.9 million were dependent on or abused illicit drugs but not alcohol, and 15.2 million were dependent on or abused alcohol but not illicit drugs.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880105.html

The economics of drug prohibition and drug legalization

Social Research, Fall, 2001 by Jeffrey A. Miron

“…the paper first presents an economic analysis of drug prohibition and demonstrates how drug markets under prohibition compare to drug markets under legalization. The analysis shows that many negative outcomes typically attributed to drugs are the result of prohibition, and it explains why these outcomes would be reduced or eliminated under legalization. This analysis does not by itself imply that legalization is preferable to prohibition; the analysis suggests that one effect of prohibition is reduced consumption of drugs, and under some views this is a desirable outcome. The analysis simply makes clear that some features of drug markets and drug use are the result of drug prohibition–independent of the physical or pharmacological properties of drugs–and it provides a framework for thinking about the consequences of alternative policies.

The second part of the paper discusses the conditions under which drug prohibition is likely to be the right public policy response to the negative outcomes that can accompany drug use. Since most effects of prohibition are undesirable, the main potential benefit of prohibition is any reduction in drug consumption relative to what would occur under legalization. I discuss different perspectives on drug consumption and how these relate to the virtues, or not, of prohibition. The discussion explains that standard arguments used to justify policies to reduce drug consumption are less compelling than commonly asserted, even though drug use causes substantial harm in some cases. The discussion also explains that, even if reducing drug use is an appropriate public policy goal, other methods for reducing drug consumption are available that potentially achieve a better balance between the harms of drug use and the harms of drug policy.

The paper’s third section discusses alternatives to prohibition and legalization, such as sin taxation, subsidized treatment, medical provision of drugs, needle exchanges, and public health campaigns. Many of these policies can and do coexist with prohibition or legalization, but they are distinct policies that require separate analysis. I show that each policy has positive and negative aspects, and that evaluation of each depends on views about drug consumption and on relevant evidence. …”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_3_68/ai_80310014/

Consumer Sovereignty

Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of consumers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use the this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. ^[1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically chooses to buy a good or service. Furthermore, the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence — or even the ubiquity — of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces.

The term “consumer sovereignty” was coined by William Hutt who firstly used it in his 1936 book “Economists and the Public”.

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

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck–The Obama Con and Crimes Continue–American Citizen Tax Money Bailing Out Greece–Time To Throw The Progressive Radical Socialist Democrats Out Of Office!

Posted on May 11, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video | Tags: American people, Bailouts, Greece, High Crimes, Obama, President Barack Obama |

Glenn Beck-05/11/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/11/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/11/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/11/10-D

Background Articles and Videos

Alex Jones Calls Glenn Beck Out !! 1/2

Alex Jones Calls Glenn Beck Out !! 2/2

Alex Jones – Glenn Beck Pt8

Backgrund Articles and Videos

Immigration Gumballs

Right Anthem

Thomas Sowell – Obama’s Vision

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

The Use of Knowledge in Society

American Economic Review, 1945

“…What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions the answer is simple enough. If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic. That is, the answer to the question of what is the best use of the available means is implicit in our assumptions. The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form: put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses.

This, however, is emphatically not the economic problem which society faces. And the economic calculus which we have developed to solve this logical problem, though an important step toward the solution of the economic problem of society, does not yet provide an answer to it. The reason for this is that the “data” from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society “given” to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given.

The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality. …”

“…The problem is thus in no way solved if we can show that all the facts, if they were known to a single mind (as we hypothetically assume them to be given to the observing economist), would uniquely determine the solution; instead we must show how a solution is produced by the interactions of people each of whom possesses only partial knowledge. To assume all the knowledge to be given to a single mind in the same manner in which we assume it to be given to us as the explaining economists is to assume the problem away and to disregard everything that is important and significant in the real world. …”

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

President Obama at Hampton University whitehouse

Teacher Calls For Mexican War on the U.S.

Background Articles and Videos

Bullying

“…Bullying is a form of abuse. It comprises repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful individual or group abusing those who are less powerful.^[2] The power imbalance may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target.

Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as psychological manipulation. Bullying can be defined in many different ways. Although the UK currently has no legal definition of bullying,^[3] some US states have laws against it.^[4]

Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse.^[5] Robert W. Fuller has analyzed bullying in the context of rankism.

Bullying can occur in any context in which human beings interact with each other. This includes school, church, the workplace, home and neighborhoods. It is even a common push factor in migration. Bullying can exist between social groups, social classes and even between countries (see Jingoism).

Definition

Some schools with bullying problems have addressed the issue by adding CCTV cameras.

Bullying is an act of repeated aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.^[6]

Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus defines bullying as when a person is

“exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons.” He defines negative action as “when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways.”^[7]

General

Bullying behavior may include name calling, verbal or written abuse, exclusion from activities, exclusion from social situations, physical abuse, or coercion^[8]^[9] Bullies may behave this way to be perceived as popular or tough or to get attention. They may bully out of jealousy or be acting out because they themselves are bullied.^[10]

USA National Center for Education Statistics suggests that bullying can be broken into two categories: Direct bullying, and indirect bullying which is also known as social aggression.^[1]

Ross states that direct bullying involves a great deal of physical aggression such as shoving and poking, throwing things, slapping, choking, punching and kicking, beating, stabbing, pulling hair, scratching, biting, scraping and pinching.^[11]

He also suggests that social aggression or indirect bullying is characterized by threatening the victim into social isolation. This isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including spreading gossip, refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and criticizing the victim’s manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim’s race, religion, disability, etc). Ross^[11] outlines other forms of indirect bullying which are more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as name calling, the silent treatment, arguing others into submission, manipulation, gossip/false gossip, lies, rumors/false rumors, staring, giggling, laughing at the victim, saying certain words that trigger a reaction from a past event, and mocking. The children’s charity Act Against Bullying was set up in 2003 to help children who were victims of this type of bullying by researching and publishing coping skills. …”

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

Coercion

“…Coercion (pronounced /co-er-shon/ or /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.

Means

Looking at the content of the threat, one can distinguish between physical, psychological and economic coercion.

Physical

Physical coercion is the most commonly considered form of coercion, where the content of the conditional threat is the use of force against a victim, their dear ones or property. An often used example is “putting a gun to someone’s head” (at gunpoint) or putting a “knife under the throat” (at knifepoint or cut-throat) to compel action. These are so common that they are also used as metaphors for other forms of coercion.

Armed forces in many countries use firing squads to maintain discipline and intimidate the masses, or opposition, into submission or silent compliance. However, there also are nonphysical forms of coercion, where the threatened injury does not immediately imply the use of force. Byman and Waxman (2000) define coercion as “the use of threatened force, including the limited use of actual force to back up the threat, to induce an adversary to behave differently than it otherwise would.”^[1] However, coercion does not necessarily amount to destruction.

Psychological

In psychological coercion, the threatened injury regards the victim’s relationships with other people. The most obvious example is blackmail, where the threat consists of the dissemination of damaging information. However, many other types are possible e.g. so-called “emotional blackmail”, which typically involves threats of rejection from or disapproval by a peer-group, or creating feelings of guilt/obligation via a display of anger or hurt by someone whom the victim loves or respects. Another example is coercive persuasion. Government agencies may use highly intimidating methods during investigations e.g. the threat of harsh legal penalties. The usual incentive to cooperate is some form of plea bargain i.e. an offer to drop or reduce criminal charges against a suspect in return for full cooperation.

Psychological coercion – along with the other varieties – was extensively and systematically used by the government of the People’s Republic of China during the “Thought Reform” campaign of 1951-1952. The process – carried out partly at “revolutionary universities” and partly within prisons – was investigated and reported upon by Robert Jay Lifton, then Research Professor of Psychiatry at Yale University: see Lifton (1961). The techniques used by the Chinese authorities included a technique derived from standard group psychotherapy, which was aimed at forcing the victims (who were generally intellectuals) to produce detailed and sincere ideological “confessions”. For instance, a professor of formal logic called Chin Yueh-lin – who was then regarded as China’s leading authority on his subject – was induced to write: “The new philosophy [of Marxism-Leninism], being scientific, is the supreme truth”. [Lifton (1961) p. 545].

Usage

Some people speak of cultural coercion when the fear of falling out with the group may force people into wearing a certain style of dress, publicly reciting a creed or a pledge of allegiance which they find ethically reprehensible or starting to smoke when they would have preferred not to etc. Within the definitional framework adopted here, all such things amount to (psychological) coercion if and only if the fear of falling out with the group is the result of purposeful threats by someone. See Peer pressure, Sociology of religion, Pledge of Allegiance.

Some people include deception in their definition of (psychological) coercion. Yet deception does not generally involve any threat at all, as it works by creating a mere false perception by the victim of his or her given transformation rules. Although its effects may sometimes be very similar to those of a conditional threat, it may hence be useful to treat deception as separate phenomenon.

Economic

Economic coercion arises when a controller of a vital resource uses his advantage to compel a person to do something he would not do if this resource were not monopolized.^{[citation needed]} If someone is the owner of the only water supply, then the owner can compel the thirsty person to pay an exorbitant price for that water or have him perform enormous labor. This is also referred to as a form of exploitation. It has been argued that as the global economy has expanded greatly in scope, economic coercion has replaced other forms of coercion such as coercion involving physical or military force.^[2]

Economic coercion requires market power. In the above example, the coercer’s refusal to supply the coercee would be meaningless if the coercee had access to other independent sources of supply. But the coercer can turn his conditional refusal into a vital threat only because of his coercive monopoly over an essential resource, with no other substitutes. In a competitive marketplace, the possibility of economic coercion is much reduced as suppliers are compelled by competition to accept less money or labor for their goods. The potential for economic coercion is one objection to using markets for organ transplants.^[3]

An analogous result can also be obtained through pure monopsony power (where there is only one buyer as opposed to one seller in a monopoly). To reverse the above example, suppose that there are numerous independent suppliers of water, who sell it at a competition market price. If someone can only sell potatoes (to get money to buy water), and there is only one potato buyer he can sell to, then the buyer’s simple conditional refusal to buy his potatoes would be a death threat, just as before.

The idea that monopoly control may facilitate coercion has been underlined by some business ethicists and economists. It shows that in some cases the social effects of market power goes beyond those on economic distribution and efficiency (economics).

The term economic coercion is also used within economics to refer to sanctions imposed by a powerful government or group of countries against another.^[4].

Libertarians strongly disagree with this definition of economic coercion. Libertarian economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek defined coercion as “control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another (so) that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another”; and also states “Coercion occurs when one man’s actions are made to serve another man’s will, not for his own but for the other’s purpose.” ^[5] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_coercion#Economic

Archive for May, 2010

Raymond T. Pronk

Email Subscription

Pages

RSS Links

Categories

Search

Search

Blog Stats

Calendar

Archives

Pages

Email Subscription

Search

Blogroll

Follow “Pronk Palisades”

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr				Jun »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Archive for May, 2010

The Sestak Affair: Grounds for Impeachment? (Part 1)

The Sestak Affair: Grounds for Impeachment? (Part 2)

Sestak vs. the White House: The American People Deserve to Know

President Obama vs. Joe Sestak

President Clinton Refuses to Comment on Sestak Offer

Issa Questions Legality of Sestak Job Offer

Sestak Job Offer Judge Napolitano Sounds Off

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/28/10-D

Background Articles and Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Glenn Beck-05/27/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/27/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/27/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/27/10-D

Background Articles and Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Meltup The new Inflation

]Gerald Celente calls for the crash of 2010

GLOBAL BREAKDOWN: 1/3 Gerald Celente’s latest trends

GLOBAL BREAKDOWN:2/3 Gerald Celente’s latest trends

GLOBAL BREAKDOWN: 3/3 Gerald Celente’s latest trends

US – Next Greece or Japan?

Euro bailout “welfare for the rich” – Jim Rogers

Marc Faber: Future Negative US Interest Rates- Part 1 of 2 (2.23.10)

Marc Faber: Future Negative US Interest Rates- Part 2 of 2 (2.23.10)

40 MILLION PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS 4-15-2010

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Obama’s So-Called Stimulus: Good For Government, Bad For the Economy

Background Articles and Videos

US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus

Sharp US money supply contraction points to Wall Street crunch ahead

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

US money supply contraction only comparable to Great Depression

Ron Paul at SRLC 10! (Part 1/3)

Ron Paul at SRLC 10! (Part 2/3)

Ron Paul at SRLC 10! (Part3/3)

the story of paper money 1 of 3

the story of paper money 2 of 3

the story of paper money 3 of 3

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Economists

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism