media

Radical Islamic Jihadist Terrorists Kill British Soldier In “Gun Free” United Kingdom — Police With Guns Take 14 Plus Minutes Plus To Respond — Photos and Videos

Posted on May 23, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Culture, Education, Immigration, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Religion, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: British Soldier, Fanatic, Gun Laws, Islam, Islamic Militants, Jihadist, Killing, Lying, Michael Adebolajo, Muslims, Photos, Radical Islamic Judihist, Religious Fanatics, terror, Terrorists, Three Stages of Jihad, True Believers, Truth of Islam, Videos |

Truth of Islam- Three Stages of Jihad – MUST WATCH!!!

Islam for Leftists – Robert Spencer

British soldier killed in London by a Muslim

British soldier savagely killed in London machete attack

A British soldier was savagely killed in an attack in South London in an attack that may have been the work of terrorists. CBS News’ Charlie D’Agata reports.

Malkin Explodes On Hannity Over UK Terrorist Attack

British Soldier Killed in Machete Attack in London

British soldier hacked to death in London, witness who filmed attackers speaks out (May 22, 2013)

British SOLDIER BEHEADED on busy London street in Act of TERRORISM

London TERROR ATTACKED: British Soldier BEHEADED by two Islamic TERRORISTS in Woolwich

Sunrise – UK soldier killed near army base

UK PM David Cameron condemns terror attack which saw British soldier killed in London

Woolwich Terrorist Atttack Police statement

Eyewitness Describes Encounter with London Attacker

Woolwich Attack’ Eyewitness “Killers Wanted To Get Caught’ Wednesday 22 May 2013

Far-right Clash with Police After a Killing of British Soldier

Deporting Millions Of Muslims May Be Necessary – Geert Wilders

POLICE HIT BACK AT CLAIMS THEY TOOK 20 MINS TO REACH SCENE

Police today defended their response to the killing after eyewitnesses claimed they took up to 20 minutes to arrive at the scene.

Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne, said: ‘One point I would like to address is around some of the speculation as to how long it took the Met to respond yesterday as this incident started to unfold.

‘We first received a 999 call from the public at 2.20pm stating a man was being attacked, further 999 calls stated that the attackers were in possession of a gun.

‘We had officers at the scene within nine minutes of receiving that first 999 call.

‘Once that information about a gun or guns being present was known firearms officers were assigned at 2.24pm.

‘Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met.’

You and your children will be next’: Islamic fanatics wielding meat cleavers butcher and try to behead a British soldier, taking their war on the West to a new level of horror

One of the men arrested is believed to be Michael Adebolajo
Two men repeatedly stab and tried to behead off-duty soldier in SE London
They shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ attack and told witnesses to film them
Charged at police officers with rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers
Killing took place 200 yards from barracks and close to primary school
Both men placed under arrest after being treated for gunshot wounds
PM: Killing is ‘sickening’ and Britain will ‘never buckle’ in face of terror

Clutching a bloodied meat cleaver, the man suspected of executing a soldier on a crowded street declared: ‘you and your kids will be next’.

In a chilling rant captured on camera, the knife-wielding man declared: ‘The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.’

The man who launched the terrifying diatribe in Woolwich, south-east London, is believed to be Michael Adebolajo, who has been identified on Twitter and web forums as one of the two people arrested.

In the video obtained by ITV News he added: ‘Remove your governments – they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start bursting our guns? You think politicians are going to die?

‘No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them – tell them to bring our troops back so we can… so you can all live in peace.’

Police are today believed to be searching addresses that Adebolajo, known by the Muslim name Mujahid, is linked to in Romford, Essex.

They also carried out raids in Lincolnshire and Greenwich, south east London.

Yesterday the serviceman, wearing a Help for Heroes top, was run down by a car before being brutally attacked in Woolwich, just 200 yards from the barracks.

In broad daylight, an attacker and an accomplice repeatedly stabbed and tried to behead the man in front of dozens of passers-by.

After the attack, speaking in a clear south London accent, the man named as Adebolajo said: ‘You people will never be safe. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’

Throughout the frenzied attack the two killers shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ – Arabic for ‘God is great’ – then demanded horrified witnesses film them as they ranted over the crumpled body.

The two black men in their 20s, waited calmly for armed police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers.

When the old pistol was shot towards police it backfired and blew the thumb off one of the men.

Moments later they were cut down in a hail of bullets believed to be fired by a woman marksman. Last night both men were being treated in hospital for their wounds and will face questioning.

Mother-of-two Ingrid Loyau-Kennett bravely remonstrated with one of the killers in the aftermath of the terror attack.

After pleading with them to hand her the weapons, one told her: ‘We want to start a war in London tonight’.

She replied: ‘Right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose’.

Ms Loyau-Kennett said she was not trained in any way to deal with the situation – she used to be a teacher.

Yesterday’s slaughter took place close to a primary school at 2.20pm. Witnesses told how the men drove a dark blue Vauxhall Tigra on to the pavement.

The soldier was wearing a t-shirt with the army charity Help for Heroes logo on it and was carrying a military issue rucksack. The men then leapt out of their car and ‘hacked and chopped’ at their victim before dragging his bloodied body into the middle of the road.

Last night both men were placed under arrest after being treated for gunshot wounds under armed guard in separate hospitals.

Today Prime Minister David Cameron said the murder of a ‘brave soldier’ on the streets of London will bring the UK together and ‘make us stronger’.

Speaking outside Downing Street after chairing a meeting of the Government’s emergency Cobra committee, the Prime Minister said the attack ‘sickens us all’ and was a ‘betrayal of Islam’.

‘The people who did this were trying to divide us. They should know something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger,’ he said.

‘This country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror. We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms.

‘This view is shared by every community in our country. This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life; it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.’

Last night Mr Cameron cut short his trip to Paris and described the assassination as ‘absolutely sickening’, insisting Britain will ‘never buckle’ in the face of terrorist attacks.

Security was tightened at dozens of other Army barracks across the country amid fears of copycat attacks and Home Secretary Theresa May called a meeting of Cobra, Whitehall’s emergency committee, after being briefed by MI5 and counter-terrorism police.

Experts believe the pair were using Muslim names and could be of Somali or Nigerian heritage.

It is thought the two fundamentalists had spent weeks watching the barracks, which the Queen is due to visit next week, prior to the attack.

The ambush and stabbing of a soldier close to an army barracks is an unprecedented Islamic attack on mainland Britain.

A group of military wives who laid flowers today said they were ‘numb’.

One of the women, in her 20s, who did not want to be named, said: ‘We are all just very numb at the moment – shaken up and very shocked. It could have been any one of our husbands.

‘He was a young guy who cared very much about his job, like they all do. I think he was in training.’

The killing immediately prompted widespread revulsion. David Cameron said Britain ‘will not be cowed, will never buckle’ in the face of terrorism last night as he urged people to go about their lives as normal in defiance of the ‘absolutely sickening’ killing in London.

London Mayor Mr Johnson said: ‘Londoners from all communities, from across this city have been here before.

I know that this is a city of incredible resilience and courage and we have to protect ourselves with the best security services, the most professional police service, in the world.’

Relations between British Muslims in the armed forces and their colleagues will not be strained following the murder of a British soldier in Woolwich, a retired army captain has said.

Captain Afzal Amin, former chairman of the Armed Forces Muslim Association, said: ‘I send my condolences to the poor victim, not just as a former army officer but as a British Muslim.

‘We’re not accustomed to this kind of completely inexplicable attack.’

‘There are a wide range of racial backgrounds in the armed forces which have formed a good, solid integrated body. I’m sure relations are already well established.’

‘Remember the context of all of this,’ he added. ‘This was an attack on an innocent soldier, an abhorrent crime in a normally cohesive society.’

Last night the Muslim Council of Britain said it was a ‘truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam’. ‘We condemn this unreservedly,’ a spokesman said. ‘Our thoughts are with the victim and his family.

‘We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country’s Armed Forces, proudly and with honour.

‘This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable and no cause justifies this murder. This action will no doubt heighten tensions on the streets of the United Kingdom.’

The Angels of Woolwich: How three extraordinarily brave women confronted the Islamic fanatics who butchered and tried to behead a soldier on London street – and prayed next to his mutilated body

‘Religious’ woman in her 50s ‘walked straight up to suspects with no fear’
Sat next to victim in middle of the road and put her hands on his chest
Witness: ‘She saw everything and wanted to comfort him. The poor man’s head was beside her’
Second woman talks to one killer as he wandered around with bloodied weapons and hands
Female Cub Scout leader tells other attacker: ‘Right now, it is only you versus many people. You are going to lose’
David Cameron praises her bravery, saying: ‘She speaks for us all’

By Richard Hartley-parkinson and Simon Tomlinson

In the aftermath of the brutal murder of a soldier, the remarkable courage of three women stands out.

They selflessly confronted the two killers and went to the aid of the victim, praying for him and preventing further carnage.

The first heroine, described as a religious woman in her 50s, bravely approaches the attackers as they roam the streets covered in blood and demands they let her sit next to the dead man.

As she comforts him in the middle of the road, a second woman stands over her and appears to talk to one of the killers in an apparent attempt to placate him.

Meanwhile, a third lady, a Cub Scout leader, remonstrates with the other alleged murderer who rants at her: ‘We want to start a war in London tonight’.

Standing firm, mother-of-two Ingrid Loyau-Kennett replies: ‘Right now it is only you versus many people. You are going to lose’.

Describing the scene, a witness said he saw the first woman approach the men and ask to go to the soldier’s side moments after the horrific attack in which they nearly behead the soldier.

Joe Tallant told the Daily Mirror: ‘She is a very religious woman. She saw everything and wanted to comfort the man. She just walked straight up to them with no fear.

‘She put her hands on his chest and I think she prayed for him. The poor man’s head was beside her.’

Footage from ITV News shows the woman sat on the road next to the soldier’s body while another image shows her putting her hand on his back as she prays.

A second woman stands over her and appears to talk to one of the killers as he wanders around with bloodied weapons and hands.

Meanwhile, Ms Loyau-Kennett, 48, jumped off her bus when she saw the soldier’s body lying in the south-east London street, checked his pulse and then tried to talk to the men who hacked him to death.

One told her: ‘We want to start a war in London tonight’.

e added: ‘We will defeat violent extremism by standing together, by backing our police and security services and, above all, by challenging the poisonous narrative of extremism on which this violence feeds.’

Mr Cameron refused to say if the suspected killers were known to police and security services but said it was something the Independent Police Complaints Commission and intelligence committees would look into.

‘She put her hands on his chest and I think she prayed for him. The poor man’s head was beside her.’

Witness, Joe Talllant

After the attack, one of the alleged killers was filmed launching into a diatribe as he pledged the fight would go on.

Speaking in a clear south London accent, he said: ‘You people will never be safe. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’

The two suspects apparently shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’, which means ‘God is great’ in Arabic as they hacked the soldier to death.

They waited calmly for the police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers.

They were then shot by armed officers, and both suspects are under guard in separate hospitals today.

But it was a brave female Cub Scout leader who confronted the armed men.

‘I saw a man on the road, obviously injured and a car badly crashed I assumed it was a road accident, although the car was funny on the pavement, it was not coming on the road,’ she told ITV’s Daybreak.

‘When I approached the body there was a lady cradling him and then the guy, the most excited one of the two said, don’t go too close to the body.

‘I could see a butcher’s knife and you know these axes butchers have to cut -that’s what he had and blood all over him. I thought what the heck happened here?

‘Okay I thought obviously he was a bit excited, so I thought the thing was just to talk to him.

Ms Loyau-Kennett said she was not trained in any way to deal with the situation – she used to be a teacher.

‘I know it’s big today, for me he was just a regular guy, just a bit upset. He was not on drugs, he was not drunk.’

She said the man told her ‘Don’t touch, I killed him.’

When she questioned him, he said ‘He is a British soldier, he killed people, he killed Muslim people, in Muslim countries. ‘

Mrs Loyau-Kennett explained the man holding the knife told her it was for ‘all the bomb droppings and killings, blindly, women.’

When asked if she feared for her life she replied: ‘Better me than the children.

‘There were mothers with children. It was important.’

Mrs Loyau-Kennett’s son said her bravery was motivated by her ‘incredible maternal instinct’.

The 48-year-old was in London celebrating her son Basil Baradaran’s 23rd birthday when she came across the horrific scene.

Basil, an animation graduate who lives close to the murder scene with sister Pawony, 24, said: ‘Mum came up to visit for my birthday and we’d had a lovely celebration.

‘I was meeting her at the train station when she walked up and started telling me had happened.

‘My first thought was for her safety but I could see she was completely intact. I couldn’t believe what she was telling me.

‘I don’t know what was going through her mind or how she found the strength to do what she did but I’m totally awestruck. I’m about as proud as a son could be.’

Mrs Loyau-Kennett, who is half-French, brought up her two children alone after their father returned to France when they were very young.

She lives in Helston, Cornwall, works as a language teacher and translator, and has recently completed a further qualification with the Open University.

She previously lived in Ipswich and New Zealand, where she worked with cubs, scouts, beavers and brownies.

Background Articles and Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)

Background Articles and Videos

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 1 of 3

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 2 of 3

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 3 of 3

Citizens United; Hillary the Movie Trailer

Hillary the Movie Trailer 2

Citizens United and Campaign Finance Reform

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

Donna Tartt — The Secret History — Videos

Posted on May 18, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Culture, Education, Entertainment, Fiction, Language, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Religion, Talk Radio, Video | Tags: Books, Culture, Fiction, Photos, The Secret History, Videos |

The Secret History by Donna Tartt

‘The Secret History’ prologue

Donna Tartt (born December 23, 1963) is an American writer and author of the novels The Secret History (1992), The Little Friend (2002), and The Goldfinch (2013).^[1] She won the WH Smith Literary Award for The Little Friend in 2003.

Early life

The daughter of Don and Taylor Tartt, she was born in Greenwood, Mississippi and raised in the nearby town of Grenada. At age five, she wrote her first poem, and she was first published in a Mississippi literary review when she was 13.

Enrolling in the University of Mississippi in 1981, she pledged to the sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma. Her writing caught the attention of Willie Morris while she was a freshman. Following a recommendation from Morris, Barry Hannah, then an Ole Miss Writer-in-Residence, admitted Tartt into his graduate short story course. Following the suggestion of Morris and others, she transferred to Bennington College in 1982, meeting then-students Bret Easton Ellis and Jill Eisenstadt and studying classics with Claude Fredericks.

The Secret History

Tartt began writing her first novel, originally titled “The God of Illusions”^[2] and later published as The Secret History, during her second year at Bennington. She graduated from Bennington in 1986. After Ellis recommended her work to literary agent Amanda Urban, The Secret History was published in 1992, and sold out its original print-run of 75,000 copies, becoming a bestseller. It has been translated into 24 languages.

The Secret History is set at a fictional college and concerns a close-knit group of six students and their professor of classics. The students embark upon a secretive plan to stage a bacchanal. The narrator reflects on a variety of circumstances that lead ultimately to murder within the group.

The murder, the location and the perpetrators are revealed in the opening pages, upending the familiar framework and accepted conventions of the murder mystery genre. Critic A.O. Scott labelled it “a murder mystery in reverse.”^[3]

The book was wrapped in a transparent acetate book jacket, a retro design by Barbara De Wilde and Chip Kidd. According to Kidd, “The following season acetate jackets sprang up in bookstores like mushrooms on a murdered tree.”^[4]

The Little Friend

The Little Friend, Tartt’s second novel, was published in October 2002. It is a mystery centered on a young girl living in the American South in the late 20th century. Her implicit anxieties about the long-unexplained death of her brother and the dynamics of her extended family are a strong focus, as are the contrasting lifestyles and customs of small-town Southerners.

The Goldfinch

In February 2013, the New York Observer announced that Tartt’s long-awaited third novel, titled The Goldfinch, was set for publication on October 22, 2013 after originally being slated for publication in September 2008.^[5] The plot is described thus: ““A young boy in New York City, Theo Decker, miraculously survives an accident that takes the life of his mother. Alone and determined to avoid being taken in by the city as an orphan, Theo scrambles between nights in friends’ apartments and on the city streets,” Amazon’s description reads. “He becomes entranced by the one thing that reminds him of his mother: a small, mysteriously captivating painting that soon draws Theo into the art underworld. Composed with the skills of a master, The Goldfinch is a haunted odyssey through present-day America. It is a story of loss and obsession, survival and self-invention, and the enormous power of art”^[6]

Other writing

In 2002, it was reported that Tartt was working on a retelling of the myth of Daedalus and Icarus for the Canongate Myth Series, a series of novellas in which ancient myths are reimagined and rewritten by contemporary authors.^[7]

Audio

Tartt has recorded several audiobooks:

The Secret History
The Little Friend (abridgment)
True Grit (with afterword expressing her love of the novel)
Winesburg, Ohio (selection)

Bibliography

Novels

The Secret History, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
The Little Friend, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
The Goldfinch, 2013

Short stories

“Tam-O’-Shanter”. The New Yorker April 19, 1993, p. 90.^[8]
“A Christmas Pageant”. Harper’s 287.1723. December 1993, p. 45+.
“A Garter Snake”. GQ 65.5, May 1995, p. 89+.
“The Ambush”. The Guardian, June 25, 2005.

Nonfiction

“Sleepytown: A Southern Gothic Childhood, with Codeine.” Harper’s 286, July 1992, p. 60-66.
“Basketball Season.” The Best American Sports Writing, edited and with an introduction by Frank Deford. Houghton Mifflin, 1993.
“Team Spirit: Memories of Being a Freshman Cheerleader for the Basketball Team.” Harper’s 288, April 1994, p. 37-40.

Awards

2003 WH Smith Literary Award (The Little Friend)
shortlisted for the 2003 Orange Prize for Fiction (The Little Friend)^[9]

References

^ http://observer.com/2013/02/donna-tartts-long-awaited-thir-novel-will-be-published-this-year/
^ Fein, Esther B. (1992-11-16). “”The Marketing of a Cause Celebre” – The New York Times”. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
^ Scott, A.O. “Harriet the Spy,” New York Times, November 3, 2002.
^ “Jacobs, Alexandra. “Kidd Keeps Knopf Cool, Wrapping Books Gorgeously” New York Observer, Nov. 6, 2005″. Observer.com. 2005-11-06. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
^ http://observer.com/2013/02/donna-tartts-long-awaited-thir-novel-will-be-published-this-year/
^ http://observer.com/2013/02/donna-tartts-long-awaited-thir-novel-will-be-published-this-year/
^ “”Independent”: “Whatever happened to Donna Tartt?”". Arlindo-correia.org. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
^ Tartt, Donna (1993-04-19). “Fiction: Tam-O’-Shanter” (abstract). The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-01-14.
^ The Little Friend (Reference for both awards)

Sources

Tracy Hargreaves, Donna Tartt’s “The Secret History”, New York and London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001 ISBN 0-8264-5320-1
Adrian McOran-Campbell, The Secret History (August 2000)^{[dead link]}
Danny Yee, “Studying Ancient Greek Warps the Mind of the Young?” (January 4, 1994)

Listen to

External links

The Secret History

The Secret History, the first novel by Mississippi-born writer Donna Tartt, was published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1992. A 75,000 print order was made for the first edition (as opposed to the usual 10,000 order for a debut novel), and the book became a bestseller.

Set in New England, The Secret History tells the story of a closely knit group of six classics students at a small, elite Vermont college, Hampden College, similar in many respects to Bennington College (in Bennington, Vermont) where Tartt was a student from 1982 to 1986.

The story is an inverted detective story, not a Whodunit but a Whydunit.

One of the six students is the story’s narrator, Richard Papen, who reflects, years later, on the situation that led to a murder within the group, the murder being confessed at the outset of the novel but the events otherwise revealed sequentially. In the opening chapter, as the reader is introduced to Papen, we are told of the death of student Edmund “Bunny” Corcoran, although few details are given initially. The novel explores the circumstances and lasting effects of Bunny’s death on the academically and socially isolated group of Classics students of which he was a part.

The impact on the students is ultimately destructive, and the potential promise of many young lives is lost to circumstance. The story parallels, in many ways, a Greek tragedy with fate dictating the very circumstances that lead to an escalation of already fermenting issues.

Synopsis

As the story opens, Richard leaves Plano, California, where he is generally unhappy, for Hampden College in Vermont. His approach to his background is in keeping with the contrast of aestheticism and literary beauty, as opposed to harsh reality, that continues throughout the novel. He misleads others about his background as necessary, replacing his mediocre working-class childhood with a fabricated and more glamorous one of boarding schools and wealth.

After moving to Vermont, Richard attempts to continue his study of Ancient Greek, only to be denied admittance to the Greek class, as Classics professor Julian Morrow limits his enrollment to a tiny hand-picked coterie of students. Richard becomes obsessed with the small group, after observing them around campus, and eventually manages to ingratiate himself with the group by helping them solve a Greek grammar problem as they study in the college library. Soon after, armed with advice from the students on how to impress Julian, he meets with him once more and is finally admitted to the select Classics tutorial.

The group includes fraternal twins Charles and Camilla Macaulay, who are charming but secretive, as well as Francis Abernathy, whose secluded country home becomes a sanctuary for the group. Two students become the central focus of the story: the linguistic genius Henry Winter, an intellectual with a passion for the Pali canon and Plato, and the back-slapping Bunny Corcoran, a slightly bigoted jokester more comfortable reading Sax Rohmer‘s Fu Manchu, particularly if someone else has bought him a copy.

Their relationship, already considered odd by Richard, becomes even more mystifying when Bunny announces that he and Henry will be spending the winter break together in Italy. This, despite the fact that Henry appears barely tolerant of Bunny and that Bunny is unable to afford such a lavish holiday himself. In fact, it is Henry who is footing the bill for the trip. To avoid unraveling his fabricated past, Richard takes a low-paying job on the college campus and spends the winter break in an unheated warehouse. He nearly dies from exposure and pneumonia but is rescued and taken to the hospital by Henry, who has returned early from the trip to Italy.

When the rest of the group returns from winter break, Richard notes that the relationships between them and Bunny have become even more strained. Ultimately, Richard learns the truth from Henry and Francis: during a Bacchanal that both Richard and Bunny were excluded from, Henry had inadvertently killed a local farmer. Bunny, having been suspicious for some time, uncovers the truth during the trip to Italy after reading some of Henry’s private notes, and has blackmailed the group ever since. The group, led by Henry, begin to view Bunny as the weak link who threatens to reveal their secret, and Bunny’s penchant for playing on his friends’ fears and insecurities does little to assuage their concern.

No longer able to meet Bunny’s demands and fearing that Bunny will report the matter to the police, the group resolves to kill Bunny. Henry forms several plots to accomplish such, and one of the plans is finally put into motion after Bunny tells Richard of the killing of the farmer in a drunken rant. The group confronts Bunny while he is hiking, with Henry pushing him into a ravine to his death.

The remainder of the novel focuses on the aftermath of Bunny’s death, especially the collapse of the group, the psychological strains of remorse borne by the individual members and their efforts to maintain secrecy as investigators and other students develop theories about Bunny’s disappearance. The supporting cast of other students includes loquacious drug user Judy Poovey, a reader of “those paranoia books by Philip K. Dick.”

Charles develops a drinking problem and becomes increasingly abusive towards his sister. Francis begins to suffer panic attacks. Julian discovers the evidence in the form of a pleading letter sent to him by Bunny, imploring him to help: “You’re the only one who can.” Julian never reports the crime but instead leaves the college.

With the group splintered, the members deal with their crime, to a large extent, in isolation. Henry begins living and sleeping with Camilla, which drives Charles further into the grip of his barely controlled alcoholism. Henry is deeply upset by Julian’s departure, seeing it as an act of cowardice and hypocrisy. The plot reaches a climax when Charles, jealous of Henry and now a full-blown alcoholic, barges into Camilla and Henry’s hotel room and tries to kill Henry with Francis’ Beretta. In the struggle that follows, Henry gets hold of the gun as the inn-keeper pounds on the door. Aghast, the others are not sure whom he intends to kill. Instead, Henry kisses Camilla for a final time, and shoots himself. It seems that Henry wants to uphold the principles that he feels Julian has betrayed. With Henry’s suicide, the group disintegrates: Francis, a homosexual, is forced by his rich grandfather to marry a woman; Camilla takes care of her grandmother and ends up isolated; Charles runs from rehab with a married woman; Richard, the narrator, becomes a lonely academic whose love for Camilla is unrequited. Henry’s death is described as having cut the cord between them and set them all adrift. The book ends with Richard recounting a strange dream where he meets Henry in a tall atrium, and doesn’t know how to voice everything he feels about what has happened. Finally, he settles on asking him “Are you happy here?”; Henry replies, “Not particularly. But you’re not very happy where you are, either”, and walks away, leaving Richard as aimless as ever.

Themes

Michiko Kakutani (New York Times) commented, “In The Secret History, Ms. Tartt managed to make… melodramatic and bizarre events (involving Dionysian rites and intimations of satanic power) seem entirely plausible.” Because the author introduces the murder and those responsible at the outset, critic A.O. Scott labeled it “a murder mystery in reverse.” ^[2]

On a deeper level, highlighted by many literary references and allusions, the novel undertakes a complex analysis of truth versus beauty, aesthetics versus justice, social constraints compared to the desire for liberation, and an examination of the relationships that exist behind social structure, particularly relationships of power and control. Early on, the question arises: “Does such a thing as ‘the fatal flaw,’ that showy dark crack running down the middle of a life, exist outside literature? I used to think it didn’t. Now I think it does. And I think that mine is this: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs.” This theme continues throughout the novel as Richard is repeatedly confronted with the separation of literary and artistic beauty as he would capture and report it, compared to reality as it unfolds.

Cross-references

Bret Easton Ellis‘s novel The Rules of Attraction is set at Camden College, a fictional liberal arts college in northeastern New Hampshire. In many ways, Camden mirrors Ellis’ alma mater, Bennington College, and Hampden College, the setting of Tartt’s The Secret History. Both books contain cross-references to each other’s storylines and characters. Tartt mentions the suicide of a freshman girl in passing, while Ellis repeatedly mentions a group of classics majors who “dress like undertakers” and are suspected of staging pagan rituals and slaying farmers in the countryside.

References

^ “The Marketing of a Cause Celebre” – The New York Times
^ Scott, A.O. “Harriet the Spy,” New York Times, November 3, 2002.

Listen to

External links

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

ProPublica — IRS Scandal — Targeted Enemies List Includes Tea Party, Patriots, Religious and Conservative Groups — Obama’s Tyranny –Videos

Posted on May 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, government spending, history, Inflation, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Barack Obama, Bias, Conservative Groups Targeted, conservatives, Crime, Department of Treasury -- Internal Revenue Service, George Soros, Incompetent, Internal Revenue Service, IRS Scandal, Mark Levin, Paul Steiger, Photos, President Obama, Pro Publica, Progressives, Scandal, Targeting Conservative Groups, Tea Party, Tea Party Targeted, Videos |

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TIGTA-201310053fr-revised-redacted-1.pdf

Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Glenn Beck – IRS targeted conservatives

IRS Admits Targeting Conservatives – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.10

Lou Dobbs Rips ‘Nixonian’ Obama For Lying ‘Through His Teeth’ About IRS ‘President Who Has Lost His

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story

ProPublica founder and CEO, Paul Steiger, on the creation of this foundation-funded investigative newsroom, the challenges they faced and their plans for the future. ProPublica is the first online-only organization to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 2

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 3

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 4 Q&A

Paul Steiger: The ProPublica Story part 5 Q&A

Jon Stewart Totally DESTROYS Obama Administration Over IRS Scandal | A MUST WATCH

IRS scandal widens

Ex-commissioner on tea party scandal: IRS did “the wrong thing”

Tea Party IRS Investigations Not Politically Motivated? ‘How Stupid Do They Think We Are’

IRS in the spotlight: What’s a 501(c)(4)? By Martina Stewart, CNN

Deceptive Dollars Tied To 501(c)(4) Groups

Mark Levin Dissects Obama, The IRS & The Republican Party in Scandal – Sean Hannity – 5-13-13

Mark Levin Attacks Obama & ‘Impotent’ House GOP Over IRS Scandal ‘Absolutely Unacceptable’

Glenn Beck: Failure to Impeach Over IRS Scandal Means America ‘Already Operating Under Tyranny’

CU President David Bossie on Fox News (02/19/2013)

President Obama Calls IRS Targeting of Conservative, Tea Party Groups ‘Outrageous’

Obama Administration – The I.R.S. Targets Teaparty and Patriot Groups for Review

IRS Gave Higher Scruity to Tea Party, Conservatives According to Document Draft

Political Firestorm Erupts in IRS ‘Tea Party’ Scandal

Tea Party Patriots Jenny Beth Martin Talks ‘IRS Scandal’ with Lou Dobbs – 5-13-13

IRS Caught in the Act – Jenny Beth Martin CBS This Morning 051113

Senator Rand Paul Discusses IRS Scandal & Enemies List with Sean Hannity – 5-13-13

IRS Issues Apology For Targeting Tea Party & PATRIOT Groups! “Definitely 1st Amendment Concerns Here

IRS Targets Tea Party Groups During 2012 Election

Rep. Issa Rips Obama Over IRS Scandal: ‘How Dare The Admin Imply’ They’ll ‘Get To The Bottom Of It’

Progressive Group: IRS Gave Us Conservative Groups’ Confidential Docs

by Wynton Hall

The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.

The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.

ProPublica says the documents the IRS gave them were “not supposed to be made public”:

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year… In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

The group says that “no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica.”

According to Media Research Center Vice President for Business and Culture Dan Gainor, ProPublica’s financial backers include top progressive donors:

ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure”–“progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the IRS conservative targeting scandal. IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are slated to testify.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Progressive-Group-Says-IRS-Gave-Them-Confidential-Docs-On-Conservative-Groups

IRS Also Leaked Info About Conservative Groups

Targeting scandal widens

By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff

More trouble for the IRS: The same office that singled out conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status also leaked confidential information about conservative groups last year, ProPublica reports. How does ProPublica know? Well, because the nine pending applications were leaked to ProPublica in the first place. The investigative site had asked to see the applications for 67 nonprofits and the IRS’ Cincinnati office sent over 31, nine of which had not been approved yet, meaning they were supposed to be confidential.

ProPublica was interested in the applications because it was revealing how social-welfare nonprofits, which don’t have to identify their donors and can spend money on elections as long as social welfare is their primary goal, misled the IRS when applying for tax-exempt status. Among the applications released to ProPublica: Karl Rove’s Crossroads group, which had promised to spend only “limited” money on 2012 elections and ended up spending more than $70 million. Also included were five other groups that all claimed they would not spend any money to sway the elections and spent more than $5 million. ProPublica reported on all six (here and here). Interestingly, the New York Times reported today that Crossroads and other larger groups were not subjected to the same intense scrutiny the IRS applied to small Tea Party groups; click for more on that.

http://www.newser.com/story/167882/irs-also-leaked-info-about-conservative-groups.html

ProPublica

ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in New York City. It describes itself as an independent non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.^[2] In 2010 it became the first online news source to win a Pulitzer Prize, for a piece^[3] written by one of its journalists^[4]^[5] and published in The New York Times Magazine^[6] as well as on ProPublica.org.^[7] ProPublica’s investigations are conducted by its staff of full-time investigative reporters and the resulting stories are given away to news ‘partners’ for publication or broadcast. In some cases, reporters from both ProPublica and the news partners work together on a story. ProPublica has partnered with more than 90 different news organizations, including 60 Minutes, ABC World News, Business Week, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Politico, Reader’s Digest, Salon.com, Slate, This American Life, and NPR, among many others.

History

ProPublica is the brainchild of Herbert and Marion Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, who have committed $10 million a year to the project.^[8] The Sandlers hired Paul Steiger, former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, to create and run the organization as editor in chief. At the time ProPublica was set up, Steiger responded to concerns about the role of the Sandlers’ political views, saying on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer:

Coming into this, when I talked to Herb and Marion Sandler, one of my concerns was precisely this question of independence and nonpartisanship… My history has been doing ‘down the middle’ reporting. And so when I talked to Herb and Marion I said ‘are you comfortable with that?’ They said ‘absolutely’. I said ‘well suppose we did an expose of some of the left leaning organizations that you have supported or that are friendly to what you’ve supported in the past’. They said ‘no problem’. And when we set up our organizational structure, the board of directors, on which I sit and which Herb is the chairman, does not know in advance what we’re going to report on.^[9]

ProPublica had an initial news staff of 28 reporters and editors, including Pulitzer Prize winners, Charles Ornstein, Tracy Weber, Jeff Gerth, and Marcus Stern, but has since grown to 34 full-time working journalists. Steiger claimed that he received as many as 850 applications upon ProPublica’s start. The organization also appointed a 12-member journalism advisory board consisting of professional journalists.

The newsgroup shares its work under the Creative Commons no-derivative, non-commercial license.

Funding

While the Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it has also received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and others. ProPublica and the Knight Foundation have various connections. For example, Paul Steiger, President of ProPublica, is a trustee of the Knight Foundation.^[10] In like manner, Alberto Ibarguen, the President and CEO of the Knight Foundation is on the board of ProPublica.^[11] In 2010, it received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from George Soros‘ Open Society Foundations.

ProPublica has attracted attention for the salaries it pays its top executives.^[12]^[13] The head of ProPublica, Paul Steiger, was paid $571,687 in 2008, according to the company’s tax filings.^[14] The managing editor, Stephen Engelberg, was paid $343,463.^[15]^[16] The large salaries have been widely criticized by other journalists and even some in the non-profit world as excessive.^[17]^[17]^[18] Steiger is the former managing editor at the Wall Street Journal. Engelberg is a former New York Times editor who co-wrote the non-fiction book Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, with Times reporter Judith Miller. He was recently elected to the Pulitzer Prize Board.

Awards

In 2010, ProPublica jointly won the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting (it was also awarded to another new organization for a different story), for “a story that chronicles the urgent life-and-death decisions made by one hospital’s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.”^[19] It was written by ProPublica’s Sheri Fink and published in the New York Times Magazine^[6] as well as on ProPublica.org.^[7] This was the first Pulitzer awarded to an online news source.^[4]^[5] That investigation also won a National Magazine Award for reporting.

In 2011, ProPublica won its second Pulitzer Prize.^[20] Reporters Jesse Eisinger and Jake Bernstein won the Pulitzer for National Reporting for their series, The Wall Street Money Machine. This was the first time a Pulitzer was awarded to a group of stories not published in print.

ProPublica’s reporters have also received the Selden Ring, George Polk, National Magazine, Society of Professional Journalists, James Aronson, ABA Silver Gavel, Overseas Press Club, Online Journalism, Investigative Editors and Reporters, Society of News Design, Society of American Business Editors and Writers, and Dart Center awards (among others) for their work.

Reception

Praise

ProPublica is also renowned for conducting a large-scale, circumscribed investigation on Psychiatric Solutions, a company based in Tennessee that buys failing hospitals, cuts staff, and accumulates profit.^[21] The report covered patient deaths at numerous Psychiatric Solutions facilities, the failing physical plant at many of their facilities, and covered the State of Florida‘s first closure of Manatee Palms Youth Services, which has since been shut down^[22] by Florida officials once again.^[23] Their report was published in conjunction with The Los Angeles Times.

Criticism

Dave Kopel, a policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute and a former columnist for the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News, criticized a ProPublica report on hydraulic fracturing as a “one-sided series of facts arrayed to support a point of view”. He argued that a common theme in ProPublica’s work is that “the government is not doing a good enough job in controlling things, particularly things involving big business”.^[24] ProPublica later responded to his article, countering those claims and saying quote, “using carefully culled quotations and selected statistics, Kopel asserts ‘indisputably false facts’ in ProPublica’s reporting.” ^[25]

After fallout from the IRS publicly admitting to targeting conservative tax exempt groups for added scrutiny, ProPublica broke the news that it had requested and received confidential pending applications for groups requesting tax exempt status.

Board members

Investigations

Lost in Translation: Alhurra—America’s Troubled Effort to Win Middle East Hearts and Minds by Dafna Linzer with reporting by Robert Lewis of ProPublica. Partnered with 60 Minutes (video).
New York’s Gas Rush Poses Environmental Threat by Abrahm Lustgarten with reporting by Jonathan Sidhu and Allison Battey of ProPublica. Partnered with WNYC (transcript | audio) and Albany Times-Union.
Fractured Relations — New York City Sees Drilling as Threat to Its Water Supply by Abrahm Lustgarten with WNYC, Albany Times-Union, and New York Sun.
In the Eye of the Storm by Sheri Fink with Salon.com.
U.S. Targets Overseas Bribery; KBR Exec’s Plea Widens Probe by T. Christian Miller with reporting by Marlena Telvick, Oriana Zill de Granados, Lowell Bergman, and Jake Bernstein. Partnered with MSN Money and Frontline.
Acting Tough: When Cameras Leave, OSHA Penalties Wither by Robert Lewis with Salon.com.
Palin Administration Oversaw $26 million ROAD to ‘Nowhere’ by Paul Kiel with research by Lisa Schwartz. Partnered with Newsweek.
Palin Defended ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to ‘Spinmeisters’ by Marcus Stern with reporting by Paul Kiel and Lisa Schwartz. Partnered with Politico.
Anatomy of a Bank Failure by Jake Bernstein with MSN Money.
Criminal Past Is No Bar to Nursing in California by Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber with Los Angeles Times
California Takes Steps to Probe Nurses’ Criminal Backgrounds by Charles Ornstein and Tracy Weber with Los Angeles Times
Why CDC Responded with ‘Lack of Urgency’ to Formaldehyde Warnings by Joaquin Sapien with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Government Study on Children Living in Katrina Trailers Muddled By Delays, Confusion by Joaquin Sapien with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
GOP offers scant proof of voter fraud by Chisun Lee with reporting by Kristin Jones. Partnered with Politico.
As Rape Victims Wait, Money for DNA Testing Goes Unused by Ben Protess with Joel Rubin of the Los Angeles Times
Goldman Sachs urged bets against California bonds it helped sell by Sharona Coutts with Marc Lifsher and Michael A. Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times.
Crimes by Air Marshals Raise Questions About Hiring by Michael Grabell with Jamie Wilson. Published in USA Today.

References

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (December 2011)

^ “ProPublicaSite Info”. Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2012-09-01.
^ “About Us”. Retrieved 2009-01-11. ProPublica is a Dog Latin term literally meaning “for the public woman”; cf. publica.
^ “a story that chronicles the urgent life-and-death decisions made by one hospital’s exhausted doctors when they were cut off by the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.” – Pulitzer.org The 2010 Pulitzer Prize Winners: Investigative Reporting, accessed 13 April 2010
^ ^a ^b The Guardian, 13 April 2010, Pulitzer progress for non-profit news
^ ^a ^b ProPublica, Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting: Deadly Choices at Memorial
^ ^a ^b Sheri Fink, New York Times Magazine, 25 August 2009, THE DEADLY CHOICES AT MEMORIAL
^ ^a ^b ProPublica, 27 August 2009, The Deadly Choices at Memorial
^ Pérez-Peña, Richard (2007-10-15). “Group Plans to Provide Investigative Journalism”. New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
^ PBS Newshour, 24 June 2008, “Financing Independent Journalism”
^ Board of Trustees, Knight Foundation
^ Alberto Ibargüen, President and CEO, Knight Foundation
^ Turner, Zeke. “Shelling Out the Big Bucks at ProPublica | The New York Observer”. Observer.com. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
^ Taylor, Mike (2010-08-10). “ProPublica’s Top-Paid Employees All Made Six Figures in 2009 – FishbowlNY”. Mediabistro.com. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
^ Salmon, Felix Philanthrocrat of the day, ProPublica edition, Reuters Blogs, Sept. 30, 2009
^ Turner, Zeke. “Shelling Out the Big Bucks at ProPublica”. Observer. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
^ “ProPublica’s Top-Paid Employees All Made Six Figures in 2009 – FishbowlNY”. Mediabistro.com. 2010-08-10. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
^ ^a ^b “Philanthrocrat of the day, ProPublica edition”. Reuters. 30 September 2009.
^ “Diamonds in the Rough”. CJR. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
^ Pulitzer.org The 2010 Pulitzer Prize Winners: Investigative Reporting, accessed 13 April 2010
^ “A Note on ProPublica’s Second Pulitzer Prize”. ProPublica. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
^ LA Times – November 2008- Psychiatric care’s perils and profits
^ Bradenton Herald – May 2010 – Manatee Palms hospital Slammed
^ “MANATEE PALMS YOUTH SERVICES Facility Profile”. FloridaHealthFinder.gov. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
^ Kopel, Dave (2008-12-27). “Opinion pays its own way”. Rocky Mountain News. Unknown parameter |curly= ignored (help)
^ response

Claim: Obama Campaign Co-Chair Attacked Romney with Leaked IRS Docs

One of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.

Both the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and HRC described the leak as coming from a “whistleblower.” The Huffington Post used the document to write a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM. HRC went a step further than the Huffington Post in its criticism of Romney and accused him of using “racially divisive tactics” in a press release.

Solmonese, then still the HRC’s president, said in the release he felt Romney’s “funding of a hate-filled campaign designed to drive a wedge between Americans is beyond despicable.”

“Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years,” Solmonese added.

Solmonese resigned his position at HRC the next day and took up a position as an Obama campaign co-chair. He had announced the then-pending resignation from HRC the previous autumn.

NOM announced Tuesday that it will sue the IRS for this alleged leak. Under immense political pressure, Attorney General Eric Holder launched a criminal investigation into the IRS’s actions. Congress will conduct ts own investigation.

In early April 2012, NOM published documents which it said showed this leaked confidential information did not come from a “whistleblower” but “came directly from the Internal Revenue Service and was provided to NOM’s political opponents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).”

NOM discovered that when HRC published its confidential financial documents, it failed to conceal the source of the documents. “After software removed the layers obscuring the document, it is shown that the document came from the Internal Revenue Service,” NOM asserted in its April 2012 release.

“The top of each page says, ‘THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,’” the statement continues. “On each page of the return is stamped a document ID of ‘100560209.’ Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with ‘Official Use’ information.”

NOM president Brian Brown argued in that April 2012 release that the leak was made to benefit President Obama’s re-election campaign against Romney, his GOP challenger. “The American people are entitled to know how a confidential tax return containing private donor information filed exclusively with the Internal Revenue Service has been given to our political opponents whose leader also happens to be co-chairing President Obama’s reelection committee,” Brown said.

“It is shocking that a political ally of President Obama’s would come to possess and then publicly release a confidential tax return that came directly from the Internal Revenue Service,” he declared. “We demand to know who is responsible for this criminal act and what the Administration is going to do to get to the bottom of it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

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

Robert Littell — The Company: A Novel of the CIA — Videos

Posted on May 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Book, Books, Cambridge Spies, Central Intelligence Agency, Film, Kim Philby, Robert Littell, Spies, The Company, Videos |

The Company [2007] 1/3

THE COMPANY [2007] 2/3

THE COMPANY [2007] 3/3

Background Articles and Videos

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 1 – Return To The Circus

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 2 – Tarr Tells His Story

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 3 – Smiley Tracks The Mole

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 5 – Tinker Tailor

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 6 – Smiley Sets A Trap

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: 7 – Flushing Out The Mole

Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 1 di 4

Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 2 di 4

Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 3 di 4

Cambridge Spies | Sub. ITA Episodio 4 di 4

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

James Grant Interviewed by James Turk–Federal Reserve, National Debt, Money, Gold — Videos

Posted on May 11, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Bonds, deficit spending, gold, James Grant, Money, national debt, Stocks, The Fed, The Federal Reserve System, USA |

James Grant and James Turk discuss gold, the Fed and the fiscal situation of the USA

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

Who Wrote The Benghazi Cover-up Story of The Anti-Islamic YouTube Video for Rice, Clinton, and Obama? Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication–Propagandist Speech Writer? — Videos

Posted on May 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Diasters, Economics, Education, European History, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion | Tags: Barack Obama, Ben Rhodes, Cover Story, Cover Up, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, Glenn Beck, Hillary Clinton, Photos, Propagandist, Speech Writer, The Blaze |

President Barack Obama jokes with Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, aboard Air Force One

Cover-up

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.

The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.

While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up

Glenn Beck – Benghazi: Truth coming out

Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’

Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama

Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists

Benghazi–Stand Down – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program

Who wrote the video Benghazi coverup story or lie for Rice, Clinton and Obama? Ben Rhodes?

Benghazi – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.05.06

Glenn Beck – Benghazi: How did we get here?

Glenn Beck – The Benghazi Hearings

Lt Gen Mclnemey Is Ashamed Our Military Responded Benghazi Libya & Blames Obama Admin – Lou Dobbs

FOX News Confirms US Was Holding Prisoners at Benghazi Annex

From Rice to the White House: An Alumnus’ Journey

The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film

Innocence of Muslims Full Movie HD 1080P Trailer

Press Briefing with Jay Carney and Ben Rhodes

Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 1

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 2

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 3

Twitter Interviews White House Ben Rhodes Deputy National Security Adviser Part 4

From the Rhodes — The President in Mexico

President Obama gets ready to leave Israel

President Obama Speech to Muslim World in Cairo

White House denies changing story on Benghazi

Benghazi-Gate: Ex-CIA Michael Scheuer “Obama’s Benghazi Cover-up Worse than Watergate”

Rice University, and New York University. He has been described as a realist by The Washington Post,^[2] and was mentioned by Time on the “40 Under 40″ list of powerful and prominent young professionals in 2011.^[3] His brother, David, is president of CBS News.

Rhodes wrote Pres. Barack Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech A New Beginning.^[4]

Rhodes was the one who advised Pres. Barack Obama to withdraw support from Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, becoming a key adviser during the Arab Spring.^[5]

Rhodes euphemistically described the United States’ military involvement in Libya as “kinetic military action.”^[6] In a March 16, 2013 feature story appearing in The New York Times, Rhodes declined to comment on his role in Obama administration policy decisions, saying, “My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues.”^[5]

During the Benghazi Hearings in Washington, D.C. May 8, 2013, an article was published in an online magazine The Patriot Newswire suggesting that Ben Rhodes may be responsible for a Benghazi cover up. Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up? http://patriot-newswire.com/2013/05/is-this-man-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-cover-up/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rhodes_%28speechwriter%29

White House denies changing story on Benghazi

The White House continued to fend off suggestions it misled the public about the attack on the US mission in Libya in September, a day after ex-CIA chief David Petraeus told Congress that mentions of al-Qaeda were edited out of public talking points.

The White House insisted on Saturday that it did not make significant changes to its talking points about the September attack on a US diplomatic building in the Libyan city of Benghazi, as it continued to fend off accusations by Republicans that the Obama administration had misled the American public about the terrorist nature of the attack.

“The only edit that was made by the White House and also by the State Department was to change the word ‘consulate’ to the word ‘diplomatic facility,’ since the facility in Benghazi was not formally a consulate,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday.

“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community. So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made,” Rhodes said about notes that were used by UN Ambassador Susan Rice to speak to the press about the attack that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

On Friday, former CIA chief David Petraeus revealed that the original taking points about the attack had mentioned groups linked to al-Qaeda, but those mentions were removed from the texts used by Rice, according to US lawmakers who heard Petraeus’ testimony to Congress.

Petraeus –who is caught up in a career-ending sex scandal– appeared before House and Senate intelligence panels that were closed off to reporters. The respected ex-spy chief also said the changes to talking points were not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, as some Republicans have suggested.

After his testimony to Congress, Petraeus was escorted through a back exit to avoid contact with journalists. His testimony to Congress was later relayed by Republican and Democratic lawmakers who attended the closed-door hearings.

‘Changes made to protect classified information’

On Saturday, Rhodes deflected responsibility for removing the Al Qaeda references onto the CIA and other members of the US intelligence community. “If there were adjustments made to them [the talking points] within the intelligence community, that’s common, and that’s something they would have done themselves,” the deputy national security advisor told reporters.

Democratic lawmakers said that Petraeus was adamant that there had been no White House interference. The recently resigned four-star general explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public statement by Rice and others so as not to tip off those groups that US intelligence was on their trail.

“There was an interagency process to draft it, not a political process,” Congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California said. “They came up with the best assessment without compromising classified information or source or methods. So changes were made to protect classified information.”

Republicans remain skeptical

However, Republicans remained skeptical over the White House and Petraeus’ explanation, maintaining that the Obama administration may have watered down information to cover up for poor intelligence or inadequate security of US personnel in Libya.

Ambassador Rice has been floated as a possible successor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is stepping down early next year, but some Republicans are threatening to block Rice’s nomination.

Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, said Petraeus’ testimony showed that security measures were inadequate “despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of September 11.”

Peter King, a Congressman from New York and the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Friday he saw a contradiction between the account Petraeus had given to an earlier House hearing and the one given during his most recent appearence.

“His testimony was he told us that from the start it was a terrorist attack. I told him that was not my direct recollection. The clear impression we were given was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and [not] that it was a terrorist attack.”

On Saturday King told Fox News television that it remained unclear who had made the edits concerning al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi, and did not rule out the White House.

“That’s why it’s important to find out why it was done. It could be anywhere in the Defense Department, the State Department, the Justice Department, the White House,” King told the right-wing news channel. “[We need] to find out why it was done, what the purpose of it was.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121118-usa-white-house-obama-no-edited-talking-points-benghazi-mission-al-qaeda-rice-king-rubio

The Benghazi Talking Points

And how they were changed to obscure the truth

May 13, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 33 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults. The Weekly Standard has obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom.

As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved. Senior administration officials, however, sought to obscure the emerging picture and downplay the significance of attacks that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The frantic process that produced the changes to the talking points took place over a 24-hour period just one day before Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her now-famous appearances on the Sunday television talk shows. The discussions involved senior officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

The exchange of emails is laid out in a 43-page report from the chairmen of five committees in the House of Representatives. Although the investigation was conducted by Republicans, leading some reporters and commentators to dismiss it, the report quotes directly from emails between top administration and intelligence officials, and it includes footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. In some cases, the report did not provide the names of the senders, but The Weekly Standard has confirmed the identities of the authors of two critical emails—one indicating the main reason for the changes and the other announcing that the talking points would receive their final substantive rewrite at a meeting of top administration officials on Saturday, September 15.

The White House provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees for a limited time and with the stipulation that the documents were available for review only and would not be turned over to the committees. The White House and committee leadership agreed to that arrangement as part of a deal that would keep Republican senators from blocking the confirmation of John Brennan, the president’s choice to run the CIA. If the House report provides an accurate and complete depiction of the emails, it is clear that senior administration officials engaged in a wholesale rewriting of intelligence assessments about Benghazi in order to mislead the public. The Weekly Standard sought comment from officials at the White House, the State Department, and the CIA, but received none by press time. Within hours of the initial attack on the U.S. facility, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts. The first, at 4:05 p.m. (all times are Eastern Daylight Time), indicated that the compound was under attack; the second, at 6:08 p.m., indicated that Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya, had claimed credit for the attack. According to the House report, these alerts were circulated widely inside the government, including at the highest levels. The fighting in Benghazi continued for another several hours, so top Obama administration officials were told even as the fighting was taking place that U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives were likely being attacked by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack. It was this fact, along with several others, that top Obama officials would work so hard to obscure.

After a briefing on Capitol Hill by CIA director David Petraeus, Democrat Dutch Ruppersburger, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, asked the intelligence community for unclassified guidance on what members of Congress could say in their public comments on the attacks. The CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis prepared the first draft of a response to the congressman, which was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14 (Version 1 at right). This initial CIA draft included the assertion that the U.S. government “know[s] that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That draft also noted that press reports “linked the attack to Ansar al Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved.” Ansar al Sharia, the CIA draft continued, aims to spread sharia law in Libya and “emphasizes the need for jihad.” The agency draft also raised the prospect that the facilities had been the subject of jihadist surveillance and offered a reminder that in the previous six months there had been “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.”

After the internal distribution, CIA officials amended that draft to include more information about the jihadist threat in both Egypt and Libya. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” the agency had added by late afternoon. And: “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” But elsewhere, CIA officials pulled back. The reference to “Islamic extremists” no longer specified “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda,” and the initial reference to “attacks” in Benghazi was changed to “demonstrations.”

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

What remained—and would be included in the final version of the talking points—was mostly boilerplate about ongoing investigations and working with the Libyan government, together with bland language suggesting that the “violent demonstrations”—no longer “attacks”—were spontaneous responses to protests in Egypt and may have included generic “extremists” (see Version 3 above).

If the story of what happened in Benghazi was dramatically stripped down from the first draft of the CIA’s talking points to the version that emerged after the Deputies Committee meeting, the narrative would soon be built up again. In ensuing days, administration officials emphasized a “demonstration” in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi and claimed that the demonstrators were provoked by a YouTube video. The CIA had softened “attack” to “demonstration.” But as soon became clear, there had been no demonstration in Benghazi.

More troubling was the YouTube video. Rice would spend much time on the Sunday talk shows pointing to this video as the trigger of the chaos in Benghazi. “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet. It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.” There is no mention of any “video” in any of the many drafts of the talking points.

Still, top Obama officials would point to the video to explain Benghazi. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even denounced the video in a sort of diplomatic public service announcement in Pakistan. In a speech at the United Nations on September 25, the president mentioned the video several times in connection with Benghazi.

On September 17, the day after Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Nuland defended Rice’s performance during the daily briefing at the State Department. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”

“Innocence of Muslims” FULL MOVIE HD Anti-Muslim Anti-Islam Prophet Muhammad

Is Ben Rhodes the Mastermind Behind the Benghazi Cover Up?

wrote yesterday about how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives. We know the Obama White House put out the story for nearly a week that it was just Muslims upset over a benign YouTube video. In spite of knowing what was going on and having the ability to intervene, the Obama administration did nothing to stop or assist Americans who they knew were being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Instead, they chose to cover it up and intimidate witnesses. Stephen F. Hayes has an excellent piece at the Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, in which he fingers the man he believes is the main person behind the Benghazi cover up, Ben Rhodes.

Of course, one would immediately have to wonder about those who would be around a man who has vowed to stand with the Muslims instead of America. If you recall, Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt to an audience which included the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he distorted the Qur’an to put it in a good light and then attempted to make out like Islam had made great contributions to both America and the world. That speech was written by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now a part of a his National Security Council.

Hayes writes in his article about the talking points that were first put out to officials. He writes:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

There is little information about what happened at that meeting of the Deputies Committee. But according to two officials with knowledge of the process, Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, made broad changes to the draft afterwards. Morrell cut all or parts of four paragraphs of the six-paragraph talking points—148 of its 248 words (see Version 2 above). Gone were the reference to “Islamic extremists,” the reminders of agency warnings about al Qaeda in Libya, the reference to “jihadists” in Cairo, the mention of possible surveillance of the facility in Benghazi, and the report of five previous attacks on foreign interests.

Ed Lasky writes concerning Rhodes, “Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.”

“I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House,” writes Lasky. “It is shameful that this ‘kid’ (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government. In ‘Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?’ I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing. He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love’ about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance. ”

Lasky concludes that Ben Rhodes is the man that attempted to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration, not only in the Cairo speech, but in the talking points promoted by the Obama White House in the days following the attack on Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

I guess we’ll wait and see if he is even called as a witness this by the House in this week’s hearings.

Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.

Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

Meet Dozens of LOCAL Patriotic Americans Today. Join The Patriot Team Forums. It’s Time to Organize!!!

Other Articles You May Enjoy

http://www.dcclothesline.com

Source: http://dcclothesline.com/2013/05/08/is-ben-rhodes-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-

Ben Rhodes

Rhodes grew up in New York City and moved to Washington in 2002, eventually taking a job writing speeches for Barack Obama, then a freshman Senator. Now, as Obama’s principal communications aide on national security, he reads the top-secret President’s Daily Brief, advises the President on key decisions and runs meetings with advisers much older than he is. “It was awkward for the first few weeks,” says Rhodes, 32, “but you get used to it.”

Who is your political hero/inspiration?
Robert F. Kennedy.

What’s your go-to political blog?
andrewsullivan.com

If you weren’t working in politics, what would you be doing?
I’d probably be living in New York trying to write novels but making a living off of non-fiction.

What’s the most overlooked issue facing America these days?
We need a broad and sustainable consensus about the politics of national security and America’s role in the world, which we have not had in the 21st century

Where do you see yourself professionally in five years?
Transitioning out of the second Obama Administration to live in California (per my wife), trying to write novels but making a living off of non-fiction.

Background Articles and Videos

Oversight Hearing Part 1 – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”

Breaking News-Benghazi Investigation’s Over. Judge Jeanine:Obama&Hillary Blame the Victim !!!???

Jeanine Pirro and Pat Caddell discuss Hillary Clinton’s roll in the Benghazi cover-up

Below is a letter from a group of about 700 retired U.S. military special operations veterans to the House of Representatives, urging Congress to establish a committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Colonel Dick Brauer, founder of the group Special Operations Speaks explained the effort on Fox and Friends this morning.

To: Members of The U.S. House of Representatives

Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012

The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers

preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.

It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:

1. Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

a. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?

b. If so, were they alerted?

c. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

d. Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?

e. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

f. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?

2. What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

3. How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

4. Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

5. Where are the survivors?

6. Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

7. Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

8. Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

9. Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?

10. Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

11. Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?

12. What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?

13. Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?

14. What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

15. What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

16. Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?

This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far, it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.

The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.

We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.

CBS Devotes Two Straight Days of Coverage to ‘Possible Cover-Up’ on Benghazi; ABC, NBC Out to Lunch

By Matthew Balan

CBS used its Sunday evening and Monday morning newscasts to keep the spotlight on the question of a “possible cover-up” surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Jeff Glor led CBS Evening News with the scoop from earlier in the day on Face the Nation – that a “career U.S. diplomat is raising new questions” about the Obama administration’s claim that the attack spontaneously erupted in response to an early protest in Egypt.

Monday’s CBS This Morning also aired a report on this latest development on the September 11, 2012 attack. Meanwhile, ABC and NBC have yet to pick up on the veteran diplomat’s allegations, despite the fact that he is set to testify publicly to Congress on the issue on Wednesday.

Glor teased a report from correspondent David Martin by trumpeting that “a new witness emerges – a senior U.S. diplomat contradicts the White House and seems to support Republican claims of a cover-up over the attack in Benghazi.” Martin first outlined what Rep. Darrell Issa had revealed earlier in the day on Face the Nation:

DAVID MARTIN: Greg Hicks – at the time, the number-two diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…directly contradicts administration claims that at first, the attack was thought to be nothing more than a demonstration growing out of a similar protest that day in Cairo. ‘I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.’

The CBS journalist continued with a clip of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now-discredited assertion about the terror attack, which she made on several Sunday morning talk shows on September 16, 2012. He also noted that Rep. Issa “pointed out Rice’s statement directly contradicted the president of Libya, who had appeared just before her on ‘Face the Nation’.”

Near the end of the segment, Martin underlined a key assertion from Hicks – that the diplomat “told committee investigators Rice’s words were an insult to the president of Libya, and may have hobbled efforts to capture those responsible for the attack. ‘I firmly believe that the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows.’”

Hours later, on Monday’s CBS This Morning, correspondent Margaret Brennan rehashed much of what her colleague had reported the previous evening. Brennan also highlighted another statement from Hicks on Rice’s apparent slight to the Libyan president:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Hicks said that the public contradiction was a personal insult to the Libyan president, because Ambassador Rice – quote, ‘basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.’ He believes that’s why the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI access to the crime scene for several weeks.

Brennan had also singled out the FBI’s pursuit of three persons of interest who could provide information on the attack in Benghazi during a report on Thursday’s CBS This Morning, and touted how “what happened that night is still the topic of debate in Washington“. ABC devoted a news brief to the FBI investigation on Wednesday’s World News, while NBC punted on covering it.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/05/06/cbs-devotes-two-straight-days-coverage-possible-cover-benghazi-abc-nb#ixzz2SeOcSj3V

The Benghazi talking points: What’s known and unknown

Posted by Glenn Kessler

“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”

— Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jan. 23, 2013

New information is raising questions about the development of the administration’s talking points on the deadly attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans, including the ambassador, dead.

Readers may recall that The Fact Checker concluded that there was something rather odd about U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice’s comments on the Sunday news shows shortly after the attack. Rice said the attack “began spontaneously” because of a reaction to a protest in Cairo sparked by a “hateful video,” and there was no indication it was “premeditated or preplanned.”

We awarded her Two Pinocchios the morning after she appeared on the shows, concluding that “the publicly available evidence stands in stark contrast to Rice’s talking points.”

The White House at the time sharply disputed that conclusion, but over time that column has held up rather well. (In an interview with congressional investigators that was released over the weekend, deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks said “my jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”) Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.

The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism.

We also have awarded Pinocchios to Republicans for claims about Benghazi. In this column, as a reader service, we outline below some of the new disclosures, contained in a report by House Republicans and an article in the Weekly Standard, and contrast the new information with previous statements made by administration officials.

The House report contains references to specific e-mails between administration officials; the Weekly Standard then identifies who wrote the e-mails as well as various drafts of the talking points. As far as we know, the administration has not publicly denied the information about the talking points contained in the GOP report or the article.

The key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points. Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence officials.

Here is White House spokesman Jay Carney speaking to reporters on Nov. 28, 2012:

“Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch. And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.”

“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.”

Note how Carney stressed that this was “developed by the intelligence community” and the “talking points originated from the intelligence community.”

In a narrow sense, this is correct. Both the House report and the Weekly Standard say the CIA created — or “originated” — the first draft of the talking points. The version as of Friday morning, Sept. 14, 2012, was rather detailed, saying that “Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the militant group Ansar al-Sharia. It also referred to previous attacks against foreign interests and the possibility there had been surveillance of the U.S. facility.

But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — objected to this draft after being asked to clear the talking points for release. The CIA made some changes, but apparently that was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail disclosed by the House report that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”

(Update: Reading between the lines, part of State’s concern appears to be inconsistency in messaging. Nuland, as State Department spokesman, had been constrained from saying much about the attack at the podium, and now the CIA was proposing to give lawmakers much more information than the administration had released. Moreover, from State’s perspective, the original draft contained references to CIA’s warnings about the security environment, which appeared designed to deflect attention from the agency’s substantial role in Benghazi.)

Minutes later, a White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications), who was part of the email group receiving Nuland’s message, e-mailed to say that the State Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.

The result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike Morell.

Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been mentioned.

Morell may have had his hand on the pen, but the available evidence suggests that White House and State Department had much more involvement than the “single adjustment” of changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” as Carney asserted.

The biggest unknown is whether the “building leadership” in the State Department that objected to the initial talking points included anyone on Clinton’s immediate staff. (One presumes that nit-picking over wording would not have risen to Clinton’s level.) There is no indication that Nuland had any role in crafting or even discussing the talking points after her email on Friday evening, nor is it clear from the email portions that have been released whether she had actually consulted with other officials before objecting to the draft.

Nuland is expected to be nominated for assistant secretary for European affairs. Lawmakers are likely to question her closely on this point during her confirmation hearings.

Clinton, during her testimony before the Senate and the House in January, made the following comments about the development of the talking points. She also stressed it was an “intelligence product” and said she was not involved in the “talking points process” and she “personally” was not focused on them — odd locutions that leave open the possibility that she was aware of the internal debate at the time.

“I would say that I personally was not focused on talking points. I was focused on keeping our people safe.”

“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”

“I was not involved in the so-called talking points process. My understanding is it was a typical process, trying to get to the best information available. It was an intelligence product.”

“The evidence was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points. And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”

As more information emerges, we will continue to track how the administration’s statements hold up over time and whether more Pinocchio ratings are appropriate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-benghazi-talking-points-whats-known-and-unknown/2013/05/06/f689ee08-b693-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

Lankford: Either Obama State Dept Ignored Libya Threats, Or Ignored Diplomats’ Please for Protection

US Security Chief in Libya: “State Department Told Us Don’t Continue To Ask For Help”

ISSA OPENING STATEMENT – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”

President Obama’s Complete UN Address (2012)

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?

Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Most Important Problem

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts

Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke

Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco

US Debt A Threat To National Security

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6

‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

Funding Government by the Minute

Why Not Print More Money?

Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?

US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).

Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP

The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.

With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.

Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.

Revenues

Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).

As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.

Outlays

In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)

After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.

Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections

The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.

Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook

Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:

Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.

Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.

In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.

Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years

The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.

Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.

The Economic Outlook for 2013

CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018

After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.

Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023

For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.

Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907

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

Employment Level Still 3 Million Jobs Less Then Peak Level in November 2007 Plus Short 9 Million Jobs For Population Growth in Last 65 Months — 12 Million Job Shortage — Stagflation — DOW hits 15000, NASDAQ hits 12 year high — Buy Low–Sell High — Sell Your U.S. Bonds and Stocks Now — Videos

Posted on May 3, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: BLS, Buy Low, Civilian Labor Force, Discourages Workers, DOW hits 15000, Economics, Employment Level, Employment Situation Summary, Labor Force Participation Rate, NASDAQ hits 12 year high, New Entrants, Politics, Sell High, Stagflation, Stock Rallly, Teenage Unemployment Rate, U-3, U-6, Unemployment Level, Unemployment Rate, Videos |

DOW hits 15000, NASDAQ hits 12 year high

May 3rd 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (April Jobs Report)

Jobless Rate Falls to Four-Year Low, and More

Jobs Pop, Unemployment Rate Drops

Data extracted on: May 3, 2013 (11:51:32 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Employment Level

143,579,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	136559(1)	136598	136701	137270	136630	136940	136531	136662	136893	137088	137322	137614
2001	137778	137612	137783	137299	137092	136873	137071	136241	136846	136392	136238	136047
2002	135701	136438	136177	136126	136539	136415	136413	136705	137302	137008	136521	136426
2003	137417(1)	137482	137434	137633	137544	137790	137474	137549	137609	137984	138424	138411
2004	138472(1)	138542	138453	138680	138852	139174	139556	139573	139487	139732	140231	140125
2005	140245(1)	140385	140654	141254	141609	141714	142026	142434	142401	142548	142499	142752
2006	143150(1)	143457	143741	143761	144089	144353	144202	144625	144815	145314	145534	145970
2007	146028(1)	146057	146320	145586	145903	146063	145905	145682	146244	145946	146595	146273
2008	146378(1)	146156	146086	146132	145908	145737	145532	145203	145076	144802	144100	143369
2009	142153(1)	141644	140721	140652	140250	140005	139898	139481	138810	138421	138665	138025
2010	138439(1)	138624	138767	139296	139255	139148	139167	139405	139388	139097	139046	139295
2011	139253(1)	139471	139643	139606	139681	139405	139509	139870	140164	140314	140771	140896
2012	141608(1)	142019	142020	141934	142302	142448	142250	142164	142974	143328	143277	143305
2013	143322(1)	143492	143286	143579
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

155,238,000

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	142267(1)	142456	142434	142751	142388	142591	142278	142514	142518	142622	142962	143248
2001	143800	143701	143924	143569	143318	143357	143654	143284	143989	144086	144240	144305
2002	143883	144653	144481	144725	144938	144808	144803	145009	145552	145314	145041	145066
2003	145937(1)	146100	146022	146474	146500	147056	146485	146445	146530	146716	147000	146729
2004	146842(1)	146709	146944	146850	147065	147460	147692	147564	147415	147793	148162	148059
2005	148029(1)	148364	148391	148926	149261	149238	149432	149779	149954	150001	150065	150030
2006	150214(1)	150641	150813	150881	151069	151354	151377	151716	151662	152041	152406	152732
2007	153144(1)	152983	153051	152435	152670	153041	153054	152749	153414	153183	153835	153918
2008	154063(1)	153653	153908	153769	154303	154313	154469	154641	154570	154876	154639	154655
2009	154232(1)	154526	154142	154479	154742	154710	154505	154300	153815	153804	153887	153120
2010	153455(1)	153702	153960	154577	154110	153623	153709	154078	153966	153681	154140	153649
2011	153244(1)	153269	153358	153478	153552	153369	153325	153707	154074	154010	154096	153945
2012	154356(1)	154825	154707	154451	154998	155149	154995	154647	155056	155576	155319	155511
2013	155654(1)	155524	155028	155238
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.3%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.3	67.1	67.1	66.9	66.9	66.9	66.8	66.9	67.0
2001	67.2	67.1	67.2	66.9	66.7	66.7	66.8	66.5	66.8	66.7	66.7	66.7
2002	66.5	66.8	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.6	66.5	66.6	66.7	66.6	66.4	66.3
2003	66.4	66.4	66.3	66.4	66.4	66.5	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	65.9
2004	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.9	66.0	66.1	66.1	66.0	65.8	65.9	66.0	65.9
2005	65.8	65.9	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.0
2006	66.0	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.3	66.4
2007	66.4	66.3	66.2	65.9	66.0	66.0	66.0	65.8	66.0	65.8	66.0	66.0
2008	66.2	66.0	66.1	65.9	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.1	66.0	66.0	65.9	65.8
2009	65.7	65.8	65.6	65.7	65.7	65.7	65.5	65.4	65.1	65.0	65.0	64.6
2010	64.8	64.9	64.9	65.1	64.9	64.6	64.6	64.7	64.6	64.4	64.6	64.3
2011	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.2	64.0	64.0	64.1	64.2	64.1	64.1	64.0
2012	63.7	63.9	63.8	63.6	63.8	63.8	63.7	63.5	63.6	63.8	63.6	63.6
2013	63.6	63.5	63.3	63.3

Unemployment Level

11,659,000

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	5708	5858	5733	5481	5758	5651	5747	5853	5625	5534	5639	5634
2001	6023	6089	6141	6271	6226	6484	6583	7042	7142	7694	8003	8258
2002	8182	8215	8304	8599	8399	8393	8390	8304	8251	8307	8520	8640
2003	8520	8618	8588	8842	8957	9266	9011	8896	8921	8732	8576	8317
2004	8370	8167	8491	8170	8212	8286	8136	7990	7927	8061	7932	7934
2005	7784	7980	7737	7672	7651	7524	7406	7345	7553	7453	7566	7279
2006	7064	7184	7072	7120	6980	7001	7175	7091	6847	6727	6872	6762
2007	7116	6927	6731	6850	6766	6979	7149	7067	7170	7237	7240	7645
2008	7685	7497	7822	7637	8395	8575	8937	9438	9494	10074	10538	11286
2009	12079	12881	13421	13826	14492	14705	14607	14819	15005	15382	15223	15095
2010	15016	15078	15192	15281	14856	14475	14542	14673	14577	14584	15094	14354
2011	13992	13798	13716	13872	13871	13964	13817	13837	13910	13696	13325	13049
2012	12748	12806	12686	12518	12695	12701	12745	12483	12082	12248	12042	12206
2013	12332	12032	11742	11659

Unemployment Rate U-3

7.5%

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	4.0	4.1	4.0	3.8	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	3.9	3.9	3.9	3.9
2001	4.2	4.2	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.5	4.6	4.9	5.0	5.3	5.5	5.7
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	9.0	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.3
2011	9.1	9.0	8.9	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.0	8.9	8.6	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.1	7.8	7.9	7.8	7.8
2013	7.9	7.7	7.6	7.5

16-19 Years (Teenage) Unemployment Rate

24.1%

Series Id:           LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 years

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	12.7	13.8	13.3	12.6	12.8	12.3	13.4	14.0	13.0	12.8	13.0	13.2
2001	13.8	13.7	13.8	13.9	13.4	14.2	14.4	15.6	15.2	16.0	15.9	17.0
2002	16.5	16.0	16.6	16.7	16.6	16.7	16.8	17.0	16.3	15.1	17.1	16.9
2003	17.2	17.2	17.8	17.7	17.9	19.0	18.2	16.6	17.6	17.2	15.7	16.2
2004	17.0	16.5	16.8	16.6	17.1	17.0	17.8	16.7	16.6	17.4	16.4	17.6
2005	16.2	17.5	17.1	17.8	17.8	16.3	16.1	16.1	15.5	16.1	17.0	14.9
2006	15.1	15.3	16.1	14.6	14.0	15.8	15.9	16.0	16.3	15.2	14.8	14.6
2007	14.8	14.9	14.9	15.9	15.9	16.3	15.3	15.9	15.9	15.4	16.2	16.8
2008	17.8	16.6	16.1	15.9	19.0	19.2	20.7	18.6	19.1	20.0	20.3	20.5
2009	20.7	22.2	22.2	22.2	23.4	24.7	24.3	25.0	25.9	27.1	26.9	26.6
2010	26.0	25.4	26.2	25.5	26.6	26.0	26.0	25.7	25.8	27.2	24.6	25.1
2011	25.5	24.0	24.4	24.7	24.0	24.7	24.9	25.2	24.4	24.1	23.9	22.9
2012	23.4	23.7	25.0	24.9	24.4	23.7	23.9	24.5	23.7	23.7	23.6	23.5
2013	23.4	25.1	24.2	24.1

Average Weeks Unemployed

36.5%

Series Id:           LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number of weeks
Age:                 16 years and over

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	13.1	12.6	12.7	12.4	12.6	12.3	13.4	12.9	12.2	12.7	12.4	12.5
2001	12.7	12.8	12.8	12.4	12.1	12.7	12.9	13.3	13.2	13.3	14.3	14.5
2002	14.7	15.0	15.4	16.3	16.8	16.9	16.9	16.5	17.6	17.8	17.6	18.5
2003	18.5	18.5	18.1	19.4	19.0	19.9	19.7	19.2	19.5	19.3	19.9	19.8
2004	19.9	20.1	19.8	19.6	19.8	20.5	18.8	18.8	19.4	19.5	19.7	19.4
2005	19.5	19.1	19.5	19.6	18.6	17.9	17.6	18.4	17.9	17.9	17.5	17.5
2006	16.9	17.8	17.1	16.7	17.1	16.6	17.1	17.1	17.1	16.3	16.2	16.1
2007	16.3	16.7	17.8	16.9	16.6	16.5	17.2	17.0	16.3	17.0	17.3	16.6
2008	17.5	16.9	16.5	16.9	16.6	17.1	17.0	17.7	18.6	19.9	18.9	19.9
2009	19.8	20.1	20.9	21.6	22.4	23.9	25.1	25.3	26.7	27.4	29.0	29.7
2010	30.4	29.8	31.6	33.2	33.9	34.4	33.8	33.6	33.4	34.0	34.1	34.8
2011	37.3	37.4	39.2	38.6	39.5	39.6	40.4	40.3	40.4	38.9	40.7	40.7
2012	40.2	39.9	39.5	39.1	39.6	39.7	38.8	39.3	39.6	39.9	39.7	38.1
2013	35.3	36.9	37.1	36.5

Unemployment Level New Entrants

1,280,000

Series Id:                  LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:               (Seas) Unemployment Level – New Entrants
Labor force status:         Unemployed
Type of data:               Number in thousands
Age:                        16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status:  New entrants

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2000	394	420	429	406	466	427	433	499	415	402	419	490
2001	444	396	378	457	468	467	448	485	473	481	495	515
2002	484	507	538	527	497	549	545	612	536	479	591	535
2003	599	584	630	635	630	661	669	652	686	636	593	693
2004	676	666	631	652	718	649	702	704	695	734	700	702
2005	621	753	712	764	710	650	630	626	607	638	673	633
2006	616	711	636	591	517	646	639	646	612	572	591	586
2007	622	599	615	620	530	640	602	588	668	696	678	679
2008	677	656	704	625	797	786	835	821	815	819	763	803
2009	779	999	874	901	965	1002	1004	1085	1150	1100	1326	1240
2010	1199	1192	1155	1188	1201	1170	1207	1279	1211	1277	1272	1308
2011	1352	1289	1308	1301	1220	1231	1278	1260	1370	1289	1271	1286
2012	1258	1382	1421	1362	1347	1316	1299	1268	1253	1302	1326	1291
2013	1287	1279	1316	1280

Not in Labor Force, Search For Work and Available

2,347,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026642
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Available to work now

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2000	1207	1281	1219	1216	1113	1142	1172	1097	1166	1044	1100	1125	1157
2001	1295	1337	1109	1131	1157	1170	1232	1364	1335	1398	1331	1330	1266
2002	1532	1423	1358	1397	1467	1380	1507	1456	1501	1416	1401	1432	1439
2003	1598	1590	1577	1399	1428	1468	1566	1665	1544	1586	1473	1483	1531
2004	1670	1691	1643	1526	1533	1492	1557	1587	1561	1647	1517	1463	1574
2005	1804	1673	1588	1511	1428	1583	1516	1583	1438	1414	1415	1589	1545
2006	1644	1471	1468	1310	1388	1584	1522	1592	1299	1478	1366	1252	1448
2007	1577	1451	1385	1391	1406	1454	1376	1365	1268	1364	1363	1344	1395
2008	1729	1585	1352	1414	1416	1558	1573	1640	1604	1637	1947	1908	1614
2009	2130	2051	2106	2089	2210	2176	2282	2270	2219	2373	2323	2486	2226
2010	2539	2527	2255	2432	2223	2591	2622	2370	2548	2602	2531	2609	2487
2011	2800	2730	2434	2466	2206	2680	2785	2575	2511	2555	2591	2540	2573
2012	2809	2608	2352	2363	2423	2483	2529	2561	2517	2433	2505	2614	2516
2013	2443	2588	2326	2347

Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available,

Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking

835,000

Series Id:                       LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2000	236	267	258	331	280	309	266	203	253	232	236	269	262
2001	301	287	349	349	328	294	310	337	285	331	328	348	321
2002	328	375	330	320	414	342	405	378	392	359	385	403	369
2003	449	450	474	437	482	478	470	503	388	462	457	433	457
2004	432	484	514	492	476	478	504	534	412	429	392	442	466
2005	515	485	480	393	392	476	499	384	362	392	404	451	436
2006	396	386	451	381	323	481	428	448	325	331	349	274	381
2007	442	375	381	399	368	401	367	392	276	320	349	363	369
2008	467	396	401	412	400	420	461	381	467	484	608	642	462
2009	734	731	685	740	792	793	796	758	706	808	861	929	778
2010	1065	1204	994	1197	1083	1207	1185	1110	1209	1219	1282	1318	1173
2011	993	1020	921	989	822	982	1119	977	1037	967	1096	945	989
2012	1059	1006	865	968	830	821	852	844	802	813	979	1068	909
2013	804	885	803	835

Total Unemployment Rate U-6

13.9%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

2000	7.1	7.2	7.1	6.9	7.1	7.0	7.0	7.1	7.0	6.8	7.1	6.9
2001	7.3	7.4	7.3	7.4	7.5	7.9	7.8	8.1	8.7	9.3	9.4	9.6
2002	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.7	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.6	9.7	9.8
2003	10.0	10.2	10.0	10.2	10.1	10.3	10.3	10.1	10.4	10.2	10.0	9.8
2004	9.9	9.7	10.0	9.6	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.4	9.7	9.4	9.2
2005	9.3	9.3	9.1	8.9	8.9	9.0	8.8	8.9	9.0	8.7	8.7	8.6
2006	8.4	8.4	8.2	8.1	8.2	8.4	8.5	8.4	8.0	8.2	8.1	7.9
2007	8.4	8.2	8.0	8.2	8.2	8.3	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.8
2008	9.2	9.0	9.1	9.2	9.7	10.1	10.5	10.8	11.0	11.8	12.6	13.6
2009	14.2	15.1	15.7	15.9	16.4	16.5	16.5	16.7	16.7	17.1	17.1	17.1
2010	16.7	17.0	17.0	17.1	16.6	16.5	16.5	16.5	16.8	16.7	16.9	16.6
2011	16.2	16.0	15.8	16.0	15.8	16.1	16.0	16.1	16.3	16.0	15.5	15.2
2012	15.1	15.0	14.5	14.5	14.8	14.8	14.9	14.7	14.7	14.5	14.4	14.4
2013	14.4	14.3	13.8	13.9

Background Articles and Videos

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed                   USDL-13-0785
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, May 3, 2013

Technical information:
 Household data:       (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:   (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov

                       THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2013

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 165,000 in April, and the unemployment 
rate was little changed at 7.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, 
food services and drinking places, retail trade, and health care.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has 
declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed 
persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however, 
unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women
(6.7 percent) declined in April, while the rates for adult men (7.1
percent), teenagers (24.1 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks (13.2
percent), and Hispanics (9.0 percent) showed little or no change. The
jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),
little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In April, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27
weeks or more) declined by 258,000 to 4.4 million; their share of the
unemployed declined by 2.2 percentage points to 37.4 percent. Over the
past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by
687,000, and their share has declined by 3.1 percentage points. (See
table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.3 percent in April,
unchanged over the month but down from 63.6 percent in January. The
employment-population ratio, 58.6 percent, was about unchanged over
the month and has shown little movement, on net, over the past year.
(See table A-1.)

In April, the number of persons employed part time for economic
reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)
increased by 278,000 to 7.9 million, largely offsetting a decrease in
March. These individuals were working part time because their hours
had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
(See table A-8.)

In April, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 835,000 discouraged workers
in April, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in April had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. 
(See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 165,000 in April, with
job gains in professional and business services, food services and
drinking places, retail trade, and health care. Over the prior 12
months, employment growth averaged 169,000 per month. (See table B-1.)

Professional and business services added 73,000 jobs in April and has
added 587,000 jobs over the past year. In April, employment rose in
temporary help services (+31,000), professional and technical services
(+23,000), and management of companies (+7,000).

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and
drinking places rose by 38,000 over the month. Job growth in the food
services industry averaged 25,000 per month over the prior 12 months.

Retail trade employment increased by 29,000 in April. The industry
added an average of 21,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months. In
April, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+15,000) and
in health and personal care stores (+5,000).

Health care added 19,000 jobs in April. Within the industry, employment 
rose in ambulatory health care services (+14,000). Over the prior 12 
months, job growth in health care averaged 24,000 per month. In April, 
employment also continued its upward trend in social assistance (+7,000).

Employment changed little over the month in construction, with small
offsetting movements in the residential and nonresidential components.
Construction gained an average of 27,000 jobs per month over the prior 
6 months. Manufacturing employment was unchanged in April.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging,
wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities,
and government, showed little change over the month.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
decreased by 0.2 hour in April to 34.4 hours. Within manufacturing, 
the workweek decreased by 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, and overtime declined 
by 0.1 hour to 3.3 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1
hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In April, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.87. Over the year, average hourly
earnings have risen by 45 cents, or 1.9 percent. In April, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory
employees edged up by 2 cents to $20.06. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was
revised from +268,000 to +332,000, and the change for March was
revised from +88,000 to +138,000. With these revisions, employment
gains in February and March combined were 114,000 higher than
previously reported.

____________
The Employment Situation for May is scheduled to be released on
Friday, June 7, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

CategoryApr.
2012Feb.
2013Mar.
2013Apr.
2013Change from:
Mar.
2013-
Apr.
2013Employment status Civilian noninstitutional population242,784244,828244,995245,175180Civilian labor force154,451155,524155,028155,238210Participation rate63.663.563.363.30.0Employed141,934143,492143,286143,579293Employment-population ratio58.558.658.558.60.1Unemployed12,51812,03211,74211,659-83Unemployment rate8.17.77.67.5-0.1Not in labor force88,33289,30489,96789,936-31 Unemployment rates Total, 16 years and over8.17.77.67.5-0.1Adult men (20 years and over)7.57.16.97.10.2Adult women (20 years and over)7.47.07.06.7-0.3Teenagers (16 to 19 years)24.925.124.224.1-0.1White7.46.86.76.70.0Black or African American13.113.813.313.2-0.1Asian (not seasonally adjusted)5.26.15.05.1-Hispanic or Latino ethnicity10.39.69.29.0-0.2 Total, 25 years and over6.86.36.26.1-0.1Less than a high school diploma12.511.211.111.60.5High school graduates, no college7.97.97.67.4-0.2Some college or associate degree7.56.76.46.40.0Bachelor’s degree and higher4.03.83.83.90.1 Reason for unemployment Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs6,8806,5226,3296,41081Job leavers989956986864-122Reentrants3,3363,3403,1763,151-25New entrants1,3621,2791,3161,280-36 Duration of unemployment Less than 5 weeks2,5672,6672,4642,474105 to 14 weeks2,8412,7822,8382,8481015 to 26 weeks1,9841,6951,7371,96723027 weeks and over5,0404,7974,6114,353-258 Employed persons at work part time Part time for economic reasons7,8967,9887,6387,916278Slack work or business conditions5,2105,1364,9065,129223Could only find part-time work2,3932,5782,5762,527-49Part time for noneconomic reasons18,86818,90818,74518,908163 Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted) Marginally attached to the labor force2,3632,5882,3262,347-Discouraged workers968885803835– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category	Apr. 2012	Feb. 2013	Mar. 2013(p)	Apr. 2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY (Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm	112	332	138	165
Total private	120	319	154	176
Goods-producing	6	75	15	-9
Mining and logging	0	4	0	-3
Construction	-4	48	13	-6
Manufacturing	10	23	2	0
Durable goods(1)	8	12	7	1
Motor vehicles and parts	1.0	6.4	4.1	2.4
Nondurable goods	2	11	-5	-1
Private service-providing(1)	114	244	139	185
Wholesale trade	13.2	4.7	2.9	4.1
Retail trade	30.4	25.8	-3.9	29.3
Transportation and warehousing	-15.1	-5.3	-6.7	4.2
Information	0	18	2	-9
Financial activities	5	15	5	9
Professional and business services(1)	45	93	64	73
Temporary help services	14.7	27.5	25.5	30.8
Education and health services(1)	22	31	46	28
Health care and social assistance	20.7	37.0	26.5	26.1
Leisure and hospitality	14	63	38	43
Other services	0	-1	-8	4
Government	-8	13	-16	-11

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2) AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees	49.4	49.3	49.3	49.3
Total private women employees	47.8	47.8	47.8	47.9
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees	82.6	82.6	82.6	82.6

HOURS AND EARNINGS ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours	34.5	34.5	34.6	34.4
Average hourly earnings	$23.42	$23.82	$23.83	$23.87
Average weekly earnings	$807.99	$821.79	$824.52	$821.13
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)	96.3	97.9	98.3	97.9
Over-the-month percent change	0.1	0.5	0.4	-0.4
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)	107.6	111.2	111.7	111.5
Over-the-month percent change	0.2	0.7	0.4	-0.2

HOURS AND EARNINGS PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours	33.7	33.8	33.8	33.7
Average hourly earnings	$19.72	$20.03	$20.04	$20.06
Average weekly earnings	$664.56	$677.01	$677.35	$676.02
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)	103.6	105.6	105.7	105.5
Over-the-month percent change	0.1	0.9	0.1	-0.2
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4)	136.4	141.2	141.4	141.3
Over-the-month percent change	0.3	1.1	0.1	-0.1

DIFFUSION INDEX(5) (Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries)	58.3	61.7	56.2	53.9
Manufacturing (81 industries)	54.9	56.8	51.9	44.4
Footnotes (1) Includes other industries, not shown separately. (2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries. (3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours. (4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls. (5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment. (p) Preliminary

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

Ben Bernanke Boom Bubble Blower Busted By The Bubble Film — Videos

Posted on May 1, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Austrian School of Economics, Banking, Ben Bernanke, Boom, Bubble, Bubble Busting, Bust, Creating Money, David Stockman, economic growth, Economics, Federal Funds Rate, fiscal policy, Friedrick Hayek, Housing, Housing Bubble, inflation, Jim Grant, Jim Rogers, Joseph Salerno, Keynesians, Ludwig von Mises, Marc Faber, Misallocation of Resources, monetary policy, Money, Peter Schiff, Quantitative Easing, Recession, Robert Murphy, Roger Garrison, Savings, Tom Woods, Videos |

Ben Bernanke Is The Most Dangerous Man In US History

BREAKING 2013 Economic Collapse Peter Schiff

The Bubble film official trailer

Raw footage of Jim Rogers interview – The Bubble film

Raw Footage of Doug Casey Interview from The Bubble

Raw footage of Jim Grant interview from The Bubble film

Raw footage of Peter Schiff Interview from The Bubble

The Bubble – Raw footage of Marc Faber interview

Raw Footage of Peter Wallison Interview from The Bubble

Raw Footage of Joseph Salerno Interview from The Bubble

Raw Footage of Robert Murphy interview from The Bubble

Raw footage of Roger Garrison Interview from The Bubble

Raw footage of Ron Paul interview from The Bubble film

The Bubble film panel at Freedom Fest 2012

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Background Articles and Videos

The American Dream By The Provocateur Network

Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation

The Fed, Ben Bernanke & the Economy (4/30/13)

Coming Economic Collapse Peter Schiff RT America

Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle | Roger W. Garrison

Tom Woods Discusses his New Documentary, The Bubble

Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 1/2

Director of “The Bubble” Jimmy Morrison interview with ManifestLiberty.com Part 2/2

Fed Keeps Interest Rates Low, Continues Bond Buying Program

The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.

Interest rates will remain at historically low levels while the U.S. central bank will not alter its $85 billion a month asset purchasing program, the Fed’s Open Markets Committee decided at this week’s meeting.

While recent meetings have been remarkable for signs of dissent over the long-standing Fed policy, the sentiment this month turned towards concerns about “downside risks” to growth, though the FOMC made no mention of the recent set of weak economic data.

The Federal Reserve held fast to its ultra-accommodative monetary policy Wednesday, solidified by what board members described as an economy weakened by fiscal policy.

While stocks have soared to new highs, the economy remains in slow-growth mode as it has throughout Chairman Ben Bernanke’s term, which began just before the onset of the financial crisis.

The stock market reacted little to the 2 pm news, maintaining an earlier selloff spurred over jobs fears.

Fed officials have long bemoaned Washington fiscal policy, with Congress and the White House in a continued stalemate that has resulted in a raft of mandated tax increases and spending cuts known as the sequester.

The May FOMC statement kept up the heat.

“Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, and the housing sector has strengthened further, but fiscal policy is restraining economic growth,” the statement said.

The Fed’s decision came the same day as a report on private payrolls fell well below expectations, indicating just 119,000 new jobs created, a seven-month low.

While critics worry about inflation, the Fed continued to conclude that “expectations have remained stable.”

The Fed has vowed to keep interest rates exceptionally low until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent from its current 7.6 percent and until inflation reaches 2.5 percent from its current 1.5 percent.

-By CNBC.com Senior Writer Jeff Cox.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100695681

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

The Penalty For Stalling An Aircraft on Takeoff — Death — Video

Posted on April 30, 2013. Filed under: Airplanes, Blogroll, Communications, Diasters, Links, Literacy, media, Transportation, Video, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: Bagram Airfield, Crash, Stall |

Bagram airfield crash 29 apr 2013

Bagram airfield crash 29 apr 2013
A civilian cargo plane crash at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul in Afghanistan has killed seven people.

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

Secretary Lew Opposes Proposed Congress’ New Law That Prioritizes Payments of Treasury Securities — Videos

Posted on April 30, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, Water, Wisdom | Tags: Debt Limit, Treasury Securities |

Rep. Yoder questions Treasury Sec. Lew

Treasury Chief Warns of New World If US Defaults on Any Bills

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/US-default-debt-ceiling/2013/04/25/id/501411?s=al&promo_code=134AA-1#ixzz2S0K088S7
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

The United States might run into trouble accessing debt markets if it defaulted on any of its financial obligations, even if it were able to keep up payments on government bonds, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress.

Lew was responding to questions about a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would prioritize payments on government bonds and Social Security if the United States hits its debt limit, in order to avoid a credit default.

If passed, the law would make it easier for Republicans to use a fight over the nation’s legal borrowing limit, known as the debt ceiling, to try to extract spending cuts from President Barack Obama.

“The thing I would urge you to consider is, you enter a world we’ve never been in once the United States is not meeting its obligations,” Lew told a House subcommittee. “We cannot assume markets will function in an orderly way if that (happens).”

The current suspension of the debt limit expires on May 19, although the Treasury can use emergency cash-management measures to push off the day of reckoning into August. The date could fall even further in the future given unexpectedly strong tax revenues and the possibility of a big payment to the Treasury from housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Lew has said it is impossible to try to pinpoint when exactly the use of these emergency maneuvers would be exhausted due to a delayed tax filing season and uncertainty about the effect of steep government spending cuts known as the sequester.

Once the United States reaches its debt limit, the government faces the prospect of defaulting on financial obligations, and potentially its debt, which could shake up markets and damage the economy.

Staff at the International Monetary Fund warned that failure to smoothly raise the U.S. debt ceiling could do serious damage to the global economy.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/US-default-debt-ceiling/2013/04/25/id/501411?s=al&promo_code=134AA-1#ixzz2S0KN9Eoz
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

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

Stephen Coughlin — Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe — Videos

Posted on April 29, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Strategy, Terrorism, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: Islamic Law, Jihadist, Stephen Coughlin, Terrorism |

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had an demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

PARTS OF THIS SERIES:

(1) Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)
(2) Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law
(3) Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process
(4) The Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process
(5) The Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Enforcing Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law

Benghazi: US Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine

Steven Coughlin Remarks on the Benghazi Embassy Cover Up

Background Articles and Videos

Terrorism & Jihad: An Islamic Perspective – Dr. Zakir Naik

Stephen Coughlin, Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law

Background Articles and Videos

Who was Frank Marshall Davis? (This is a 32-page analysis of the FBI file by Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein.) PDF
The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii (Andrew Walden examines the remnants of the Davis network in Hawaii). PDF
Pages from the FBI File (This 40-page report includes selected pages from the FBI file which document Davis’s Communist history and pro-Soviet and anti-white views). PDF
FBI File #1 (PDF)
FBI File #2 (PDF)
FBI File #3 (PDF)
FBI File #4 (PDF)
FBI File #5 (PDF)
FBI File #6 (PDF)
The Communist Party of Frank Marshall Davis (PDF)

Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 1/3)

Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 2/3)

Frank Marshall Davis – Rice & Roses Documentary (part 3/3)

Obama’s Real Father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis?

Michael Savage on Obama’s REAL Father; Dreams From My Real Father DVD; Savage Nation

Glenn Beck – Presidential Lies “Do You Know Anybody Like Barack Obama?”

Barack Obama 1995 Interview on Dreams From My Father Part 1

Barack Obama 1995 Interview on Dreams of My Father Part 2

Background Articles and Videos

Meltdown (pt 1-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 2-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse 2010

Meltdown (pt 3-4) The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse.2010

Meltdown – pt 4-4 The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse (2010)

The Fall of Lehman Brothers

Goldman Sachs: Power and Peril – Documentary

The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of The World by Niall Ferguson Epsd. 1-5 (Full Documentary)

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 1

The Fall of the Dollar – The Death of a Fiat Currency part 2

The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse

LIFE HIDDEN TRUTH 2013 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.

One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling book Aftershock.

Editor’s Note: Wiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.

Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.

The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.

A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”

The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”

And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”

In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.

Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola#ixzz2RhO2R5ey
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/billionaires-dump-economist-stock/2012/08/29/id/450265?PROMO_CODE=110D8-1&utm_source=taboola

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

2.5% First Quarter 2013 Real Annual Growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — Stagflation — Government GDP Calculation of Investment To Include Intangibles R&D — Videos

Posted on April 26, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: BEA, Business Investment, GDP, Gross Domestic Product, New Way of Calculating GDP, Peter Schiff, Research By Defense Contractors, USA |

Ken Langone: Regulation Biggest Issue Hurting U.S. Economy

April 26 (Bloomberg) — Ken Langone, founder & CEO at Invemed Associates, talks with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker and Sara Eisen about first-quarter U.S. GDP, the impact of regulations and the anti-business stance of the Obama Administration. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers.”

Peter Schiff We re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming

[

GDP Propaganda Exposed

Data shift to lift US economy 3%

By Robin Harding in Washington

The US economy will officially become 3 per cent bigger in July as part of a shake-up that will see government statistics take into account 21st century components such as film royalties and spending on research and development.

Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy in a revision aimed at capturing the changing nature of US output.

Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told the Financial Times that the update was the biggest since computer software was added to the accounts in 1999.

“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.

The changes will affect everything from the measured GDP of different US states to the stability of the inflation measure targeted by the Federal Reserve. They will force economists to revisit policy debates about everything from corporate profits to the causes of economic growth.

The revision, equivalent to adding a country as big as Belgium to the estimated size of the world economy, will make the US one of the first adopters of a new international standard for GDP accounting.

“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Mr Moulton.

At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.

GDP will soar in small states that host a lot of military R&D, but barely change in others, widening measured income gaps across the US. R&D is expected to boost the GDP of New Mexico by 10 per cent and Maryland by 6 per cent while Louisiana will see an increase of just 0.6 per cent.

Creative works are expected to add a further 0.5 per cent to the overall size of the US economy. Around one-third of that will come from movies, one-third from TV programmes, and one-third from books, music and theatre.

Deficits in defined benefit pension schemes will also be included because what companies have promised to pay out will be measured, rather than the cash they pay into plans.

“We will now show a liability for underfunded plans, which particularly has large ramifications for the government sector, where both at the state level and the federal level we have large underfunded plans,” said Mr Moulton.

The changes are in addition to a comprehensive revision of the national accounts that takes place every five years based on an economic census of nearly 4m US businesses.

Steve Landefeld, BEA director, said it was hard to predict the overall outcome given the mixture of new methodology and data updates. “What’s going to happen when you mix it with the new source data from the economic census . . . I don’t know,” he said.

But he said the revisions were unlikely to alter the picture of what has happened to the economy in recent years. “I wouldn’t be looking for large changes in trends or cycles.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d23fa6-aa98-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Rb5G6QBg

US GDP Will Be Revised Higher By $500 Billion Following Addition Of “Intangibles” To Economy

Submitted by Tyler Durden

Those who have been following the US debt to GDP ratio now that the US officially does not have a debt ceiling indefinitely, may have had the occasional panic attack seeing how this country’s leverage ratio is rapidly approaching that of a Troika case study of a PIIG in complete failure. And at 107% debt/GDP no explanations are necessary. Luckily, the official gatekeepers of America’s economic growth (with decimal point precision), the Bureau of Economic Analysis have a plan on how to make the US economy, which is now growing at an abysmal 1.5% annualized pace, or about 5 times slower than US debt growing at 7.5% annually, catch up: magically make up a number out of thin air, and add it to the total. And it literally is out of thin air: according to the FT the addition will constitute of a one-time addition of intangibles, amounting to 3% of total US GDP, or more than the size of Belgium at $500 billion, to the US economy.

From FT:

The US economy will officially become 3 per cent bigger in July as part of a shake-up that will see government statistics take into account 21st century components such as film royalties and spending on research and development.

Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the gross domestic product of the world’s largest economy in a revision aimed at capturing the changing nature of US output.

Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told the Financial Times that the update was the biggest since computer software was added to the accounts in 1999.

“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.

What exactly will constitute GDP growth going forward? In a word, intangibles: films, books, magazines and iTunes songs.

“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings,” said Mr Moulton.

At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.

Nothing like adding intangibles in the fluid, ever-changing definition of what constitutes an economy.

Naturally, the only reason for this artificial “boost” to the US economy which apparently can be any old arbitrary number agreed upon by a few accountants, and which always goes up post revision, never down, is to make US debt/GDP under 100% once again, if only very briefly. Surely a few months later something else can be “added” to GDP making the US economy appear better than it is once more.

Finally, all of the above is a distraction for idiots.

As most people should know by know (this logically excludes economists), the only factor leading to economic “growth” is the expansion of liabilities of the financial system, whereby new credit (in a healthy environment, not one centrally-planned by several Princeton real-world rejects, where the central bank is forced to create all credit expansion with money that never leaves the banks and the capital markets closed loop) creates new money, creates demand for products and services, and circulates in the economy.

This can be seen in the chart below which shows the nearly perfect correlation between total bank liabilities in the US, as per the Fed’s Flow Of Funds report, and total US GDP.

Bottom line: the BEA can capitalize air consumption if it thinks it will make US GDP soar, but unless new credit and bank liabilities are created not due to forced supply but demand, and unless the private financial sector is finally willing to start lending money (which for the entire duration of QE it has not) US growth will stall and then proceed to decline.

Case in point: total US commerical bank loans are still lower than they were the day Lehman filed.

In other words, all the GDP “growth” since the Lehman failure has come on the back of money “created” by the Fed.

And there are still those who think the Fed will ever unwind…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-21/us-gdp-will-be-revised-higher-500-billion-following-addition-intangibles-economy

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013

BEA 13-18

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni:	(202) 606-5304	(GDP)	gdpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message:	(202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa:	(202) 606-2649	(News Media)

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, First Quarter 2013 (advance estimate)

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the first-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source
data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3 and
"Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 5). The "second" estimate for the first quarter, based on
more complete data, will be released on May 30, 2013.

The increase in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, exports, residential investment,
and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal
government spending and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.

BOX_______________________
Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

BEA plans to release the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 "advance" estimate
on July 31, 2013. More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions, including a link to an article in the March 2013 issue of the Survey of
Current Business that discusses the upcoming changes in definitions and presentations, including
capitalizing spending on research and development and on entertainment originals and measuring
transactions of defined benefit pension plans on an accrual accounting basis. An article in the May
Survey will describe changes in statistical methods, and an article in the September Survey will describe
the estimates in detail. Revised NIPA table stubs and news release stubs will be available in June.

FOOTNOTE___________________

Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. "Real" estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on www.bea.gov along with the Technical Note and highlights related to this release.
___________________________

The acceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private
inventory investment, an acceleration in PCE, an upturn in exports, and a smaller decrease in federal
government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in imports and a deceleration in nonresidential
fixed investment.

Motor vehicle output added 0.24 percentage point to the first-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.18 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.01
percentage point from the first-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.10 percentage point to the
fourth-quarter change.

The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the fourth.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.3 percent in
the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the fourth.

Real personal consumption expenditures increased 3.2 percent in the first quarter, compared with
an increase of 1.8 percent in the fourth. Durable goods increased 8.1 percent, compared with an increase
of 13.6 percent. Nondurable goods increased 1.0 percent, compared with an increase of 0.1 percent.
Services increased 3.1 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.

Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 2.1 percent in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of 13.2 percent in the fourth. Nonresidential structures decreased 0.3 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 16.7 percent. Equipment and software increased 3.0 percent, compared with an increase of
11.8 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 12.6 percent, compared with an increase of
17.6 percent.

Real exports of goods and services increased 2.9 percent in the first quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 2.8 percent in the fourth. Real imports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent, in
contrast to a decrease of 4.2 percent.

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 8.4 percent
in the first quarter, compared with a decrease of 14.8 percent in the fourth. National defense decreased
11.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 22.1 percent. Nondefense decreased 2.0 percent, in contrast
to an increase of 1.7 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 1.5 percent.

The change in real private inventories added 1.03 percentage points to the first-quarter change in
real GDP after subtracting 1.52 percentage points from the fourth-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $50.3 billion in the first quarter, following increases of $13.3 billion in the fourth
quarter and $60.3 billion in the third.

Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.5
percent in the first quarter, compared with an increase of 1.9 percent in the fourth.

Gross domestic purchases

Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.9 percent in the first quarter; it was unchanged in the fourth quarter.

Disposition of personal income

Current-dollar personal income decreased $109.1 billion (3.2 percent) in the first quarter, in
contrast to an increase of $262.3 billion (8.1 percent) in the fourth. The downturn in personal income
primarily reflected a sharp downturn in personal dividend income and a sharp acceleration in
contributions for government social insurance -- a subtraction in the calculation of personal income.
Fourth-quarter personal dividend income was boosted by the payment of accelerated and special
dividends. The acceleration in contributions for government social insurance in the first quarter resulted
from the expiration of the "payroll tax holiday."

Personal current taxes increased $27.2 billion in the first quarter, compared with an increase of
$34.3 billion in the fourth.

Disposable personal income decreased $136.3 billion (4.4 percent) in the first quarter, in contrast
to an increase of $228.0 billion (7.9 percent) in the fourth. Real disposable personal income decreased
5.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 6.2 percent.

Personal outlays increased $116.3 billion (4.1 percent) in the first quarter, compared with an
increase of $97.0 billion (3.4 percent) in the fourth. Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $313.3 billion in the first quarter, compared with $566.0 billion in the fourth.

The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
2.6 percent in the first quarter, compared with 4.7 percent in the fourth. For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.

Current-dollar GDP

Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
3.7 percent, or $146.1 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $16,010.2 billion. In the fourth quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 1.3 percent, or $53.1 billion.

BOX_____________________
Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note
that is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed
"Key Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an
analysis of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site;
click on Survey of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy." For information on revisions, see
"Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
________________________

BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov. By visiting the
site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

* * *

Next release -- May 30, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2013 (Preliminary Estimate)

Comparisons of Revisions to GDP

Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule: the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.

Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data. Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.

The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates. From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point. From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points. The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates. The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts. The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.

Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
[Annual rates]

Vintages Average Average without Standard deviation of
compared regard to sign revisions without
regard to sign

____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________

Advance to second.................... 0.2 0.6 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .7 .4
Second to third...................... .0 .3 .2

Advance to latest.................... .3 1.2 1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

Advance to second.................... 0.1 0.5 0.4
Advance to third..................... .1 .6 .5
Second to third...................... .0 .2 .2

Advance to latest.................... .2 1.3 1.0

NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.

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

Progressive President Problem — Warfare and Welfare State — Big Government Intervention In Economy At Home and Militarily Abroad — Government Dependency — Serfdom and Collectivism in The New World Order — They Have Won — The Solution — Freedom Force International– Videos

Posted on April 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: Barack Obama, Big Government, Bilderberg Group, Bill Clinton, Carroll Quigley, CFR, Collectivism, communism, Council of Foreign Relations, Freedom Force International, G. Edward Griffin, George W. Bush, government Dependency, Government Interventionism, Individualism, Jimmy Carter, President George H. W. Bush, Progressive Presidents, Progressives, Round Tables, Socialism, The Creature From Jekyll Island, The Road to Serfdom, Trilateral Commission, Tyranny, United Nations, Warfare and Welfare State |

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy (Full Length)

An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International – Full

G. Edward Griffin Promotes Freedom Force International Part 1 of 2

G. Edward Griffin Promotes Freedom Force International Part 2 of 2

Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.

Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full

George W. Bush breaks down at library dedication

Bill Clinton speaks of Carroll Quigley at 1992 Democratic National Convention

Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government

Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller

Americans and Collectivism – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.26

Glenn Beck Predicts New World Order. Global Reset. U.S. Will Be A 3rd World State

Glenn Beck- ‘How Did Communism Become Cool?’

Super rich are in a conspiracy to rule the world – G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin The Dangerous Servant A Discourse on Government

The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture

“Legalized Plunder of the American People” – G. Edward Griffin

The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline | James Perloff

Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined Full

[yotube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E]

THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one’s own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people’s money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least.

THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. These are The Three Commandments of Freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Only individuals have rights, not groups. Therefore, do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the alleged rights of groups.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
To favor one class of citizens over others is not equality under law. Therefore, do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
The proper function of the state is to protect, not to provide. Therefore, do not approve coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.

THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM

Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.

For the rational and historical support for The Creed of Freedom, see The Chasm in the Issues section of his site. This 21-page document will take 10 to 45 seconds to load depending on the speed of your Internet connection.

Background Articles and Videos

Freedom Force International speaker for Liberty in Pittsburgh

Rare Carroll Quigley interview

Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authored a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

[1 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview

Carroll Quigley was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Tragedy and Hope (tragedy is all the people who must suffer and die for the NWO, and the hope is the NEW WORLD ORDER )

Professor Quigley was a Globalist, he supported the idea NEW WORLD ORDER and wrote about it, he, unlike the elites, thought the people should know about it.

“I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” — Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences…”

“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ central banks which were themselves private corporations…”

“The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups.” Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University

“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” Dr. Carroll Quigley

“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley.”President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, 16 July 1992

[2 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview

[3 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview

[4 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview

[5 of 5] Rare Carroll Quigley Interview

The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)

The Creature From Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin

Recorded: 1994

Edward Griffin – The Subversion Factor

CFR – List of Members and Organisations Involved

Jimmy Carter Administration

President Carter (who became a CFR member in 1983) appointed over 60 CFR members to serve in his Administration:

Walter Mondale (Vice-President)

Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Advisor)

Cyrus R. Vance (Secretary of State)

W. Michael Blumenthal (Secretary of Treasury)

Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)

Stansfield Turner (Director of the CIA)

Gen. David Jones (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Ronald Reagan Administration

There were 75 CFR and Trilateral Commission members under President Reagan:

Alexander Haig (Secretary of State)

George Shultz (Secretary of State)

Donald Regan (Secretary of Treasury)

William Casey (CIA Director)

Malcolm Baldridge (Secretary of Commerce)

Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick (U.N. Ambassador)

Frank C. Carlucci (Deputy Secretary of Defense)

William E. Brock (Special Trade Representative)

George H. W. Bush Administration

During his 1964 campaign for the U.S. Senate in Texas, George Bush said: “If Red China should be admitted to the U.N., then the U.N. is hopeless and we should withdraw.” In 1970, as Ambassador to the U.N., he pushed for Red China to be seated in the General Assembly. When Bush was elected, the CFR member became the first President to publicly mention the “New World Order” and had in his Administration nearly 350 CFR and Trilateral Commission members:

Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor)

Richard B. Cheney (Secretary of Defense)

Colin L. Powell (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

William Webster (Director of the CIA)

Richard Thornburgh (Attorney General)

Nicholas F. Brady (Secretary of Treasury)

Lawrence S. Eagleburger (Deputy Secretary of State)

Horace G. Dawson, Jr. (U.S. Information Agency and Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights)

Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board)

Bill Clinton Administration

When CFR member Bill Clinton was elected, Newsweek magazine would later refer to him as the “New Age President.” In October, 1993, Richard Harwood, a Washington Post writer, in describing the Clinton Administration, said its CFR membership was “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.

Albert Gore, Jr. (Vice-President)

Donna E. Shalala (Secretary of Health and Human Services)

Laura D. Tyson (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)

Alice M. Rivlin (Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget)

Madeline K. Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.)

Warren Christopher (Secretary of State)

Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. (Deputy Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation)

Les Aspin (Secretary of Defense)

Colin Powell (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)

W. Anthony Lake (National Security Advisor)

George Stephanopoulos (Senior Advisor)

Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger (Deputy National Security Advisor)

R. James Woolsey (CIA Director)

William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board)

Lloyd Bentsen (former member, Secretary of Treasury)

Roger C. Altman (Deputy Secretary of Treasury)

Henry G. Cisneros (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development)

Bruce Babbit (Secretary of the Interior)

Peter Tarnoff (Under Secretary of State for International Security of Affairs)

Winston Lord (Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)

Strobe Talbott (Aid Coordinator to the Commonwealth of Independent States)

Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve System)

Walter Mondale (U.S. Ambassador to Japan)

Ronald H. Brown (Secretary of Commerce)

Franklin D. Raines (Economics and International Trade).

George W. Bush Administration

Richard Cheney (Vice President, former Secretary of Defense under President G.H.W. Bush)

Colin Powell (Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton)

Condoleeza Rice (National Security Advisor, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)

Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative, former Under Secretary of State in the Bush administration)

Elaine Chao (Secretary of Labor)

Brent Scowcroft (Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former National Security Advisor to President Bush)

Richard Haass (Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at Large)

Henry Kissinger (Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford)

Robert Blackwill (U.S. Ambassador to India, former member of President Bush’s National Security Council)

Stephen Friedman (Sr. White House Economic Advisor)

Stephen Hadley (Deputy National Security Advisor, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Cheney)

Richard Perle (Chairman of Pentagon Defense Policy Board, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)

Paul Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and former Under Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration)

Dov S. Zakheim (Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, former Under Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration)

I. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff for the Vice President, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense).

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=5.3

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

Special Report Breit Baier On The Saudi National Deportation 212 3-b for Terrorist Activities — Videos

Posted on April 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Terrorism, Video, Wisdom | Tags: Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi, Breit Baier, deportation, Deportation Order, Event File, Glenn Beck, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Saudi Arabia, Saudi National, Sean Hannity, Terrorist Activities |

Bret Baier – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24

Bob Trent – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.24

The Glenn Beck Program Saudi Suspect/Boston Bombing Air Date: 4-24-13.

Multiple Confirmations of Immediate Deportation of Saudi National in Boston Bombing

Saudi National and Boston Student Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Is Being Deported

Janet Napolitano Speaks About Saudi National – TheBlazeTV – Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.24

Janet Napolitano refuses to answer questions about the deportation of Saudi national 04/18/13

Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection

Saudi Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Boston Bombing Suspect Deported–why????

Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness

EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART I – PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION

Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;

(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and

(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.

(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and

(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).

(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:

(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and

(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.

PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.

(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;

(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and

(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.

Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.

Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.

PART III – EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY

Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.

(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.

(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.

Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.

(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.

Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.

Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A 129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.

(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.

Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.

Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.

Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:

(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and

(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.

Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.

Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.

Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).

PART IV - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c), (d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).

PART V - EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL

Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.

(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.

(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.

Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

PART VI - LABOR REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:

(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;

(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;

(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;

(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and

(5) develop and implement an effective labor management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.

PART VII - DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT COMMITTEE

Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):

(1) The Secretary of State;

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;

(3) The Secretary of Defense;

(4) The Attorney General;

(5) The Secretary of the Interior;

(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;

(7) The Secretary of Commerce;

(8) The Secretary of Labor;

(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(10) The Secretary of Transportation;

(11) The Secretary of Energy;

(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;

(13) The Director of National Intelligence;

(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;

(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and

(17) The Administrator of General Services.

(b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.

Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.

PART VIII - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:

(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. “Civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.

(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.

(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.

(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.

(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).

(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.

(h) “Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.

(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.

(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

(k) “Offsets” means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government to government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1 130.17.

(l) “Special priorities assistance” means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.

(m) “Strategic and critical materials” means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.

(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”

Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.

(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:

(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and

(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.

(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2170 2171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.

Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3) (4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.

(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.

Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 16, 2012.

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

National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Created “Event File” For Deportation of Saudi National, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, Under Section 212 3b for Security and Related Grounds — Terrorist Activities — Videos

Posted on April 22, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: " For Deportation of Saudi National, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, Created "Event File, ecurities and Related Grounds, Event File, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), President Barack Obama, Saudi Arabia Connection, Terrorist Activities, Terrorist Activity, Under Section 212 3b |

Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi

National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Overview

Saudi National held by police after Boston Marathon bombing. Person of interest

The Glenn Beck Program Saudi Suspect/Boston Bombing Air Date: 4-24-13.

Glenn Beck- Big Sis Lied: New Info On Saudi National In Boston Attacks Confirms Cover Up.

The Saudi – U.S. Relationship – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.04.22

The Saudi Arabia Connection – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Program – 2013.04.22

New Evidence On Boston Bombings Government Cover-Up

From TV Glenn updates on the Saudi national — Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck detailed new update on the Boston bombing 23/04/2013

Glenn Beck Reveals More about Saudi National

“…Monday on radio, Glenn Beck revealed further details about the Saudi national who was the first suspect in the Boston marathon bombing. Despite denials from Janet Napolitano and officials from the U.S. Immigrations and Customs (ICE) that a Saudi national was taken into custody in connection to the Boston marathon bombing, several sources have confirmed that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi was set to be deported for proven terrorist activity.

According to two FBI sources, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi was taken “into custody” Monday April 15th at a Boston after he was injured in the blast.

A source within the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) told TheBlaze that on Monday night Al-Harbi’s Revere, Massachusetts apartment was searched and property was taken out.

At 4:00pm ET on Tuesday April 16th, The NCTC Field Watch Commander created an “event file” calling for Al-Harbi’s deportation using Section 212 3b, which is proven terrorist activity. According to TheBlaze’s sources, tagging someone as 3b requires solid evidence.

Fox News reporter Todd Starnes has also reported, “The Saudi national who was initially detained and then ruled out as a suspect in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack had been flagged on a terror watch list and was granted a student visa without being properly vetted, sources have told me.”

Starnes report no longer appears on the Fox News website, but can be found on Townhall.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) has told TheBlaze that he has detailed information on the Saudi national and confirmed that Al-Harbi was to be deported under Section 212 3b of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Alongside three other Congressmen, Rep. Duncan has requested a classified briefing on the Saudi national and the deportation order. …”

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/22/exposed-congressional-sources-confirm-saudi-national-was-to-be-deported-for-security-related-grounds-have-files-in-their-possession/

Glenn Beck- Saudi National Is An Al Qaeda Recruiter Behind Boston Marathon Bombing

Obama’s “Catch & Release” of Saudi Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect

Jeff Duncan Questions Napolitano On Deportation Of Saudi National. Boston Bombing

Terror in Boston – Saudi Being Deported For National Security Reason? – What The Hell Is This?

Still think the FBI is telling you the truth? CHECK THIS OUT

Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, Bombing ‘Person Of Interest’ Has 6 Saudi ‘Terrorists’ In Family,5 More Are In Gitmo -

Obama Buries Boston Massacre Saudi Connection

Boston Bombing Suspects Were Gov’t Assets

National Counterterrorism Center’s Role in Counterterrorism

Pres. Obama Remarks to National Counterterrorism Center Staff

Pres. Obama Remarks to National Counterterrorism Center Staff
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
President Obama traveled to the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington, DC. He met with NCTC leadership and delivered remarks to staff members.

Background Articles and Videos

Briefing on Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi Requested by Congressional Committee; Was on “Terror” Watch List

Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was the Saudi national and initial “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three and injured scores of others, some critically.

It turns out that he was “flagged on a terror watch list”, as reported by Todd Starnes of Town Hall. What a coincidence! Soon after the terror attack, a brave citizen tackled Ali Alharbi when he spotted the 22-year-old running away from one of the explosive devices. It would be very interesting to speak to the vigilant citizen(s) who spotted the Saudi National, but he (or they) are yet to be named. Why? John Miller, former Assistant Director to the FBI and CBS News correspondent stated, “this person was pretty close to wherever this blast went off, but not so close as to suffer the serious injuries that other people did.” Police initially denied all reports of having a Saudi in custody, but later relented.

The man was transferred to the hospital, but not as a “suspect,” insisted officials. Regardless, a warrant was issued to search the Saudi National’s apartment, where “bags of evidence” were removed and his roommate questioned “for hours.” One would imagine that the police would have cause to get a warrant in the first place. It would be interesting to see the warrant. It turns out that it was NOT the police, but “federal authorities” who made the decision to drop the case against Ali Alharbi. According to the Boston Herald, Revere police Lt. Amy O’Hara said that federal authorities “are telling us he’s no longer a person of interest.” Another interesting fact from the Boston Herald article was that the roommate said he was “forbidden to speak about the home search by both the FBI and the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia.” Why?

Janet Napolitano Dismisses Deportation “Rumors”

Previous reports that Ali Alharbi was to be deported were roundly disregarded (and even mocked) by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. She roundly dismissed deportation concerns during a “heated exchange”, which occurred on Thursday regarding the Saudi National with Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). She said,

“I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston…I don’t know where that rumor came from.”

When Duncan questioned the wisdom of deporting “someone who was reportedly at the scene of the bombing”, Napolitano dodged the question by mocking it. She said,

“It is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions, that it is just not worthy of any answer…There has been so much reported on this that has been wrong. I can’t even begin to tell you, congressman.”

The condescending answer is a knee-jerk response to uncomfortable questions.

House Committee on Homeland Security Wants Answers

Despite Napolitano’s faux outrage, Key members of the House Committee on Homeland Security says it has “copies of the original deportation order” and have sent a letter to Janet Napolitano that says in part, “We request the Department provide a detailed overview of the records associated with this individual to include his law enforcement and immigration records prior to April 15, 2013, as well as his current status.” The letter was signed by Chairman Michael T. McCaul, Chairman Jeff Duncan of the subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, Chairman Peter King of the subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, and Chairman Candice Miller of the subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security as reported by theBlaze.

House Committee on Homeland Security Requests More Info on Saudi National From Napolitano

Is Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi involved in any way in the Boston Bombings? One thing is for sure, when the federal government dodges questions, it is not reassuring, adds to speculation, and fuels conspiracy theories. Add the inconsistent and conflicting media coverage; not to mention their endless and irresponsible speculation about the motives of the bombers before facts emerged, and it is no wonder that the mainstream media is losing credibility.

Background Articles and Videos

Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi deportation order records altered

Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi was originally named as a ‘person of interest’ after the Boston bombings. The Saudi National was cleared of any involvement in the bombing, but there have been a lot of strange things going on with Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi and the Obama regime. According to Breitbart, the Saudi National Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi had his deportation order records altered. This rescinded his deportation order. Michelle Obama decided to pay Al-Harbi a visit while he was in the hospital recovering from wounds in the attack. Michelle Obama never paid a visit to any of the other injured people, including those who lost limbs in the attack. Also, Obama himself met with the Saudi foreign minister two days after the attack. This was not listed on Obama’s public schedule and as usual the media didn’t report on this. Something very fishy is going on here. I wonder if this was supposed to be Glenn Beck’s big ‘bombshell’ for tomorrow? If so, Breitbart scooped him.

Now that it’s been revelaed that Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi deportation order records altered, it probably explains why Janet Napolitano got so testy when asked about Al-Harbi last week. Why would Obama or his regime alter the deportation order? Are they hiding something? Of course they are. Without a media in this country, we’ll never know what they are hiding.

The alteration occurred the night before Secretary Napolitano vehemently denied the existence of any deportation order in testimony before the House of Representatives. Sources with knowledge of these matters says the change occurred subsequent to Secretary John Kerry’s closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Minister and around the time of the meeting between the Saudi Minister and Obama later on Wednesday evening. The Saudi National has been identified as Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi. There is no evidence that Al-Harbi is connected to the Boston Marathon Bombings. Steven Emerson announced on Wednesday night’s episode of Hannity that the Saudi National who was a person of interest and later cleared, was set to be deported.

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/04/21/abdulrahman-ali-al-harbi-deportation-order-records-altered/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=abdulrahman-ali-al-harbi-deportation-order-records-altered

Boston MANHUNT is OVER: the Second BOMBER is CAUGHT (FBI FALSE FLAG says the mother)

A retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army weighs in on Boston.

Background Articles and Videos

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

Senate defeats Obama’s gun grabbing agenda — Videos

Posted on April 19, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Economics, Education, Federal Government, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Rifles, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, Weapons | Tags: Assault Weapons, Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer, Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOP), Firearms, Gun Grabbers, Handguns, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), Obama, President Barack Obama, Second Amendment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Dianne Feinstein |

Gun Background-Check Plan Defeated in Senate

Gun show Loophole MYTH and Other Piers Morgan LIES

Obama calls Senate gun vote “shameful”

Obama: Gun lobby ‘willfully lied’

Barack Obama Speaks After Gun Control Fails in the Senate

GOP Sen. Toomey- Background Checks Are Not ‘Gun Control,’ They’re ‘Common Sense’

Senators propose US gun control compromise

Gun Control Fight Shows Signs Of Splitting The Democratic Coalition

Wayne LaPierre On Whether NRA Supports Universal Background Checks At Gun Shows: ‘We Do Not’

Uncle Ted Cruz: ‘The Gun Show Loophole(Background Check) Doesn’t Exist’

What Gun Show Loophole?

The so called “gun show loophole” does not exist (I set the record straight)

Sore Loser – Sen. Feinstein After Losing Gun legislation states there will be no background checks

Megyn Kelly Panel Gun Control Argument & Debate after Shooting

Senate defeats Obama’s gun grabbing agenda

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

President Barack Obama and progressive liberals of the Democratic and Republican parties are once again attempting to infringe upon the Second Amendment Constitutional rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.

The progressive gun grabbers recognize that under Article V of the Constitution they do not have the necessary two-thirds of both Houses needed to propose an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment nor do the gun grabbers have the necessary three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify such an amendment.

Instead the gun grabbers propose laws that would infringe upon law-abiding American citizens in defending and protecting themselves against criminals, drug dealers, the dangerously deranged and tyrants.

In March Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on her amendment to reinstate the ban on “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines, said: “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices — those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

First, murder is a crime in all 50 states. Second, criminals, drug dealers and the dangerously deranged will use their weapons and magazines of choice, usually handguns not rifles, no matter what the federal or state laws ban. Restricting law-abiding citizens’ choice of weapons and magazine capacity would place them at an immediate disadvantage. Third, the so-called “assault weapons” that Feinstein would again ban includes semi-automatic rifles that most Americans use for hunting and sport shooting.

As John Lott, author of the books “More Guns, Less Crime” and “”The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong” points out, “When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the floor of the Senate said, “On the anti-gun legislation before the Senate, we are making good progress on the effort to schedule a series of votes on amendments to the anti-gun violence legislation before the Senate.”

On April 17 Obama’s progressive gun-grabbing agenda was handed a major defeat. The Feinstein “assault weapons” ban was defeated in a bipartisan Senate vote of 60-40. An amendment to expand background checks also failed in a bipartisan vote of 54-46. The defeated amendment would have expanded background checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet. However, the amendment would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues.

The National Rifle Association’s chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said, “This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.”

Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOP), the vast majority of gun sales at gun shows and over the Internet involve a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer that is required under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to run a criminal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) maintained by the FBI prior to transferring the firearm to the purchaser.

Only unlicensed private party sellers such as gun collectors and occasional sellers who sell firearms at such shows are exempt from running a background check. This is the so-called “gun show loophole” that the gun grabbers want to close. However, even under existing law, if the private seller believes that the purchaser could not pass a background check, it is illegal to sell the firearm.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out, “Why is all this focus directed at background checks? The reason is because the Department of Justice has said the only way to implement what they want–universal background checks — is a registry, a federal list of every gun owner in America. And that would be wrong; it’d be unconstitutional.”

The American people through their elected representatives in Congress will peacefully resist any attempt by progressive liberals to infringe upon their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to defend and protect their lives and property from criminals, predators, the dangerously deranged and tyrants.

Ever since Obama was elected president in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, gun and ammunition sales across the country are breaking sales records and the number of criminal background checks is soaring. The American people no longer trust their political leaders for they believe the gun grabbers’ real aim through federal anti-gun laws is to eventually repeal the Second Amendment.

As Richard Feldman said in his April 18 speech to Richland College students, progress in the gun debate will not be made until the focus shifts from controlling guns to controlling gun violence and this requires the political leaders to trust the people and the people in turn to trust their political leaders.

Richard Feldman was interviewed on the April 19 Pronk Pops Show presented by Raymond Thomas Pronk on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/.

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

« Previous Entries

media

Raymond T. Pronk

Email Subscription

Pages

RSS Links

Categories

media

Truth of Islam- Three Stages of Jihad – MUST WATCH!!!

Islam for Leftists – Robert Spencer

British soldier killed in London by a Muslim

British soldier savagely killed in London machete attack

Malkin Explodes On Hannity Over UK Terrorist Attack

British Soldier Killed in Machete Attack in London

British soldier hacked to death in London, witness who filmed attackers speaks out (May 22, 2013)

British SOLDIER BEHEADED on busy London street in Act of TERRORISM

London TERROR ATTACKED: British Soldier BEHEADED by two Islamic TERRORISTS in Woolwich

Sunrise – UK soldier killed near army base

UK PM David Cameron condemns terror attack which saw British soldier killed in London

Woolwich Terrorist Atttack Police statement

Eyewitness Describes Encounter with London Attacker

Woolwich Attack’ Eyewitness “Killers Wanted To Get Caught’ Wednesday 22 May 2013

Far-right Clash with Police After a Killing of British Soldier

Deporting Millions Of Muslims May Be Necessary – Geert Wilders

POLICE HIT BACK AT CLAIMS THEY TOOK 20 MINS TO REACH SCENE

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329458/The-Angels-Woolwich-Three-womens-outstanding-courage-confront-killers-pray-slaughtered-soldier.html#ixzz2U8zxz44p Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You and your children will be next’: Islamic fanatics wielding meat cleavers butcher and try to behead a British soldier, taking their war on the West to a new level of horror

The Angels of Woolwich: How three extraordinarily brave women confronted the Islamic fanatics who butchered and tried to behead a soldier on London street – and prayed next to his mutilated body

‘She put her hands on his chest and I think she prayed for him. The poor man’s head was beside her.’

Background Articles and Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Chris Hedges: Monitoring of AP Phones a “Terrifying” Step in State Assault on Press Freedom

Obama Worse Than Nixon? Pentagon Papers Attorney Decries AP Phone Probe, Julian Assange Persecution

Bernstein Unloads on White House for AP Scandal

DOJ Probes AP Phone Records – TheBlazeTV – The Glenn Beck Radio Program – 2013.05.14

Eric Holder On AP Phone Records Seizure The Leak Put The American People At Risk

AP Reporter Questions Carney on DOJ AP Scandal: ‘Doesn’t Responsibility Rest With The President?

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the DOJ vs AP

Fox News On James Rosen Targeting

Fox News Targeted By DOJ FNC Reporter Effectively Accused Of A Crime Megyn Kelly

Brit Hume: Chilling Search Of Fox Reporter Shows DOJ Treats News Gathering As Crime

DOJ Targeted Fox Reporter for Espionage

Fox News Targeted By DOJ – Free Press Is Now Under Attack By The Obama Admin – Wake Up America

Judge Napolitano To Shep: Rosen Committed ‘No Crime,’ ‘Absolutely Protected By 1st Amendment’

Report: DOJ seized multiple White House, Fox News records in Rosen ‘investigation’

Washington Times Writer: Fox News Scandal Goes ‘Much Deeper,’ W.H. Sitting on Something Top Obama Aides ‘Terrified’ About

Obama Criticizes Supreme Court in State of the Union Address, Justice Alito Shakes His Head in

The Other IRS Scandal

Campaign Cash: The Independent Fundraising Gold Rush Since Citizens United Ruling

Political Fundraising Post-Citizens United

Bill Moyers Essay: The High Price of ‘Free’ Speech

Are Super PACs Living Up to Supreme Court’s Intentions?

Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission

What You Probably Haven’t Heard About Citizens United

What Citizens United Didn’t Say

3 Reasons Not To Sweat The “Citizens United” SCOTUS Ruling

Citizens United and Free Speech

Judge Napolitano on State of the Union Address – Obama Should Apologize to Supreme Court

Is It Just Corporate Free Speech?

Free Speech? Citizens United v FEC Revisited

Obama’s SOTU Citizens United LIE explained

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission- With Credits

Citizens United vs. FEC: How Did It Happen?

On Anniversary of Citizens United Ruling, Common Cause Calls for Investigation of Scalia and Thomas

Justice Scalia on Citizens United (C-SPAN)

Campaign Finance: Lawyers’ Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009)

Citizens United and the role of the Supreme Court

Obama Alleged IRS Political Targeting Outrageous

Background Articles and Videos

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 1 of 3

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 2 of 3

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 3 of 3

Citizens United; Hillary the Movie Trailer

Hillary the Movie Trailer 2

Citizens United and Campaign Finance Reform

The Secret History by Donna Tartt

‘The Secret History’ prologue

Early life

The Secret History

The Little Friend

The Goldfinch

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329458/The-Angels-Woolwich-Three-womens-outstanding-courage-confront-killers-pray-slaughtered-soldier.html#ixzz2U8zxz44p
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook