Archive for February, 2012

America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos

Posted on February 28, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Archies – Sugar Sugar (’69)

Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.

 You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.

 Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.

I just can’t believe the loveliness of loving you.

 (I just can’t believe it’s true).

 I just can’t believe the wonder of this feeling too.

(I just can’t believe it’s true).

Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.

You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.

Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.

You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.

When I kissed you girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be.

(I know how sweet a kiss can be)

Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me.

 (Pour your sweetness over me).

Oh pour little sugar on me honey (sugar)

Pour little sugar on me baby (honey honey)

When you make love so sweet (Yeah Yeah Yeah.)

Pour little sugar on me (oh yeah)

Pour little sugar on me honey

 Pour little sugar on me baby I’m gonna make love so sweet (hey hey hey)

Pour little sugar on me honey.

Ah sugar. Oh honey, honey.

 You are my candy, girl, and you got me wanting you.

Oh honey (honey, honey, sugar, sugar)

 Sugar, sugar You are my candy girl.


High Fructose Corn Syrup 

Robert “Sugar: Bitter Truth” Lustig on ABCNews

Big Sugar

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 1 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 2 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 3 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 4 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 5 of 6 – Documentary

Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 6 of 6 – Documentary

The Politics of Obesity – Freedomain Radio Interviews Dr. Robert H. Lustig 

Sugar: The Bitter Truth- March 24, 2011

Sugar: The Bitter Truth 

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]

Sugar: The Bitter Truth (The SHORT Version) 

Are You a Sugar Addict?

DEATH BY SUGAR by Jorge Cruise 

The Sugar Epidemic: Policy versus Politics 

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 1 of 3) 

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 2 of 3) 

Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 3 of 3) 

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 1 of 5) 

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 2 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 3 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 4 of 5)

Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 5 of 5)

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON  Reason #1

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #2

Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #3

Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #4


Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup

High-Fructose Corn Syrup Truth, Still Not Sexy, HFCS

How much sugar does the average american consume?

The Great Sugar Shaft

Sugar Daddy: Taubes tells all

Larry Graham, Chairman of the Coalition for Sugar Reform, Discusses Need to Reform the Sugar Program

Fran Smith, Board Member & Adjunct Fellow at CEI, on the Economic Impact of the Sugar Program

The Case Against the Sugar Program on CNBC Squawk Box


“…Sugar is a class of edible crystalline carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, lactose, and fructose,[1] characterized by a sweet flavor.

Sucrose in its refined form primarily comes from sugar cane and sugar beet. It and the other sugars are present in natural and refined forms in many foods, and the refined forms are also added to many food preparations.

The world produced about 168 million tonnes of sugar in 2011.[2] The world consumed an average of 24 kilograms of sugar for every human being of all ages, equivalent to over 260 food calories per day per human being.[3]

In food, “sugars” refer to all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols,[4] while in its singular form, “sugar” normally refers to sucrose. The other sugars are usually known by more specific names — glucose, fructose or fruit sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc.

Sugar production and trade has influenced human history in many ways. In modern times, sugar influenced the formation of colonies, perpetuation of slavery, transition to indentured labor, migration and abuse of people, wars between 19th century sugar trade controlling nations, ethnic composition and political structure of the new world.[5][6]

Ancient times and Middle Ages

Sugar has been produced in the Indian subcontinent[7] since ancient times. It was not plentiful or cheap in early times—honey was more often used for sweetening in most parts of the world.

Amongst the ancient manuscripts of China, dated to be from the eight century BC, one of the earliest historical mention of sugar cane is included along with the fact that their knowledge of sugar cane was derived from India.[8] It appears that in about 500 BC, residents of present-day India began making sugar syrup and cooling it in large flat bowls to make crystals that were easier to store and transport. In the local Indian language, these crystals were called khanda (खण्ड), which is the source of the word candy.[9]

Originally, people chewed sugarcane raw to extract its sweetness. Sugarcane was a native of tropical South Asia and Southeast Asia.[10] Different species likely originated in different locations with Saccharum barberi originating in India and S. edule and S. officinarum coming from New Guinea.[10][11]

Sugar remained relatively unimportant until the Indians discovered methods of turning sugarcane juice into granulated crystals that were easier to store and to transport.[12] Crystallized sugar was discovered by the time of the Imperial Guptas, around 5th century AD.[12] Indian sailors, consumers of clarified butter and sugar, carried sugar by various trade routes.[12] Traveling Buddhist monks brought sugar crystallization methods to China.[13] During the reign of Harsha (r. 606–647) in North India, Indian envoys in Tang China taught sugarcane cultivation methods after Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 626–649) made his interest in sugar known, and China soon established its first sugarcane cultivation in the seventh century.[14] Chinese documents confirm at least two missions to India, initiated in 647 AD, for obtaining technology for sugar-refining.[15] In South Asia, the Middle East and China, sugar became a staple of cooking and desserts.

The triumphant progress of Alexander the Great was halted on the banks of river Indus by the refusal of his troops to go further east. They saw people in the Indian subcontinent growing sugarcane and making granulated, salt-like sweet powder, locally called साखर, pronounced as saccharum (ζάκχαρι). On their return journey, the Macedonian soldiers carried the “honey bearing reeds.” Sugarcane remained a limited crop for over a millennium, sugar a rare commodity, and traders of sugar wealthy. Venice, at the height of its financial power, was the chief sugar-distributing center of Europe.[8]

Crusaders brought sugar home with them to Europe after their campaigns in the Holy Land, where they encountered caravans carrying “sweet salt”. Early in the 12th century, Venice acquired some villages near Tyre and set up estates to produce sugar for export to Europe, where it supplemented honey as the only other available sweetener.[16] Crusade chronicler William of Tyre, writing in the late 12th century, described sugar as “very necessary for the use and health of mankind”.[17]

Modern history

In August 1492, Christopher Columbus stopped at La Gomera in the Canary Islands, for wine and water, intending to stay only four days. He became romantically involved with the Governor of the island, Beatriz de Bobadilla y Ossorio, and stayed a month. When he finally sailed she gave him cuttings of sugarcane, which became the first to reach the New World.

Sugar was a luxury in Europe prior to 18th century. It became widely popular in 18th century, then graduated to becoming a necessity in the 19th century. This evolution of taste and demand for sugar as an essential food ingredient unleashed major economic and social changes.[5] It drove, in part, colonization of tropical islands and nations where labor-intensive sugarcane plantations and sugar manufacturing could thrive. The demand for cheap and docile labor for harsh inhumane work, in part, first drove slave trade from Africa (in particular West Africa), followed by indentured labor trade from South Asia (in particular India).[6][18][19] Millions of slave and indentured laborers were brought into the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Islands, East Africa, Natal, north and eastern parts of South America, and southeast Asia. The modern ethnic mix of many nations, settled in last two centuries, has been influenced by sugar.[20][21][22]

Sugar also led to some industrialization of former colonies. For example, Lieutenant J. Paterson, of the Bengal establishment, persuaded British government that sugar cane could be cultivated in British India with many advantages, and at less expense than in the West Indies. As a result, a number of sugar factories were established in Bihar in British India.[23]

More recently it is manufactured in very large quantities in many countries, largely from sugarcane and sugar beet. In processed foods it has increasingly been supplanted by corn syrup.


The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity. The English word “sugar”[24] originates from the Arabic word سكر sukkar, itself from the Persian shakar,[25] itself derived from Sanskrit शर्करा sharkara.[26] It most probably came to England by way of Italian merchants. The contemporary Italian word is zucchero, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese words, azúcar and açúcar respectively, have kept a trace of the Arabic definite article. The Old French word is zuchre – contemporary French sucre. The earliest Greek word attested is σάκχαρις (sákkʰaris).[27][28] A satisfactory pedigree explaining the spread of the word has yet to be done. Note that the English word jaggery (meaning “coarse brown Indian sugar”) has similar ultimate etymological origins (presumably in Sanskrit).


The five largest producers of sugar in 2010 were Brazil, India, European Union, China and Thailand. The largest exporters in 2010 were Brazil, Thailand, Australia and India; while the largest importers were EU-27, United States and Indonesia. Currently, Brazil is the highest per capita consumer of sugar, followed by Australia, Thailand and EU-27.[29][30]


The per capita consumption of refined sugar in America has varied between 27 to 46 kilograms in the last 40 years. In 2008, American per capita total consumption of sugar and sweeteners – exclusive of artificial sweeteners – equaled 61.9 kilograms per year (136.2 pounds).[31][32]

Sugar is an important component of human food balance. According to FAO, about 24 kilograms of sugar – equivalent to over 260 food calories per day – was, on average, consumed annually per human being of all ages in the world in 1999. Even with rising human population, sugar consumption is expected to increase to 25.1 kilograms per human being by 2015.[3]

Health effects

Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms [33] and since most studies do not use a population who are not consuming any “free sugars” at all, the baseline is effectively flawed (or as the report puts it, the studies are “limited”). Hence there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that said in 2008, “Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example.”[34] though the article does continue to discuss other health impacts of sugar. Other articles and studies refer to the increasing evidence supporting the links to hyperactivity.[35] The WHO FAO meta-study suggests that such results are expected when some studies do not effectively segregate or control for free sugars as opposed to sugars still in their natural form (entirely unrefined) while others do.

Blood glucose levels

Sugar, because of its simpler chemical structure, may raise blood glucose levels more quickly than starch. This finding suggests that this basic differentiation between starch and sugar is insufficient reason to segregate these two substances for controlling blood glucose levels in diabetics, the idea behind carbohydrate counting.[36] A more effective distinction could use that suggested by multiple meta-studies between free sugars and naturally-occurring sugars which do suggest different impacts on health.[33][37]

Obesity and diabetes

Studies appear to conflict with some suggesting eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may increase the risk of diabetes,[38][39][39][40][41][42][42][43] while others show links between refined sugar (free sugar) consumption and the onset of diabetes, and negative correlation with the consumption of fiber[44][45][46][47] including a 2010 meta-analysis of eleven studies involving 310,819 participants and 15,043 cases of type 2 diabetes[48] that found that “SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) may increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes not only through obesity but also by increasing dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance, β-cell dysfunction, and inflammation”. As an overview to consumption related to chronic disease and obesity, the World Health Organization’s independent meta-studies specifically distinguish free sugars (“all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices”) from sugars naturally present in food. The reports prior to 2000 set the limits for free sugars at a maximum of 10% of carbohydrate intake, measured by energy, rather than mass, and since 2002 [33] have aimed for a level across the entire population at less than 10%. The consultation committee recognized that this goal is “controversial. However, the Consultation considered that the studies showing no effect of free sugars on excess weight have limitations.” (p. 57).

Cardiovascular disease

A number of studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysregulation. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk.[49] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet.[50]

Switching saturated fatty acids for carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically significant positive association with the risk of myocardial infarction.[51]

Other studies have found links between high fat and high glycemic index carbohydrates accelerates the development of cardiac pathology and pump dysfunction in hypertension despite no signs of diabetes and only a modest level of obesity, suggesting that the link between obesity and coronary heart disease should be shifted towards macronutrients and the high glycemic load typical of the “junk-food” diet.[52]

The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults.[53]

Studies are suggesting the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant that the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.[54][55]

A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) consumption can substantially increase the risk for heart- and vascular diseases. According to a new Swedish study from Lund University and Malmö University College of 4301 persons, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood fat with a high level of small and medium LDL and reduced HDL blood fat. However the amount of fat intake didn’t affect the blood fats. As a side note, moderate quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to the good HDL blood fat.[56]

Alzheimer disease

It is suggested that Alzheimer Disease is linked with the western diet, characterised by excessive dietary intake of sugar, refined carbohydrates (with a high glycaemic index) and animal products (with a high content of saturated fats) and decreased intake of unrefined seeds. There are also prevention hypotheses that address the diet issue with mono-supplements of specific vitamins or drugs that do not show appreciable results.[57]

Dietary pattern analysis, which considers overall eating patterns comparing those with Alzheimer’s disease as compared to healthy controls using factor analysis, gives a major eating pattern for those with Alzheimer’s characterised by a high intake of meat, butter, high-fat dairy products, eggs and refined sugar, while the other major eating pattern for those without Alzheimer’s was characterised by a high intake of grains and vegetables.[58]

One group of experimenters compared a normal rodent diet (19% protein, 5% fat and 60% complex carbohydrate) with free water access against the same diet but with free access to a 10% sucrose solution. Their data underscore the potential role of dietary sugar in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease and suggest that controlling the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages may be an effective way to curtail the risk of developing Alzheimer disease.[59]

Macular degeneration

There are links between free sugar consumption and macular degeneration in older age.[60]

Tooth decay

In regard to contributions to tooth decay, the role of free sugars is also recommended to be below an absolute maximum of 10% of energy intake, with a minimum of zero. There is “convincing evidence from human intervention studies, epidemiological studies, animal studies and experimental studies, for an association between the amount and frequency of free sugars intake and dental caries” while other sugars (complex carbohydrate) consumption is normally associated with a lower rate of dental caries.[37] Lower rates of tooth decay have been seen in individuals with hereditary fructose intolerance.[61]



The term sugar usually refers to sucrose, which is also called “table sugar” or “saccharose.” Sucrose is a white crystalline disaccharide. It is often obtained from sugar cane or sugar beet.[62] Sucrose is the most popular of the various sugars for flavoring, as well as properties (such as mouthfeel, preservation, and texture) of beverages and food.


“Sugar” can also be used to refer to water-soluble crystalline carbohydrates with varying sweetness. Sugars include monosaccharides (e.g., glucose, fructose, galactose), disaccharides (e.g., sucrose, lactose, maltose), trisaccharides, and oligosaccharides,[63] in contrast to complex carbohydrates such as polysaccharides. Corn syrup, dextrose, crystalline fructose, and maltose, for example, are used in manufacturing and preparing food.

Baking weight/mass volume relationship

Different culinary sugars have different densities due to differences in particle size and inclusion of moisture.

The Domino Sugar Company has established the following volume to weight conversions:

  • Brown sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 195 g = 6.88 oz
  • Granular sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 200 g = 7.06 oz
  • Powdered sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 120 g = 4.23 oz

Bulk density[64]

  • Dextrose sugar 0.62 g/mL
  • Granulated sugar 0.70 g/mL
  • Powdered sugar 0.56 g/mL
  • Beet sugar 0.80 g/mL

Purity standards

The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis sets standards for the measurement of the purity of refined sugar, known as ICUMSA numbers; lower numbers indicate a higher level of purity in the refined sugar.[65]


Sucrose: a disaccharide of glucose (left) and fructose (right), important molecules in the body.
Main article: Carbohydrate

Scientifically, sugar loosely refers to a number of carbohydrates, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, or oligosaccharides. Monosaccharides are also called “simple sugars,” the most important being glucose. Almost all sugars have the formula CnH2nOn (n is between 3 and 7). Glucose has the molecular formula C6H12O6. The names of typical sugars end with “-ose,” as in “glucose”, “dextrose”, and “fructose”. Sometimes such words may also refer to any types of carbohydrates soluble in water. The acyclic mono- and disaccharides contain either aldehyde groups or ketone groups. These carbon-oxygen double bonds (C=O) are the reactive centers. All saccharides with more than one ring in their structure result from two or more monosaccharides joined by glycosidic bonds with the resultant loss of a molecule of water (H2O) per bond.

Monosaccharides in a closed-chain form can form glycosidic bonds with other monosaccharides, creating disaccharides (such as sucrose) and polysaccharides (such as starch). Enzymes must hydrolyze or otherwise break these glycosidic bonds before such compounds become metabolized. After digestion and absorption the principal monosaccharides present in the blood and internal tissues include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Many pentoses and hexoses can form ring structures. In these closed-chain forms, the aldehyde or ketone group remains non-free, so many of the reactions typical of these groups cannot occur. Glucose in solution exists mostly in the ring form at equilibrium, with less than 0.1% of the molecules in the open-chain form.

Natural polymers of sugars

Biopolymers of sugars are common in nature. Through photosynthesis plants produce glucose, which has the formula C6H12O6, and convert it for storage as an energy reserve in the form of other carbohydrates such as starch, or (as in cane and beet) as sucrose (table sugar). Sucrose has the chemical formula C12H22O11. Starch, consisting of two different polymers of glucose, is a readily degradable chemical energy stored by cells, convertible to other types of energy.

Cellulose is a polymer of glucose used by plants as structural component.

DNA and RNA are built up of the sugars ribose and deoxyribose. The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, and has the formula C5H10O4.

High-fructose corn syrup

“…High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—also called glucose-fructose syrup[1][2] in the UK, glucose/fructose[3] in Canada, and high-fructose maize syrup in other countries—comprises any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness. In the United States, consumer foods and products typically use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. It has become very common in processed foods and beverages in the U.S., including breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments.[4]

According to the USDA, HFCS consists of 24% water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5][6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[7]

In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions[8] , and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.[9][10] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest “it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose”, but welcome further independent research on the subject.[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[13] diabetes,[14] and metabolic syndrome,[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[dubious – discuss] HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[15]

Use as a replacement for sugar

HFCS replaces sugar in various processed foods in the United States.[16][17] The main reasons for this switch are:

  • Per relative sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.[18]
  • High-fructose corn syrup HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose; HFCS 42 is less sweet than sucrose.
  • HFCS is cheaper in the United States as a result of a combination of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and quotas.[19] Since the mid 1990s, the United States federal government has subsidized corn growers by $40 billion.[20][21]
  • HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.[22]

Comparison to other sweeteners

High-fructose corn syrup
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 1,176 kJ (281 kcal)
Carbohydrates 76 g
– Dietary fiber 0 g
Fat 0 g
Protein 0 g
Water 24 g
Riboflavin (vit. B2) 0.019 mg (2%)
Niacin (vit. B3) 0 mg (0%)
Pantothenic acid (B5) 0.011 mg (0%)
Vitamin B6 0.024 mg (2%)
Folate (vit. B9) 0 μg (0%)
Vitamin C 0 mg (0%)
Calcium 6 mg (1%)
Iron 0.42 mg (3%)
Magnesium 2 mg (1%)
Phosphorus 4 mg (1%)
Potassium 0 mg (0%)
Sodium 2 mg (0%)
Zinc 0.22 mg (2%)
Shown is for 100 g, roughly 5.25 tbsp. Percentages are relative to US recommendations for adults. Source: USDA Nutrient Database

Cane and beet sugar

Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. The fact that sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules complicates the comparison between cane sugar, beet sugar and HFCS. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment by a process called inversion.[23] Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.[24]

Fructose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract by a different mechanism than that for glucose. Glucose stimulates insulin release from the isolated pancreas, but fructose does not. Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Once inside the liver cell, fructose can enter the pathways that provide glycerol, the backbone for triacylglycerol. The growing dietary amount of fructose that is derived from sucrose or HFCS has raised questions about how children and adults respond to fructose alone or when it is accompanied by glucose.[25]


Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds. Honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS 55, as well as containing some sucrose and other sugars. Like HFCS, honey contains water and has approximately 3 kcal per gram. Because of its similar sugar profile and lower price, HFCS has been used illegally to “stretch” honey. As a result, checks for adulteration of honey no longer test for higher-than-normal levels of sucrose, which HFCS does not contain, but instead test for small quantities of proteins that can be used to differentiate between HFCS and honey. Consumers should be aware, however, that some honey available in supermarkets contain HFCS or utilized HFCS in its production. Consumer awareness through label-reading is important for those aiming to avoid high-fructose corn syrup. [26]


HFCS was first introduced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957. They were, however, unsuccessful in making it viable for mass production.[27] The industrial production process and creation was made by Dr. Y. Takasaki at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan in 1965–1970. Dr. Y. Takasaki is known to many as the creator of HFCS. HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985.

High-fructose corn syrup is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes that change some of the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 42% fructose and is HFCS 42. Some of the 42% fructose is then purified to 90% fructose, HFCS 90. To make HFCS 55, the HFCS 90 is mixed with HFCS 42 in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS 55. The enzyme process that changes the 100% glucose corn syrup into HFCS 42 is as follows:

  1. Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called oligosaccharides.
  2. Glucoamylase – which is produced by Aspergillus, species of mold, in a fermentation vat — breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.
  3. Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50–52% glucose with some other sugars mixed in.

While inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry and used only once, the more costly xylose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it, allowing it to be used repeatedly until it loses its activity. This 42–43% fructose glucose mixture is then subjected to a liquid chromatography step, where the fructose is enriched to about 90%. The 90% fructose is then back-blended with 42% fructose to achieve a 55% fructose final product. Most manufacturers use carbon adsorption for impurity removal. Numerous filtration, ion-exchange and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process.

The units of measurement for sucrose is degrees Brix (symbol °Bx). Brix is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved sucrose to water in a liquid. A 25 °Bx solution has 25 grams of sucrose per 100 grams of solution (25% w/w). Or, to put it another way, there are 25 grams of sucrose and 75 grams of water in the 100 grams of solution. The Brix measurement was introduced by Antoine Brix.

A more universal measurement of sugars, including HFCS, is called dry solids. Dry solids is defined as the mass ratio of dry sugars to the total weight of the sugar solution. Since Brix is based on the refractive index of light against a sucrose molecule it is not accurate when measuring other sugars such as glucose, maltose, and fructose.

When an infrared Brix sensor is used, it measures the vibrational frequency of the sucrose molecules, giving a Brix degrees measurement. This will not be the same measurement as Brix degrees using a density or refractive index measurement, because it will specifically measure dissolved sugar concentration instead of all dissolved solids. When a refractometer is used, it is correct to report the result as “refractometric dried substance” (RDS). One might speak of a liquid as being 20 °Bx RDS. This is a measure of percent by weight of total dried solids and, although not technically the same as Brix degrees determined through an infrared method, renders an accurate measurement of sucrose content, since the majority of dried solids are in fact sucrose.

Recently, an isotopic method for quantifying sweeteners derived from corn and sugar cane was developed which permits measurement of corn syrup- and cane sugar-derived sweeteners in humans, thus allowing dietary assessment of the intake of these substances relative to total intake.[28]

Sweetener consumption patterns


Before the mass production of fructose since 1957[citation needed], human beings had little dietary exposure to fructose. Fructose was limited to only a few items such as honey, dates, raisins, grapes and apples. The staples of most early diets, meats and most vegetables, contain no fructose.[29]

United States

US sweetener consumption, 1966-2009, in dry pounds. It is apparent from this graph that overall sweetener consumption, and in particular glucose-fructose mixtures, has increased since the introduction of HFCS. Thus, the amount of fructose consumed in the United States has increased since the early 1980s. This would be true whether the added sweetener was HFCS, table sugar, or any other glucose-fructose mixture.[30]

A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. prices of sugar are twice the global price[31] and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers.[32][33]

HFCS became an attractive substitute, and is preferred over cane sugar among the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers. Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi use sugar in other nations, but switched to HFCS in the U.S. and Canada in 1984.[34] Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midland, lobby for the continuation of government corn subsidies.[35]

Other countries, including Mexico typically use sugar in soft drinks. Some Americans seek out Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries, because they prefer the taste compared to Coke made with HFCS.[36][37] Kosher for Passover Coca-Cola sold in the U.S. around the Jewish holiday also uses sucrose rather than HFCS and is also highly sought after by people who prefer the original taste.[38]

The average American consumed approximately 37.8 lb (17.1 kg) of HFCS in 2008, versus 46.7 lb (21.2 kg) of sucrose.[39] In countries where HFCS is not used or rarely used, sucrose consumption per person may be higher than in the USA; sucrose consumption per person from various locations is shown below (2002):[40]

  • USA: 32.4 kg (71 lb)
  • EU: 40.1 kg (88 lb)
  • Brazil: 59.7 kg (132 lb)
  • Australia: 56.2 kg (124 lb)

Of course, in terms of total sugars consumed, the figures from countries where HFCS is not used should be compared to the sum of the sucrose and HFCS figures from countries where HFCS consumption is significant.

European Union

In the European Union (EU), HFCS, known as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup, is subject to a production quota. In 2005, this quota was set at 303,000 tons; in comparison, the EU produced an average of 18.6 million tons of sugar annually between 1999 and 2001.[41] Wide scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in the EU.


In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.[42]

Health effects

Main article: Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup

Health concerns have been raised about high fructose corn syrup, which allege contribution to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. A peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by John S White who is a Consultant in sweeteners, HFCS and sucrose for the Food and Beverage Industry and also has a professional association with the Corn Refiners Association, rejects the HFCS-obesity hypothesis and finds that “[a]lthough examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same.”[13]

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

Gingrich Attacks Ron Paul As A Racist–Gingrich Is A Liar and Progressive Neoconservative Warmonger–Like Obama, Romney and Santorum–All Progressives And Fake Conservatives–Videos

Posted on February 26, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Newt’s Nightmare Trifecta [Gingrich loves Teddy Roosevelt, FDR & Woodrow Wilson]

Glenn Beck – The Case Against Newt Gingrich

The Real Newt Gingrich 

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Ron Paul Ad – Betrayal

Rick Santorum a Progressive Conservative?

Rick Santorum on Illegal Immigration – NOT Conservative

Rick Santorum Doesn’t Believe in … Freedom? ( Freedom Watch Judge Napolitano 1-5-2012 )

Big Government Liberal Rick Santorum Exposed

Matt Welch Discusses Rick Santorum’s Anti-Libertarian Beliefs on Freedom Watch

Ron Paul OWNS Rick Santorum!

Mitt Romney: I’m Progressive

MITT ROMNEY eX- posed:The Great Flip Flopper and Fed Shill

Mitt Romney on Taxes, Guns, Abortion

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Ron Paul: Counterfeit Conservatives

Ron Paul: Absolutely “No Deal” with Romney

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

No One But Paul — Can Beat Obama

My political philosophy is classical liberalism or what is commonly referred to in the United States as libertarianism.

Starting with Barry Goldwater in 1964 I have been a member of the conservative movement.

Today I am also a supporter of the tea party movement.

I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative, although I am comfortable with both traditional conservatives and national defense conservatives.

A limited constitutional government in scope, size and power with balanced or surplus budgets  is the number one issue with me.

Since 2006 I have been an independent.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are not fiscally responsible.

I will never vote for a progressive and/or neoconservative whether Republican or Democratic.

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

Ron Paul, the ONLY Constant Conservative

Big government progressive Republicans in the past include Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford,  George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are all big government progressive neoconservative Republicans.

The only true libertarian conservative  president that won two landslide victories was President Ronald Reagan.

Only one candidate would cut the U.S government budget by $1 trillion or $1,000 billion in fiscal year 2013, close five federal departments and balance the budget in three years–Ron Paul– a libertarian conservative.

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

This is what the conservative and tea party movements want most of all.

Only one candidate of either party has the wisdom, vision and courage to propose such a plan.

If you want another war, great depression/recession, escalating gas and food prices and food stamps–a warfare and welfare state– than vote for Gingrich, Romney, Santorum or Obama.

If you want a peace and prosperity economy and your freedom vote for Ron Paul.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul as a Republican or as a candidate on another party’s ticket.

I will never vote for any progressive and/or neoconservative in either political party.

Unfortunately, most voters including conservatives, vote for the candidate they like and identify with instead of examining a candidate’s political philosophy and position on the issues.

SA@TAC – Identity vs. Philosophy

Largely out of ignorance they fall for fake conservative candidates that are big government progressives and/or neoconservatives.

Gingrich, Santorum and Romney are undeniably big government progressive neoconservatives as evidenced by their own words and actions.

The American people are slowly but surely waking up to the fact that progressive politicians control both political parties in the United States.

Neither libertarian conservatives nor traditional conservatives will support big government progressive conservatives.

They will mostly stay home if the choice is between Obama, Gingrich, Santorum and Romney.

The conservative and tea party movements must rally behind Ron Paul.

No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul is a consistent libertarian conservative and a man of character and integrity.

He is the best candidate the American people have for he truly understands how dire the economic situation really is and knows what needs to be done to avoid another Great Depression.

Joe Scarborough Credits Ron Paul for Predicting the Housing Bubble

Peter Schiff – “Remember, I Supported Ron Paul”

Peter Schiff – “Ron Paul Only Candidate I Trust”

Jim Rogers – none of the candidates have clue except Ron Paul

Support and vote for Ron Paul.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Limited Government Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul vs. Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives Romney, Gingrich, Santorum–Videos

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

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

I Got The Obama Gasoline Price Blues–From $1.79 Per Gallon in January 2009 to $3.59 Per Gallon in February 2012–$5 Per Gallon By July 4, 2012!–Purchasing Power Plummets–Speculation Starves Society–Hope for Regime Change–Videos

Posted on February 24, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Government Theft May 1, 1933

Quantitative Easing Explained

U.S. Inflation Calculator

U.S. Debt Clock

Ron Paul: The Worst Thing You Can Do For A People Is Purposely Devalue The Dollar

Obama’s Got America Singin’ the Blues

As Gas Prices Rise, White House Goes on Offensive, Defensive

Ron Paul tells the real reason for the oil prices in 2007 and today 

END FED: Bernanke Explains How To Devalue the Dollar, Quantitative Easing AKA Asset Purchase

Glenn Beck – Devaluing The Dollar 

Beck: Devaluing the Dollar

Iran Sanctions, War, Israel & Gas Prices

Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Why Gas Prices Are Rising

Playing the oil prices money game

Secret Exemptions Allowed Speculators to Distort Futures Markets

Regulations on Speculation Weak, But Better Than Nothing

The Price Of Oil

Bill Black: What I’d Demand of the Fed

Bill Black’s eye-popping opening statement at House FinServ hearing on Lehman Bros.

END FED: Goldman Sachs To Blame For Global Food-Oil Price Crisis; Speculators Outnumber Hedgers

CFTC Commissioner: “A Hair Trigger Away from Economic Calamity”

Will CFTC Limit Excessive Speculation?

Oil Supply and Demand and the Next Oil Price Spike

Bio-fuels, Speculation, Land Grabs = Food Crisis

Speculation And The Frenzy In Food Markets

Food, Speculation and Parasitical Trading

Speculation Drives Up Coffee Prices

Food Speculation

Oil Speculators

Oil speculation and oil prices

The Real TRUTH Behind The OIL PRICES 

Banks Behind High Gas Prices? 

Rising Gas Prices Slowing Economy

Gas Prices Soaring 

Ripple Effect Of Rising Gas Prices Hits Consumers

Krauthammer: Obama’s “war on fossil fuels” causes rising gas prices 

Obama Wanted High Gas Prices…Gradually (2008 Election Campaign) 

Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2008

Can We Stop A War With Iran? 

Obama admits his intentions are to skyrocket oil prices 

Ford O’Connell On Fox News – February 24, 2012 

Ron Paul Expains High Gas Prices & War in 2007

Obama gas prices

A Coincidence Over High Gasoline Prices- MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon

Obama Admits the Truth: He Can’t Do Much about Gas Prices

James Grant

Jim Grant – Bloomberg Interview (30/6/11)

Government Theft 2012

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

 Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke

Seven Bucks A Gallon For Gas!

2012 Energy Prices

Ed Wallace 

“…That’s right, we not only reduced our overall gasoline use in America, reversing a century-long trend, but in 2011 we dropped our demand for gasoline once again. This likely explains why in December WTI oil jumped by close to $7 a barrel, but the futures market for gasoline barely budged, moving just a few cents in either direction.

Another way to look at it is in the percentage of utilization of our refineries for this time of year. According to the government’s data, the last week of December our refineries ran at 84.2 percent of capacity. But if one compares that week to the same week in the boom years, 2003 to 2007, our refineries were running at 91.7 percent, 94.2 percent, 88.9 percent, 90.9 percent and 89.4 percent. For those who have forgotten, that last figure in that chain, marking the last week of December 2007, also denotes the month we officially slipped into a recession. Interestingly, data released by the International Energy Agency in September of 2008 showed oil and fuel demand falling worldwide starting in August of 2007.

And yet with our refinery utilization running at far below normal, we managed to have the all-time-record year for the exportation of refined fuels. While the media speculation on where oil’s price is going is almost solely based on “Asian Demand” or the prospect of a total embargo on Iranian oil, the real problem is something completely different.

What is it? It’s refiners trying to find ways to get the price of gasoline on the futures market more in line with the high price of oil. To this end it appears that three refineries in the Northeast, including Sunoco’s Marcus Hook and Philadelphia refinery, along with Conoco’s Trainer unit, will be closed. To be sure, both Conoco and Sunoco claim their first choice is to sell those refineries, but failing that they will be closed.

What does that mean to you and me?

Dow Jones Newswire quoted Gene McGillian, an energy analyst with Tradition Energy, as saying, “Gasoline futures prices are based on New York Harbor prices. When you start to see disruptions in that Northeast market, it’s definitely reflected in gasoline futures.”

Translation: Close refineries and you can bump the futures price of gasoline – and by extension the retail price – regardless of where the price of oil is.

How does oil speculation raise gas prices?

by Josh Clark

“…An oil futureis simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case oil — at a fixed price

. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered.

­As in all cases, Wall Street heard the word "bet" and flocked to futures, taking the market to strange new places on the fringe of legality. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it bet on grain. In the 21st century it was oil. Despite U.S. petroleum reserves being at an eight-year high, the price of oil rose dramatically beginning in 2006. While demand rose, supply kept pace. Yet, prices still skyrocketed. This means that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied in the oil markets. Instead, an artificial market developed.

Artificial markets are volatile; they’re difficult to predict and can turn on a dime. As a result of the artificial oil market, the average price per barrel of crude oil increased from $31.61 in July 2004 to $137.11 in July 2008 1. The average cost for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in the United States grew from $1.93 to $4.09 over the same period 1.

So what happened? …"

"…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called <strong>derivatives</strong>. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.

By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, "[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact" 1. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone 1.

As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40 1. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …"

<a href=""></a>

<h4>It’s no secret that speculators are driving up fuel prices. The surprise? It’s the Fed’s fault, writes Ed Wallace</h4>
<h4>"…The Fed’s Cheap Liquidity Flood</h4>
The problem starts with Ben Bernanke, no matter how many of his Fed presidents claim they are not to blame for the high price of oil. The fact is that when you flood the market with far too much liquidity at virtually no interest, funny things happen in commodities and equities. It was true in the 1920s, it was true in the last decade, and it’s still true today.

When Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, spoke in Germany late in March, Reuters quoted him as saying: "We are seeing speculative activity that may be exacerbating price rises in commodities such as oil." Fisher added that he was seeing the signs of the same speculative trading that had fueled the first financial meltdown.

Here Fisher is in good company. Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig, who has been a vocal critic of the current Fed policy of zero interest and high liquidity, has suggested that markets don’t function correctly under those circumstances. And David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, recently wrote a scathing article for MarketWatch, "Federal Reserve’s Path of Destruction," in which he criticizes current Fed policy even more pointedly. Stockman wrote: "This destruction is namely the exploitation of middle-class savers; the current severe food and energy squeeze on lower income households … and the next round of bursting bubbles building up among the risk asset classes."

Let’s not kid ourselves. Oil in today’s world is worth far more than the $25 a barrel it sold for over a decade ago. But the ability of markets to function properly, based on real supply and demand equations, has been destroyed by allowing ridiculous leverage and the unlimited ability to borrow the leverage at historically low interest rates.

Fortunately for our elected officials, they’ve got the public convinced that the biggest threat from government is taxation and deficits. In reality the public should be infuriated with the rising costs of nondiscretionary items such as food and gasoline, which current Fed policy actively enables. …"

<a href=""></a>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Price of petroleum</strong></p>
"…The <strong>price of petroleum</strong> as quoted in news generally refers to the spot price per barrel (159 liters) of either WTI/light crude as traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for delivery at Cushing, Oklahoma, or of Brent as traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE, into which the International Petroleum Exchange has been incorporated) for delivery at Sullom Voe.

The price of a barrel of oil is highly dependent on both its grade, determined by factors such as its specific gravity or API and its sulphur content, and its location. Other important benchmarks include Dubai, Tapis, and the OPEC basket. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses the imported refiner acquisition cost, the weighted average cost of all oil imported into the US, as its "world oil price".

The demand for oil is highly dependent on global macroeconomic conditions. According to the International Energy Agency, high oil prices generally have a large negative impact on the global economic growth.<sup>[1]</sup>

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed in 1960<sup>[2]</sup> to try and counter the oil companies cartel, which had been controlling posted prices since the so-called 1927 Red Line Agreement and 1928 Achnacarry Agreement, and had achieved a high level of price stability until 1972.

The price of oil underwent a significant decrease after the record peak of US$145 it reached in July 2008. On December 23, 2008, WTI crude oil spot price fell to US$30.28 a barrel, the lowest since the financial crisis of 2007–2010 began, and traded at between US$35 a barrel and US$82 a barrel in 2009.<sup>[3]</sup> On 31 January 2011, the Brent price hit $100 a barrel for the first time since October 2008, on concerns about the political unrest in Egypt.<sup>[4]</sup>

Price history before 2003

A low point was reached in January 1999 of 17 USD per barrel, after increased oil production from Iraq coincided with the Asian Financial Crisis, which reduced demand. Prices then increased rapidly, more than doubling by September 2000 to $35, then fell until the end of 2001 before steadily increasing, reaching $40–50 by September 2004.<sup>[5]</sup>
<h3>Price history from 2003 onwards</h3>
<div>Main article: 2003 to 2011 world oil market chronology</div>
<div>Further information: 2000s energy crisis</div>
<h4>Benchmark pricing</h4>
<div>Main article: Benchmark (crude oil)</div>
After the collapse of the OPEC-administered pricing system in 1985, and a short lived experiment with netback pricing, oil-exporting countries adopted a market-linked pricing mechanism.<sup>[6]</sup> First adopted by PEMEX in 1986, market-linked pricing received wide acceptance and by 1988 became and still is the main method for pricing crude oil in international trade.<sup>[6]</sup> The current reference, or pricing markers, are Brent, WTI, and Dubai/Oman.<sup>[6]</sup>
<h4> Market listings</h4>
<div>Main article: Commodities markets</div>
Oil is marketed among other products in commodities markets. See above for details. Widely traded oil futures, and related natural gas futures, include:<sup>[7]</sup>
<li>Nymex Crude Future</li>
<li>Dated Brent Spot</li>
<li>WTI Cushing Spot</li>
<li>Nymex Heating Oil Future</li>
<li>Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future</li>
<li>Natural gas
<li>Nymex Henry Hub Future</li>
<li>Henry Hub Spot</li>
<li>New York City Gate Spot</li>
Most of the above oil futures have delivery dates in all 12 months of the year.<sup>[8]</sup>
The surge in oil prices in the past several years has led some commentators to argue that at least some of the rise is due to speculation in the futures markets.<sup>[9]</sup>
<h4> Future price changes</h4>
In 2009, Seismic Micro-Technology conducted a survey of geophysicists and geologists about the future of crude oil. Of the survey participants 80 percent predicted the price for a barrel of oil will rise to be somewhere between $50 and $100 per barrel by June 2010.<sup>[10]</sup> Another 50 percent saying it will rise even further to $100 to $150 a barrel in the next five years.<sup>[10]</sup>

Oil prices could go to $200- $300 a barrel if the world’s top crude exporter Saudi Arabia is hit by serious political unrest, according to former Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani. Yamani has said that underlying discontent remained unresolved in Saudi Arabia. "If something happens in Saudi Arabia it will go to $200 to $300. I don’t expect this for the time being, but who would have expected Tunisia?" Yamani told Reuters on the sidelines of a conference of the Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES) which he chaired on April 5th 2011.<sup>[11]</sup>
<h4>CFTC investigation</h4>
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced "Multiple Energy Market Initiatives" on May 29, 2008. Part 1 is "Expanded International Surveillance Information for Crude Oil Trading." The CFTC announcement stated it has joined with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and ICE Futures Europe in order to expand surveillance and information sharing of various futures contracts.<sup>[12]</sup> This announcement has received wide coverage in the financial press, with speculation about oil futures price manipulation.<sup>[13]</sup><sup>[14]</sup><sup>[15]</sup>

The interim report by the Interagency Task Force, released in July, found that speculation had not caused significant changes in oil prices and that fundamental supply and demand factors provide the best explanation for the crude oil price increases. The report found that the primary reason for the price increases was that the world economy had expanded at its fastest pace in decades, resulting in substantial increases in the demand for oil, while the oil production grew sluggishly, compounded by production shortfalls in oil-exporting countries.

The report stated that as a result of the imbalance and low price elasticity, very large price increases occurred as the market attempted to balance scarce supply against growing demand, particularly in the last three years. The report forecast that this imbalance would persist in the future, leading to continued upward pressure on oil prices, and that large or rapid movements in oil prices are likely to occur even in the absence of activity by speculators. The task force continues to analyze commodity markets and intends to issue further findings later in the year.
<h4>Future projections</h4>
<div>Main article: Oil depletion</div>
<div>Main article: Peak oil</div>
Peak oil is the period when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. It relates to a long term decline in the available supply of petroleum. This, combined with increasing demand, will significantly increase the worldwide prices of petroleum derived products. Most significant will be the availability and price of liquid fuel for transportation.

The US Department of Energy in the Hirsch report indicates that “The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past “energy crisis” experience will provide relatively little guidance.”<sup>[16] …"</sup>

<a href=""></a>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong>Gas prices soar on dollar devaluation even as consumption drops to 10-year lows </strong></p>
<strong>Written By Kenneth Schortgen Jr on Monday, February 13, 2012</strong>

"…One of the biggest misnomers in finance and economics today is that prices work according to supply and demand.  This was true when America performed in actual capitalist system, but since we moved to both fascism and crony capitalism, where corporations, banks, and government all work together at the betterment of themselves and not society, prices are fixed due to other factors such as dollar devaluation.
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>U.S. drivers used 2.8 percent less motor gasoline last year and consumed the smallest amount since 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy said Wednesday. Officials credited the decrease to more fuel-efficient cars and an aging population taking few trips.</em></strong></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><em>Meanwhile, U.S. domestic oil production increased by more than 2 percent last year to 5.6 million barrels per day. – </em></strong><a href=""><strong><em>Des Moines Register</em></strong></a></div>
So… if consumption is way down, and production is actually up, should not gasoline prices be falling?  They should, except if you take into consideration the amount of money printing and currency devaluation being done by the Federal Reserve over the past four years, the amount of  inflation is being created by our own banking system, and not by a lack of products, or by higher demand.
In the end, Americans are being deceived by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. …"

<a href=""></a>
<h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">Gasoline Prices Are Not Rising, the Dollar Is Falling</h3>
<strong><a href="">Louis Woodhill</a></strong>

"…Panic is in the air as gasoline prices move above $4.00 per gallon. Politicians and pundits are rounding up the usual suspects, looking for someone or something to blame for this latest outrage to middle class family budgets. In a rare display of bipartisanship, President Obama and Speaker of the House <a href="">John Boehner</a> are both wringing their hands over the prospect of seeing their newly extended Social <a href="">Security</a> tax cut gobbled up by rising gasoline costs.

Unfortunately, the talking heads that are trying to explain the reasons for high oil prices are missing one tiny detail. Oil prices aren’t high right now. In fact, they are unusually low. Gasoline prices would have to rise by another $0.65 to $0.75 per gallon from where they are now just to be “normal”. And, because gasoline prices are low right now, it is very likely that they are going to go up more—perhaps a lot more.

What the politicians, analysts, and pundits are missing is that prices are ratios. Gasoline prices reflect crude oil prices, so let’s use West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to illustrate this crucial point.

As this is written, West Texas Intermediate crude oil (WTI) is trading at $105.88/bbl. All this means is that the market value of a barrel of WTI is 105.88 times the market value of “the dollar”. It is also true that WTI is trading at €79.95/bbl, ¥8,439.69/barrel, and £67.13/bbl. In all of these cases, the market value of WTI is the same. What is different in each case is the value of the monetary unit (euros, yen, and British pounds, respectively) being used to calculate the ratio that expresses the price.

In terms of judging whether the price of WTI is high or low, here is the price that truly matters: 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel (which can be written as Au0.0602/bbl). What this number means is that, right now, a barrel of WTI has the same market value as 0.0602 ounces of gold.

During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.

At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon.

At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices. …"

<a href=""></a>

<strong>Why Gas Prices Are Actually Falling   </strong>
<div><strong>By Gary Gibson</strong></div>
"…It’s not gold and silver prices that are volatile. Those have been incredibly consistent for thousands of years in terms of commodities they could buy. And because of the increasing standard of living being raised by free market economies, in a very real sense these eternal monies actually buy more. It’s the dollar that has been erratic in its overall declining trend ever since it’s been cut loose from gold (and silver).

Again, people looking at the cost of a gallon of gas, or of milk, or the cost of a nice suit, or rent from behind their piles of gold and silver are finding very little to worry about. In fact, to them, prices are lower than normal and declining.

Also the price of oil has tended to track the price of silver awfully closely for about as long as oil has been industrially useful. And so it’s no mistake that you can still get a gallon of gas for about about $0.20…as long as that $0.20 is composed of a pre-1964 90% silver dimes. …"

<a href=""><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-55554" title="silver_quarter" src="" alt="" width="544" height="195" /></a>

"…You see, the pre-1965 quarter is worth $6.38 as I type this. The pre-1965 dime is worth $2.55. These coins hail from a time when the dollar was still tied to gold (at the official price of $35 per ounce prior to Nixon nixing the gold standard). The dollar was still as good as gold — even though Americans themselves were forbidden to own gold bullion from 1933 till 1974 — and there was actual silver in the coinage until that content was reduced in 1964 and eliminated in 1965.

Those old silver coins shine the harsh light on the strength of the currency and the abuse that currency suffers from the feds and the Federal Reserve.

If you’d been saving in gold, then from your point of view gas prices have been coming down for the past few years. If you’d been saving in that old “junk” silver (pre-1965 quarters, dimes and half dollars), then gas prices are a downright bargain, too. …"

<a href=""></a>
<h4><strong>Consequences to Expect if the U.S. Invades Iran   </strong></h4>
<h4><strong>By Whiskey Contributor<small>Feb 22nd, 2012</small></strong></h4>
<h4><strong>Exploding Oil Prices</strong></h4>
The U.S. has had a ban on Iranian oil imports since 1979, however, Iran still supplies about 5% of the global oil market. This might not seem like much, but Iran also has the means and ability to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is one of two major petroleum choke points in the world. Around 17 million barrels of oil per day are shipped through the Straight of Hormuz, or about 20% of all oil traded worldwide.
<p align="center"><img src="" alt="" width="363" height="208" /></p>
"…In 2006, during the last major Iran war scare, experts predicted gasoline price increases in excess of <a href="" target="_blank">$10 a gallon if Iran was invaded.</a>

This would devastate the U.S. economy, which is already hanging by a thin thread. Iran has announced this past weekend it will cease all oil shipments to Britain and France in protest of their support of economic sanctions. This alone is causing oil to spike today. A global energy crisis will financially decimate average citizens who will have their savings sapped by extreme price inflation, not just in gasoline, but in all goods that require the use of gasoline in their production and shipping. If you like this idea, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

<strong>War Domino Effect</strong>

In January of 2010, I wrote an article for Neithercorp Press entitled <a href="" target="_blank">“Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War</a>“. In that article, I warned about the dangers of an invasion of Iran or Syria being used to foment a global conflict, in order to create a crisis large enough to distract the masses away from the international banker created economic collapse.

In 2006, Iran signed a mutual defense pact with its neighbor, Syria, which is also in the middle of its own turmoil and possible NATO intervention. Syria has strong ties to Russia, and even has a revamped Russian naval base off its coast, a fact rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Both Russia and China have made their opposition clear in the case of any Western intervention in Iran or Syria. An invasion by the U.S. or Israel in these regions could quickly intensify into wider war between major world powers. If you like the idea of a world war which could eventually put you and your family in direct danger, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

<strong>Dollar Collapse</strong>

Make no mistake, the U.S. dollar is already on the verge of collapse, along with the U.S. economy. Bilateral trade agreements between BRIC and ASEAN nations are sprouting up everywhere the past couple months, and these agreements are specifically designed to end the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. An invasion of Iran will only expedite this process. If global anger over the resulting chaos in oil prices doesn’t set off a dump of the dollar, the eventual debt obligation incurred through the overt costs of war will. Ron Paul has always been right; it doesn’t matter whether you think invasion is a good idea or not. We simply CANNOT afford it. America is bankrupt. Our only source of income is our ability to print money from thin air. Each dollar created to fund new wars brings our currency ever closer to its demise. …"

<a href=""></a>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">Background Articles and Videos</h1>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"></h4>
<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Introduction to Futures</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">What is a Future?</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Investopedia Video: How Do Futures Contracts Work?</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<h4 id="watch-headline-title" style="text-align: center;">Commodity futures margin accounts</h4>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>

<div><strong> Security Futures—Know Your Risks, or Risk Your Future</strong></div>

<strong>"…Margin & Leverage</strong>

When a brokerage firm lends you part of the funds needed to purchase a security, such as common stock, the term "margin" refers to the amount of cash, or down payment, the customer is required to deposit. By contrast, a security futures contract is an obligation not an asset and has no value as collateral for a loan. When you enter into a security futures contract, you are required to make a payment referred to as a "margin payment" or "performance bond" to cover potential losses.

For a relatively small amount of money (the margin requirement), a futures contract worth several times as much can be bought or sold. The smaller the margin requirement in relation to the underlying value of the futures contract, the greater the leverage. Because of this leverage, small changes in price can result in large gains and losses in a short period of time.

<strong>Example:</strong> Assuming a security futures contract is for 100 shares of stock, if a security futures contract is established at a contract price of $50, the contract has a nominal value of $5,000 (see definition below). The margin requirement may be as low as 20 percent, which would require a margin deposit of $1,000. Assume the contract price rises from $50 to $52 (a $200 increase in the nominal value). This represents a $200 profit to the buyer of the futures contract, and a 20 percent return on the $1,000 deposited as margin.

The reverse would be true if the contract price decreased from $50 to $48. This represents a $200 loss to the buyer, or 20 percent of the $1,000 deposited as margin. Thus, leverage can either benefit or harm an investor.
Note that a 4 percent decrease in the value of the contract resulted in a loss of 20 percent of the margin deposited. A 20 percent decrease in the contract price ($50 to $40) would mean a drop in the nominal value of the contract from $5,000 to $4,000, thereby wiping out 100 percent of the margin deposited on the security futures contract. …"

<div><a href=""></a></div>
<h4>Futures Margins<a href="" target="_blank"> </a></h4>
<!– google_ad_section_start –>Participants in a futures contract are required to post performance bond margins in order to open and maintain a futures position.

Futures margin requirements are set by the exchanges and are typically only 2 to 10 percent of the full value of the futures contract.

Margins are financial guarantees required of both buyers and sellers of futures contracts to ensure that they fulfill their futures contract obligations.
<h4>Initial Margin</h4>
Before a futures position can be opened, there must be enough available balance in the futures trader’s margin account to meet the initial margin requirement. Upon opening the futures position, an amount equal to the initial margin requirement will be deducted from the trader’s margin account and transferred to the exchange’s clearing firm. This money is held by the exchange clearinghouse as long as the futures position remains open.
<h4>Maintenance Margin</h4>
The maintenance margin is the minimum amount a futures trader is required to maintain in his margin account in order to hold a futures position. The maintenance margin level is usually slightly below the initial margin.

If the balance in the futures trader’s margin account falls below the maintenance margin level, he or she will receive a margin call to top up his margin account so as to meet the initial margin requirement.
Let’s assume we have a speculator who has $10000 in his trading account. He decides to buy August Crude Oil at $40 per barrel. Each Crude Oil futures contract represents 1000 barrels and requires an initial margin of $9000 and has a maintenance margin level set at $6500.

Since his account is $10000, which is more than the initial margin requirement, he can therefore open up one August Crude Oil futures position.

One day later, the price of August Crude Oil drops to $38 a barrel. Our speculator has suffered an open position loss of $2000 ($2 x 1000 barrels) and thus his account balance drops to $8000.

Although his balance is now lower than the initial margin requirement, he did not get the margin call as it is still above the maintenance level of $6500.

Unfortunately, on the very next day, the price of August Crude Oil crashed further to $35, leading to an additional $3000 loss on his open Crude Oil position. With only $5000 left in his trading account, which is below the maintenance level of $6500, he received a call from his broker asking him to top up his trading account back to the initial level of $9000 in order to maintain his open Crude Oil position.

This means that if the speculator wishes to stay in the position, he will need to deposit an additional $4000 into his trading account.

Otherwise, if he decides to quit the position, the remaining $5000 in his account will be available to use for trading once again. …"
<a href=""></a>

<div><strong>Federal Regulation of Margin in the Commodities Futures Industry: History and Theory</strong></div>
<h4><a href=""></a></h4>
<h4>How does oil speculation raise gas prices?</h4>
<h4>by Josh Clark</h4>
<div align="left">

"…The next time you drive to the gas station, only to find prices are still sky high compared to just a few years ago, take notice of the rows of <a href="">foreclosed</a> houses you’ll pass along the way. They may seem like two parts of a spell of economic bad luck, but high gas prices and home foreclosures are actually very much interrelated. Before most people were even aware there was an <a href="">economic crisis</a>, investment managers abandoned failing <a href="">mortgage-backed securities</a> and looked for other lucrative investments. What they settled on was oil futures.

An <strong>oil future</strong> is simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity — in this case <a href="">oil</a>– at a fixed price


. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered. …”

“…What speculators do is bet on what price a commodity will reach by a future date, through instruments called derivatives. Unlike an investment in an actual commodity (such as a barrel of oil), a derivative’s value is based on the value of a commodity (for example, a bet on whether a barrel of oil will increase or decrease in price). Speculators have no hand in the sale of the commodity they’re betting on; they’re not the buyer or the seller.

By betting on the price outcome with only a single futures contract, a speculator has no effect on a market. It’s simply a bet. But a speculator with the capital to purchase a sizeable number of futures derivatives at one price can actually sway the market. As energy researcher F. William Engdahl put it, “[s]peculators trade on rumor, not fact”

. A speculator purchasing vast futures at higher than the current market price can cause oil producers to horde their commodity in the hopes they’ll be able to sell it later on at the future price. This drives prices up in reality — both future and present prices — due to the decreased amount of oil currently available on the market.

Investment firms that can influence the oil futures market stand to make a lot; oil companies that both produce the commodity and drive prices up of their product up through oil futures derivatives stand to make even more. Investigations into the unregulated oil futures exchanges turned up major financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. But it also revealed energy producers like Vitol, a Swiss company that owned 11 percent of the oil futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange alone


As a result of speculation among these and other major players, an estimated 60 percent of the price of oil per barrel was added; a $100 barrel of oil, in reality, should cost $40

. And despite having an agency created to prevent just such speculative price inflation, by the time oil prices skyrocketed, the government had made a paper tiger out of it. …”

Weekly Petroleum Status Report


“…U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged just under 14.9 million barrels per

day during the week ending February 17, 170 thousand barrels per day

above the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 85.5 percent

of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production increased

last week, averaging nearly 9.0 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel

production decreased last week, averaging just under 4.3 million barrels

per day.

U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 9.1 million barrels per day last

week, up by 335 thousand barrels per day from the previous week. Over

the last four weeks, crude oil imports have averaged about 8.8 million

barrels per day, 211 thousand barrels per day above the same four-week

period last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished

gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged 845

thousand barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports averaged 122 thousand

barrels per day last week.

U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve) increased by 1.6 million barrels from the previous

week. At 340.7 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are in the

upper limit of the average range for this time of year. Total motor

gasoline inventories decreased by 0.6 million barrels last week and are

in the upper limit of the average range. Finished gasoline inventories

decreased while blending components inventories increased last week.

Distillate fuel inventories decreased by 0.2 million barrels last week and

are in the middle of the average range for this time of year. Propane/

propylene inventories decreased by 1.6 million barrels last week and are

above the upper limit of the average range. Total commercial petroleum

inventories increased by 3.3 million barrels last week.

Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged

about 18.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.7 percent compared to

the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline

product supplied has averaged 8.2 million barrels per day, down by 6.1

percent from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied

has averaged about 3.6 million barrels per day over the last four weeks,

down by 5.9 percent from the same period last year. Jet fuel product

supplied is 9.1 percent lower over the last four weeks compared to the

same four-week period last year.

WTI was $103.27 per barrel on February 17, 2012, $4.59 more than

last week’s price and $18.24 above a year ago. The spot price for

conventional gasoline in the New York Harbor was $3.023 per gallon,

$0.022 more than last week’s price and $0.483 above last year. The

spot price for No. 2 heating oil in the New York Harbor was $3.185 per

gallon, $0.002 less than last week’s price but $0.474 above a year ago.

The national average retail regular gasoline price increased for the fourth

week in a row to $3.591 per gallon on February 20, 2012, $0.068 per

gallon more than last week and $0.402 above a year ago. The national

average retail diesel fuel price also increased for the fourth straight week

in a row to $3.960 per gallon, $0.017 per gallon more than last week and

$0.387 above a year ago. …”

Inflation:  Calculating the rate of inflation

Historical CPI-U data from 1913 to the present

“…For just current CPI data, see CPI page. The following table provides all the Consumer Price Index data CPI-U from 1913 to the Present.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)  is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is based upon a 1982 Base of 100. A Consumer Price Index of 158 indicates 58% inflation since 1982. The commonly quoted inflation rate of say 3% is actually the change in the Consumer Price Index from a year earlier. By looking at the change in the Consumer Price Index we can see that what cost an average of 9.9 cents in 1913 would cost us about $1.82 in 2003 and $2.02 in 2007.

To find Prior Consumer Price Index (CPI) data on this table (back through 1913) click on the date range links below the table.

For Inflation data rather than Consumer Price Index data go to the Historical Inflation page. If you would like to calculate the inflation rate between two dates using the Consumer Price Index data from this chart, use our handy easy to use Inflation calculator or you might prefer to use our Cost of Living Calculator to compare the costs in two cities. You can find links to Inflation and Consumer Price Index data for other countries HERE. A chart of Inflation by decade, Annual Inflation and Confederate Inflation is also available. Menu navigation is available on the menu bar on the left of every page. We have a complete listing of all of our Articles on inflation, including Inflation Definitions, Which is better High or Low Inflation, and How to Calculate Inflation.

You might also be interested in the wide variety of articles on our sister site Financial Trend Forecaster a complete list of the articles on Financial Trend Forecaster is at the FTF Article Archives.

Note Effective January 2007 the BLS began publishing the CPI index to three decimal places (prior to that it was only one decimal place).  But is still the only place to get the Inflation Rate calculated to two decimal places.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2012 226.665
2011 220.223 221.309 223.467 224.906 225.964 225.722 225.922 226.545 226.889 226.421 226.230 225.672 224.939
2010 216.687 216.741 217.631 218.009 218.178 217.965 218.011 218.312 218.439 218.711 218.803 219.179 218.056
2009 211.143 212.193 212.709 213.240 213.856 215.693 215.351 215.834 215.969 216.177 216.330 215.949 214.537
2008 211.080 211.693 213.528 214.823 216.632 218.815 219.964 219.086 218.783 216.573 212.425 210.228 215.303
2007 202.416 203.499 205.352 206.686 207.949 208.352 208.299 207.917 208.490 208.936 210.177 210.036 207.342
2006 198.300 198.700 199.800 201.500 202.500 202.900 203.500 203.900 202.900 201.800 201.500 201.800 201.600
2005 190.700 191.800 193.300 194.600 194.400 194.500 195.400 196.400 198.800 199.200 197.600 196.800 195.300
2004 185.200 186.200 187.400 188.000 189.100 189.700 189.400 189.500 189.900 190.900 191.000 190.300 188.900
2003 181.700 183.100 184.200 183.800 183.500 183.700 183.900 184.600 185.200 185.000 184.500 184.300 183.960
2002 177.100 177.800 178.800 179.800 179.800 179.900 180.100 180.700 181.000 181.300 181.300 180.900 179.880
2001 175.100 175.800 176.200 176.900 177.700 178.000 177.500 177.500 178.300 177.700 177.400 176.700 177.100
2000 168.800 169.800 171.200 171.300 171.500 172.400 172.800 172.800 173.700 174.000 174.100 174.000 172.200
1999 164.300 164.500 165.000 166.200 166.200 166.200 166.700 167.100 167.900 168.200 168.300 168.300 166.600
1998 161.600 161.900 162.200 162.500 162.800 163.000 163.200 163.400 163.600 164.000 164.000 163.900 163.000
1997 159.100 159.600 160.000 160.200 160.100 160.300 160.500 160.800 161.200 161.600 161.500 161.300 160.500
1996 154.400 154.900 155.700 156.300 156.600 156.700 157.000 157.300 157.800 158.300 158.600 158.600 156.900
1995 150.300 150.900 151.400 151.900 152.200 152.500 152.500 152.900 153.200 153.700 153.600 153.500 152.400
1994 146.200 146.700 147.200 147.400 147.500 148.000 148.400 149.000 149.400 149.500 149.700 149.700 148.200
1993 142.600 143.100 143.600 144.000 144.200 144.400 144.400 144.800 145.100 145.700 145.800 145.800 144.500
1992 138.100 138.600 139.300 139.500 139.700 140.200 140.500 140.900 141.300 141.800 142.000 141.900 140.300
1991 134.600 134.800 135.000 135.200 135.600 136.000 136.200 136.600 137.200 137.400 137.800 137.900 136.200
1990 127.400 128.000 128.700 128.900 129.200 129.900 130.400 131.600 132.700 133.500 133.800 133.800 130.700
1989 121.100 121.600 122.300 123.100 123.800 124.100 124.400 124.600 125.000 125.600 125.900 126.100 124.000
1988 115.700 116.000 116.500 117.100 117.500 118.000 118.500 119.000 119.800 120.200 120.300 120.500 118.300
1987 111.200 111.600 112.100 112.700 113.100 113.500 113.800 114.400 115.000 115.300 115.400 115.400 113.600
1986 109.600 109.300 108.800 108.600 108.900 109.500 109.500 109.700 110.200 110.300 110.400 110.500 109.600
1985 105.500 106.000 106.400 106.900 107.300 107.600 107.800 108.000 108.300 108.700 109.000 109.300 107.600
1984 101.900 102.400 102.600 103.100 103.400 103.700 104.100 104.500 105.000 105.300 105.300 105.300 103.900
1983 97.800 97.900 97.900 98.600 99.200 99.500 99.900 100.200 100.700 101.000 101.200 101.300 99.600
1982 94.300 94.600 94.500 94.900 95.800 97.000 97.500 97.700 97.900 98.200 98.000 97.600 96.500
1981 87.000 87.900 88.500 89.100 89.800 90.600 91.600 92.300 93.200 93.400 93.700 94.000 90.900
1980 77.800 78.900 80.100 81.000 81.800 82.700 82.700 83.300 84.000 84.800 85.500 86.300 82.400
1979 68.300 69.100 69.800 70.600 71.500 72.300 73.100 73.800 74.600 75.200 75.900 76.700 72.600
1978 62.500 62.900 63.400 63.900 64.500 65.200 65.700 66.000 66.500 67.100 67.400 67.700 65.200
1977 58.500 59.100 59.500 60.000 60.300 60.700 61.000 61.200 61.400 61.600 61.900 62.100 60.600
1976 55.600 55.800 55.900 56.100 56.500 56.800 57.100 57.400 57.600 57.900 58.000 58.200 56.900
1975 52.100 52.500 52.700 52.900 53.200 53.600 54.200 54.300 54.600 54.900 55.300 55.500 53.800
1974 46.600 47.200 47.800 48.000 48.600 49.000 49.400 50.000 50.600 51.100 51.500 51.900 49.300
1973 42.600 42.900 43.300 43.600 43.900 44.200 44.300 45.100 45.200 45.600 45.900 46.200 44.400
1972 41.100 41.300 41.400 41.500 41.600 41.700 41.900 42.000 42.100 42.300 42.400 42.500 41.800
1971 39.800 39.900 40.000 40.100 40.300 40.600 40.700 40.800 40.800 40.900 40.900 41.100 40.500
1970 37.800 38.000 38.200 38.500 38.600 38.800 39.000 39.000 39.200 39.400 39.600 39.800 38.800
1969 35.600 35.800 36.100 36.300 36.400 36.600 36.800 37.000 37.100 37.300 37.500 37.700 36.700
1968 34.100 34.200 34.300 34.400 34.500 34.700 34.900 35.000 35.100 35.300 35.400 35.500 34.800
1967 32.900 32.900 33.000 33.100 33.200 33.300 33.400 33.500 33.600 33.700 33.800 33.900 33.400
1966 31.800 32.000 32.100 32.300 32.300 32.400 32.500 32.700 32.700 32.900 32.900 32.900 32.400
1965 31.200 31.200 31.300 31.400 31.400 31.600 31.600 31.600 31.600 31.700 31.700 31.800 31.500
1964 30.900 30.900 30.900 30.900 30.900 31.000 31.100 31.000 31.100 31.100 31.200 31.200 31.000
1963 30.400 30.400 30.500 30.500 30.500 30.600 30.700 30.700 30.700 30.800 30.800 30.900 30.600
1962 30.000 30.100 30.100 30.200 30.200 30.200 30.300 30.300 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.400 30.200
1961 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.800 30.000 29.900 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 29.900
1960 29.300 29.400 29.400 29.500 29.500 29.600 29.600 29.600 29.600 29.800 29.800 29.800 29.600
1959 29.000 28.900 28.900 29.000 29.000 29.100 29.200 29.200 29.300 29.400 29.400 29.400 29.100
1958 28.600 28.600 28.800 28.900 28.900 28.900 29.000 28.900 28.900 28.900 29.000 28.900 28.900
1957 27.600 27.700 27.800 27.900 28.000 28.100 28.300 28.300 28.300 28.300 28.400 28.400 28.100
1956 26.800 26.800 26.800 26.900 27.000 27.200 27.400 27.300 27.400 27.500 27.500 27.600 27.200
1955 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.800 26.800 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.800 26.800
1954 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.800 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.900 26.800 26.800 26.800 26.700 26.900
1953 26.600 26.500 26.600 26.600 26.700 26.800 26.800 26.900 26.900 27.000 26.900 26.900 26.700
1952 26.500 26.300 26.300 26.400 26.400 26.500 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.700 26.500
1951 25.400 25.700 25.800 25.800 25.900 25.900 25.900 25.900 26.100 26.200 26.400 26.500 26.000
1950 23.500 23.500 23.600 23.600 23.700 23.800 24.100 24.300 24.400 24.600 24.700 25.000 24.100
1949 24.000 23.800 23.800 23.900 23.800 23.900 23.700 23.800 23.900 23.700 23.800 23.600 23.800
1948 23.700 23.500 23.400 23.800 23.900 24.100 24.400 24.500 24.500 24.400 24.200 24.100 24.100
1947 21.500 21.500 21.900 21.900 21.900 22.000 22.200 22.500 23.000 23.000 23.100 23.400 22.300
1946 18.200 18.100 18.300 18.400 18.500 18.700 19.800 20.200 20.400 20.800 21.300 21.500 19.500
1945 17.800 17.800 17.800 17.800 17.900 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.100 18.200 18.000
1944 17.400 17.400 17.400 17.500 17.500 17.600 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.800 17.600
1943 16.900 16.900 17.200 17.400 17.500 17.500 17.400 17.300 17.400 17.400 17.400 17.400 17.300
1942 15.700 15.800 16.000 16.100 16.300 16.300 16.400 16.500 16.500 16.700 16.800 16.900 16.300
1941 14.100 14.100 14.200 14.300 14.400 14.700 14.700 14.900 15.100 15.300 15.400 15.500 14.700
1940 13.900 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.100 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.100 14.000
1939 14.000 13.900 13.900 13.800 13.800 13.800 13.800 13.800 14.100 14.000 14.000 14.000 13.900
1938 14.200 14.100 14.100 14.200 14.100 14.100 14.100 14.100 14.100 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.100
1937 14.100 14.100 14.200 14.300 14.400 14.400 14.500 14.500 14.600 14.600 14.500 14.400 14.400
1936 13.800 13.800 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.800 13.900 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 14.000 13.900
1935 13.600 13.700 13.700 13.800 13.800 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.700 13.800 13.800 13.700
1934 13.200 13.300 13.300 13.300 13.300 13.400 13.400 13.400 13.600 13.500 13.500 13.400 13.400
1933 12.900 12.700 12.600 12.600 12.600 12.700 13.100 13.200 13.200 13.200 13.200 13.200 13.000
1932 14.300 14.100 14.000 13.900 13.700 13.600 13.600 13.500 13.400 13.300 13.200 13.100 13.700
1931 15.900 15.700 15.600 15.500 15.300 15.100 15.100 15.100 15.000 14.900 14.700 14.600 15.200
1930 17.100 17.000 16.900 17.000 16.900 16.800 16.600 16.500 16.600 16.500 16.400 16.100 16.700
1929 17.100 17.100 17.000 16.900 17.000 17.100 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.200 17.100
1928 17.300 17.100 17.100 17.100 17.200 17.100 17.100 17.100 17.300 17.200 17.200 17.100 17.100
1927 17.500 17.400 17.300 17.300 17.400 17.600 17.300 17.200 17.300 17.400 17.300 17.300 17.400
1926 17.900 17.900 17.800 17.900 17.800 17.700 17.500 17.400 17.500 17.600 17.700 17.700 17.700
1925 17.300 17.200 17.300 17.200 17.300 17.500 17.700 17.700 17.700 17.700 18.000 17.900 17.500
1924 17.300 17.200 17.100 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.100 17.000 17.100 17.200 17.200 17.300 17.100
1923 16.800 16.800 16.800 16.900 16.900 17.000 17.200 17.100 17.200 17.300 17.300 17.300 17.100
1922 16.900 16.900 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.700 16.800 16.600 16.600 16.700 16.800 16.900 16.800
1921 19.000 18.400 18.300 18.100 17.700 17.600 17.700 17.700 17.500 17.500 17.400 17.300 17.900
1920 19.300 19.500 19.700 20.300 20.600 20.900 20.800 20.300 20.000 19.900 19.800 19.400 20.000
1919 16.500 16.200 16.400 16.700 16.900 16.900 17.400 17.700 17.800 18.100 18.500 18.900 17.300
1918 14.000 14.100 14.000 14.200 14.500 14.700 15.100 15.400 15.700 16.000 16.300 16.500 15.100
1917 11.700 12.000 12.000 12.600 12.800 13.000 12.800 13.000 13.300 13.500 13.500 13.700 12.800
1916 10.400 10.400 10.500 10.600 10.700 10.800 10.800 10.900 11.100 11.300 11.500 11.600 10.900
1915 10.100 10.000 9.900 10.000 10.100 10.100 10.100 10.100 10.100 10.200 10.300 10.300 10.100
1914 10.000 9.900 9.900 9.800 9.900 9.900 10.000 10.200 10.200 10.100 10.200 10.100 10.000
1913 9.800 9.800 9.800 9.800 9.700 9.800 9.900 9.900 10.000 10.000 10.100 10.000 9.900

To calculate inflation from a month and year to a later month and year, try our Inflation calculator

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

Ron Paul Powercast–February 25, 2012–12 Hour Webcast Noon To Midnight Saturday–The Revolution Gets Energized–Videos

Posted on February 24, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Economics, Links, People, Life, Investments, Education, Employment, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Wisdom, liberty, Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, government spending, media, Psychology, Language, government, Federal Government, College, Wealth, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Tax Policy, Federal Government Budget, Radio | Tags: , , , , , |

Get Ready for the Ron Paul Powercast!

Jim Rogers – none of the candidates have clue except Ron Paul


In addition to bringing together dozens of limited government champions, Revolution PAC, backer of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, will premiere a brand new ad addressing Social Security during its historic “Ron Paul Powercast” Saturday.

The 12-hour webcast, preceding Tuesday’s Michigan and Arizona primaries, runs from noon to midnight February 25 in conjunction with a 24-hour, $1 million fundraiser to support the committee’s Super Tuesday ad campaign, GOTV efforts and election integrity initiatives. The public may participate by logging onto

“We’re seeing Ron Paul on the strong ascent right now,” explains Revolution PAC Chair Gary Franchi. “He’s drawing thousands at campaign stops, dominating general election polls and amassing a leading number of convention delegates. Our Powercast will serve to prepare and boost the Paul grassroots for the critical work that lies ahead in moving Dr. Paul into the winner’s circle come August.”

On the Powercast guest lineup include former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer; “The Creature from Jekyll Island” author G. Edward Griffin; New York Times bestselling author and economist Tom Woods; award-winning author and American Conservative magazine contributor Bill Kauffman; former congressional candidate John Dennis; author, activist and radio host Adam Kokesh; constitutional law attorney Dr. Edwin Vieira; New York Times bestselling author and radio host Charles Goyette; Tenth Amendment Center Deputy Director Bryce Shonka; Dr. Murray Sabrin; Oath Keepers President Stewart Rhodes; Sheriff Richard Mack; author and activist Tom Mullen; New York Times bestselling author and historian Kevin Gutzman; homeopath and radio host Robert Scott Bell; former Ron Paul Political Director Penny Freeman; Free & Equal founder Christina Tobin; Freedom’s Phoenix founder Ernest Hancock; Liberty Candidates founder Gigi Bowman; America’s Future Foundation’s Richard Lorenc; Institute for Truth in Accounting founder and CEO Sheila Weinberg; radio personality Greg Bishop; author and former Illinois congressional candidate Allan Stevo; former NY State Assembly candidate Danny Panzella; and singer/songwriter Jordan Page.

“In between our fantastic guest spots throughout the day, we’ll present valuable information about how the grassroots can mobilize for victory in their states,” continues Franchi. “One tool to facilitate that work is RevPAC’s proprietary mobile application launched this week, PollWatcher 1.0. Tune in to learn more about joining the ranks of our poll-watching army.”

Revolution PAC’s groundbreaking alternative election broadcasts kicked off January 21 for the South Carolina Primary in the wake of the super committee’s call for a nationwide boycott of cable/network outlets, which have exhibited consistent reporting bias against Rep. Paul. Live broadcasts for the Florida Primary and Nevada Caucuses followed, each drawing as many as 20,000 viewers.

Revolution PAC is supporting U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination and his consistent, constitutional message with targeted TV advertising, direct mail campaigns, vote-watching initiatives and innovative Web promotions complemented by billboards and radio ads in key primary states. Unlimited donations by individuals, businesses and organizations are being accepted by Revolution PAC to support that effort.

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

Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush 1980 Republican Party Ticket–Fast Forward–Ron Paul/Mitt Romney 2012 Republican Party Ticket?–Videos

Posted on February 23, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Economics, Links, War, People, Life, Investments, Communications, Philosophy, Wisdom, Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, government spending, media, Federal Government, Money, Banking, Inflation, Macroeconomics, Tax Policy, Federal Government Budget, Radio | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Jim Rogers: “Only Ron Paul Understands What’s Going On.”

The Paul-Romney Alliance Infowars Nightly News

Ron Paul on The GOP Ticket? (2/15/2012)

Ron Paul Strategist: Ron Paul Has More Delegates Than Mitt Romney.. (2/15/2012)

Rick Santorum Slammed by Mitt Romney, Ron Paul in Final GOP Debate on CNN


Cato’s Christopher A. Preble on Military Spending in the 112th Congress (1/19/11)

Is there a strategic alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney? Paul responds.

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Would Mitt Romney Change His Views to Become Ron Paul’s VP?

Paul Calls Santorum ‘Fake’: Paul-Romney Alliance?

More BETRAYAL of the People – *NEW Ron Paul Ad

Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum a Conservative?

Ronald Reagan was a libertarian conservative that united the Republican Party in 1980 by selecting a moderate progressive George H.W. Bush as his running mate.

Craig Shirley’s New Book “Rendezvous with Destiny” – highlights from the 1980 campaign Pt1 of 2

Craig Shirley’s New Book “Rendezvous with Destiny” – highlights from the 1980 campaign Pt2 of 2

The results were two landslide victories for the Republican Party in 1980 and 1984 and the election of Bush in 1988.

Rumors are flying there is an alliance between Paul and Romney fueled by talk show host  Mark Levin, a confirmed Paul hater.

Mark Levin – Ron Paul Is Measuring What Conservatism Is When He Is Not A Conservative

Rather lame Mark.
Levin as usual got it half right.
Levin is trying the great neo-con–libertarianism isn’t conservative–on his audience.

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

Neoconservatives are right-wing progressive big government interventionists, both abroad and at home.

Betrayal of the Constitution  An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda

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

Ron Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy and therefore opposes the neoconservatives that advocate an interventionist foreign policy.

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

The Neocon Agenda

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

SA@TAC – Mark Levin’s Constitution 

“…Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and bestselling author Mark Levin’s argument that the Constitution does not require the President to consult Congress concerning foreign interventions resembles the Left’s argument concerning the constitutionality of Democrats’ domestic interventions. …”

Levin was one of several so-called “conservative” talk show hosts that tried to smear Paul as a racist last December using a hit piece published in progressive The New Republic on the so-called racist Ron Paul newsletters several years ago.

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

Why would Reagan and Bush join forces in 1980?

Simple. To defeat the Democratic Party lead by progressive Jimmy Carter

Why would Paul and Romney join forces in 2012?

Simple. To defeat the Democratic Party lead by progressive Barack Obama.

According to Levin the alleged Paul and Romney alliance is to defeat the “conservative” candidates–Santorum and Gingrich.

Well, excuse me Mark, but libertarian conservatives, such as Ron Paul, supported conservative candidates including Goldwater and Reagan.

However, libertarian conservatives will never vote for a Presidential candidate that is  a big government progressive neoconservative such as Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Counterfeit Conservatives

Yes, Levin, I know who Murray Rothbard is and I have read several of his books.

Ludwig von Mises thought very highly of Rothbard’ s work.

Rothbard in turn thought very highly of Paul.

Rothbard on Ron Paul

If von Mises and Rothbard were alive today, I am sure both would endorse Ron Paul for President and oppose the big government interventionists–Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.

I can think of two presidents that would also endorse Ron Paul.

SA@TAC – Constitutional Conservatives?

I will support and vote for Ron Paul for president.

I will never vote for a progressive neoconservative for President including Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.

Ron Paul: Santorum Is a Fake

However, I would vote for a Paul/Romney ticket, if that is what it takes to get Ron Paul elected President.

There is no perfect candidate.

There is no perfect ticket.

Politics does make strange bedfellows.

Remember Kennedy/Johnson in 1960 and Reagan/Bush in 1980, both tickets won.

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

LBJ and Unity: Kennedy vs. Johnson

A Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano ticket is the first choice of many Paul supporters.

Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President

Judge Andrew Napolitano Fired for Ron Paul VP?!? 

Making Sense of the Conservative Movement

What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?

Movie Magic Crippled Conservatives

The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement

Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives

The Rockefeller family had bankrolled liberal protestantism in America since the turn of the 20th century. In the 70s, Jimmy Carter was the Rockefeller’s man. But with the recession of 1980, and his liberal policies of other issues, Carter lost his foot-hold of popularity among conservatives. At a unique turning point for Carter’s re-election race, Ronald Reagan appeared at a conservatives convention when other candidates did not. At the convention, Reagan took the lead, and conservatives supported Reagan all the way through two terms, to the astonishment of Washington D.C.

Are you a libertarian? 

Hello. I am a Libertarian

Walter Williams on Government Intervention and Individual Freedom

Background Articles and Videos

Insider Says Talk of Paul-Romney Alliance is “Establishment Trick”

Lew Rockwell: Rhetoric is a political ruse to make Ron Paul appear as a sell out

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, February 24, 2012

“…Former Ron Paul staffer Lew Rockwell says that talk of an alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is an “establishment trick” to smear Paul by making him appear as a sell out.

Rockwell, who served as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and remains close to Paul and several campaign insiders, told the Alex Jones Show that rhetoric about a potential partnership wherein Ron Paul would be granted a VP slot was merely a political ruse to “make Ron Paul supporters like Romney”.

The controversy received fresh impetus earlier this week when Rick Santorum and his campaign manager claimed Paul and Romney were in cahoots to shoot down Santorum’s candidacy. The talking point has subsequently been pushed by the mainstream media, including a Washington Post article today that speculates on whether the alliance is genuine.

Rockwell said that although Romney may be a pleasant person, his political positions are anathema to Ron Paul given the fact that he is a globalist, a big government advocate and a warmonger.

“Just because he looks good in a suit doesn’t mean that he’s not one of the top creeps, otherwise he wouldn’t be supported by the Republican establishment and by the establishment in general, so no we don’t want anything to do with him except to oppose him,” said Rockwell. …”

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 1 of 4

Ron Paul and William F. Buckley discussing a Constitutional Republic and the necessary evils of government. In 1988, Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 2 of 4

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 3 of 4

Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 4 of 4

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Libertarian Credo”

Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian?

Don Boudreaux: Why I Am A Libertarian

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Remnant Is For The Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul–Albert Jay Nock–Isaiah’s Job–Our Enemy, The State–Videos

Classical Liberalism–Videos

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


Posted on February 23, 2012. Filed under: Books, Federal Government, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Aristotle Politics

1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy?

Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)

Professor Smith discusses the nature and scope of “political philosophy.” The oldest of the social sciences, the study of political philosophy must begin with the works of Plato and Aristotle, and examine in depth the fundamental concepts and categories of the study of politics. The questions “which regimes are best?” and “what constitutes good citizenship?” are posed and discussed in the context of Plato’s Apology.

00:00 – Chapter 1. What Is Political Philosophy?
12:16 – Chapter 2. What Is a Regime?
22:19 – Chapter 3. Who Is a Statesman? What Is a Statesman?
27:22 – Chapter 4. What Is the Best Regime?

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:

This course was recorded in Fall 2006

7. The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law: Aristotle’s Politics, I, III

Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)

The lecture begins with an introduction of Aristotle’s life and works which constitute thematic treatises on virtually every topic, from biology to ethics to politics. Emphasis is placed on the Politics, in which Aristotle expounds his view on the naturalness of the city and his claim that man is a political animal by nature.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Aristotle: Plato’s Adopted Son
12:45 – Chapter 2. Man Is, by Nature, the Political Animal
30:15 – Chapter 3. The Naturalness of Slavery

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:

This course was recorded in Fall 2006.

8. The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law: Aristotle’s Politics, IV

Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)

The lecture discusses Aristotle’s comparative politics with a special emphasis on the idea of the regime, as expressed in books III through VI in Politics. A regime, in the context of this major work, refers to both the formal enumeration of rights and duties within a community as well as to the distinctive customs, manners, moral dispositions and sentiments of that community. Aristotle asserts that it is precisely the regime that gives a people and a city their identity.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Aristotle’s Comparative Politics and the Idea of the Regime
01:45 – Chapter 2. What Is a Regime?
13:58 – Chapter 3. What Are the Structures and Institutions of the Regime?
20:30 – Chapter 4. The Democratic Regime
34:35 – Chapter 5. Law, Conflict and the Regime
43:07 – Chapter 6. The Aristotelian Standard of Natural Right or Natural Justice

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:

This course was recorded in Fall 2006.

9. The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law: Aristotle’s Politics, VII

Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)

This final lecture on Aristotle focuses on controlling conflict between factions. Polity as a mixture of the principles of oligarchy and democracy, is the regime that, according to Aristotle, can most successfully control factions and avoid dominance by either extreme. Professor Smith asserts that the idea of the polity anticipates Madison’s call for a government in which powers are separated and kept in check and balance, avoiding therefore the extremes of both tyranny and civil war.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Polity: The Regime that Most Successfully Controls for Faction
07:30 – Chapter 2. The Importance of Property and Commerce for a Flourishing Republic
12:28 – Chapter 3. The Aristocratic Republic: A Model for the Best Regime
26:50 – Chapter 4. What Is Aristotle’s Political Science?
35:21 – Chapter 5. Who Is a Statesman?
37:54 – Chapter 6. The Method of Aristotle’s Political Science

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website:

This course was recorded in Fall 2006.

Background Articles and Videos

Aristotle’s Politics

Aristotle’s Politics (Greek Πολιτικά) is a work of political philosophy. The end of the Nicomachean Ethics declared that the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics, and the two works are frequently considered to be parts of a larger treatise, or perhaps connected lectures, dealing with the “philosophy of human affairs.” The title of the Politics literally means “the things concerning the polis.”


The literary character of the Politics is subject to some dispute, growing out of the textual difficulties that attended the loss of Aristotle’s works. Book III ends with a sentence that is repeated almost verbatim at the start of Book VII, while the intervening Books IV-VI seem to have a very different flavor from the rest; Book IV seems to refer several times back to the discussion of the best regime contained in Books VII-VIII.[1] Some editors have therefore inserted Books VII-VIII after Book III. At the same time, however, references to the “discourses on politics” that occur in the Nicomachean Ethics suggest that the treatise as a whole ought to conclude with the discussion of education that occurs in Book VIII of the Politics, although it is not certain that Aristotle is referring to the Politics here.[2]

Werner Jaeger suggested that the Politics actually represents the conflation of two, distinct treatises.[3] The first (Books I-III, VII-VIII) would represent a less mature work from when Aristotle had not yet fully broken from Plato, and consequently show a greater emphasis on the best regime. The second (Books IV-VI) would be more empirically minded, and thus belong to a later stage of development.

Carnes Lord has argued against the sufficiency of this view, however, noting the numerous cross-references between Jaeger’s supposedly separate works and questioning the difference in tone that Jaeger saw between them. For example, Book IV explicitly notes the utility of examining actual regimes (Jaeger’s “empirical” focus) in determining the best regime (Jaeger’s “Platonic” focus). Instead, Lord suggests that the Politics is indeed a finished treatise, and that Books VII and VIII do belong in between Books III and IV; he attributes their current ordering to a merely mechanical transcription error.[4]


Book I

In the first book, Aristotle discusses the city (polis) or “political community” (koinōnia politikē) as opposed to other types of communities and partnerships such as the household and village. He begins with the relationship between the city and man (I. 1–2), and then specifically discusses the household (I. 3–13).[5] He takes issue with the view that political rule, kingly rule, rule over slaves, and rule over a household or village are only different in terms of size. He then examines in what way the city may be said to be natural.

Aristotle discusses the parts of the household, which includes slaves, leading to a discussion of whether slavery can ever be just and better for the person enslaved or is always unjust and bad. He distinguishes between those who are slaves because the law says they are and those who are slaves by nature, saying the inquiry hinges on whether there are any such natural slaves. Only someone as different from other people as the body is from the soul or beasts are from human beings would be a slave by nature, Aristotle concludes, all others being slaves solely by law or convention. Some scholars have therefore concluded that the qualifications for natural slavery preclude the existence of such a being.[6]

Aristotle then moves to the question of property in general, arguing that the acquisition of property does not form a part of household management (oikonomike) and criticizing those who take it too seriously. It is necessary, but that does not make it a part of household management any more than it makes medicine a part of household management just because health is necessary. He criticizes income based upon trade and says that those who become avaricious do so because they forget that money merely symbolizes wealth without being wealth.

Book I concludes with Aristotle’s assertion that the proper object of household rule is the virtuous character of one’s wife and children, not the management of slaves or the acquisition of property. Rule over the slaves is despotic, rule over children kingly, and rule over one’s wife political (except there is no rotation in office). Aristotle questions whether it is sensible to speak of the “virtue” of a slave and whether the “virtues” of a wife and children are the same as those of a man before saying that because the city must be concerned that its women and children be virtuous, the virtues that the father should instill are dependent upon the regime and so the discussion must turn to what has been said about the best regime.

Book II

Book II examines various views concerning the best regime.[7] It opens with an analysis of the regime presented in Plato’s Republic (2. 1–5) before moving to that presented in Plato’s Laws (2. 6). Aristotle then discusses the systems presented by two other philosophers, Phaleas of Chalcedon (2. 7) and Hippodamus of Miletus (2. 8).

After addressing regimes invented by theorists, Aristotle moves to the examination of three regimes that are commonly held to be well managed. These are the Spartan (2. 9), Cretan (2. 10), and Carthaginian (2. 11). The book concludes with some observations on regimes and legislators.

Book III

  • Who is a citizen?

“He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purpose of life. But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say two or three or more grandparents.”

  • Classification of constitution.
  • Just distribution of political power.
  • Types of monarchies:-
  • Monarchy: exercised over voluntary subjects, but limited to certain functions; the king was a general and a judge, and had control of religion.
  • Absolute: government of one for the absolute good
  • Barbarian: legal and hereditary+ willing subjects
  • Dictator: installed by foreign power elective dictatorship + willing subjects (elective tyranny)
  • Book IV

    Aristotle’s classification of constitutions

    • Tasks of political theory
    • Why are there many types of constitutions?
    • Types of democracies
    • Types of oligarchies
    • Polity as the optimal constitution
    • Government offices

    Book V

    • Constitutional change
    • Revolutions in different types of constitutions and ways to preserve constitutions
    • Instability of tyrannies

    Book VI

    • Democratic constitutions
    • Oligarchic constitutions

    Book VII

    • Best state and best life
    • Ideal state. Its population, territory, position etc.
    • Citizens of the ideal state
    • Marriage and children

    Book VIII

    • Education in the ideal state

    Aristotle’s classification

    After studying a number of real and theoretical city-state’s constitutions, Aristotle classified them according to various criteria. On one side stand the true (or good) constitutions, which are considered such because they aim for the common good, and on the other side the perverted (or deviant) ones, considered such because they aim for the well being of only a part of the city. The constitutions are then sorted according to the “number” of those who participate to the magistracies: one, a few, or many. Aristotle’s sixfold classification is slightly different from the one found in The Statesman by Plato. The diagram above illustrates Aristotle’s classification.


    1. ^ Lord, “Introduction,” 15.
    2. ^ Lord, “Introduction,” 19, 246n53.
    3. ^ Jaeger, Aristoteles.
    4. ^ Lord, “Introduction,” 15–16
    5. ^ Lord, “Introduction,” 27.
    6. ^ Nichols, Mary (1992). Citizens and Statesmen. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
    7. ^ Lord, “Introduction,” 27.

    Further reading

    • Barker, Sir Ernest (1906). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London: Methuen.
    • Davis, Michael (1996). The Politics of Philosophy: A Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
    • Goodman, Lenn E.; Talisse, Robert B. (2007). Aristotle’s Politics Today. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    • Keyt, David; Miller, Fred D. (1991). A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    • Kraut, ed., Richard; Skultety, Steven (2005). Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
    • Simpson, Peter L. (1998). A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    • Nichols, Mary P. (1992). Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
    • Lord, Carnes (1982). Education and Culture in the Political Thought of Aristotle. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    • Miller, Fred D. (1995). Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Mayhew, Robert (1997). Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.


    • Barker, Sir Ernest (1995). The Politics of Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199538737.
    • Jowett, Benjamin (1984). Jonathan Barnes. ed. Politics. The Complete Works of Aristotle. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691016511.
    • Lord, Carnes (1984). The Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226026695.
    • Reeve, C. D. C. (1998). Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 9780872203884.
    • Simpson, Peter L. P. (1997). The Politics of Aristotle: Translation, Analysis, and Notes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807823279.
    • Sinclair, T. A. (1981). The Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ISBN 9780140444216.

    External links


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

Ron Paul Highlights Republican Presidential Debate–22 February 2012–Mesa, Arizona–Videos

Posted on February 23, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul Highlights in 2/22/2012 Presidential Debate

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

Republican Presidential Debate–February 22, 2012–Mesa, Arizona–CNN–Videos

Posted on February 23, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Law, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (1/10) 

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (2/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (3/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (4/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (5/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (6/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (7/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (8/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (9/10)

Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (1010)

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

Classical Liberalism–Videos

Posted on February 21, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , |

What is classical liberalism?

Dr. Nigel Ashford explains the 10 core principles of the classical liberal & libertarian view of society and the proper role of government:

1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 2: Milton Friedman and the Chicago School

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 3: Public Choice

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 4: The Austrian School

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 5: Natural Rights

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 6: Anarcho-Capitalism

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 7: Conclusion: What’s Your View?

Milton Friedman on Tides of Political Thought in Modern History

Ten Principles of Classical Liberalism

The History of Classical Liberalism

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 1

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 2

Political Philosophy and Classical Liberalism Roundtable 11-11-11

Classical liberalism

“…Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[4] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress.

There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[5]

Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism “neo-classical liberalism,” which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[6]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[7] Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase “neo-classical liberalism”, leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[8] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[9][10][11]

Core principles

According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic”.[12] Being egoistic, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labor was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.[13]

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.[14]

Adopting Thomas Malthus’s population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[15]

Government, as explained by Adam Smith, had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide. Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement. Public works included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[16]


Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. According to Alan Ryan, the ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy, where law is made by majority vote by citizens, “for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law.”[17] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a “common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole…and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party….”[18]

According to Anthony Quinton, classical liberals believe that “an unfettered market” is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they “are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government.”[19] Anarcho-capitalist Walter Block claims, however, that, while Adam Smith was an advocate of economic freedom, he also allowed for government to intervene in many areas.[20]

Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”[21] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[22] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are “hostile to the welfare state.”[17] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in “equality before the law”.[23] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[24]

Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the “British tradition” and the “French tradition”. Hayek saw the British philosophers David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and the unlimited powers of reason and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Constant and Tocqueville as belonging to the “British tradition” and the British Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the “French tradition”.[25] Hayek also rejected the label “laissez faire” as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume, Smith and Burke.


Classical liberalism in the United Kingdom developed from Whiggery and radicalism, and represented a new political ideology. Whiggery had become a dominant ideology following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and was associated with the defence of Parliament, upholding the rule of law and defending landed property. The origins of rights were seen as being in an ancient constitution, which had existed from time immemorial. These rights, which some Whigs considered to include freedom of the press and freedom of speech, were justified by custom rather than by natural rights. They believed that the power of the executive had to be constrained. While they supported limited suffrage, they saw voting as a privilege, rather than as a right. However there was no consistency in Whig ideology, and diverse writers including John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were all influential among Whigs, although none of them was universally accepted.[26]

British radicals, from the 1790s to the 1820s, concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Richard Price and Joseph Priestly adapted the language of Locke to the ideology of radicalism.[26] The radicals saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[27]

There was greater unity to classical liberalism ideology than there had been with Whiggery. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. They believed that required a free economy with minimal government interference. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed both aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to the development of a class of yeoman farmers. Some elements of Whiggery opposed this new thinking, and were uncomfortable with the commercial nature of classical liberalism. These elements became associated with conservatism.[28]

A meeting of the Anti-Corn Law League in Exeter Hall in 1846

Classical liberalism was the dominant political theory of the United Kingdom from the early 19th century until the First World War. Its notable victories were the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, the Reform Act of 1832, and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The Anti-Corn Law League brought together a coalition of liberal and radical groups in support of free trade under the leadership of Richard Cobden and John Bright, who opposed militarism and public expenditure. Their policies of low public expenditure and low taxation were adopted by William Ewart Gladstone when he became chancellor of the exchequer and later prime minister. Classical liberalism was often associated with religious dissent and nonconformism.[29]

Although classical liberals aspired to a minimum of state activity, they accepted the principle of government intervention in the economy from the early 19th century with passage of the Factory Acts. From around 1840 to 1860, laissez-faire advocates of the Manchester School and writers in The Economist were confident that their early victories would lead to a period of expanding economic and personal liberty and world peace but would face reversals as government intervention and activity continued to expand from the 1850s. Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, although advocates of laissez-faire, non-intervention in foreign affairs, and individual liberty, believed that social institutions could be rationally redesigned through the principles of Utilitarianism. The Conservative prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, rejected classical liberalism altogether and advocated Tory Democracy. By the 1870s, Herbert Spencer and other classical liberals concluded that historical development was turning against them.[30] By the First World War, the Liberal Party had largely abandoned classical liberal principles.[31]

The changing economic and social conditions of the 19th led to a division between neo-classical and social liberals who, while agreeing on the importance of individual liberty, differed on the role of the state. Neo-classical liberals, who called themselves “true liberals”, saw Locke’s Second Treatise as the best guide, and emphasized “limited government”, while social liberals supported government regulation and the welfare state. Herbert Spencer in the United Kingdom and William Graham Sumner were the leading neo-classical liberal theorists of the 19th century.[32] Neo-classical liberalism has continued into the contemporary era, with writers such as Robert Nozick.[33]

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary interests. In a nation of farmers, especially farmers whose workers were slaves, little attention was paid to the economic aspects of liberalism. But, as America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America’s first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a “hands off” attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, “You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold.” Despite the common recurrence of depressions, classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[34] The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:

When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state,” and “there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]

Intellectual sources

 John Locke

John Locke

Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke’s Second treatise of government and “A letter concerning toleration”, which had been written as a defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for the United Kingdom’s new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the American Revolution. However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke’s writings or scarcely mentioned, and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. There is little mention, for example, of constitutionalism, the separation of powers, and limited government.[36]

James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke’s writing: individualism, consent, the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property, and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.[37]

As a trustee, Government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers, and rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke’s definition of property, which limited property to “as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of”, this principle held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.[38]

Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state should not impose a religion against Dissenters. But there were limitations. No tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.[39]

 Adam Smith

Adam Smith

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of classical liberal economics, at least until the publication of J. S. Mill’s Principles in 1848.[40] Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth, and the policies the state should follow in order to maximize wealth.[41]

Smith saw self-interest, rather than altruism, as the motivation for the production of goods and services. An “invisible hand” directed the tradesman to work toward the public good. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed as sinful.[41] He assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by Ricardo and Malthus into the “Iron Law of Wages”.[42] His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialization in production.[43] He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies, and employers’ organisations and trade unions.[44] Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[45]

Smith’s economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act, that had restricted the mobility of labour, in 1834, and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.[46]

 Say, Malthus and Ricardo

In addition to Adam Smith’s legacy, Say’s law, Malthus theories of population and Ricardo’s iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. The pessimistic nature of these theories led to Carlyle calling economics the dismal science and it provided a basis of criticism of capitalism by its opponents.[47]

Jean Baptiste Say was a French economist who introduced Adam Smith’s economic theories into France and whose commentaries on Smith were read in both France and the United Kingdom.[46] Say challenged Smith’s labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasized the criterical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. His most important contribution to economic thinking was “Say’s law”, which was interpreted by classical economists that there could be no overproduction in a market, and that there would always be a balance between supply and demand.[48] This general belief influenced government policies until the 1930s. Following this law, since the economic cycle was seen as self-correcting, government did not intervene during periods of economic hardship because it was seen as futile.[49]

Thomas Malthus wrote two books, An essay on the principle of population, published in 1798, and Principles of political economy, published in 1820. The second book which was a rebuttal of Say’s law had little influence on contemporary economists.[50] His first book however became a major influence on classical liberalism. In that book, Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production, because population grew geometrically, while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[51]

David Ricardo, who was an admirer of Adam Smith, covered many of the same topics but while Smith drew conclusions from broadly empirical observations, Ricardo used induction, drawing conclusions by reasoning from basic assumptions.[52] While Ricardo accepted Smith’s labour theory of value, he acknowledged that utility could influence the price of some rare items. Rents on agricultural land were seen as the production that was surplus to the subsistence required by the tenants. Wages were seen as the amount required for workers’ subsistence and to maintain current population levels.[53] According to his Iron Law of Wages, wages could never rise beyond subsistence levels. Ricardo explained profits as a return on capital, which itself was the product of labour. But a conclusion many drew from his theory was that profit was a surplus appropriated by capitalists to which they were not entitled.[54]

[edit] Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism provided the political justification for implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill’s later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire.[55]

The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that that public policy should seek to provide “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[47]

Political economy

Classical liberals saw utility as the foundation for public policies. This broke both with conservative “tradition” and Lockean “natural rights”, which were seen as irrational. Utility, which emphasizes the happiness of individuals, became the central ethical value of all liberalism.[56] Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it became primarily a justification for laissez-faire economics. However, classical liberals rejected Adam Smith’s belief that the “invisible hand” would lead to general benefits and embraced Thomas Malthus’ view that population expansion would prevent any general benefit and David Ricardo’s view of the inevitability of class conflict. Laissez-faire was seen as the only possible economic approach, and any government intervention was seen as useless. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on “scientific or economic principals” while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.[57]

Commitment to laissez-faire, however, was not uniform. Some economists advocated state support of public works and education. Classical liberals were also divided on free trade. Ricardo, for example, expressed doubt that the removal of grain tariffs advocated by Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League would have any general benefits. Most classical liberals also supported legislation to regulate the number of hours that children were allowed to work and usually did not oppose factory reform legislation.[57]

Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau.[57] The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticized Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water, and granting of patents and copyrights. A rigid belief in laissez-faire also guided government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. It was expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.[58]

Free trade and world peace

Several liberals, including Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations could lead to world peace, a view recognized by such modern American political scientists as Dahl, Doyle, Russet, and O’Neil. Dr. Gartzke, of Columbia University states, “Scholars like Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Richard Cobden, Norman Angell, and Richard Rosecrance have long speculated that free markets have the potential to free states from the looming prospect of recurrent warfare.”[59] American political scientists John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett, well known for their work on the democratic peace theory, state:

The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically and to abolish royal charters, monopolies, and the protectionist policies of mercantilism so as to encourage entrepreneurship and increase productive efficiency. They also expected democracy and laissez-faire economics to diminish the frequency of war.[60]

Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations that, as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial societies, the spoils of war would rise but that the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialized nations.[61]

…the honours, the fame, the emoluments of war, belong not to [the middle and industrial classes]; the battle-plain is the harvest field of the aristocracy, watered with the blood of the people…Whilst our trade rested upon our foreign dependencies, as was the case in the middle of the last century…force and violence, were necessary to command our customers for our manufacturers…But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure. Richard Cobden[62]
When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. – Frédéric Bastiat[63]
By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war…the spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers…that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace…and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose – Immanuel Kant, the Perpetual Peace.

Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the welfare of the state and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, summing up British imperialism, which he believed was the result of the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden, and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.

Relationship to modern liberalism

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarizes this viewpoint, which

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes… The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy… When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end… [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.[64]

According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, “between 1877 and 1937…from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism”.[65]

Hobhouse, in Liberalism (1911), attributed this purported shift, which included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and the collective right to equality in dealings, to an increased desire for what Hobhouse called “just consent”.[66] F. A. Hayek wrote that Hobhouse’s book would have been more accurately titled Socialism, and Hobhouse himself called his beliefs “liberal socialism”.[67]

Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes this supposed shift in liberal philosophy to the 19th century expansion of the franchise to include the working class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.[68]

Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power. Others such as Michael Johnston and Noam Chomsky assert that classical liberalism as such can no longer exist in a modern day context as its principles were only relevant at the time its founding thinkers conceptualized them; and that classical liberalism has grown into two divergent philosophies since the beginning of the twentieth century: social liberalism and market liberalism.[69] …”

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

The Republican War Party’s War Mongers–The Global Dominators: Neoconservatives and Progressive Imperialists–Beat The Drums of War With Iran–Videos

Posted on February 21, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Taxes, Raves, Rants, Economics, Links, War, People, Life, Regulations, Education, Strategy, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Foreign Policy, liberty, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Language, government, College, Business, Unions, Diasters, Tax Policy, Federal Government Budget | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The War Propaganda Corporate Media Steers The World Toward Disaster (21/02/2012)

TYT Use “MOX News” Clip To Point Out MSM Beating Drums Of War With Iran

Bolton: Obama administration “delusional”, “misguided” on Iran

Ron Paul on Iran War Propaganda

Reality Check: Is Iran Really Plotting Attacks On U.S. Soil?

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

The Neoconservative Media by the Southern Avenger

John Bolton on Israel considering military strike on Iran nukes

Threat of Iran Gaining Nuclear Weapons

Israel preparing to attack Iran this Spring!

Israel Will Attack Iran Soon

Deadly Spark: What can trigger US-Iran war?

U.S. Media War Hawks Hypes War with Iran RT News (Jan 18, 2012)

‘US intervention in Iran will drag China & Russia into war’

Pat Buchanan: 300 nukes in Israel yet Iran a threat?

EPIC Ron Paul Tea Party vs. the War Parties

Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer

Top US General: “Iran a Rational Actor”, but is US One?

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 1 of 5 ]

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 2 of 5 ]

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 3 of 5 ]

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 4 of 5 ]

The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 5 of 5 ]

The Neocon Agenda

Neoconservative Agenda Ron Paul

1) Permanent wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia)

2) Preemptive war (Drone attacks/Murder Iranian nuclear scientists)

3) Advance the welfare state (Is there any doubt?)

4) Powerful government Elite should control government (Crony Capitalism)

5) Despise libertarians and constitutionalists (Call the kooks, paranoid, etc.)

6) Attack civil liberties (Patriot act, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA)

7) Unconditional support for Israel (Is there any doubt)

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned

Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer

IAEA Fuels Bomb Iran Talk

Iran: IAEA study as pretext for war

Paul Craig Roberts: Neo-Cons want war with Iran just like Iraq

IRAN WAR: U.S. and Iran on a collision course?

Does the Heritage Foundation want America at war?

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

Obama’s U. S Federal Government Fiscal Year 2013 Budget–Dead On Arrival–Total Fiscal Irresponsibility–Videos

Posted on February 20, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , |

Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables Budget of the U.S.  Government

U.S. Debt Clock

The President’s Budget in 62 Seconds

Ryan – Obama ignoring debt crisis will lead to Greek like austerity 

Paul Ryan: President’s Budget Doesn’t Even Pretend To Fix Our Debt Crisis

President Obama’s FY 2013 Budget – By The Numbers 

Sessions To Obama Budget Chief: Will You Resign If Your Statement Is Proven False? 

Briefing on President Obama’s FY 2013 Budget

Monday Hangover: Obama’s Budget ‘Fictitious Dream’

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

Santorum Says Obama’s Religion Based On Phony Theology–Seven Reason Why Obama is Not A Christian–Many Christians, Including Catholic Santorum, Consider Black Liberation Theology Marxism, Socialism and Class Warfare And Not Christian But Supporting Black Genocide!–Videos

Posted on February 19, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. …”

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

~The Constitution of the United States, Amendment One

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

~The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Two

Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people.”

~Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison (1943-1945, English publication 1967)


“…People have been beatened down so long they feel so betrayed by their government. So it’s not surprising that they get bitter and cling to their guns and religion or antipathy towards people who are not like them as a way to explain their frustrations.”

~Candidate Barack Obama

Obama And The Second Amendment

“We Will Not Comply” – Catholic Civil Disobedience

Religious Leaders Vow Not To Comply With HHS Mandate

Santorum Slams Obama’s Agenda Driven by a “Phony Theology . . . Not a Theology Based on the Bible”

Obama’s Agenda

“…not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology. …”

~Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Candidate for Presidential Nomination

Face The Nation …: Santorum clarifies prenatal testing, theology statements

“We’re talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a — which is a procedure that creates a risk of miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb, which in many cases, in fact, most cases, physicians recommend, particularly if there’s a problem, recommend abortion. 90 percent of Down Syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from?  I have a child who has Trisomy 18. Almost 100 percent of Trisomy 18 child are encouraged to be aborted. So I know what I’m talking about here.”

My Child Was Not Stillborn!’: Rick Santorum Gets Heated With Bob Schieffer During Prenatal Testing Discussion

Rick Santorum Doesn’t Believe in … Freedom?  ( Freedom Watch Judge Napolitano 1-5-2012 )

Rick Santorum Speaks About A Higher Law & Religious Liberty

Santorum Agrees With MLK on Human Rights, Disagrees With Obama On Abortion

Obama & The Black Liberation Theology Of The Church He Attended / Video / Reverend Wright / James Cone

A Conversation with James Cone–Black Libertion Theology–Obama’s Phony Theology

Barack Obama on Religion and Politics

Barack Obama on his faith and Muslim smears

Is Obama Muslim Or not ?? The answer is here

Black Liberation Theology

Obama – Black Liberation Theology 1

Obama – Black Liberation Theology 2

Obama Speaks Of Rev. Wright In This 1995 Interview

Becoming Barack: Evolution of a Leader (Trailer)

Cardinal George on… Liberation theology

7 Reasons Why Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a Christian! 

Why Obama Is Not A Christian: Reason #1

Why Obama Is Not A Christian: Reason #2

Why Obama Is Not A Christian: Reason #3

Why Obama Is Not Christian: Reason 4

Obama Is Not Christian: Reason 5

Obama Is Not a Christian: Reason 6

Obama Is Not a Christian: Reason 7

Barack Obama and Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” 

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 3/13) 

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 6/13) 

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 8/13) 

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 9/13)

21 Century Black American Genocide

What Obama Does Not Want You To See Or Know / Video PSA

Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger and Her Reproductive Revolution

Abortion’s Cultural Advance: Planned Parenthood and You

Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (1/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (2/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (3/3)

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

National Right to Life: The Truth About Planned Parenthood

Abortion Is Big Business And Big Bucks (Truth #6)

Planned Parenthood’s Political Machine

Mass Murder of Blacks in Libya

Why are they lynching us in Libya? Kamit live in fear.

Obama SUPPORTS Black Genocide. The Cover-Up!

OBAMA LYNCHING BLACK AFRICANS : Presides Over Racial Genocide in Libya


Obama’s Massacre in Libya – With Support Of NATO Racist Rebels Continue To Eradicate Black Libyans

More Proof of rebel atrocities after Gaddafi troops found dead, mutilated in mass grave

West Unleashes Arab KKK in Libya

Black People Face Ethnic Cleansing in Libya, 1 of 2 

Black People Face Ethnic Cleansing in Libya, 2 of 2 

Cardinal George on…  Obama and Abortion

The Health Care Betrayal

Obamacare: Ending the Elderly

Rick Santorum – Tea Party Phony

Rick Santorum a Progressive Conservative?

PHONY christian rick santorum EXPOSED – VOTER’S GUIDE TO 2012

Ron Paul on Religion 

The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul 

“…James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudiced Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.
Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams’ never received a hospital bill for the delivery.
Ron Paul views every human being as a unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights. …”

Ron Paul Ad – Life

Obama’s Gamble 

‘You can’t compromise on principle’ 

“In an interview Monday evening in Rome with Catholic News Service, Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan discusses why the U.S. bishops oppose the revised contraceptive mandate announced by President Obama three days earlier. Major excerpts here.”

Catholic News Roundup 02-16


Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: The Latest Obamacare Overreach – 2/13/2012 

Ron Paul embarrasses Rick Santorum CNN SC Republican Debate 1/19/12

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! 

Ron Paul on Just War, War Breaking Families

Ron Paul Thanksgiving Family Forum Debate Nov,19,2011 Part 1 

Ron Paul Thanksgiving Family Forum Debate Nov,19,2011 Part 2 

Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust 

Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President

Ron Paul Ad – Betrayal

Ron Paul – Three of a Kind

No One But Paul — Can Beat Obama

Ron Paul  – “The one who can beat Obama”

“Jesus’ commandment never wishes to destroy life, but rather to preserve, strengthen, and heal life.”

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Santorum questions Obama’s Christian values

By Steve Peoples  Associated Press

“…Lashing out on two fronts, Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Barack Obama’s Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney’s Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, “ground zero” in the 2012 nomination fight.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama’s agenda is based on “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” He later suggested that the president practices a different kind of Christianity.

“In the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity,” he said. “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”

The Obama campaign said the comments represent “the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity.” …”

“…In Ohio, a Super Tuesday prize, he shifted decidedly to offense before friendly crowds. Trailing Romney in money and campaign resources, Santorum is depending on the tea party movement and religious groups to deliver a victory March 6 in the Midwestern contest.

More delegates will be awarded in Ohio than in any other state except Georgia in the opening months of the Republican campaign. Ohio and Georgia are two of the 10 contests scheduled for March 6, a benchmark for the primary campaign that often decides who can continue to the next level.

Santorum has surged in recent opinion polls after capturing Republican caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado and a non-binding primary in Missouri on Feb. 7. Several polls have shown him ahead in Romney’s native state of Michigan, where primary voters cast ballots a week from Tuesday. …”

Santorum says Obama agenda not “based on Bible”

“…A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.

Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”

But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama’s values run against those of Christianity.

“He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to,” Santorum told reporters.

A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage. …”

Rick Santorum tries to show he can win in November

By Dan Balz, Published: February 18

“…Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has won four states and risen suddenly to challenge Mitt Romney as the leader in the national polls. Now he faces a new hurdle: defining himself positively before others rush to disqualify him.

Santorum presents himself as a committed and consistent conservative with blue-collar roots — just the kind of candidate Republicans need to energize the party’s base and reach out to Reagan Democrats in a campaign against President Obama that could be decided in the nation’s industrial heartland.

Obama advisers and other Democrats see a Santorum whose record, writings and statements, particularly on social issues, will be used to portray him as far too conservative for many voters. His record, they say, could make Santorum anathema to suburban swing voters, especially women. That view is shared by some Republicans and independent analysts.

“They [Democrats] would brutalize him on social and cultural issues and present him as so far out of the mainstream as to be radical,” said G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College and a leading pollster in Pennsylvania. “The analogy would be Barry Goldwater” — the 1964 GOP nominee who suffered a landslide defeat.

Santorum’s advisers recognize that he has entered a new phase in his campaign, and they see the obstacles ahead. They argue that a full and fair reading of his record reveals a more attractive profile of the former senator. But they acknowledge it is up to Santorum and his campaign to explain that record and allay concerns about his ability to run competitively in November.

“There will be people — Romney and the Democrats — who will try to distort these things,” said John Brabender, Santorum’s longtime political adviser. “It’s the responsibility of our campaign to show what the senator’s record really is. We are confident that once that happens, people will understand that the senator is extremely reasonable.”

The first tests will come over the next 10 days, as Santorum attempts to leverage his new prominence against Romney in primaries in Arizona and especially Michigan, and then on Super Tuesday, March 6. …”

Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: The Latest Obamacare Overreach – 2/13/2012 

Ron Paul: Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits.  This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the “morning after” pill.
Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country.  However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.
Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions.  Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is “denying access” to healthcare.  If employers don’t provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?
In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values.  Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion.  Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.
So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values.  This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.
But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith.  This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.
Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor.  And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.
The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue.  The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.”

Ron Paul Says Santorum Can’t Beat Obama

Ron Paul says social issues are a ‘losing position’ for the GOP

By Alexandra  Jaffe

“…Ron Paul said he doesn’t think that Rick Santorum can defeat President Obama in a general election. “I don’t see how that’s possible,” he said on Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.

Paul also jabbed at Santorum for his aim “to control peoples’ lives” and what he framed as Santorum’s hypocrisy on the birth control issue.

Santorum admitted in a 2006 interview on Fox News that he supported Title X, a government program that provides funds for family planning services, including access to contraceptives. Santorum said he voted for it during his time as Pennsylvania Senator, and though he believes in access to contraceptives, he personally feels they’re harmful to women and that abstinence education is a “healthier” option.

“I don’t see how anybody can get away with that inconsistency—pretending he’s a conservative,” Paul said in reference to Santorum’s vote.

Paul dismissed the recent debate over contraception entirely, saying that while the other candidates discuss birth control, he’s concerned with “the undermining of our civil liberties, the constant wars going on” and the debt.

Paul said the focus on social issues is a fundamental problem and an unwise fight for the GOP.

“I think it’s a losing position,” he said. “I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how these problems are to be solved,” on a state-specific level, he said. …”

Background Articles and Videos

Black liberation theology

“…Black liberation theology, is a relatively new theological perspective found in some Christian churches in the United States. It is an instance of the liberation theology which originated from Catholic Theologians in the 1950’s. Liberation theology observes that Jesus Christ was a religious leader seeking greater justice for the oppressed and occupied people of Israel and views his teachings as both an inspiration and a model for others to seek freedom from injustice. The influenced of liberation theology resulted in a more socially conscious Catholic Church during the 1962 Vatican II conference and was central to Latin American peasant and grass-roots movements throughout the 60s 70’s and 80’s.

Black liberation theology seeks to liberate people of color from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation — “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone.


Modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen (NCNC), bought a full page ad in the New York Times to publish their “Black Power Statement,” which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration.[1]

In the minds of many African-Americans, Christianity was long associated with slavery and segregation.[2] The Southern Baptist Convention had supported slavery and slaveholders, and it was not until June 20, 1995 that the formal Declaration of Repentance was adopted. This resolution declared that they “unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin” and “lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest.” The convention offered an apology to all African-Americans for “condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime” and repentance for “racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously.[3][4] Christianity was long associated with racism. Therefore, there must then be a dialogue regarding the implications of racism in today’s society and to what extent historical factors affect the plight of the black community. Cone argues that, “About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death.”

Black theology deals primarily with the African-American community, to make Christianity real for blacks. It explains Christianity as a matter of liberation here and now, rather than in an afterlife. The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, “All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, ‘If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as ‘the helper of the fatherless’ [5] to ‘deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.’[6][7]

 James Cone and Black Liberation Theology

Main article: James Hal Cone

James Cone first addressed this theology after Malcolm X’s proclamation in the 1950s against Christianity being taught as “a white man’s religion”.[8] According to Black religion expert Jonathan Walton:
“James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression.”[9]

Black liberation theology contends that dominant cultures have corrupted Christianity, and the result is a mainstream faith-based empire that serves its own interests, not God’s. Black liberation theology asks whose side should God be on – the side of the oppressed or the side of the oppressors. If God values justice over victimization, then God desires that all oppressed people should be liberated. According to Cone, if God is not just, if God does not desire justice, then God needs to be done away with. Liberation from a false god who privileges whites, and the realization of an alternative and true God who desires the empowerment of the oppressed through self-definition, self-affirmation, and self-determination is the core of black liberation theology.[10]

 On God and Jesus Christ

Cone based much of his liberationist theology on God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the Book of Exodus. He compared the United States to Egypt, predicting that oppressed people will soon be led to a promised land. For Cone, the theme of Yahweh’s concern was for “the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in society.”[11] Cone also says that the same God is working for the oppressed blacks of the 20th century, and that “God is helping oppressed blacks and has identified with them, God Himself is spoken of as ‘Black’.” [12]

Cone saw Christ from the aspect of oppression and liberation. Cone uses the Gospel of Luke to illustrate this point: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.[13]” “‘In Christ,’ Cone argues, ‘God enters human affairs and takes sides with the oppressed. Their suffering becomes his; their despair, divine despair.’”[14] Cone also argues that, “We cannot solve ethical questions of the twentieth century by looking at what Jesus did in the first. Our choices are not the same as his. Being Christians does not mean following ‘in his steps.'” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 139] [3]

Cone’s view is that Jesus was black, which he felt was a very important view of black people to see. “It’s very important because you’ve got a lot of white images of Christ. In reality, Christ was not white, not European. That’s important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of black people who live in a ghetto and in a white society in which their lord and savior looks just like people who victimize them. God is whatever color God needs to be in order to let people know they’re not nobodies, they’re somebodies.” [15]

Stylistic differences in the Black religious community

Because of the differences in thought between the black and white community, most black religious leaders attempt to make their services more accessible to other African-Americans, who must identify with the faith in order to accept it. Another notable difference is Cone’s suggestion as to what must occur if there is not reconciliation among the white community. He states, “Whether the American system is beyond redemption we will have to wait and see. But we can be certain that black patience has run out, and unless white America responds positively to the theory and activity of Black Power, then a bloody, protracted civil war is inevitable.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 143] [10]

Black Liberation Theology is considered by some to be a form of racism, as some followers associate liberation with retribution and anger. For this to be considered a true Christian Faith, followers should embrace the liberation in concert with acceptance and fogiveness, just as Christ forgave his oppressors.


Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.[16]

Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the church most frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation theology.[17] The 2008 Jeremiah Wright controversy, over differing interpretations of some of his sermons and statements, caused then-Senator Barack Obama to distance himself from his former pastor.[18][19]

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review wrote about the perceived differences with ‘conventional American Christianity’. He quoted black-liberation theologian Dr. Obery M. Hendricks Jr.: “According to Hendricks, ‘many good church-going folk have been deluded into behaving like modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees when they think they’re really being good Christians.’ Unwittingly, Hendricks says, these apparent Christians have actually become ‘like the false prophets of Ba’al.'” Kurtz also quotes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “How do I tell my children about the African Jesus who is not the guy they see in the picture of the blond-haired, blue-eyed guy in their Bible or the figment of white supremacists [sic] imagination that they see in Mel Gibson’s movies?”[20]

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

James Bamford–A Pretext for War–Nuclear Weapon Programs in Iran and Israel–War Mongers Beating The Iran War Drums–American People Ask: Are The Neoconservatives Nuts?–Yes–Videos

Posted on February 18, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Taxes, Economics, Links, War, People, Life, Talk Radio, Education, Energy, Strategy, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Foreign Policy, Wisdom, liberty, government spending, media, history, Federal Government, American History, Nuclear Power, Diasters, Oil, Natural Gas | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

DIGITAL AGE – Did Bush Have a Massive Disinfo. Plan? – James Bamford

James Bamford discusses the evidence he has uncovered as to what he believes are the orgins of the Iraq war. Bamford, a well-known intelligence expert, is a critic of the war. He is the author of “A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies.” He says Douglas Feith and others at DOD, dusted off a plan they had prepared for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to invade Iraq. Further, the group initiated a disinformation plan to the American public. James Goodale, former Vice Chairman of The New York Times, hosts.

Israel and America will Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program Within Month’s

 Beating Iran War Drum

Panetta: Israel May Strike Iran by Spring

Ex-CIA Officer Worst-case Iran scenario is WWIII

Iran Update (with John Bolton Commentary) 2.3.12

Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer

John Mearsheimer on Iran, USA and Ahmadinejad

India worried over Israel-Iran battle on its soil

Iran or Israel ( War – Conflict ) – Who should India ally with ?

IAEA Fuels Bomb Iran Talk

Iran: IAEA study as pretext for war

Paul Craig Roberts: Neo-Cons want war with Iran just like Iraq

IRAN WAR: U.S. and Iran on a collision course?

Does the Heritage Foundation want America at war?

Pepe Escobar: Iran would be an excellent new field for predatory capitalism

Bogeyman? – ‘Iran has attacked NO-ONE in 100 years’

Professor John Mearsheimer on Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 1/3

Professor John Mearsheimer on Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 2/3

Professor John Mearsheimer on Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 3/3

BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)1of5

BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)2of5

BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)3of5

BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)4of5

BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)5of5

Background Articles and Videos

more on the NSA spying on Americans-1/5

more on the NSA spying on Americans-2/5

more on the NSA spying on Americans-3/5

more on the NSA spying on Americans-4/5

more on the NSA spying on Americans-5/5

James Bamford

V. James Bamford (born September 15, 1946) is an American bestselling author and journalist who writes about United States intelligence agencies, most notably the National Security Agency.[1]


He was born on September 15, 1946 and raised in Natick, Massachusetts. He spent three years in the United States Navy as an intelligence analyst during the Vietnam War, and used the GI Bill to earn his law degree from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Massachusetts.[2]

James Bamford is an expert on the highly secretive National Security Agency. His recent book, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to The Eavesdropping on America, on which NOVA’s “The Spy Factory” was based became a New York Times best-seller and was named by The Washington Post as one of “The Best Books of 2008.” It is third in a trilogy by Bamford on the NSA, following The Puzzle Palace (1982) and Body of Secrets (2002), also a New York Times bestseller. Bamford has also taught at the University of California, Berkeley as a distinguished visiting professor and has written for the New York Times Magazine, the Atlantic, Harpers, and many other publications. In 2006, he won the National Magazine Award for Reporting for his piece “The Man Who Sold The War,” published in Rolling Stone. A native of Massachusetts, Bamford served as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, and he later used the GI Bill to earn his law degree from Suffolk University Law School in Boston. His first book, The Puzzle Palace (1982), was the first book published about the National Security Agency (NSA). The book was researched through extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[3] As a super-secret agency, NSA was quite concerned about their unveiling to the world and accordingly, the government reclassified certain documents in an effort to stop publication.[4][5] He published Body of Secrets (also about the NSA, 2001), and A Pretext for War (2004). Bamford lectures nationally and was a distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He also spent nearly a decade as the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight. In 2006, he received the National Magazine Award for Reporting, the top prize in magazine writing. Most recently, he published his new book The Shadow Factory, once again about the NSA, but about its involvement in the 9/11 investigations and intelligence failures. The PBS show “The Spy Factory” was based on this book.[6]

Bamford was a consultant for the defense of NSA whistleblower Thomas Andrews Drake.[7]


  • Bamford, James (1982). The Puzzle Palace: a Report on America’s Most Secret Agency. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0140067485.
  • Bamford, James (2001). The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America’s Most Secret Intelligence Organization. Viking Pr. ISBN 0140231161.
  • Bamford, James (April 30, 2002). Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Anchor. ISBN 0385499086.
  • Bamford, James (May 10, 2005). A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. Anchor. ISBN 140003034X.
  • Bamford, James (September 16, 2008). The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. Doubleday. ISBN 0385521324.

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos

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

Keith Richards–Life–Videos

Posted on February 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Economics, Entertainment, European History, Food, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Raves, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Keith Richards and Friends – Wild Horses, live 2004

Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 1/6

Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 2/6

Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 3/6

Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 4/6

Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 5/6

Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 6/6

KEITH RICHARDS – LIVE from the NYPL, in conversation with Anthony DeCurtis

The Rolling Stones with Brian Jones -The Last Time

Angie – The Rolling Stones

Background Articles and Videos


DENMARK 1965,the rolling stones (2)


NORWAY 1965,the rolling stones

Keith Richards interview and Mick Jagger 1968

Brian Jones Dies

Keith Richards – Complete TV interview 1974 (Old Grey Whistle Test)

Rolling Stones – Munich interviews 1975

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades



The Animals–Videos

Joan Baez–Videos

The Beach Boys–Videos

The Beatles–Videos

Bee Gees–Videos

The Byrds–Videos

Mariah Carey–Videos

Johnny Cash–Videos

Eva Cassidy–Videos

Ray Charles–Videos

Joe Cocker–Videos

Nat King Cole–Videos

Judy Collins–Videos

Perry Como–Videos

Sam Cooke–Videos

Doris Day–Videos

Sandy Denny–Videos

John Denver–Videos

Celine Dion–Videos

The Doors–Videos

Bob Dylan–Videos


Marianne Faithfull–Videos

Roberta Flack–Videos

Aretha Franklin–Videos

Marvin Gaye-Videos

Whitney Houston–Videos

Janis Ian–Videos

Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos

Elton John–Videos

Janis Joplan–Videos

The Kinks–Videos

Led Zeppelin–Videos

Little Richard–Videos

The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos

The Mamas and Papas–Videos

Barry Manilow–Videos

Johnny Mathis–Videos

Don McLean–Videos

Bette Midler–Videos

Joni Mitchell–Videos

Olivia Newton-John–Videos

Roy Orbison–Videos

The Platters–Videos

Elvis Presley–Videos


Otis Redding–Videos

Lionel Richie–Videos

The Righteous Brothers–Videos

The Rolling Stones–Videos

Linda Ronstadt–Videos

Sam & Dave–Videos

Neil Sedaka–Videos

Bob Seger–Videos

Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos

Carly Simon–Videos

Simon & Garfunkel–Videos

Frank Sinatra–Videos

Dusty Springfield–Videos

Bruce Springsteen–Videos

Rod Stewart–Videos

Barbra Streisand–Videos


Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos

Donna Summer–Videos


James Taylor–Videos

Tina Turner–Videos

Shania Twain–Videos

Village People–Videos

Hayley Westenra–Videos

Steve Winwood–Videos

Stevie Wonder–Videos

Tammy Wynette–Videos

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

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos

Posted on February 17, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Books, Raves, Economics, Links, War, People, Life, Education, Energy, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Foreign Policy, Wisdom, liberty, government spending, media, Demographics, government, Federal Government, College, Business, Wealth | Tags: , , , |

John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

“Israel Lobby” authors Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer

Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, John J. Mearsheimer, and Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Stephen M. Walt, discuss their book, THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

AIPAC: Inside America’s Israel lobby

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Part 1

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Part 2

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Part 3

Power Of The Israel Lobby In America – Mark Webber and Jeff Rense

John mearsheimer pt. 1 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 2 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 3 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 4 of 6

John mearsheimer pt.5 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 6 of 6


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

John J. Mearsheimer–Imperial by Design–Videos

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

John J. Mearsheimer–Imperial by Design–Videos

Posted on February 17, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Foreign Policy, government spending, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer

Professor Mearsheimer will discuss his article by the same name from the January/February 2011 Issue of The National Interest. In the article, he considers the decline of US foreign policy from end of the Cold War to the “world of trouble” now: two protracted wars, nuclear stalemates in Iran and North Korea, and the inability to bring about a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

John Mearsheimer on the Death of U.S. Grand Strategy

John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy

9/11 attack – A conspiracy of bad US government policies and half truths

Lying in International Politics with John Mearsheimer

Conversations with History: John Mearsheimer

“Israel Lobby” authors Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer

Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, John J. Mearsheimer, and Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Stephen M. Walt, discuss their book, THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

John mearsheimer pt. 1 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 2 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 3 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 4 of 6

John mearsheimer pt.5 of 6

John mearsheimer pt. 6 of 6

Dr John Mearsheimer (1/2)

Dr John Mearsheimer (2/2)

Background Articles and Videos

What is Grand Strategy?

Joseph Nye on Soft Power

Joseph Nye on Soft Power (1 of 2)

Joseph Nye on Soft Power (2 of 2)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos

The Power of Nightmares: Progressive Neoconservatives vs. Radical Islamists–Videos

Marco Rubio Neoconservative Posterboy Defends Mitt Romney–Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives-Coming Soon–Wars In Iran, Syria, Pakistan–American Greatness By Empire Building–Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace In An Era of Righteousness!–Videos

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

“I Will Be Held Accountable” –Obama’s Economic Policies Result In Longest Period of Unemployment Since The Great Depression–End The Loafing–Videos

Posted on February 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Obama One Term Proposition: “I Will Be Held Accountable”

Abbot & Costello Explain Obama’s Stimulus Plan For Workers

3 Years is Up, Mr. President. We Can’t Afford Another 4

Unemployment and Obama’s re-election 

Preview: Trapped in Unemployment

Great Depression key figures

Rick Santelli: Here’s What’s Wrong With the Jobs Number

The Unemployment Game Show: Are You *Really* Unemployed?

Unemployment Rate Primer 

Mark Levin Talks About Obama Cooking The Books On The Unemployment Rate

ShadowStats’ John Williams Explains Why It’s All Been Downhill Since 1973

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Unemployment Level In Thousands

Unemployment Rate Percent U-3

Total Unemployment Rate Percent U-6

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



Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1994 11.8 11.4 11.4 11.2 10.8 10.9 10.7 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0  
1995 10.2 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.0  
1996 9.8 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.5  
1997 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.3 8.4  
1998 8.4 8.4 8.4 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.6  
1999 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.1  
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 11.1 11.8 12.7 13.5  
2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.8 17.2 17.1 17.1  
2010 16.7 16.9 16.9 17.0 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.6 16.9 16.8 16.9 16.6  
2011 16.1 15.9 15.7 15.9 15.8 16.2 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.0 15.6 15.2  
2012 15.1                        


High Unemployment  No Future Employment


Price discusses CBO Annual Report on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report

President Obama should be held accountable for economic policies not working.

The price for failure to deliver on his promises of hope and change should be defeat in the next election.

Vote for Ron Paul.

Stop the Budget Bandits

Ending Spending: Budget Bandits 

Ron Paul Ad – Believe 

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul  – “The one who can beat Obama” 

Background Articles and Videos

The United States is Experiencing the Longest Stretch of High Unemployment Since the Great Depression

“…The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. CBO projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The share of unemployed people who have been looking for work for more than six months—referred to as the long-term unemployed—topped 40 percent in December 2009 and has remained above that level ever since. …”

“…What Are the Consequences of Unemployment?

Households with unemployed workers are adversely affected by joblessness in many ways. For workers who have been displaced through no fault of their own—for example, those who lost or left a job because their plant or company closed or moved—the drop in earnings associated with losing a job during a recession may persist for many years, even when these workers eventually find a new job. Older workers and those with long tenure in their previous job are especially vulnerable because new jobs for those workers typically pay less and offer less potential for earnings growth.

Other types of unemployed workers—for example, people entering the labor market for the first time (typically after completing school)—are also adversely affected by a weak economy. People who start their career in times of high unemployment tend to have persistently lower earnings than their counterparts who begin seeking work under better economic circumstances. In addition to its immediate and lasting effects on earnings and family finances, unemployment is also correlated with deteriorating mental and physical health and with increased mortality. ….”

CBO: Longest Period of High Unemployment Since Great Depression

CBO: U.S. enduring the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression

      By  Alex M. Parker

“…After three years with unemployment topping 8 percent, the U.S. has seen the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, the Congressional Budget Office noted in a report issued today.

And, despite some recent good news on the economic front, the CBO is still predicting that unemployment will remain above 8 percent until 2014. The report also notes that, including those who haven’t sought work in the past four weeks and those who are working part-time but seeking full-time employment, the unemployment rate would be 15 percent.

The CBO made its comments in a report examining the long-term effects of joblessness, and possible policy options to boost employment, including unemployment insurance reforms and job training programs. The report came at the request of Democratic Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, but Republicans quickly jumped on the chance to bash President Obama’s stimulus program, which is also reaching its three-year anniversary today.

“The stimulus is a stark reminder of how the president got the policies he wanted, and how those policies have failed the American people and are making things worse,” said Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling. …”


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

Pat Buchaan Leaves Radical Progressive Socialist MSNBC–Videos

Posted on February 16, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Entertainment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

The New Blacklist

“…My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

After 10 enjoyable years, I am departing, after an incessant clamor from the left that to permit me continued access to the microphones of MSNBC would be an outrage against decency, and dangerous.

The calls for my firing began almost immediately with the Oct. 18 publication of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

A group called Color of Change, whose mission statement says that it “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” claimed that my book espouses a “white supremacist ideology.” Color of Change took particular umbrage at the title of Chapter 4, “The End of White America.”

Media Matters parroted the party line: He has blasphemed!

A Human Rights Campaign that bills itself as America’s leading voice for lesbians, bisexuals, gays and transgendered people said that Buchanan’s “extremist ideas are incredibly harmful to millions of LBGT people around the world.”

Their rage was triggered by a remark to NPR’s Diane Rehm — that I believe homosexual acts to be “unnatural and immoral.”

On Nov. 2, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who has sought to have me censored for 22 years, piled on. …”

Pat Buchanan kicked off MSNBC

Liz Trotta Defends Pat Buchanan’s Racist Comments: MSNBC is Close to Becoming ‘Communist’ Channel

BookTV: After Words: Patrick Buchanan, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

Pat Buchanan on His Book Suicide of a Superpower

Pat Buchanan on Freedom watch w/ Andrew napolitano

Pat Buchanan discusses his book “Suicide of A Superpower – Part 1 of 2

Pat Buchanan discusses his book “Suicide of A Superpower – Part 2 of 2

On GBTV Pat Buchanan author of Suicide of a Superpower with Glenn Beck

Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul: “He Has Authenticity” (1-15-12)


Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer

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

Corruption of Maine Republican Party Establishment Leadership By Mitt Romney–The Flip-Flopper Flips Off Maine’s Voters–Videos

Posted on February 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

UPDATED February 19, 2012

Ron Paul Wins 2 more Counties Maine behind 117 votes ∞ Washington & Hancock County

Ron Paul Wins Washington County, Maine Caucus w/ 53%!! 

Clear Evidence Republican Party Committing Voter Fraud! 

Reality Check – GOP Maine Voter Fraud – 02/14/2012

Maine Republicans Urged to Reconsider Mitt Romney’s Win 

Ron Paul Campaign Questions Romney’s Maine Victory

Fox Focus Group Loves Ron Paul But Loves Being Lied to With War Propaganda More

Ron Paul on Fox 2/13/12 

Ron Paul – Three of a Kind 

Ron Paul Ad – He Served 

Ron Paul Ad – Secure 

Ron Paul Ad – Plan 

Ron Paul  – “The one who can beat Obama” 

Romney is a progressive neoconservative phoney  Republican –the pick of the Republican establishment leadership in Washington. D.C.

More and more libertarian conservatives and traditional conservatives will not vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries and the general election.

Should Romney be the Republican nominee, I for one will not vote for him.

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

Veterans For Ron Paul 2012 March On The White House On President’s Day Feb. 20–Videos

Posted on February 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Taxes, Raves, Economics, Links, War, People, Life, Education, Employment, Strategy, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Wisdom, liberty, government spending, media, history, Language, Federal Government, College, Wealth, American History | Tags: , , , , , , |

“The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George…Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security.”

      ~Ron Paul

“My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.”
~George Washington 

UPDATED February 20, 2012

The Ron Paul Renaissance

Ron Paul: Our Momentum Is Picking Up

CHILLING VIDEO – Veterans for Ron Paul 2012!! 

Veterans for Ron Paul March on The White House

Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops

Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 MARCH TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Ron Paul Veterans March on the White House Feb. 20, 2012 

Veterans For Ron Paul (March On The White House) Feb. 20th ,2012

RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS! (Veterans march on the White House)

RON PAUL (choice of the troops) MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE

Journey to D.C. for Military March on The White House – Snowville, Utah –  02/15/12 

Veterans Match for Ron Paul- He is their LEADER

For Liberty Re-cut – Ron Paul 2012 Handout DVD HD

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

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Show Freedom Watch On Fox Business Channel Cancelled–Will He Return Soon On Another Fox Vehicle?–Videos

Posted on February 13, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Rants, Raves, Security, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul leaks his choice for VP 2012 (unedited original footage)

Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President

Ron Paul speaks about Judge Napolitano

You ‘re Fired Libertarian – Leaning Judge Andrew

Aurevoir My Friends: Judge Napolitano Signs Off on His Last Episode of Freedom Watch © FoxBusiness

“Judge Napolitano’s Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch. FOX news did not “fire” the Judge… they just cancelled his show. According to Fox News press release, the Judge will be appearing again on Fox but Freedom Watch is done for.rather ironic a show about freedom got shut down. Although its sad to watch this end, one had to wonder how long it was going to last or how it even got on Fox News in the first place. Liberals have CurrenTV, perhaps its time to consider a new alternative…”
– Gerald Celente –

Judge Andrew Napolitano Shows You How to Get ‘Fired’ From Fox Bizz in Under 5 min.

Judge Napolitano Endorses Ron Paul; Slaughters Romney and Santorum – Fox Business

Donald Rumsfeld grilled by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch

Judge Napolitano Fired after this Broadcast ∞ Israel & Saudi more Dangerous Enemies than Iran

4-8-11 Freedom Watch: The End of ‘Glenn Beck’

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano

FOX Business Network Adds Encore Presentations of Marquee Business Programming

“…NEW YORK, Feb 09, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — FOX Business Network (FBN) will debut a new primetime schedule featuring encore presentations of the channel’s top post-market programs, announced Kevin Magee, Executive Vice President of the network. Starting February 20th at 8 PM/ET, viewers will find additional airings of The Willis Report (5PM & 8PM/ET), Cavuto (6PM & 9PM/ET) and Lou Dobbs Tonight (7PM & 10PM/ET). The new lineup will replace FreedomWatch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Power & Money with David Asman and Follow the Money with Eric Bolling.

In addition, FBN is developing a new 5PM/ET program hosted by Melissa Francis who joined the network from CNBC earlier this year. The show will debut in the second quarter, at which point The Willis Report will move to 8PM/ET, enabling FBN to be the only business network providing viewers with uninterrupted live coverage of financial news from 5AM/ET to 9PM/ET.

In making the announcement Magee said, “Neil Cavuto, Lou Dobbs and Gerri Willis are the most trusted names in business news and this new lineup affords FOX Business viewers additional access to their no-nonsense take on the day’s financial events. We look forward to Judge Napolitano, David and Eric continuing to make significant contributions to both FOX Business and FOX News. In addition to daily branded segments, each of them will be showcased throughout future programming on both networks.” …”

“…Dear Friends–

Many of you are not happy with the cancellation of FreedomWatch, and you have sent emails to my Fox colleagues expressing that unhappiness. In television, shows are cancelled all the time. Two of my former shows have been cancelled, and after each cancellation, Fox has rewarded me with more and better work. This cancellation–along with others that accompanied it–was the result of a business judgment here, and is completely unrelated to the FreedomWatch message. It would make a world of a difference for all of us, if you would KINDLY STOP SENDING EMAILS TO FOX.

I am well. Your values are strong. I will continue to articulate those values here at Fox. But the emails many of you are sending are unfairly interfering with my work and that of my colleagues here. The emails even violate our values because they interfere with the use of private property. I have accepted the cancellation decision with good cheer and a sense of gearing up for the future. You should as well.

As a favor to me, and as I have asked this past weekend, PLEASE STOP SENDING EMAILS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT FOX ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF FreedomWatch; and please stop NOW.

All the best,   apn. …”

More Ways To Protest the FOX Cancellation of ‘Freedom Watch’

Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 10, 2012 10:23 AM

“…FOX plans to cancel the greatest program of its sort in the history of television, “Freedom Watch,” starring the heroic Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here are more people to write in protest:

Kevin Magee (Fox Executive VP) made the decision to cancel the show. Write him at

Write Fox CEO Roger Ailes’s assistant, Gena Dellaquila, at

And if you have not already done so, protest this outrageous act to the public/media relations department at:

Irena Briganti, Senior Vice President
Media Relations
Phone: 212-301-3608
Fax: 212-819-0816

We are being heard. I am told that the Fox higher-ups are “stunned” at the public response.

UPDATE from a friend:

With respect, I suggest that complaints directed to Fox’s advertisers might also have great effect. …”

What to Do About the Cancellation of Freedom Watch

“…On my Facebook page yesterday I noted that Freedom Watch, hosted by the great Judge Andrew Napolitano, had been cancelled by the FOX Business Network. I posted a petition that’s going around to have the show reinstated, and there’s now a Facebook group calling for just that. I recommend both signing the petition and joining the group. The Judge has stuck his neck out for us so many times; the least we can do for him is a petition signature. …”

“…The whole thing is bizarre. Ratings for the show were good, compared to other programs on the network, so that wasn’t the issue. And the Judge wasn’t doing or saying anything they couldn’t have expected him to say. He was going after the libertarian demographic that has no home on any cable news network. So after having good ratings and grabbing precisely the demographic the network wanted him to, they cancel him? Not adding up. …”

First, the Judge was not fired.

Second, the show Freedom Watch was canceled.

Third, please honor the Judge’s request on Facebook to stop sending e-mails to his associates at Fox.

I suspect that Fox and Roger Ailes have big plans for the Judge.

Fox would be well advised to quickly find the Judge another one hour time slot for a news show on the Fox News Channel.

The Judge was simply on the wrong channel,  Fox Business Channel, instead of the Fox News Channel.

If this is not done quickly, the libertarian and traditional conservatives  in their audience will slowly but surely desert Fox.

However, the timing  appears very suspect, namely just before the Republican primaries and caucuses in late February and early March with Super Tuesday.

The longer Fox has Napolitano off the air with no regularly scheduled show, the more likely libertarian and traditional conservatives will just stay home on election day.

Roger Ailes are you listening?

Rupert Murdoch are you listening?

Viewers want to know.

Background Articles and Videos

Interview with Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel

Murdoch of Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda

Andrew Napolitano

“…Andrew Paolo Napolitano (born June 6, 1950) is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998, and currently serves as the network’s senior judicial analyst, commenting on legal news and trials. …”

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Freedom Watch

“…Freedom Watch was a television show hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Fox Business network. The show aired from 2009 to 2012, focusing mainly on libertarian-conservative issues and perspectives.


Freedom Watch was created in February 2009 as an online show and originally webcast once a week. In September 2009, the show began webcasting three or four times a week. Frequent guests of the online show included Congressman Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Peter Schiff.

In May 2010, it was announced that the show would be televised on the Fox Business Network.[1] The first televised episode, dubbed the “Tea Party Summit”, aired on June 12, 2010 at 10 am, featuring Congressman Ron Paul, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, then U.S. Senate Republican candidate, now U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey.[2][3]

On Monday, November 15, 2010, Freedom Watch began to air new episodes every weeknight at 8:00pm ET.[4] Initially described as “the top-rated show on Fox Business”, its ratings apparently began to slip in 2011[5].

In February 2012, Fox Business announced that while Napolitano would remain a contributor, Freedom Watch (along with two other shows) was cancelled, in preference for a new lineup that simply re-runs popular episodes of other Fox Business shows each day. The final episode will air on Monday, February 13th, 2012.


Judge Napolitano followed a pattern on the show:

Each episode started with a short description of a liberty-oriented issue, laid out specifically as a segue into the phrase

…upheld [or undermined, or needs to learn] these principles:

  • That government is best which governs least.
  • The people are entitled to a government that stays within the confines of the constitution.
  • The constitution was written to keep the government off the people’s backs.

Napolitano would then have guests with whom he discussed various issues of the day.

Coming back from one segment each episode, he would itemize some violations or victories of freedom, which he called the Freedom Files.

The second to last segment, each episode, was a round table with a group of people of various political inclinations, anointed his Freedom Fighters.

Each show was then summed up with a monologue given by Napolitano, describing how the principles of liberty and justice applied to the issues at hand, called The Plain Truth. …”

Glenn Beck TV Program

“…Glenn Beck is a United States cable news show hosted by Glenn Beck that aired weekdays on Fox News Channel. The program, originally on CNN Headline News (now HLN), premiered on FNC on January 19, 2009 and aired weekdays at 5:00 PM EST.[1] On April 6, 2011, Fox News and Mercury Radio Arts, Beck’s production company, released a joint news statement saying that Beck would “transition off of his daily program” on Fox News later in the year.[2] The program’s final episode aired on June 30, 2011.[3][4…”

Declining Ratings Could Put Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox News Future In Jeopardy

by Colby Hall | 2:34 pm, October 20th, 2011
“…Back in May, Judge Andrew Napolitano seemed almost a shoo-in to take over Fox News Channel’s 5PM time, slot vacated by Glenn Beck. Beck himself stated, on air, that he’d like to hand over the reins to his frequent guest and replacement host, and the Judge was named one of the regular panelists on the temporary replacement show The Five when it debuted this summer. But it might have seemed somewhat discouraging to Napolitano when news came that the temporary status of The Five was made permanent as the 5PM offering — and he wasn’t part of the program.But, it seems as though Fox News may have had reason to pass over Judge Napolitano as a permanent fixture on their surprisingly high-rated show: Mediaite recently got a hold of the self proclaimed “night watchman’s” Nielsen ratings, and the numbers don’t look good. The Judge has consistently been one of the lowest rated programs on Fox Business Network’s prime time lineup –- and trending lower.October numbers to date prove to be Napolitano’s lowest rated month for total viewers (P2+) since May ’11, and the absolute lowest rated month in the demo all year, averaging a measly 50,000 total viewers, with 8,000 in the demo. He’s also down 10% in total viewers, and a whopping 43% in the demo just since last month. To make matters worse, he loses more than half of the audience that the network’s top-rated Lou Dobbs Tonightbrings in on a regular basis.This can’t be going over well with the top brass over at Fox – and in fact it’s not. A recent Reuters exclusive report by Peter Lauria uncovered an internal memo from network head Kevin Magee reminding the staff to stop trying to be Fox News and to focus on actually being, shocker, a business network. Mediaite can’t help but wonder if that was, in some way, directed at Napolitano, whose show FreedomWatch is the only prime time program that rarely, if ever, focuses on business or the economy. The memo stated “If we give the audience a choice between FNC and the almost-FNC, they will choose FNC every time.” With no other show is that more apparent than with FreedomWatch. …”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )


Posted on February 13, 2012. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Economics, Entertainment, Language, Law, liberty, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Radio, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Updated October 3, 2015

“Mum loves me being famous! She is so excited and proud, as she had me so young and couldn’t support me, so I am living her dream, it’s sweeter for both of us. It’s her 40th birthday soon and I’m going to buy her 40 presents.”

She amazed us again….

Adele – Someone Like You

Adele – Turning Tables 

Adele- Don’t You Remember

Adele – Someone Like You (Live in Her Home) 

Adele – Make You Feel My Love (Live on Letterman) 

ADELE – ‘Make You Feel My Love’ 

Adele – One And Only 

Adele – Rumour Has It

ADELE – ‘Cold Shoulder’

Adele – Crazy For You

ADELE – ‘Hometown Glory’

Adele – He won’t go (with lyrics)

Adele – First Love 

Adele – Set Fire To The Rain (Live from the Tabernacle, London, 24 January 2011)

Adele – Set Fire To The Rain

Adele – I Can’t Make You Love Me

Adele – Rolling in the Deep

Adele – Chasing Pavements

Adele Skyfall Live Performance Oscar 2013

The 54th Annual GRAMMY Awards Adele wins the best pop solo performance for “Someone Like You.”

Adele – Make You Feel My Love [Official Video] 

Adele Live Lounge Special

Adele Smoth Radio complete!!!

Adele full concert 2015

Adele – Live At iTunes Festival London 2011 [Full Concert]

Adele live @ The Tabernacle complete!

Adele North American Tour 2008

‘My life is full of drama and I won’t have time to worry about something as petty as what I look like. I don’t like going to the gym.

‘I like eating fine foods and drinking nice wine. Even if I had a really good figure, I don’t think I’d get my t**s and a** out for no one.

‘I love seeing Lady Gaga’s boobs and bum. I love seeing Katy Perry’s boobs and bum. Love it. But that’s not what my music is about. I don’t make music for eyes, I make music for ears.’

Background Articles and Videos

Adele Interview

Adele Live in London with Matt Lauer (Aired June 3rd, 2012) [HQ]

Grammy Awards 2013 Adele accepts Best Pop Solo Performance YouTube

Adele – Swiss Music Awards 2012 : Best Hit International & Best Album Pop Rock International

Adele 21 – Track By Track Interview

Adele — Exclusive WSJ Interview 

Adele – Ushi the (complete) interview

Adele – Interview (The Jonathan Ross Show – 3rd September 2011) 

ADELE – Live At The Royal Albert Hall DVD (Trailer) 

Adele & Amy Winehouse performing @ The BRIT Awards (2008) 

Adele (singer)

“…Adele Laurie Blue Adkins[2] (born 5 May 1988), better known mononymously as Adele, is an English recording artist and songwriter. Adele was offered a recording contract from XL Recordings after a friend posted her demonstration on Myspace in 2006. The next year she received the Brit Awards “Critics’ Choice” and won the BBC Sound of 2008. Her debut album, 19 was released in 2008 to much commercial and critical success in the UK. 19 was certified four times platinum in the UK.[3] Her career in the US was boosted by a Saturday Night Live appearance in late 2008. At the 2009 Grammy Awards, Adele received the awards for Best New Artist and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance.[4][5] She has also won a total of 8 Grammy Awards and 1 Brit Award.

Adele released her second album, 21 in early 2011.[6][7] The album was well received critically and surpassed the success of her debut commercially.[8] 21 has been certified 14 times platinum in the UK;[3] in the US the album held the top position longer than any other album since 1993.[9][10] The success of 21 earned Adele numerous mentions in the Guinness Book Of World Records. The album won the Grammy for Album of the Year. She is the first artist to sell more than 3 million copies of an album in a year in the UK.[11] With her two albums and the first two singles from 21, “Rolling in the Deep” and “Someone Like You”, Adele became the first living artist to achieve the feat of two top five hits in both the UK Official Singles Chart and the Official Albums Chart simultaneously since the Beatles in 1964.[12][13] With her third release from the album, “Set Fire to the Rain”, becoming her third number one single in the US, Adele became the first artist in history to lead the Billboard 200 concurrently with three Billboard Hot 100 number ones.[14] 21 is the longest running number one album by a female solo artist on the UK Albums Chart[15] and is tied for the longest cumulative stay at number one by a female solo artist as well.[11] In 2011, Billboard named Adele artist of the year.[16]

Adele Website

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades



The Animals–Videos

Joan Baez–Videos

The Beach Boys–Videos

The Beatles–Videos

Bee Gees–Videos

The Byrds–Videos

Mariah Carey–Videos

Johnny Cash–Videos

Eva Cassidy–Videos

Ray Charles–Videos

Joe Cocker–Videos

Nat King Cole–Videos

Judy Collins–Videos

Perry Como–Videos

Sam Cooke–Videos

Doris Day–Videos

Sandy Denny–Videos

John Denver–Videos

Celine Dion–Videos

The Doors–Videos

Bob Dylan–Videos


Marianne Faithfull–Videos

Roberta Flack–Videos

Aretha Franklin–Videos

Marvin Gaye-Videos

Whitney Houston–Videos

Janis Ian–Videos

Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos

Elton John–Videos

Janis Joplan–Videos

The Kinks–Videos

Led Zeppelin–Videos

Little Richard–Videos

The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos

The Mamas and Papas–Videos

Barry Manilow–Videos

Johnny Mathis–Videos

Don McLean–Videos

Bette Midler–Videos

Joni Mitchell–Videos

Olivia Newton-John–Videos

Roy Orbison–Videos

The Platters–Videos

Elvis Presley–Videos


Otis Redding–Videos

Lionel Richie–Videos

The Righteous Brothers–Videos

The Rolling Stones–Videos

Linda Ronstadt–Videos

Sam & Dave–Videos

Neil Sedaka–Videos

Bob Seger–Videos

Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos

Carly Simon–Videos

Simon & Garfunkel–Videos

Frank Sinatra–Videos

Dusty Springfield–Videos

Bruce Springsteen–Videos

Rod Stewart–Videos

Barbra Streisand–Videos


Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos

Donna Summer–Videos


James Taylor–Videos

Tina Turner–Videos

Shania Twain–Videos

Village People–Videos

Hayley Westenra–Videos

Steve Winwood–Videos

Stevie Wonder–Videos

Tammy Wynette–Videos

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

Whitney Houston–Videos

Posted on February 13, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Culture, Economics, Entertainment, Films, history, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Raves, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Whitney Houston – I Will Always Love You     Official Music Video

Whitney Houston – Where Do Broken Hearts Go (Medley) 

where do broken hearts go by whitney houston with lyrics

Whitney Houston sings at New Hope Baptist Church in Newark, NJ.

Whitney Houston – Memories (1982) 

Merv Griffin Show- Whitney Houston and Cissy Houston sings Sweet Baby/You Send Me/Aint No Way 1983

Whitney Houston   1985   Opening Act for Luther Vandross 

Whitney Houston – Saving all my love for you  – Peters Popshow – 1985 

Whitney Houston – Saving all my love for you  – Peters Popshow – 1985 

Whitney Houston – I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me) 

Whitney Houston – All At Once (1987)

Whitney Houston – Saving All My Love – HQ Live 

Whitney Houston – All The Man That I Need 

Whitney Houston  – Saving All My love For You (Live French Show)

Whitney Houston   One Moment In Time(Grammy Awards Live)

Whitney Houston – I Will Always Love You

Whitney Houston – Saving All My Love For You

Whitney Houston – How Will I Know 

Whitney Houston – So Emotional 

Whitney Houston – I’m Every Woman 

Whitney Houston – It’s Not Right But It’s Okay 

Whitney Houston – Exhale

Whitney Houston – All The Man That I Need

Whitney Houston – I Look To You

Whitney Houston – Run To You

Whitney Houston – I Wanna Dance With Somebody

Whitney Houston – Greatest Love Of All

Whitney Houston – I Have Nothing

Whitney Houston – Didn’t We Almost Have It All

Baclground Articles and Videos

Whitney Houston’s Death: 2012 Grammy Awards to Pay Tribute to Her Career

Whitney Houston – This is My Life – Part 1 

Whitney Houston – This is My Life – Part 2 

Whitney Houston – This Is My Life – Part 3 

Whitney Houston Rolling Stone Interview 1986

Whitney Houston MTV Interview (1988)

Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1990)

Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1992) Part 1 

Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1992) Part 2 

Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1992) Part 3

Whitney Houston – Barbara Walters Special 1993 – Part 1 

Whitney Houston – Barbara Walters Special 1993 – Part 2

Whitney Houston interview by Diane Sawyer

Whitney Houston UK Interview 1996 Rare

Whitney Houston Interview

Whitney Houston

“…Whitney Elizabeth Houston (August 9, 1963 – February 11, 2012) was an American recording artist, actress, producer, and model. In 2009, the Guinness World Records cited her as the most-awarded female act of all time.[1] Her awards include two Emmy Awards, six Grammy Awards, 30 Billboard Music Awards, and 22 American Music Awards, among a total of 415 career awards in her lifetime. Houston was also one of the world’s best-selling music artists, having sold over 170 million albums, singles and videos worldwide.[2][3] Inspired by prominent soul singers in her family, including her mother Cissy Houston, cousins Dionne Warwick and Dee Dee Warwick, and her godmother Aretha Franklin, Houston began singing with her New Jersey church’s junior gospel choir at age 11.[4] After she began performing alongside her mother in night clubs in the New York City area, she was discovered by Arista Records label head Clive Davis. Houston released seven studio albums and three movie soundtrack albums, all of which have diamond, multi-platinum, platinum or gold certification.

Houston is the only artist to chart seven consecutive No. 1 Billboard Hot 100 hits (“Saving All My Love for You”, “How Will I Know”, “Greatest Love of All”, “I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)”, “Didn’t We Almost Have It All”, “So Emotional” and “Where Do Broken Hearts Go”). She is the second artist behind Elton John and the only female artist to have two number-one Billboard 200 Album awards (formerly “Top Pop Album”) on the Billboard magazine year-end charts. Houston’s 1985 debut album Whitney Houston became the best-selling debut album by a female act at the time of its release. The album was named Rolling Stone‘s best album of 1986, and was ranked at number 254 on Rolling Stone‘s list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[5] Her second studio album Whitney (1987) became the first album by a female artist to debut at number one on the Billboard 200 albums chart.[5] Houston’s crossover appeal on the popular music charts as well as her prominence on MTV, starting with her video for “How Will I Know”,[6] influenced several African-American female artists to follow in her footsteps.[7][8]

Houston’s first acting role was as the star of the feature film The Bodyguard (1992). The film’s original soundtrack won the 1994 Grammy Award for Album of the Year. Its lead single “I Will Always Love You”, became the best-selling single by a female artist in music history. With the album, Houston became the first act (solo or group, male or female) to sell more than a million copies of an album within a single week period.[5] The album makes her the only female act in the top 10 list of the best-selling albums of all time, at number four. Houston continued to star in movies and contribute to their soundtracks, including the films Waiting to Exhale (1995) and The Preacher’s Wife (1996). The Preacher’s Wife soundtrack became the best-selling gospel album in history.[9] Three years after the release of her fourth studio album My Love Is Your Love (1998), she renewed her recording contract with Arista Records.[9] She released her fifth studio album Just Whitney in 2002, and the Christmas-themed One Wish: The Holiday Album in 2003. In 2009, Houston released her seventh studio album I Look to You. …”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades



The Animals–Videos

Joan Baez–Videos

The Beach Boys–Videos

The Beatles–Videos

Bee Gees–Videos

The Byrds–Videos

Mariah Carey–Videos

Johnny Cash–Videos

Eva Cassidy–Videos

Ray Charles–Videos

Joe Cocker–Videos

Nat King Cole–Videos

Judy Collins–Videos

Perry Como–Videos

Sam Cooke–Videos

Doris Day–Videos

Sandy Denny–Videos

John Denver–Videos

Celine Dion–Videos

The Doors–Videos

Bob Dylan–Videos


Marianne Faithfull–Videos

Roberta Flack–Videos

Aretha Franklin–Videos

Marvin Gaye-Videos

Janis Ian–Videos

Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos

Elton John–Videos

Janis Joplan–Videos

The Kinks–Videos

Led Zeppelin–Videos

Little Richard–Videos

The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos

The Mamas and Papas–Videos

Barry Manilow–Videos

Johnny Mathis–Videos

Don McLean–Videos

Bette Midler–Videos

Joni Mitchell–Videos

Olivia Newton-John–Videos

Roy Orbison–Videos

The Platters–Videos

Elvis Presley–Videos


Otis Redding–Videos

Lionel Richie–Videos

The Righteous Brothers–Videos

The Rolling Stones–Videos

Linda Ronstadt–Videos

Sam & Dave–Videos

Neil Sedaka–Videos

Bob Seger–Videos

Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos

Carly Simon–Videos

Simon & Garfunkel–Videos

Frank Sinatra–Videos

Dusty Springfield–Videos

Bruce Springsteen–Videos

Rod Stewart–Videos

Barbra Streisand–Videos


Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos

Donna Summer–Videos


James Taylor–Videos

Tina Turner–Videos

Shania Twain–Videos

Village People–Videos

Hayley Westenra–Videos

Steve Winwood–Videos

Stevie Wonder–Videos

Tammy Wynette–Videos

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

Hal Varian–On Innovation and On Computer Mediated Transactions–Videos

Posted on February 12, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Hal Varian 1/6 

Hal Varian 2/6 

Hal Varian 3/6

Hal Varian 4/6

Hal Varian 5/6

Hal Varian 6/6

Hal Varian on computer mediated transactions

Hal Varian on Nash equilibria and bidding in Google Auctions

Hal R. Varian (Google) – The Economics of Internet Search

Hal Varian 

“…Hal Ronald Varian (born March 18, 1947, in Wooster, Ohio) is an economist specializing in microeconomics and information economics. He is the Chief Economist at Google and he holds the title of emeritus professor at the University of California, Berkeley where he was founding dean of the School of Information.[1] He has written two bestselling textbooks Intermediate Microeconomics, an undergraduate microeconomics text, and Microeconomic Analysis, an advanced text. Together with Carl Shapiro, he co-authored Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy and The Economics of Information Technology: An Introduction.

He joined Google in 2002 as a consultant, and has worked on the design of advertising auctions, econometrics, finance, corporate strategy and public policy.

He received his B.S. from MIT in economics in 1969 and both his M.A. (mathematics) and Ph.D. (economics) from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973. He has taught at MIT, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, the University of Michigan, and other universities around the world. He has two honorary doctorates, from the University of Oulu, Finland in 2002, and a Dr. h. c. from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, awarded in 2006.

Hal R. Varian

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

John Kay–On Economics–Videos

Posted on February 12, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

John Kay: Consistency and Rigor (1/5)

In part one of this INET interview, John Kay suggests that consistency and rigor have become the requirements of modern economics. However, these requirements have forced economists to use only deductive reasoning to remain the pretense of being “scientific.” These simplifying assumptions and resulting models are not themselves a bad thing, but when they replace human judgment, then the result is, in fact, unscientific, in the real sense of the word.

John Kay: Polishing the Head of the Same Pin (2/5)

John Kay: A Call for Eclecticism (3/5) 

John Kay: People, Not Iron Ore: The Limits of Math in Economics (4/5) 

John Kay: Should Economists Be Statesmen? (5/5) 

Why Become An Economist? 

The Map is Not the Territory: An Essay on the State of Economics

John Kay

“…This pragmatic thinking, employing many tools, is a better means of understanding economic phenomena than ‘the combined assumptions of maximising behaviour, market equilibrium, and stable preferences, used relentlessly and consistently’ – and to the exclusion of any other ‘ad hoc’ approach. More eclectic analysis would require not just deductive logic but also an understanding of processes of belief formation, anthropology, psychology and organisational behaviour, and meticulous observation of what people, businesses, and governments actually do. You could learn nothing about how these things influence prices if you started with the proposition that deviations from a specific theory of price determination are ‘too small to matter’ because all that is knowable is already known and therefore ‘in the price’.  And that is why today’s students do, in fact, learn nothing about these things, except perhaps from extra-curricular reading.

What Lucas means when he asserts that deviations are ‘too small to matter’ is that attempts to construct general models of deviations from the efficient market hypothesis – by specifying mechanical trading rules or by writing equations to identify bubbles in asset prices – have not met with much success.  But this is to miss the point: the expert billiard player plays a nearly perfect game,[18] but it is the imperfections of play between experts that determine the result.  There is a – trivial – sense in which the deviations from efficient markets are too small to matter – and a more important sense in which these deviations are the principal thing that matters.

The claim that most profit opportunities in business or in securities markets have been taken is justified.  But it is the search for the profit opportunities that have not been taken that drives business forward, the belief that profit opportunities that have not been arbitraged away still exist that explains why there is so much trade in securities.  Far from being ‘too small to matter’, these deviations from efficient market assumptions, not necessarily large, are the dynamic of the capitalist economy.

Such anomalies are idiosyncratic and cannot, by their very nature, be derived as logical deductions from an axiomatic system.  The distinguishing characteristic of Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett or George Soros, is that their behaviour cannot be predicted from any prespecified model. If the behaviour of these individuals could be predicted in this way, they would not have been either innovative or rich. But the consequences are plainly not ‘too small to matter’.

The preposterous claim that deviations from market efficiency were not only irrelevant to the recent crisis but could never be relevant is the product of an environment in which deduction has driven out induction and ideology has taken over from observation.  The belief that models are not just useful tools but also are capable of yielding comprehensive and universal descriptions of the world has blinded its proponents to realities that have been staring them in the face.  That blindness was an element in our present crisis, and conditions our still ineffectual responses.  Economists – in government agencies as well as universities – were obsessively playing Grand Theft Auto while the world around them was falling apart. …”

Economics: Rituals of rigour

John Kay

“…The reputation of economists, never high, has been a casualty of the global crisis. Ever since the world’s financial system teetered on the abyss following the collapse of Lehman Brothers three years ago next month, critics from Queen Elizabeth II downwards have posed one uncomfortable yet highly pertinent question: are economists of any use at all?

Some of this criticism is misconceived. Specific predictions of economic growth or levels of the stock market – gross domestic product will rise by 1.8 per cent; the FTSE 100 index will stand at 6,500 by year-end – assert knowledge that those making such predictions cannot have. Economic systems are typically dynamic and non-linear. This means that outcomes are likely to be very sensitive to small changes in the parameters that determine their evolution. These systems are also reflexive, in the sense that beliefs about what will happen influence what does happen.

If you ask why economists persist in making predictions despite these difficulties, the answer is that few do. Yet that still leaves a vocal minority who have responded cynically to the insatiable public demand for forecasts. Mostly they are employed in the financial sector – for their entertainment value rather than their advice.

Economists often make unrealistic assumptions but so do physicists, and for good reasons. Physicists will describe motion on frictionless plains or gravity in a world without air resistance. Not because anyone believes that the world is frictionless and airless, but because it is too difficult to study everything at once. A simplifying model eliminates confounding factors and focuses on a particular issue of interest. This is as legitimate a method in economics as in physics.

Since there are easy responses to these common criticisms of bad predictions and unrealistic assumptions, attacks on the profession are ignored by professional academic economists, who complain that the critics do not understand what economists really do. But if the critics did understand what economists really do, public criticism might be more severe yet. …”

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

Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff–This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly–A Decade of Debt–Videos

Posted on February 12, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Resources, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |


Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing–and recovering–their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, “this time is different”–claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters. With this breakthrough study, leading economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff definitively prove them wrong. Covering sixty-six countries across five continents, This Time Is Differentpresents a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes–from medieval currency debasements to today’s subprime catastrophe. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, leading economists whose work has been influential in the policy debate concerning the current financial crisis, provocatively argue that financial combustions are universal rites of passage for emerging and established market nations. The authors draw important lessons from history to show us how much–or how little–we have learned.

Using clear, sharp analysis and comprehensive data, Reinhart and Rogoff document that financial fallouts occur in clusters and strike with surprisingly consistent frequency, duration, and ferocity. They examine the patterns of currency crashes, high and hyperinflation, and government defaults on international and domestic debts–as well as the cycles in housing and equity prices, capital flows, unemployment, and government revenues around these crises. While countries do weather their financial storms, Reinhart and Rogoff prove that short memories make it all too easy for crises to recur.

An important book that will affect policy discussions for a long time to come, This Time Is Different exposes centuries of financial missteps. …”

What’s Wrong With the Recovery?

Interview with Kenneth Rogoff on “This time is different”

Carmen Reinhart & Kenneth Rogoff: Coming Out of the Crisis

Carmen Reinhart on A Decade of Debt

Q & A: Carmen M. Reinhart on A Decade of Debt

Fall 2010 Marc Sumerlin Lecture Series Featuring Prof. Carmen Reinhart

Why the Financial Crisis & What is the Way Out

Ken Rogoff – Debts, Deficits and Global Financial Stability

Carmen Reinhart: Serial Default Syndrome

Kenneth Rogoff: Economic Reappraisal

Background Articles and Videos

John Kay: A Call for Eclecticism (3/5) 

Keynesian Kenneth Rogoff about “benefits of inflation” 2008.12.15 

Currency Wars (Video) 

Kenneth Rogoff At Bretton Woods, United States Speaks to Shaili Chopra

The Future of the Global Economy and Financial System Plenary Session Recording, Part 9 

Agenda Summer 2010: The Limits of Economics

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

In Four Years Barack Obama Bankrupts American People With $5 Trillion In Budget Deficits and Increased Debt–Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Dead On Arrival–Videos

Posted on February 11, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |


Issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Budget of the United States Government is a collection of documents that contains the budget message of the President, information about the President’s budget proposals for a given fiscal year, and other budgetary publications that have been issued throughout the fiscal year. Other related and supporting budget publications are included, which may vary from year to year. About the Budget of the United States Government

GPO has signed and certified the PDF files to assure users that the online documents are official and authentic. The digitally signed PDF files should be viewed using Adobe Acrobat or Reader version 7.0 or higher. Download the most recent version of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

U.S Debt Clock Real Time

Fair share? – Each American’s share of debt up $16,000 under Obama

Monday Hangover: Obama’s Budget ‘Fictitious Dream’

Top 15 Holders of US Public DEBT – Whom does the US owe?

National Debt- How Much Is A Billion Dollars? Dave Walker

What Does A Trillion Dollars Look Like?

David Walker – America at a Crossroads

Ron Paul Interview On The Kudlow Report (1-30-12)

Ron Paul Highlights at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (Family Leader Debate)

They tell Us that Ron Paul is a Lunatic?

Here is what we are told that a lunatic wants:
Obeying The Constitution- keeping the oath the every President swears
Sound money
Freedom, liberty, and justice for All
No Wars Unless We are Attacked, and then only when Congress declares war.
Protecting Our Own Borders
End the Income Tax
No Entangling Alliances
Minding our own business
Keeping our money at home to take care of our own needs.
Decrease our militarism in other countries. Stop conquest and nation building.
United Nations resolutions, Agenda 21, NAFTA, World Trade Organization.
Indefinite detention of American citizens; without a charge, trial, or a lawyer.
Federal Reserve printing unlimited fiat paper money
Government control over everything
Government regulation of every aspect of life.
Protecting Borders in other countries, but not our own.
HIGH Taxes of all types.
Entangling Alliances, Global Governance
Policing the world
Borrowing money from big dictatorships, and then giving it away to small dictatorships.
Build a military base and colony on the moon, and make the moon the 51st state.

Ron Paul . I will cut $1 Trillion first year as President

Ron Paul Plan To Restore America Press Conference

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

GPO and OMB to Distribute President Obama’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2013

Friday, February 10, 2012

Press release from the issuing company

The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are releasing President Barack Obama’s Budget for the U.S. Government, FY 2013. Printed copies are available through GPO’s retail and online bookstore. The Budget is also available electronically on GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys)

Monday, February 13, 2012 11:15 a.m. EST

U.S. Government Printing Office 710 North Capitol Street, NW (GPO Bookstore Entrance) Washington, D.C. 20401 (North Capitol and G Streets)

Hard copies of the Budget may be purchased through GPO’s retail and online bookstore. There will be no complimentary hard copies for the media.

American Express, Visa, MC, Discover are accepted. Please make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. Orders may also be placed online:

Budget of the U.S. Government $39
Budget Appendix $76
Analytical Perspectives $53
Historical Tables $50
CD-ROM $27

The authentic online version will be available through a direct link on GPO’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) after 11:15 a.m. EST.

Obama’s 2013 budget proposal launches election-year debate

By Lori Montgomery,

“…President Obama will send Congress a 2013 spending plan that would raise taxes on the rich and pump nearly $500 billion into new transportation projects over the next decade, launching an election-year debate over the budget that promises starkly different visions for managing government debt and the sluggish economy.As they prepare to face voters in November, neither the president nor congressional Republicans are expected to roll out many new or potentially painful prescriptions for slowing the rise of the $15 trillion national debt. After failing repeatedly last year to forge a bipartisan consensus, few in either party see much point in trying again now.


Instead, Obama will on Monday reprise recommendations he unveiled last fall that seek to reduce borrowing by more than $3 trillion over the next decade while spending more in the short term to bring down persistently high unemployment.

The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.

Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured.

To achieve his debt-reduction goal, Obama would rely on an accounting maneuver that permits him to claim about $850 billion in savings over the next decade by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a move Republicans have rejected as a gimmick. Obama would use a portion of those savings to finance new road and rail projects, rather than dedicating the full sum to lower deficits.

Obama’s budget also calls for new investments in education, manufacturing and federal research and development, and it would devote an additional $350 billion to boosting economic growth. That sum includes extending a temporary payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits through the end of the year. Both are scheduled to expire at the end of this month and are currently the focus of intense debate in Congress.

The president’s plan would push this year’s deficit above current projections, with the budget gap growing to $1.33 trillion — slightly higher than last year’s $1.3 trillion deficit and $200 billion more than congressional budget analysts recently projected for the fiscal year that ends in September.

The deficit would fall to $900 billion in 2013, and government borrowing would continue to slow through 2022, leaving the debt elevated by historic standards but no longer growing faster than the overall economy. …”

2013 United States federal budget

2013 Budget of the United States federal government
‹ 2012 ·  · 2014 ›
Submitted February 13, 2012 (expected)[1]
Submitted by Barack Obama
Submitted to 112th Congress
Total revenue $2.964 trillion (projected)[2]
Total expenditures $3.693 trillion (projected)[2]

“…The United States federal budget request for government operations in fiscal year 2013 (October 2012–September 2013) is expected to be submitted by President Barack Obama in February 2012, according to the budget process. The actual appropriations for fiscal year 2013 must be authorized by the full Congress before the budget can take effect. Under current law, the Budget Control Act of 2011 mandates caps on discretionary spending levels. In addition, several temporary tax cuts are currently scheduled to expire at the beginning of the 2013 calendar year, including the Bush tax cuts on income and capital gains taxes, and cuts to the estate tax, due to the expiration of provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.


 Implications of the Budget Control Act

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed in August 2011 as a resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis. The fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget is the first to be affected by the second of two rounds of budget cuts specified in the act. (The first round of cuts has already been applied to the ten years beginning in FY2012.) For this second round of cuts, the Budget Control Act had formed the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, sometimes referred to as the “supercommittee”, to identify at least $1.2 trillion in cuts over the ten years beginning with FY2013, and specified automatic across-the-board cuts if no such budget reduction legislation was passed by Congress.[3]

On November 21, 2011, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction announced that it did not reach a deal on the budget-cutting legislation, raising the possibility that the automatic cuts would be activated if the full Congress could not enact its own deficit reduction legislation by December 23, 2011. The supercommittee’s lack of an agreement was attributed to the refusal of Republicans to consider any tax increases, combined with Democratic insistence on including these revenue increases such as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which under current law expire at the end of 2012.[4]

The automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years would be split equally between security and non-security programs, and include $500 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense. The FY2013 defense budget would be reduced 11%, from $525 billion to $472 billion, after already having been cut from $571 billion in the first installment of cuts in the Budget Control Act. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta initially gave the total cut figure as 23%.[5] The planned cuts include reductions in troop levels, a modest limit in pay raises for soldiers starting in 2015, an increase in health fees for veterans, delays in the construction of new naval ships and in the purchasing of new fighter aircraft such as the F-35, and the possibility of a round of base closings within the United States, but cuts to special operations, cyberwarfare, and intellegence programs were avoided.[6] Initial reports had also suggested that the number of carrier battle groups might be reduced from 11 to 10,[5] although it was later determined that the number of aircraft carriers would not in fact be cut.[7] Some Republicans in Congress advocated reversing the cuts to the military, citing the effect on national security, and Secretary Panetta has opposed the cuts, calling them “devastating” and raising “substantial risk of not being able to meet our defense needs.” President Obama has promised to veto any legislation seeking to avoid the cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner also indicated his commitment to following the cuts in the Budget Control Act.[4][8]

The Budget Control Act also specifies automatic cuts of 7.8% to domestic programs and 2% to Medicare, while Medicaid and Social Security will be unaffected. These entitlement programs were protected from cuts in return for the absence of new revenues in the Budget Control Act.[9]

The automatic cuts to domestic programs would include cuts of up to 11% to science research and development agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and the U. S. National Laboratories run by the Department of Energy. It is anticipated that this could cause federal grant acceptance levels to fall into the single digits, a consequence which has been called catastrophic for academic institutions by Michael Lubell of the American Physical Society. The cuts could also endanger politically controversial research such as climate change research programs in NASA and NOAA.[10] Due to the role of scientific research in economic growth and job creation, and given international competition in this field, the cuts have been opposed by professional and academic organizations, and federal support of research and development has been called “an area of U.S. investment too critical to be cut” by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[11][12]

 Total revenues and spending

As of September 2011, the Obama administration projected that the FY2013 budget would contain $2.964 trillion in receipts and $3.693 trillion in outlays.[2]

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Happy Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre–Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Budget of $4,000 Billion: Driving America Off The Cliff–Videos

Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff–This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly–A Decade of Debt–Videos

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

George Lakoff–Videos

Posted on February 11, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Computers, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

How Democrats & Progressives Can Win: George Lakoff 

George Lakoff, how conservatives train leaders

George Lakoff: Moral Politics

Bringing Progressive Politics Back To The People

The Left, the Right, and the Family View of Government

How Dems Are Failing to Sell Health Care Reform – George Lakoff 

George Lakoff on the role of government

CA Progressive Game Plan, by Prof. George Lakoff, CAL Berkely

George Lakoff pt1 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability

George Lakoff pt2 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability

George Lakoff pt3 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability

George Lakoff p4 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability

George Lakoff pt5 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability

George Lakoff pt6 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability

George Lakoff “The Brain and Its Politics” 

How to Make Friends and Manipulate Irrational Voters 

Authors@Google: George Lakoff 

Authors@Google: George Lakoff

Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson

Part Two: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson 

Part Three: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson 

Part Four: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson 

Part Five: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson 

Part Six: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson 

Part Seven: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson 

George Lakoff on how he started his work on conceptual metaphor 

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

CPAC–Conservative Political Action Conference–2012–Videos

Posted on February 10, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Who will win the CPAC 2012 Straw Poll?

Will Ron Paul win for a third time when he is not speaking at CPAC 2012?

Predictions – Paul poised to possibly prevail in Maine, beating Romney & Collecting More Delegates


CPAC 2012 Results Announced: Mitt Romney Wins the CPAC Straw Poll


CPAC 2012 Schedule of Events

Click Here to Watch the 2012 CPAC Conference Live

Latest News from CPAC

Bernard Whitman CNN Early Start 2.10.12

“Bernard Whitman, Democratic strategist, argues that Republicans are uncomfortable with Mitt Romney, who has effectively been running for president for 8 years.  The audience at CPAC doesn’t like him, but the one thing he has going for him is his business credentials.  Although, his business credentials don’t resonate with the Independent and Democratic base.  His biggest problem is that he doesn’t have a clear concise economic plan.  In order to reach out and grab conservatives he has to make them believe he is in the only viable candidate that can bring economic renewal to America and beat President Obama.”

Ann Coulter “We Elected A Man Based On The Color Of His Skin” pt.1

Ann Coulter “We Elected A Man Based On The Color Of His Skin” pt.2

Ann Coulter endorses Ron Paul in 2012

One Minute of Ann Coulter Playing With Her Hair At CPAC

Laura Ingraham Crushes On Arianna At CPAC 

HuffPost Talks To ‘Joe The Plumber’ At CPAC 

Ron Paul at CPAC 2012! 

Mark Levin Plays Audio Clips Of Mitt Romney’s CPAC 2012 Speech 

Newt Gingrich’s Speech at CPAC 2012 | High Quality | 

A Conservative A Liberal & A Moderate Walk Into A Bar… Bartender Says…” Foster Friess 

Full Speech  Rick Santorum at CPAC 2012

Breitbart and company make an enterence CPAC 2012 

Andrew Breitbart on the the new Citizens United movie on the occupy movement at CPAC 2012

Art at CPAC again

Steven Malanga – Public Sector Unions 

Voices of CPAC Taylor Thompson Ron Paul fan


Rand Paul full speech at CPAC 2012

Senator Marco Rubio Addresses CPAC 2012 

Mitch McConnell at CPAC 2012 

Rick Perry CPAC 2012 Speech (2/9/2012) 

RGA Chair Bob McDonnell’s speech at CPAC 2012

Brad Stine Brings The Wussification Of America To CPAC 2012 

John Boehner “No One Loves Congress” (HEY! Something We Can ALL Agree On!) 

Representative Jim Jordan Addresses CPAC 2012 

Allen West CPAC 2012 Full Speech 

Congressman Steve King 2012 CPAC Speech

CPAC 2012: Lt. Col. Oliver North

Ted Cruz at CPAC 2012

CPAC 2012: Occupy Protesters & Anti-gay Activists 

Ron Paul cites ‘travel constraints’ as reason for skipping CPAC

By  Felicia Sonmez

“…Ron Paul, the two-time winner of the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, isn’t attending this year’s conference in Washington because of “travel constraints” – but the Texas congressman hasn’t held a campaign event since Tuesday.

The American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual confab, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) addresses supporters during a caucus night party Tuesday, in Golden Valley, Minn. His campaign has been quiet since. (Jim Mone – AP) said in a statement last week that Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would address the conference in his father’s stead “due to the travel constraints of his Presidential campaign.”

And Paul’s press secretary Gary Howard told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday that “we have too much campaigning to do across the country.” …”

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

The Machine that Changed the World–Videos

Posted on February 9, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Science, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

(1 of5)The Machine that Changed the World: Giant Brains. 1992 480P Documentary

(2of5) The Machine that Changed the World: Inventing the Future. 1992 480P Documentary

(3of5) The Machine that Changed the World: The Paperback Computer. 1992 480P Documentary

(4of5) The Machine that Changed the World: The Thinking Machine. 1992 480P Documentary

(5of5) The Machine that Changed the World: The World at Your Fingertips. 1992 480P Documentary

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

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 783 other followers