Archive | November, 2013

The Only Way to Get U.S. Health Care Off Life Support

30 Nov

Jeffrey Tucker

Posted Nov 26, 2013.

The so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — the showpiece of democratic welfarism in the 21st century — has made history as the largest, fastest failure in the history of state-provided welfare programs.

It turns out that you can’t just pass a law that causes everyone to get all the health care he or she desires at extremely low cost. Nor can government create a market-like environment out of a nonmarket good or service and expect it to achieve efficiency, productivity, and customer satisfaction.

A government-run website is the digital-age equivalent of the failure of government to run factories and farms in the 1920s and 1930s.

Maybe this seems rather obvious to you. If so, you know more about economic reality than the many thousands of certified experts who worked for many years in and out of government to create the perfect storm that Obamacare has become.

Like many people, I had a passing interest in the debate over Obamacare for several years, fully expecting bad things to happen, but unable to predict the extent of the damage. There have always been two mitigating factors to consider: First, the existing system was badly in need of reform before Obamacare, and it was simply not the case that a beautiful, market-based system was being threatened by a socialist takeover.

Second, Obamacare in no way represented some unprecedented threat. Both parties had been making a mess of the whole system for decades, at both the federal and state levels.

After all, we’ve had 100 years of intervention in the medical market, beginning with the regulation of medical schools that had already cartelized the system. The whole panoply of interventions needs to be uprooted to allow a viable system to emerge, but absolutely no one in Washington dares to speak this way.

In addition, all the nonnegotiable talk about “health insurance” is fundamentally flawed. Insurance pertains to risks of events that are not brought about through human volition, which is to say they are unexpected. That’s why real insurance is able to make money. If you bring about the insured-against “risk” through your own choice — you set your house on fire — that’s insurance fraud. There are unexpected events in the area of health, but most fall under the category of catastrophic.

In a real market, we would probably see medical care work much like veterinary care today — mercifully free of too much government involvement — for which you pay per service. Prices are clearly posted. Consumers pay the full cost of noncatastrophes. And there is healthy competition among providers who are trying to treat you best at the lowest price. Indeed, the restoration of the price system is the central requirement of any sane reform.

In a free market for health care, one can easily imagine subscription services emerging — think of Spotify, Netflix, or Amazon Prime for health services — but they would unlikely have anything to do with employment. The whole link between your job and your health care — and the third-party payment system through huge and cartelized institutions — came about because of wartime price controls. It’s completely arbitrary and massively distorting.

A purely market-based medical system in the 21st century might offer some wonderful surprises. The prices would continually fall, and perhaps be free for routine care, just as so many services on the Internet are free. Even now, even with all the absurdities and bloat and interventions, private-sector insurers operating in the nonprofit space are able to offer a form of mutual aid for a quarter of the price of the big players in the insurance market (see, for example, Samaritan Ministries).

Given all of this, Obamacare was just another step in the wrong direction — albeit a big one — not unlike that which had occurred once every five years for the last 50 or so. It was hard to tell just how bad the effects would be. Everything we know about government and economics suggested that this plan would not end well. But not even the biggest skeptic could have fully prepared for the calamity that ensued in the weeks after the program was finally put in place.

What does failure mean? The most obvious evidence was the exploding HealthCare.gov website that in the first day of operation managed to enroll only six people in the program. Looking through the notes from the war room, one observes all the troubles that every highly ambitious and poorly constructed website has: tangled databases, bad connections, leaky memory explosion, mixed-up authentication rules, and about a thousand other things.

Will it be fixed? Possibly. But at what price? To prepare the site, the feds have already spent some $600 million and deployed a dud. More than twice that sum will be spent on repair, but with what results? If the site follows the usual government pattern, it will work only as long as it is frozen in time. It can’t adapt to change and will become antiquated in only a few years, and will thereby require other massive infusions to keep up.

A government-run website is the digital-age equivalent of the failure of government to run factories and farms in the 1920s and 1930s. Under socialism, it was true that with enough force and money, even Soviets could produce trucks, grain, and bombs. But every economic decision involving physical resources and time requires trade-offs: If you do this, you are not doing that. The real question is: At what cost? Lenin made some progress in electrification even while major parts of the newly socialized Russia were experiencing famine.

Likewise, HealthCare.gov has become a costly symbol of a wider system failure.

The website can and probably will be fixed — but will the program itself achieve its aims? The ACA promised to retain existing health insurance coverage and then expand it. Upon implementation, the ACA immediately and dramatically reduced coverage by forcing many individually provided health care plans to be dropped. Otherwise, most are experiencing sticker shock.

…the requirement that insurers take no account of pre-existing conditions…is a bit like requiring that auto insurers cover drunk drivers who are training for NASCAR.

In many cases, mandated coverage of new ailments made continued service economically unfeasible. In other cases, existing plans were suddenly outside the law. For example, the government said that plans must cover outpatient care, emergency room visits, lab tests, hospitalization, maternity, preventative services, pediatric services, prescription drugs, and much more. If a plan didn’t, it was essentially declared illegal and had to be canceled.

In other words, the companies who dropped millions from the rolls were merely complying with the law. They were obeying government diktat. That few people expected this outcome reveals the true nature of government planning. Two lessons emerge from the mess: Planners cannot account for all contingencies, and/or they must lie to get what they want.

Then came the doubling — in some cases tripling — of premiums of many individual plans because of the requirement that insurers take no account of pre-existing conditions, which is a bit like requiring that auto insurers cover drunk drivers who are training for NASCAR.

It is very easy after the fact to look at any government failure and point to all the reasons why the failures should have been anticipated and, thereby, prevented. But remember that this is knowledge gained after the fact. Before the trial, there are a million possible contingencies, and it is not possible for anyone to prepare for them all. That’s why markets specialize in embedding trial and error as a feature of the system. A market system learns over time, copying success and avoiding failure. Governments are terrible at this. They build, release, and forget about it — with very little ongoing adaptation.

After the disaster took place, some politicians immediately responded by saying: Make it illegal to stop dropping coverage. This response piles error on error. It amounts to a form of nationalization of already cartelized companies — another step away from the market and toward fully socialized health care. Of course, those who’ve always called for a single-payer system won’t mind — even as it will turn U.S. health care into a Brezhnevian bread line.

Politicians from the other side proposed that the law be changed to say that whatever plans existed before the calamity should just be made legal again. That sounds fine but for one thing: This proposition only increases the uncertainty of what legislation permits or disallows. Insurers are there to make money, and they do this through long-term customer relationships. Endless legislative jockeying does not inspire the confidence needed to make business work.

The system was broken before, and now it is broken beyond repair. Daily, we read reports of doctors, consumers, and institutions just bailing out completely. Businesses that take people abroad for high-quality, low-cost health care are suddenly booming. It seems that everyone is looking for a way out of the official system. This is the only promising development to emerge from the great health care disaster of 2013. If a new and independent sector emerges despite every attempt by government to stop it, the irony is that there will be a good basis for optimism about the future.

Government can’t and won’t fix health care. Only the private sector can do that. The full solution, then, will require complete secession from every plan put out by every politician, every political party, and every national commission of experts purporting to know better than the people who make up the market order.

Jeffrey Tucker
for The Daily Reckoning

Ed. Note: Like it or not, the government will likely refuse to see the writing on the wall for Obamacare, regardless of how disastrous the policy proves to be. It’s just one more reason to know how to best protect your own wealth and personal freedom. And those issues are at the heart of the Laissez Faire Today email edition. If you want to read the world’s best collection of writings on liberty and freedom – and get regular opportunities to learn for yourself to to protect them – you owe it to yourself to sign up for FREE, right here.

Original article posted on Laissez Faire Today

ECB Warning: More Directed History

30 Nov
Published by The Daily Bell – November 29 2013
ECB warns of danger from Federal Reserve’s policy shift US decision to scale back stimulus is a potential threat to euro zone economy, says European Central Bank … The ECB said the risks to the eurozone’s financial system from outside the currency bloc had grown since May. – The Irish Times

Dominant Social Theme: Central banks are not aligned. Chaos rises. A beast stalks Bethlehem.

Free-Market Analysis: Have you noticed the disarray? China is squaring off against Japan and the United States over some funny little islands. Israel is furious with the United States over an Iranian pact and may go to war. And now the ECB is facing off with the Fed over monetary easing.

All of the above are directed history at their finest, in our humble view. None of this is real.

What is China anyway? It is lines on a map. Same with Japan. There are no Japanese or Chinese per se. There is culture, perhaps race and then there are elite and powerful Chinese and Japanese families that want to keep power and manipulate military conflict and economic chaos to do so.

You can bet the topmost Chinese families and their assorted hanger-ons have more in common with top Chinese and Western families than they do with their own middle classes. Same with top Iranian families and also, of course, the central bankers that run monetary affairs for their masters.

The people who control central banks are the masters. The rest are merely minions of the most wealthy, doing their bidding.

Do the topmost men of Japan and China care a whit about some empty islands? Nope. Do the topmost men of Iran and the Anglosphere care whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons? Nope. Everyone has them at this point, or almost everyone. The topmost men of Iran and the Anglosphere are interested in expanding and maintaining wealth.

The idea that the ECB and the Fed are going to begin to quarrel or pursue separate policies is a ludicrous one. Yet we are being asked to believe it:

The European Central Bank yesterday issued a warning of the threat posed by the scaling back of monetary stimulus in the US. It called on the currency bloc’s policymakers to prepare for the ill effects of Federal Reserve tapering.

The ECB said in its latest financial stability report that the risks to the euro zone’s financial system from outside the currency bloc had grown since May on the back of the Federal Reserve’s talk of tapering its $85 billion worth of monthly bond purchases, despite a general improvement in market conditions.

“Starting in May, there was a significant repricing in global bond markets, which took place largely because of changing monetary policy expectations in the United States – with increased foreign exchange market volatility and stress borne largely by emerging market economies,” the ECB said.

The ECB warned that, while the euro zone’s institutional investors were more exposed to bond markets than the region’s lenders, it was difficult to know where the risks of ultimate losses were greatest.

… The ECB said weak bank profitability and persistent financial fragmentation still presented a threat to stability. Banking union would be “an important contribution” to resolving these hurdles.

This last statement is perhaps the most telling. These people never let a good crisis go to waste. Part of the point of the lingering EU credit crunch is to create a necessity for a deeper union, monetarily and politically. ECB pols have said as much.

So it is certainly possible that it has been decided that the rhetoric surrounding the Fed’s policies is to be notched up a bit along with some potential fallout. Who knows where the monetary fallout will come from or why? But it will certainly be attributed to Fed price fixing.

The goal of ECB bureaucrats is to further paste together the fraying EU and its even sicker euro currency. At this point, this policy is being pursued in direct defiance of EU citizens who have voted continuously, when they can, against a deeper union of any sort.

As for the US, those reading our recent articles know quite clearly that the intentions of the Fed and those setting its larger strategy do not include radical tightening or even tapering.

Just yesterday, we ran an article pointing out that others are coming around to our perspective that the Fed and those using the Fed for their own purposes have in mind creating a firestorm of higher averages. Dow 20,000 is their cry.

But one cannot manipulate markets outright in a visible way. One needs to disassemble and make monetary policy seem to be the product of various national interests. We know it is not, of course. Why do the top men meet in Switzerland at the BIS every few weeks to coordinate monetary policy?

The operative word is coordinate. There are no rogue central banks. Everyone has a part to play. The idea that Fed bankers are diverging from ECB ones is fairly, well … ludicrous.

These monetary quarrels, like more visible military ones, are for public consumption. Thanks to the Internet we and millions of others are able to see that now.


Conclusion

Here at The Daily Bell we will continue to try to divine the larger truth behind the curtain. We don’t believe in the “interests” of nation-states anymore. We believe in directed history. We can see it at work every day.

Published by The Daily Bell – www.thedailybell.com – All Rights Reserved.

Masking Totalitarianism

30 Nov

November 26, 2013

 

One of the oldest notions in the history of mankind is that some people are to give orders and others are to obey. The powerful elite believe that they have wisdom superior to the masses and that they’ve been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Their agenda calls for an attack on the free market and what it implies — voluntary exchange. Tyrants do not trust that people acting voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, free markets are replaced with economic planning and regulation that is nothing less than the forcible superseding of other people’s plans by the powerful elite.

Because Americans still retain a large measure of liberty, tyrants must mask their agenda. At the university level, some professors give tyranny an intellectual quality by preaching that negative freedom is not enough. There must be positive liberty or freedoms. This idea is widespread in academia, but its most recent incarnation was a discussion by Wake Forest University professor David Coates in a Huffington Post article, titled “Negative Freedom or Positive Freedom: Time to Choose?” (11/13/2013) (http://tinyurl.com/oemfzy6). Let’s examine negative versus positive freedom.

Negative freedom or rights refers to the absence of constraint or coercion when people engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange. Some of these negative freedoms are enumerated in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. More generally, at least in its standard historical usage, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Likewise, my right to travel imposes no obligation upon another.

Positive rights is a view that people should have certain material things — such as medical care, decent housing and food — whether they can pay for them or not.

Seeing as there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy, those “rights” do impose obligations upon others. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something he did earn.

If we were to apply this bogus concept of positive rights to free speech and the right to travel freely, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel would burden others with the obligation to purchase airplane tickets and hotel accommodations for me. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, “Williams, yes, you have the right to free speech and travel rights, but I’m not obligated to pay for them!”

What the positive rights tyrants want but won’t articulate is the power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. After all, if one person does not have the money to purchase food, housing or medicine and if Congress provides the money, where does it get the money? It takes it from some other American, forcibly using that person to serve the purposes of another. Such a practice differs only in degree, but not kind, from slavery.

Under natural law, we all have certain unalienable rights. The rights we possess we have authority to delegate. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Because we possess that right, we can delegate it to government, in effect saying, “We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we delegate to you the authority to defend us.” By contrast, I don’t possess the right to take your earnings to give to another. Seeing as I have no such right, I cannot delegate it.

The idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another has served as the foundation of mankind’s ugliest and most brutal regimes. Do we want that for America?

 

The Best of Walter E. Williams

The Mythical Merits of Paper Money

30 Nov

The Mythical Merits of Paper Money

Ron Paul

Posted Nov 26, 2013.

One economic myth is that paper money is wealth. The proponents of big government oppose honest money for a very specific reason. Inflation, the creation of new money, is used to finance government programs not generally endorsed by the producing members of society. It is a deceptive tool whereby a “tax” is levied without the people as a whole being aware of it. Since the recipients of the newly created money, as well as the politicians, whose only concern is the next election, benefit from this practice, it’s in their interest to perpetuate it.

For this reason, misconceptions are promulgated about the “merits” of paper money and the “demerits” of gold. Some of the myths are promoted deliberately, but many times they are a result of convenient rationalizations and ignorance.

Paper money is not wealth. Wealth comes from production. There’s no other way to create it.

Paper money managers and proponents of government intervention believe that money itself — especially if created out of thin air — is wealth. A close corollary of this myth — which they also believe — is that money supply growth is required for economic growth.

Paper money is not wealth. Wealth comes from production. There’s no other way to create it. Capital comes from production in excess of consumption. This excess is either reinvested, saved, or loaned to others to be used to further produce and invest. Duplicating paper money units creates no wealth whatsoever, it distorts the economy, and it steals wealth from savers. It acts as capital in the early stages of inflation only because it staels real wealth from those who hold dollars or have loaned them to someone.

Instead of economic growth being dependent on money growth as the paper money advocates claim, great economic harm comes from central banks creating new money out of thin air. This leads to the sort of economic stagnation and economic decline that we are experiencing today. Inflation — increasing the supply of paper money — is the cause of malinvestment and the business cycle, and literally destroys the capital needed for economic growth and stability. The formation of capital through savings is discouraged or eliminated by a paper money system. Instead of paper money producing economic growth, it accomplished the opposite. If money growth were necessary for economic growth, the 1970’s would have been a great decade. During this period of time the Federal Reserve nearly tripled the total money supply but the economy grew only 37 percent.

Although the supply under a gold standard would in all probability increase at the rate of two to three percent per year, this growth is not a requirement for gold to function as a sound currency. This natural or market increase in the money supply easily accommodates population growth and economic growth as long as prices are freely adjusting.

If population or economic growth presents a need for “more” purchasing media, prices merely adjust downward if the money supply is not growing. In the latter part of the nineteenth century this occurred. Wholesale prices dropped 47 percent from 1879 to 1900 and economic growth averaged nearly four percent per year. Obviously, although prices were decreasing, there was no depression. While an increase in the supply of money is never needed to produce economic growth, under a gold standard there might be honest money growth (i.e. not money created out of thin air by the politicians and bankers for the benefit of special interests) and this would serve to smooth out price adjustments.

The myth that paper money is wealth has another corollary: the myth that there’s “not enough gold” for reestablishing a gold standard. But this is merely a device used by paper money advocates to confuse the uninformed, and should carry no weight in the debate of gold versus paper. Hans Sennholz explains this clearly in his essay “No Shortage of Gold”:

On the other hand, if the supply of goods increases while that of money remains unchanged, a tendency toward enhancement of the purchasing power of money results. This fact is probably the most popular reason advanced today for policies of monetary expansion. “Our expanding national economy,” economic and monetary authorities proclaim, “requires an ever-growing supply of money and credit in order to assure economic stability.”

No one can seriously maintain that present expansionary policies have brought about economic stability. During the last forty years of almost continuous monetary expansion, whatever else it may have achieved, did not facilitate economic stability. Rather it gave our age it’s economic characteristic — unprecedented instability.

Ludwig von Mises, in his book A Critique of Interventionism (1929), clearly denounces the belief that government can create wealth by printing paper money. He explains:

By its very nature, a government decree that “it be” cannot create anything that has not been created before. Only the naive inflationists could believe that government can create anything; its orders cannot even evict anything from the world of reality, but they can evict from the world of the permissible. Government cannot make man richer, but it can make man poorer.

This is a powerful political and economic message, and yet it seems that so few understand it. Unfortunately, the poorer the people get, the moe economic problems we have, the more inflation we endure, and the higher the interest rates go, since more people demand government intervention. This trend has to be changed if we expect to preserve our freedoms and our standard of living.

Fact: Paper money is not wealth, it steals wealth.

A second myth is that “easy” money causes low interest rates. This myth is based on the erroneous assumption, itself a myth about government, that government officials — the Federal Reserve Board, the Congress, or the Treasury — can actually set interest rates. In reality the market determined interest rates. Governments can dictate rates, but if these rates are contrary to the market, government will not achieve the intended goal. For instance, if a usury law establishes a ten percent interest rate and the market rate if fifteen percent, no funds will be available except those allocated through government force and the creation of new money.

One reason this myth is so persistent is that in the early stages of inflation, an “easy” monetary policy temporarily lowers interest rates below market levels. Before the people are aware of the depreciation of their currency and do not yet anticipate higher prices, the law of supply and demand serves to lower “cost” of money and interest rates fall. But when the people become aware of the depreciation of the dollar’s value and anticipate future loss of purchasing power, this prompts higher interest rates due to inflationary expectations.

This expectation of future inflation and higher risk is determined subjectively by all borrowers and lenders and not by an objective calculation of money supply increases. These increases in the money supply certainly are important and contribute to the setting of the interest rates, but they are not the entire story. Interest rates vary from day to day, week to week, and year to year. There is no close correlation between money supply figures and interest rates.

Crises and panics can occur for political as well as financial reasons; and interest rates can be pushed higher than monetarist theory says they “should be.” In the early stage of inflation, rates may be lower than they “should be,” and in the latter stages frequently are higher than they “should be,” if by “should be” one means commensurate with money supply growth. Nevertheless, wrong ideas die slowly. “Easy” money, that is, inflation of the paper money supply, is still thought of as an absolute method by which the monetary authorities can achieve low interest rates.

This is not to say the Federal Reserve is helpless in manipulating interest rates. If it alters the discount rate and injects new money into the market, the immediate reaction can be that of lowering rates. But a gold-backed dollar, even if only partially backed, is a different sort, and at the time of the ’30s and the ’40s rates were at historic lows.

If the demand for lower interest rates is great enough and not accompanied by a call for sound currency — gold — the politicians will be “forced” to accommodate the demand by means of massive inflation of the money supply with strict credit controls and credit allocation. This would solve nothing, would serve to worsen economic conditions, and real interest rates in the markets would eventually soar. There is no substitute for sound money, and the sooner we realize this the better.

“Easy” money causes hard times.

Regards,

Ron Paul
for The Daily Reckoning

Real Message of Global Warming Exposed

30 Nov

Published by The Daily Bell – November 28 2013

Public-private partners at UN pledge to seek funding for sustainable energy for all … The United Nations and the World Bank today announced a concerted effort by governments, international agencies, civil society and the private sector to scale up efforts to provide sustainable energy to all, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calling for massive new investments in the face of a rising “global thermostat.” … “Sustainable energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, social equity, a stable climate and a healthy environment,” he told reporters after co-chairing with World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim a meeting of the Advisory Board of his Sustainable Energy For All initiative, in which he called for action in four areas: finance, energy access, energy efficiency and renewable energy. – UN News Centre

Dominant Social Theme: Global warming continues and continues just like the energizer bunny,

Free-Market Analysis: So much has been said and written about global warming that one would think it was entirely debunked by now. But it is not as we can see in the above article.

Of course, as this issues out of what is inaptly called the UN News Centre, we are not surprised by the tone any more than the substance.

Given that it is supposedly “journalism” of a sort, it should at least present two sides of the argument. But this warmed-over press release posing as UN “news” does nothing of the sort.

Here’s more:

The global thermostat is rising, threatening development goals and economies small and large. It is clear that we need a transformation in how we produce, use and share energy. Mr. Kim stressed that financing is key, with $600 billion to $800 billion a year needed from now until 2030 to reach the goals for access to energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

“We are now starting in countries in which demand for action is most urgent,” he said. “In some of these countries, only one in 10 people has access to electricity. It is time for that to change.”

Launched two years ago, the initiative seeks to achieve three inter-linked goals by 2030: universal access to modern energy, doubling energy efficiency, and doubling the share of renewable energy, thus providing services such as lighting, clean cooking and mechanical power in developing countries, as well as improved energy efficiency, especially in the world’s highest-energy consuming countries.

Mr. Ban praised achievements already attained such as Brazil’s ‘Light for All’ programme that has reached 15 million people, Norway’s commitment of 2 billion kroner ($330 million) in 2014 for global renewable energy and efficiency, and Bank of America’s Green Bond that has raised $500 million for three years as part of its 10-year $50 billion environmental business commitment.

… Today’s meeting was the Advisory Board’s second, bringing together 42 representatives of business, finance, governments and civil society in a global public-private partnership … Mr. Yumkella pointed to widespread support not only for Sustainable Energy for All from numerous partners but also for energy to be at the heart of the global development agenda beyond 2015, the deadline for the anti-poverty targets known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

This last paragraph is perhaps the most revealing. There is “wide support” for “sustainable energy.” What this really means is that governments will continue to put policies in place to support global warming, which probably doesn’t exist.

Just to hedge their bets, those involved came up with the idea that global warming was really “climate change.” As the climate always changes, the changes can be attributed to manmade carbon that is clogging the atmosphere.

Even though this carbon is less than one percent of heat trapping gases, those involved with the climate change movement insist that this extra amount is providing the tipping point. They provide extensive mathematics to prove this is accurate.

Unfortunately, these proofs are almost always predictive and contain errors that render them moot. There are so many examples of this it is hard to know which to pick:

  • The famous hockey stick graph that showed global warming climbing precipitously is a proven hoax.
  • The infamous gap of the past 16 years shows NO global warming.
  • Climatology measuring boxes were placed too close to cities, thus rendering their numbers inaccurate.

Those are just three instances that occur to us but there are many other exaggerations and outright manipulations that have accompanied the endless progression of this vile meme.

And it is vile because the object of all this disinformation is to pass into law global constraints and carbon markets that will radically restrict what is left of the freedoms of the average citizen both in the West and around the world.

Everywhere one looks, energy policy is being used to restrict progress and prosperity, especially in the developing world where global warming derives some of its most vociferous support.

That’s because the leaders of those countries are promised the biggest slice of the funding pie and you can bet a lot of that funding will find its way offshore, benefiting the pocketbooks of those who happen to be in power at the time.

Recently, officials affiliated with UN programs have called for the abolition of coal-fired power stations and advocated that countries stop mining coal entirely. After a walkout at a recent UN conference, developing world countries received a bigger share of “damages” that Western countries will pay for global warming emissions.

Some researchers are predicting global cooling now – a mini ice age, and papers have been published to this effect. And the effects of leaked emails several years ago continue to reverberate.

These emails showed clearly that the entire global warming debate could be affected by a journal controlled by scientists with pro-global warming biases. Additionally, it turned out that the UN climate change body was misrepresenting journalism as research.

The pipelines for the upcoming “Wall Street Party” are said to be jammed with global warming and climate change technology. Having failed to make their case via misrepresentation and illusory science, the power elite is turning to full-on international political pressure and IPOs that can be controlled and funded by corporate and institutional allies of internationalism.

Sustainable energy is nothing but a euphemism for fascism and mercantilism. The idea is to build a seamless facility of corporate funding, regulatory humbug and massive state force that will emplace global warming as a policy even though it continues to be wretched science.

The recent announcement regarding expanded investment in this meme is just further evidence of how the power elite operates. Thoroughly exposed in the conventional sense, they continue to forge ahead using their vast resources.

They are furthering a lie but don’t seem to care. And this has other ramifications. We perceive that if there is no give on this issue then other dominant social themes exposed by the Internet will not have an impact, either. As Internet enlightenment spreads, controversy will consider to expand and even violence may become more likely.


Conclusion

Those at the top don’t seem inclined to back away from their globalist positions even a little bit. That’s the real – and most dangerous – message of global warming.

Military Hand-Me-Downs: US Police Getting Leftover Armored Trucks From Iraq

30 Nov

By 

RT.com

November 26, 2013

The US military is handing over leftover equipment from the Iraq conflict to police under a military surplus program. Civil liberties groups have criticized the initiative as unnecessary and a move toward the militarization of American law enforcement.

American law enforcement agencies have received 165 MRAPs – 18 ton, armored vehicles with gun turrets – this year, according to an AP investigation. Military officials say police have filed requests for 731 more, but none are available.

“It’s armored. It’s heavy. It’s intimidating. And it’s free,” Craig Apple, the sheriff of Albany County, told AP.

Each of the hulking military vehicles costs around $500,000, and before the MRAPs can be used by law enforcement agencies they have to be refitted for civilian use. Even after retro-fitting, the vehicles are still limited. Because of their size, the vehicles are unable to cross some bridges and travel on narrow roads.

The investigation revealed that some of the MRAPs have already been put to use. In the city of Boise, Idaho, police deployed the vehicle because they suspected a suspect was in possession of heavy firearms and explosives. In Nampa, police used their MRAP to protect officers from a potential explosion.

The distribution of the armored military vehicles to police forces has prompted strong opposition from US rights groups. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has attacked the military surplus program, branding it a move to militarize law enforcement.

“One of our concerns with this is it has a tendency to escalate violence,” ACLU Center for Justice senior counsel Kara Dansky told AP. The ACLU has been investigating the use of military equipment in US police forces since 2012 as part of their campaign against the militarization of law enforcement under the slogan: “Towns don’t need tanks.”

On its website, the NGO records examples of occasions when police have used military equipment in situations when it was unnecessary, disproportionate or counterproductive.

In one such incident earlier this year, police in North Dakota used a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone to arrest a family of anti-government separatists who had refused to return six cows who had wandered onto their property to their owners. Local police borrowed the drone from the Department of Homeland Security, the ACLU reported.

Apple, the Albany County sheriff, argued that the police force was not becoming more militarized and was instead preparing itself for every eventuality.

“Our problem is we have to make sure we are prepared to respond to every type of crisis,” he said. For example, he said, if SWAT teams need to get close to a shooter or protect passers-by, a MRAP would be the vehicle for the job.

The ACLU argues that MRAPs might just be the tip of the iceberg, as it is not known “how militarized the police have become, and how extensively federal money is incentivizing this trend.”

Reprinted with permission from Russia Today.

 

Texas drivers pulled over at random, told to turn over blood, saliva samples

30 Nov

Published time: November 20, 2013 

Dozens of Texas drivers have been stopped at a police road block, where they were then directed into a parking lot and forced into surrendering blood, saliva and breath samples in a study that has upset civil liberties advocates.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration admitted it was attempting to conduct a government study meant to determine the number of drunk or drug-impaired drivers on the road at any given time.

It just doesn’t seem right that you can be forced off the road when you’re not doing anything wrong,” Kim Cope, who said she was forced to the side of the road while making her way to lunch, told NBCDFW.com. “I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn’t let me and forced me into the parking spot.”

The tests were made even more mysterious when reporters, alerted to the situation by concerned drivers, were unable to find any officers in the Fort Worth Police Department who had been involved. The NHTSA only admitted its involvement after local media sought answers.

The department, which says its mission is to “save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce vehicle-related crashes,” maintains that participation in the research was completely voluntary. But Ms. Cope said she felt trapped during what seemed to be an investigation.

“I finally did the breathalyzer test just because I thought it would be the easiest way to leave,” she said. “It just doesn’t seem right that they should be able to do any of it. If it’s voluntary, it’s voluntary, and none of it felt voluntary.”

When pressed, the FWPD said it was “reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed.” The NBC affiliate was able to determine that the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, a government contractor, was hired to conduct the check.

An NHTSA spokesperson admitted similar programs were being conducted in 30 other cities throughout the US.
But civil liberties attorney Frank Colosi does not accept the rationale.

You can’t just be pulled over randomly or for no reason,” he said. “They’re essentially lying to you when they say it’s completely voluntary, because they’re testing you at that moment.”

He added that drivers who refused may have been targeted by police for inadvertently giving the impression they were operating a vehicle under the influence. He also told NBC that fine print on the form told drivers their breath was being tested by “passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed.”

This oddity comes just months after Texas state troopers were caught on video conducting vaginal and cavity searches on female drivers at the side of the road. The videos quickly went viral, and attorneys for the women filed federal lawsuits against the troopers.

It’s ridiculous,” Peter Schulte, a former Texas police officer and prosecutor, told the New York Daily News earlier this year. “I was a law enforcement officer for 16 years and I never saw anything like it.”