The Price Of Ground Beef Has DOUBLED Since The Last Financial Crisis

The Price Of Ground Beef Has DOUBLED Since The Last Financial Crisis




Since the depths of the last recession, the price of ground beef in the United States has doubled.  Has your paycheck doubled since then?  Even though the Federal Reserve insists that we are in a “low inflation” environment, the government’s own numbers show that the price of ground beef has been on an unprecedented run over the past six years.

In early 2009, the average price of a pound of ground beef was hovering near 2 dollars.  In February, it hit a brand new all-time record high of $4.238 per pound. Even just 12 months ago, the price of ground beef was sitting at $3.555 per pound.  So we are talking about a huge increase.  And this hits American families where they really live.

Each year, the average American consumes approximately 270 pounds of meat.  The only nation in the world that eats more meat than we do is Luxembourg.  If the paychecks of American workers were going up fast enough to deal with this increase, it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.  But of course that is not happening.  In an article just last week, I showed that real median household income is a couple thousand dollars lower now than it was during the depths of the last recession.  The middle class is being squeezed, and we are rapidly getting to the point where burgers are going to be considered a “luxury” item.http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-charts-which-show-we-are-much-worse-off-than-just-before-the-last-economic-crisis

The following chart was posted by the Economic Policy Journal on Wednesday, and it incorporates the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  When I first saw it, I was rather stunned.  I knew that the price of ground beef had become rather outrageous in my local grocery stores, but I had no idea just how much damage had been done over the past six years…http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/there-is-no-price-inflation-if-you-dont.html


Beef Price - Economic Policy Journal

The biggest reason why the price of ground beef has been going up is the fact that the U.S. cattle herd has been shrinking.  It shrunk seven years in a row, and on January 1st, 2014 it was the smallest that it had been since 1951.http://www.wsj.com/articles/usda-shows-first-increase-in-size-of-u-s-cattle-herd-in-8-years-1422661283

The good news is that the decline appears to have stopped, at least for the moment.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the size of the U.S. cattle herd actually increased by 1 percent last year…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/usda-shows-first-increase-in-size-of-u-s-cattle-herd-in-8-years-1422661283
The U.S. cattle herd expanded in 2014 for the first time in eight years, offering hope to consumers that beef prices could start to subside after soaring to a series of records.

The nation’s cattle supply increased 1% in the year through Jan. 1 to 89.8 million head, according to data released Friday by the U.S. Agriculture Department, reversing a steady decline fueled by prolonged drought in the southern U.S. Great Plains and industry consolidation that encouraged many ranchers to thin herds.

But an increase of 1 percent is just barely going to keep up with the official population growth rate.  If you factor in illegal immigration, we are still losing ground.

And if we have another major drought in cattle country this summer, the cattle herd is going to start shrinking again.

In addition, the price of food overall has been steadily rising for years.  Here is a chart that I shared the other day…http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-charts-which-show-we-are-much-worse-off-than-just-before-the-last-economic-crisis


Presentation Food Inflation

It boggles the mind that the Federal Reserve can claim that we are in a “low inflation” environment.  Anyone that goes grocery shopping feels the pain of these rising prices every time that they go to the store.

In the list that I put together yesterday, I included the following statistic…http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/33-strange-facts-about-america-that-most-americans-would-be-shocked-to-learn

Almost half of all Americans (47 percent) do not put a single penny out of their paychecks into
savings.http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-america-doesnt-save-any-money-2015-3


One of the primary reasons why so many Americans are not saving any money is because many families simply cannot save any money.  Their paychecks are stagnant while the cost of living just keeps going up and up.

There simply are not enough “good jobs” out there anymore.  Our economy continues to bleed middle class jobs and the competition for the jobs that remain is quite intense.

Do you know what the two most common occupations in America today are?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they are “retail sales clerk” and “cashier”.

And of course neither of those “occupations” pays even close to what is required to support a middle class family.

On average, a retail sales clerk makes $24,020 a year, and a cashier makes $20,670 a year.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rudy-takala/top-2-us-jobs-number-employed-salespersons-and-cashiers
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rudy-takala/top-2-us-jobs-number-employed-salespersons-and-cashiers

Because the quality of our jobs has declined so much, there are millions of American families today in which both the mother and the father are working multiple jobs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet each month.

But don’t worry, the Federal Reserve says that we are nearly at “full employment“, and Barack Obama says that everything is going to be just fine.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/nearly-full-employment-10-reasons-unemployment-numbers-massive-lie

Actually, the truth is that things are about to get a lot worse.  At this point, we are even getting pessimistic numbers out of the Federal Reserve.  Just this week we learned that the Fed is now projecting that economic growth for the first quarter of 2015 will be barely above zero…http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-25/fed-now-sees-only-02-gdp-growth-q1

From almost 2.5% GDP growth expectations in February, The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model has now collapsed its estimates of Q1 GDP growth to just 0.2% – plunging from +1.4% just 2 weeks ago. The reality of plunging capex and no decoupling is starting to rear its ugly head in the hard data and as the sun warms things up, weather will start to lose its ability to sway sentiment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-03/gdp-shocker-atlanta-fed-calculates-q1-growth-only-12
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-04/scariest-spreadheet-fed-possession-revealed
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-12/q1-gdp-expectations-are-crashing

We are at a turning point.  The bubble of false stability that we have been living in is rapidly coming to an end, and when people start to realize that another great economic crisis is coming there is going to be a lot of panic.

And as far as food prices go, they are just going to keep taking a bigger chunk out of all of our wallets.

As high as prices are already, the truth is that your food dollars are never going to go further than they do right now.

So let us hope for the best, but let us also get prepared for the worst.
http://activistpost.net/backyardliberty.html

Source
Michael Snyder

The Epidemic of Police Misconduct that No One is Talking About

The Epidemic of Police Misconduct that No One is Talking About



Violent police are increasingly criticized for everything from killing dogs to shooting the homeless and beating the mentally ill. These abuses of power are disturbing and desperately need attention. One under-discussed problem with police accountability (or lack thereof), however, is police irresponsibility while driving.http://laist.com/2015/03/18/san_diego_police_officer_shoots_ser.php
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31688942
http://gawker.com/cop-in-brutal-roadside-beating-could-face-felony-charge-1624959624

Stories about drunk officers driving the wrong direction on freeways and hitting civilians or soberly ramming into pedestrians are not uncommon. This week alone, three cops caused mayhem and fatalities on the road.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-man-charged-with-dui-driving-wrong-way-on-i57-20141017-story.html
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/state-wire/pedestrian-struck-killed-kauai-police-vehicle-identified

In New Jersey, a car of off-duty officers (who had posted a picture of whiskey shots to Instagram earlier that evening) drove the wrong direction on a freeway, killing a civilian and one of the officers in the vehicle. Two other officers were critically injured. The driving officer had a previous DUI and 8 prior accidents on record. The Police Chief of Linden, James Schulhafer, was vague in his comments, saying “We were all young once and I’m sure we’ve all done stupid things in our life.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/21/off-duty-new-jersey-officer-posted-photo-alcohol-before-deadly-crash/
http://nypost.com/2015/03/24/wrong-way-crash-cop-had-prior-dui-wreck/
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/n-driver-fatal-s-crash-8-prior-accidents-article-1.2161203

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, a man leaving a bar was struck and killed by an officer who carelessly hit him in a crosswalk. The officer has not been placed on administrative leave because the “investigation has not shown any improper action by the officer prior to the collision.” Police admitted the officer did not see the pedestrian, which would be considered “improper action” had a civilian been driving.
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/man-dies-in-officer-involved-accident032215

In Florida, an officer attempted to ram a motorcyclist into a center divider, then to tried to  flee. This illegal action was caught on video. Police are trying to locate the motorcyclist because “…he faces several traffic charges and fleeing from an officer.”http://thefreethoughtproject.com/watch-florida-cop-crush-biker-freeway-flee/
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/03/20/youtube-video-leads-to-fhp-review-of-motorcyclist-incident/25116643/

The stories this week highlight a much bigger problem.

In Washington D.C., cops caused over 2,300 car accidents from 2010-2013 alone. They are rarely reprimanded, but the taxpayer is forced to foot the bill for settlements–just like they must do in police brutality cases.http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/11/cop-cruiser-crashes-you-pay-the-cost-when-local-police-cause-accidents-109196.html

While two of the incidents this past week are clearly (preventable) accidents, they represent not only the lack of accountability that cops enjoy–escaping punishment for things ordinary civilians cannot–but that the very justification for having police is wearing thin.

Police are often given a free pass for misdeeds because society believes that they keep people “safe.” One of the ways they do this is by policing the roads and ticketing drivers who violate traffic laws. When they give out tickets for hundreds of dollars, authorities say it is to keep people safe–whether from texting while driving, speeding, or crossing a double yellow line to enter or exit the carpool lane.

At the same time, police show a constant disregard for these exact same rules. In fact, police officers can be such abysmal drivers that in recent years, more have died from car accidents than they have actual attacks on their lives. Obviously, some of these accidents were not their fault, but a significant portion of officers were not wearing their seat belts when they died, a requirement officers routinely ticket drivers for violating.http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted

While stories of police violence against innocent civilians are harrowing, these “run of the mill” traffic accidents represent the same problem with law enforcement on a more mundane level: that officers who shirk accountability will inevitably abuse authority–whether with their guns or their “exempt” cop cars. Just as police believe laws against murder and violence do not apply to them, they believe it is their right to drive recklessly because they possess a badge. In both instances, civilians suffer while cops live above morality and the law.


By Carey Wedler
The Anti-Media

Obama Cites Ayatollah’s Fatwa on Road to Nuclear War

Relying on the “word” of the Mullahs.

Obama Cites Ayatollah’s Fatwa on Road to Nuclear War




As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less.  In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy‚Äìthis, too, is jihad.”
http://www.criticalthreats.org/iran-news-roundup/iran-news-round-march-9-2015

Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims.  Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of Ka’b ibn Ashraf). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here,http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/how-taqiyya-alters-islams-rules-of-war/), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_Undressed:_Muhammad%E2%80%99s_Actions,_Speaking_Louder_than_Words#The_Murder_of_Kab_Ashraf

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account.  When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.”  Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact?  In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations.  An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/nukes-and-natures/

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran’s leadership—have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

—Raymond Ibrahim,http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/obama-cites-ayatollahs-fatwa-on-road-to-nuclear-war/

Driverless Cars Poised To Transform Automotive Industry

This transformative automobile technology will be a game-changer for other industries as well, from software makers to suppliers of entertainment.

Driverless Cars Poised To Transform Automotive Industry



The newest Mercedes autonomous car looks like a car on the outside but like a lounge on the inside, with four swivel seats facing each other in a multimedia bubble of padded leather and walnut veneer.

The F 015 ‘Luxury in Motion’ concept car unveiled at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this year is completely self-driving but still has a steering wheel and brake if you want to swivel around and drive it manually.

Daimler, the maker of Mercedes and inventor of the original automobile, wants to be among the first to re-invent the car, CEO Dieter Zetsche said at the CES, which he says will become more than just a means of transport and will turn into a mobile living space.

German rival Audi, Tesla, Google and a number of other companies are working on their own versions of driverless cars, fulfilling the forecasts that they will be a reality on the roads perhaps as soon as the end of this decade.

In fact, all the technology needed for a self-driving car exists already. Current features like adaptive cruise control and self-parking preview what a fully autonomous car can do.

It is likelier to be legal and liability issues that slow down actual deployment. That and social acceptance of such a radical change could dampen the trend more than a lack of technology.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a recent interview, however, that the change in thinking could be no different than the shift from elevators manned by operators to today’s completely automatic elevators.http://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-describes-the-future-of-self-driving-cars-1692076449

There is little question that driverless cars will improve fuel economies not only because they smooth out the braking and accelerating of human drivers, but also because they improve traffic flow by finding optimal routes and mitigating congestion. The lower accident rate will mean fewer traffic jams from that cause as well.

Also, there will be fewer cars on the road because a single driverless car per family can take both parents to work, drop the kids off at school, pick them up afterwards and obviate the need for the two or three-car family.

A recent study from the University of Michigan suggests, however, that overall fuel consumption could increase because the cars on the road will get a lot more use. But of course that can be balanced out by greater reliance on non-fossil fuel energy to power the cars.
http://www.umtri.umich.edu/what-were-doing/news/driverless-vehicles-fewer-cars-more-miles

Stock market analysts are already talking about this evolution because investors looking at the big picture can put their money into the automakers and suppliers who are moving in this direction and who will have an important head start.

Along with Audi and Mercedes, BMW is on that list, as well as General Motors, Volvo and Toyota. Auto suppliers that are in this trend include TRW, Delphi, and Borg Warner in the U.S., as well as Europe’s Continental and Japan’s Denso.

This transformative automobile technology will be a game-changer for other industries as well, from software makers to suppliers of entertainment. As cars truly do become mobile living spaces, there will be new revenue streams as companies figure out ways to monetize the extra time people have in their cars (movies, music, games – the list goes on).

Car safety, but also cybersecurity – nobody wants to have their car hacked - are issues that need to be developed and tested.

Tesla’s Musk noted that driving in dense urban environments at intermediate speeds pose the greatest challenge for current technologies and these must be thoroughly tested before driverless cars are allowed on the road.

But the self-driving car is coming to a showroom near you sooner than you think.

Source:http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Driverless-Cars-Poised-To-Transform-Automotive-Industry.html

By Darrell Delamaide of Oilprice.com

Even if God Didn't Give Us the Constitution, We Should Act Like He Did

Even if God Didn't Give Us the Constitution, We Should Act Like He Did


As an atheist, I suppose I should be deeply troubled by Ted Cruz’s God-heavy presidential announcement. Although the Texas senator’s blast of old-fashioned American exceptionalism garnered most of the chortling media’s attention, it’s what troubles me the least about his aspirations. If the politicians treated the ideals of the Enlightenment as if they were handed down from heaven rather than a pliable set of guidelines perpetually bending to accommodate the vagaries of contemporary politics, I imagine the world would be a better place. They don’t.

As one reporter for Yahoo! News asked during Cruz’s speech on Twitter: “Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?”

The Declaration of Independence states, “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.” This founding document informs the Constitution, which restricts government from meddling in important areas of our lives. That’s how the Founders saw it. That’s how we’ve pretended to see it for a long time. Some of us believe that these natural rights, divine or secular, are universal, that they can’t be repealed or restrained or undone by democracy, university presidents or rhetorically gifted presidents.

If that’s God’s position – or, more specifically, if enough people think that’s His position – well then He’s my co-pilot, as well.

By the way, here’s John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 1961: “And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

Weird, huh.

On one side of the deep cultural divide, the very notion that God tells us anything is silly. That’s why you see many journalists react with confusion or with contemptuous tweets or feel the need to highlight something so obvious. On a political level, the idea that God can give us unalienable rights only threatens an agenda that doesn’t exactly hold your right to live in peace without interference sacred. And this lack of reverence for rights will lead to a serious battle between religious freedom and progressive aims.

And for those who believe the primary source of human decency and fairness is the Internal Revenue Service, the idea that a magical being has conferred rights on us that restrict state-driven do-gooderism is problematic. If you imagine the Constitution is merely as “man-made” (like, say, a gun-control bill or Medicaid expansion), then contemporary men can fix it. They can do this by whittling away what’s wrong and adding what’s moral whenever they see fit. They can start by tacking new rights on whenever something troubles them or whenever it’s advantageous to do so. FDR already thought up the Second Bill of Rights, a list that has essentially superseded the original for many liberals.

Not long ago, President Obama argued that health care – and by this he means Obamacare – was a “right.” The idea is that a right to buy insurance in a fabricated state-run marketplace is more vital than the right to self-defense (that one Obama isn’t crazy about). A few years back, the president argued that “dignity and opportunity aren’t just gifts to be handed down by a generous government or by a generous employer; they are rights given by God, as undeniable and worth protecting as the Grand Canyon or the Great Smoky Mountains.” I imagine this idea is shared by many millions.

Was that bizarre? Does a government have the fundamental right to provide all citizens with a good paycheck or a union job assembling subsidized wind turbines? If there is a God, I suspect he may well want us to get rid of the IRS and pass a flat tax so we can fill our returns on a postcard every year. But that issue, like the right to free community college, is a matter of contemporary policy and process, not a right.

What is the promise of America? The idea that – the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty.

Cruz’s speech, with too many bromides for my own tastes, was the kind of unadulterated American idealism that the smart people in Washington like to ridicule. “God’s blessing has been on America since the very beginning of this nation. And I believe God isn’t done with America yet,” Cruz says. I dunno. I hope so. “Revolutionary” or not, Cruz’s contention that we are providentially guaranteed certain rights is a basic idea of American history, one that journalists should be well acquainted with. And don’t get me wrong; I don’t have high hopes for the Ted Cruz administration. But mocking him for restating traditional ideals about faith’s role in governance is bizarre.

By David Harsanyi

Death to America

Death to America

 Maybe I’m too sensitive, but when a foreign autocrat leads his people in chants of “Death to America,” I take it personally.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry apparently don’t. The chant, which became a staple of the Islamic Republic during the 1979 revolution, is not a relic of the past. Just last weekend, at a rally in the northern part of the country, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was interrupted by the chant as he was denouncing American “lies” and “arrogance.” He smiled and responded, “Of course, yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.”

Some in Iran have urged that the “Death to America” chant, common after Friday prayers and at political rallies, be downplayed during negotiations over a nuclear deal, but the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) rejects this, insisting, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency, that the United States “is still the great Satan and the No. 1 enemy of the (Islamic) revolution, and the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation…”

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., responded, “When someone chants, ‘Yes, certainly, death to America,’ we should take him at his word, and we shouldn’t put him on the path to a nuclear bomb.”

We are left to wonder at the equanimity among high-ranking members of this administration at the unyielding hostility of the Iranian regime. In late February, Iran blew up a full-size model of the U.S.S. Nimitz, an aircraft carrier, in the Persian Gulf. The supreme leader’s representative on the IRGC, Ali Shirazi, recently boasted, “When we look at the Islamic world, we see that the culture of the Islamic Revolution has reached all countries and all Muslims throughout the world. … We shall not rest until we raise the flag of Islam over the White House.”

A few days later, Obama responded by sending Nowruz greetings to the “people and leaders of Iran” and quoting a Persian poet as saying “many a flower will bloom while you will be in clay.”

Throughout the protracted negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran, the Obama administration has assured Congress that “no deal” was “better than a bad deal.” They’ve offered pledges that Iran’s centrifuges would be limited to 500, that the PMDs (possible military dimensions) of its nuclear research would be fully disclosed, that the facility at Fordo (built into a mountain) would be shut down, and that snap inspections would be part of any agreement. “We’re not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid,” Kerry once assured skeptics.

Congress gave the administration “breathing room” – but U.S. negotiators have backed away steadily from each of their positions. There is now talk of 6,000 centrifuges or more. The Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. negotiators are scaling back their demands for disclosure of PMDs (something the International Atomic Energy Agency had also demanded). Without disclosure of military dimensions, inspections (notional in any case) will be hampered. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security told The Tower magazine, “A deal that does not include Iran addressing the IAEA’s concerns about the past and possibly ongoing military dimensions of its nuclear program would undermine the verifiability of the deal, and thus the credibility of a comprehensive deal.” Fordo will remain open, and its centrifuges will spin.

The French government has protested that the U.S. is retreating (think that one over for a minute). France’s foreign minister is reported to have said that “the United States was really ready to sign just about anything with the Iranians.” The French ambassador to the U.S., Gerard Araud, tweeted, “For France, any agreement to be acceptable will have to give concrete guarantees on all issues. We won’t bypass any of them.”

Each and every news leak out of Lausanne depicts the U.S. walking back its demands. Just watch the faces of the Iranian negotiators. Their smiles tell the tale.

The administration reasons that in 10 to 15 years, the Iranian regime will improve. It is willing to gamble that once Iran achieves nuclear status, it won’t use nuclear bombs or share them with terrorists. It is willing to gamble that the other unstable nations in the region won’t get nuclear weapons in response. It is willing to gamble that future leaders of Iran won’t be even more radical than those in power now.

It is impossible to recall a more dangerous or foolish set of assumptions by an American president in modern American history. Death to America might become more than a chant.

By Mona Charen

If You Thought The Melting of Antarctica Was Bad, It Just Got Worse…

If You Thought The Melting of Antarctica Was Bad, It Just Got Worse…





Imagine all the human race thinks they know at this point, and then fast-forward 100 years into the future. In 2114, the new generation will likely look back at this time in history and see 2014 as the year we – as a collective – learned that we may have irreversibly destabilized the great ice sheet of West Antarctica, and thus set in motion a more than 10-foot sea level rise.

2015 would likely be the year we then became aware of one gigantic glacier East of Antarctica which could likely do the same as the year before. Scary stuff, huh? Yet it’s reality, and the one that deserves attention as when the bottom of the world loses vast amounts of ice, those of us living closer to the top get more sea level rise than the rest of the planet… thanks to the law of gravity.

These findings about East Antarctica came from a recent paper just released by an international team of scientists representing the United States, Britain, France, and Australia. Covered in the Chicago Tirbune, number of researchers were flown over the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica – the fastest-thinning sector of the world’s largest ice sheet – and took a number of measurements to assess the reasons behind its retreat. What they found wasn’t good: Apparently the Totten Glacier is losing its ice because of how warm the ocean water underneath it is getting.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-antarctica-ice-melting-20150316-story.html

Says Martin Siegert, co-author of the study who is based at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London, “The idea of warm ocean water eroding the ice in West Antarctica, what we’re finding is that may well be applicable in East Antarctica as well.”

As the Totten Glacier covers an area of 40 miles by 18 miles, the rate it is losing an amount of ice is “equivalent to 100 times the volume of Sydney Harbour every year,” notes the Australian Antarctic Division.

Alarming is a good word, as the glacier holds back a much more vast catchment of ice that, were its vulnerable parts to flow into the ocean, could produce a sea level rice of more than 11 feet. This amount is comparable to the impact from a loss of the West Antarctica ice sheet. And according to lead study author Jamin Greenbaum, PhD candidate at the University of Texas in Austin, that’s a “conservative lower limit.”http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/education/colleges-universities/university-of-texas-at-austin-OREDU0000071-topic.html

To formulate their hypothesis, the researchers used three separate types of measurements taken during their flights: gravitational measurements, radar, and laser altimetry. These helped them to get a glimpse of what might be happening beneath the massive glacier, whose ice shelves are more than 1,600 feet thick in places. Using radar, they could measure the ice’s thickness. At the same time, they measured the pull of the Earth’s gravity on the airplane to help determine just how far below that ice the seafloor was.

The result was the discovery of two undersea troughs or valleys beneath the ice shelf – regions where the seafloor slopes downward, allowing a greater depth of water beneath the floating ice. These cavities or subsea valleys, the researchers propose, may explain the glacier’s retreat. They could be allowing warmer deep waters to get underneath the ice shelf and accelerate its melting.


Credit: Wikipedia

One of the canyons found is over three miles wide, in a region that was previously believed to simply hold ice lying atop solid earth. But dissimilar than once thought, researchers now suggest that the ice is instead afloat.

The observed melting and the availability of warm water, notes the study, “support the idea that the behavior of Totten Glacier is an East Antarctic analogue to ocean-driven retreat underway in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). The global sea level potential of 3.5 m flowing through Totten Glacier alone is of similar magnitude to the entire probable contribution of the WAIS.”

The one limitation of the study is that the researchers were unable to directly measure the temperature of ocean water that is currently reaching the glacier itself. While this could be done with robotic underwater vehicles or other methods, that wasn’t part of the study at this time. Hence, the conclusions are more focused on inferring the vulnerability of the glacier based on a number of different pieces of evidence – topped off by the fact that the glacier is, indeed, in retreat.

What does this mean for residents of the entire Northern Hemisphere? Well, that dire consequences are soon to be experienced. If Antarctica loses volumes of ice, that would translate into major contributions to sea level rise which would not be evenly distributed around the globe. The reason is the force of gravity. Antarctica is so massive that it pulls the ocean toward it, but if it loses ice, that gravitational pull will relax, and the ocean will slosh back toward the Northern Hemisphere – which will experience additional sea level rise.

For the United States, this means the amount of sea level rise could be 25% or more than the global average.

But even with the ocean-abutting glaciers of West Antarctica retreating, this does not mean that we will see anything near that level of rising in our lifetimes. These processes generally are expected to play out over hundreds of years or more. They would reshape the face of the Earth, but we will likely not live to see it.

The problem is, then, what kind of world we’re leaving to our children, grandchildren, and their children. Once such a gigantic geophysical process begins, it is hard to see how it comes to a halt. “With warming oceans, it’s difficult to see how a process that starts now would be reversed, or reversible, in a warming world,” said Siegert.

by Amanda Froelich

Obama Head Strong But Mindless!

The failings of Barack Obama have grown progressively worse over the years, reaching the point where now he seems to relish the idea of acting unilaterally against the wishes of both the US Congress and the American people

Obama Head Strong But Mindless!


We Americans generally take enormous pride in the perceived wisdom of the Founding Fathers in establishing our great nation and the US Constitution. Many believe that the Founders were inspired by Providence and that the Constitution reflects spiritual values sanctioned by Deity.

However wise or inspired we may think the Founders to have been, the presidency of Barack Obama has exposed a glaring flaw in our procedures for dealing with a determined tyrant who has nothing but contempt for the Founders and all aspects of American culture and heritage.

How else to characterize an inexperienced community organizer who naively and arrogantly came into office vowing to “fundamentally transform” the nation that has provided the greatest liberty and economic opportunity in human history?

How else to understand an inexperienced rebel-rouser who, upon taking office, traveled to foreign lands, some openly hostile to our government and way of life, in order to lay blame at the feet of America for many of the world’s woes, and to deny the faith of hundreds of millions of Christians living in America?

The failings of Barack Obama have grown progressively worse over the years, reaching the point where now he seems to relish the idea of acting unilaterally against the wishes of both the US Congress and the American people in crucial areas such as immigration and homeland security.

As a reminder, President Obama is obligated to serve as president in accordance with the following sworn oath he took on the occasion of his inauguration in 2009 and again in 2013:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It is impossible for any thinking American patriot to believe that President Obama has even remotely lived up to that oath.

In one of his most despicable, anti-American acts, President Obama approved the release of five Taliban terrorist commanders from GITMO in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, an American solider, now formally charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

Such action by a president is obviously unprecedented in history. Clearly, Obama’s Bergdahl crime is beyond anything that the Founders could have imagined.

The Founders would find it inconceivable that any person so lacking in integrity and patriotism (as Obama) would ascend to the presidency. Of course, they could not have envisioned the wanton “stupidity” of the American people who make up the electorate in the 21st Century.

Nor could the Founders conceive that one of the major political parties would abandon love of country for love of power in supporting a renegade president.  Of course, they would find it inexplicable that the Democrat Party is complicit in the Obama destruction of America, and that the opposition (Republican) Party is a gaggle of gutless, mindless weasels who cower in fear at the very mention of the tyrant despite owning majorities in both chambers of Congress!

The Founders would have expected the Fourth Estate, a free and fiercely independent press, to function as an effective safeguard against tyranny and political abuse.

Of course, they would have no way of knowing that CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and papers like the New York Times would abandon objectivity in order to actually protect the tyrants!

In sum, because of anti-American ideology, deep-rooted resentment, and emotional immaturity, Barack Obama is incapable of living up to the presidential oath of office.

Tragically, it appears as though our Founders, wise and well-meaning though they were, failed to build institutional safeguards sufficient to protect against an anti-American, tyrannical president, an uniformed and stupid electorate, a corrupt and complicit party to which the tyrant is a member, a weak, uninspired, gutless opposition, and a media devoted to preserving the rule of the tyrant, all acting in concert to destroy the greatest nation of earth.

Although it seems impossible, America must find the will and the way to stop Barack Obama—particularly as concerns his nefarious scheme to destroy Israel by boosting Iran to a nuclear weapon state!

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Should We Fear Islam?

Common sense, analysis of history, and sober assessment of current world circumstances allow for only one conclusion: Even though we have nothing to fear whatsoever from the vast majority of Muslims, we should be very afraid of Islam.

Should We Fear Islam?


Islam conquered most of the known world within 100 years of Mohammed’s death in 632, creating an empire larger even than Alexander’s.

Initially, Mohammed shared his experience of divine revelation peacefully. This was not successful. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, Mohammed was unable to persuade more than 150 converts to the Faith. The Qur’an from this period, termed the “Meccan” Qur’an, otherwise considered the ‘peaceful’ Qur’an, contains the bulk of the Qur’an’s comforting ‘live and let live’ passages, including Mohammed’s revelations that “you have your religion and I have mine,” or “there should be no compulsion in religion.”

In 622, for unclear reasons, Mohamed was ejected from Mecca. He migrated to Medina. For unclear reasons and based upon a previously unsuspected skill set, once in Medina, Mohammed the Prophet underwent a transformation into Mohammed the Prophet and Warlord.

Within two years of his arrival in Medina, Mohammed converted, killed, or enslaved everyone in the city. On one day alone he executed 800 Jewish men and boys who refused to convert to Islam. At the time of Mohammed’s death seven years later, Mohammed had conquered all of Arabia and converted all Arabs to Islam. The Warlord Prophet Mohammed in Medina was clearly far more successful, spiritually and materially, than the lone but peaceful Prophet in Mecca. Interestingly, the Qur’an from this period, the “Medina” Qur’an, is the version of the Qur’an the Qur’an itself declares to be the genuine Qur’an. Unfortunately, the Medina Qur’an is the breathtakingly violent Qur’an.

Within slightly more than 100 years after Mohammed’s death, Islam conquered North Africa, Egypt, Arabia, the Levant, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, portions of India and Southeast Asia, as well as portions of Italy, all of Spain, and parts of southern France. In fact, Muslims advanced as far as Tours, merely 150 miles from Paris, halted against all odds by Charles Martel and the Franks in 732. Islam continued its assault upon the West, eventually besieging Vienna as recently as 1529, and returning to attack it again in 1683. At both Tours and Vienna, the Christian West prevailed, but not by much.

All in all, since 622 or so, believers in Allah and his Prophet, Mohammed, have been remarkably successful at conquering and converting people (many hundreds of millions). Muslims have also been successful at killing people (perhaps 270 million since 623), enslaving them (the most profligate slavers of the modern era), and destroying ancient libraries and antiquities. Even so, why should we fear Islam, or Muslims, now?

Why should we fear Islam, or Muslims: 9/11, ISIS, and an Iran with ICBM’s and nukes.
The easy answers: 9/11, ISIS, and an Iran with ICBM’s and nukes.

On a more fundamental level, however, there remain foundational elements of Islam implying much greater concerns than either 9/11, ISIS, or nukes.

These foundational elements are Islam’s very own holy works, including the three most prominent, the Qur’an (revelations of Allah to his Prophet), the Sira (Mohammed’s biography), and Haddith (traditions of Islam).

In particular, the smaller portion of the Qur’an, the Medina Koran, not only describes gratuitous violence and bloodshed on behalf of Islam, not only recommends it, but exhorts it. Moreover, the more violent parts of the Qur’an are the most recent. This is a crucial insight: It is well accepted that the more recent revelations “abrogate” (replace) the older ones. Unfortunately, this means most notions of “peace” or “there should be no compulsion in religion,” or “jihad refers to a spiritual journey,” are absent from any legitimate interpretation of the contemporary Qur’an.

Of course, one must distinguish between Islam’s scripture and its practitioners. Reason demands the belief we have no cause to fear most of the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Reason alone persuades us the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and intend non-Muslims no harm. Consequently, reason would also therefore persuade us that many/most Muslims do not interpret the Qur’an in the way the Qur’an directs them to, or are not intimately familiar with it or its companion texts (similar to the circumstance in which most Christians remain ignorant of the details of the Old or New Testaments). Reason would also suggest even were peaceful Muslims to study and correctly interpret the Qur’an, the doctrine of abrogation, and the consequent dangerous implications (for non-Muslims), they would not act upon these, i.e. they would still pose no danger to non-Muslims.

But.

The Qur’an, Sira and Haddith are consistent in their demands the believer pursue jihad (physically violent jihad), i.e. subjugation and conversion of all non-believers (Kafirs), and that all non-believers are to be killed or enslaved (other than for Jews and Christians who are permitted semi-slavery, i.e. Dhimmitude). The Qur’an, Sira and Haddith command compliance with Sharia Law (Islamic Law), which is derived from these sources. In particular, Sharia Law commands:

Relentless jihad (not the ‘spiritual journey’ kind) until all of Man is subjugated to Islam.
Subjugation of and second class status for all non-believers.
A guarantee of Heaven only for dying in jihad.

Death for apostasy (speaking against Islam or trying to leave the Islamic Faith).

Sanction for four or more wives (Great Britain currently permits a single man to receive welfare benefits for up to four concurrent wives).
Submission of all women to their husbands

Particular types of beatings meted out to wives who are not obedient (different varieties of beatings are suggested dependent upon nature of the disobedience).

Stoning to death for adultery.
Lying to Kafirs if necessary for self-protection but also in service of Islam (Sacred Deception).
Etc.

It should now be understood Islam does not allow for terms such as “Muslim extremist” or “moderate Muslim.” Instead, there are only those Muslims who do as instructed, comply with Allah’s commands and imitate the life of Mohammed (including the warlord part), and those Muslims who do not, and varying gradations in between. Understanding this permits the insight, then, that a “good” Muslim is precisely the kind of Muslim we find in service of ISIS. It is these Muslims who are most compliant with the literal commands of Islam’s holy works. Fortunately, these genuine (scripturally compliant) Muslims, ISIS Muslims, are the rarest Muslims.

In this context, then, non-believers should take heart that the overwhelming majority of Muslims interpret their foundational texts somewhat differently than these texts demand they be interpreted—which explains why the majority of Muslims are not driving planes into buildings or blowing up shopping malls.

Regardless, and even if we leave the Obama Iranian Nuclear Bomb Project aside, it seems prudent we fear, or maintain a healthy dose of respect for, the potential for Islam (1.7 billion believers) to become far more dangerous than it is now.

Even more than the potential danger implicit in a Muslim’s strict adherence to Islam’s scripture, the contemporary beliefs of many Muslims gives pause:

Pew research (8/2013) reveals, for example:

56-76% of South Asia and Middle-East Muslims believe people who leave Islam (apostates) should be executed.

87% believe a wife must obey her husband (the Qur’an/Haddith prescribe species of beatings recommended for different kinds of spousal insubordination).

A sizeable minority of Muslims believe suicide bombing is “often/sometimes justified”: Pakistan 13%, Bangladesh 26%; Egypt 29%. Read these numbers again.

Islam has 1.7 billion adherents. It has a 1000-year history of world domination. It was nearly successful in conquering Europe entirely, and in ending Christianity. Its foundational documents are unchanged—there is no Islamic “New Testament.” It still commands its adherents follow in the path of Mohammed (the Prophet and Warlord). Death in jihad is the only guarantee of admission to Heaven. Thus, the “game of chicken” between the US and USSR in the Cold War, (the doctrine of MAD, i.e. Mutually Assured Destruction) is unlikely to be helpful in a potential nuclear exchange with Iran. If one party to MAD does not fear destruction, or actually aspires to destruction in service of jihad, MAD will fail. Ultimately, then, there is no foreseeable constraint upon Iran’s use of nuclear weapons. This is frightening.

Common sense, analysis of history, and sober assessment of current world circumstances allow for only one conclusion: Even though we have nothing to fear whatsoever from the vast majority of Muslims, we should be very afraid of Islam.


By Dr. Brad Lyles

U.S., Israel and Iran: Three's a Crowd

U.S., Israel and Iran: Three's a Crowd



As if meddling in Israel’s elections with an aim to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t enough for Barack Obama, in the wake of Netanyahu’s win – and Obama’s loss – the White House has accused Israel of spying on U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that current and former U.S. officials claim the spying was part of a larger effort by Netanyahu to gather information on the negotiations in order to build a case against the deal.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-talks-1427164201
http://patriotpost.us/articles/33614

Ever the sore loser, Obama, while sidling up to Iran, is apparently hoping to paint our closest ally in the Middle East as the enemy. Ironically, the U.S. learned of this purported spying – wait for it – by spying on Israel. That’s right. The Journal reports, “The White House discovered the operation, in fact, when U.S. intelligence agencies spying on Israel intercepted communications among Israeli officials that carried details the U.S. believed could have come only from access to the confidential talks, officials briefed on the matter said.”

The truth, though, as political analyst Charles Krauthammer points out, is that “the Israelis could easily have gotten it from eavesdropping on the Iranians, and might have gotten it openly from the French, who are in the talks and are quite dismayed by how much Obama and the White House have given away in these negotiations.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/24/krauthammer-obama-has-henchmen-waging-incredibly-hostile-campaign-against-israel-video/

For its part, Israel has denied spying on the U.S., and given Obama’s well-documented penchant for lies, one more added to the mix would hardly be a surprise.

Despite Obama’s huff and bluster, it appears he’s less concerned with spying and more ruffled that Israel might have shared information on the negotiations with Congress. As one senior U.S. official said, “It is one thing for the U.S. and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy.” Yes, this must be bad for The Most Transparent Administration in History%trade;, which would rather keep Congress in the dark when it comes to negotiating a nuclear deal with a nation whose leader repeatedly says, “Death to America.” Whatever would make us think Congress should be made aware?

And about that Iranian chant, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta confronted the administration earlier this week, asking Obama press secretary Josh Earnest why his boss trusts Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who as recently as this past weekend said in a public address, “Death to America.” Earnest ridiculously responded that this is the exact reason negotiations are needed to secure a commitment from Iran to stop the nation from getting nuclear weapons. Of course, this administration would do well to remember just how little “commitments” mean to Iran.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/23/cnn-to-earnest-why-does-white-house-trust-iranian-leader-who-chants-death-to-america-video/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/ari-lieberman/in-the-obama-white-house-echoes-of-neville-chamberlain-loom/

But it doesn’t end there. According to National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, the White House went on to justify Khamenei’s statement by saying it was “intended for a domestic political audience.” Thank goodness. We thought it was intended for a nation intent on developing nuclear weapons.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/03/24/white-house-death-america-comments-iran-only-meant-domestic-audience

Obama’s determination to alienate Israel and equal intent to coddle Iranian terrorists is disturbing to say the least and reveals where his allegiance truly lies. So irate is he over Netanyahu’s re-election and so determined to appease the Iranians that he is not only justifying cheers for America’s demise and threatening to end U.S. support for Israel at the United Nations but also adopting Palestinian talking points regarding Israel. On Monday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough claimed in a speech to the left-leaning J-Street, an anti-Israel Jewish lobbying group, that “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.” That the administration would parrot Palestinian claims against Israel – claims emanating from the same source that regularly launches rockets against Israel – is without excuse.http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-israel-tantrum-1427239843

Many have questioned whose side Obama is on, but the time for questioning is far past. By demonstrating his utter disdain for America’s closest and most faithful ally in the Middle East, Obama has made his loyalties clear. It’s now up to Congress and the American people to prevent 2015 from marking the year America turned its back on Israel – and the world.

Vladimir Putin Not Responsible for Ukrainian Civil War, Expert Says

Vladimir Putin Not Responsible for Ukrainian Civil War, Expert Says


Video

Through a careful review of recent history, Russia and Soviet scholar Paul Robinson debunks the claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is directing the rebels fighting in Ukraine’s eastern region.

“No plausible evidence has been produced to indicate that members of the Russian army were involved at the start of the uprising,” says Robinson of the civil war in the Donbass.

Robinson made his remarks in a panel titled “Who has done what, and why?” at the University of Toronto’s “Ukraine and Russia Peace Conference” on Feb. 22. He writes about foreign policy at Irrusianality, a site devoted to understanding “the relationship between Russia and the West; and the apparently irrational decision making processes which dominate much of international relations.”

The clip above came to Truthdig via James Carden, a former adviser at the State Department’s Office of Russian Affairs, contributing editor at The National Interest and contributor to The Nation magazine.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/vladimir_putin_is_not_responsible_for_the_ukrainian_civil_war_20150321

Posted March 26, 2015

Yemen Beware as it Threatens US-backed Order

Yemen Beware as it Threatens US-backed Order



The crisis in Yemen is the latest manifestation of the old order desperately trying to cling on to a dwindling power base. That old order has been backed by the United States and its allies among the Persian Gulf Arab dictatorships as a bulwark against a popular uprising that could lead to democratisation in the poorest Middle Eastern country. If such an outcome were to succeed, the repercussions for the autocratic Gulf monarchies would be deeply destabilising. Saudi Arabia, which shares a southern border with Yemen, is the primary concern for this spreading «instability».

That is why the House of Saud is now issuing all sorts of grave warnings of «foreign interference» and blaming Iran for «aggression». Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal this week said that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is ready to send in a military force to «protect Yemen’s sovereignty». The GCC comprises the six monarchial states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. All are stalwart American client regimes.

Meanwhile, Washington is urging Yemeni rival factions to «return to the United Nations-mediated peace talks». Samantha Power, the US representative on the UN Security Council, said: «To preserve Yemen's security, stability and unity, all parties must refrain from any further unilateral and offensive military actions.»

UN envoy to Yemen, Jamal Benomar, amid warnings of all-out civil war, said this week that imminent talks were scheduled to take place in the Qatari capital, Doha. Al Jazeera reported that «any agreement reached would be signed in [Saudi capital] Riyadh».

The venues of Doha and Riyadh are hardly neutral places to conduct peace talks. The rebels in Yemen, led by the northern Houthi movement, have accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with the US, of repeatedly interfering in the country’s strife to support the old order and to offset any democratic change. Seen from this point of view, the UN-mediated talks are thus being capped with a veto wielded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. That would explain why Washington is so keen to push the talks, knowing that they will not produce anything substantive in terms of democratic progress in Yemen.

Indeed, Samantha Power has taken to discredit the Houthi movement by alleging that it is responsible for all the recent violence in the country. Power told the UN Security Council this week that the Houthi rebels have «consistently undermined Yemen’s transition». Amazingly, or perhaps not, she did not make mention of Saudi-backed extremists who last week killed more than 130 people in two mosque bombings in the capital, Sanaa. Ironically, it is the US and Saudi Arabia and their unswerving support in sustaining the old regime that is undermining «transition» to a more democratic and peaceful polity in Yemen.

The old regime in Yemen is headed up by Mansour Hadi, who is openly backed by the US and Saudi Arabia. For nearly 30 years he served as the vice president under the strong-arm dictatorship of Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was also backed to the hilt by Washington and Riyadh.

Saleh was notorious for his kleptocracy, siphoning of huge wealth for his family and entourage from Yemen’s modest oil industry. His son was made commander of the Republican Guard and was being groomed for succession until the Arab region’s popular protests in 2011 threatened to upset the family-run apple cart. Despite a brutal crackdown against largely peaceful protests, in which hundreds were gunned down on the streets of the capital, the American and Saudi sponsors of Saleh managed to stave off his overthrow by spinning out «talks» and eventually coming up with a «deal» that afforded the dictator and his ruling clique lifetime immunity from prosecution. As part of that US-Saudi-brokered «compromise», Saleh’s long-time deputy, Mansour Hadi, was made president in February 2012 after a non-contested «election». His presidency was only supposed to be a transitional position until the advent of full elections and the reconstitution of a representative parliament.

For the past three years, the US-Saudi process of transition has been nothing but a cynical rearguard action to retrench the old order, in which the majority of Yemen’s 24 million population are shut out from democratic control of the country’s politics and economics. The old kleptocratic order would thereby persist in its disenfranchisement of the Yemeni population while serving the geopolitical interests of Washington and its client Arab monarchies. Prime among those interests is the deterrence of democratic change in the region, as American political analyst Noam Chomsky has consistently argued.




The northern-based Houthis are adherents to a Shia sect of Islam. They have received political support from Shia Iran, but Saudi claims of Iranian fifth columnists are wildly overblown. Also, in the Houthis’ recent push for democratic change in Yemen their political vision has been notably inclusive of all religions and tribes. The Houthis, also known as Ansarullah, have spearheaded the ouster of the old regime simply because they have felt the most grievances of exclusion under the old Western, Saudi-backed order.

Last September, Houthi frustration over continual delay in the promised political transition boiled over when they took over the capital Sanaa by force of arms. One of its leaders Mohammed Abdulsalam said then: «This is a strategic victory for all Yemenis. But it is only the beginning of a long campaign to defeat corruption endemic in Yemen’s governing system. Today is the beginning of an age different from the past as the voice of all of the nation is being heard».

The Houthi movement can therefore be rightly seen as much more than just a narrow Shia sect, and one that seems to be genuinely agitating for a more democratic, inclusive Yemen.

 

When the Western-Saudi puppet president Hadi was forced last September to speed up the overdue transition, it is notable that Saudi Arabia began issuing dire warnings of Yemen’s collapse and Iranian foreign aggression, as it has once again cited this week. Meantime, Riyadh began to step up its support for Al Qaeda-linked groups in Yemen, who embarked on a campaign of car bombings and shootings in the capital and other towns loyal to the pro-democracy movement. Warnings of chaos had a self-fulfilling quality because of covert Saudi sponsoring of chaos. One month after the Houthis took over Sanaa in September last year, a car bomb claimed by Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (which is linked to Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) killed more than 50. Last week, saw another atrocity when two Shia mosques were bombed by the same group, killing more than 130. In between those atrocities there have been numerous other massacres carried out by the Al Qaeda-linked extremists, mainly directed at the Houthi community.

The systemic link between Saudi rulers and Islamist terror groups is not a matter of contention. It has been well documented elsewhere, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. So too are the links between US and NATO allies and the same terror groups who function as proxies for regime change or pretexts for foreign military intervention. There are contradictions, of course, such as Saudi Arabia (and Qatar) claiming to be allies in the US-led so-called war on terrorism against Al Qaeda. Washington and Riyadh claim to be waging a counterinsurgency campaign in Yemen against Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, which the US has targeted with its aerial drones for the past decade.

Western powers, including the US, Britain, France and Germany, followed moves by the Persian Gulf monarchies to shut down embassies in Yemen earlier this year. This had the effect of heightening tensions and destabilising the country. The rush to evacuate Yemen had the unmistakable air of a forced abandonment to contrive a state of emergency, which would undermine the Houthi push for political transition. This puts Samantha Power’s recent accusations against the Houthis in a more enlightening context.

Now the deposed puppet-president Mansour Hadi has set up a base in the southern port city of Aden – the old British colonial «Protectorate». Hadi and his clique are calling for foreign military intervention from the Saudi-led GCC states to «restore order» – a phrase that reveals more than intended. It is patent that the Aden remnant is speaking according to a US-Saudi script aimed at giving a legal fig leaf for justifying foreign interference, whose real intent is to roll back a popular uprising.

 

In this Yemeni development there is an unerring analogy with the Bahrain pro-democracy movement. In mid-March 2011 when a Bahraini popular uprising was threatening to overthrow the kleptocratic regime of the Al Khalifa monarchy, the Saudis led a GCC military force into the Gulf island-state to crush that pro-democracy movement. Again, as with Yemen, the Saudis invented the pretext of Iranian aggression as a political cover for its actions. The Americans and the British, too, went fully along with the Saudi ruse in Bahrain to crush a democratic opening and to shore up the old order.

The old order of autocratic, despotic rule in the Arab region is sacrosanct, as far as Washington and its petrodollar allies are concerned. Democracy, or even the mere possibility of democracy, cannot be tolerated. For that would threaten the fascist order that underpins American global hegemony. Yemen is now entering dangerous political territory. It is threatening the Washington-ordained order, not just in the country, but in the entire oil-rich region. A US-backed Saudi-led military intervention to «restore order» is therefore on the way. That could take the form of an overt invasion, as in Bahrain, or a ramped-up covert terror campaign to drown the country in blood.

By Finian Cunningham

Saudi Attack on Yemen - The New Normal?

Saudi Attack on Yemen - The New Normal?




Saudi Arabia, in an unprecedented act of unprovoked unilateral military aggression against Yemen by the autocratic absolute monarchy, was allegedly triggered in a US-backed attempt to restore what Riyadh is calling the "legitimate government of Yemen."
What exactly constitutes a legitimate government is not clear for a despotic regime where elections are not held, women cannot drive, and enemies of the state are beheaded in medieval displays of public barbarism not entirely unlike their ideological ambassadors among the so-called "Islamic State" or ISIS.

The Yemeni Houthi militias are in fact the only viable force fighting Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the Persian Gulf State located at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula. With their recent successes on the battlefield leaving US-backed proxies in shambles, including apparently Al Qaeda itself, the West has decided it must take whatever measures necessary to stop them and reassert US interests in the region.

According to the New York Times in its report, "Saudi Arabia Begins Air Assault in Yemen," Saudi Arabia is intervening to stabilize the country before it descends into "civil war." It states:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/middleeast/al-anad-air-base-houthis-yemen.html


Saudi Arabia announced on Wednesday night that it had begun military operations in Yemen, launching airstrikes in coordination with a coalition of 10 nations.
The strikes came as Yemen was hurtling closer to civil war after months of turmoil, as fighters and army units allied with the Houthi movement threatened to overrun the southern port of Aden where the besieged president, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, has gone into hiding.

In reality, a US-backed regime propped up by a steady stream of support afforded by America's long-standing client state, Saudi Arabia, had been ousted from power. The civil war has already been fought, and the US-backed side has decisively lost.

Instead of allowing the Yemeni people to now determine their own  fate, as the West had insisted regarding Ukraine, it is clear that everything up to and including military invasion has been reserved to ensure American interests prevail.

The New "Normal?"

Saudi Arabia has exercised unilateral military force against a neighboring sovereign state without any notable threat being presented to its own national security. This is naked military aggression by every count. And while the US and UK have openly supported Saudi Arabia in its actions, not even the veneer of UN approval has been applied to this act of war.

Is this the new "normal?" Bombing and invading a country because a foreign power doesn't like the government, without even the semblance of international law being applied? Judging by the "calm" supportive response from the United States and British governments, and the muted tone of what is essentially a naked military invasion of a sovereign country, it is clear that we are expected to believe as much.

In contrast, consider the unhinged hysteria seen across the West when Russian troops uneventfully entered Crimea and held a peaceful referendum that overwhelmingly sought to return the peninsula back to Russia.

Saudi Arabia has begun bombing Yemen, and has plans to send in troops in addition to the already ongoing covert and semi-covert support the regime and its US sponsors have been providing proxy forces within Yemen from the US-engineered "Arab Spring" onward.

The dangerous precedent set by Saudi Arabia's actions will surely be jealously defended as a "West and allies" only option. Russia will not now be afforded the same leeway in the Western press to enter into Ukraine and bomb the regime occupying Kiev into oblivion. Nor would a joint Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese-Iraqi military force be allowed to sweep through the Levant and secure up to and perhaps even beyond the Turkish-Syrian border since NATO and the government of Turkey have for four years now failed to do so themselves.

The interesting question will be though, what if Russia or nations fighting in the Levant decide to do this anyway? What room will the West now have to condemn it considering what they have allowed Saudi Arabia, by every measure an illegitimate despotic dictatorship, to invade a neighboring state with absolute impunity, even with avid, eager Western support? Is the US prepared to accept the consequences of the dangerous new "normal" it has just created?


By Tony Cartalucci

US-Created Violence and Chaos in Yemen

US-Created Violence and Chaos in Yemen



 Yemen is one of many examples of what happens following lawless US intervention.


Obama waged drone war on Yemen throughout his tenure - indiscriminately killing many hundreds of defenseless victims, mostly civilians.

Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Palestine, Yemen is a cauldron of violence and instability threatening to spin entirely out-of-control.

In January, Houthi forces ousted US-backed Ab-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's regime. They took over the presidential palace.

They extended control to other parts of the country. Last year, Obama ludicrously touted Yemen as a success story.

Saying US strategy "of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

US interventionist strategy created violence, instability and chaos in both countries - much like virtually elsewhere else Washington intervenes lawlessly.

Houthis control the capital Sanaa, Taiz (Yemen's 3rd largest city), other areas, and head toward seizing Aden.

In February, Hadi fled there from Sanaa. Declared himself still president.

Reports now indicate he fled the country after Houthi forces approached Aden.

They seized al-Annad air base near Lahij - about 60 km from Aden. Hadi established it as a temporary capital.

US personnel were evacuated from the country. Witnesses saw a convoy of presidential vehicles leaving Hadi's residence on a hill overlooking the Arabian Sea.

Reports indicate he fled by boat as Houthis advanced. AP said he left with aides around 3:30PM local time Wednesday - in two vessels under heavy security.

His destination wasn't disclosed. He's scheduled to attend an Arab summit this weekend in Egypt.

AP reported Houthis "closing in on Aden…(T)he city's fall appears imminent" as of midday Wednesday.

Yemen heads toward exploding in full-blown civil war. Involving IS fighters for good measure - US proxies used to help Washington regain control.

If things turn out like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, years of fighting may follow on top of what's already happened.

Hadi asked UN officials to authorize foreign military intervention.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal warned Riyadh may take "necessary measures" if Houthis don't resolve things peacefully - with no further elaboration. More on this below.

Hadi's Gulf State allies evacuated their Aden-based diplomatic personnel. Earlier they relocated them from Sanaa.

Houthis occupied Yemen's capital last August. Seizing the presidential palace in January forced Hadi's resignation.

Houthi leader Abdel Malik al Houthi leader's cousin Mohammed Ali al Houthi was declared new president.

Hadi was placed under house arrest. He escaped, fled to Aden, organized supportive military forces, and now apparently fled Yemen altogether.

The Houthi Supreme Revolutionary Committee called on security forces and civilians to fight what it called "terrorist forces across the country."

Obama bears full responsibility for Yemeni chaos. Drone warfare followed his December 2009 missile attack on Al Majan village.

It killed dozens of civilians, including women and children.

UN special advisor on Yemen Jamal Benomar addressed an emergency Security Council session on Yemen via video conference.
Things are headed for a "rapid downward spiral," he said.

"Emotions are running extremely high and, unless solutions can be found, the country will fall into further violent confrontations."


"Events in Yemen are leading the country away from political settlement and to the edge of civil war."

Humanitarian crisis conditions affect over 60% of the population. UN sources call Yemen "a patchwork of simmering feuds."

On March 20, suicide bombers targeted Sanaa mosques during Friday prayers - killing at least 126, injuring scores more.

Yemen grows increasingly violent and chaotic. A meaningless Security Council statement said:

"(T)he solution to the situation in Yemen is through a peaceful, inclusive, orderly and Yemeni-led political transition process that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for peaceful change and meaningful political, economic and social reform."

Violence continues unabated. Last weekend, Saudi and other Gulf states issued a statement backing Hadi's regime.

They announced their willingness to use "all efforts" to defend it.

Saudi Arabia deployed heavy weapons along its border with Yemen. A porous 1,800 km border separates the two countries.

Conditions remain chaotic. Houthis claim they seized Aden. Reuters said Hadi's defense minister was arrested.

So far, Saudi forces haven't moved cross border. Air strikes may be planned - maybe joint ones with Washington.

Hadi wants Security Council authorization for force - "to provide immediate support for the legitimate authority by all means and measures to protect Yemen and deter the Houthi aggression," he said.

Yemeni military officials calling themselves the Higher Committee to Preserve the Armed Forces and Security reject foreign intervention, saying:

"We express our total and utter rejection of any external interference in Yemeni affairs under any pretext and in any form and from any side."

"All members of the armed forces and security and all the sons of the proud people of Yemen with all its components will confront with all their strength and heroism any attempt to harm the pure soil of the homeland, its independence or its sovereignty or to threaten its unity and territorial integrity."

Last month, Houthi leader Abdel Malik al Houthi accused Saudi Arabia of wanting Yemen divided along sectarian lines, saying:

"Our elder sister, the Saudi kingdom, doesn't respect the Yemenis and wants to impose here in Yemen the sequence of events and divisions that happened in Libya."

Whether Saudi forces intend attacking Yemen remains to be seen. What Obama has in mind matters most.

He's engulfed large parts of the region in conflict and chaos. Maybe he'll compound it by greater intervention in Yemen.


By Stephen Lendman

How Will the Yemeni Civil War End?

How Will the Yemeni Civil War End?



  The Civil War in Yemen is rapidly expanding. We have been forced to close our embassy and military base located there. It is now clear that Obama’s optimism for fighting terrorism in Yemen was misplaced. It hardly sets a standard for dealing with constant conflict and chaos throughout the Middle East. It now looks like the two major participants in this war are Iran and Saudi Arabia. In this region there has been competition between these two nations for hundreds if not thousands of years. The conflict ongoing in Yemen relates to the age-old conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims. It also reflects the contest over who will control the oil in this region. Not only is there a conflict between the Shia of Iran versus the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, there has been long-term animosity between Arabs and Persians.
Now there are essentially three factions fighting for the control of Yemen. Our support for president Hadi has failed and he is essentially out of power although still involved in the conflict. Former president Saleh, who remains a powerful force in Yemen, is taking advantage of the chaos in his desire to return to power. So far the various factions that we have supported over the years have been poor choices, as usual. Today the, Houthis, supported by Iran, seem to be the ones who have gained the upper hand. However there’s no sign that this civil war will soon end or without major ramifications throughout the Middle East and maybe even beyond.

This turn of events will not make the neoconservatives happy, nor will this go unnoticed by the Saudis. It seems that al-Qaeda has gained the grassroots support from a large number of Yemeni citizens. Currently the chaos in the three-way battle for control of Yemen will guarantee that even though we have been literally run out of Yemen, our interests will remain. Being “allies” of sorts with the Iranians in Iraq will not carry over to the US sympathizing with the Iranian growing influence in in Yemen.

The Iranian supported rebels, who have gained the upper hand, have been blessed with $500 million worth of weaponry that we left behind in our rapid retreat. This is obviously not a new development considering the fact it’s getting to be commonplace and happening wherever we go. This is of course the very same situation that occurred in Syria and Iraq when the troops that we supported dissipated once they encountered military opposition. One thing is for certain: the military-industrial complex will not suffer and more weapons will flow into the region.

Hopefully someday our government officials will wake up. The counterinsurgency doctrine that was supposed to be the answer to all our military shortcomings is a total failure. This idea that we can run an Empire with military threats, missiles, and economic sanctions is a fallacy. A goal of military intimidation without the military troops necessary to maintain control of country we occupy, never works. The policy itself is foolish even if we did send our troops, because we are seen as the outsiders, coming from 6000 miles away, getting involved in internal affairs and civil strife and border disputes and religious wars that is highly resented by the citizens of the countries involved.

Though we have left Yemen, to a large degree we will not go far. Our CIA will remain. The drone missiles will continue. Financing different factions will probably accelerate. We can be certain that our government, whether run by Republicans or Democrats, will be prepared to use military force once it’s decided it’s necessary to restrain Iran and protect Saudi oil.


By Ron Paul

Lithuanians Under Police State Attack and the world under Washington’s attack

Lithuanians Under Police State Attack and the world under Washington’s attack



According to news reports https://ltnacionalistas.wordpress.com/angliskai/lithuanian-government-intensifies-persecutions-against-anti-imperialist-activists/  and to this appeal by Kristoferis Voishka https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6MDj2uvyLk  the pro-American government installed in Lithuania is persecuting Lithuanians who dissent from the anti-Russian propaganda that is driving Washington’s NATO puppets to war with Russia. Unlike their puppet government, Lithuanians understand that war with Russia means that Lithuania on the front line will be utterly destroyed, a result that would not bother Washington in the least, just as Washington is undisturbed when its forces obliterate weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games.



What is Lithuania? To Washington it is a nothing.

Kristoferis Voiska runs an alternative Internet news site in LIthuania. Not long ago he interviewed me, and the interview appeared in both LIthuanian newspapers and on his Internet news program in video form. I found him to be sincere and well informed. I advised him that interviewing me would bring trouble for him, and he already was aware of that.

As I have said so many times, Americans are the worst informed people on the planet. The are unaware of the growing momentum toward war with Russia. The presstitute media throughout Europe, especially in the Baltic states and Poland, is hard at work creating in people’s minds the fear of a Russian invasion. The orchestrated fear then provides the basis for the American puppet governments to beg troops and tanks and missiles from Washington, and the US military/security complex, counting its profits, is pleased to comply.

But what Russia sees is a threat, not a money-making opportunity for the US military/security complex and payoffs to the corrupt Lithuanian and Polish governments, which are increasingly perceived as neo-nazi like the government that Washington bestowed on Ukraine.

The situation is dangerous, as I keep telling you, a message that some are too weak to accept.

If you care to show support for Kristoferis and the independent media in Lithuania, send emails to him at: tautiniai.socialistai@yandex.ru

In about one week I will be 76 years old. I was born in 1939 as World War II was unfolding as the direct consequence of the Versailles Treaty that broke every promise President Woodrow Wilson made to Germany in exchange for the end of World War I.

I remember as a child Cold War nuclear attack drills in elementary school during which we would cower under our school desks. We were issued dog tags with our blood type just like the dog tags ripped by their comrades off US soldiers killed in the war movies by Germans or Japs (no longer a permissible word) and sent home to the dead GI’s family.

To us it was more romantic than scary. We loved wearing the dog tags. I have no idea what happened to mine. They must be collectors’ items by now.

I have seen a lot. As kids playing war–in those days you could have toy guns without being shot down by the police who are protecting us–we reveled in America’s World War victories. We understood, thanks to our parents and grandparents, that the Red Army won the war against Germany, but we Americans beat the heartless Japs.

That was enough. We knew that the US was tough.

I was 14 when the Korean War broke out. We expected to win, of course, and our expectations, we thought, were proven correct when General MacArthur’s amphibious landings rolled up the North Korean army. But what MacArthur and Washington had overlooked is that China and the Soviet Union were not about to accept a US victory.

Before Americans could cheer, the Third World Chinese Army rolled in and pushed the conqueror of Japan back town to the tip of South Korea. It was a humiliating defeat for American arms. In his dispute with President Truman about the conduct of the war, MacArthur, America’s most famous general, was removed from command.

Washington accepted defeat in Korea and again in Viet Nam where a 500,000 US force consisting of US Army, Marines, and Special Forces was defeated by a Third World guerrilla army.

To these defeats we can add Afghanistan and Iraq. After 14 years of killing, the Taliban controls most of the country. Jihadist have carved a new state out of parts of Syria and Iraq. The Middle East reeks of American defeat. Just like Korea. Just like Viet Nam.

Despite these facts insouciant Americans and their crazed rulers in Washington imagine that the US is a Uni-Power, the world’s only superpower against whom no country can stand. Arrogance, ignorance, and hubris are leading the US into conflict with Russia and China, either of which can destroy the US with ease. And Europe as well. And the stupid bought-and-paid-for Japanese government, a total non-entity, a disgrace to the Japanese people, a collection of well-paid American puppets.

As Andrew Cockburn has documented, the US military is lost in abstractions and is no longer capable of conducting conventional warfare. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/03/24/us-government-us-military-became-murder-inc-paul-craig-roberts/  Any American or NATO army sent to attack Russia will be destroyed almost instantly. Washington cannot accept the loss of prestige from defeat and would take the war nuclear. Life on earth would end.

The only conclusion that informed analysis supports is that Washington is the greatest threat to life on earth. Washington is a greater threat than global warming. Washington is a greater threat than the exhaustion of mineral energy sources. Washington is a greater threat than the rise in world and US poverty from Washington’s policy to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

The only possible conclusion is that unless Washington collapses from its economic house of cards or is abandoned by its NATO puppet states, Washington will destroy life on earth.

Washington is the greatest evil that the world has ever faced. There is no good in Washington. Only evil.


By Paul Craig Roberts