Samantha Power: Americans Should Get Behind U.S. Constant Global Intervention

The New American
by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, encouraged Americans to stay committed to America’s increasingly interventionist foreign policy and to avoid wearying of the role the country must play in protecting the world from a variety of threats to its national security.

During remarks last Wednesday at the Defense One Summit — a confab of who’s who of war profiteers Power warned against withdrawing from the global battles against disease and extremism. According to Defense One’s report of the event:

“I think there is too much of, ‘Oh, look, this is what intervention has wrought’ … one has to be careful about overdrawing lessons,” Power said Wednesday during the Defense One Summit. At the same time, she said, “we are asking an awful lot right now of our forces.”

“The risk of using military force is so significant … there should be a lot of layers and a lot of checks and balances. But at the same time there are really profound risks to our national security that exist today.”

Trotting out the typical trope of the globalist war hawks, Power pointed to the rise of extremism and the critical need for the United States military to quell it. Defense One reports:

“The moderate opposition in recent months has lost ground, no question,” she said. U.S. military strikes in Syria have been limited in their effectiveness at degrading the Islamic State, and according to some reports, have benefitted Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. But Power emphasized that there remain Syrian rebels who “still espouse the vision for Syria that drove the revolution in the first place.”

Speaking of the latest bugaboo — ISIS — Powers claimed that it is “the kind of terrorism juggernaut that the American people understood we couldn’t tolerate.”

Flogging the necessity of American interventionism is nothing new to Power. For years she has preached the doctrine of America as the world’s military messiah.

A central tenet of this doctrine is the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to a greater government with authority in every square inch of the globe.

Now that she is in the driver’s seat of the American delegation to the UN, Power seems set on accelerating toward an unprecedented drive toward one-world government and a subordination of U.S. sovereignty to the unelected, unaccountable whims of that world body.

With regard to the panoply of policies she will promote from her global bully pulpit, Samantha Power’s record speaks for itself.

Ambassador Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect. This doctrine, advanced by the United Nations, is predicated on the proposition that sovereignty is a privilege, not a right, and that if any regime in any nation violates the prevailing precepts of acceptable governance, then the international community is morally obligated to revoke that nation’s sovereignty and assume command and control of the offending country.

The three pillars of the United Nations-backed Responsibility to Protect are:

• A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities.

• The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.

• If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions.

Should all others measures fail, then military intervention is required. Command and control of that force should be centered in the UN, according to Power and her colleagues.

For over 50 years, The John Birch Society has warned of the dangers of interventionism and a gradual surrender of sovereignty to a global government, particularly the United Nations.

The New American, an affiliate of The John Birch Society, publisehd a wide-ranging, well documented aritcle by senior editor William F. Jasper entitled “The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government” that laid out the globalists’ plans. Addressing the establishment media’s effort to downplay the UN threat, Jasper wrote:

However, very influential Americans, as well as foreign leaders, in politics, media, and academe, have been advocating — blatantly and openly, as well as indirectly — for transforming the United Nations system into a full-blown world government. What’s more, they have begun actual implementation. It is no longer hypothetical that the UN and its affiliated institutions will usurp legislative, executive, and judicial powers, including taxing, policing, and military powers. It has already begun; it is already happening. And it is happening with the acquiescence, approval, encouragement, and funding of globalists in our own government, both Republicans and Democrats.

Later, regarding the UN’s drive to consolidate control over the entire planet, Jasper warns:

The UN grabs for power cited above are far from a complete list. The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) aims to give the UN authority over the planet’s oceans, coastal waters, fisheries, seabed oil and mineral wealth, and maritime traffic. The UN’s World Health Organization and Food & Agriculture Organization are in charge of the Codex Alimentarius, the UN effort to regulate and take control over raw food, processed food, and semi-processed food, including vitamin and mineral supplements, herbs, and other nutritional products. UNESCO has insinuated itself into American schools and families through “partnerships” with our federal and state Education Departments that include curriculum design and invasive, psychologically manipulative “emotional wellness” evaluations. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) not only supports forced abortion in China, but works assiduously with Planned Parenthood to overturn national abortion laws and make abortion legal and commonplace worldwide.

With Samantha Power sitting in the U.S. chair at the UN and Barack Obama sitting in the president’s chair at the White House, it seems that now more than ever the U.S. government is being purposefully mismanaged to invite either a revocation of U.S. sovereignty under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine or a domestic demonstration of what Samantha Power describes as a “meaningful military presence,” which she believes is appropriate when a nation’s sovereignty must be redistributed to those who share her worldview.

Without a change in U.S. policy, how long will it be until the principles that justify the type of intervention being promoted to settle the situation in Syria are also invoked to invite a military takeover of the United States?

Or, if the day comes when the states or the people decide to finally derail the “long train of abuses” that have been imposed on them, would internationalists such as Samantha Power point to this derailment as a threat to national security and cite it as justification for forcibly revoking the rights of the states or the people?

There is one sure way to make sure Americans never face either of these specters: Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.!

The New American

Culture Wars and the non-West

Oriental Review
By Matthew COOPER

In the United States we used to talk about the ‘culture wars’, as though the ‘culture’ was the battlefield, the undifferentiated contested space on which the wars were fought. Indeed, many of us still seem to think and speak this way. Our political and pundit classes will still often talk about a ‘war on Christmas’ or a ‘war on women’ in the public sphere. It used to be the case – and again, for many people, it still is – that such cultural battles were considered zero-sum existential battles between an almighty evil and the few brave, virtuous and true who were willing to stand up to it. The fights are, in their view, about the right to shape the public space in ways which reflect their deep-seated values, values which they believe ought to be universal. There is a certain tempting logic in this thinking, a certain comforting naivety taking its refuge in the trappings of myth, a certain idea that if only a few specific kinds of thinking could be purged from our national consciousness then the culture would be renewed.

I do not speak as a neutral voice here, if such a thing could possibly exist. I speak, firstly, as an American – and as one of the millennial children born to late baby boomer parents. I speak, secondly, as a ‘left-wing conservative’ – one whose respect for traditional lifeways was fostered by a succession of experiences in Indian Country, in a history class taught by an Anglo-Irish Tory, in a Beijing that was busily being bulldozed for the sake of Olympic showmanship, in Kazakhstan, in the thought of the Slavophils and in the embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church. (I would much sooner call myself a Miyazaki-ist than a Marxist.) As such, I am not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of culture as contested space, and I would love nothing better than to see traditional societies and communities make efforts to reclaim their own cultural spaces on their own terms.

GOP-Culture-War-Cartoon.gifBut the issues pointed out by American ‘culture warriors’ both liberal and fundamentalist, are not even close to the entire reality that we face. They certainly don’t approach the hard realities we face now in the United States. Or even in and around the other centres of globalist culture.

What we have begun to see is that the boundaries of acceptable cultural output have begun to narrow and accentuate themselves in very strange and distressing ways – the landscape itself shifts under our feet; the battlefield becomes a bottleneck. It has sadly become the case that it is no longer ‘extreme’ to exhibit one’s body in public – for example, in a ‘pride’ parade – in ways which self-respecting protesters (even counter-cultural ones!) would have thought shameful and entirely beneath them, only twenty or thirty years ago. The infantile antics and language of the so-called ‘Tea Party’, though less explicit than the average ‘pride’ parade, likewise cater to the vulgar Caesarism of their political constituency.

And yet, it becomes not only ‘extreme’, but so beyond the pale as to be worthy of outright dismissal and ridicule, to question the priorities of the American foreign policy establishment, whether from the left or from the right. Speaking of the ramifications of our current foreign policy stance for America’s budget, security and public good is practically a taboo; let alone for the people of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Mali, Syria and the Ukraine.

What we have begun to see is that a genuine civil discourse over public values and political priorities has been progressively displaced in favour of vulgarity, transgression and titillation.

What we have begun to see is that a genuine civil discourse over public values and political priorities has been progressively displaced in favour of vulgarity, transgression and titillation.

What we have begun to see is that a genuine civil discourse over public values and political priorities has been progressively displaced in favour of vulgarity, transgression and titillation – in ways which cannot simply be mere accidents of the times. The enemy is at his strongest when he convinces us he is not there. But there are, of course, beneficiaries to an impoverished public discourse which pushes further into the margins genuine considerations of culture or economy; namely, those who control the culture and the economy. Vulgarity, transgression and titillation all make good copy. They all sell. The very last thing they are is genuinely threatening to the grasp of the elites over public space. And they are readily exported.

This phenomenon of a radically-atomistic, depoliticised politics, of a public sphere characterised by commercialism, vulgarism, voyeurism and self-display, is one which has been quietly cultivated by the globalist elite over the past two decades throughout the world. Witness, for example, the rise in the troubled Ukraine of both radical feminist and neo-Nazi ideology, each displaying vulgar and exhibitionist, even violent, public sphere tactics parallel with the American gay ‘pride’ and anti-tax movements.

In China, there are certainly voices outside the reigning narrative of government authoritarianism versus liberal capitalism put forward by the Anglophone media. Wang Hui, though a thoroughgoing democrat, commits himself to two propositions which fundamentally offend the neoliberal globalist project. First, he argues forcefully in defence of the public rights of traditional communities (such as the Tibetans), in a way which relativises or suspends the formalism of an individual conception of rights. Second, he undercuts this very concept of ‘depoliticised politics’. He critiques, albeit from the left, a political sphere which edges out genuine political discourse whilst providing distractions in the forms of commercialism and spectacle. And he self-consciously adopts an idiosyncratic Daoist philosophical perspective which exposes the fundamental likeness and identity of popularly-perceived opposites, particularly with regard to Anglophone Western perspectives on Chinese history.

Russian and Chinese cultures are the one that do not accept global hegemony and are developing on its own.

Russian and Chinese cultures are the one that do not accept global hegemony and are developing on its own.

Perhaps not accidentally, the two countries which receive the most vilification in the Western press for their political ‘repression’ – China and Russia – are the two countries where a wider variety of political perspectives running counter to the dictates of the global hegemon are most actively striving to make a certain degree of headway. In China, both the thought of the New Left (represented by Wang Hui, Cui Zhiyuan and Wang Shaoguang) and the thought of the traditionalist-conservative, institutionalist branch of the New Confucians (represented by Jiang Qing and Kang Xiaoguang) both attempt to offer authentic and thoroughgoing alternatives to formalism, to legalism, to atomistic individualism and to faceless neoliberal globalism. And in Russia, the older strains of authentic counter-hegemonic thought dating back to Khomyakov and Herzen – Slavophilia, populism, back-to-the-land – are all very much alive and relevant. Modern public figures as different in perspective and methods as Alexander Prokhanov and Archimandrite Tikhon are attempting to forge a path forward for Russia that doesn’t fall into the anti-cultural abyss that threatens the Anglophone West.

In a recent article in the Guardian, Indian novelist Pankaj Mishra, quoting sociologist Clifford Geertz, remarks on the ‘pervasive raggedness’ and the ‘shattering of larger coherences’ in the wake of the age of ideology. He speaks on how the ‘long-term losers’ of history are attempting to bow out of a game that they are beginning to realise has always been rigged against them. Parts of his analysis are somewhat overly-hopeful about the prospects of the non-West in the near future. On the whole, though, he is doing us Westerners a great service, by pointing to a healthy instinct in the non-West to seek solutions of self-rule after the example of Gandhi rather than after the example of Nehru.

One thing in particular is something that is difficult for us Americans to imagine, but equally important for us to realise. Our battles are not the world’s battles. ‘Culture war’ means something very different here in China, to the point where speaking about the American ‘culture war’ seems like a quaint exercise in parochial anachronism. Here the war is against an invading anti-culture, one which still fancies itself the best of all possible worlds, in whatever world it happens to find itself. The strength of these non-Western thinkers lies in their recognition that culture – specifically their culture – is not merely a neutral battlefield.

Matthew Cooper graduated University of Pittsburgh (International Development and Asian studies). He currently teaches English in China and serves as a contributing editor at Solidarity Hall thinkerspace.

Oriental Review

Not The Chinese, But The NSA That Will Conduct A “FALSE FLAG” Attack Upon The Power Grid

The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges

In my former coaching days, I learned the wisdom of concealing the vulnerabilities of my team. If I was being interviewed by the media about an upcoming game, I would never have revealed my vulnerabilities because to do would be moronic!  But, this is exactly what NSA Director, Admiral Mike Rogers, did three days ago when he was addressing lawmakers in full view of the media. He told Congress, the media, the American people and the Chinese that the Chinese have the ability to take down our power grid with an EMP attack and there is nothing we can do about it!  This is insanity! At least it is insanity until one asks the question, “When has the NSA ever warned the American people about anything”?  In fact, when has the NSA ever shown any concern for the welfare of the average American citizen? Answer: NEVER!  Then why now would the NSA be warning the entire nation about an impending attack upon the United States power grid by the Chinese?


The NSA Warning

NSA Director Mike Rogers.

NSA Director Mike Rogers.

Admiral Mike Rogers, is now the director of the National Security Agency and commander of the U.S .Cyber Command.  With regard to a Chinese EMP attack upon our power grid the NSA chief said that “All of that leads me to believe it is only a matter of when, not if, we are going to see something dramatic”.

If the NSA is so concerned with the Chinese taking down the U.S. power grid, then why did we invite both the Russians and the Chinese to participate in the Grid EX II drill last November 13th and 14th in which several government agencies practiced taking down the power grid with a simulated EMP attack?


The Chinese Are Our Enemy

There was a was time when I actually would have believed that the Chinese would do such a thing to the power grid of the United States because they are our enemy.


Chinese President Hu, "I will nuke you America".

The leader of the Communist regime’s delegation, Major General Zhu, became infamous worldwide after telling reporters in 2005 that the dictatorship in Beijing would deploy nuclear weapons against major American cities in the event of a conflict over Taiwan. Further, both Chinese President Hu and Major General Zhang Zhaozhong have threatened the United States with nuclear war if they invade either Iran or Syria.

Do these statements sound like the words of a trusted friend that we should let be a part of a highly sensitive operation involving the defense of our power grid? What is more likely, is that the Chinese, like the Russians, received martial law training on American soil just prior to the Grid EX II drill. It is also likely that the Chinese learned how to take down the U.S. grid without using an EMP weapon. These reasons for this will become apparent in later paragraphs.


Why Would China Launch An EMP Attack When They Already Own America?


Far beneath the ground, the federal government owns the rights to mineral and energy leases, from which they receive royalties, rents, and bonus payments, states the Institute for Energy Research, an industry group. According to their estimates, government states that the assets are worth $128 trillion. That’s almost eight times the national debt.

Why don’t we use this wealth to pay off our debts? This is a simple answer, because the Chinese own the resource in payment for the debt. What do you think the Chinese Inland Ports (e.g. Kansas City) are about? These ports lie over vast amounts of underground wealth that, according to my sources, are already extracting vast amounts of mineral wealth. This is also what the Bundy Ranch affair was all about. The BLM is not just stealing land to establish Chinese Solar Energy Zones, they are also handing off these BLM lands to the Chinese in repayment of the debt.

I have discovered the existence of a BLM document which introduces America to a new Agenda 21 land designation and it is called a “Solar Energy Zone”. The smoking gun BLM document is entitled:

Regional Mitigation Strategy for the

Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone

Technical Note 444

Produced by:

Bureau of Land Management

March 2014

Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone

(see attached PDF)

The Chinese have been given control over these resources. Shouldn’t we call this treason?


  The Chinese Are Buying Up the Federal Reserve

At the end of January 2009, the month President Barack Obama was first inaugurated, Communist China owned $744.2 billion in U.S. government debt and the Fed owned $475.129 billion. In May of 2012, the Federal Reserve has approved applications by three big Chinese government-controlled banks to set up branches and take stakes in US banks after deciding they were adequately regulated in their home market.

The Chinese ownership of U.S. debt, compared to the Federal Reserve, appears to be unchanged in 2014. However, the Chinese are slowly but surely acquiring the Federal Reserve and thus, are acquiring a greater amount of U.S. government debt. Therefore, much of the debt owned by the Federal Reserve, is now owned by the Chinese and their new partners consisting of two large Spanish banks, a German bank and the Chinese. The complete Chinese takeover of our economy is silent but undeniably insidious. It would be appropriate to think of this development as the United States government doing a debt consolidation of all its treasury bonds because it can no longer pay or service the debt and the Chinese and their partners are acquiring the assets of America for pennies on the dollar. It will soon be announced that China is in the process of purchasing major Western banks (e.g. Bank of America, Wells Fargo) and physical assets. These banks make up the majority owners of the Federal Reserve. By purchasing these banks as distressed properties, the Chinese, will in effect, have purchased the Federal Reserve because these banks own the Federal Reserve. surabachiFor the naysayers that will write to me and say there is no way that this will ever take place, I will respond by telling you that you are a day late and a “distressed dollar” short with your anxiety over the future of the American economy.

Late last year, China purchased the JP Morgan building in Manhattan for $725 million. This was a symbolic move like planting the U.S. flag on top of Iwo Jima’s Mount Surabachi during the famous WW II battle. This signified that the Chinese have laid claim to all assets in the United States. One might  reason that the Chinese have in fact purchased all of JP Morgan. When this happens in earnest, it will come in the midst of a dollar devaluation, or collapse and we are well on the way to this happening as evidenced by the fact that in preparation for the event, the G20 declared that bank accounts are no longer considered money. As a result, all account holders go to the bottom of the line and will not be compensated when the banks collapse. And where will the bank deposits go? Well, of course, they will go the holders of the derivatives debt and to the Chinese which explains why the Chinese are buying up the Federal Reserve.

Who owns your mortgage note on either your business property or your personal residence? Answer: The banks.

Who is on their way to completely controlling the U.S. banking system? Answer: The Chinese.

This means that you owe money to the Chinese, not to the United States government. By default, this administration has pledged your homes and businesses to the Chinese. THE CHINESE WILL NOT DESTROY WHAT THEY ALREADY OWN!

If one really wants to go conspiratorial, consider the following: What if Executive Order 13603 is really about pledging all assets to the Chinese in repayment for the debt through a declaration of martial law (e.g. Ferguson riots)?

I have written extensively on Executive Order 13603. This EO sets up the most draconian martial law authority on the planet. Literally, everything is controlled by the government. All food, all industry, all energy and you are controlled by the President. The interesting thing about EO 13603 is that does not require an emergency declaration to be acted upon.


Can there be any doubt?

Let me tip my conspiracy cap back a little farther. When the banks collapse, or the Ferguson riots spread across the country, what is to prevent our Constitutionally abiding President from invoking EO 13603 and handing off ALL of our resources to the Chinese in repayment for the debt?


Now that you have seen the evidence, how believable is the NSA Director’s claim that China is a knee-jerk reaction away from destroying our power grid? Why would the Chinese destroy what they already own? In this light, the statements made by the NSA director must be considered in the context of the preceding paragraphs.  China will never attack this country with an EMP. However, it is highly likely that the recent warning by the NSA Director is right out of the Hegelian Dialectic play book. I think it is very possible, based upon this evidence, to conclude that the grid will be taken down for a time, but it will not be the result of an economy and country-destroying EMP and this is what last year’s Grid EX II was really about. I think it is also likely that the taking down of the grid is designed to induce helplessness and compliance among the American people and this could be accomplished through a fake EMP attack.

When one considers the total devastation of an EMP attack, the Chinese would be fools to destroy their own assets. The NSA Director is lying and we are being set up for a false flag attack.

When one considers the total devastation of an EMP attack, the Chinese would be fools to destroy their own assets. The NSA Director is lying and we are being set up for a false flag attack.

What is the NSA really up to and how do the Chinese factor into this? Clearly, this has martial law implications.  Why? This will be the topic of a future article. In the meantime, why do you think the NSA Director would engage in such obvious subterfuge?

CSS Offical-New-Logo2


The Common Sense Show

Ferguson – Race Baiting for Political Power and Profit


Did you ever wonder why race hustlers champion victims such as Trayvon or Michael Brown?

Did you ever wonder why race hustlers champion victims such as Trayvon or Michael Brown?

Since 911, the police in the US have killed more than 5,000 Americans. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. Despite this brutality, governments at every level seek to further militarize the police, to consolidate power in the state.

Ferguson is a psyop against all Americans.

Here’s how it works.

1) Blacks in Ferguson have very real concerns about policing in their community.

2) The authorities have failed to address their complaints. No one will listen.

3) Over time, they grow increasingly frustrated and angry.

4) Finally, Al Sharpton and even the President of the United States are paying attention to them. It feels great that someone important is finally listening.

5) The urge to seize the day and rally for change is irresistible. The entire world is watching.

6) Meanwhile, the white television audience knows nothing about living in Ferguson, about years of disrespect and unfair treatment. Since they are unaffected by living day to day in Ferguson, whites are inclined to focus on the details of this particular case.

7) In this case, a black man appears to have robbed a store and attempted to grab a policeman’s gun. He’s not an innocent or sympathetic character in the eyes of white America.

8) But to the residents of Ferguson, the facts of Mike Brown’s case don’t matter as much as the larger mission. They are protesting a corrupt system and expressing years of pent up frustrations. And besides, the cameras are here, today. It’s time to act. There will never be a better time.

9) The race hustlers choose fact patterns like this because they know each side feels justified in its interpretation of events. Each side wonders how the other could be so blind. It must be because they don’t care, or they’re evil. Michael Brown’s death presents a perfect fact pattern to sow distrust and hatred. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

10) If Mike Brown were 100% innocent, all decent people, regardless of color, could have protested hand in hand as united brothers and sisters against the police and effected real change. The police would have been the sole focus of a wholly righteous protest.

11) Since Mike Brown is not wholly innocent, to white television viewers, blacks appear irrational and immoral for rioting on behalf of a thug.

12) The more blacks riot on live TV, the more whites learn to fear them, to believe they are violent and unpredictable. Blacks are protesting an oppressive system, but whites wrongly and predictably assume they are merely defending a thug. Whites become convinced blacks are irrational and violent, dangerous.

13) After the blacks have been egged on by President Obama to burn down their own neighborhood, whites across America will demand greater police protection – and the state will gain more power. As a strategy to gain power, divide and conquer works.

14) Once the riot is over, the cameras will leave and the residents of Ferguson will be forgotten. Nothing will improve in their community. In fact, it will get much worse as business owners and professionals leave a now smoldering ruin.

15) Those left behind will vote Democratic forever to beg for scraps and handouts from the government.

16) Hope and Change – Alinsky style.


3 Billion Gallons of Highly-Toxic Fracking Waste Dumped Into California Drinking Water Supply

Washington’s Blog


California Has Been Fracked

We’ve warned for years that fracking pollutes our scarce drinking water. As the Emmy-winning documentary Gasland demonstrates,  fracking is polluting water all over the country.

A study published in the journal Ground Water predicts that the highly-toxic fluids used in fracking can migrate to aquifers within a few short years.

NBC Bay Area news reported last week that 3 billion gallons of highly-toxic fracking waste was injected into California’s aquifers:

In a time when California faces an historic drought, the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit has uncovered that state officials allowed oil and gas companies to pump billions of gallons of waste water into protected aquifers.


State officials allowed oil and gas companies to pump nearly three billion gallons of waste water into underground aquifers that could have been used for drinking water or irrigation.

Those aquifers are supposed to be off-limits to that kind of activity, protected by the EPA.


California’s Department of Conservation’s Chief Deputy Director, Jason Marshall, told NBC Bay Area, “In multiple different places of the permitting process an error could have been made.”California’s Department of Conservation’s Chief Deputy Director, Jason Marshall, told NBC Bay Area, “In multiple different places of the permitting process an error could have been made.”


“This is something that is going to slowly contaminate everything we know around here,” said fourth- generation Kern County almond grower Tom Frantz, who lives down the road from several of the injection wells in question.

According to state records, as many as 40 water supply wells, including domestic drinking wells, are located within one mile of a single well that’s been injecting into non-exempt aquifers.


“That’s a huge concern and communities who rely on water supply wells near these injection wells have a lot of reason to be concerned that they’re finding high levels of arsenic and thallium and other chemicals nearby where these injection wells have been allowed to operate,” said Kretzmann.

Fracking Pumps Out Huge Quantities of Methane

Scientists found that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment. Indeed, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that fracking puts between 100 and 1,000 times more methane into the atmosphere than the EPA assumed.

For those worried about global warming, you should note that methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.  As such, fracking won’t decrease global warming … if anything, it will increase it.

Fracking Causes Earthquakes

Scientists have concluded that fracking actually causes earthquakes.  Some fracking companies now admit this fact.

And yet is allowed within 500 feet of nuclear power plants. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Fracking Is a Ponzi Scheme

Economically, fracking is a ponzi scheme, which has a lot in common with the subprime mortgage scam.

Fracking Our Liberties

A law passed in Pennsylvania allows doctors to access information about chemicals used in fracking, but will restrict them from sharing that information with their patients. See the writeups by Mother Jones and Truthout.

The director of the Emmy-award winning documentary on fracking – Gasland – was arrested for attempting to film a Congressional hearing on fracking.

Actor Mark Ruffalo was put on a terror watch list after he organized showings of Gasland.

The Washington Post reported in 2012 that the FBI is investigating anti-fracking activists as potential terrorists.

The state of Pennsylvania hired an Israeli-American company with extensive military and intelligence ties to put out “terror” alerts. The company – ITRR – describes itself as:

The preeminent Israeli/American security firm providing training, intelligence and education to clients across the globe.

ITRR explains:

The Institute of Terrorism Research and Response’s research and analysis center, known as the Targeted Actionable Monitoring Center (TAM-C), is located in Israel. The Targeted Actionable Monitoring Center is staffed with former law enforcement, military, and intelligence professionals experienced in the production and utilization of intelligence products.

ITRR considered opponents of fracking to be potential terrorists.

Fracking companies are also using military psychological operations techniques to discredit opponents (and see this).

Washington’s Blog

Student Debt By Major: What Not To Study To Avoid A Lifetime Of Debt Slavery

Zero Hedge

As recently reported by the Project On Student Debt, 7 in 10 seniors who graduated from public and nonprofit colleges in 2013 had student loans, with an average debt load of $28,400 per borrower. This represents a two percent increase from the average debt of 2012 public and nonprofit graduates. It is also a new record high.

Those curious about the geographic breakdown of the student debt burden by state, can do so at the following interactive map:


It goes without saying that while student debt is bad, record student debt – which at the Federal level amounts to over $1.2 trillion and rising exponentially – is worse.

In fact, as shown previously, the unprecedented debt burden on the Millennial generation has been used to explain why the largest generational cohort in US history is unable to carry the weight of the economy on its shoulders, why the Millennials are perhaps the most financially disenfranchised generation, and why the labor force participation rate has collapsed in the past five years, as older workers rush back into the work force (thanks to ZIRP crushing the value of their savings) while young Americans chose to remain in university (where they can take remedial high school classes among other things) and out of the labor force in hopes of holding out a better job market (for the 6th year in a row).

However, since all college educations are most certainly not created equal, one outstanding item has been the debt breakdown by field of study, or major.

This is where the latest project and research paper from the Hamilton Project, which comes in handy. It examined earnings for approximately 80 different majors and as the NYT summarizes, allows people to look up typical debt burdens by major, over the first decade after college – which is when people tend to repay their loans.

The project authors note that for the graduate with typical debt level and earnings, payments under the standard 10-year repayment plan take up 14.1% of earnings in the first year, but gradually fall to only 6.5% of earnings in the tenth and final year. This repayment strategy, however, can place a particularly heavy burden on graduates from majors whose earnings start low before rising later in the career. For these students, college may not provide the cash flow needed to easily pay off loans in years immediately following graduation.

The study’s four conclusions:

  • Debt burdens vary a lot across majors. In the sixth year of repayment, typical drama, music, religion and anthropology majors are still devoting more than 10 percent of their earnings to loan repayment. Other majors with fairly high early repayment burdens include philosophy, psychology and education. By contrast, engineering, computer science, economics and nursing majors are paying 6 percent or less of earnings in their sixth year.
  • In the first five years after earning a bachelor’s degree, the typical student receives a 65 percent raise. (This rise for an individual person, as she ages and becomes more experienced, is occurring even as pay growth across the economy is weak. Today’s 30-year-old is making more than he did at 25, but not much more than a 30-year-old was five years ago.) Unfortunately in recent years, wage increases have become deminimis, suggesting that this may no longer be uniformly true.
  • Many of the majors that pay the least directly out of college also have the biggest raises in the first few years. Graduates who major in therapy professions, nutrition or fine arts, for instance, all make less than $20,000 coming out of college, but all see their pay more than double in the first five years. A typical nurse, by contrast, makes almost $45,000 in the first year but receives about a 20 percent raise over the next five years.
  • The growth of earnings for most college graduates means that some of the discussion about student debt has the wrong focus. The overall amount of debt isn’t a problem for most graduates: The typical debt, for someone who has debt, is about $26,500, a manageable sum in most college-graduate careers. The problem for many, instead, is when they must repay their loans: early in their careers, when they’re making the least. In some majors, including health education and drama, the typical graduate with debt must devote an imposing 25 percent of her earnings in the first year out of college to loan repayment. “Repayment issues for the bulk of students,” Mr. Hershbein says, “are a matter of timing, not the amount of student debt.”

And since more and more students seek the safety of college to avoid the “hardship” of a job that pays less than your average Millennial expected, or though they were worth, and thus are forced to dilute their field of study and pick increasingly less monetizable majors, it becomes a Catch 22 whereby students increasingly find it impossible to overcome a staggering debt burden early on in their career, which in turn hinders normal career formation, and skews the economy adversely leading to such unintended consequences as the Fed looking at a sub-6% unemployment rate, while the slack-filled economy has rarely if ever been weaker and real wages are at same level as during the Lehman collapse.

Below is the student loan repayment calculator that shows the share of earnings necessary to service traditional loan repayment for 80 majors. Readers can choose or search from each of these majors, as well as change the size and features of the student loan using the selection boxes above. By default, loan features reflect the experience of a typical graduate borrower, and earnings include part-time workers and those who experience unemployment throughout the year (but exclude those with graduate degrees, as these individuals often accumulate additional debt).

Feel free to play around with the interest rate selector: it shows yet another reason why the regime simply can not afford to send interest rates levitating higher despite the optical effect it would have on expectations for an “economic recovery.”

Student Loan Calculator

In retrospect it is clear why 24% of Millennials  (and rising) “Expect” student loan forgiveness, and why increasingly more private (and soon public) lenders are starting to grant it.

Zero Hedge

Obama’s Executive Action Will Finish Off America


Economic consequences of unilateral amnesty will be a death blow


Obama’s unconstitutional executive action “to shield millions of undocumented immigrants,” as The New York Times puts it, is a brazen effort to further impoverish the American middle class and convert the country into a third world wasteland.

This reality is ignored by the corporate media as it celebrates Obama’s “landmark” betrayal of the Constitution.

The establishment media fails to point out the obvious: the federal government has merged a huge underclass into the system, specifically the tax system.

Details were spelled out by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller on Thursday. He noted that the legalization of illegals will impose further financial obligations on American taxpayers.

“Illegal immigrants will receive huge payments from American taxpayers under rules now being imposed by President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty,” Munro writes.

He points out statements by Cecilia Munoz, a former immigration lobbyist who is now a top Obama aide. Munoz admitted millions of impoverished and near impoverished Mexican immigrants will become part of the tax system.

Munro cites a study showing that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty.

Once these immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, Munro notes, they will be entitled to Earned Income Tax Credit payments. “A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone,” he writes.

This huge transfer of wealth from productive Americans to a parasitical class of poverty-stricken immigrants will hasten the economic demise of the nation.

Prior to the legalization of illegal immigrants, 49% of Americans received some sort of transfer payment from the government: Social Security, food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children program, unemployment, subsidized housing, railroad retirement, veterans’ benefits, etc.

Obamacare is further exacerbating the situation. “This law is going to financially cripple millions of American families. It truly is a death panel for the U.S. economy,” writes Michael Snyder.

Add to this the $29 trillion given to “too big to fail” banks, and you have a situation that will soon result in economic collapse.

The situation is not happenstance or due to government bungling and ineptitude. It is part of a carefully orchestrated plan to loot the remaining wealth of the country and destroy the middle class.

Obama’s unconstitutional executive action will import Mexico’s political and economic system into the United States — a tiny financial elite lording over millions of desperately poor campesinos.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,170 other followers

%d bloggers like this: