TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
by INFOWARS | JUNE 14, 2015
Infowars captures a vast number of Bilderberg attendees on camera at the airport in Innsbruck, Austria as they leave this year’s Bilderberg meeting.
Watch other footage of our confrontations with Bilderberg members below.
by OLIVIA NUZZI | THE DAILY BEAST | JUNE 14, 2015
It’s an odd sensation to be sitting on the back of a golf cart, holding on for dear life, as a member of Hillary Clinton’s security team—bald and meat-headed, his blazer straining to remain stitched around his bulky arms—speeds like O.J. Simpson in order to deliver you to a secure location. This can happen, I now know, if you happen to make the mistake of walking down the wrong pathway—of a public park—on your way to a Clinton speech.
“Get in!” he barked. Then, a sigh: “Not your fault.” That’s just the way things are around here.
Here would be Hillary Island—formerly Roosevelt Island—a strip of land located in the middle of the East River between Manhattan and Queens that some 10,000 New Yorkers call home. More specifically, here is Four Freedoms Park—a grassy island enclave named for the Four Freedoms FDR spelled out in his 1941 State of the Union speech: Freedom of speech, of worship, from the want, and from fear—where the Clinton team has assembled a red and blue stage, in the shape of an H, for her to pace on as she delivers her first major campaign speech.
Clinton formally declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination almost exactly a month ago, in April, with a 2:15 video. “Everyday Americans need a champion,” she said then. “And I wanna be that champion.”
Image Credits: 401(K) 2012 via Flickr.
by CHARLES HUGH SMITH | PEAK PROSPERITY | JUNE 14, 2015
It means governments are limiting the use of cash and a variety of official-mouthpiece economists are calling for the outright abolition of cash. Authorities are both restricting the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from banks, and limiting what can be purchased with cash.
These limits are broadly called capital controls.
Why are governments suddenly acting as if cash money is a bad thing that must be severely limited or eliminated?
Before we get to that, let’s distinguish between physical cash—currency and coins in your possession—and digital cash in the bank. The difference is self-evident: cash in hand cannot be confiscated by a “bail-in” (i.e. officially sanctioned theft) in which the government or bank expropriates a percentage of cash deposited in the bank. Cash in hand cannot be chipped away by negative interest rates or fees like cash held in a bank.
Cash in the bank cannot be withdrawn in a financial emergency that shutters the banks, i.e. a bank holiday.
When pundits suggest cash is “obsolete,” they mean physical paper money and coins, not cash in a bank. Cash in the bank is perfectly fine with the government and its well-paid yes-men (paging Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Buiter) because this cash can be expropriated by either “bail-ins” or by negative interest rates.
Mr. Buiter, for example, recently opined that the spot of bother in 2008-09 (the Global Financial Meltdown) could have been avoided if banks had only charged a 6% negative interest rate on cash: in effect, taking 6% of the depositor’s cash to force everyone to spend what cash they might have.
Both cash in hand and cash in the bank are subject to one favored method of expropriation, inflation. Inflation—the single most cherished goal of every central bank—steals purchasing power from physical cash and digital cash alike. Inflation punishes holders of cash and benefits those with debt, as debt becomes cheaper to service.
The beneficial effect of inflation on debt has been in play for decades, so it can’t be the cause of governments’ recent interest in eliminating physical cash.
So now we return to the question: Why are governments suddenly declaring war on physical cash, the oldest officially issued form of money?
The first reason: physical cash has the potential to evade both taxes as well as officially sanctioned theft via bail-ins and negative interest rates. In short, physical cash is extremely difficult for governments to steal.
Some of you may find the word theft harsh or even offensive. But we must differentiate between taxes—which are levied to pay for the state’s programs that in principle benefit all citizens—and bail-ins, i.e. the taking of depositors’ cash to bail out banks that became insolvent through the actions of the banks’ management, not the actions of depositors.
Bail-ins are theft, pure and simple. Since the government enforces the taking, it is officially sanctioned theft, but theft nonetheless.
Negative interest rates are another form of officially sanctioned theft. In a world without the financial repression of zero-interest rates (ZIRP—central banks’ most beloved policy), lenders would charge borrowers enough interest to pay depositors for the use of their cash and earn the lender a profit.
If borrowers are paying interest, negative interest rates are theft, pure and simple.
Why are governments suddenly so keen to ban physical cash? The answer appears to be that the banks and government authorities are anticipating bail-ins, steeply negative interest rates and hefty fees on cash, and they want to close any opening regular depositors might have to escape these forms of officially sanctioned theft. The escape from bail-ins and fees on cash deposits is physical cash, and hence the sudden flurry of calls to eliminate cash as a relic of a bygone age—that is, an age when commoners had some way to safeguard their money from bail-ins and bankers’ control.
Negative interest rates (and fees on cash, which are equivalently punitive to savers) raise another question: why are governments suddenly obsessed with forcing owners of cash to either spend it or gamble it in the financial-market casinos?
The conventional answer voiced by Mr. Buiter is that recession and credit contraction result from households and enterprises hoarding cash instead of spending it. The solution to recession is thus to force all those stingy cash hoarders to spend their money.
There are three enormous flaws in this thinking.
One is that households and businesses have cash to hoard. The reality is the bottom 90% of households have less income now than they did 15 years ago, which means their spending has declined not from hoarding but from declining income.
While Corporate America has basked in the glory of sharply rising profits, small business has not prospered in the same fashion. Indeed, but some measures, small business has been in a 6-year recession.
The bottom 90% has less income and faces higher living expenses, so only the top slice of households has any substantial cash. This top slice may see few safe opportunities to invest their savings, so they choose to keep their savings in cash rather than gamble it in a rigged casino (i.e. the stock market).
The second flaw is that hoarding cash is the only rational, prudent response in an era of financial repression and economic insecurity. What central banks are demanding–that we spend every penny of our earnings rather than save some for investments we control or emergencies—is counter to our best interests.
This leads to the third flaw: capital — which begins its life as savings — is the foundation of capitalism. If you attack savings as a scourge, you are attacking capitalism and upward mobility, for only those who save capital can invest it to build wealth. By attacking cash, the central banks and governments are attacking capital and upward mobility.
Those who already own the majority of productive assets are able to borrow essentially unlimited sums at near-zero interest rates, which they can use to buy more productive assets, while everyone else–the bottom 99.5%–is reduced to consumer-serfdom: you are not supposed to accumulate productive capital, you are supposed to spend every penny you earn on interest payments, goods and services.
This inversion of capitalism dooms an economy to all the ills we are experiencing in abundance: rising income inequality, reduced opportunities for entrepreneurship, rising debt burdens and a short-term perspective that voids the longer-term planning required to build sustainable productivity and wealth.
According to the Federal Reserve, total outstanding physical cash amounts to $1.36 trillion.
Given that a substantial amount of this cash is held overseas, physical cash is a tiny part of the domestic economy and the nation’s total assets. For context: the U.S. economy is $17.5 trillion, total financial assets of households and nonprofit organizations total $68 trillion, base money is around $4 trillion, and total money (currency in circulation and demand deposits) is over $10 trillion (source).
Given the relatively modest quantity of physical cash, claims that eliminating it will boost the economy ring hollow.
Following the principle of cui bono—to whose benefit?–let’s ask: What are the benefits of eliminating physical cash to banks and the government?
The benefits to banks and governments by eliminating cash are self-evident:
In fractional reserve systems such as ours, banks are only required to hold a fraction of their assets in cash. Thus a bank might only have 1% of its assets in cash. If customers fear the bank might be insolvent, they crowd the bank and demand their deposits in physical cash. The bank quickly runs out of physical cash and closes its doors, further fueling a panic.
The federal government began insuring deposits after the Great Depression triggered the collapse of hundreds of banks, and that guarantee limited bank runs, as depositors no longer needed to fear a bank closing would mean their money on deposit was lost.
But since people could conceivably sense a disturbance in the Financial Force and decide to turn digital cash into physical cash as a precaution, eliminating physical cash also eliminates the possibility of bank runs, as there will be no form of cash that isn’t controlled by banks.
While the benefits to banks and governments of banning physical cash are self-evident, there are downsides to the real economy and to household resilience.
by DR. EDWARD F. GROUP III | INFOWARS.COM | JUNE 14, 2015
You’re probably aware of the mass shootings across the nation in recent years, and many people are left wondering what could be causing the uprising of these violent crimes. Gun control is seen as a solution to this problem, but what if the issue is much more covert? Taking antidepressants is considered normal in this day and age, and no one questions their use. But could it be that this overly-prescribed pharmaceutical is altering minds to a greater degree than we’ve ever imagined? The antidepressant trazodone, for example, was given to a man who shot and killed 12 people at a Navy facility in Washington, D.C. Trazodone carries with it a list of side effects, including suicide behavior, panic attacks, worsening depression, aggressive behavior, impulsive behavior, and abnormal excitement. [4]
While many wish to brush off one example of antidepressants and violent behavior as a mere coincidence, we can’t ignore the many other cases of suicides, murders, and violence in the country at the hands of those drugged with these psychiatric pharmaceuticals. [5] Depression isn’t a Zoloft deficiency; it’s a real illness that, at its root, contains one or more causative factors. Improper nutrition is virtually ignored by today’s psychiatrists, but it just so happens that all neurotransmitters responsible for mood stabilization require nutrients for proper functioning. Tryptophan, for instance, requires zinc, copper, B vitamins, iron, and magnesium in order to perform efficiently.
Another hidden and rarely discussed factor related to depression is mold exposure. Mold can remain hidden in a home for years, but the effect it has on your health is insurmountable. Studies have shown that mold exposure, whether you know you’re being exposed to it or not, contributes to neurobehavioral issues. These health issues include worsening memory, mood impairments, and even Parkinson’s disease-like symptoms. [6] [7] [8]
When it comes to psychiatric illness, it is up to you and your doctor to find the best way you can to improve your wellbeing. Always keep in mind that there are a number of components playing into disease, including mental illness, so speak to your doctor and do your research to determine the plenitude of factors associated with your particular case. If you are taking pharmaceutical drugs for any kind of mental distress, it is important to not stop taking them, because this action could lead to adverse symptoms, including worsening depression. Supplementing with probiotics can also be a helpful measure, as could physical exercise, meditation, and socialization.
by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | JUNE 11, 2015
Kissinger did not say the arming of the Islamic State was a deliberate process.
In March, Qasim al-Araji, the head of the Badr Organization in Iraq, told parliament he had evidence the U.S. has deliberately armed the Islamic Army, according to a report carried by the Arabic languageAlmasalah.
Infowars.com reported on March 5:
Iranian media and other sources have claimed on at least two occasions U.S. military aircraft dropped weapons in areas held by the Islamic State.
“The Iraqi intelligence sources reiterated that the US military planes have airdropped several aid cargoes for ISIL terrorists to help them resist the siege laid by the Iraqi army, security and popular forces,” Iraqi intelligence claimed in December.
“What is important is that the US sends these weapons to only those that cooperate with the Pentagon and this indicates that the US plays a role in arming the ISIL.”
In January Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui said American aircraft delivered weapons and equipment to ISIS southeast of Tikrit, located in Salahuddin province.
The London-based organization Conflict Armament Research previously reported that ISIS fighters are using “significant quantities” of arms including M16 assault rifles marked “property of the US government.”
In June Aaron Klein, writing for WorldNetDaily, reported that members of ISIS were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said last year ISIS was able to capture large areas of Iraq due to arms transfers from “moderates” in Syria fighting a proxy war against the government of Bashar al-Assad.
“I think we have to understand first how we got here,” he told CNN.
“I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria.”
Kissinger told Fox News he strongly disagrees with Rand Paul’s approach on ISIS.
In September Paul said US interventionist policies are responsible for the situation in the Middle East.
Paul said from the Senate floor there “were no WMDs” in Iraq and “that Hussein, Qadhafi, and Assad were not a threat to us. Doesn’t make them good, but they were not a threat to us.”
“Intervention created this chaos,” he added. “To those who wish unlimited intervention and boots on the ground everywhere, remember the smiling poses of politicians pontificating about so-called freedom fighters and heroes in Libya, in Syria, and in Iraq. Unaware that the so-called freedom fighters may well have been allied with kidnappers and are killers and jihadists.”
Kissinger told Fox News that he opposes “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS. He said, however, the United States should send special forces to work with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups fighting against the terror organization and also provide intelligence and target spotters for the Iraqi military.
Obama has approved a plan to send an additional 450 U.S. troops to Iraq. Moreover, the administration has approved a plan to create a training base at al-Taqaddum in western Iraq between the key Anbar provincial cities of Ramadi and Fallujah which are currently under ISIS control.
“I don’t think it’s a new strategy … because we’re continuing to execute the strategy that we have,” U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told CBS News.
by INFOWARS.COM | JUNE 11, 2015
It’s a shame that such a beautiful, picturesque landscape is being used for such nefarious purposes.
See all of Infowars’ Bilderberg coverage at infowars.com/bilderberg
by C. MITCHELL SHAW | THE NEW AMERICAN | JUNE 11, 2015
In the past decade, the federal agency has more than tripled the surveillance it conducts. Most of this has been done without any federal oversight. Typically, federal judges have to sign off on wiretapping and other electronic intercepts by federal agencies, but the DEA makes a regular practice of sidestepping that typical practice.
In a 12-month period ending in September 2014, the DEA intercepted 11,681 communications — more than three times the total for the same 12-month period ending September 2004. The agency avoided federal judges and Justice Department lawyers, who are being held to a higher standard since the Snowden revelations. Instead, it has opted to seek the desired warrants from local prosecutors and judges in at least 60 percent of those cases, USA Today reports. The agency has an easier time getting approval from local judges and prosecutors because they are less involved in the cases and are loaded down with their own work. Moreover, because local judges and prosecutors are spread out from New York to California, it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to have any real grasp of the scope of the surveillance being conducted.
The DEA and other federal agencies are required by federal law to obtain approval from a senior Justice Department official before even seeking a warrant for electronic surveillance from a federal judge. No such law exists when the warrant is sought from a local judge. As Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), explains, “That law exists to make sure that wiretap authority is not abused, that it’s only used when totally appropriate. That’s a burden. And if there’s a way to get around that burden, the agents are going to try to get around it.”
In most cases, it appears they are succeeding.
Image Credits: oddsock, Flickr.
by STEVE WATSON | INFOWARS | JUNE 11, 2015
A couple in Florida were arrested and charged with felony neglect after their 11-year-old son was left alone in the back yard playing basketball for 90 minutes. Furthermore, the child was taken from the parents and placed into foster care.
The remarkable story was related to the website Free Range Kids, which advocates raising children to be self reliant, rather than succumbing to the nanny state.
The boy found himself locked out of the family home in April, after the parents became stuck in traffic. A busy body neighbor decided that this was far too dangerous, and called the cops.
When the parents arrived home, they were put in handcuffs, strip searched, fingerprinted and subsequently held overnight in jail.
Meanwhile, the boy and his 4-year-old brother, who was not left alone at any time, were taken into the custody of police and handed to a relative.
It emerged that for 48 hours while the hand over was being sorted out, the children were only fed cereal, and were not encouraged to wash.
After a few weeks of not being able to see their kids, the couple discovered that the relative who was caring for them had had enough and was handing the children over to CPS, whose lawyers asked a judge to place the children in foster care.
When the case came to court, there was a back and forth argument between the CPS lawyer and the family’s legal representative that went on for hours. It was only when the 11-year-old boy spoke to the judge that sanity prevailed.
“He went back there and spoke to the judge for about ten minutes,” the mother told Free Range Kids.
“And then the judge came out and called the two lawyers to the bench and talked to them for about 10 or 15 minutes. And with that, our lawyer came to us and said that if we admitted that we didn’t know that it was wrong to [our son] stay in the backyard, but that we know now that it’s wrong and we will never let it happen again, and that we will explain this to our son, he would let the children come with us.”
The parents agreed to the terms and were allowed to take their children home, a month after the incident originally occurred.
The couple are now attending mandatory ‘parenting classes’ and having therapy, while the children are getting “play” therapy, and must attend mandatory day camps throughout the Summer, all at the behest of CPS.
Unlike last Summer, the kids will not be going to the beach or playing with their parents.
The parents are set to battle the felony charge in criminal court, and trying to get the entire case dropped.
As InfoWars has previously highlighted, cases like this are frequently occurring, and responsible parents who refuse to mollycoddle their children are being repeatedly targeted, and constantly living under the threat of losing their children to the State.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
