It was over 2 months ago, August 21st to be precise, that Spellchek informed you that the Benghazi investigation was dead as a door nail – https://spellchek.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/the-benghazi-investigation-is-officially-closed-or-should-be/
Yesterday, November 21st, 2014, the United States House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released their investigative report on the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on Sept.11-12, 2012. A Friday afternoon document dump if you will. What did they find? Absolutely nothing!
- The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi….Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support….
- Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.
- Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al Qa’ida, participated in the attacks….
- Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate….There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)….
- Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for—and which were used for Ambassador Rice’s public appearances—was flawed….
- Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.
The above bullet points are from the Mother Jones spin version – http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/11/republicans-finally-admit-there-no-benghazi-scandal?utm_content=buffer67f56&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The FOX spin version focuses on the CIA – “a primary purpose of the CIA operation in eastern Libya was to track the movement of weapons to Syria.”
As expected, at the end of the day, nobody burns for this one. Not possible. It isn’t just the CIA or the NSA or the State Dept. or the White House that would be complicit should the truth ever come to light. It’s members of both major political parties and intelligence committees that were also in the loop. Fact is that the implications are too far-reaching and destructive so the only possible outcome is to cover it up with the usual bureaucratic quagmire.
We haven’t heard the end of it politically as the GOP will likely include the Senate next year in its investigative committees to keep it alive as a hedge against Hillary Clinton running in 2016. But for all intents and purposes, it’s over and the lives of 4 Americans were snuffed out caught up in a U.S. intelligence covert op to send weapons and recruits to Syria. There will be no closure for the families and loved ones. And life goes on in the military-industrial-corporate complex.
A couple of months ago Spellchek posted on a proposal for a universal basic income in Switzerland – https://spellchek.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/has-the-time-come-for-a-universal-basic-income/
ZeroHedge reports that the idea still has legs and may be on the ballot by late 2016 – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-19/next-qe-switzerland-prepares-living-wage-2600-every-citizen
With Japan planning a few trillion Yen stimulus plan of airdropping “gift cards” directly to the poor to spur spending (and the virtuous awesomeness of economic utopia), it appears Switzerland is about to go one step further. As Motherboard reports, Switzerland could soon be the world’s first national case study in basic income. Instead of providing a traditional social net – unemployment payments, food stamps, or housing credits – the government would pay every citizen a fixed stipend. The proposed plan would guarantee a monthly income of CHF 2,500, or about $2,600 as of November 2014; meaning every Swiss family can expect an unconditional yearly income of $62,400 without having to work, with no strings attached. What could go wrong?
Well, according to a Swiss Federal Council, it will cost plenty.
The Swiss Federal Council has rejected proposals for an “unconditional basic income” and warned that taxes would have to be dramatically increased to fund any such measure. The scheme would oblige the federal Government to introduce an unconditional basic income that would enable all Swiss residents to lead a dignified life. A basic monthly income of CHF2,500 (USD2,728) for adults and CHF625 for minors had been recommended. The Federal Council says that it would cost CHF208bn (USD227bn) to fund the project. This would necessitate CHF153bn in additional taxes, and CHF55bn would need to be transferred from the existing social security budget. The Council estimates that taxes on labor would need to equate to CHF128bn of the CHF153bn total. An 8 percent hike in value-added tax (VAT) would generate in the region of CHF25bn. It also cautioned that employment would fall, further impacting tax revenues. – See more at: http://www.tax-news.com/news/Swiss_Federal_Council_Rejects_Basic_Income_Proposals____65688.html#sthash.CRycCgUe.dpuf
Not everyone agrees. In fact, a case study was completed that shows it would be virtually free.
So ultimately, the introduction of a Universal Basic Income of this order in Switzerland would require only added revenue of 1% of GDP. This is hardly unthinkable nor unworkable. For instance, a hike in the value added tax from 8% to 12% would by itself cover this amount (remember that much of the EU already works with 20-25% VAT). Read more – http://my.firedoglake.com/obey/2013/12/13/82/
So we arrive at the point where we always do when it comes to socialism. If ‘free’ money results in stimulating the economy, why stop at $2600? The progressives decree that a multiplier effect exists when it comes to redistribution. If $2600 provides a basic income, why not two or three times that amount? After all, won’t these people spend it and it will weave its way right back through the economy? If a multiplier of 1.5 is true, this would be an economic boon.
Proponents will also point to the economist Milton Friedman who supported a negative income tax – http://youtu.be/xtpgkX588nM
However, Friedman had a different goal. He didn’t wish to implement a disincentive to work and he had hoped to eliminate multiple layers of bureaucracy within the current multitude of welfare programs as a cost saving measure. He also realized there was no multiplier effect.
One may ask why even bother with all the semantics and the middleman? Why not just make direct payments to cover one’s housing, food, medical, transportation, etc.? Why give out $2600 a month when the recipient may spend it unwisely thus defeating the purpose of eliminating poverty when their costs of living may be provided for in the background? Seamlessly. Transparently. In fact, the poor would have no need for money as their needs would be provided for. They would never even know where it comes from.
There we have the key point. Government must fill the role of provider. In order for the basic income recipients to keep on voting for more of the same and thus keeping those providers in power, dependency is a must. Incentivizing people to lift themselves beyond a basic income level would be counter-productive.
The cost of the program and its sustainability is irrelevant, at least in the eyes of the providers. The cost shift to the wealthy among us is simply a cost of doing business. As long as the elected officials continue providing the structure in which the wealthy keep their wealth, they will stay in power.
You can see the merits of the Friedman proposal. We’re already handing out welfare dollars to the poor. Why not become more efficient and productive at it to lessen the bureaucratic waste government entails? The same answer applies. Government efficiency and streamlining is counter-productive.
The bottom line is that programs like these will never end poverty and will merely succeed in growing government and inhibiting the growth potential of a country. Providing a safety net for the truly needy will always be a requirement. Providing one without a massive bureaucracy as a benefactor and elected officials as the overseers is the true challenge.
The headline sounds rather ominous.
Sounds like a progressive dream, doesn’t it? Indoctrinating poor junior that big government is good.
2. When you are a citizen you have rights. Rights are special privileges the government gives you. In our country, you have free speech. You are also given the right to chooes a religion. In America, the press is free to tell you what is happening in the world. The Bill of Rights lists the freedoms given to citizens. These rights are very important. Many people in the world do not have freedoms like we do.
Unfortunately, it’s all too true. If you’re a freedom lover, conservative, libertarian, etc., you’re probably thinking I’ve gone off the deep end and drank the progressive kool-aid. No, in fact, I just call ’em like I see ’em even if they aren’t pretty.
Now, I could go through the entire spiel as the story author’s do explaining inalienable rights and how government has no authority whatsoever to infringe upon them. Waste of my time and yours. Let’s deal with reality.
The fact is that the world we live in (an asylum as this expert knows) doesn’t allow for freedom or inalienable rights. You may perceive that you have them to some limited degree. You may conduct yourself as you should when it comes to rights. This means when you exercise yours, you don’t infringe upon others which is the basic meaning of a right.
Yet any clear thinking person can take a look around them and see all types of ways in which your ‘rights’ are infringed upon each and everyday. This includes our God-given inalienable rights. Governments do take them away. Your fellow humans do indeed take them away. And just who do you think you’ll turn to remedy it? That’s right, those very same people and organizations that took them away. Meaning you never really had them to begin with, did you?
As far as the Bill of Rights, our Constitution or any other documents of this style, they are intended to reinforce existing rights. So sure you can make the case that the article is well-intentioned in pointing out that government should not be in the business of issuing rights. But they do and your only real recourse is to somehow change the very authority that is infringing upon your rights.
Is this just semantics? I think not. Not when there are very real consequences to those who declare themselves sovereign or somehow unaffected by laws or rules that limit their freedom. Try it yourself. Don’t pay your property taxes and see if you keep your house you ‘own’. Try to carry a weapon on an airplane and see how far your 2nd Amendment gets you. Try to exercise your inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness by eradicating what you deem to be an invasive pest but a government agency has declared protected.
You don’t even have a basic right to life. No, I’m not referring to the abortion ghouls that believe that they have the power to take a life. Instead refer to the last sentence of the quote.
Many people in the world do not have freedoms like we do.
Unlucky enough to be born in a dictatorship like North Korea? Your very life is in the hands of the regime from birth. Human rights that are inalienable and guaranteed by God should have no concern for geography, the type of government in power or the whims of the voting public in a democracy. You may believe such limitations are necessary to coexist in a civil society peaceably, but a consensus vote should never supercede an inalienable right, should it?
In the end, it may be very disconcerting to acknowledge that what our second graders are being taught is not what we would hope for, but it is reality. Rights really are nothing more than privileges granted by others.
If I were to ask you to swallow battery acid, would you do it? Of course you wouldn’t, who would do such an idiotic thing? What if I told you that you were poisoning yourself each and everyday with a toxic pollutant? Would you stop doing it? Not likely. You wouldn’t stop because you wouldn’t believe it to be true or because of the very real inconvenience it would create in your lifestyle. What on earth am I talking about? Flouride.
Flouride? Do I mean the cavity fighter approved by the American Dental Association? Yes, that fluoride. You see, this is an old story but the passage of time tends to blur older people’s fading memories along with the ignorance of our youth. The battle over fluoride goes back decades and decades but time has led to its acceptance with each generation less resistant than the previous.
So why is fluoride a problem? In a nutshell, it goes like this. The fluoride in your food, water and toothpaste is not pharmaceutical grade pure fluoride but an industrial waste product primarily developed from the production of fertilizer. That waste product is a toxic pollutant that is sold to public water supplies around the world and added directly to your water. The water you drink with, bathe with, cook with, etc.
Say you only drink bottled water, think your safe? Do you consume any processed food from your grocer? Any beverages utilizing water in their production? The fact is that many bottled water sources are domestic water supplies and much of the food and beverages we consume utilize water either in the product itself or in the production of said product. Chances are that water is a public water source that adds fluoride.
Why is this version of fluoride so bad? Lets get a bit more technical. The fluoride were talking about is actually an offshoot of fluorine. Flourine is a gas that is encapsulated in phosphorus. When the phosphorus is mined to produce fertilizer by the addition of sulfuric acid, the fluorine gas, along with uranium, is released into the atmosphere. Yes, that uranium used to produce nuclear weapons.
The fluorine gas is a killer. It kills vegetation, livestock, and humans. Do a little research on the 1948 Halloween disaster in Donora, Pennsylvania which killed at least 20 and sickened hundreds. There are many, many more examples. Industry had a problem. The answer was the installation of ‘wet scrubbers’ in the factories. It’s a rather simple technology that basically sprays a fine water mist to entrap the gas into a liquid form. So we start with fluorine gas, convert it silicon tetraflouride and eventually to hydroflourosilicic acid or sodium silicofluride. They both contain silica which makes them unappealing to industry.
It has become an industrial waste product that is very expensive to store and dispose of. What to do? How about sponsoring some studies which promote the necessity for fluoride in our public water supplies? Then make it acceptable to substitute this synthetic industrial version of fluoride as opposed to the pure pharmaceutical fluoride?
If you’re familiar with the history of fluoride, you may think opponents are merely conspiracy theorists. The government says it’s ok and beneficial in fighting tooth decay. Please consider these facts.
Silicon tetraflouride is a toxin. Here are the health hazards listed from the MSDS, the material safety data sheet.
Corrosive and irritating to the upper and lower respiratory tracts, skin and eyes. It hydrolyzes very rapidly yielding hydrofluoric acid so that skin burns and mucosal irritation are like that from exposure to that acid. Symptoms include lacrymation, cough, labored breathing and excessive salivary and sputum formation. Excessive irritation of the lungs causes acute pneumonitis and pulmonary edema which could be fatal. Hydrofluoricacid dermal burns exhibit severe pain, redness, possible swelling and early necrosis.
You say wait, I brush three times a day and don’t have any of those symptoms. The problem with fluoride is a chronic one rather than acute. Acute means effects in a short-term period of time. Chronic means what accumulates over a long period of time.
The list of health hazards from ingesting fluoride is a long one. My intent is not to write a book on the subject in a blog post. Only to raise awareness where time has served to erase public awareness of what is the biggest health hazard of our time. Ebola may get the headlines but sometimes seemingly harmless everyday products are a bigger threat to most people.
I operate a public water plant in my profession so I am speaking from firsthand experience when discussing handling fluoride. It is a dangerous toxin that we must handle with extreme care and in my opinion should not willingly be put into our bodies. Please do yourself a favor and research the topic yourself. It is quite an eye opening experience to learn what you haven’t been taught. Just wait until you learn about the link between fluoride and The Manhattan Project.
Here are a couple of links to get you started.
Spellchek has posted a multitude of times over the years concerning global the geo-politics of war and what primarily drives it. It’s the economy stupid as slick willy would say. Was are fought endlessly around the globe over natural resources, primarily access and distribution, and trade. Every powerful nation has it as the focus item on its agenda and in its national security plan. Protecting borders is really small potatoes and left for third-world nations to wring their hands over.
Of course there are true national security strategic initiatives in play as well. For example, the deep water port access Russia secured through annexing Crimea. But behind every security objective lies an economic driver. In the case of Russia, its national gas company Gazprom is used as both a carrot and a blunt force hammer in order to shape foreign policy.
Throughout think tanks and other national security planning entities around the globe, a system of weighted objectives is put in place in order to score agenda items according to priority. So contemplating an action such as instituting airstrikes against ISIS in Syria or taking out Osama bin Laden is considered against a multitude of parameters and if it accrues enough points, it moves up the agenda list. Then the administration has to earn their check and make the final decision on which ones to pull the trigger on. Not to difficult.
There is one nasty little detail in the mix however. That’s putting the lives of our sons and daughters on the line in the interest of national security. Doing so against people who bomb us or kill our own isn’t a hard sell. You’ll have a massive number of Americans raising their hand to say “pick me”, I’ll go. It’s when we send our youth overseas to die for seemingly non-security related causes that we run into trouble.
Fact is, it happens all the time. Those who represent the interests of America are put in harm’s way for agenda items such as economics. Reason being that the economy is without question a national security priority. It just doesn’t sell well to tell the moms and dads that their son or daughter died to protect an economic motive.
Enter the mainstream media and the ulterior motives agenda. Creating boogeymen and drumming up public support is their specialty. The aren’t called the Fourth Branch for nothing. They are the public relations arm of every administration.
So why do I bring this up today? Merely to set the table for the news of the day. The Red Menace, China, is laying the groundwork for their next move in the chess game.
Beijing says it will spend $40 billion to revive the historic Silk Road and connect China with Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Chinese President Xi Jinping said the ambitious project is designed to “break the connectivity bottleneck” in Asia – http://myidst.com/index.php/en/geopolitics/item/178-beijing-40-billion-offer-to-revive-the-historic-silk-road-starts-central-asia-geostrategic-competition
The Caspian Sea region has been a centuries long battle zone for trade and resources. China recognizes its importance as well as anyone. A $40 billion dollar investment is as much a national defense initiative as it is an economic boost.
The “Silk Road Economic Belt” initiative, announced by Xi Jinping in 2013, is designed to allow capabilities of Chinese state-controlled construction companies to further expand its already booming trade with central Asia and Europe by diversification of Chinese trade routes, lowering transportation costs, opening up new markets, and an expansion of the Chinese sphere of influence beyond Asia. It will also secure the supply of Uranium and rare metals from Central Asia.
The money quote from this article?
The Chinese Silk Road plans, however, compete with other Central Asian strategies, especially the Russia-initiated the Eurasian Economic Union and the U.S.-initiated New Silk Road Initiative.
It isn’t difficult to see how our endless conflicts throughout the world have their roots based in economic strategies. Competing with China dictates that the U.S. maintain a strategic presence in order to implement their global agenda. For those who hoped Obama would end the Bush wars and simply walk away without securing our true agenda items is not paying attention to the reality of geo-politics.
In other words, get ready for more of the same. National defense strategy means just that. Sometimes executing a defensive action means denying your opponent an advantage. A monopoly on resources or their distribution is a classic economic national defense agenda item.
The United States is promoting the New Silk Road Initiative, that would reduce delivery time and costs, bolster much-needed trade relations between Central Asia and Afghanistan with India as well as provide needed balance in the region, helping avoid a Chinese monopoly.
Yes indeed, you can count on further conflicts in the region ‘requiring’ our intervention.