Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Disturbing Claim – FBI Interrogated Former Senator for Wanting “28 Pages” Declassified

ORIGINAL LINK

Super Male Vitality

Limited Advanced Release

69.95

53.96

The all new and advanced Super Male Vitality formula uses the newest extraction technology with even more powerful concentrations of various herbs and extracts designed to be even stronger.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/supermale-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/super-male-vitality.html?ims=xrotd&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Super+Male

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/super-male-vitality.html?ims=xrotd&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Super+Male

Brain Force

34.95

26.96

Flip the switch and supercharge your state of mind with Brain Force the next generation of neural activation from Infowars Life.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/brainforce2.jpeg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/brain-force.html?ims=tzrwu&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Brain+Force

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/brain-force.html?ims=tzrwu&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Brain+Force

Anthroplex

39.95

26.96

Introducing Anthroplex, the twice daily pill foundation for men that contains key compounds like horny goat weed, zinc orotate, and a newly balanced blend of hand-selected organic herbs.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/anthroplex-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/anthroplex.html?ims=mussk&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Anthroplex

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/anthroplex.html?ims=mussk&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Anthroplex

Survival Shield X-2

39.95

26.96

Leading the way into the next generation of super high quality nascent iodine, the new Infowars Life Survival Shield X-2™ is now here.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/x2-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/survival-shield-x-2-nascent-iodine.html?ims=rprfm&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Survival+Shield+X-2

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/survival-shield-x-2-nascent-iodine.html?ims=rprfm&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Survival+Shield+X-2

Deep Cleanse

39.95

26.96

Scientifically formulated to use powerful nano-colloidal zeolites and organic ingredients to aid the body's normal function of cleansing itself from chemicals and toxic metals.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/deepcleanse-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/deep-cleanse.html?ims=bixql&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Deep+Cleanse

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/deep-cleanse.html?ims=bixql&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Deep+Cleanse

Silver Bullet – Colloidal Silver

29.95

17.96

The Infowars Life Silver Bullet Colloidal Silver is a powerful colloidal silver product that is both free of artificial additives and utilizes high quality processes to ensure for a truly unique product that has applications for both preparedness and regular use.

http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/silverbullet-200.jpg

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/silver-bullet-40-off.html?ims=wtdte&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Silver+Bullet

http://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/infowars-life/silver-bullet-40-off.html?ims=wtdte&utm_campaign=Infowars+Placement&utm_source=Infowars.com&utm_medium=Widget&utm_content=Silver+Bullet



via IFTTT

The Inevitability Of Unintended Consequences

ORIGINAL LINK

No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force.

~ Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

Shit happens

~ Anonymous

Anyone involved with managing projects, people or systems knows that the only thing that can be planned with absolute certainty is that things will never go 100% according to plan.

This is true even in exceedingly simple situations, which we've written about at length here at Peak Prosperity (the uncontrollable nature of the straightforward Beer Game detailed in this post on the Bullwhip Effect outlines this well). And it's one of the truisms that gives us the most confidence that the world's central planners will eventually lose control of the global systems they are trying to manage via increasingly heavy-handed intervention.

History is full of examples where governments' best-laid plans failed in spectacular fashion, exacerbating the very problems they were intending to solve. Here are a few of our favorites:

Hoy No Circula

In the late 1980s, the air pollution in Mexico City had reached concerning levels. City planners decided that reducing the number of cars on the roads would have a material impact on improving air quality via reduced emissions, so they launched the Hoy No Circula ("today [your car] does not drive") program.

Hoy No Circula mandated that only certain cars could drive on certain days of the week. The rules were based on the last digit of a car's license plate. If your license plate ended in a 5 or 6, you couldn't drive your car on Mondays. If it ended in 7 or 8, Tuesdays were out. And so on.

The expectation was that people would commute via public transit more and, on any given day, there would be 20% fewer cars on the road. 20% fewer cars meant 20% fewer emissions, leading to improved air quality.

But... that's not quite how things worked out.

People, being people, didn't want to change their behavior. Having to find alternate transportation plans every few days proved a frustrating inconvenience. So how did the public respond? By buying a second car, with a license plate ending in a different digit than their primary vehicle.

This was bad for several reasons. Not only did it prevent the number of cars driving on the roads each day by dropping by the expected amount, but these secondary cars were predominantly cheaper, older "beater" cars -- which were much more pollutive automobiles.

Even those who chose to commute instead predominately took taxis instead of public transit (Mexico City had, and continues to have, insufficient options for public transport). Most of the taxis in use when Hoy No Circula was first implemented were Volkswagen Beetles, one of the worst-emitting vehicles in circulation at the time.

So air quality actually in Mexico City worsened after the implementation of Hoy No Circula. And traffic congestion, which was already bad, got worse, as well.

The Cobra Effect

Such misguided policy-making isn't anything new. In our recent book Prosper!: How to Prepare for the Future and Create a World Worth Inheriting we share a fine example dating from the Crown rule in India era:

During British colonial rule of India, the government became concerned about the large number of cobras in Delhi. So it issued a bounty on the poisonous snakes, paying a fixed sum for each dead cobra brought in by the public. It didn’t take long for things to start going sideways on this plan. In order to receive more payments, enterprising residents began breeding cobras.

Clearly this was not what the British rulers intended. Once they discovered how their program was being abused, they terminated the bounty scheme. And what happened next? Yep, with no incentive left, the breeders set their now-worthless snakes free. And the cobra problem in Delhi skyrocketed to much greater heights than before the bounty program began. The “solution” had the exact opposite effect as intended.

(Source)

An Inexhaustible Supply

Sadly, the inability of the central State to recognize its vulnerability to the law of unintended consequences is mighty. Each generation of policymakers refuses to learn from the errors of the preceding ones, and remains confident that as long as it has good intentions (at least publicly), success is inevitable.

But instead, we get bungle after bungle.

The economy is slowing? Fill the banks newly-printed capital! They'll lend it out, thus increasing the velocity of money, spurring consumer spending and re-igniting economic growth. This was the thinking in the wake of the 2008 slowdown -- but what happened? The banks realized it was much safer to hold on to that new money, lever it up and buy 'safe bet' instruments like US Treasury bonds -- thereby making risk-free profits. The money that the banks did deploy largely went into the assets that most favored the banks and their richest clients, resulting in the widest wealth gap our country has ever experienced in its history.

Money velocity still not perking up? Take the bold step of charging negative interest rates on bank deposits! That's sure to get money out into the larger economy, where it can seek a positive return. This is what a growing number of countries are experimenting with today; but like Japan and the EU are realizing, imposing negative nominal interest rates actually boosts demand for cash, gold and safes to store them in. Turns out, desperate and bizarro-world tactics like NIRP cause investors to prioritize return OF capital higher than return ON.

Workers not able to get jobs paying them enough to live on? Double the minimum wage! This sounds noble, but places a heavy cost burden on the already-beleaguered small employer. As we've recently discussed, dramatically boosting the minimum wage without any commensurate relief for small and medium-sized businesses simply adds to the incentive for these companies to shed as many jobs as possible and to invest in long-term non-human solutions like automation. We are permanently destroying the supply of jobs available to our workforce.

The point here is that in many cases (if not most), governments' cures are often worse than the disease they are treating. Or as my favorite de-motivational poster puts it:

Conclusion

And very likely compounding these unintended consequences is the basic principle of uncertainty. In his article Why Our Central Planners Are Breeding Failure Charles Hugh Smith opined on how unknowable much of the results of current monetary policy will be, despite the Fed et al's assurances that they have everything well under control:

As noted above, any policy identified as the difference between success and failure must pass a basic test: When the policy is applied, is the outcome predictable?  For example, if central banks inject liquidity and buy assets (quantitative easing) in the next financial crisis, will those policies duplicate the results seen in 2008-15?

The current set of fiscal and monetary policies pursued by central banks and states are all based on lessons drawn from the Great Depression of the 1930s. The successful (if slow and uneven) “recovery” since the 2008-09 global financial meltdown is being touted as evidence that the key determinants of success drawn from the Great Depression are still valid: the Keynesian (or neo-Keynesian) policies of massive deficit spending by central states and extreme monetary easing policies by central banks.

Are the present-day conditions identical to those of the Great Depression? If not, then how can anyone conclude that the lessons drawn from that era will be valid in an entirely different set of conditions?

We need only consider Japan’s remarkably unsuccessful 25-year pursuit of these policies to wonder if the outcomes of these sacrosanct monetary and fiscal policies are truly predictable, or whether the key determinants of macro-economic success and failure have yet to be identified.

It's this concern about the failure of the current strategy our central planners are pursuing, paired with the tremendous magnitude of the impending cost of that failure, that motivated Chris to issue our report The Consequences Playbook last year, which begins:

What’s really happened since 2008 is that central banks decided that a little more printing with the possibility of future pain was preferable to immediate pain.  Behavioral economics tells us that this is exactly the decision we should always expect from humans. History says as much, too.

It’s just how people are wired. We’ll almost always take immediate gratification over delayed gratification, and similarly choose to defer consequences into the future, especially if there’s even a ridiculously slight chance those consequences won’t materialize.

So instead of noting back in 2008 that it was unwise to have been borrowing at twice the rate of our income growth for the past several decades -- which would have required a lot of very painful belt-tightening -- the decision was made to ‘repair the credit markets’ which is code speak for: ‘keep doing the same thing that got us in trouble in the first place.’

Also known as the ‘kick the can down the road’ strategy, the hoped-for saving grace was always a rapid resumption of organic economic growth. That’s how the central bankers rationalized their actions. They said that saving the banks and markets today was imperative, and that eventually growth would return, thereby justifying all of the new debt layered on to paper-over the current problems.

Of course, they never explained what would happen if that growth did not return. And that’s because the whole plan falls apart without really robust growth to pay for it all.

And by ‘fall apart’ I mean utter wreckage of the bond and equity markets, along with massive institutional and sovereign defaults. That was always the risk, and now we’re at the point where the very last thing holding the entire fictional edifice together is beginning to give way. Finally.

When credibility in central bank omnipotence snaps, buckle up. Risk will get re-priced, markets will fall apart, losses will mount, and politicians will seek someone (anyone, dear God, but them) to blame.

In The Consequences Playbook (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access) we spell out what will happen next and how you should be preparing today for what might happen tomorrow. If you haven't yet read it, you really should. Suffice it to say, a tremendous amount of wealth will be lost if (really, when) the central banks lose control. And standards of living for many will be impacted. A little preparation today can make a huge difference in your future.



via IFTTT

Monday, May 9, 2016

13 Things the Government Is Trying to Keep Secret From You

ORIGINAL LINK

We Are Change

atari20130405230858977

Bill Quigley

This is a problem,

“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted…the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.” – US Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall

The President, the Head of the National Security Agency, the Department of Justice, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Judiciary, are intentionally keeping massive amounts of information about surveillance of US and other people secret from voters.

Additionally, some are, to say it politely, not being factually accurate in what they are telling the public. These inaccurate statements are either intentional lies meant to mislead the public or they are evidence that the people who are supposed to be in charge of oversight do not know what they are supposed to be overseeing. Either way, this is a significant crisis. Here are thirteen examples of what they are doing.

One. The Government seizes and searches all internet and text communications which enter or leave the US

On August 8, 2013, the New York Times reported that the NSA secretly collects virtually all international email and text communications which cross the US borders in or out. As the ACLU says, “the NSA thinks it’s okay to intercept and then read Americans’ emails, so long as it does so really quickly. But that is not how the Fourth Amendment works…the invasion of Americans’ privacy is real and immediate.”

Two. The Government created and maintains secret backdoor access into all databases in order to search for information on US citizens

On August 9, 2013, The Guardian revealed yet another Edward Snowden leaked document which points out “the National Security Agency has a secret backdoor into its vast databases under a legal authority enabling it to search for US citizens’ email and phone calls without a warrant.” This is a new set of secrets about surveillance of people in the US. This new policy of 2011 allows searching by US person names and identifiers when the NSA is collecting data. The document declares that analysts should not implement these queries until an oversight process has been developed. No word on whether such a process was developed or not.

Three. The Government operates a vast database which allows it to sift through millions of records on the internet to show nearly everything a person does

Recent disclosures by Snowden and Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian demonstrate the NSA operates a massive surveillance program called XKeyscore. The surveillance program has since been confirmed by other CIA officials. It allows the government to enter a person’s name or other question into the program and sift through oceans of data to produce everything there is on the internet by or about that person or other search term.

Four. The Government has a special court which meets in secret to authorize access for the FBI and other investigators to millions and millions of US phone, text, email and business records

There is a special court of federal judges which meets in secret to authorize the government to gather and review millions and millions of phone and internet records. This court, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court), allows government lawyers to come before them in secret, with no representatives of the public or press or defense counsel allowed, to argue unopposed for more and more surveillance. This is the court which, in just one of its thousands of rulings, authorized the handing over of all call data created by Verizon within the US and between the US and abroad to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The public would never have known about the massive surveillance without the leaked documents from Snowden.

Five. The Government keeps Top Secret nearly all the decisions of the FISA court

Nearly all of the thousands of decisions of the FISA court are themselves classified as top secret. Though the public is not allowed to know what the decisions are, public records do show how many times the government asked for surveillance authorization and how many times they were denied. These show that in the last three years, the government asked for authorization nearly 5000 times and they were never denied. In its entire history, the FISA court has denied just 11 of 34,000 requests for surveillance.

As noted above, two US Senators warned the Attorney General “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should stay when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”

Six. The Government is fighting to keep Top Secret a key 2011 decision of the FISA court even after the court itself said it can be made public

There is an 86 page 2011 top secret opinion of the FISA court which declared some of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs unconstitutional. The Administration, through the Department of Justice, refused to hand this over to the Electronic Frontier Foundation which filed a public records request and a lawsuit to make this public. First the government said it would hurt the FISA court to allow this to be made public. Then the FISA court itself said it can be made public. Despite this, the government is still fighting to keep it secret.

Seven. The Government uses secret National Security Letters (NSL) issued by the FBI to seize tens of thousands of records

With a NSL letter the FBI can demand financial records from any institution from banks to casinos, all telephone records, subscriber information, credit reports, employment information, and all email records of the target as well as the email addresses and screen names for anyone who has contacted that account. Those who received the NSLs from the FBI are supposed to keep them secret. The reason is supposed to be for foreign counterintelligence. There is no requirement for court approval at all. So no requests have been denied. The Patriot Act has made this much easier for the FBI.

According to Congressional records, there have been over 50,000 of these FBI NSL requests in the last three years. This does not count the numerous times where the FBI persuades the disclosure of information without getting a NSL. Nor does it count FBI requests made just to find out who an email account belongs to. These reported NSL numbers also do not include the very high numbers of administrative subpoenas issued by the FBI which only require approval of a member of the local US Attorney’s office.

Eight. The National Security Head was caught not telling the truth to Congress about the surveillance of millions of US citizens

The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, told US Senate on March 12 2013 that the NSA did not wittingly collect information on millions of Americans. After the Snowden Guardian disclosures, Clapper admitted to NBC that what he said to Congress was the “least untruthful” reply he could think of. The agency no longer denies that it collects the emails of American citizens. In a recent white paper, the NSA now admits they do “collect telephony metadata in bulk,” but they do not unconstitutionally “target” American citizens.

Nine. The Government falsely assured the US public in writing that privacy protections are significantly stronger than they actually are and Senators who knew better were not allowed to disclose the truth

Two US Senators wrote the NSA a letter objecting to one “inaccurate statement” and another “somewhat misleading statement” made by the NSA in their June 2013 public fact sheet about surveillance. What are the inaccurate or misleading statements? The public is not allowed to know because the Senators had to point out the details in a secret classified section of their letter.

In the public part of their letter they did say “In our judgment this inaccuracy is significant, as it portrays protections for Americans’ privacy as being significantly stronger than they actually are…” The Senators point out that the NSA public statement assures people that communications of US citizens which are accidentally acquired are promptly destroyed unless it is evidence of a crime. However, the Senators wrote that the NSA does in fact deliberately search the records of American citizens and that the NSA has said repeatedly that it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the US whose communications have been reviewed under the authority of the FISA laws. The NSA responded to these claims in an odd way. They did not say publicly what the misleading or inaccurate statements were nor did they correct the record, instead they just deleted the fact sheet from the NSA website.

Ten. The chief defender of spying in the House of Representatives, the Chair of the oversight intelligence subcommittee, did not tell the truth or maybe worse did not know the truth about surveillance

Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Permanent Intelligence Subcommittee, repeatedly told Congress and the public on TV talk shows in July that there was no government surveillance of phone calls or emails. “They do not record your e-mails…None of that was happening, none of it – I mean, zero.” Later, Snowden and Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept disclosed the NSA program called X-keyscore, which intercepts maybe over a billion emails, phone calls and other types of communications each day. Now the questions swirl about Rogers, whether he lied, or was lied to by those who engaged in surveillance, or did not understand the programs he was supposed to be providing oversight to.

Eleven. The House intelligence oversight committee repeatedly refused to provide basic surveillance information to elected members of the House of Representatives, Republican and Democrat

The House intelligence oversight committee refused to allow any members of Congress outside the committee to see a 2011 document that described the NSA mass phone record surveillance. This has infuriated Republicans and Democrats who have tried to get basic information to carry out their mandated oversight obligations.

Republican Representative Morgan Griffith of Virginia wrote the House Committee on Intelligence on June 25, 2013, July 12, 2013, July 22, 2013, and July 23 2013 asking for basic information on the authorization “allowing the NSA to continue collecting data about Americans’ telephone calls.” He received no response to those requests.

After asking for basic information from the House Committee about the surveillance programs, Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson was told the committee voted to deny his request on a voice vote. When he followed up and asked for a copy of the recorded vote he was told he could not get the information because the transcript of the committee hearing was classified.

Twelve. The paranoia about secrecy of surveillance is so bad in the House of Representatives that an elected member of Congress was threatened for passing around copies of the Snowden disclosures which had been already printed in newspapers worldwide

Representative Alan Grayson was threatened with sanctions for passing around copies of the Snowden information on the House floor, the same information published by The Guardian and many other newspapers around the world.

Thirteen. The Senate oversight committee refused to allow a dissenting Senator to publicly discuss his objections to surveillance

When Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) tried to amend the surveillance laws to require court orders before the government could gather communications of American citizens and to disclose how many Americans have had their communications gathered, he lost in a secret 2012 hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was then also prohibited from publicly registering or explaining his opposition for weeks.

These attempts to keep massive surveillance secrets from the public are aggravated by the constant efforts to minimize the secrets and maximize untruths.

Most notably, despite all this documented surveillance, the President said on the Jay Leno show “We don’t have a domestic spying program.” This is, to say it most politely, not accurate. Some commentators think the government is perversely tying itself in knots and twisting the real meaning of words with flimsy legal arguments and irrational word games. Others say the President is engaged in “Orwellian newspeak.” Finally, more than a few say the President was not telling the truth.

Others who are defending the surveillance may not actually know what is going on but think they do because the government, like the President, is telling them there is nothing to worry about. For example, Senator Diane Feinstein, Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee, the congressional oversight committee which is to protect people from unlawful spying, and another chief defender of surveillance, publicly responded to Edward Snowden’s claims to have the ability to wiretap anyone if he had their personal email by saying, “I am not a high-tech techie, but I have been told that is not possible.” How that squares with revelations about the Xkeyscore program is not known. She also stated her committee’s position about protecting the privacy of people against government surveillance, “We’re always open to change, but that does not mean there will be any.”

Conclusion

Thomas Paine said eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

President Obama just promised the nation that he would set up an independent group of outside experts to “step back and review our capabilities – particularly our surveillance technologies.”

Days later Obama appointed the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the same person who has admitted he did not tell Congress the truth about the program, to establish a review group to assess whether surveillance is being done in a manner that maintains the public trust. After an uproar about the fox guarding the hen house, the White House reversed itself and said Clapper will not choose the members of the group after all.

Who these members will be has not been made public as of the time this is written. Another secret? Stay vigilant!

Read More

The post 13 Things the Government Is Trying to Keep Secret From You appeared first on We Are Change.



via IFTTT

Facebook Workers Admit They "Routinely" Suppressed Conservative News

ORIGINAL LINK

As Liberty Blitzkrieg's Mike Krieger explained last year when fears began to rise over increasing control of news flow... Facebook is a private company and has every right to do as it pleases with its platform, even if that means pushing a political agenda via its “news” feed. That said, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been explicit with his intention to dominate news dissemination to his users. For example, we learned the following in last year’s post, Facebook Reveals its Master Plan – Control All News Flow:

In recent months, Facebook has been quietly holding talks with at least half a dozen media companies about hosting their content inside Facebook rather than making users tap a link to go to an external site.

 

The new proposal by Facebook carries another risk for publishers: the loss of valuable consumer data. When readers click on an article, an array of tracking tools allow the host site to collect valuable information on who they are, how often they visit and what else they have done on the web.

 

And if Facebook pushes beyond the experimental stage and makes content hosted on the site commonplace, those who do not participate in the program could lose substantial traffic — a factor that has played into the thinking of some publishers. Their articles might load more slowly than their competitors’, and over time readers might avoid those sites.

One of the ways Facebook has been pursuing its news push is through its trending tool. The idea is that a neutral algorithm determines what readers are interested in and talking about at a grassroots level, then place position those stories appropriately within the trending feed. That’s how you’d hope it work, but the reality appears to be far different.

"We as a company are neutral - we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."

That is a quote from a Facebook spokesperson given in response to a leaked internal poll which asked what responsiblity Facebook had in preventing Donald Trump from becoming the next president.

In light of the fact that a former employee is now admitting Facebook routinely suppresses conservative news stories from its trending news section, we're curious if that same response will be used.

An individual who worked on the project told Gizmodo that Facebook prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the trending news section. Additionally, several former Facebook "news curators" as they are known internally, told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially "inject" stories into the news flow, even though they weren't popular enough to be included.

As Gizmodo reports, Facebook's "news" team is just a group of young journalists educated at Ivy League or other private East Coast universities injecting their liberal views into a news stream that 167 million in the U.S. alone are reading at any given moment.

"Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending" said a former curator who was one of very few conservatives on staff. "I'd come on shift and I'd discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn't be trending, because either the curator didn't recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz." added the individual.

 

A list of stories that were deep-sixed was provided to Gizmodo, which included stories such as Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, anything from the Drudge Report, Former Nave Seal Chris Kyle, and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. "I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news" the former curator said.

 

Another former curator agreed, saying "it was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is. Every once in a while a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn't as biased."

 

Examples of that would be anything from outlets such as Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax, would have to be excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, BBC, and CNN were covering the story.

 

Although there is no evidence that management directed such actions, managers did instruct curators to put stories into the feed that management felt were important, even if they weren't being covered enough to be picked up by the trending algorithms.

 

"We were told that if we saw something, a news story was on the front page of these ten sites, like CNN, the New York Times, and BBC, then we could inject the topic. If it looked like it had enough news sites covering the story, we could inject it even if it wasn't naturally trending. We would get yelled at if it was all over Twitter and not on Facebook" said the former curators.

Facebook not only manipulated the trending news flow, but also pretended it was covering 'hard news'.

"People stopped caring about Syria, and if it wasn't trending on Facebook, it would make Facebook look bad. Facebook got a lot of pressure about not having a trending topic for Black Lives Matter. They realized it was a problem, and they boosted it in the ordering. They gave it preference over other topics." said a former curator.

So, as it turns out, Facebook is just another liberal leaning organization with a news platform that is manipulated to show what it deems important to convey to its users. As yet another conspiracy theory turns to conspiracy fact, this will be a difficult for Facebook to unwind - even if Zuckerberg wears his coolest hoodie while trying to do so.



via IFTTT

Who's Telling The Truth On American Jobs - The Fed Or The Government?

ORIGINAL LINK

For the fourth month in a row, Labor Market Conditions - according to The Fed - have contracted, the longest streak since the financial crisis. At the same time, despite having fallen from recent highs, the government's Labor Department proclaims non-farm payrolls continue to improve... because the narrative of consecutive monthly job gains must stand.  

 

20160509_jobs_0.jpg

 

The Government, of course, wants the appearance of economic recovery, job gains, and confidence inspiration - especially into the election.

The Fed, however, may not be so keen to promote the idea of a strong economy... because good news is bad news for over-inflated asset prices.

The question is - who is telling the truth?



via IFTTT

No, You Don't Have an Obligation to Vote

ORIGINAL LINK

Given the current campaign trajectory, voters will almost certainly face a November choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Many already wonder how they can possibly cast a vote in good conscience for either of those two. If you count yourself among that unhappy lot, here's good news: You don't have to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with sitting out the election if you feel like it. (You can vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, too, but a previous column covered that option.)

Americans are force-fed the opposite message every election season—usually by self-interested partisans trying to run up the score for their own teams, but sometimes by mind-numbingly conformist editorial writers of the sort who also write earnest reminders about wearing your seat belt. (From time to time there are even proposals to make voting mandatory.)

But once you start dissecting the please-vote platitudes, it quickly becomes evident that you should feel no guilt about skipping the polls. Those platitudes are:

(1) It's your civic duty. Really? Why? As Jason Brennan wrote on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog a couple of years ago, it's untenable to argue that people have a fundamental moral duty to vote. Rather, such a duty must derive from some other more basic obligation, such as the duty to be a good citizen.

Even that duty is worth scrutinizing: Where does it come from? What does it mean to be a good citizen in, say, North Korea or Saudi Arabia? But never mind: Let's assume there is such a duty here in the United States. Even so, you can discharge your obligation to be a good citizen in many different ways that don't entail voting, such as volunteering at the local rescue squad or helping out at a homeless shelter. There is no valid reason to argue that someone cannot be a good citizen unless he or she votes. In fact, Boy Scouts can earn a Citizenship merit badge—an emblem of good citizenship—even though most can't vote, and the merit badge requirements don't include casting a ballot.

In certain instances you might even have an obligation not to vote. If you sincerely believe the system is rigged, as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump claim, then maybe you should abstain—lest you grant legitimacy to a system that doesn't deserve it.

(2) Not voting insults our veterans who fought for that right. But veterans fought for much more than just the right to vote. They fought for the right to attend a Jewish synagogue or a Lutheran church; the right to chant pro-Trump slogans at political rallies; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to sing the blues or in a barbershop quartet; and so on.

Every one of those rights also entails a corresponding right: the right not to do those things. You have a right to go to synagogue, and a right not to; you have a right to chant pro-Trump slogans at a Trump rally, and a right not to. It's no insult to veterans if you choose not to go to synagogue, not to attend Trump rallies, not to own a gun—or not to vote. Veterans fought (and troops now are fighting) to keep Americans free, not to keep them tied down with endless obligations.

(3) If you don't vote, you can't complain. Sure you can. Suppose you're kidnapped by ISIS radicals who give you the choice between being burned to death or hacked to death. If you refuse to pick either option, and the ISIS radicals decide to hack you to death, and you then object, would it be reasonable for the radicals to say you have no right to complain, since you didn't vote?

Voting is somewhat like that (especially this year!). Because while it's nice to think our individual votes can make a difference, they almost never do. According to Ilya Somin's book Democracy and Political Ignorance, the odds of a single vote influencing the outcome of an election are "possibly less than one in 100 million in the case of a modern U.S. presidential election. A recent analysis concluded that in the 2008 presidential election, American voters had a roughly one in 60 million chance of casting a decisive vote, varying from one in 10 million in a few small states to as low as one in 1 billion in some large states such as California."

The idea that you can complain only if you vote rests on the assumption that your vote might change the outcome: You had a chance to flip the result and didn't bother. Under that erroneous assumption, it's not just non-voters who can't complain; nobody can. That hardly seems right, does it?

Of course, the no-complaining argument might mean something different. It might mean that complaining is a privilege granted only to active members of the political community, and you earn membership by the act of voting. If that is true, then it follows that the more active you are, the more right you have to complain.

Under this theory, people who pay taxes have more right to complain than people who don't, and people who pay high taxes have more right to complain than people who pay low taxes, and people who give money to political campaigns have even more right to complain than that. By this logic, the Koch brothers have more right to complain than almost anybody—while a non-voting waitress who gets laid off because of a recent hike in the minimum wage has none. Hmmmm.

Despite the lousy choices and long odds, many of us vote anyway, because we get a charge out of doing so— rather like people who get a charge out of joining the office basketball pool. It's fun to take part in something even when the results are mostly out of our hands. But as with the office betting pool, it's perfectly rational to decline—and no moral stain on you if you do.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.



via IFTTT

China's Crashing - Stocks, Commodities Plunge After "Top Authority" Implies "Abandoning Loose Policy"

ORIGINAL LINK

"After comprehensive judgment, our economic recovery cannot be U-shaped, cannot be V-shaped, but will be L-shaped," warns an 'authoritative' person according to a shocking report published by Government mouthpiece People's Daily. The report, explaining why investors should not expect growth to pick up soon or expect more stimulus to come soon further sets expectations for China to "face the issue of rising non-performing loans" and not continue to create zombie companies. The result -  a bloodbath in stocks and commodities...

Chinese stocks are down 4.5 to 7% in the last 2 days... as turmoil returns...

20160508_CHINA2_0.jpg

 

The report (found here), as Bloomberg summarizes, suggests China shouldn't loosen monetary conditions to enable growth...

  • China should abandon idea of loosening money conditions to accelerate economic growth, People’s Daily reports, citing interview with an “authoritative” person who wasn’t identified.
  • Monetary conditions shouldn’t be loosened to cut levels of leverage
  • China won’t use stock, forex and property-market policies as tools to ensure economic growth
  • Economic growth won’t be too low without stimulus as potential is sufficient
  • China should face the issue of rising non-performing loans of banks and not cover it up or delay handling it
  • Economy’s performance will be L-shaped for quite some time, instead of just 1-2 yrs
  • Economy’s performance won’t be U- or V-shaped
  • China will limit bankruptcies for “zombie” cos; at the same time it will definitely close cos. that can’t be saved, instead of converting debt to equity or forced restructuring

And the impact on stocks and commoditiers (as the latter's bubble implodes) is clear - Short-term...

 

And Long-term...

 

As the churn collapses, volume disappears and Iron ore, Steel rebar, and copper all collapse back to un-credit-speculated reality - smashing The Baltic Dry lower also.

 



via IFTTT

Sunday, May 8, 2016

The Greatest Speech Ever (Is More Relevant Now Than Ever)

ORIGINAL LINK

Every now and then, it is good to refresh knowledge of what is truly important in life. So it’s time to redux SmartKnowledgeU's post “The Greatest Speech Ever” by Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin was known as the greatest silent actor ever...

 

 

The most powerful excerpts from his speech, still very relevant today, in my opinion, are below:

"And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost."

 

"To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish."

And particularly relevant, is the following, as it applies to nearly all world leaders today and it should serve to awaken us to the knowledge that divided we will fall to the brutal immorality of today's banking/government/military complex, but united, we have the power to change our futures for the better:

"You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let’s use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfill their promise, they never will. "

Of course, speaking out as such then (and even more so now), was frowned upon by the elites (and thus the mainstream media)... But more so, the establishment cracked down...

Chaplin decided to hold the world premiere of his film Limelight in London, since it was the setting of the film. As he left Los Angeles, Chaplin expressed a premonition that he would not be returning. At New York, he boarded the RMS Queen Elizabeth with his family on 18 September 1952. The next day, Attorney General James P. McGranery revoked Chaplin's re-entry permit and stated that he would have to submit to an interview concerning his political views and moral behaviour in order to re-enter the US. US Congressman John E. Rankin of Mississippi told the House in June 1947:

"[Chaplin] has refused to become an American citizen. His very life in Hollywood is detrimental to the moral fabric of America. [If he is deported] ... his loathsome pictures can be kept from before the eyes of the American youth. He should be deported and gotten rid of at once."

What is remarkable about the above is that Chaplin’s speech about fascism in The Great Dictator nearly 75 years ago is as relevant today, if not more relevant, as it was back then.

In addition, as Chaplin was demonized for telling the truth back then, administrations worldwide today, like the current White House administration, are relentlessly demonizing and persecuting truth tellers as well, after deceitfully pledging to protect them.

It is for these reasons, in an Orwellian age when telling the truth is a revolutionary act, that we must spread "The Greatest Speech Ever" far and wide.

h/t SmartKnoweldgeU



via IFTTT

Study: Mammography screenings responsible for causing more mastectomies and breast cancer

ORIGINAL LINK
Mammogram-Breast-Exam.jpg (NaturalNews) The theory upon which the cancer industry bases its endorsement of mammography alleges that the screening, which involves a blast of radiation directly into the breasts, helps to detect breast cancers early, and helps women avoid mastectomies.However, a Norwegian...


via IFTTT

Google Now Has Access To Millions Of Patients’ Medical Records

ORIGINAL LINK

doctor-google

By: Michaela Whitton, Anti-Media |

United Kingdom — A controversial deal between tech giant Google and the National Health Service (NHS) will allow artificial intelligence units access to 1.6 million confidential medical records. Since 2014, Google has partnered with several scientists in an attempt to understand human health, but a new report reveals the data gathering goes far beyond what was originally anticipated.

According to documents obtained by the New Scientist, the data sharing agreement between Google-owned artificial intelligence company DeepMind and the Royal Free NHS Trust gives access to the sensitive healthcare data of millions of NHS patients. The chilling and wide-reaching deal allows DeepMind access to the medical records of the 1.6 million people passing annually through the three London hospitals owned by the Trust — Barnet, Chase Farm, and the Royal Free.

The Google-owned A.I. firm announced in February it was working with the NHS to build an app called Streams — intended to help hospitals monitor patients with kidney disease. However, the new information has revealed that the extent of the data being shared goes much further and includes logs of day-to-day hospital activity, records of the location and status of patients, and even logs of who visits them and when.

Results of pathology and radiology tests are also shared, as is information from critical care and accident and emergency departments. In addition, DeepMind’s access to the centralised records of all NHS hospital treatments in the U.K. means the tech company can access historical data from the last five years, all while receiving a continuous stream of new data.

At the same time, DeepMind is developing a platform called Patient Rescue, which uses hospital data streams to build tools to carry out analysis and support diagnostic decisions. The New Scientist explained how it works:

“Comparing a new patient’s information with millions of other cases, Patient Rescue might be able to predict that they are in the early stages of a disease that has not yet become symptomatic, for example. Doctors could then run tests to see if the prediction is correct.”

While the Royal Free has not yet responded to the question of what — if any — opt-out mechanisms are available to patients, the New Scientist suggests this is unlikely to be a straightforward process. Despite the agreement stating Google cannot use the data in any other part of the company’s business, many will be seriously wary of the access the online tech giant now has to the confidential data of millions of people.

As the New Scientist wrote:

“Data mining is the name of the game in the burgeoning field of machine learning and artificial intelligence, and there’s no company in the world better at that than Google.”


Michaela Whitton joined Anti-Media as its first journalist abroad in May of 2015. Her topics of interest include human rights, conflict, the Middle East, Palestine, and Israel. Born and residing in the United Kingdom, she is also a photographer.

The post Google Now Has Access To Millions Of Patients’ Medical Records appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.



via IFTTT