BERNIE SANDERS A BUM WHO DIDN’T EARN HIS FIRST STEADY PAYCHECK UNTIL AGE 40 THEN WORMED HIS WAY INTO POLITICS

Jim Hoft | Gateway Pundit - FEBRUARY 16, 2016

Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.” 

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.

Satanists Feel the Bern

Adan Salazar | Infowars - FEBRUARY 12, 2016

Democrat socialist Bernie Sanders’ campaign has evidently roused the satanic electorate.

In a highly popular pro-Sanders meme group created on Facebook, a post with an image stating, “Satanists for Bernie 2016,” has received over 1,100 likes and over 200 shares.

Several members of the Bernie Sanders’ Dark Meme Stash cautioned the image looks bad for the campaign and asked for it to be removed.

But many, many others embraced the supposed endorsement.

While the image’s creator is unknown, it is discussed in the comments that the Church of Satan, a central hub of satanic worship, has not officially endorsed any candidate for president.

Another group entitled the Satanic Communist Party, boasting over 2,000 members, also appears to lean pro-Bernie.



While supporters attempt to distance Sanders’ brand of socialism from Communism, revolutionaries instrumental in shaping the ideology, in particular Vladimir Lenin, have openly admitted, “The goal of socialism is Communism.”

In a 1986 book entitled Marx & Satan, author Richard Wumbrand, who was imprisoned for 14 years by the Communist government of Romania for espousing Christian beliefs, demonstrates through direct quotes that the man credited as the father of Communism crafted the ideology with inspiration from the powers of darkness and with the intent to destroy religion.

“The good of the workers was only a pretense. Where proletarians do not fight for Socialist ideals, Marxists will exploit racial differences or the so-called generation gap. The main thing is, religion must be destroyed,” wrote Wumbrand.

“Marx believed in hell. And his program, the driving force in his life, was to send men to hell.”

FEDS PUSH NEW PLAN FOR HOME VISITS TO CHECK ON PARENTS

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars | FEBRUARY 12, 2016

The federal government is seeking to create a new bureaucracy that would intervene in family life and could even see state-appointed monitors conduct routine home visits to assess a child’s well-being.

The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels.

The paper describes how government employees will intervene to provide, “monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom,” and that if parents are failing to meet the standards set, “evidence-based parenting interventions” will be made to, “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met.”

The document reveals how the state will help oversee, “constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health.”

The program bears the hallmarks of a controversial scheme in Scotland, set to take effect later this year, under which a “shadow parent” appointed by the government would monitor the upbringing of every child until the age of 18.

“The document argues that Big Brother needs to know about essentially everything, for the supposed benefit of the child it wants to “partner” in caring for,” writes Alex Newman. “Citing “research,” the policy statement claims that “the institutions where children learn cannot ignore family wellness if they want to … fulfill their mission to prepare children for school and academic success.” In other words, every aspect of family life is now fair game under the pretext of checking “family wellness.”

The document also extends the understanding of the word “family,” to include, “all the people who play a role in the child’s life,” a definition that could include not only teachers but government monitors.

In a related development, the federal government is pushing for a task force to oversee a program under which pediatricians and doctors would, “screen all students over 12 years old regularly for depression and issue prescriptions or treatment as necessary.”

The program would increase the likelihood of teenagers being given dangerous antidepressant drugs such as Prozac and Lexapro.

The idea of children belonging not just to their parents but to a “community” that involves the state is a common theme of collectivist thinking.

That notion was promoted in the video below from 2013 featuring MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, in which she asserted, “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.”

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS POLICE GIVE PREACHER CITATION FOR OFFENDING STUDENTS

Daily Caller | Peter Hasson - FEBRUARY 12, 2016

The University of Texas at Austin police department issued a disorderly conduct citation to an outdoor preacher on Tuesday after students complained that his message had offended them.

The preacher, who was standing just off campus, recorded his interaction with several university police officers, who explained that it was illegal for him to offend the students.

The preacher was an intern with Campus Ministry USA, an evangelical ministry organization that travels around college campuses loudly preaching their message. The ministry is headed by one Brother Jed Smock, who told The Daily Caller that his intern Joshua “was speaking out against STDs, warning against anal sex.”

The university told TheDC that the officer was responding to students who claimed to be “verbally harassed” by the intern-preacher. The video shows the officer explaining that the intern’s use of “anal” and “penis” offended students, before issuing a citation for disorderly conduct. “After a lawyer representing Joshua called the chief of police, the chief called Joshua and apologized. The citation was withdrawn.” Brother Jed told TheDC.

Read more

‘WHITE GUILT’ VIDEO SHOWN TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FOR BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Infowars - FEBRUARY 9, 2016

Parents in Virginia were outraged after a high school aired a controversial video purporting to teach a lesson on “white privilege.”

The Glen Allen High School in Henrico is under fire for playing a video entitled “Structural Discrimination: The Unequal Opportunity Race,” in which a pair of male and female minorities are pitted against two male and female white people in a literal, but metaphorical race.

The video depicts the minorities running into obstacles like “slavery,” “standardized tests” and “discrimination” preventing them from finishing the race, while the white people are seen passing the baton between each other and enjoying the benefits of “connections,” “privilege,” and “wealth disparities.”


The video ends with the white male winning the race and the message, “Affirmative action helps level the playing field.”

Outraged parents complained the video is actually about saddling students with “white guilt.”

“They are sitting there watching a video that is dividing them up from a racial standpoint. It’s a White guilt kind of video,” said the grandfather of one student. “I think somebody should be held accountable for this.”

A radio host also placed the blame on the Obama administration’s ongoing agenda to make everything about race.

“Dr. King gave his life so that America would be a place where we are judged by the content of our character not the color of our skin,” radio personality Craig Johnson told KSLA. “Now we have poverty pimps being led by our current president Barack Obama who all they talk about is the color of skin.”

School administrators responded that only a portion of the video was played, but that it was critical in producing a “thoughtful discussion.”

The students participated in a presentation that involved American history and racial discourse. A segment of the video was one component of a thoughtful discussion in which all viewpoints were encouraged. As always, we are welcoming of feedback from students and their families, and we address concerns directly as they come forward.

Do you think the video was appropriate? Sound off below.

BERNIE SANDERS IS THE 1%

Alex Jones | Infowars - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Alex Jones breaks down and exposes the true superclass that is pulling the strings behind the world stage and uncovers the hellish nightmare that is socialism and communism.

Why Bernie Sanders Has to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class

Daniel Bier | The Foundation for Economic Education | FEBRUARY 3, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.

Willie Sutton was one of the most infamous bank robbers in American history. Over three decades, the dashing criminal robbed a hundred banks, escaped three prisons, and made off with millions. Today, he is best known for Sutton’s Law: Asked by a reporter why he robbed banks, Sutton allegedly quipped, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Sutton’s Law explains something unusual about Bernie Sander’s tax plan: it calls for massive tax hikes across the board. Why raise taxes on the middle class? Because that’s where the money is.

The problem all politicians face is that voters love to get stuff, but they hate to pay for it. The traditional solution that center-left politicians pitch is the idea that the poor and middle class will get the benefits, and the rich will pay for it.

This is approximately how things work in the United States. The top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19 percent of total income and pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earn 12 percent and pay 3 percent. This chart from the Heritage Foundation shows net taxes paid and benefits received, per person, by household income group:

But Sanders’ proposals (free college, free health care, jobs programs, more Social Security, etc.) are way too heavy for the rich alone to carry, and he knows it. To his credit, his campaign has released a plan to pay for each of these myriad handouts. Vox’s Dylan Matthews has totaled up all the tax increases Sanders has proposed so far, and the picture is simply staggering.

Every household earning below $250,000 will face a tax hike of nearly 9 percent. Past that, rates explode, up to a top rate of 77 percent on incomes over $10 million.

Paying for Free

Sanders argues that most people’s average income tax rate won’t change, but this is only true if you exclude the two major taxes meant to pay for his health care program: a 2.2 percent “premium” tax and 6.2 percent payroll tax, imposed on incomes across the board. These taxes account for majority of the new revenue Sanders is counting on.

But it gets worse: his single-payer health care plan will cost 80 percent more than he claims. Analysis by the left-leaning scholar Kenneth Thorpe (who supports single payer) concludes that Sanders’ proposal will cost $1.1 trillion more each year than he claims. The trillion dollar discrepancy results from some questionable assumptions in Sanders’ numbers. For instance:

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible.
“In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion,” he writes in an email. “With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative.”

So unless pharmaceutical companies start paying you to take their drugs, the Sanders administration will need to increase taxes even more.

Analysis by the Tax Foundation finds that his proposed tax hikes already total $13.6 trillion over the next ten years. However, “the plan would [only] end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output.”

And the consequences will be truly devastating. Because of the taxes on labor and capital, GDP will be reduced 9.5 percent. Six million jobs will be lost. On average, after-tax incomes will be reduced by more than 18 percent.

Incomes for the bottom 50 percent will be reduced by more than 14 percent, and incomes for the top 1 percent will be reduced nearly 25 percent. Inequality warriors might cheer, but if you want to actually raise revenue, crushing the incomes of the people who pay almost 40 percent of all taxes isn’t the way to go.

These are just the effects of the $1 trillion tax hike he has planned — and he probably needs to double that to pay for single payer. Where will he find it? He’ll go where European welfare states go.

Being Like Scandinavia

Sanders is a great admirer of Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, and many of his proposals are modeled on their systems. But to pay for their generous welfare benefits, they tax, and tax, and tax.

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all capture between 20-26 percent of GDP from income and payroll taxes. By contrast, the United States collects only 15 percent.

Scandinavia’s tax rates themselves are not that much higher than the United States’. Denmark’s top rate is 30 percent higher, Sweden’s is 18 percent higher, and Norway’s is actually 16 percent lower — and yet Norway’s income tax raises 30 percent more revenue than the United States.

The answer lies in how progressive the US tax system is, in the thresholds at which people are hit by the top tax rates. The Tax Foundation explains,

Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers.
The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent. …
Compare this to the United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

The reason European states can pay for giant welfare programs is not because they just tax the rich more — it’s because they also scoop up a ton of middle class income. The reason why the United States can’t right now is its long-standing political arrangement to keep taxes high on the rich so they can be low on the poor and middle.

Where the Money Is – And Isn’t

As shown by the Laffer Curve, there is a point at which increasing tax rates actually reduces tax revenue, by discouraging work, hurting the economy, and encouraging tax avoidance.

Bernie’s plan already hammers the rich: households earning over $250,000 (the top 3 percent) would face marginal rates of 62-77 percent — meaning the IRS would take two-thirds to three-quarters of each additional dollar earned. His proposed capital gains taxes are so high that they are likely well past the point of positive returns. The US corporate tax rate of 40 percent is already the highest in the world, and even Sanders hasn’t proposed increasing it.

The only way to solve his revenue problem is to raise rates on the middle and upper-middle classes, or flatten the structure to make the top rates start kicking in much lower. You can see why a “progressive” isn’t keen on making more regressive taxes part of his platform, but the money has to come from somewhere.

The bottom fifty percent don’t pay much income tax now (only $34 billion), but they also don’t earn enough to fill the gap. Making their taxes proportionate to income would only raise $107 billion, without even considering how the higher rates would reduce employment and income.

The top 5 percent are pretty well wrung dry by Sanders’ plan, and their incomes are going to be reduced by 20-25 percent anyway. It’s hard to imagine that there’s much more blood to be had from that stone.

But households between the 50th and the 95th percentile (incomes between $37,000 to $180,000 a year) earn about 54 percent of total income — a share would likely go up, given the larger income reductions expected for top earners. Currently, this group pays only 38 percent of total income taxes, and, despite the 9 percent tax hike, they’re comparatively spared by the original tax plan. Their incomes are now the lowest hanging fruit on the tax tree.

As they go to the polls this year, the middle class should remember Sutton’s Law.

As Feds Plan to Cut Border Monitoring, Texas Officials Ask Why

The Texas Tribune | by Julián Aguilar | Feb. 1, 2016

A Customs and Border Protection vehicle patrols on the Texas border near the Rio Grande, Thursday, July 24, 2014, in Mission, Texas. Texas is spending $1.3 million a week for a bigger DPS presence along the border.

Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, pressed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Monday to explain why the agency plans to reduce its aerial surveillance on the Texas-Mexico border.

In a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the lawmakers said the cut to a requested 3,850 hours of aerial detection and monitoring in 2016 amounts to 50 percent less coverage than recent years.

“Given the recent surge of migrants from Central America and Cuba along the southern border, we believe DHS should request more surveillance and security resources, not fewer,” Abbott and Cuellar wrote in a letter.

The pair also reminded Johnson that in September, Abbott’s office asked the DHS for more aerial resources and U.S. Border Patrol agents but that the request was never acknowledged.

A DHS spokesperson said the agency would respond "directly" to the governor and the congressman.

Monday’s request comes as CBP is reporting a new surge in the number of undocumented immigrants crossing the Rio Grande. From October to December of 2015, about 10,560 unaccompanied minors entered Texas illegally through the Rio Grande Valley sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. That marks a 115 percent increase over the same time frame in 2014. The amount of family units, defined as at least one child and adult guardian or parent, has increased by 170 percent to 14,336 in the Rio Grande Valley.

The El Paso sector also saw 1,030 unaccompanied minors, an increase of almost 300 percent.

In Monday’s letter, the pair also requested a detailed breakdown of how the DHS determined the reduction in aerial surveillance was warranted and information on how staffing and operation levels would be affected.

While Abbott has spoken extensively about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, the letter marked the first time Abbott has referenced a recent surge of Cubans coming into Texas.

Abbott visited the island nation last year to explore expanding trade between Cuba and Texas. During that trip, he spoke about the current trade embargo but not the migrant issue.

During the 2015 fiscal year, about 28,400 Cubans entered Texas through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Laredo field office, which extends from Del Rio to Brownsville. That’s compared to about 15,600 in 2014.

The surge came after the Obama administration announced in 2014 its plans to re-establish ties with Cuba, leaving many Cubans fearing they will lose a special designation that allows them to apply for legal residency status, or a “green card,” after living in the country for a year. Cuellar and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, have called for the repeal of that designation.

MYTH BUSTED: ACTUALLY, YES, HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST LIBERAL

Louder With Crowder | COURTNEY KIRCHOFF - JANUARY 29, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: FLICKR.

A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as “right wing,” with Adolf Hitler, their leader, as the grand leader of this “right wing” movement. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, as their history is littered with injustice (the KKK was founded by Democrats, did you know?). Injustices they claim to fight against today. Awkward.

But thanks to this nifty thing called “history” in combination with “the internet,” we can bust this myth once and for all. Thoroughly. Or until a leftist insists on ignoring it. Then we’ll hold them down and tape their eyes open. Just kidding, that’s only what a leftist would do.



Adolf Hitler wasn’t “right wing.” If you take nothing else from this post, just remember Hitler was a socialist. With terrible facial hair. There’s an easy way to remember it, too. NAZI stands for National Socialist GermanWorkers‘ Party. Associate it with blunt mustaches.

What does National Socialist German Worker’s Party mean? Glad you asked. Is it different from “Democratic socialism”? Only in semantics. A Democracy is mob rule, which is why America is actually a constitutional, representative republic, NOT a democracy. A representative republic protects the minority from the majority, whereas a democracy is the rule of the majority. Leftists get caught up in words, getting tripped up over “National Socialism” as opposed to “Democrat Socialism.” But it’s just that. Semantics. So when Hitler ginned up hatred for the Jews, he could get the mob to agree with him. He could get the mob to believe him. There were no representatives to stop Hitler. He was one man helming the desperation of a majority of people. Spot the difference?

When we examine Hitler’s Nazi Germany through the lens of history, most, if not all of us, think of the Holocaust. In fact the holocaust might be the only thing we associate with Hitler’s Nazis. We’ve all been told of the Jews being marched off to death camps where they were worked, tortured, then gassed. We’ve also heard of the experiments conducted by Hitler’s Dr. Mengele. All terrible practices which we rightly find horrifying. Unless you’re one of those people who think Planned Parenthood is great.



What we don’t often hear or learn about is how Hitler ruled the rest of Germany, what his domestic policies were for the German people he didn’t march off to death camps. Hitler’s domestic, socialist policies will be the focus of this post. Trigger warning: they’re eerily similar to what American Democrats tout today. Double trigger warning? He initially had the support of the mob of people. So replace many of Hitler’s policies with something you hear from Bernie Sanders…

Brief Historical Background on Hitler…

Germany lost World War I. As such, Germany was in a state of economic and national depression. Not totally unusual for losing a giant war. But the depression was a long, drawn out one (15 years) leaving the German people poor, hungry, desperate, lacking any confidence. Then along came a young man named Adolf Hitler…

Hitler was a powerful and spellbinding speaker who attracted a wide following of Germans desperate for change. He promised the disenchanted a better life and a new and glorious Germany. The Nazis appealed especially to the unemployed, young people, and members of the lower middle class (small store owners, office employees, craftsmen, and farmers).

Human beings may advance technologically, but spiritually? Not so much. In fact I’d contest we rarely learn our lessons when choosing our leaders. Especially charismatic ones. If a man (or woman) can speak eloquently, with confidence, we cannot help but be enthralled. We often follow along, like the town’s children following the pied piper.

Employment for All

After that depression, Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it? Roads and infrastructure:

As Fuhrer, Hitler’s first priority was jobs, or the lack of them. German unemployment had peaked at 6 million due to the Depression devastating the economy. With innovative public works schemes such as the building of autobahns, Hitler put every German back to work. He also advocated schemes such as KdF – Strength Through Joy – which gave workers increased benefits for increased levels of production. This policy was popular and increasingly with the proletariat who had seen their country decimated by the depression…

By putting people back to work and making huge public spending, inflation was bound to happen. However, Hitler kept this under control by not allowing wages to rise with prices. This may have been one unpopular aspect of Hitler’s economic policy but there were many that the people supported.

So Hitler created jobs…through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar?

Big Education

If you haven’t seen it yet, go watch WW2 Surivor’s Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism.

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Public education, where children are at school all day long, with state-funded and state-sponsored curriculum… convinced yet?

Nationalized Healthcare

Also from the WW2 Surivor’s accounting of Nazism:

After Hitler’s health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

Do I really need to write commentary on this one? Really?

Gun Control

Yes, Germany had gun control. It started before Hitler with a national gun registry:

…in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.

Here’s what happened as a result:

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
Finally, Hitler just took the guns from Jews. An armed citizenry is a dangerous one, after all. Hitler even said this about guns in the hands of the people: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.”

In Breslau in 1933, Jews were ordered to “surrender [their] weapons forthwith to the police authorities” on the basis that “Jewish citizens have allegedly used their weapons for unlawful attacks on members of the Nazi organization and the police.” This was a regular occurrence all over Germany until the Waffengesetz of 1938, which effectively banned Jewish firearm ownership in all of Germany (though this had been something of a reality for a while, as in 1935 the Gestapo had ordered no weapons permits to be issued to Jews without the approval of the Gestapo itself).

So excuse us Second Amendment supporters when we here Obama, Sanders and Clinton talking about regulating guns more than they’re regulated today. Call us paranoid. We’ll keep our guns.

Abortion

The great sacrament of the left, abortion. You’ll be pleased to know that Hitler was pro-choice:


Dr. Tessa Chelouche goes on to quote Hitler’s 1942 policy statement on the application of abortion to Slavic people, which is chillingly similar to modern Planned Parenthood propaganda:

“In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman’s health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics.”

Compare the Nazi’s application of abortion to how Planned Parenthood (a government-funded organization) operates. Also read up on Margaret Sanger, who echoed much of Hitler’s sentiment.

Blaming the One Percent Jews

Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat, blaming them for everything, including economic hardship, even though the Jewish population in Germany was less than one percent…

Jews in Germany made up less than one percent of the German population. But held According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of about 500,000 people. Jews represented less than one percent of the total German population of about 67 million people.

Despite that, Hitler insisted on taking their money…

Nearly 120 billion Reich marks – over £12 billion at the time – was plundered from German Jews by laws and looting.

The official study commissioned by the ministry examined the years from 1933 to 1945. Hans-Peter Ullmann, a Cologne history professor, said the tax authorities under the Nazis actively worked to “destroy Jews financially” and to loot wealth in the nations the Germans occupied.

Even Jews who managed to escape from Germany before the Holocaust had to leave part of their wealth behind in the form of an “exit tax”. Tax laws discriminated against Jews from 1934 onwards.

And boycotting their businesses…

APRIL 1, 1933 NATIONWIDE BOYCOTT OF JEWISH-OWNED BUSINESSES
At 10:00 a.m., members of the Storm Troopers (SA) and SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) stand in front of Jewish-owned businesses throughout Germany to inform the public that the proprietors of these establishments are Jewish. The word “Jude,” German for “Jew,” is often smeared on store display windows, with a Star of David painted in yellow and black across the doors. Anti-Jewish signs accompany these slogans. In some towns, the SA march through the streets singing anti-Jewish slogans and party songs.

Review: Hitler demeaned the Jews. He blamed the economic and national depression on them. He instituted national boycotts of their business. He then took their money through taxes and outright looting. Hey, maybe they weren’t paying their “fair share.”

The Police State

If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with yourwords, you better watch out. The Gestapo was on the hunt for political dissidents, many of whom would simply vanish.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler also turned the regular (nonparty) police forces into an instrument of terror. He helped forge the powerful Secret State Police (Geheime Staatspolizei), or Gestapo; these non-uniformed police used ruthless and cruel methods throughout Germany to identify and arrest political opponents and others who refused to obey laws and policies of the Nazi regime.

Compare the Gestapo with how leftists want to jail people who do not believe in man-made climate change. Compare the Gestapo to the Gaystapo, who fines people who do not agree with gay marriage or the gay lifestyle. Compare the Gestapo to liberal New York, which fines you for not using the right gender pronouns.

In Conclusion

Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monsterous ways, his polcies were anything but “conservative.” He wanted big government, he wanted big eductation, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

So stop saying “Hitler was right-wing.” No, he wasn’t. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.

CITY DEMANDS FIREARM APPLICANTS WRITE ESSAY EXPLAINING NEED FOR GUN

Adan Salazar | Infowars - JANUARY 26, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: FLICKR, CRDOT.

A new policy in a Massachusetts town imposes burdensome steps on residents who want to obtain a license to carry a firearm: an essay exam and a $1,100 training seminar.

Pro-firearm supporters in Lowell last Tuesday pleaded with police and city administrators to ease new gun regulations, which among other things now require an essay of anyone applying for an unrestricted firearm license.

“I will never write an essay to get my rights as an American citizen,” resident Dan Gannon reportedly stated at a city council meeting last week, according to The Lowell Sun.

Additionally, those applying for permits must submit documentation, such as a letter of recommendation, a previous gun license or a military or law enforcement ID, and are required to take a firearms training course.

A police spokesperson in the town of 110,000 argues the new “essay” policy is being mischaracterized, but says it will better help vet gun owners.

“If you want a license to carry a firearm unrestricted wherever you want and whenever you want, the superintendent is just looking for some documentation as to why,” said Lowell Capt. Timothy Crowley. “That is not unreasonable to most people.”

But a lawyer who fights on behalf of gun owners said the word “essay” was the correct term to describe the requirement.

“An essay when you’re in school is when you write something, you turn it in and they grade it,” attorney Richard Chambers told Fox News. “This is an essay. And it’s also just another layer of bureaucracy they’ve tacked on to block people from exercising their rights.”

Gun rights supporters say the town’s essay requirement infringes on the Second Amendment.

“It is absurd that people should have to write an essay to the town to explain why they should be able to exercise their constitutional rights,” Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts Executive Director Jim Wallace said in a statement. “We already have a very strict set of gun laws in the state, but this is way over the top.”

Critics also complain the $1,100 training course approved by the city is too costly, and is intended to discourage residents from applying for the license.

“It’s beyond ridiculous,” firearms-safety instructor Randy Breton said of the prices quoted to the public.

In Massachusetts, “state law sets guidelines and requirements, but gives local chiefs of police broad discretion in implementation,” reports Fox News.

VIDEO: SENATOR WARNS AUMF BILL IS “DECLARATION OF INTERNATIONAL MARTIAL LAW”

Adan Salazar | Infowars - JANUARY 26, 2016

IMAGE SOURCE: Wikipedia Commons

A new bill making its way through Congress contains “dangerous and unprecedented” language that could be considered a “declaration of international martial law,” a US senator warned last Thursday.

“This resolution is a total rewrite of the War Powers clause of the Constitution. Let’s be clear about that,” Democrat Senator Chris Murphy said on the Senate floor last week in regards to S.J. Res. 29, a bill purporting to give the sitting US president the power to declare war on ISIS.

“It is essentially a declaration of international martial law,” Murphy said.

Speaking out against the fast-track authorization for the use of military force bill proposed by Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Murphy explained the resolution would permanently hand over war-making authority to the office of the president.

“A sweeping transfer of military power to the president that will allow him or her to send US troops almost anywhere in the world for any reason with absolutely no limitations,” Sen. Murphy described, adding that Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution “vests in Congress the responsibility to declare war.”

“While the ink is still wet on this resolution… it’s safe to say that this resolution is the wrong way to authorize war against ISIS,” Murphy said. “The language of this resolution is dangerous and it is unprecedented.”

“[The American people] certainly don’t want Congress to hand over the power to the president to send our troops into any country anywhere in the world for almost any reason. And that’s what this resolution would do.”

Murphy went on: “It gives the power to the president without consulting Congress to deploy US forces in anyone of the 61 countries where ISIS has a single sympathizer.”

The Senator from Connecticut also warned the bill could possibly give the president the power to deploy troops on US soil:

“Well as we’ve seen here in the United States, the threat of ISIS is present in virtually every corner in the world. Thus this resolution would give the president total absolute carte blanche to send our young soldiers to any corner of the world without consulting Congress.”

Senator Murphy’s comments were echoed on Sunday by former Congressman Ron Paul, who said the new resolution would make the “Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park.”

“Let’s be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter,” Dr. Paul wrote.

The bill currently has four co-sponsors, Sen. Daniel Coats, Sen. Joni Ernst, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen Orrin Hatch.

Watch: Alex Jones warns about SJ Res 29:

INSIDER: IT DOESN’T MATTER ABOUT TRUMP, “HILLARY WILL WIN”

Infowars | Paul Joseph Watson | JANUARY 26, 2016

Highly influential CEO Martin Sorrell suggests that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has already been decided, remarking, “It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put up…Hillary will win.”

Sorrell’s comment, reported by the DC Whispers website, raises eyebrows given his position as head of, “The single most influential and prominent marketing firm in the world with decades-old ties to the most elite of the elite.”

Sorrell, who is the Chief Executive Officer of WPP PLC (Wire and Plastic Products), has a net worth of over $150 million dollars and is described as having “huge clout” in the world of advertising. “Sorrell’s opinions have huge weight,” reported the Guardian in a 2008 profile.

As DC Whispers highlights, his ties to Fox News, which at times has been antagonistic towards Donald Trump, are also extremely noteworthy.

“WPP and its myriad of affiliates, represents up to HALF of all Fox News ad revenue. WPP’s clients include such corporate giants as Ford, Glaxo Smith, IBM, Microsoft, Nestle, Walmart, Unilever, etc. – clients who in turn represent tens of millions of dollars in monthly ad revenue that keep the lights of Fox News on and pays the salaries of on-air personalities like Megyn Kelly,” reports the website.

“So when someone like Martin Sorrell signals it doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate because Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States regardless, it is a prediction/threat that should be taken very seriously.”

As Mac Slavo points out, “Trump has not only been bucking the establishment, as well as contentious Fox News host Megyn Kelly – but he has also taken on some of the very advertisers that Sorrell represents, and Fox News depends on for their operations.”

Sorrell’s comments are in line with similar sentiments expressed by globalists at the recent Davos confab. Sorrell is married to Cristiana Falcone, director of media and entertainment industries at the World Economic Forum.

According to a Reuters report, financial elitists are “alarmed” at the prospect of Trump being the Republican nominee, although they still expect his campaign to falter.

Harvard University’s Niall Ferguson told Reuters that Trump’s chances “could be over before Super Tuesday,” and that populists never win the presidency, but that the public is “mad as hell” and this is what’s driving the Trump phenomenon.

Ferguson was even more candid in comments he made to Bloomberg, asserting, “I think there’s going to be a wonderful catharsis, I’m really looking forward to it: Trump’s humiliation. Bring it on.”

According to columnist Ann Coulter, that “humiliation” could come in the form of a “fake scandal” that breaks right before the Iowa caucus.

As we previously reported, the powerful Bilderberg Group, which counts Ferguson and Sorrell as two of its regular attendees, backed Hillary to become president at its annual confab in June last year.

Americans hate the U.S. government more than ever

CBS | By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH | January 26, 2016, 12:01 AM

A handful of industries are those "love to hate" types of businesses, such as cable-television companies and Internet service providers.

The federal government has joined the ranks of the bottom-of-the-barrel industries, according to a new survey from the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Americans' satisfaction level in dealing with federal agencies --everything from Treasury to Homeland Security -- has fallen for a third consecutive year, reaching an eight-year low.

The declines represent some backsliding for the U.S. government, given that satisfaction saw some improvement in 2011 and 2012, which may have been the result of spending in the wake of the recession. While the comparison with private enterprise isn't apples to apples given the nature of government services, the findings have some implications for bureaucrats.

"Satisfaction is linked to broader goals in the political system that it wants to maximize, like confidence and trust," said Forrest Morgeson, director of research at the ACSI. "It's much more difficult to govern if the entire population dislikes you."

Although satisfaction is down for the federal government as a whole, the research found that consumers have vastly different views of specific agencies. The department that received the highest score was the Department of the Interior, which received a ranking of 75 points. That could reflect Americans' positive feelings toward national parks, which many visit while on vacation, Morgeson noted.

The lowest-ranked department may not be much of a surprise to taxpayers: Treasury, which received a score of just 55 points, or 20 points below the Department of the Interior. Treasury, as a reminder, oversees the IRS.

"If you think about the most contacted government agency, it'll be the IRS," Morgeson said. "If you think about what the IRS does, which is take money from citizens, you'll have low satisfaction."

Despite the overall lower score for the government, there were some signs of improvement in citizens' experiences, with the feds earning improved scores in customer service and information, which means many citizens believe agencies are delivering information in a clearer way than a year ago.

The government report is based on surveys with more than 2,000 people who were surveyed late last year.

© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Canada will sign TPP trade deal Feb. 4, but ratification not certain

CBC News | By Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press | Jan 25, 2016 11:33 AM ET

International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says Canada will sign on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal at a ceremony in New Zealand on Feb. 4. But as for ratifying the deal, Freeland said that will still be a matter for Parliament. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

The federal government has confirmed that it intends to sign the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal at a meeting next week in New Zealand.

But when it comes to ratification of the 12-country treaty, the Liberals are still perched squarely atop the fence.

"Just as it is too soon to endorse the TPP, it is also too soon to close the door," International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland wrote Monday in an open letter posted on her department's website.

"Signing does not equal ratifying.... Signing is simply a technical step in the process, allowing the TPP text to be tabled in Parliament for consideration and debate before any final decision is made."

Only a majority vote in the House of Commons would ensure that Canada seals the deal, she added. She has also requested a thorough, transparent study of the agreement by parliamentary committee.

In recent weeks, Freeland has conducted public consultations on the wide-ranging accord, which — if ratified — would also set new international rules for sectors beyond trade. Those other areas include intellectual property, which worries some experts.

"It is clear that many feel the TPP presents significant opportunities, while others have concerns," Freeland wrote.

"Many Canadians still have not made up their minds and many more still have questions."

The minister has already indicated the massive accord, which includes major economies such as the United States and Japan, cannot be renegotiated.
2-year ratification deadline

Freeland said each country has up to two years to consider ratification before making a final decision. She pointed out that by signing the deal Canada will keep its status as a potential full partner in the agreement.

Trade ministers from the TPP's partner countries have been invited to sign the deal on Feb. 4 in Auckland.

The former Conservative government announced an agreement-in-principle on the pact in October during the federal election campaign.

At the time, then-prime minister Stephen Harper hailed the TPP as a deal that would give Canada access to a massive market of nearly 800 million people.

Harper warned Canada couldn't afford to pass up on the agreement, a deal that came under heavy criticism in part because the talks took place in secrecy.

The treaty can take effect if it's ratified by half the participating countries representing 85 per cent of the proposed trade zone's economy.

It remains unclear, however, whether U.S. lawmakers will ratify the accord.
'Western Canada is hurting'

On Monday, Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose urged the government to support the TPP to help Canada's limping economy.

"Right now when Western Canada is hurting... the Trans-Pacific Partnership offers huge opportunities, particularly in the business services sector and the agricultural sector," Ambrose said in Ottawa.

In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Freeland recalled hearing people on both sides of the TPP debate express their views during her cross-Canada consultations.

For example, she said she heard from groups representing farmers in Alberta and the Port of Vancouver that were very strongly in favour of TPP, a deal that would open up new foreign markets for many Canadian firms.

On the other hand, Freeland also heard concerns from Canadian and U.S. academics at a recent event at the University of Toronto. Several trade experts who addressed the conference criticized the TPP's provisions on intellectual property and warned they would be harmful for Canada.

Freeland has said Canada must remain deeply connected to the global economy, particularly since the country boasts just the 11th-biggest economy in the world.

"We are strongly in favour of free trade," she said in the interview. "Having said that, we're not the government that negotiated the TPP."

DAVOS DEPRESSION: SOROS PREDICTS DEVASTATING DEFLATION, REPEAT OF 2008

The Dollar Vigilante | JANUARY 23, 2016 | JEFF BERWICK 

In Davos, billionaires plot ways to consolidate power under one government, but in Acapulco Mexico, late in February, we will meet together to discuss how to create seven billion separate governments!

That’s what anarchy is all about, the ability of each individual to be in charge of his or her own life without predetermined restraints. If you injure someone or damage something, you’re responsible. Otherwise, society has no claims on you, certainly none enforced by the power of the state. There is no state ….

That’s much different than Davos where hundreds of seriously wealthy control freaks are meeting together to figure out how to promote global government that will have a claim on each and every one of us. Don’t do what they tell you to do and you are fined, jailed or worse. That’s “civilization” – Davos style.

When they are not gathered together in fancy restaurants quaffing expensive wines and eating fine food, the old men (mostly men) of Davos are “brainstorming” new ways to confuse and frighten us.

The idea is that we are to be afflicted with worse and worse disasters and as a result, convinced to turn to them – the Davos conclave – for salvation and hope.

And this is surely the reason for Davos attendee and billionaire George Soros’s pronouncements regarding the world economy, which made news recently for the extent of their alarmism.

Soros and another Davos attendee, William White are warning we are on the cusp of collapse. You’d think they just discovered yesterday that bad things were about to happen.

Earlier this week we wrote about White, the former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements, who labeled 2016 a debt Jubilee year and basically predicted the shattering of the world economy. You can read what we wrote here.

Now comes billionaire Soros claiming that “the world is running into something it doesn’t know how to handle.” His statements hit the wires around the world and resulted in a BusinessInsider post profiling Soros’ “bearishness” with some choice quotes.

“We are repeating [2008],” Soros said during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in an interview with Bloomberg TV. The root cause of the crisis is different this time, however. In 2008, it was the subprime crisis in America. This time, it is China and the deflationary forces it is transmitting to the rest of the world.
There’s the same old bogeyman that they like to roll out. This time it is “China,” which we have recently explained is not the culprit for this coming mess… and “deflationary forces”.

They purposefully try to confuse people with inflation/deflation. They want people to think the symptoms of inflation (rising prices) is inflation itself… and it happens inexplicably! Inflation is the increase in the money supply (aka. money printing). This causes prices to rise. But the root-problem isn’t rising prices; the root-problem is the increase in the money supply by the central banks.

And, it’s the same for deflation. When markets are blown up to bubble-like levels by money printing and then begin to fall, they call that “deflation” and say that is the problem. It’s not. The problem is that the increase in the money supply will eventually create a bubble, which will eventually collapse.

But you will NEVER hear that from the old men muttering to each other in Davos. They don’t want you to know that THEIR actions create the market crashes that they are now grimly warning us about.

He goes on to add in another red herring, oil!

The issue is that China’s problems are being passed on to the rest of the world. “It’s one of the sources of deflation,” Soros said. “You’ve got basically three major root causes. One is China, the other is oil and raw material prices, and the third is competitive devaluation,” he added. “You have all three.”

As we also explained earlier this week, the price of energy getting cheaper could not possibly destroy an economy. How could it?

At Davos, they want to point the blame at everyone but the true culprit: themselves. They are the true financial terrorists. And what is the answer they will present to save the world? You guessed it, print more money!

European stocks rebounded this week after the European Central Bank essentially said that is what they would do. And, next week, the Federal Reserve meets to decide on how to manipulate the price of money (interest). If they also become “dovish” – which is a funny word to describe manipulating interest rates lower and counterfeiting money – we could see a short-term rebound in the markets… but it won’t last.

This system is in collapse, and quite likely a planned collapse, to cause worldwide chaos in order for the elites to garner more power and control as a dumbed down and impoverished populace (dumbed down by government public education and impoverished by governments and central banks) clamor for someone to do something.

The truth of the matter is that the people of the world need to wake-up to this con game and stop supporting governments and central banks and move their assets into gold, silver and bitcoin.

At Anarchapulco and its sister conference. the TDV Internationalization and Investment Summit, we’ll be discussing these issues. We won’t waste our time with scare tactics and how to figure out ways to rule the world. We’ll discuss ways to DEFEND ourselves from the tactics being plotted at Davos and elsewhere.

We’ll write about what we discover in our TDV newsletter (subscribe today here) and we’ll try to spread the word through videos and radio interviews.

The path for humanity is clear… and it won’t be long until enough people figure out what is going on and rid the world of these heinous governments and central banks. But, most people will likely go through the pain of the collapse before they recognize the problem.

We plan to be one step ahead of them and not only recognize the problem but protect our assets and profit from the collapse.

Call Anarchapulco the “Anti-Davos” Conference.


Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences including his own,Anarchapulco, as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

WalMart Store Closures Leave Elderly Villagers With No Grocery Stores, Pharmacies

Zero Hedge | by Tyler Durden on 01/25/2016 14:00

Last week, WalMart doubled down on the wage hike debacle when the world’s largest retailer decided to give everyone a raise in February.

The all-in cost will be around $2.7 billion. While some were surprised at the move, it was easy to see coming. Indeed, we’ve long said that the company’s decision to hike wages for its lowest-paid employees would eventually necessitate similar raises for workers higher up the corporate ladder.

“The wage hierarchy has been distorted and that distortion had nothing to do with merit,” we wrote, back in August. “Higher paid employees don’t understand why everyone under them in the corporate structure suddenly makes more money and if people who are higher up on the corporate ladder don’t receive raises that keep the wage hierarchy proportional, they may simply quit which means that, for Wal-Mart, raising the minimum for the lowest paid workers to just $9/hour will end up costing the company around $1.5 billion if you include the additional raises the company will have to give to higher paid employees in order to retain their 'talents' and avoid a mid-level management mutiny.”

Sure enough, that’s exactly what happened - only the cost is far higher than even we anticipated.

The problem is that when your business model revolves around “everyday low prices,” each and every additional penny you give to your employees is a penny that’s not passed on to customers as savings. That’s a problem, given how competitive the discount retail space has become. On top of that, margins are already razor thin and pinching them further has a dramatic impact on profitability as evidenced by the shocking guidance cut WalMart delivered in October.

Initially, the company sought to make up for the money “lost” to the wage hike by squeezing the supply chain. When efforts to extract more savings from vendors weren’t sufficient, WalMart simply fired some folks, first at the home office in Bentonville and then at 269 stores where 16,000 employees learned this month that they no longer have a job.

But the employees at the shuttered stores aren’t the only ones affected by the decision to close hundreds of locations. Also out in the cold are local customers who in some cases will now be forced to effectively commute to the grocery store and pharmacy as the family-owned businesses which used to serve small communities were put out of business when WalMart came to town.

“Though mom-and-pop stores have steadily disappeared across the American landscape over the past three decades as the mega chain methodically expanded, there was at least always a Wal-Mart left behind to replace them,”Bloomberg writes. “Now the Wal-Marts are disappearing, too.”

Bloomberg tells the story of The Town’n Country grocery in Oriental, North Carolina which was “a local fixture” for nearly half a century - until WalMart showed up.

The Town’n Country closed last October after sales collapsed by a third. “They ruined our lives,” Renee Ireland Smith, who ran Town’n Country said. “They came in here with their experiment and ruined us,” she laments, referencing WalMart’s foray into smaller stores called “WalMart Express.” Here's more:

“I was devastated when I found out. We had a pharmacy and a perfectly satisfactory grocery store. Maybe Wal-Mart sold apples for a nickel less,” said Barb Venturi, mayor pro tem for Oriental, with a population of about 900. “If you take into account what no longer having a grocery store does to property values here, it is a significant impact for us.”


Oriental is hardly alone. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said on Jan. 15 it would be closing all 102 of its smaller Express stores, many in isolated towns, to focus on its supercenters and mid-sized Neighborhood Markets.



That’s a big problem for small towns, often with proportionately large elderly populations. For the older folks of Oriental -- a retirement and summer vacation town along the inter-coastal waterway -- the next-nearest grocery and pharmacy is a 50-minute round-trip drive.

Towns like Clearwater, Kansas, and Merkel, Texas, are among those hit by Wal-Mart closures. In Godley, Texas, with a population of roughly 1,000, Wal-Mart opened a small store just a year ago. Within months, the only other grocery store in town -- Brookshire Brothers, part of an employee-owned regional chain -- shut its doors. Now with Wal-Mart gone, the closest full-service grocery store is about a 20-minute drive away.

This is just one more example of why improving the quality of life for poorly paid hourly employees isn't as simple as implementing across-the-board wage hikes.

WalMart's move to give employees $10/hour instead of $9 has now, i) adversely affected the supply chain and might well end up driving some vendors out of business as the retailer pushes for more savings, ii) cost the jobs of hundreds who were gainfully employed in Bentonville, meaning the economy lost breadwinner jobs so the company's meagerly compensated shelf stockers could be slightly less poor, iii) irreparably damaged WalMart's reputation with investors, and now iv) left many a community across the country with no grocery store and no pharmacy.

We're pretty sure this wasn't what WalMart had in mind when they first announced that the company was prepared to appease the living wage crowd early last year, but now that the horse has left the barn, we wonder if perhaps the retailer has entered a terminal decline similar to what befell that other "Mart"...

CONGRESS IS WRITING THE PRESIDENT A BLANK CHECK FOR WAR

Infowars.com | By Ron Paul - JANUARY 25, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: ELLIOTT P. / FLICKR.

While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.

The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.

President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.

It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.

The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn’t al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?

The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch’s power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people’s branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.

Let’s be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.

BREAKING: MILITARY MARTIAL LAW BILL SNEAKED THROUGH BY SENATE

Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - JANUARY 22, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: FLICKR, JESHUANACE.

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell is attempting to fast track a “war powers” bill that will allow President Obama nearly unlimited power to deploy the military anywhere in the world for any length of time – including on U.S. soil.


“The Authorization for Use of Military Force put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy,” Defense One reported.


In other words, the authorization allows the president to deploy the military anywhere at his discretion – both foreign and domestic – for as long as he wants.


Several senators, including Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, were surprised by McDonnell’s decision to fast-track the bill after a year of deep in-fighting over similar measures in the Senate.


“He did?” he asked the Na­tion­al Journ­al on Thursday morn­ing when reporters informed him about the bill.


Even some Senate Democrats have an issue with a new authorization without geographical restrictions placed on the president.


“I’m for the Con­gress vot­ing on an AUMF; of course it de­pends what the AUMF looks like,” Sen. Robert Men­en­dez said Thursday. “I don’t want a blank check.”


It’s also interesting to note McConnell is trying to push through the bill on a Friday as an unprecedented blizzard slams the northeast U.S., including Washington, D.C.