Saturday, May 28, 2016

Clinton Email Trouble Deepens, Bill Gross Economic Warning, Bathroom Gender Endgame


1aBy Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 
A new report by the Inspector General (IG) of the State Department puts Hillary Clinton in even deeper trouble over her unprotected email server that was installed in the bathroom of her home. The mainstream press finally picked up this story, even though it has largely ignored this latest Clinton scandal. The IG report says that Clinton broke the rules when she installed the private server without permission. The report also claims Ms. Clinton disregarded security policy with her private server. The Clinton camp says her use of a personal email account “was not unique,” but others criticized Clinton for endangering national security. Please keep in mind, other Secretaries of State have used private email for some business, but no one has ever used a private server installed in their home while heading up the State Department. Clinton is also taking criticism from liberal media sources, and this may signal a coming lack of support from members of her own party. If Clinton loses the upcoming California primary to Bernie Sanders, it’s over for Ms. Clinton.
If you think the economy is doing well, you should listen to Bill Gross. Gross is a bond expert so renowned that his nickname is “The Bond King.” This past week, Gross expressed how worried he is about the financial markets and said, “The system itself is at risk,” and Gross goes on to warn, “Day of reckoning is coming.” When someone with the reputation of Bill Gross makes these kind of statements, you best take cover. This is one of many other warnings that have been coming from top names in the financial and investment world this year.
Finally, the Obama Administration and its edict on trans-gender bathroom access is heating up. Nearly a dozen states are suing the federal government charging Obama’s bathroom policies are a gross overreach of his powers. The endgame is really unisex bathrooms and showers and locker rooms for all. The left wants to do away with separate male and female facilities altogether. For proof, look no further than a recent story by the Associated Press with a title that reads “All-gender restrooms are Yale’s new normal.” This is the test case for the extreme left and where it wants to take the country. I can’t see how the overwhelming majority, especially women and parents, are going to buy into this line of thinking.
Join Greg Hunter as he talks about these stories and much more in the Weekly News Wrap-Up.

Friday, May 27, 2016

The Truth Behind The Surge In Conservative "Extremism"



By Brandon Smith and originally published at alt-market.com
The definition of “extremist” is a rather ambiguous issue primarily dependent on opinion rather than fact. That is to say, it is generally the people in power and their propaganda mouthpieces that determine who is an extremist and who is not. There is no set or fair standard.
If you are a quiet and passive sort of citizen with no political deviations and no thoughts outside of what is considered “mainstream,” then you are probably considered a non-threat to the establishment. If, however, you promote an ideal that is opposed to the establishment agenda and display a potential to actually ACT to fight for that ideal, then you will eventually be labeled an extremist.
So who sets the standard for extremism in America today? The responsibility of enforcement has been undertaken by the Department of Homeland Security. But, the initial profiling of extremism and the engineering behind the farcical talking points that the DHS often uses and spreads to local law enforcement agencies is the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The SPLC’s profiling guidelines on extremism and terrorism tend to end up in DHS and fusion center reports that are usually not meant for the eyes of the public. A more well-known example would be the exposure of the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) Report back in 2009 which listed Ron Paul supporters as being potential terrorists. The SPLC complained widely that the MIAC report should not have been abandoned after the uproar from conservatives, but instead, should have been pursued.
The SPLC lists “active anti-government groups” on their website with a nicely made but meaningless graph which would have you believe that such groups have exploded in number since 2008. How the SPLC designates groups as “anti-government” is entirely dependent on their own baseless opinions rather than any discernible or practical method. They could easily make their graph say anything they want it to say and pretend there is some kind of science to it.
Hilariously, the SPLC lists my own website, Alt-Market, as an “anti-government group” under Pennsylvania, the state I lived in when Alt-Market was first established. Apparently, they consider a website a “group,” and I suppose I should be flattered that my individual efforts have been effective enough to constitute a group-sized threat in their minds.
I am also not “anti-government.” I am anti-corrupt government, but the SPLC does not seem to care at all about this kind of distinction.
I can say that Alt-Market is certainly not a group. While I do promote the formation of private barter groups as well as mutual aid and community security groups, these groups are in no way under the control of Alt-Market. If the SPLC considers me, all by my lonesome, as an anti-government group, then I question the validity of their list. If they had some confusion as to what Alt-Market was, all they had to do was ask me, but they never have.
I addressed the SPLC directly and outlined the corruption inherent in their institution years ago in my article ‘A Message To The SPLC From A Montana “Extremist.”’ To summarize, the SPLC’s goal is to promote Cultural Marxism while incessantly demonizing the opposing belief system — true conservatism. They do this through the use of an old propaganda ploy called ‘false association.’
If you examine the SPLC’s list of people they consider prominent extremists in the U.S., you will find a mixture of liberty movement proponents with their photos pasted right next to white supremacists and Klu Klux Klan members. This is not an accident. The strategy is to associate liberty activists with racists in the minds of the SPLC’s gullible readership without risking lawsuit by defamation.
For example, the SPLC has never (as far as I know) directly labeled liberty voices like Stewart Rhodes or Chuck Baldwin as “racists” or supremacists. However, they will work very hard in various media including their magazine ‘Intelligence Report’ (equating “intelligence” with the SPLC is a laughable premise) to influence the public to attach ideas of liberty to racial supremacy as if they are part of the same ideological movement.
Now frankly, I do not care if an individual or group “hates” another individual or group. As long as they do not harm anyone, invade their privacy or impede their constitutional rights, then it is none of my business. This does not mean I agree with them, but they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe.
The SPLC, along with the “extreme left,” though, does not think that people have a right to believe what they want to believe, and this is where problems start to emerge. The movement to criminalize “hate speech” may be a paper tiger, it may not. According to some polls, 41 percent of Americans and over half of Democrats support the criminalization of hate speech.
Again, if such speech is criminalized, then who gets to determine the definition of what hate speech is? Yes, most likely it will be social justice think-tanks like the SPLC.
That which constitutes “hate speech” and that which constitutes “extremism” is invariably conservative in nature… according to the SPLC and the DHS. Though you will see far more race-hate related speech from groups like Black Lives Matter, you will probably never see them listed on the SPLC’s website.
Conservative opposition to illegal immigration, to the medieval tyranny of Islamic sharia law, to government enforcement of transgender ideology on private property, along with conservative support of 2nd Amendment rights of firearms ownership and 1st Amendments rights in the face of “hate speech” legislation have all been categorized as extremism or racism by the SPLC. This is not simply a battle of ideas with no tangible consequences outside of the academic. The poison of cultural Marxism championed by the SPLC is leaching into everyday life.
I was sent this example recently; a story out of Washington D.C. in which a man in a wig entered the women’s bathroom at a Giant supermarket (private property). A female security guard at the establishment forced “Ebony Belcher” (see photo below) to leave the bathroom according to store policy after the man refused to heed verbal warnings.  The security guard cited that there was no law allowing transgenders to violate the store's bathroom policy.
Belcher then proceeded to file a complaint with D.C. police. Instead of shrugging off the incident as a matter of private property as they should have, police arrested the guard pursuant of “hate crime” charges.
This is merely one incident, yes, but it is now one of MANY examples of government force backing cultural Marxists, and is representative of where the entire nation is headed if the SPLC and the federal government get their way.
The position that private property owners have the right to restrict a person who has the genetics and biology of a man to male bathroom facilities in order to protect the privacy and safety of their female customers is now being called a hate crime. That which is entirely practical and sane today will be labeled dangerous “extremism” tomorrow.
Therefore, I would submit to you that there is no “surge” in conservative extremism. Instead, normal longstanding conservative principles, along with conservative groups and individuals are being increasingly and arbitrarily labeled as “extremists.” We are not necessarily becoming more dangerous than we were before, more of us are just being targeted as dangerous by well-placed political minorities in a war of cultural dominance.
That said, conservative individuals and groups that are targeted will of course move to defend themselves. The orchestrated demonization and sublimation of conservatives on the part of cultural Marxists is the very definition of true extremism, and when one group decides to implement an extremist methodology in order to attain power over others, it is inevitable that they will invite an equal or greater opposing reaction.
The Washington Post recently warned of this reaction in an exposé titled Primed To Fight The Government.
The article begins in typical establishment propaganda fashion by immediately working to inoculate readers against conservative or liberty movement viewpoints. The SPLC is, of course, brought in to repeat their standard list of lies and half-truths while noting that their list of extremist groups has skyrocketed ever since 2008 — when America’s first black president was elected. This is surely intended once again to associate liberty activists with racism.
There is no mention of the numerous groups and individuals on their list (myself included) who started their work long before 2008 and have been as consistently critical of white republicans as they have been of Barack Obama.
The Post then finally allows the primary subjects of the article, B.J. Soper and his Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, to give their voice on the matter. Soper comes off as even handed and solidly grounded, with views easily supported by verifiable evidence; he did not appear as “extreme” as the SPLC might prefer.
If The Washington Post and the SPLC are truly curious as to the source of the supposed surge in conservatives “ready to go to war” with the government, I would challenge them to set aside their bias (or ignore their corporate handlers) and look more closely at the behavior of the government today as well as the extremists on the “Left” side of the political spectrum.
Perhaps they should take a more mathematical approach to their views on the socialization of America and its clear negative effects on our economic future.
Perhaps they should take a closer look at the UN’s “Strong Cities Network,” which is a program in collaboration with governments around the world including the U.S. to weaponize local communities against any behavior considered "extremist"; promoting a world of self-policing and self censoring towns and cities while instituting anti-extremist (mostly anti-conservative) policies on an Orwellian scale.
Perhaps they should examine how free speech is being progressively eroded with legal “exceptions” in the name of protecting people’s tender feelings or protecting the public from “dangerous ideas.” True conservatives understand that NO ONE has the right to limit the speech of everyone in the name of personal comfort for an overly-sensitive few, and for some reason this makes us extremists.
Perhaps they should re-think their accusations of “racism” against the tens of millions of Americans of all ethnicities who stand against illegal immigration. Perhaps by ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration do so based on realistic economic and social dangers is pressuring conservatives to see armed preparedness as the only avenue left to them.
Or perhaps the establishment should acknowledge that they have been militarizing local police forces and indoctrinating them with assertions that conservatives are a menace, a racist, fascist ticking time bomb ready to explode and that must be contained or re-educated. Conservatives are not going to simply stand by idly forever while this kind of fourth generation warfare continues unchallenged. Obviously we are preparing for a fight. When one is attacked, defense is natural.
As I point out in my article The Weirdest Possible Outcomes For The Strangest Election In History, the potential for violent divisions within the U.S. over the course of this election year is very high. In fact, the stage is pretty well set for conflict regardless of who becomes president.
The mob actions and growing madness of the extreme left, instigated and in some cases funded (Ferguson, Missouri) by elitists like George Soros is going to force conservatives into a position of armed reaction. It is only a matter of time. And perhaps this is what the elites prefer — Americans fighting and killing other Americans while they sit back and enjoy the show. After all, the failure of America is a perfect justification for the greater influence of globalism to stem the tide of “nationalist fervor.” And in a totally globalized and collectivized world, conservatism has no place.
Conservatives are called “extremists” because the establishment needs an excuse to get rid of us.  We are a threat, yes, but only to power mongers and their collectivist hordes. More and more of us grow awake and aware of the program each day. As a result of this awakening, we end up becoming more extreme by mainstream definition in order to protect ourselves and our values. Ultimately, to be an extremist conservative is not a crime against humanity as some would have us believe. To be an extremist conservative in the face of open conflagration against the principles of freedom is to be on the right side of history.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Here’s the Full List of Companies & Organizations That Paid Hillary Clinton From 2013-2015

By Michael Krieger and originally published at libertyblitzkrieg.com
In its article titled, How Corporate America Bought Hillary Clinton for $21MThe New York Post details the companies and organizations that paid Hillary in speaking fees from 2013-2015.
The total comes to $21.7 million, which is a remarkable sum for one of the least charismatic and unimaginative orators the world has ever known.
It’s enough to make you sick.
The New York Post reports:
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.26.08 PM
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.19.03 PM
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.27.49 PM
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.28.30 PM
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.29.21 PM
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.32.02 PM
Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 3.32.35 PM
So are you ready?
Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 8.32.36 AM


Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Prescription pain killers: far riskier than gun ownership



BY DUANE NORMAN and originally published at singledudetravel.com

"If Americans are so happy, then why do we consume 80 percent of the entire global supply of prescription painkillers?  Less than 5 percent of the world’s population lives in this country, and yet we buy four-fifths of these highly addictive drugs.  In the United States today, approximately 4.7 million Americans are addicted to prescription pain relievers, and that represents about a 300 percent increase since 1999. If you personally know someone that is suffering from this addiction, then you probably already know how immensely destructive these drugs can be. Someone that was formally living a very healthy and normal life can be reduced to a total basket case within a matter of weeks.
Now replace the word “gun” with “opioid-based painkillers” – yes, I mean the Percocets, Vicodins, Oxycontins, and all the others. Now your argument is somewhere between 5 and 107 times as pertinent, depending on the classification of suicide, and addiction/accessibility. 
Most people who use these arguments are simply regurgitating what they hear second-hand and/or are spoonfed by the mainstream media or whatever progressive outlet they choose to read. The truth is, they are largely ignoring or do not know about the danger of painkillers and other drugs in the home.
They are also ignoring obvious statistical trends, which show that while gun death rates are falling and have been for years…
Pew Research US gun violence since 1990
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • reddit
  • Google+
Deaths from opioid-based prescription painkillers are climbing rapidly, and have been for years…
National Institute on Drug Abuse US overdoses since 1990
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • reddit
  • Google+
Arriving at any number on total opioid-based prescription drug usage is extremely difficult, as there is no conclusive data as to the number of people who use them annually. The black market resale value of prescriptions, size and duration of prescriptions, and the potential access of household members to the drugs, makes any measure difficult, and I haven’t found any outlet that’s even attempted to try to measure the percentage of households with prescribed opioid-based painkillers. Its also important to note that a household with a gun has the gun year round, at risk to anyone in the household, while the opioids have much more limited household accessibility, as the addiction numbers show. 
There are about 4.7 million people “addicted” to opioid-based prescription pain relievers, as per the cited Zero Hedge article. If we calculate a death rate only for those addicted to opioid-based prescription painkillers, and use the figure in the above chart citing 18,893 deaths from prescription opioid-based pain relievers, we come up with 402 per 100,000. While this number is obviously extremely high, this example is pertinent solely because it is indicative of the types of calculations used by progressive media to inflate the danger of guns in the home, which usually use the assumption that you can only die via gunshot if your home has a gun. 
The addiction statistics aren’t accurate, however, and there are no conclusive numbers on the number of people prescribed to opioid-based painkillers in the US, and not in treatment for abuse. A roughshod calculation, citing 7 out of 10 of the 320 million Americans taking prescription drugs (yes, you read that right), and 13% of those being opioid-based painkillers, puts you at slightly over 29 million Americans prescribed opioid-based pain medications annually. In addition, the majority of opioid-based prescriptions have very limited durations; my younger brother had one for a broken wrist, I had one for wisdom teeth removal, each prescription provided only about 10 low strength pills with no refill. Despite the true number of households per annum with access to painkillers in the medicine cabinet being much lower, we will go with 29 million as the number of people whose household has an opioid-based prescription painkiller, in lieu of more conclusive data. 
Using that figure, you get a household opioid-based prescription death rate of 65 per 100,000. And that assumes the high number of 29 million people with access. Also, suicides need to be broken out of both opioids and gun deaths – you can kill yourself any way you choose, and neither guns nor opioid-based painkillers are a prerequisite to do so. The CDC cites that 77% of poisoning deaths are unintentional accidents, 13% are suicide, and 9% are of “undetermined intent.” To give the benefit of the doubt, we’ll say just one third of the deaths of “undetermined intent” are indeed accidental, and go with an even 80% being accidental. That figure gives you 15,114 of last year’s opioid-based prescription deaths as accidental overdoses or homicide, or a rate of 52 per 100,000 within households with opioid-based painkillers in the medicine cabinet. 
We’ll do the same exercise for guns, assuming that only people whose households own a gun can die as a result of one. To boot, we’ll use the low number of 34% of households with a gun (slightly under 109 million people), even though the NRA and other sources dispute this and put the estimate as high as 40-45% of households with a gun. Given that about 33,000 people die on average annually due to firearms related injuries, your death rate for households with one or more guns is 30 people per 100,000. If you break out the approximately 21,000 suicide gun deaths annually from these statistics, the household gun death rate is 11 people per 100,000. If you use a low estimate of 25% of gun victims not having a gun in the house, now you have a death rate of 7.5 per 100,000 for households with one or more guns. This is all using gun the highly questionable ownership and fatality rates from the progressive media, of course. 
Editor’s note:
This means the risk for death by homicide involving a firearm for general population at large was approximately 3.5 per 100,000 in 2013. You can imagine what happens to this number if you were to deduct all the homicides that occur in liberal gun control zones like Chicago (455 or more than 4% of the national total for 2013), Detroit, Baltimore, Washington DC, New York City, the entire state of California and so many others where it is nearly impossible to own and carry a handgun. The simple fact the liberal progressive parasites are always trying to obscure is that more [legal] gun ownership along with the right to carry results in less crime, not more. 
Your odds of dying
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • reddit
  • Google+
However, as I pointed out above, those household gun death figures are completely bogus and are much higher than reality. For the obvious reason – you can’t die from prescription painkillers if you don’t take them, but anyone can kill you with a gun (including your local police, who kill 1,100 annually with guns Editor’s note:2015 saw more than 1,200 killed by police.) Including suicides, the gun death rate for all Americans is about 10 per 100,000 Americans annually. Breaking out suicides and including solely homicides, accidents, and “other” sources of gun deaths annually, you get a gun death rate of 3.75 per 100,000. 
Even if you take the figures including suicide, and you assume that you can only die from a gun if your home has one, you’re still more than twice as likely to die from prescription opioids. Pull out suicides, and you are about 5 times as likely to die from opioid-based painkillers than a gunshot. Say 75% of gun victims had a household gun, and now you’re 7 times as likely to die from a gunshot as opioid-based painkillers. 
And all this is not even factoring in that my calculation of 29 million people with access to prescription opioid-based painkillers annually is likely extremely high. Or the fact that I’ve taken all of the progressive media estimates on gun ownership and fatality rates. I challenge anyone to tell me that my number is low and that there are more people with access to painkillers in the home at any given time than the figure I’ve cited; the truth is, a more accurate measure would likely push the number of households with access to these painkillers even lower. Higher estimates on gun ownership, which has likely gone up in the past few years, using the increase to over 20 million background checks per year as a measure, would show that painkillers are far more deadly in the home than guns are. And remember, even if the gun saved your life from a violent attacker, the gun control outlets and their statistics I’ve used will include that in their gun death data. Good luck getting the painkillers to do that. 
So before you give me the same recycled argument from the progressive websites about how unsafe it is to have a gun at home, check your own medicine cabinet for whatever Perocets, Vicodins and Oxycontins might be in your house first. Even if you need the medications to listen to your argument about guns in the home, statistically speaking, you’d be much safer if you flush the medications down the toilet than you ever would be by removing your gun, regardless of your opinion on the causes of gun deaths. 
Note: The numbers in this article are solely focused on deaths caused by legal opioid-based painkillers (19,000 annually as of 2014). Total overdose deaths are about 47,000 annually – Illegal opioids (heroin) account for another 9,000 deaths annually, and there are about another 19,000 whose overdose deaths are any other substance, whether its Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), cleaning solvent, or any number of prescription medications in your cabinet. Despite my focus on opioid-based painkillers, there are plenty of other substances you should toss out of the medicine cabinet and under the kitchen sink before you sell your gun, as the everyday household is filled with things besides painkillers that are far more likely to kill you than the gun is.
If you liked this article, be sure to check out Gun Control and Mass Shootings in Perspective.