A 'CONGENITAL LIAR' Hillary doesn't deserve our admiration

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/hillary-doesnt-deserve-americans-admiration/   

A 'CONGENITAL LIAR'

Hillary doesn't deserve our admiration

Diana West lists reasons Clinton should not receive honor she's snatched up 17 times

Published: 3 hours ago

by Diana West

Diana West is the author of "The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization," and blogs at dianawest.net.More ↓

Americans, Gallup tells us, admire Hillary Clinton more than any other woman in the world – again. This latest accolade marks the 17th time Gallup has found Clinton to be the Most Admired Woman (MAW?) since she became first lady nearly 20 years ago. Only Eleanor Roosevelt (13 MAWs) comes close. Only Mother Teresa (1995 and 1996) and Laura Bush (2001) have interrupted Clinton’s winning streak, and even then, Clinton came in second.
And therein lies America’s cosmic flaw. A country that could time and again embrace Hillary Clinton as its MAW has lost its mind or its memory or both.
Does the phrase “congenital liar” tinkle any bells? I know such non-admirable sentiments are thought to be in the worst of taste, if not also banishable offenses. Still, as conjured by the late New York Times columnist William Safire in 1996, the phrase described the then-first lady for her shameless prevarications. These included what sure looked like bribery (“cattle futures”), defrauding taxpayers (“Whitewater”), obstructing justice – or, rather, “finding” her Rose Law Firm billing records (under subpoena for two years) just days after the statute of limitations ran out – among other corrupt behaviors that must have slightly suppressed Hillary-admiration that same year. The phrase remains apt.
“I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton declared on the presidential campaign trail in 2008, describing a 1996 trip to Bosnia. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down (chuckles) to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” It was a vivid but debunkable whopper, as CBS footage of the event proved. In reality, Clinton, accompanied by daughter Chelsea, made her ceremonial way into Bosnia through a warm throng marked by smiling faces and a kiss from a local girl – not bullets. Admirable?
On a more nationally significant level, Clinton recently supported President Obama’s Big Lie that a movie trailer of “Innocence of Muslims” on YouTube “resulted” (her word) in the September attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya – a concerted falsehood for which neither Clinton nor Obama nor former CIA Director David Petraeus has yet answered. Even several days after intelligence agencies determined that a planned assault, not a video-driven protest, had taken place, Clinton went so far as to promise a grieving Charles Woods, father of slain former SEAL Tyrone Woods, that “we” were going to have the video maker “arrested and prosecuted.”
Why was Clinton still perpetuating the false narrative that the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, not Islamic jihad, had resulted in the attack? Was that admirable? Clinton has lately let it be known that she will voluntarily testify about Benghazi following her hospitalization for a blood clot, but I seriously doubt whether mere House members will risk asking this crucial question of the Most Admired Woman in America, especially now that she has risen from her sickbed. If they don’t, they’re not admirable, either.
Meanwhile, the video maker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was indeed arrested and swiftly prosecuted, and is now serving one year in jail for “parole violations.” His incarceration, however, is better understood as punishment for violating the Islamic ban on free speech about Islam. To be sure, one year is nothing compared to the death penalty an Egyptian court recently slapped on Nakoula and other Americans associated with the movie in absentia – and without a peep of protest from the Obama administration, including Clinton.
The fact is, Hillary Clinton has worked assiduously with the Islamic bloc nations, known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to promote Islamically correct speech codes through the so-called Istanbul Process. The goal of this process – and the goal of transnational Islam – is to implement Shariah speech codes via U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which seeks to criminalize “defamation” – free speech – about Islam. In leading this drive against free speech, Hillary Clinton is actually leading a drive against the First Amendment.
Most Americans don’t know about the Istanbul Process, let alone how Islamic speech codes are unconstitutional, but it is this policy against free speech that may stand as Clinton’s enduring legacy as secretary of state. It is of a piece with having presided over, first, the shredding of U.S. alliances with Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi and then supporting jihadist factions and organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, now implementing Islamic law across the Middle East. This, of course, is President Obama’s policy, but Hillary Clinton has been an active team player.
Another aspect of this same foreign policy Clinton has spearheaded is the launch of the Global Counterterrorism Forum. The forum’s roster of 29 nations plus the European Union is stunning for its exclusion of Israel, a leading counterterrorism force as much as it is a leading terrorism victim. But not so, according to Islamic definitions. Knowingly or not, as a leader of this forum, one-third of whose members come from the Islamic bloc, Clinton has accepted the Arab League and OIC definitions of terrorism, which both deny the existence of Israeli victims (sometimes U.S. soldiers) and legitimize the terrorism of Hamas, a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah.
How could this be? What influences have led Clinton to formulate or follow such policies? We don’t know, although it is hard not to wonder about the input of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, a young woman with well-established familial and personal ties to Muslim Brotherhood figures and front groups (including a “charity” linked to al-Qaida and a group banned in Israel for ties to Hamas). Indeed, what may be most astounding and mysterious about Clinton’s whole public tenure is how Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work so closely with the secretary of state.
Even broaching such a simple if burning national security question, as Rep. Michele Bachmann and others discovered last summer, is also a banishable offense. After all, Hillary Clinton is our MAW!
That’s life. But it isn’t admirable.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/hillary-doesnt-deserve-americans-admiration/#ogekJcoyVdvgwQRW.99

North Korea EMP 'Red Dawn' scenario Exclusive: Joseph Farah warns of something far more calamitous than an economic crash

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/north-korea-emp-red-dawn-scenario/            

North Korea EMP 'Red Dawn' scenario

Exclusive: Joseph Farah warns of something far more calamitous than an economic crash

Published: 2 hours ago

by Joseph Farah Email

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.More ↓

North Korea now has an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to the United States, as demonstrated by the successful launch and orbiting of a satellite on Dec. 12, the Washington Times reports.
In fact, the Times report says, “North Korea is a mortal nuclear threat to the United States – right now.”
It’s not just the threat of conventional nuclear attack that has experts worried. Nor is the North Korea invasion scenario in the remake of “Red Dawn” a realistic risk.
The real concern is that North Korea now has miniaturized nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery and armed missiles with nuclear warheads that could destroy the U.S. in a single blow with an EMP attack that would send America back to 19th century technology a la the NBC TV show “Revolution.”
And North Korea is hardly the only threat to destroy what some other nations and rogue players call “the Great Satan.”
Imagine if all the lights in America went off – never to come back on again.
Imagine if all the computers in America got fried – never to come back on again.
Imagine if all the cars in America dependent on fancy circuitry wouldn’t start – ever again.
Imagine if the grocery stores and the gas stations had to close up – for good.
That’s the kind of scenario an EMP attack can cause. The scenarios suggest massive starvation, lawlessness and chaos beyond anything Americans can imagine.
Thankfully, a new book is blowing the whistle on U.S. vulnerability to such a cataclysmic catastrophe.
It’s called “A Nation Forsaken” by defense expert Michael Maloof, a senior staff writer for WND.
Scientists and other experts have warned for years that the nation’s electrical grid system, together with other critical infrastructures that have an almost complete dependency on electricity and electronic components, are highly vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse event, either from natural or manmade causes.
However, Congress and the administrations of previous and current presidents largely have ignored those warnings.
Events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States, then the devastating Hurricane Katrina and more recently Hurricane Sandy revealed vulnerabilities to those infrastructures, for a time heightened that concern. Nevertheless, none of this was enough to awaken policymakers who seem more preoccupied with making you less safe by restricting your ability to get firearms.
Make no mistake about it: An EMP attack poses the biggest threat to U.S. national and economic security in our lifetime.
An electromagnetic pulse attack on our critical infrastructures, either from an impending solar storm of serious intensity expected between 2012 and 2014 or from a high-altitude nuclear explosion, could have long-term catastrophic consequences for our society and our way of life.
A few years ago, a congressional commission went into considerable depth on those consequences to our electricity-dependent infrastructures that include not only the power grid itself but also telecommunications, our banking and finance system, our transportation system that delivers the very food and water on which our society depends on a daily basis, and the fuel needed to keep our houses warm in the winter and air-conditioned during the summer.
While these critical infrastructures continue to face such an impending crisis, Congress basically has ignored its own commission report and instead has treated the threat of an electromagnetic pulse event as a political football to be weighed against the need to establish an antiballistic missile system. Out of the debate, nothing has happened in either direction.
“A Nation Forsaken” breaks down that threat. It even outlines how our own military similarly is vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse event due to its 99-percent dependency on the nation’s electrical grid system for electricity and communications, raising the high prospect that it may not be able to function to defend the nation in its time of greatest need.
While an electromagnetic pulse event on our civilian infrastructure could be serious, it can be managed if government at the federal, state and local levels gives a high priority to undertaking preventive action to lessen its impact and enhance our ability to recover from it. Given what seems to be a perpetual gridlock in Congress, however, don’t count on it – at least not without the kind of public outcry only a book like this can prompt.
Related stories:
How-to for EMP weapons stunning accessible
Ray gun feared as America’s biggest threat
Rocket launch signaling real-life ‘Red Dawn’
U.S. electrical grid inherently vulnerable
It’s time to learn about the worst threat Americans face – something far more calamitous than an economic crash.
Get “A Nation Forsaken” by Michael Maloof and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/north-korea-emp-red-dawn-scenario/#VyXcIisVmhFzXecO.99

It's back! 'Audit the Fed' launched Longtime Ron Paul campaign taken up by Georgia congressman

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/its-back-audit-the-fed-launched/#bHCfs71jRBjGcWA3.99 yea bullshit walks 2   how about the "elites"  Oops   

It's back! 'Audit the Fed' launched

Longtime Ron Paul campaign taken up by Georgia congressman

Published: 1 hour ago

by Bob Unruh Email | Archive

Subscribe to feed

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the longtime advocate of Congress taking control of the U.S. monetary policy back from the Federal Reserve, may have retired, but his longtime goal, a full audit of the money managing organization, survives.
U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., today announced that he has relaunched Paul’s “Audit the Fed” proposal and he will be pursuing the Texas congressman’s longtime goal.
“I first want to thank Congressman Ron Paul for his tireless and unwavering dedication to auditing the Federal Reserve,” Broun announced. “His efforts paid off when the House passed his legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support during the 112th Congress.
“This accomplishment in itself marked the most significant stride made toward bringing real transparency to the nation’s monetary policy. Unfortunately, as has become the status quo, the do-nothing Senate failed to act on the bill before the end of the 112th Congress, causing it to flat line,” he said.
His proposal would be the same as Paul’s, for a “full audit by the U.S. Comptroller General of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve banks.”
He said he now is circulating the bill among House members to allow them to come aboard the campaign.
“Moving forward, my plan is to pick up right where Congressman Paul left off,” Broun said. “Our economy is far from recovering, and the recent fears regarding the potential impacts of the ‘fiscal cliff’ and its aftermath prove that the American people must continue to demand transparency from the entity charged with ensuring stable economic and monetary policy.
“While measures requiring partial audits of the Fed have become law in recent years, it’s clear that current policy does not go far enough. I am honored to carry on one of Rep. Paul’s legacies, as well as his efforts to advocate for a full audit of the Fed, which remains as active – and as closely guarded – as ever.”
Broun said his version of the bill is identical to Paul’s H.R. 459, which was approved in the House 327-98 with 274 cosponsors.
Special opportunity today: Get Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” for $4.95 only.
Paul continued battling for transparency from the Fed throughout his career and just weeks ago scheduled a hearing to examine the Fed’s operations.
It was Paul’s Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee that held a hearing on the Fed’s practice of essentially loaning money to large banks and others for no interest at all.
“The Federal Reserve is relentless in pursuing a policy of zero interest rates, as manifest by their decision last week to engage in another round of quantitative easing and keep the federal funds rate at zero for another three years,” Paul said in preparation.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced just days ago another round of money printing by the U.S. government. There have multiple attempts to maneuver influences on the economy by having the government inject currency into society.
There is a petition process set up to urge members of Congress to act on plans to audit the Fed.
The central bank’s objective is to keep interest rates low, and thus trigger more spending and more hiring. The Fed has been trying to impact the economy for the duration of Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House, but its usual tool – lowering interest rates – is ineffective now since those rates have been approaching zero for most of that time.
Paul for years advocated a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which routinely shrouds its actions in secrecy.
“The Fed is intent on ignoring that their policy of low interest rates in the past brought us the financial crisis of 2008 and their zero interest rate policy of today is prolonging the agony while sowing the seeds for a much larger crash in future,” Paul had said. “Their manipulation of interest rates – essentially price setting – can only ever have destructive effects on the American economy. Artificially low interest rates continue to cause malinvestment and misallocation of resources throughout the economy. Savers and investors suffer from negative real interest rates, while the federal government takes advantage of the Fed’s zero interest rate policy to run up gargantuan fiscal deficits.
“These problems cannot and will not be remedied until the Fed stops manipulating the price of money,” he said.
Paul long argued that the Federal Reserve simply is illegal. Some of his concerns have revolved around Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the right to coin money.
There is no mention in the Constitution of a central bank, and it wasn’t until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that the Fed was created.
Paul previously has said, “Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.”
And he proposed repeatedly the idea of auditing the Fed to determine exactly what it has been doing and then begin making corrections. With a book titled “End the Fed,” he’s made no secret of his ultimate goal.
That the Fed is at least partly to blame for the financial problems that have developed in the U.S. seems not to be in dispute.
It was longtime Federal Reserve chairman Ben. S. Bernanke who admitted as much.
Bernanke said it was the Fed that caused the Great Depression, the worldwide economic downturn that persisted from 1929 until about 1939. It was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history.”
At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor economist Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman’s old home base, the University of Chicago.
After citing how Friedman and a co-author documented the Fed’s continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke added:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and [Anna] Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous “liquidationist” thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

History records that in 1913 President Woodrow Wilson approved the Federal Reserve Act but later reflected that his actions “unwittingly ruined my country.”
Wilson said that since the U.S. system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few, “we have become … one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.”
Paul was named WND’s “Man of the Decade” for his work on the audit plan and others.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/its-back-audit-the-fed-launched/#2DTGPrRuFsrmDSgs.99

naw  it's just an fetus !     C if you just change some words around ?   &  you can KILL  MILLIONS !!!   like what   50 +    million       &  just CALL it   ........choice.               kinda makes u glad yer momma was ...pro   with u .               http://www.azfamily.com/news/Baby-reaching-beyond-womb-picture-goes-viral-185393182.html                     

Picture of baby reaching out of womb goes viral

by Jason Volentine

azfamily.com

Posted on January 2, 2013 at 6:53 AM

Updated yesterday at 9:06 AM

Related:

• Parents of baby featured in viral C-section photo: 'It was such an amazing moment...'

See all 15 photos »

PHOENIX -- Giving birth can be a blur but a Valley couple took a picture that brings it into crystal clarity.  The image of their baby reaching out of her mother’s womb to hold the finger of the doctor performing a C-section has gone viral.

The little baby’s name is Nevaeh – Heaven spelled backward.  Even the hospital staff told her parents there's something almost spiritual about the picture of Nevaeh holding the doctor's finger before technically being born.

“It was such an amazing photo.  [Hospital staff] had possibly heard of it happening but they had never seen a photo of it,” said Alicia Atkins, Nevaeh’s mother.

Few lives will be as well documented as little Nevaeh's. Her mother is a professional photographer who owns A Classic Pin-Up in Glendale. However, it was her dad, Randy, who snapped the picture.

“The doctor called me over and said, ‘Hey, she's grabbing my finger.’  So I ran over there and just grabbed the shot and I was just in awe looking at it.  It was such an amazing picture,” said Randy Atkins, adding that he was nervous about missing the precious and fleeting moment as he hurried to snap a picture.

The picture has gotten more than 10,000 views and 1,000 likes on Facebook. Alicia has even gotten a few offers to buy the photo.
Surprisingly though, the couple was never originally going to show the photo to anyone outside their family and friends.

“We didn't think we were going to get such positive feedback.  We thought we would get more negative ‘that's disgusting…’” Alicia said.  “[Instead] everybody just thought it was the best thing in the world.”

Nevaeh was born in October and has two older siblings, both of whom are enjoying the family's new-found popularity.

Lies, Hard Questions And Cover-Ups At Sandy Hook

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/01/investigating-the-sandy-hook-narrative-uncovering-lies-and-asking-the-hard-questions-2481256.html  

Thursday, January 3, 2013 13:25

(Before It's News)

by Joe Joseph

Joe Joseph, Tim Watts, and John King welcome Mike Powers to the broadcast to discuss the various holes in the Sandy Hook shooting narrative and ask relevant questions that our Press should be asking. These are perilous times and this incident is clearly being used to usurp the 2nd amendment and our God given natural rights!         

Investigating the Sandy Hook Narrative and Asking the Hard Questions           http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GKSUs569Y-k  

http://www.thefreedomlink.net
http://www.oriontalkradio.com

US EMP Attack Within Months? Martial Law By Memorial Day Verified

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/us-emp-attack-within-months-martial-law-by-memorial-day-verified-2447330.html      

US EMP Attack Within Months? Martial Law By Memorial Day Verified

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 14:01

(Before It's News)

On today’s John Moore show, John informs us that his East coast FEMA source is deeply worried that America will take an EMP attack within months or even weeks. This source has already moved his family to a ‘safe place’. All of his sources continue to inform him that martial law will be in effect in America by Memorial Day 2013. 

John issues a very stern warning: “There is nothing more dangerous than a man who knows that he is right and has no fear” in response to potential gun confiscation laws in America and the job that law enforcement officers in America might soon have in taking guns away from otherwise law-abiding Americans.

John also speaks out loudly to law enforcement in America: “Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a police officer and you think that you are going to enforce new unconstitutional anti-gun laws against the people of this country, you’re going to be up against something that is new and that you’ve never had to do before in your career as a police officer. The men and women you’ll be going up against will be sane, they will be sober, they will be resourceful, they will have no fear and they will know they are right, and they will know that you are wrong.”

John gets into everything right off the bat in today’s show.          

The John Moore Show 1/2/2013      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_cNF1mk1prw

National debt doubles under Bernanke New fiscal deal projected to add another $4 trillion

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/national-debt-doubles-under-bernanke/            yea the fucking Re pubs ....No you fucking Dem ' s  =  the same shit = fuck the American people --- no u guys ...no u guys,blah,blah,blah  & we  R left with ...tingly feeling's   AH   OH   yea ...we better get the guns  away from um ...be   fer  ....the dumb  asses wake  up ? Oops    ....we'll   spray a lil  more pick 's  C     dust on um !!!  hehe  dumb   asses !!!

National debt doubles under Bernanke

New fiscal deal projected to add another $4 trillion

Published: 1 day ago

by Jerome R. Corsi Email | Archive

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"More ↓

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

56

NEW YORK – Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is known among some economists as “Helicopter Ben,” for his tendency to hover over developing financial crises only long enough to hurl seemingly endless dollars down on the problem.
With the Congressional Budget Office projecting the fiscal cliff legislation that passed Congress over the New Years Day holiday will add $4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, the Obama administration appears determined to address the crisis by pressing for yet more federal government spending.
The administration evidently believes Keynesian deficit spending will eventually create jobs, without igniting hyperinflation, regardless how high the national debt accumulates.
In December, Bernanke reached a new milestone, doubling the magnitude of U.S. debt since the day he became Federal Reserve Chairman in 2006, as graphically illustrated in a chart published by Zero Hedge.
The chart shows U.S. national debt totaling $8.183 trillion on Feb. 1, 2006, rose to $16.366 trillion on Dec. 12, 2012.
On Dec. 12, 2012, the Federal Reserve officially announced the launch of Quantitative Easing 4, known among economists as “QE4.” It amounts to a fourth annual round in which the Federal Reserve will buy U.S. debt, including both U.S. Treasuries and Mortgage Backed Securities Bonds commonly issued by investment firms and commercial banks.
The Fed announced it would enter 2013 with a plan to purchase $45 billion a month of U.S. Treasury securities and $40 billion a month of mortgage-backed securities, with combined purchases totaling $85 billion a month. It’s part of a continuing Fed plan to depress long-term interest rates and encourage, borrowing, spending and investing, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
With the December 2012 announcement, the Fed set specific targets, announcing an intention to keep short-term interest rates near zero into 2015, or until unemployment falls to 6.5 percent or lower, and as long as inflation forecasts remain near the Fed’s 3 percent target.
The Fed announced it will fund QE4 purchases by adding reserves to the banking system, a move the Wall Street Journal interpreted as “printing money to buy more bonds.”
“The key point here is that the Fed is now actively running both monetary and fiscal policy because it will now be in the business of funding nearly 100 percent of all the new government deficit spending in 2013,” concluded Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity. “And it is pumping a bit more than $1 trillion of hot, thin-air money into the economy as it does so.”
With QE4, the Fed appears on track to increase its balance sheet by another $3 trillion to $4 trillion, assuming QE4 will be extended again into 2014. That means the national debt by the 2014 mid-term elections would reach or exceed the $20 trillion mark.
With the U.S. gross national product for 2012 estimated at approximately $15.1 trillion, the nation’s national debt now exceeds 100 percent of GDP, a benchmark traditionally trained economists assume is a tipping point that could lead to hyperinflation if not reversed.
Money supply contracting again
Despite the Federal Reserve’s determination to print money at a rate unprecedented in U.S. financial history, the money supply has begun to contract again after a brief respite of growth in 2011.
Economics reporter Ambrose Evans-Prichard issued a warning last May in the London Telegraph that M3, the broadest measure of the money supply, has been contracting at an accelerating rate in the U.S. and European Union that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933. The supply is contracting despite near zero interest rates and a continuing QE program under which the Federal Reserve has been purchasing U.S. Treasury debt to fund Obama administration annual federal budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion during each year of his first term in office.
“It’s frightening,” Tim Congdon of International Monetary Research told Evans-Prichard. “The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the U.S. is not recovering.”
John Williams of ShadowStatistics.com commented in his subscriber-only newsletter June 1, 2012, that M3 growth picked up in 2011, peaking at 4.1 percent in January 2012. The rise reflected an annual growth that began in February 2011, only to slow down as 2012 progressed, to what Williams then projected would be a revised 2.5 percent growth.
Williams said in his Dec. 27, 2012, newsletter that the Federal Reserve is engaging in “a monetary-policy cave-in” that is “aimed at providing whatever liquidity would be needed to keep the system from collapsing.”
Williams has predicted that the U.S. is on track to experience hyperinflation by the end of 2014, assuming the Federal Reserve continues to buy U.S. debt in the magnitude projected by QE4.
Related columns:
Next up: The tyranny cliff
Ayn Rand was right

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/national-debt-doubles-under-bernanke/#2VBZpPhgDxWdpi6g.99

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/what-if-we-adopted-a-system-where-the-banks-did-not-create-our-money      

What If We Adopted A System Where The Banks Did Not Create Our Money?

By Michael, on October 22nd, 2012

 

What if there was a financial system that would eliminate the need for the federal government to go into debt, that would eliminate the need for the Federal Reserve, that would end the practice of fractional reserve banking and that would dethrone the big banks?  Would you be in favor of such a system?  A surprising new IMF research paper entitled "The Chicago Plan Revisited" by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof is making waves in economic circles all over the globe.  The paper suggests that the world would be much better off if we adopted a system where the banks did not create our money.  So instead of a system where more money is only created when more debt is created, we would have a system of debt-free money that is created directly by national governments.  There have been others that have suggested such a system before, but to have an IMF research paper actually recommend that such a system be adopted is a very big deal.  At the moment, the world is experiencing the biggest debt crisis in human history, and this proposal is being described as a "radical solution" that could potentially remedy some of our largest financial problems.  Unfortunately, apologists for the current system are already viciously attacking this new IMF paper, and of course the big banks would throw a major fit if such a system was ever to be seriously contemplated.  That is why it is imperative that we educate people about how money really works.  Our current system is in the process of collapsing and we desperately need to transition to a new one.
One of the fundamental problems with our current financial system is that it is based on debt.  Just take a look at the United States.  The way our system works today, the vast majority of all money is "created" either when we borrow money or the government borrows money.  Therefore, the creation of more money creates more debt.  Under such a system, it should not be surprising that the total amount of debt in the United States is more than 30 times larger than it was just 40 years ago.
We don't have to do things this way.  There is a better alternative.  National governments can directly issue debt-free currency into circulation.  The following is a brief excerpt from the IMF report...

At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher's claims.

Why should banks be allowed to create money?
That is a very good question.
Why should sovereign governments ever have to borrow money from anyone?
That is another very good question.
Our current system is designed to enrich the bankers and get everyone else into debt.
And is that not exactly what has happened?
Taking the creation of money away from the bankers would have some tremendous advantages.  A recent article by renowned financial journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard described some of these benefits...

One could slash private debt by 100pc of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.
The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money -- roughly 97pc of the money supply -- with state-created money. We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.
Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.
The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles.

So why don't we go to such a system immediately?
Well, the transition to such a system would undoubtedly be a major shock to the global financial system, and most people try to avoid significant short-term pain even if there are tremendous long-term benefits.
More importantly, however, is that the bankers have a tremendous amount of power in our society today, and they would move heaven and earth to keep a debt-free monetary system from ever being implemented.
You see, the influence of the bankers is not just limited to the big banks.  Our largest financial institutions (and the people who own them) also have large ownership stakes in the vast majority of the big Fortune 500 corporations.  In essence, the big banks are at the very pinnacle of "the establishment" in the United States and in almost every other major country in the western world.
And the vast majority of all political campaigns are funded by "the establishment".  It takes an enormous amount of money to win campaigns these days, and most politicians are extremely hesitant to bite the hands of those that feed them.
So don't expect any changes to happen overnight.
One proposal that has actually been put forward in Congress is to cancel all of the government debt that the Federal Reserve is currently holding.  Right now, the Fed is holding more than 1.6 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt...

That would seem to make a lot of sense.  That would immediately wipe more than 1.6 trillion dollars from the U.S. national debt without any real harm being done.
But "the establishment" would be horrified if such a thing happened, so I wouldn't anticipate it happening any time soon.
Hopefully we can get the American people (along with people all over the globe) educated about these things so that we can start to get millions of people pushing for change.
A debt-free monetary system is superior to a debt-based monetary system in so many ways.
For example, if the U.S. government directly spent debt-free money into circulation, it could conceivably never need to borrow a single dollar ever again.  If the government wanted to spend more money than it brought in, it would simply print it up and spend it.
Of course the big danger with that would be inflation.  That is why it would be imperative for there to be a hard cap on what the government could spend.  For example, you could set the cap on spending by the federal government at 20 percent of GDP.  That way we would never end up looking like the Weimar Republic.
And the current federal debt could be paid down a little at a time using newly created debt-free dollars.  This would have to be done slowly to keep inflation under control, but it could be done.
That way we would not hand a 16 trillion dollar debt to our children and our grandchildren.  We created this mess so we should clean it up.
Theoretically you could also do away with the federal income tax if you wanted to.  Personally, I would like to see the federal government be funded to a large degree by tariffs on foreign goods.  That would also have the side benefit of bringing millions of jobs back into the United States.
Our system of income tax collection is just so incredibly inefficient.  It costs us mind boggling amounts of time and money.  Just consider the following stats from one of my previous articles...
1 - The U.S. tax code is now 3.8 million words long.  If you took all of William Shakespeare's works and collected them together, the entire collection would only be about 900,000 words long.
2 - According to the National Taxpayers Union, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 7.6 billion hours complying with federal tax requirements.  Imagine what our society would look like if all that time was spent on more economically profitable activities.
3 - 75 years ago, the instructions for Form 1040 were two pages long.  Today, they are 189 pages long.
4 - There have been 4,428 changes to the tax code over the last decade.  It is incredibly costly to change tax software, tax manuals and tax instruction booklets for all of those changes.
5 - According to the National Taxpayers Union, the IRS currently has 1,999 different publications, forms, and instruction sheets that you can download from the IRS website.
6 - Our tax system has become so complicated that it is almost impossible to file your taxes correctly.  For example, back in 1998 Money Magazine had 46 different tax professionals complete a tax return for a hypothetical household.  All 46 of them came up with a different result.
7 - In 2009, PC World had five of the most popular tax preparation software websites prepare a tax return for a hypothetical household.  All five of them came up with a different result.
8 - The IRS spends $2.45 for every $100 that it collects in taxes.
For long stretches of our history the United States did not have any income tax, and during those times we thrived.  It is entirely conceivable that we could return to such a system.
At this point, the wealthy have become absolute masters at hiding their wealth from taxation.  According to the IMF, a total of 18 trillion dollars is currently being hidden in offshore banks.  What we are doing right now produces very inequitable results and it is not working.
In many ways, inflation would be a much fairer "tax" than the income tax because inflation taxes each dollar equally.  Nobody would be able to cheat the system.
But if people really love the IRS and the federal income tax, we could keep them under a debt-free money system.  I just happen to think that the IRS and the federal income tax are both really bad ideas that have never served the interests of the American people.
In any event, hopefully you can see that there is a much broader range of solutions to our problems than the two major political parties have been presenting to us.
We do not have to allow the banks to create our money.
The federal government does not have to go into more debt.
We don't actually need the Federal Reserve.
There are alternatives to the federal income tax and the IRS.
Yes, it is very true that no system would be perfect.  But clearly the path that we are on is only going to lead to disaster.  U.S. government finances are a complete and total nightmare, and this mountain of debt that we have accumulated is going to absolutely destroy us if we allow it to.
So somebody out there should be proposing a fundamental change in direction for our financial system.
Unfortunately, our politicians are just proposing more of the same, and we all know where that is going to lead.

Be Sociable, Share!

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/65-percent-of-americans-believe-that-2013-will-be-a-year-of-economic-difficulty     

65 Percent Of Americans Believe That 2013 Will Be A Year Of Economic Difficulty

By Michael, on January 3rd, 2013

 

Do you believe that economic trouble is coming in 2013?  If so, you have a lot of company.  According to a brand new Gallup poll that was just released, 65 percent of Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of "economic difficulty" while only 33 percent of Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of "economic prosperity".  Gallup has been asking this question for a lot of years, and the percentage of Americans that are anticipating economic difficulty in the year ahead has not been this high since the early 1980s.  And without a doubt, there are a whole lot of reasons to be deeply concerned about the economy as we head into the new year.  But it isn't just 2013 that Americans are pessimistic about.  According to the new Gallup poll, 50 percent of all Americans believe that the best days of America are behind us, and only 47 percent of all Americans believe that the best days of America are ahead of us.  Those are very sobering numbers.  Half the country believes that it is only downhill from here for the United States.  Unfortunately, they are exactly right.  Things are rapidly going to get worse for our economy and for our nation as a whole.  We are going to start reaping the consequences of decades of very foolish decisions, and the pain is going to be immense.
Gallup asked some other very interesting questions as well.  The following are some of the other results from the poll...
-68 percent of Americans believe that 2013 will be a year of rising crime rates.
-57 percent of Americans believe that 2013 will be a year in which American power will decline in the world.
-82 percent of Americans believe that 2013 will be a year in which taxes in the United States will rise.
So why are so many people so pessimistic as we enter 2013?
That is a good question.  I think that a lot of people are starting to wake up and are realizing the gigantic problems that are staring the U.S. right in the face.
Even our friends over in Europe can see what is happening to us.  We are like a former athletic champion that is now clearly on the wrong side of "middle age" and is exhibiting obvious signs of decline.  We still like to think of ourselves as "the champ", but the truth is that we are fat, lazy, broken down and bankrupt.  The following is a brief excerpt from an article that appeared in a major UK news source the other day...

The rest of the world — dangerously reliant on a buoyant U.S. — should note one thing above all: the fundamentals of America’s economy are, frankly, terrible, and its international dominance is not nearly as assured as it once was.

Its economic culture has started to change since President Obama entered the White House four years ago this month.
America more closely resembles Europe in living beyond its means and in the President’s determination to build a massive welfare state.

The mainstream media and most of our politicians endlessly proclaim that things are about to turn around and that a "recovery" is on the way, but that is not even close to the truth.
Fortunately, a few of our politicians realize what is really happening and are willing to talk about it.  Unfortunately, not enough people are listening to them.
For example, Ron Paul has a really good grasp on how destructive the U.S. national debt is and how we are literally destroying the bright future that our children and our grandchildren should have had.  The following is what he posted on his Facebook page the other day about the "fiscal cliff deal" that just got pushed through Congress...

We Are Already Over the Fiscal Cliff
2 January 2013
Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.
While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.
Yet even these minuscule cuts in the “projected rate of spending” were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute “deal” was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.
Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called “bipartisanship” in Washington.
While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.
While many on both sides express satisfaction that this deal only increases taxes on the “rich,” most Americans will see more of their paycheck going to Washington because of the deal. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 77 percent of Americans would see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut.
The arguments against the automatic “cuts” in military spending were particularly dishonest. Hawks on both sides warned of doom and gloom if, as the plan called for, the defense budget would have returned to 2007 levels of spending! Does anybody really believe that our defense spending was woefully inadequate just five years ago? And since 2007 we have been told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?
Ironically, some of the members who are most vocal against tax increases and in favor of cuts to domestic spending are the biggest opponents of cutting a penny from the Pentagon budget. Over and over we were told of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost should military spending be returned to 2007 levels. Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic “stimulus” created by militarism.
As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote recently, “It’s easy to focus exclusively on the companies and individuals hurt by the cuts and forget that the taxed wealth that funded them is being employed elsewhere.”
While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending. Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people. Of course, the Federal Reserve’s policies do impose an “inflation” tax on the American people; however, since this tax is hidden Congress does not fear the same public backlash it would experience if it directly raised income taxes.
I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people’s attitudes toward government. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.

It was good that Ron Paul placed blame on both political parties and on the Federal Reserve for our debt problems.
The Federal Reserve is not often talked about much when it comes to assigning blame for the debt, but it truly is one of the primary reasons why our debt is so enormous today.  The Federal Reserve system was designed to be a perpetual government debt machine, and it has accomplished that task very well.
When the Federal Reserve was first created, the total U.S. national debt was less than 3 billion dollars.
That is about as much as we add to the U.S. national debt every single day at this point.
And since Ben Bernanke took the reigns at the Fed, our debt problems have greatly accelerated.
The U.S. national debt has more than doubled from a little over $8 trillion to more than $16.4 trillion since Ben Bernanke became chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2006.
But disaster has not struck yet, so most Americans think that everything must be okay.
Well, if you want to ignore all of the evidence of our impending economic demise, go ahead and do that.  Go on lots of expensive vacations, run up your credit cards, buy a new boat and party like its 1999.  Enjoy every minute of our debt-fueled prosperity while you still can.  You only live once, right?
But if you are wise, you will try to understand what is coming and you will make preparations so that you and your family will be able to withstand the storm that is coming.  Here are some basic steps that I suggest...
-Use this time of relative prosperity to work hard and make money while you still can.  You want to store up your finances during the good times to help you get through the lean times.
-Get out of debt.  You don't want massive amounts of debt weighing you down when things get really hard.
-Get more independent of the world system.  Start a side business in the evenings and the weekends.  Learn how to grow your own food.  Get your house off of the grid if possible.  Anything you can do to become more independent and more self-sufficient is good.
-Store food and other essential supplies.  Right now we take for granted that the supermarkets and the big box stores will always be packed with mountains of quality goods at affordable prices.  That may not always be the case.  You want to be prepared for whatever may happen.
For even more tips, please see my previous article entitled "How To Prepare For The Difficult Years Ahead".
All bubbles eventually burst.
Our national debt bubble will eventually burst.
The derivatives bubble will eventually burst.
The consumer debt bubble will eventually burst.
When those bubbles burst, will you be ready?
I hope and pray that you will.

Be Sociable, Share!

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/01/03/belgian-environmental-study-corroborates-existence-and-effects-of-weather-modification/          

Belgian Environmental Study Corroborates Existence and Effects of Weather Modification

truther January 3, 2013 

---

Brandon Turbeville
AP

Even as the mainstream media and a television-obsessed American public refuse to admit the existence of chemtrails and government-sponsored weather modification programs, the evidence continues to mount with ever-increasing speed that not only do these programs exist, but they are also effective and widespread.

 

In addition to the recent study published in Environmental Research Letters entitled, “Cost Analysis of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Delivery Systems,” where the costs of delivering tonnes of aerosols into the stratosphere were examined in terms of a variety of different means, a 2010 study undertaken on behalf of the Belfort Group, a Belgian “environmental watchdog” organization, also corroborates much of the information compiled by citizens and activists the world over regarding the existence of chemtrails and stratospheric weather modification programs.

The study, entitled, “Contrail Science, Its Impact On Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted By The United States And Its Allies,” seeks to highlight “the specific problems associated with contrails emitted by aircraft, the manipulation for defense purposes of some of these trails by the United States government and the subsequent effect on quality of life.”
Making a distinction between four different types of man-made “clouds” – contrails, chemtrails, distrails (the tunnel produced when a plane passes through a stable cloud), and wingtip vortices (the vortex caused by planes flying at high speed) – the study focuses on contrails and chemtrails.
Thus, the report defines chemtrails by stating,

Chemtrail is the contraction of ‘chemical trail’ and is used by some sources to denote intentional spraying by airplanes for military or political purposes and that may be harmful to public health. A more general name is ‘aviation smog,’ which combines contrails, distrails, and ‘chemtrails.’ Authors referring to chemtrails claim that this phenomena is much more persistent than contrails and when sprayed in a grid it is able to cover vast area’s.

Although officially denied by government sources many countries performed tests for ‘cloud seeding’ to either generate precipitation where it was needed or to prevent precipitation where it is unwanted. At this moment only the Russian and Chinese governments admit that they use particular matter in order to manipulate weather patterns.

Divided evenly between the analysis of the effects of contrails and chemtrails, the Belfort study details some interesting findings regarding the effects on both the weather and human health by traditional contrails in addition to the much more dangerous chemtrails.

According to the study, in regards to the average daily temperature and the overall cloud cover generated by contrails on a regular basis, a survey of the average Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR) was conducted during the rare period that commercial air traffic was grounded on and in the days after September 11, 2001.

It was subsequently determined that a temperature increase of about 10 C occurred during that period in comparison with the normal values.

The report states,

The increase is larger than during the 11-14 September period for the previous 30 years, giving ammunition to critics who state that weather conditions at this specific period were very extraordinary and no scientific based conclusions could be taken. However even more surprising is the fact that the 11-14 September increase in DTR was more than twice the national average for regions in the United States where contrail coverage has previously reported to have been most abundant, such as the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest regions.

Furthermore, the report suggests that, after the resumption of normal air traffic, there was a temperature drop of 0.8⁰ C which it then uses to justify claims that contrails and air traffic do affect climate.

The report also states that Cirrus clouds, which are similar to the types of “cloud” formations caused by chemtrail spraying, has a significant effect on both climate and temperature. It reads,

The climate of the earth results from an energy balance between absorbed sunlight and radiative losses of heat from earth and its atmosphere to space. Clouds are an important modulator in this balance. Clouds reflect sunlight back towards space, which reduces the solar energy available to the earth – also called the Albedo effect. Clouds also reduce radiative heat losses to space (greenhouse effect). Which of these two opposing processes dominates depends on many parameters include cloud particle composition, cloud structure, cloud cover, and cloud location. Changes to only one of these parameters can have significant implications for climate.

The greenhouse effect is weak for low altitude clouds, so their albedo effect dominates and they cool the Earth’s climate. In contrast, cold high altitude Cirrus clouds may either cool or warm the climate. This will prove to be a key element whether to determine if weather modification are being conducted on the planet in order to reduce ‘global warming.’

Cirrus clouds thus have a strong greenhouse effect, which may outweigh their Albedo effect losses. As the importance of both opposing effects depends critically on little understood properties, theoretical calculations of the climatic effects of Cirrus are controversial. The main uncertainty stems from a current inability to calculate the scattering of sunlight in Cirrus clouds, since they contain a multitude of ice crystal shapes and sizes, and are irregular in structure. Even more, Stefan Kinne of the NASA Ames Research Center states clearly that the Cirrus Albedo effect is severely underestimated by calculations.[1]

This proves that knowledge in this field of science is quite limited and extensive research is mandatory in order to fully understand the impact of Cirrus clouds on climate. In this respect it is noteworthy that evidence of thin Cirrus clouds in the Stratosphere has already been established.[2]

With this in mind, the study attributes a substantial amount of climate, environmental, and health risks to the existence of basic contrails, a natural result of regular air traffic.

However, it should also be noted that the Belfort report seems to present an apparent confusion in regards to its own terminology, i.e. contrails vs. chemtrails. This is because the term “contrails” is used in some circumstances as meaning the traditional ice trail produced by normal air traffic, and in other circumstances as meaning the typical chemtrail.

For this reason, this writer suggests interpreting the term “contrails” as “persistent contrails,” since it is the lack of dissipation that would necessarily produce any cloud creation that one usually associates with chemtrails as well as the concerns in relation to precipitation, pollution, and large-scale environmental and health risks.

Nevertheless, in regards to precipitation, the Belfort report summarizes conclusions reached by Professor D. Rosenfeld of the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). The report states,

The conclusion of the study group [Professor Rosenfeld’s] is as follows: both [air pollution, particularly with aerosols, can both increase or decrease rainfall] can be true, depending on local environmental conditions. The amount of aerosols is the critical factor controlling how the energy is distributed in the atmosphere.[3] According to this survey they followed the energy flow through the atmosphere and the way it is influenced by aerosols and other ‘airborne’ particles. On this planet there is indeed an interaction of energy between the different cells within the troposphere in order to obtain a life sustaining temperature (15⁰ C in the International Standard Atmosphere at sea level).

Aerosols act twofold: on one hand they act like a sunscreen reducing the amount of energy reaching the ground. Accordingly less water evaporates and the air mass at ground level stays cooler and drier, with a reduced tendency to rise and form clouds.

Aerosols act as a sunscreen with a subsequent reduction of energy reaching the ground. Some sources refer to this phenomenon as ‘global dimming.’[4]

Yet, according to the Belfort report, there are other variables regarding the connection between aerosols and man-made/incidental precipitation. Namely, the amount of particulate matter such as aerosols that act as nuclei for condensation. As the Belfort report states,

. . . if there is a surplus of these condensation nuclei as a result of natural activity (e.g. Vulcan eruption) or men’s intervention (e.g. industrial pollution, contrails) the droplets never reach the critical mass needed to fall to earth as precipitation because there is just not enough water to share between all the aerosol particles. Furthermore with a rising number of droplets their overall surface increases, which on turn increases the amount of sunlight reflected back to space with subsequent cooling and drying of the Earth.

Going further, the Belfort report cites a separate study by a Professor Rosenberg where it summarizes his findings by writing:

In a nutshell the study of Prof. Rosenberg shows the following: with rising pollution, the amount of precipitation at first rises, then maxes out and finally falls off sharply at very high aerosol concentrations. Of even more interest is his conclusion: ‘The practical result is that in relatively clean air, adding aerosols up to the amount that releases the maximum of available energy increases precipitation. Beyond that point, increasing the aerosol load even further, lessens precipitation.’

Thus, aerosol spraying can affect the climate and environment by both increasing or decreasing precipitation and/or,  inversely, causing dehydration as well.

Professor Rosenberg further states that “The determination of this issue is one with significant consequences in an era of climate change and especially in areas suffering from manmade pollution and water shortages, including Israel.” The latter part of this statement should be very alarming to citizens of all nations, considering the fact that fresh drinking water is increasingly becoming a highly-valued asset in modern times.

Interestingly enough, the Belfort report also mentions three areas of “man-made Cirrus” cloud ramifications that have been understudied (as more of a political reticence than scientific) but that might very well play a part in the changing of the climate. It states,

The obvious side effects of the formation of contrails is the impact on astronomy. One has seldom a clear sky available for observation in areas with dense air traffic.

With changing cloud cover and subsequent temperature drop in the upper layer of the troposphere, hurricane activity may be increased as a result of the released instability. It is noteworthy that storms and major floods have more than tripled since 1981. No apparent relationship between aircraft engine emissions, aerosols, contrails and hurricane activity has been established yet on a scientifically basis.

It is accepted that knowledge on man made Cirrus cloud is relatively poor and that study of the impact of contrails on the Stratosphere is only in its initial phases. However one can assume that it might have an impact on higher layers and the ozone layer. Ozone depletion does not only occur as a result of industrial activity, but also due to multiple nuclear tests conducted in the 20^th century.

Considering the wide range of components necessary to conduct an aerosol spraying campaign, for whatever purposes, there are at least three requirements that must be met in order to conduct such a campaign successfully according to the Belfort report. They are,

1.)  Development of a reliable matrix of aerosol ingredients versus field conditions.

2.)  Engineering of an efficient, reliable but low cost system in order to seed the atmosphere.

3.)  Sponsorship through government agencies with a far-reaching commitment of captains of industry.

The Belfort Group thus rightly concludes that all of these elements were in place at the time of the publication of the report (2010) except for the reliability factor. However, the report goes on to summarize an extensive history of geo-engineering projects since the mid-20^th Century.

Thus, while the report itself does not suggest that the reliability factor exists, the fact that so many years of tests and attempts at geo-engineering does provide the average reader with plenty of reasons to believe that the reliability factor does, in fact exist. Since most projects known to the general public are far behind the true level of sophistication of government/military programs, one would likely be safe in the assumption that the chemtrail/geo-engineering programs are much more advanced than even the Belfort Group is aware of.

In the end, and after approximately seventy pages of documentation, the Belfort Group concludes the following:

1.)  Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.

2.)  The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

3.)  The technology to organize spraying actions on a global scale is widely available. Both civil and military aviation is used for that purpose. The mix, containing oxides of metals and chemical components, can either be dispersed through special designed pods or directly incorporated into the jet fuel. This research paper is well documented in this respect.

4.)  Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. Department of Defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.

5.)  The spraying actions in Europe are only possible with prior approval and intense co-ordination on top government level and industry on executive level. The general public is intentionally kept unaware of the existence of such projects.

6.)  Although the spraying actions may be considered legal these actions may have a potential detrimental effect on health. There is sufficient scientific evidence available in this research paper to support this thesis.

The report also presents four sets of recommendations in going forward regarding chemtrails or, as the report chooses to classify them, manmade contrails.

a.)  Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO. Additional scientific research with the effects on nature and public health on this subject should be considered. Results – whatever the outcome – should be made public.

b.)  It is unacceptable that the AWACS aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxembourg registrations without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future. Given the very unfavorable engine emission ratios of this aircraft retrofitting of these engines should be considered as soon as practical.

c.)  When considering a legal case it is better to sue an industrial group, such as Raytheon, rather than a government agency. It is clear for us that the responsibility of Raytheon in this respect is far reaching with the creation of a monopoly in climate modeling or weather as a geo-engineering or a military instrument. If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.

d.)  Although the existence of weather modification projects have been illustrated in an adequate way in this research paper it is now the duty of a serious politician on any level to make enquiries to the government for public release of these spraying schemes through aviation. It is mandatory that such a statement should include the reason why such operations are conducted. It is not an option to hide behind the motive of national security.

Unfortunately, with the exception of an expanded awareness of chemtrails (or persistent man-made contrails) amongst the general public, the recommendations made by the Belfort Group have gone completely ignored by those in government, science, academia, and the mainstream media ever since its publication.

Regardless, the Belfort Group’s report stands as yet one more documented piece of the puzzle regarding the incessant spraying campaigns now taking place worldwide on a daily basis. While immediate action is not to be expected at this time, the Belfort Group’s report and all other available resources, must be used by those of us who are aware of chemtrail spraying campaigns to educate those of us who are not. Resources:

---

[1] Kinne, S., Cirrus clouds and climate, NASA Ames Research Center webpage. *Citation provided by Belfort Study.

[2] Keckhut, P., Hauchecorne, A., Bekki S., Collette, A., David C., and Jumelet C., Evidences of thin Cirrus clouds in the stratosphere at mid-latitudes, Service d’ Ae’ronomie/Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, CNRS, Verrie’res le Buisson, France, Received: 28 December 2004 – Accepted: 17 January 2005 – Published: 21 June 2005. *Citation provided by Belfort Study.

[3] Rosenfeld, D Does Air Pollution Increase Rainfall?, Hebrew University of Jeruzalem, September 5, 2009. *Citation provided by Belfort Study.

[4] Geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/jskiles/fliers/gif_folder/image10/image10a.gif