Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria

armed Mexican "gangs"  & NOW "terrorists"  ..you forgot 9/11 already ?     &  NOW   want to DIS~ARM the AMERICAN CITIZENS !!!                  you lesser of 2 evils crowd  (ALL you dummycocks & republipubes)  .....  you have NO shame ....not fucking any !                         

How long before the weapons are turned on us?

Obama’s Move to Arm Al Qaeda in Syria

By Arnold Ahlert (Bio and Archives)  Thursday, September 19, 2013

On Monday, twelve years and five days after al Qaeda precipitated the worst domestic attack in modern history, President Obama waived two sections of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), allowing him to provide military assistance to “vetted” rebel grips in Syria.

Though the AECA was designed to prevent arming terrorists, Obama announced that he had the authority to “waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40(a) of the AECA related to such a transaction.”
Section 40, “Transactions With Countries Supporting Acts of International Terrorism,” and Section 40(a), “Prohibited Transactions by the United States Government,” ban sending munitions to any nation described in Section 40 (d), “Countries Covered by Prohibition:” “The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”
Section 40(g), “Waiver,” grants the president the power to waive these provisions if he determines “the transaction is essential to the national security interest of the United States.” The same section requires the president to give Congress the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items” at least 15 days before the transaction takes place.

In addition, he must provide a description of the items involved, the reasons the transaction is essential to our national security, the date of delivery, the name of every government “department, agency or other entity” involved in the transaction, as well as “every foreign government involved..and every private party with significant participation in the proposed transaction.”
Yet, unless the Washington Post is inaccurate, Obama has dispensed with the notion that Congress gets their 15-day notification. Five days before the president announced his waiver, the paper revealed that the CIA and the State Department had already begun delivering weapons to Syrian rebels, along with vehicles, advanced communications equipment, and cutting edge medical kits.
Nonetheless, National Security Council Spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden contended that this action will allow the president to provide, “where appropriate, certain non-lethal assistance inside or related to Syria,” (italics mine) ostensibly related to giving rebel forces “life-saving chemical weapons-related assistance” currently prohibited by the AECA. Hayden further noted that the AECA no longer applies to “international organizations…[and] select vetted members of the Syrian opposition, including the Supreme Military Council.”

The idea that the Obama administration can determine “select vetted members of the opposition” is utter nonsense

The idea that the Obama administration can determine “select vetted members of the opposition” is utter nonsense. A new study by IHS Jane’s, a defense consultancy, estimates that, out of the approximately 100,000 rebels fighting the government of Bashar Assad, 10,000 are jihadists, including foreign fighters linked directly to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share the same sentiments, but are focused on the war in Syria, as opposed to the effort to realize a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. An additional 30,000 are so-called moderates, but even they belong to groups described by IHS Jane’s as having “an Islamic character.” Thus, non-Islamist, secular or nationalist groups comprise a minuscule minority.
Charles Lister, who authored the analysis, minced no words. “The insurgency is now dominated by groups which have at least an Islamist viewpoint on the conflict. The idea that it is mostly secular groups leading the opposition is just not borne out.”
Apparently that reality is irrelevant to the true believers. “Our intelligence agencies, I think, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support,” said Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on CBS last Sunday. “And there’s going to be mistakes. We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition.” Sen. John McCain dismissed the IHS Jane’s report completely. “Not true, not true!” he exclaimed, contending there are “about 70 percent still who are Free Syrian Army.”
That would be the same Free Syrian Army that coordinates regular military operations with al Qaeda and other terrorist entities, and the same John McCain who, along with our equally clueless Secretary of State John Kerry, cited research by the now-discredited Elizabeth O’Bagy to back up their assertions. O’Bagy, who was subsequently fired from her “senior analyst” job at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) for lying about her education credentials, has now admitted that her original contention that she had defended her dissertation, and was only waiting for Georgetown University to confer her Ph.D. degree, was also a lie. She never enrolled in the Ph.D. program.
McCain remains undaunted. He insists his strategy is to provide “meaningful lethal assistance to moderate opposition forces.”
Unfortunately such silliness obscures the more ominous implication of Hayden’s contention that the AECA no longer applies to international organizations. That means the additional shipments the president intends to make to rebel forces also violates the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Section 1021(b)(2) of the law, upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd District, allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
How this statute fails to apply to the “some people” Corker has essentially admitted are terrorists, is anyone’s guess.
The primary rationale for arming rebel factions is that the Assad regime crossed a “red line” by employing chemical weapons. The subsequent circus that ensued from those two words culminated in an agreement where Assad would submit a list of his chemical weapons cache within a week, allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Syria no later than November, and completely destroy the stockpile by the middle of next year. If Assad refuses to comply, the use of force may or may not be an option.
As advantageous as that deal is to Assad and Putin, highlighted by reports that Assad may already be moving his chemical weapons to Iraq and Lebanon to avoid detection, it may already be in jeopardy. Yesterday, Russia announced that it will present evidence provided by the Syrian government to the U.N. Security Council, revealing chemical weapons use by rebel forces in the Damascus suburbs. “We will present all this in the UN Security Council, of course,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, according to Interfax.
Earlier in the day, Russia denounced the U.N. report of the August 21 chemical attack in the al-Ghouta area of Damascus as “politicized, preconceived and one-sided,” according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. Likely this is due to the reality that British, French and US envoys said the report leaves no doubt Assad’s government was responsible, even though the investigative team itself refrained from blaming either side. Thus, it seems likely that Russia is building a case to veto any punishment that France, Britain and the U.S. might mete out to Assad for any violations of his promise to abandon chemical weapons.
Yet none of these machinations negates the reality that the president, members of his administration, and members of Congress will be engaged in arming America’s mortal enemies, even as they claim they can sift the secular/nationalist wheat from the terrorist chaff.
Radio host Glenn Beck cut right through that pernicious assertion. He made the irrefutably logical case that if we are providing military aid to the “good guys,” it shouldn’t be necessary to waive sections of a law aimed at preventing terrorists from being armed.
On Monday, the remains of a 49-year-old man killed at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were identified using an advanced DNA technique. Only 1,638 out of 2,753 people murdered that day have been identified. They were murdered by the same group of Islamist savages that President Obama and the useful idiots in his administration and Congress would arm a dozen years later. How long before these weapons are inevitably turned on us?

Google launching a biotech pharmaceutical company?

naturalnews.com printable article

Originally published September 19 2013

Google launching a biotech pharmaceutical company?

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Google appears to be joining Big Pharma with its launch of a new biotechnology company called "Calico." It is being headed by Art Levinson, chairman of Genentech, a company that earns huge profits from people dying of cancer.

Google co-founder Larry Page announced the new company would, "focus on health and well-being, in particular the challenge of aging and associated diseases."

See the full text of the Google announcement at:
http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2013/09/cali...

It's obvious from the description that this new company is going to focus on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Perhaps in the near future we'll even have Google vaccines that inoculate you from whatever scary new disease Google News is publicizing at the time.

As you ponder the implications of this, keep in mind that Google has intentionally erected many obstacles to the promotion of natural medicine, nutritional products and even a free market for pharmaceuticals. Google has utterly censored nearly all truthful Adwords advertising for many product categories (such as "detox" products), and it has banished non-U.S. pharmacies from advertising to U.S. customers (thereby protecting the Big Pharma domestic monopoly).

The fact that Google's founders have brought in a top pharma executive is a strong clue where all this is headed. Watch for Google to roll out some sort of anti-aging pill that actually kills you while your brain is being "uploaded" into a machine, Kurzweil-style, after which it is claimed you are now "immortal." This is the kind of scary, freaky stuff that quickly comes to mind when you consider what the world's most powerful internet company might have in mind for humanity.

Now, suppose I'm wrong about all this a minute. Suppose Google actually does something for humanity and "conquers aging" so that everybody can live forever.

This is a far worse problem than the issue of people dying from old age (for obvious reasons). First off, the technology would be immediately monopolized and controlled to make sure only the global elite get to use it. Can you imagine people like Bill Gates or David Rockefeller living forever? There is no greater curse on humankind than immortality being achieved by the power-hungry global elite. Because the one saving grace we all have right now is the idea that everybody dies sooner or later, and thank goodness for that or humanity never would have achieved any advancements at all.

Secondly, the idea of people living forever obviously creates a massive over-population problem which can then only be solved by deliberately killing people off. (Hey, that's what vaccines are for!) So if Google actually manages to "conquer death" as is being wildly claimed in the mainstream media, then Earth will become a living Hell with all the rampant overpopulation and corporate cronies living forever.

Nothing good can come from Google jumping into biotechnology or pharmaceuticals. The company simple doesn't have the maturity and the ethics required to lead humanity toward any lasting solutions. If you want revolutionary breakthroughs for longevity, look no further than your own backyard garden. Check out the "miracle" nanotechnology called "heirloom seeds." Learn about permaculture. Explore the nature of consciousness and the non-material spirit. Meditate!

These are what will solve the real problems humanity is facing today, not another drug, another genetic engineering experiment or another Google-spinoff pharma company.

---

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

TED aligns with Monsanto, halting any talks about GMOs, 'food as medicine' or natural healing

Hard Time: Prisons Are Packed With More Lifers Than Ever

By David J. Krajicek on Sep 18, 2013

A new study suggests that the recent nominal decline in America’s prison population may be a case of political bait-and-switch.
The government has trumpeted a reduction in the number of federal and state inmates over the past three years, to 1.57 million in 2012, down fractionally from a peak of 1.62 million in 2009.
But a report released Wednesday reveals a countervailing trend: The number of prisoners serving life sentences reached a record of nearly 160,000 last year. Of those, 49,000 were serving life without the possibility of parole, up 22.2 percent since 2008.
One in nine American prisoners is locked up for life, according to the study, “Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America,” by Ashley Nellis, senior research analyst with the Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit criminal justice advocacy group.
“Unfortunately, lifers are typically excluded from most sentencing reform conversations because there’s this sense that it’s not going to sell, politically or with the public,” Nellis told WhoWhatWhy.
“Legislators are saying, ‘We have to throw somebody under the bus,’” added Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit advocacy group. “And it’s the lifers who get thrown under the bus.”
Nellis found that the trend toward more life sentences holds true across the ideological breadth of America–from blue states like California, Washington, Pennsylvania and New York, to red states like Texas, Georgia and Louisiana, to purple states like Florida, Ohio and Nevada.
California Is Lifer Leader
With 40,362 lifers, California had one-quarter of the country’s life-sentenced population. Other lifer-leading states were Florida (12,549), New York (10,245), Texas (9,031), Georgia (7,938), Ohio (6,075), Michigan (5,137), Pennsylvania (5,104) and Louisiana (4,657).
“I was surprised by the consistency of the increase across the states,” Nellis said. “There really isn’t any state out there that isn’t growing its lifer population. There seems to be no ideological barrier.”
California also had the highest proportion of lifers, at a remarkable 30.1 percent of its 134,000 inmates. Other leaders by percentage were Utah, 29.2 percent; Nevada, 21.5; Massachusetts, 19.4; New York, 18.8; Alabama, 16.6, and Washington, 15.4.
Predictably, there are stark racial elements to the data. Just under half of all lifers were black, but the percentage was much higher in some states and in federal prisons: 77.4 percent in Maryland, 72 percent in Georgia, 71.5 in Mississippi and 62.3 percent in the federal system.
In most statehouses and on Capitol Hill, economic considerations prompted reconsideration of the politically expedient “nail ‘em and jail ‘em” laws that proliferated in the 1980s and ‘90s, stuffing prisons beyond capacity.
Under a sentencing reform ethos that has gained traction with both major political parties, lawmakers accede to more leniency for nonviolent offenders but demand perpetual imprisonment for “hardcore” criminals.
Their motivations? In theory, politicians are protecting themselves against “soft on crime” campaign bromides.
But keeping America’s roughly $80 billion prison industry humming pays political homage to any number of grateful beneficiaries: powerful prison unions, which are invested in maintaining flush membership rolls; the hundreds of penitentiary company towns coast to coast that depend on the commodity of felons; and private prison behemoths like Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America, which made the fiduciary dynamics of incarceration clear last year when it offered to buy prisons in 48 states–as long as the states agreed to keep the facilities 90 percent full of convicts.
Paying Later for Geriatric Care
But there is another important economic consideration: More life sentences today mean higher health care costs to taxpayers down the line for geriatric prisoners.
A 2012 report by Human Rights Watch on America’s burgeoning population of senior citizen prisoners estimated that health care costs for geriatric felons can be up to nine times greater than for younger inmates. (More conservative estimates have placed the number at two to three times as high.)
The Vera Institute of Justice reported last year that states pay an average of $31,000 per year per inmate, but the figure is much higher in some locales. For example, the Independent Budget Office in New York City reported last month that the city’s average per annum prisoner cost is $168,000.
The increase in lifers is due in part to enactment of new laws that have quietly “broadened the definition of these hardcore offenders, the so-called ‘worst of the worst,’” Nellis said.
As a result, about 10,000 prisoners were serving life for nonviolent offenses in 2012, Nellis reported. About 64.3 percent of all lifers were in for homicide, 13.7 for sexual assault, 14.1 for assault, robbery or kidnapping, 4 percent for a property offense and 2 percent for drugs.
“It’s an area that has driven me nuts for years,” said FAMM’s Stewart. “The number of nonviolent offenders serving life is ridiculous.”
She said America’s “love affair” with interminable sentences has skewed our sensibilities.
“A 30-year sentence isn’t enough now. It has to be a life sentence–or [at least] 50 years,” she said,.” “We have become so accustomed to the idea that you had your chance, you blew it, and now you’re in prison forever. Rehabilitation and redemption, especially for any violent crime, is no longer even part of the conversation. There is no political will for that.”
“Tens of thousands of people are being sentenced to death by incarceration, with prison terms that far exceed the lifespan of the defendants,” said Paul Wright, editor of Prison Legal News and executive director of the Human Rights Defense Center, a Florida-based prisoner advocacy non-profit.
Wright speaks with unusual authority on the subject. He was sentenced to 25 years to life for killing a man in a drug-related robbery near Seattle in 1987. He was released after 17 years. Had he committed his crime a few years later, after politicians began their mandatory minimum frenzy, he might still be in prison.
“One of the main drivers of the prison boom hasn’t necessarily been more crime or more criminals,” he said. “It’s that people who go to prison are staying much longer.”

Do Long Sentences Deter Crime?
Do draconian sentences reduce crime? Probably not much. In recent years, research has raised questions about the role that longer sentences and the policy of mass imprisonment have played in the country’s crime decline.
A 2010 report by the Sentencing Project concluded that the certainty of punishment, not the severity, has a far greater deterrent effect.
“Existing evidence does not support any significant public safety benefit of the practice of increasing the severity of sentences by imposing longer prison terms,” the report concluded.
Research also has shown that older inmates and former lifers who are paroled are far less likely to commit new crimes. In one example, a report on lifer recidivism by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation earlier this year concluded that former lifers commit new crimes and are returned to prison “at markedly lower rates” than other ex-convicts.
Wright said the explosion of life without parole sentences in the past 20 years—often used as an alternative to condemnation to Death Row–is particularly inequitable.
“A guy who gets a three-strikes conviction for robbing a place by holding his finger in his pocket (Larry Fisher, in Washington state in 1994) is serving the same life-without-parole as Gary Ridgway, who killed 48 people,” he said. “There’s a serious disconnect there.”
WhoWhatWhy asked Nellis, the lifer report’s author, why Americans should care.
“People across the political spectrum in our country say they believe in second chances,” she said. “We need to separate who we are mad at from who we are afraid of, and when we do that we’ll see most of these people who are in prison for life are no long threats to public safety. When we get past [the] pain and anguish of the crimes they committed, we’ll see it’s really not serving anyone to keep them in prison.”

WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support. Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.

http://usahitman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Prison-Industrial-Complex-hands-on-bars11_1.jpg
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/catalog/image/0669/Prisoners-Exercising-(after-Dor%C3%A9).jpg

‘My ELF Weapon’: More Proof Navy Yard Shooter Targeted with Mind Control Weapons

September 19th, 2013

  http://investmentwatchblog.com/my-elf-weapon-more-proof-navy-yard-shooter-targeted-with-mind-control-weapons/

The mainstream media is reporting that suspected Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis carved the phrases “My ELF Weapon” and “Better off this way” into his weapon before 12 people were reportedly killed with it in a mass shooting this week. ELF typically stands for extremely low frequency, the type of waves used in everything from weather weapons to mind control devices.
Can you imagine having voices talk to you, directly inside your head, for weeks on end? What if you went to authorities only to find they thought you were insane? What if those voices wouldn’t stop? What if they commanded you to do something you didn’t want to, something unspeakable, over and over and over, even invading your sleep without reprieve? What if they finally promised you rest, finally promised you that you would be “Better off this way” if you just did what they asked?
While we don’t really know what happened that day, more and more it appears that Alexis had been a target of directed energy weapons. The Washington Post is even admitting that ELF is used in conjunction with ‘weather efforts’! Discussion that would have been considered the talk of crazy conspiracy theorists even six months ago is apparently mainstream now…

Schools Are Indoctrinating Children to Accept Gun Confiscation

hey ALL you's BANNER kooks ....whatta gonna do when you's "find" OUT  that yer lesser of 2 evils ( dummycocks &republpubes)    ..have PISSED away ALL We The Peoples $$$  ...you know ALL your/our retirement/401k's / SSI's. & on & on &on  ..you know   !!!   & left U.S.  wit shit !       wonder ,wonder Y  WE are ARMING fucking everybody  & "their" brothers ...but want the American's Citizens ......disarmed  ???                hey Shit~cock~go ,IL       hows the BAN ...working fer you's :o

Schools Are Indoctrinating Children to Accept Gun Confiscation

September 19, 2013 - Education, Featured, Main - Tagged: education, gun confiscation, gun control, new world order, police state - no comments

Dave Hodges

The Common Sense Show

Rather than honoring the United States Constitution and teaching students the proper place for guns in our society as intended by the Founding Fathers, as further expressed in the Second Amendment, students are being increasingly indoctrinated to believe that individuals should be never be allowed to possess guns.

Many schools have adopted the viewpoint that we are beginning to see in many publisher’s textbooks in which we are witnessing the rewriting of American history in the name of propagandizing the minds of the young to one day voluntarily give up their guns. Several public schools are now adopting a two pronged attack upon the Second Amendment. First, students are being severely punished by the school’s thought police for showing the slightest interest in guns. Secondly, our textbooks are have been dramatically altered to reflect the fact that gun ownership is strictly the prerogative of the government. The latter view is not only a lie, it reflects the type of government that Americans rejected centuries ago.

Communitarian vs. Constitutional Law

Eighteenth Century Americans made the conscious decision that our civil liberties were bestowed by God and government had no business violating these rights. This notion became the fundamental principle of who represents the sovereign in our country. Is it the people or is it the government that is sovereign? The Founding Fathers clearly stated that the people are the sovereign under our Constitutional system of law. 

Our friends across the pond decided a long time ago, that civil liberties were bestowed by government and if government grants individual liberty, they can take away individual liberties away based upon the whim of the leaders.This is the foundational principle of Communitarian law which is the antithesis of what the Founding Fathers bestowed upon us in 1789.

Some Schools Are Committing Treason

Some public schools are decidedly in the business of rewriting history to fit a particular political agenda. The anti-American point of view being put forth by these public schools is both treasonous and also represents a Soviet Union style of education in which history is being rewritten in order to satisfy a specific political agenda. In other words, many of our schools are becoming propaganda factories designed to brainwash our children into accepting the fact that government is all powerful and America is a Communitarian, not a Constitutional nation. 

The Manifestation of the Agenda

Many government schools are in the process of violating the Constitutional rights of their students and nowhere is this fact more evident than it is with regard to the overreaction to anything remotely having to do with even thinking about a gun.

The most harmless pictures and the most harmless play scenarios engaged in by children, which have the remotest reference to guns is being dealt with by applying the schools version of the death penalty and subsequently suspending a student for having the “wrong views.” Many schools are not only suspending students for showing an interest in guns, they are further harming our students disciplinary records which can follow them from school to school and grade to grade. Not one of the suspensions that I am going to bring to your attention has anything to do with bringing a gun to school and posing a threat to fellow students. Everyone of the following cases has to do with controlling children’s thinking.

Suspended for Showing Interest In Guns

There are some children, while sitting in their classrooms who actually fantasize about defending their country and its Constitution by someday serving in the military.

Daniel McClaine Jr., whose professional goal is to enlist in the military upon graduation, was suspended for displaying a picture of a gun on his school laptop. McClaine, a freshman at the time of his suspension, at Poston Butte High School located in suburban Phoenix, said he saved the picture as his desktop background on his school-issued computer. An alert teacher noticed the picture of a gun, turned McClaine in and bravely saved the school from further harm. The picture shows an AK-47 on top of a flag. McClaine said the school initially suspended him for three days. After the media became involved, his suspension was reduced to “time served.”

And we are paying taxes to support this unconstitutional nonsense?

The Case of the Loaded Finger

DHS can purchase 2.6 rounds of ammunition and acquire 2700 armored personnel carriers, but don’t you dare point that finger or we will suspend you because government is all powerful. Government should possess all the guns!

In the schools of Silver Spring, Maryland, they attempt to propagandize the children against guns at a very early age.

School officials in Montgomery County rescinded the suspension of a 6-year-old Rodney Lynch, a Silver Spring boy who they said pointed his finger like a gun and said, “Pow,” agreeing to clear school records of an incident they had described as a threat “to shoot a student.” School officials only agreed to remove the blight on the student’s record after the family obtained an attorney to represent Rodney. Principal Annette Folkes said that it is her duty to protect the other children from the harms that can be caused by a gun. I am certain that Folkes will now instruct students to walk to and from the playground with their loaded hands holstered securely inside of their pockets.

Violating the 1st Amendment In Order to Attack the 2nd Amendment

David Morales, guilty of militarizing his hat.

David Morales, 8, thought that he had put together a cool hat to honor our brave American troops when his class was asked to construct special hats for a get-together with another second-grade class from a nearby school.

Officials at Tiogue School in Coventry, Rhode Island, however, quickly banned the hat. The reason? He placed a few small plastic soldiers on the rim of the hat and the tiny soldiers had tiny GUNS. The school has a zero tolerance for guns. David was forced to wear a plain baseball cap instead on the visit with the other school. Superintendent Kenneth Di Pietro insists that “the issue for us was, can it be done in a way that didn’t violate the zero-tolerance for weapons. Nothing was being done to limit patriotism, creativity, other than find an alternative to a weapon.” Yes, Mr. Superintendent, a plain hat display certainly has a lot of creativity. Someone should explain to this guardian in charge of dumbing down the children at the Tiogue school, that it was guns, big guns, which gives this headmaster the freedoms he has today to make such inane statements.

When compiling evidence for this article, I literally had over two dozen cases similar in nature to the three aforementioned cases. It strongly appears that these unconstitutional views and practices are becoming the standard for many public schools.

Indoctrinating Students to be Slaves of the State

There is one thing and one thing alone that has historically spared the citizens of America from living under a totalitarian government. That one thing is the Second Amendment which makes the government fear the people. That is the true spirit of liberty. For as Thomas Jefferson once said, “when the people fear the government, that is tyranny!”

Not only are several schools violating the Constitutional rights of their students, they are actively trying to indoctrinate our children to move away from the Constitution as the guarantor of individual civil liberties across the country.

The United States Constitution states the following:

 ”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The children atGuyer High School, located in Denton, Texas, are being taught a bastardized version of the Second Amendment in their social studies classroom. The Texas school district is using a history textbook which is actively redefining the Second Amendment. Here is what the textbook states with regard to the Second Amendment.

 ”The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

I have an old history text book from 1980 which states the following:

“A large and powerful standing army was of concern to early Americans…..The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect the people from a potential tyrannical government…”

This is what I was  referring to earlier when I said that many schools and textbook publishers are becoming propaganda agents of a liberal agenda which seeks to eviscerate the Second Amendment from our classrooms and eventually our society. It is clear that this textbook is attempting to get children to believe that only the government should have guns. I cannot overstate just how dangerous this view is. Of all the genocides which took place in the 20th Century, each instance was preceded by gun confiscation with the intended victims being the target of the confiscation. If we jump to the bottom line of this very dangerous and anti-constitutional view, we are witnessing  textbook publishers and school districts who are not only rewriting history but are taking the very dangerous step of indoctrinating our children to accept to total gun confiscation. Just how dangerous is this notion? To answer that question, I will present the views of past of past genocidal despots under the banner that a picture s worth a thousand words. 

We have a choice America, we can follow the dictates of the despots to the left and allow our children to serve the political agenda of the historically incorrect anti-Second Amendment, Communitarian based crowd, or we can hold school districts and textbook publishers accountable by removing school officials and banning books which seek to rewrite history with regard to our civil liberties. And before you listen to the psychobabble of the anti-American and anti-Constitutional political agenda of those who are tearing down this country, let’s take a quick look at what the Founding Fathers as well as some of what the authors of the Constitution stated with regard to the Second Amendment. After all, since some of the following quoted men wrote the Constitution, shouldn’t they have the final word on what the Constitution means instead of liberal educators with an agenda?

The Final Words on the Second Amendment

To accurately gauge the true meaning of the Second Amendment, let’s refer back to the men who wrote, or influenced the writing of the Second Amendment.

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms…” – Thomas Jefferson

“I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

“Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed — unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” - James Madison

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States…” – Noah Webster
“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self defense.” – John Adams
“The great principle is that every man be armed….everyone who is able may have a gun.” – Patrick Henry
 “A free people ought to be armed.”
- George Washington
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
“The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.”
- James Madison

“They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
- William Pitt

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

Top Secret Report Leaked: Congress Has The Eligibility Of Obama In Their Sites | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

Top Secret Report Leaked: Congress Has The Eligibility Of Obama In Their Sites | Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

Gun-Free Chicago Now Murder Capital Of America

Thursday, September 19, 2013

(Before It's News)

Barack Obama’s gun-free Chicago is now the murder capital of the United States, flying by New York in 2012. In an oxymoron that should teach anti-gun politicians and anti-gun Americans a lesson: gun-free doesn’t mean less murders nor does gun-free make a location more safe. In fact, the gun-free DC Navy Yard became the home of America’s latest mass killing days ago and the ‘effectiveness’ of gun-free zones are explored in the new video below from Resist The Tyranny, “How those gun-free zones working out for you?”

Chicago, Illinois usurped New York City as the murder capital of America in 2012, according to a report released this week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI published on Monday a crime statistics analysis for the calendar year in which it’s reported that the Windy City saw a surge in homicides during 2012 that boosted it above New York and other major metropolitan areas to become the bloodiest in the United States.

According to the FBI report, Chicago was the site of more murders in 2012 than any other city, with its body count of 500 dwarfing NYC’s tally of only 419.

In terms of population, however, Chicago has only a fraction of the people that New York does. The US Census Bureau has listed the number of Chicagoans at around 2.7 million — a meager number when compared to New York’s 8 million-plus.

One year earlier, the FBI recorded only 431 homicides in Chicago. That same year the agency acknowledged there were 515 murders in New York, indicating that while things may be getting better on the East Coast, the Midwest metropolis has seen a surge in murders since 2011.

As RT reported previously, last year marked the first time 2008 that Chicago hosted over 500 murders.     

 hey looky ,looky  D. Fruckenstein  child  of ...                                                                                                                                                     

Amerika – from Freedom to Fascism in Just a Decade

Following Navy Yard shooting tyrants in America immediately attack gun rights and free speech

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 06: U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (C) talks to members of the media after a members-only closed briefing on Syria for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives September 6, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. U.S. President Barack Obama will address the American people on Syria from the White House on Tuesday. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Opinion

By Sergey Baranov
Intellihub.com
September 19, 2013

When I heard first about the Washington Navy Yard shooting which happened on Monday, I registered two thoughts in my head in a blink of an eye. First, of course, was the question of whether that was another false flag attack, intended to strip the American people of their second amendment while blaming gun violence on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and second I thought; how long will it take before Senator Feinstein will make an attempt to revive the gun law debate.
Just as I thought, it wasn’t too long before her words on the matter were publicly heard: “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country,” she said. “We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”
Pondering over her statements, I was thinking about countless lives loss in illegal, fraudulent wars like Iraq. It was just weeks ago when Senator Feinstein showed her support for another invasion in Syria to support Al Qaida terrorists to overthrow Assad’s regime. She claimed that the American people are against the war on Syria because they don’t know what she does (1). Well, regardless of her claim to know more, the American people knows just enough to vote against the war, while being well informed by the alternative media which played a major role in putting WW3 on  hold.
Who else would support war on Syria, knowingly supporting coldblooded extremists whose horrendous atrocities goes beyond the definition of violence? I got sick to my stomach while choosing a few of those scenes for my article written last week. Use your discretion for viewing. It is extremely graphic and sickening (2)
So I wonder why senator Feinstein didn’t express concern over the loss of American lives in the war zones, areas designated as such by the corporate interest, using  patriotism as a motive to send young people to die for cheap oil and arm sales, while forcing an independent nation into the central banking system. (3)
Why during the gun debate have we never hear an expression of reason and logic, let alone mention about the Law of the Land, which is the Constitution?
A question is rising  as to how disarming law-abiding citizens will prevent gun violence in America if the gun violence is not committed by law-abiding citizens to begin with? It is usually done by the criminals who don’t buy a gun in the gun shop in the first place. Criminals buy guns on the black market, which allows them to commit gun crimes without being tracked. Any shot made from a legally purchased firearm is easily tracked to its owner. So what good will it do to disarm those who would not do harm to others, unless it would be a matter of self-defense, while giving criminals a green light to commit more crimes, knowing that law-abiding citizens are now defenseless?  It is tragic and yet not surprising that this simple and logical argument is not a part of judicial hearings.
It is erroneous to think that stripping the population of legally purchased firearms will decrease the level of violent crimes. For example, let’s look at Chicago, a city with the toughest gun laws in the nation, is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as Los Angeles. (4) Does it not show that those gun free zones, generously designated for the convenience of the criminals, are the most dangerous places to be and the most open for violence?
But here I would like to address something else which has struck me even more. I find it very disturbing to see an open attack on the First Amendment right which clearly states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’’
You see, if the gun debate can be twisted and spun in order to push for the gun ban, building the case on the lethality of the firearms, it would be immeasurably harder to ban words, using same argument. Nevertheless an attempt to silence free speech is made once again.
In her speech Senator Feinstein gives thanks to senator Schumer, who previously voted YES on the illegal NDAA Act, ( 5) signed by president Obama on December 31, 2011, which allows the Government to indefinitely detain Americans without the right to due process, violating both the 5th and 6th amendment to the Constitution:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’’
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense’’( 6)
Following her speech, senator Feinstein made an attempt to redefine journalism, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while referring to first amendment RIGHT as to a privilege.
By definition a privilege is a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances as opposed to the RIGHT, which is not granted by a government body but rather inherent by birth. Thus no one can legally suppress our right to free speech, unless done by force, in which case it would be considered criminal action.
Furthermore, these natural birth rights are not limited to one nation. Rather they are Universal and applicable to all people on Earth. And as the people begin to wake up and question what it means to be human, those rights will be claimed and tyranny overthrown.
One doesn’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to realize that an attempt to exercise the authority over the people in order to suppress their constitutional rights simply mean disregard to the Law, disrespect to the people and a move toward totalitarianism. This is why the Founding Fathers embedded these rights into the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the people from government tyranny. When crafted, they were ratified as the Bill of Rights, not as a list of privileges.

Sources:
[1 ]  Dianne Feinstein: American people against attacking Syria because they don’t know what I know – Headline Clicker
[2] October surprise and the looming Obamagedon – Intellihub
[3] All wars are bankers wars – What Really Happened
[4] Chicago is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as LA - Chicago Muckrackers
[5] Senator Chuck Schumer Says Questioning NDAA is “Biased” – Youtube
[6] Bill of Rights Transcript – Archive

The Difference Between Hating Government and Exposing Corruption

Over the passed couple years the liberty movement has been increasingly labeled as a “hate” group, shattering the Media’s credibility.

NEW YORK, NY – A letter regarding the United States’ constitution, written by the first president of the United States, George Washington, is seen on display at Christie’s Auction House on June 17, 2013 in New York City. The specific letter displayed in the photograph is expected to be sold for $1,000,000 – $2,000,000. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Opinion

By Andrew Pontbriand
Intellihub.com
September 18, 2013

Since the beginning of organized civilizations, people have always felt their time in history is special. It is a human trait, to think because you are alive at this very moment, something incredible is due. In point of fact this is true, to a certain extent. Every human being is special, and every human being contributes to the events of everyday life to the collective. However, when this thought is applied to Government, this is just not the case. Governments throughout history have been engaged in corruption, high crimes, and sexual endeavors too telling to write about them here.
The seat of power almost 100% of the time is sought after by those who crave such power. When our constitution was drafted, although they were not perfect; our Founders envisioned a Republic where this would all change. They understood the fundamentals of corruption that could develop, and has; throughout history whenever a group of people have control over a population. The Founders looked into the future and thought brilliantly of a way to restrict that power, and drafted the Bill of Rights and Constitution to do exactly that. It was so well written (even with its many faults) even today we can thwart certain atrocities likely to occur because of our founding document.
This is now beginning to change. The Constitution, for many reasons I will not get into; has now been trampled on and set side. More and more our government, and the people behind it are finding ways to rewrite it. Tyranny is corruption, and corruption is rampant in a system that has been re-designed to legally allow special interests groups to write laws, pay off judges, politicians, and even Presidents. Since our system of government is the closest the world has ever come to allowing the people of the land to be heard, make decisions, and have the greatest freedoms; a new “hate” has emerged for government.
The 90′s saw an explosion of 20th century Militia groups. These Militia groups were always labeled as extreme, and anti-government. This was however, not the case in almost all circumstances. It is now seen radical, to speak about the Constitution, or laws that protect our way of life. The Militia’s that exist today are explicit in their purpose, and that is to help the public if the government ever engages in a direct takeover of our freedoms.
To understand how these so-called hate groups, are mixed in with people who speak out against government; you have to look no further than the media.
The media has for a long time, been state-run. The major media conglomerates are owned by only 5 corporations. The people who own the media, are also behind political agendas that are reached through finance of a certain politician, lobbying or special interest groups. The media then reports in a biased manner only to steer the public in the direction they see fit. When ever opposition, or a popular movement arises nationwide, the media steps up to the plate to report isolated incidents, outright lies, or propaganda about these groups to sway public opinion against the groups.
It is not fair to say that “hate” groups do not exist, because they do. However, most of these hate groups are actually aligned with fascists, socialist, or communist ideals. Most of which seek to get change through violence or oppressive means. However, there is also a completely separate movement which has been demonized.
The “Liberty” movement, and the “truth” movement, can hardly be meshed together. Although I think both “groups” would tend to agree on the same result they are looking for. There are millions of people that want our current system to stay in place, and do not hate it. They do not hate the 3 branches of government, the police, the constitution, the bill of rights, or any other framework that works for liberty. I do not speak on behalf of these movements, however I understand that these groups simply wish to return to a system where the average person can be seen as sovereign.
The difference between a hate group and a group that seeks to find truth, expose corruption, and return American life back to liberty, family, national pride, peace and prosperity; is simple. The hate groups are always co-opted by government agents, and end up committing violence.
It is important to understand the difference between hating the government, and disagreeing, or even having a great dislike for PEOPLE, who are in office. The paradigm that exists protects those in power because they are in control of the system of law. Over and over these power brokers have been caught and accused of egregious crimes, and have never been prosecuted. This tends to cause a negative reaction by those who are screaming out to the American public about whats happened.
Corruption runs rampant, even in our great Republic. There are people today who may appear to “hate” the government, and are labeled as extreme to turn the average person against them. So as long as the people fight amongst each other, a revolt, peaceful or forceful is impossible. The people who are involved in gaining back their freedoms, by exposing criminals IN the government, by peaceful means and investigative journalism, activism, protests, and spreading awareness, are blatantly skewed by media, and figures in the media as extreme, only because they disagree with the current consensus. When you understand that those who spread truth, and advocate liberty; are not those who look for violence, or attacks on the government, or anyone for that matter. You will easily see through the facade that is put up, blinding the public even further to the many truths about the power behind our government.

Genetically Modified Babies

By Rady Ananda

Global Research, September 18, 2013

Theme: Biotechnology and GMO, Science and Medicine

In October 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration will hold a two-day public meeting to discuss genetic modification within the human egg, which changes will be passed on generationally.  The United Kingdom is also moving to allow GM babies.
Human gene therapy has been ongoing since 1990, but most of that involved non-heritable genes, called somatic (non-sex cell) gene therapy.  Somatic modifications only affect the individual and are not passed on, and so do not affect the human genome.
The game changed with the successful birth of at least 30 genetically modified babies by 2001. Half of the babies engineered from one clinic developed defects, so the FDA stepped in and asserted jurisdiction over “the use of human cells that receive genetic material by means other than the union of gamete nuclei” (sperm and egg nuclei).
Now the FDA is considering going forward with “oocyte modification” which involves genetic material from a second woman, whereby offspring will carry the DNA from three parents.  These kinds of genetic changes (“germline modification”) alter the human genome.
With ooplasmic transfer, the technique injects healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor into the egg of an infertile woman.  Mitochondrial DNA floats outside a cell’s nucleus which contains the regular DNA, and is only inherited from the mother.
This is the first such meeting ever to be held in public by the FDA, reports Biopolitical Times (BPT), speculating that the meeting will likely include discussing a mitochondrial replacement technique developed by Shoukhrat Mitalipov at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU).
Notes the BPT, “mitochondrial replacement is a form of inheritable genetic modification.”  This type of gene therapy is the source of much controversy, because it permanently changes the human genome and risks unforeseeable changes in growth and development, and aging.
As late as 2008, all germline modification therapies and enhancements were banned in 83% of the 30 nations making up the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), including the US and UK, reports the Center for Genetics and Society (CGS).
In June of this year, the United Kingdom reversed its long-standing policy against germline modification, and decided to go ahead with three-parent babies. Regulations on the procedure are now being drafted and Members of Parliament are expected to vote on the issue in 2014.
Testifying before the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade in 2008, CGS Executive Director Richard Hayes advised:

“Most people strongly support therapeutic applications of genetic science, but they also realize that the manipulation of inheritable genetic traits crosses a consequential barrier. In the great majority of instances, couples at risk of passing on a serious genetic disease can ensure that their child is disease-free by means of medically-related trait selection, thus obviating the need for the far more complex and risk-prone intervention that germline modification would entail.”

 Making humans better, smarter, stronger has long been the goal of eugenicists.  Hayes warns:

“Germline enhancement has also been seriously proposed as a means of creating people with such novel cognitive, psychological, and behavioral traits that they would constitute a new, ‘post-human’ species, incapable of interbreeding with ‘normal’ humans.”

 Paul Knoepfler, Associate Professor of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, commented that:

“Moving one oocyte nucleus into the enucleated oocyte of another person could trigger all kinds of devastating problems (most likely through epigenetic changes) that might not manifest until you try to make a human being out of it. Then it’s too late.”

 BPT shares in this opposition:

 “If the FDA gives the OHSU researchers a green light to move towards human clinical trials, it will be the first instance of regulatory approval for human germline modification ever, anywhere in the world.

 ”Given the current regulatory void in the United States and the paucity of safety data, allowing scientists to experiment with creating permanent changes to the human genome is a genie that must be kept in the bottle.”

As with genetically modified crops, a host of unforeseen and deleterious consequences may develop when we begin modifying humans with genes their children will inherit. GM feed is linked with infertility and spontaneous abortions in livestock, and crops modified to be insecticidal are linked to declining pollinator populations, especially bees, moths and bats.
But another argument against germline modification is that it will lead to designer babies and a new class of underdogs – those who cannot afford genetic enhancement.
Eugenicists and futurists like Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity Is Near, 2006) foresee and welcome the convergence of the NBIC fields that can improve human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science.
In 2001, over 50 policy makers and scientists from a range of fields contributed to a National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop on converging NBIC technologies. Within the individual, group and societal level discussions, they addressed key areas of human activity: working, learning, aging, group interaction and human evolution. The consensus reached was to focus a national R&D priority on human enhancement.
In re-opening the allowance for GM babies, whose genetic changes will be passed on to future generations, the FDA is taking the next steps toward toeing the line on genetic human enhancement.
In addition to accepting written comments, the FDA, in collaboration with the Office of Cellular Tissue and Gene Therapies Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, will also provide a free webcast of the two-day discussion.  The meeting may be rescheduled without notice, the FDA warns.
An earlier version of this article first appeared at Activist Post.

The Looting of America

The Looting of America

Janet Yellen: What A Horrifying Choice For Fed Chairman She Would Be

By Michael Snyder, on September 18th, 2013

 

Are you ready for Janet Yellen?  Wall Street wants her, the mainstream media wants her and it appears that her confirmation would be a slam dunk.  She would be the first woman ever to chair the Federal Reserve, and her philosophy is that a little bit of inflation is actually good for an economy.  She was reportedly the architect for many of the unprecedented monetary decisions that Ben Bernanke made during his tenure, and that has many on Wall Street and in the media very excited.  Noting that we "already know that Yellen is on board with Bernanke's easy money policies", CNN recently even went so far as to publish a rabidly pro-Yellen article with this stunning headline: "Dear Mr. President: Name Yellen now!"  But after watching what a disaster Bernanke has been, do we really want more of the same?  It doesn't really matter whether she is a woman, a man, a giant lizard or a robot, the question is whether or not she is going to continue to take us down the path to ruin that Bernanke has taken us.  As I have written about so many times, the Federal Reserve is at the very heart of our economic problems, and under Bernanke the Fed has created a mammoth financial bubble unlike anything that we have ever seen before.  If Yellen keeps us going down that road, financial disaster is inevitable.
Sadly, Yellen is not a woman that believes in free markets.  She had the following to say back in 1999...

"Will capitalist economies operate at full employment in the absence of routine intervention? Certainly not."

Yellen believes that without the "routine intervention" of the central planners at the Fed, our economy will not produce satisfactory results.
So if you thought that Bernanke was an "interventionist", you haven't seen anything yet.  In fact, according to Time Magazine, Yellen was continually urging Bernanke to do even more "to help stimulate the economy"...

But as the most recent financial crisis proved, a good Fed chief needs to be willing to think outside the box to achieve its goals of low, steady inflation and full employment. This is exactly what Bernanke did — using the powers of his office to launch a massive bond-buying program aimed at lowering interest rates further down the yield curve and promising to keep short-term interest rates at near zero for years. Bernanke, however, didn’t launch these programs immediately. Behind the scenes, it was reportedly Yellen who was the most forceful advocate for the Fed doing more to help stimulate the economy.

It is truly frightening to think that Yellen might turn out to be "Bernanke on steroids".
Let's hope that she is not the choice.
But the media is endlessly hyping her.  They keep proclaiming that she has a "good track record" when it comes to forecasting future economic conditions.
Oh really?
Back in February 2007, before the housing crash and the last financial crisis, she made the following statement...

"The bottom line for housing is that the concerns we used to hear about the possibility of a devastating collapse—one that might be big enough to cause a recession in the U.S. economy—while not fully allayed have diminished. Moreover, while the future for housing activity remains uncertain, I think there is a reasonable chance that housing is in the process of stabilizing, which would mean that it would put a considerably smaller drag on the economy going forward."

And during a speech in December 2007 she offered up this gem...

"To sum up the story on the outlook for real GDP growth, my own view is that, under appropriate monetary policy, the economy is still likely to achieve a relatively smooth adjustment path, with real GDP growth gradually returning to its roughly 2½ percent trend over the next year or so, and the unemployment rate rising only very gradually to just above its 4¾ percent sustainable level."

And in front of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in 2010 she openly admitted that she did not see the last financial crisis coming...

“For my own part,” Ms. Yellen said, “I did not see and did not appreciate what the risks were with securitization, the credit ratings agencies, the shadow banking system, the S.I.V.’s — I didn’t see any of that coming until it happened.”

So if she didn't see the last crisis coming, will she see the next one coming?
Right now, she insists that everything is going to be just fine in our immediate future.
Do you believe her?
Meanwhile, economic warning flags are popping up all over the place.  As Zero Hedge recently noted, perhaps this is why a lot of high profile candidates don't want the Fed job.  Perhaps they don't want to be blamed for the giant economic mess that is about to happen...

With so many candidates dropping out of the race, one has to wonder why the attraction of the 'most-powerful' job in the world is fading. Perhaps it is not wanting to stuck between the rock of the 'broken-market-diminishing-returns' of moar QE and the hard place of an economy/market that is sputtering and needs moar. As Bloomberg's Rich Yamarone notes, There’s a little known rule of thumb in the economics world: when the annual growth rate of key U.S. indicators falls below 2 percent, the economy slides into recession in the next 12 months... and more than one of them is flashing red.

But we have far bigger worries on our hands than just another recession.
Over the past several years, Fed intervention has been systematically destroying confidence in the U.S. dollar and has been making U.S. government debt less desirable.  Foreigners are already starting to dump U.S. debt, and it is only a matter of time before the U.S. dollar loses its status as the de facto reserve currency of the world.
By "kicking the can down the road", the Fed has created tremendous structural problems which are going to come back to bite us big time in the long run.
Recklessly printing money, monetizing debt and driving interest rates down to ridiculously low levels may have had some benefits in the short-term, but in the end this giant Ponzi scheme is going to collapse in spectacular fashion.  The following is how James Howard Kunstler puts it...

The Fed can only pretend to try to get out of this self-created hell-hole. The stock market is a proxy for the economy and a handful of giant banks are proxies for the American public, and all they’ve really got going is a hideous high-frequency churn of trades in conjectural debentures that pretend to represent something hidden in the caboose of a choo-choo train of wished-for value — and hardly anyone in the nation, including those with multiple graduate degrees in abstruse crypto-sciences, can even pretend to understand it all.
When reality crosses the finish line ahead of poor, exhausted Mr. Bernanke, havoc must ensue. All the artificial props fall away and the so-called American economy is revealed for what it is: a surreal landscape of ruin with nothing left but salvage value. Very few people will get a living off of the salvage operations, and there will be fights and skirmishes everywhere by one gang or another for control of the pickings. The utility of money itself may be bygone, along with the legitimacy of anyone or anything claiming institutional authority. This is what comes of all attempts to get something for nothing.

The American people deserve to know the truth.
The Fed is not our "savior".  The truth is that the Fed is the primary cause of many of our biggest economic problems.  For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled "25 Fast Facts About The Federal Reserve – Please Share With Everyone You Know".
Unfortunately, Wall Street and the mainstream media love the Fed and they appear to very much love Janet Yellen.
Yellen would be an absolutely horrifying choice for Fed Chairman, but so would any of the other names that have been floated.
America has embraced the foolishness of the financial central planners at the Federal Reserve, and in the end we will all pay a great price for that.