Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Another Soros type living like a king but dictating to the rest of us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban

I know I am not the only Jew (20% of us) who have had enough of this crap.

Guzman's beauty queen wife went to LA to give birth to twins.  So now his kids are automatic US citizens.  This is just crazy.  Folks, the joke is on every law abiding American.  Why do we have to be so stupid?:

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-guzman-arrest-20140222,0,4274864.story#axzz2u6oqrlKK

Fox should hire her as a counterpoint to Piers Morgan.

She would trounce him.  Though that is not saying much from what I read about his ratings recently.

Maybe he will be cancelled. 

Economist article explains why health "tourism" has not taken off as expected:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21596563-why-health-care-has-failed-globalise-m-decine-avec-fronti-res

"The election of Roosevelt in 1932 marked the beginning of a change. He got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. But even then, the number of blacks identifying themselves as Republicans was about the same as the number who thought of themselves as Democrats.

It wasn’t until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment."
----------------

What GM's Kevin Williamson argument demonstrates is that southern (white) Democrats did not jump to Republican for racial or racist reasons"

If it started during Roosevelt was it because of the New Deal?  Truman capturing the majority of the Black vote might be because of the two orders you note.

I would suspect that one big contributing factor to the switch would be that Blacks began to move north at least after WW2. 

So what was it?   Economic?  More social programs that benefitted poorer Blacks from the party of wealth redistribution?

I still don't understand.   It does sound like the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the coup degra (sp?) so to speak for the Republican Party.

"What GM's Kevin Williamson argument demonstrates is that southern (white) Democrats did not jump to Republican for racial or racist reasons."  OK so southerners maybe were more against big government than northerners.    Perhaps that is why they jumped from Dems to Reps.

I still don't quite get the history of Blacks flocking to the Democratic party.  Is it the Civil Rights OR (or and) Big government?  It must be both.

How do Reps convince Blacks they are being sold out now?  IF they think they have it tough now just wait till they have tens of millions from countries with far less opportunity than here who WILL work ten times harder and twice as long as them.

Yet they still cling to the reparations promise I guess.  I still say they shoot themselves in their feet.

ON radio there is talk of a big behinds the scene push for reparations.  This will keep the Blacks on board for another 200 years for sure or so it seems. 
 

It is being said Obama may be delaying push for immigration (amnesty) reform till after '14.  If true than isn't this a cynical comment on how pols abuse the intent of voting?

If it is not popular than delay it and not make it an issue till after an election and then when that is over ram it down the voters throats against their wills.

The disdain for wants and needs for Americans is so palpable. 

After releasing  a monkey who was nursed back to health by the great student of chimps, Jane Goodall, the monkey unmistakenly stops his excitement approaches her so she can hug and embrace and kiss her mentor before she moves on into the forest  to experience a hug and an embrace to 

http://www.care2.com/causes/the-heartfelt-hug-that-said-it-all-chimp-thanks-jane-goodall-for-rescue.html

Thanks Doug.  I was only seven yrs old at the time so I don't remember any of this or would I have cared in those days.

Do I understand it correct though that it was LBJs pushing through the Civil Rights Act that caused this "sea change" in Black Americans party affiliation from republican to democrat?

I am not comfortable with leaving the particulars of Civil Rights for Minorities for State's  to decide when we know in many states they were de facto second class citizens.  This is the precise Southern argument that the entire Civil War was about state's rights and not Slavery.  Sorry I don't buy it. 
That is a ruse and a cop out and a cynical ploy in my opinion.   Most of us Northerners don't buy into this.
I side with Black Americans on this.   

That said, I don't know why they Blacks persist in supporting a party that keeps them dependent and has in reality  done more to damage their families, self esteem, etc...

No surprise:   $24 admission fee.  That is New York.  It costs that much just to drive into NY from NJ to pay toll/ union/ Democrat party fees.

Barry Goldwater made a huge mistake that leads to this -

""""History: Democrats & Republicans On Civil Rights & Equality


There is an awful lot of misinformation and untruth out there about the legacy of the two major political parties and the civil rights movement. Conservatives often like to use slight of hand, insisting that because the early Republican party was stronger in support of civil rights, this means that conservatives have the moral high ground. This is totally untrue.

Republicans – Moderate and Liberal Republicans supported civil rights. The Republicans who supported civil rights in America were not conservatives of the same ilk as George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They were liberals and moderates, people like former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chaffee and former senator governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Conservative Democrats opposed civil rights. The Democrats opposed to the civil rights movement weren’t Democrats with the center-left ideology of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They were, in fact, conservatives – especially from the south – with far more in common with Limbaugh, Beck, etc. than any modern mainstream Democrat. When people say that someone like notorious segregationist Bull Connor was a Democrat, they are technically right on the party label, but when it comes to ideology Connor and the rest of those opposed to racial integration were conservatives.

Conservatives opposed civil rights. At the time of the civil rights movement, outside of the parties, conservatives were opposed to the civil rights movement. Barry Goldwater, a conservative whose brand of politics would soon take over the Republicans in the guise of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, opposed civil rights law. He claimed that he viewed it as a states rights issue, and actually favored equal rights, but the practical effect of his stance would be to allow segregation – in the south “states rights” meant “Jim Crow.” The conservative intellectual movement – William F. Buckley’s National Review, for instance, opposed what they viewed as law-breaking protests by Dr. Martin Luther King.

Democrats moved left on civil rights, in favor. Over time the Democrats moved to the left on civil rights, meaning they moved with other liberals in favor of them. Southern, conservative

Democrats opposed civil rights and the laws were passed by liberal/moderate Republicans and liberal/moderate Democrats. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.

Conservative Democrats left the party in opposition to civil rights and became Republicans. After the Civil Rights law was signed into law, conservative Democrats left the party. Strom Thurmond, who ran as a segregationist in 1948, became a Republican, as did Jesse Helms (who went on to filibuster against making Martin Luther King Jr. day a federal holiday).

Republicans used racial resentment for elections, while Democrats became more racially inclusive. As the Republican party became more ideologically conservative in the post-Goldwater era, they increasingly used racially divisive politics for electoral gain. The GOP employed what is now known as “the southern stategy” (acknowledged by GOP party chairmen Ken Mehlman and Michael Steele in the last decade) to demonize blacks and other minorities while also riling up the white, male conservative base that forms the party now. Examples include the Willie Horton ad used by Bush Sr. allies vs Michael Dukakis, the “hands” ad used by Jesse Helms, and the nonstop racebaiting versus President Obama from conservative outlets like Fox News and talk radio.

At the same time, the Democratic party became more and more racially inclusive. After civil rights passed, and the GOP became more conservative and increased racial demagoguery, black and other minority voters became Democrats. Every black member of the House of Representatives is a Democrat, and every black senator since 1979 has been a Democrat. The first black president, is of course, Barack Obama – a Democrat.

The parties have changed but the ideology hasn’t. The attempt to co-opt liberal support of civil rights has been a consistent campaign of the right, despite their predecessor’s opposition to the concept. The attempt to say that liberal Republicans of the past are the same as conservative Republicans of today, is just a terrible lie. Conservatives often try to say people like Martin Luther King Jr. would be conservatives. This is entirely untrue. In the last years of his life, Dr. King ran what he called “The Poor People’s Campaign,” and his beliefs would largely be to the left of where the modern Democratic party is, let alone the Republicans.

The Democrats moved away from the conservative position against racial inclusion, while the right moved the other way and has only recently somewhat acknowledged the moral folly of its past. Conservatives opposed civil rights, while liberals favored them. Both ideologies have inhabited majorities in both parties, but the ideological support or opposition to civil rights and equality has largely remained the same.

LBJ - Civil Rights

Got love it.  Coming from a Columbia economist.   I don't which is worse - Princeton or Columbia.

"Yes, the U.S. has structural problems with its welfare programs, its income distribution is unacceptably skewed and its birth rates are falling. But all that is widely known and is part of a lively public policy debate. Therefore, I see no point of harping on these issues just to find something to be down on the U.S. economy."

If the economy is so good how about a tax break for those of us who are paying all your cronies bills:

******Stop whining! The US economy is in good shape
 
 Published: Sunday, 16 Feb 2014 | 8:36 PM ET
By: Michael Ivanovitch   | President, MSI Global

While operating more than an entire percentage point below its potential growth rate, the U.S. economy still raised its business sector employment by nearly 2 million people over the last twelve months.

That is a remarkable achievement because companies usually don't step up hiring until a sustained increase in capacity pressures them to start adding to their labor force.

(Read more: Wicked winter puts big chill on job creation)

And no other economy contributed last year 4.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) to the rest of the world. Those in the emerging markets, who are now complaining about declining dollar liquidity, may also wish to note that the U.S. last year bought from them $515 billion more than it sold to them.


Based on current growth dynamics, this year promises an even better outlook for employment creation and America's contribution to the world economy.





Play Video



Positive on US economy: Julius Baer

Mark Matthews, Head of Research Asia, Bank Julius Baer, explains why he thinks the U.S. economy is seeing recovery and will continue to improve with the Fed's tapering.


The most recent evidence from survey data indicates that the U.S. service sector (approximately 90 percent of the economy) continues to expand in a steady and sustained fashion. Despite recent distortions caused by bad weather, the same is true of the manufacturing industries, where the capacity utilization rate is approaching its long-term average of 80 percent.

The U.S. economy is underpinned by growing real incomes, increasing employment, record-low borrowing costs and an easing access to credit facilities as banks continue to open up their channels of consumer financing.

Balanced policy mix

All these developments are taking place in the context of an appropriately supportive policy mix, where the tightening fiscal policy is offset by an expansionary credit stance.


(Read more: Economy takes $50B winter weather hit: CNBC survey)

That policy configuration has allowed the U.S. to achieve a relatively fast and substantial fiscal consolidation in an environment of a growing economy. Indeed, this year's budget deficit is expected to come in at 3 percent of GDP and to decline 24 percent from the previous fiscal year – a feast that euro area austerity advocates can only dream about.


The Treasury's declining borrowing requirements are making it possible for the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) not only to safely scale back its monthly asset purchases, but also to maintain its highly accommodative policy stance to compensate for the falling public sector outlays.


Here are some numbers to illustrate the point: in the course of December and January, the Fed's balance sheet expanded by a monthly average of only $22 billion – a huge drop from a monthly average of $98.8 billion in the previous two months.

(Read more: US economy may be stuck in slow lane for long run)


The Fed did that without creating any adverse effects in bond and mortgage markets. Last Friday, for example, the yield on the benchmark ten-year Treasury note traded at 2.74 percent, compared with 2.84 percent in the early December of last year. Mortgage costs followed the same pattern.

The rate on the 30-year fixed mortgage was 4.32 percent last Friday, down from 4.41 percent a month ago and 4.46 percent in December.


This is encouraging, and we may soon begin to see a gradual shrinking of the Fed's $3.7 trillion balance sheet. The Fed will, however, maintain its easy credit stance as long as the inflation pressures are kept at bay by the prevailing slack in labor and product markets.





Play Video



Expect US to grow close to 4% this year: Joel Stern

Joel Stern, Chairman & CEO, Stern Value Management, expects real U.S. GDP to grow between 3.7 and 4.2 percent this year


Plenty of room for noninflationary growth


At the moment, there are no reasons to worry about rising inflation expectations. Unit labor costs in the fourth quarter declined 1.6 percent from the year earlier as a result of strong productivity gains and weak wage increases. For last year as a whole, unit labor costs rose only 0.8 percent.


More of the same can be expected in the months ahead because, even under conditions of modest economic activity, a slow take up of the labor market slack will lead to productivity growth that will offset most of the underlying wage gains of about 2 percent.


The Fed's recent statements show that they are well aware of that. The U.S. monetary authorities are not fooled by a surprisingly fast decline of the unemployment rate. They know that the actual jobless rate last month was double the officially reported rate of 6.6 percent – if one adds to the unemployment rolls involuntary part-time workers and people marginally attached to the labor force.


The Treasury and the Fed are also turning their attention to the external demand for American goods and services.


(Read more: Janet Yellen is NOT Ben Bernanke)

Worrying about one-fifth of U.S. exports that go to Europe, Washington wants to see more supportive economic policies in the recession-ridden euro area. The focus is now on Germany, which is seen as holding back the euro zone growth with its staggering current account surplus of 7 percent of GDP.


The U.S. has less of a case against China. The Chinese current account surplus is below 2 percent of GDP, growth is increasingly led by domestic demand, China's imports are growing at a rate of 10 percent or more, and the yuan's exchange rate is being forced up by capital inflows Beijing finds increasingly difficult to control.


All this will be part of the next meeting of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Sydney, Australia on February 20-22, 2014.


Based on this analysis, I remain optimistic about the U.S. economic outlook.


(Read more: Bad jobs reports won't change tapering: Yellen)

Yes, the U.S. has structural problems with its welfare programs, its income distribution is unacceptably skewed and its birth rates are falling. But all that is widely known and is part of a lively public policy debate. Therefore, I see no point of harping on these issues just to find something to be down on the U.S. economy.


My investment strategy conclusions also remain largely unchanged. I like U.S. equities, but I don't like bonds. I am more positive about gold, because I believe that geopolitical instabilities, strengthening growth in developed economies, and some central banks' asset diversifications will support gold prices.


Michael Ivanovitch is president of MSI Global, a New York-based economic research company. He also served as a senior economist at the OECD in Paris, international economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and taught economics at Columbia. *****

Remember when Ann Coulter was his greatest cheerleader?   How times have changed: 

A BRIDGE TOO FAR-FETCHED

Ann Coulter
By Ann Coulter February 5, 2014 6:31 PM

New Jersey governor Chris Christie deserves to be defended.

The gravamen of the media's case against Christie on Bridgegate seems to be that he is a "bully" -- which I painstakingly gleaned from the fact that the governor is called a "bully" 1 million times a night on MSNBC and in hundreds of blog postings and New York Times reports.

Christie is not a bully. If anything, he's a pansy, a man terrified of the liberal media, of Wall Street, of Silicon Valley, of Obama, of Bruce Springsteen, of Mark Zuckerberg, of Chuck Schumer. It's a good bet he's afraid of his own shadow. (In fairness, his shadow is probably pretty big and scary.) About the only thing Christie doesn't seem afraid of is the buffet at Sizzler.

Even Christie's defenders call him a bully, but in an admiring way. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly recently said of the governor: "One reason Mitt Romney lost to President Obama was that Governor Romney is too much of a gentleman. He apparently did not have the 'fire in the belly' to deliver a knockout blow. But Christie does and is therefore a threat to the Democratic Party."

O'Reilly thinks Christie would have gotten in Obama's face? (I mean other than for a quick make-out session with Obama during Hurricane Sandy?)

By sheer coincidence, that was Christie's job at the 2012 Republican National Convention. As the keynote speaker, it was his assignment to "deliver a knockout blow" to Obama.

Let's see how he did.

In Christie's entire gaseous convention speech, he talked about New Jersey (ad nauseam), his parents, his kids, his upbringing, every tedious detail of his tedious life -- "I coached our sons Andrew and Patrick on the fields of Mendham, and ... I watched with pride as our daughters Sarah and Bridget marched with their soccer teams in the Labor Day parade."

Just before I dozed off, I seem to remember Christie sharing his seven-layer dip recipe.

The guy whose role it was to attack the president mentioned Obama exactly one time. Once. And even then, not by name.

Here is Christie the Lion-Hearted taking the fight to Obama: "You see, Mr. President, real leaders do not follow polls. Real leaders change polls."

And that's how Christie bravely threw down the gauntlet to Obama on Benghazi, on Obamacare, on skyrocketing unemployment, on crony capitalism, on astronomical government spending and so on. He said: "Real leaders do not follow polls."

Accusing a politician of following polls is the biggest cliche in politics after "He's dividing us!" In Obama's case, it isn't even true. Would that he followed polls! If he did, we never would have gotten Obamacare.

Of course, there wasn't much time for Christie to talk about Obama, because the main theme of his convention speech was: Chris Christie, Augustus Corpulus.

He said "I" 37 times and "me" eight times, breaking Kim Kardashian's old record for a single tweet. He only mentioned our actual nominee (Mitt Romney) seven times -- in order to tell us how we were all going to have to sacrifice and make hard choices, and Romney was just the man to tell America the bad news and make us all suffer.

I suppose Christie considered it more than sufficient to announce that he, personally, supported Romney: "If you're willing to fight with me for Mitt Romney, I will fight with you."

He -- Chris Christie! -- supported Romney. What more could voters want?

It was as if Christie had sent his speech to MSNBC for pre-approval.

And it's not just one godawful speech. Christie's daily checklist appears to consist of two items: (1) Suck up to liberals. (2) Ask waiter for more bread.

After a 30-minute conversation with Sen. Chuck Schumer last fall, Christie capitulated to the Democrats' need for 30 million more voters by directing his temporary Senate appointee to vote for the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill. Schumer considered Christie so impotent that he immediately leaked the news that he had buffaloed Christie on amnesty in a single phone call.

The people amnesty helps are Democrats, who get multiple millions of new voters, and the soulless rich, who don't care about the country and don't care about the culture. They just want cheap labor.

Instead of standing up for the long-suffering middle class that is the backbone of the Republican Party -- much less the lower class lionized in so many Bruce Springsteen songs -- Christie sided with Silicon Valley billionaires and Wall Streeters on their servant problem, while also helping Democrats with their demographic problem.

A few months later, Christie doubled down on amnesty by granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

There isn't a wall high enough to stop illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border when the reward waiting on the other side is free health care, jobs, driver's licenses and college tuition subsidized by American taxpayers.

But at least Christie no longer has to lie awake at night wondering if Mark Zuckerberg will be his friend.

True, Christie yelled at a few public school teachers, but they richly deserved it.

Taking a page from John McCain, the main targets of Christie's wrath are his fellow Republicans. This has won him the respect of his most crucial constituency, liberal journalists, who have been precisely as loyal to him as they were to McCain.

If Christie looks guilty in Bridgegate, it's not because he's a "bully." It's because he believes lawbreaking is no big deal. Maybe he's hoping his BFF Obama will grant him amnesty.

COPYRIGHT 2014 ANN COULTER*****

No he is not a radical in sheep's clothing.  rolleyes  Just political grandstanding by right wing nuts.  (heavy on the sarcasm)
And we keep hearing what a nice guy he is.  If I hear O'Reilly say one more time he doesn't doubt Obama's good intentions..... rolleyes
I keep thinking how is someone who is a serial liar, serial deceiver, bully,  a nice guy.  Oh but he cares about the po' is always the response.  It is his goals that matter not how he gets there.  

****The Soul of the Obama Administration

Mona Charen
By Mona Charen February 14, 2014 3:00 AM
 
Few have ever heard the name Debo Adegbile. He's President Barack Obama's nominee to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department.

A few months ago, his nomination would have been a non-starter — there is more than a whiff of radicalism in his past. But we are in a new world. Sen. Harry Reid is now absolute monarch of the Senate. Republicans are largely irrelevant. They cannot offer amendments to legislation. They cannot filibuster. I suppose they can write letters to the editor, and march outside the chamber wearing sandwich boards.

Before the Reid invocation of the "nuclear option" eliminating the filibuster, Adegbile would have been considered too controversial. But now, the administration can have its head on nominations.

Adegbile is a passionate advocate for racial quotas in hiring and university admissions, and also urges that employers not be permitted to do background checks on potential hires — presumably because more African-Americans have criminal records than other applicants.


(POSTED IN THIS THREAD FOR THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES: MARC)

He has encouraged the president to nominate judges who recognize that "ratified treaties" are the law of land. Well, no argument there, but he goes further. Adegbile wants judges who will decree that "customary international law" is the law of the United States as well, asking for God only knows what mischief. Who would decide what "customary international law" is? By what authority would it be imposed on Americans? Investor's Business Daily reports that Adegbile supports George Soros's campaign to create a new "progressive" constitution. If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you're not paying attention.

It was Adegbile's role in the case of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal that incurred the wrath of Justice Department employees though. The union representing FBI agents, which rarely expresses itself on nominations, along with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder to protest Adegbile's nomination. Carl Rowan Jr., a former deputy U.S. marshal, FBI special agent and chief of police, wrote: "He isn't the first questionable nomination made by a president who ... seems drawn to those with radical backgrounds, but this one is an open slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement."

Abu-Jamal has long been a poster boy for the radical left in America. His fine speaking voice (he had been a radio host), long dreadlocks, Muslim moniker (he was born Wesley Cook), radical memberships (in the Black Panthers and black liberation group MOVE), and admiration of Mao Zedong made him irresistible to the Ed Asners, Jonathan Kozolses, National Lawyers Guilds, Michael Moores and NPRs of the world. But until this administration, most mainstream liberals would have steered clear.

Adegbile revealed a great deal about himself by choosing to have the NAACP Legal Defense Fund join the campaign to defend Abu-Jamal. There are many miscarriages of justice that cry out for redress, but Abu-Jamal's 1981 conviction for killing 25-year-old Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner is one of the most litigated in American jurisprudence. The verdict was reviewed or allowed to stand by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, among others, over the course of more than 30 years.

On Dec. 9, 1981, at about 4 a.m., Faulkner pulled over a driver named William Cook (Abu-Jamal's brother) for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Cook threw a punch at Faulkner, who then hit Cook with his flashlight. At that point, four eyewitnesses said that Abu-Jamal, who had been across the street, fired at Faulkner hitting him in the back. Though wounded, Faulkner fired back at Abu-Jamal, hitting him in the chest, before falling onto his back. Abu-Jamal approached the wounded officer and holding his gun 18 inches in front of Faulkner's face, fired the shots that killed him.

Ballistics confirmed that the bullets that killed Faulkner were from Abu-Jamal's gun, found with him at the scene.

Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death, but decades of litigation and agitation on his behalf delayed the sentence. He has claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (though at one point he represented himself), racism by the judge, racism in jury selection — the usual gamut. In 2011, prosecutors announced that they would no longer pursue the death penalty.

Every defendant deserves a defense, of course. But Abu-Jamal has had a celebrity lineup of lefty lawyers. That Adegbile wanted to join their ranks is a sign of his sympathies. That Obama believes Adegbile can get confirmed by the neutered Senate is a sign of the times.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

***From what we have seen–the fixing of the LIBOR rate, the London gold price, foreign exchange rates, the price of bonds and the manipulation of gold and stock market futures prices–we don’t know what the limit is to the ability of the Fed, the Treasury, the Plunge Protection Team, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and the banks to manipulate the markets.***

Has this ever been the case in American history where in a Fed can control the markets like they are doing?

*****Free Report - Financial Markets 2014

 Financial, Gold, Stocks Markets Manipulation's Becoming More Extreme, More Desperate
Stock-Markets / Market Manipulation Feb 09, 2014 - 02:07 PM GMT
By: Paul_Craig_Roberts

In two recent articles we explained the hows and whys of gold price manipulation. The manipulations are becoming more and more blatant. On February 6 the prices of gold and stock market futures were simultaneously manipulated.

 On several recent occasions gold has attempted to push through the $1,270 per ounce price. If the gold price rises beyond this level, it would trigger a flood of short-covering by the hedge funds who are “piggy-backing” on the bullion banks’ manipulation of gold. The purchases by the hedge funds in order to cover their short positions would drive the gold price higher.

With pressure being exerted by tight supplies of physical gold bars available for delivery to China, the Fed is growing more desperate to keep a lid on the price of gold. The recent large decline in the stock market threatened the Fed’s policy of taking pressure off the dollar by cutting back bond purchases and reducing the amount of debt monetization.

 Thursday, February 6, provided a clear picture of how the Fed protects its policy by manipulating the gold and stock markets. Gold started to move higher the night before as the Asian markets opened for trading. Gold rose steadily from $1254 up to a high of $1267 per ounce right after the Comex opened (8:20 a.m. NY time). The spike up at the open of the Comex reflected a rush of short-covering, and the stock market futures looked like they were about to turn negative on the day. However, starting at 8:50 a.m., here’s what happened with Comex futures and S&P 500 stock futures:

At 8:50 a.m. NY time (the graph time-scale is Denver time), 3,225 contracts hit the Comex floor. During the course of the previous 14 hours and 50 minutes of trading, about 76,000 total April contracts had traded (Globex computer system + Comex floor), less than an average of 85 contracts per minute. The 3,225 futures contracts sold in one minute caused a $15 dollar decline in the price of gold. At the same time, the stock market futures mysteriously spiked higher:

As you can see from the graphs, gold was forced lower while the stock market futures were forced higher. There was no apparent news or market events that would have triggered this type of reaction in either the gold or stock market. If anything, the trade deficit report, which showed a higher than expected trade deficit for December, should have been mildly bullish for gold and bearish for the stock market. Furthermore, at the same time that gold was being forced lower on the Comex, the U.S. dollar index experienced a sharp drop in price and traded below the 81 level of support. The fall in the dollar is normally bullish for gold.

The economy is getting weaker. Fed policy is obviously failing despite recent official pronouncements that the economy is improving and that Bernanke’s monetary policies succeeded. A just published study by Jing Cynthia Wu and Fan Dora Zia concludes that the the positive impact of the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing is so slight as to be insignificant. The multi-trillion dollar expansion in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet lowered the unemployment rate by little more than two-tenths of one percent, raised the industrial production index by 2 percent, and brought about a mere 34,000 housing starts. http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~faxia/pdfs/JMP.pdf [3]

The renewal of the battle over the debt ceiling limit is bullish for gold and bearish for stocks. However, with the ongoing manipulation of the gold price and stock averages via gold and stock market futures, the normal workings of markets that establish true values are disrupted.

A rising problem for the manipulators is that the West is running low on gold available for delivery to China and other Asian buyers. In January China took delivery of a record amount of gold. China has been closed since last Friday in observance of the Chinese New Year. As China resumes purchases, default on delivery moves closer.

One way for the Fed and bullion banks to hold off defaulting on Chinese purchases is to coerce holders of gold futures contracts to settle in cash, not in delivery of gold, by driving down the price during heavy Comex delivery periods. This is what likely occurred on Feb. 6 in addition to the Fed’s routine price maintenance of gold.

As of Thurday’s (Feb. 6) Comex report for Wednesday’s (Feb. 5) close, there were about 616,000 ounces of gold available to be delivered from Comex vaults for February contracts totaling slightly more than 400,000 ounces, of which delivery notices for 100,000 ounces were given last Wednesday night. If the holders of the other 300,000 contracts opt to take delivery instead of cash settlement, February contracts would absorb two-thirds of Comex gold available for delivery.

The Comex gold inventory has been a big source of gold shipments from the West to the East, resulting in a decline of the Comex gold inventory by over 4 million ounces–113 tonnes–during the course of 2013. We know from reports from Swiss bar refiners that the 100 ounce Comex gold bars are being received by these refiners and recast into the kilo bars that the Chinese prefer and shipped to Hong Kong. With the amount of physical gold in Comex vaults rapidly being removed, the Fed/bullion banks use market ambush tactics such as those we describe above to augment and conserve the supply of gold available for delivery.

Readers have asked if gold can continue to be shorted on the Comex once no gold is left for delivery. From what we have seen–the fixing of the LIBOR rate, the London gold price, foreign exchange rates, the price of bonds and the manipulation of gold and stock market futures prices–we don’t know what the limit is to the ability of the Fed, the Treasury, the Plunge Protection Team, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and the banks to manipulate the markets.

Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

Paul Craig Roberts [ email him ] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan's first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal .  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington ; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy , and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice . Click here for Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

© 2013 Copyright Paul Craig Roberts - All Rights Reserved
 Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2014 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle*****

No he is not a radical in sheep's clothing.    Just political grandstanding by right wing nuts.  (heavy on the sarcasm)
And we keep hearing what a nice guy he is.  If I hear O'Reilly say one more time he doesn't doubt Obama's good intentions.....
I keep thinking how is someone who is a serial liar, serial deceiver, bully,  a nice guy.  Oh but he cares about the po' is always the response.  It is his goals that matter not how he gets there.   

****The Soul of the Obama Administration

Mona Charen
By Mona Charen February 14, 2014 3:00 AM
 
Few have ever heard the name Debo Adegbile. He's President Barack Obama's nominee to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department.

A few months ago, his nomination would have been a non-starter — there is more than a whiff of radicalism in his past. But we are in a new world. Sen. Harry Reid is now absolute monarch of the Senate. Republicans are largely irrelevant. They cannot offer amendments to legislation. They cannot filibuster. I suppose they can write letters to the editor, and march outside the chamber wearing sandwich boards.

Before the Reid invocation of the "nuclear option" eliminating the filibuster, Adegbile would have been considered too controversial. But now, the administration can have its head on nominations.

Adegbile is a passionate advocate for racial quotas in hiring and university admissions, and also urges that employers not be permitted to do background checks on potential hires — presumably because more African-Americans have criminal records than other applicants. He has encouraged the president to nominate judges who recognize that "ratified treaties" are the law of land. Well, no argument there, but he goes further. Adegbile wants judges who will decree that "customary international law" is the law of the United States as well, asking for God only knows what mischief. Who would decide what "customary international law" is? By what authority would it be imposed on Americans? Investor's Business Daily reports that Adegbile supports George Soros's campaign to create a new "progressive" constitution. If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you're not paying attention.

It was Adegbile's role in the case of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal that incurred the wrath of Justice Department employees though. The union representing FBI agents, which rarely expresses itself on nominations, along with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder to protest Adegbile's nomination. Carl Rowan Jr., a former deputy U.S. marshal, FBI special agent and chief of police, wrote: "He isn't the first questionable nomination made by a president who ... seems drawn to those with radical backgrounds, but this one is an open slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement."

Abu-Jamal has long been a poster boy for the radical left in America. His fine speaking voice (he had been a radio host), long dreadlocks, Muslim moniker (he was born Wesley Cook), radical memberships (in the Black Panthers and black liberation group MOVE), and admiration of Mao Zedong made him irresistible to the Ed Asners, Jonathan Kozolses, National Lawyers Guilds, Michael Moores and NPRs of the world. But until this administration, most mainstream liberals would have steered clear.

Adegbile revealed a great deal about himself by choosing to have the NAACP Legal Defense Fund join the campaign to defend Abu-Jamal. There are many miscarriages of justice that cry out for redress, but Abu-Jamal's 1981 conviction for killing 25-year-old Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner is one of the most litigated in American jurisprudence. The verdict was reviewed or allowed to stand by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, among others, over the course of more than 30 years.

On Dec. 9, 1981, at about 4 a.m., Faulkner pulled over a driver named William Cook (Abu-Jamal's brother) for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Cook threw a punch at Faulkner, who then hit Cook with his flashlight. At that point, four eyewitnesses said that Abu-Jamal, who had been across the street, fired at Faulkner hitting him in the back. Though wounded, Faulkner fired back at Abu-Jamal, hitting him in the chest, before falling onto his back. Abu-Jamal approached the wounded officer and holding his gun 18 inches in front of Faulkner's face, fired the shots that killed him.

Ballistics confirmed that the bullets that killed Faulkner were from Abu-Jamal's gun, found with him at the scene.

Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death, but decades of litigation and agitation on his behalf delayed the sentence. He has claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (though at one point he represented himself), racism by the judge, racism in jury selection — the usual gamut. In 2011, prosecutors announced that they would no longer pursue the death penalty.

Every defendant deserves a defense, of course. But Abu-Jamal has had a celebrity lineup of lefty lawyers. That Adegbile wanted to join their ranks is a sign of his sympathies. That Obama believes Adegbile can get confirmed by the neutered Senate is a sign of the times.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM

Was also the father of body building.

People were more interested in his physique than his strongman's feats of strength.   He made kinetiscopes for Edison and was part of the first marketing of these movies.  Thus it could be argued he was the first "movie star".  Within a few years movies that followed a theme like the Great Train Robbery of 1903 supplanted the earlier kinetoscope which just followed objects, animals, or people moving around but with no particular theme and projected the image into a viewer not a screen.  

The ideal body for those into sculpting bodies in those days (late 1800s) were represented by the ancient statues of the Greeks and Romans or probably later Renaissance depictions of the same body types (for ex. statue of David).   Sandow was the first person known to literally try to shape his body into the ideal Greek image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Sandow

The civilian hero of Gettysburg - John L. Burns - born 1794.   Fought in 1812 first.   Switched his musket for a more "modern" carbine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Burns

"Plenty of fools (though not nearly so many as today) kept investing in the market prior to the crash in 1929, and I'm sure they were scoffing at naysayers back then as well."

Many of us were scoffing at the naysayers in 1999 too.  "Oh it is different this time".   While we were looking at charts comparing the market spike of 1929 and 1999.

There is just no political will.  The rest of us get screwed.  And I don't want to hear arguments how this benefits all of us.  So my Burger King fries are 10 cents lower. 

"Are we going to round them up and send them home as the law requires.  The answer is No."

No.  We simply don't allow people to be hired who are not here legally.  They will never be able to be citizens.  And they will never be able to get benefits.

As for their kids.  They can start taking responsibility for splitting up their families. 

They come here and have anchor babies.  Because they are born here they are in.  But those that brought them here are not or are never in unless they leave and get in line.

What is so hard about this?

She was active in Republican politics and liked military men.  I didn't know she was only 85.  She was history as long as I can remember.  She started so young:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Temple

Doug I hear you.

But,

The question is do enough people care?  If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls.  Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar.  Not in the penthouse.

I heard Rush for ten minutes today.  He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon.
He just realized none of this seems to matter.

"If you think Humana is brutal, wait until the feds really run healthcare."

In my experience this is not true.   

I worked for Humana.  On one hand they paid the bills.  On the other, they never let anyone know otherwise.  It was literally a battle between the patients and the insurer over coverage.   Every day and all day.  One of Humana's medical directors said point blank,  they [patients] are the enemy.  It is us against them.  Another Humana administrator said with a smile about someone who would not accept to go into hospice,  "look your dead, your dead, your dead".

The Feds are not as brutal (at least yet). 

But, I choose a free marketplace.  I don't wish for a Federal politburo controlling the entire healthcare industry. 

That said I am a squirt.  My thoughts are worthless in the real world as they are against anyone with political or financial connections or anyone with real world power and know how.

I recommend the National Geographic magazine subscription;  they sent me this email:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140203-skydive-felix-baumgartner-new-video-adventurer-space/?utm_source=NatGeocom&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=pom_20140209&utm_campaign=Content

"Tepid" "mild" applause - thus wrong message.  Perhaps he could say we will expand government to twice the give away rate and then would have had thundering applause. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/09/rand-paul-warns-his-former-home-state-texas-could-turn-blue/

They will soon and as Bolton said you think they are a pain now wait till they get them.