Sunday, August 25, 2019

FDA’s Lies, Fraud And Corruption


by Catherine J. Frompovich, Activist Post:

“’Gee, they relied on a fraud for this application; we should deny it;’ but the FDA Commissioner granted it and put Ketek into the market”!

The drug involved is the antimicrobial agent Sanofi-Aventis makes called Ketek®, which has been linked to dozens of cases of liver injury!

The New England Journal of Medicine published “The FDA and the Case of Ketek” by David B. Ross, MD, PhD, which readers ought to take the time to read to understand how FDA truly has become ‘the handmaiden’ of the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine makers collectively called Big Pharma!  The NEJM article states:

A routine FDA inspection of the practices of the physician who enrolled the most patients — more than 400 — uncovered fraud, including complete fabrication of patient enrollment. The inspector notified FDA criminal investigators, and the physician is currently serving a 57-month sentence in federal prison for her actions. Inspections of nine other sites enrolling high numbers of patients revealed serious violations of trial conduct, raising substantial concerns about the overall integrity of the study. In the end, 4 of the 10 inspected sites were referred for criminal investigation. [CJF emphasis]


According to Constitutional Attorney Jonathan W. Emord, the clinical trial for Ketek never happened; they made it up!  What kind of magical consensus science is the foremost industry in the world supposedly to protect and enhance health up to?  Fraud, fraud and more fraud!  Does that affect vaccines, too?  Does the bear you-know-what in the woods?

Against this backdrop of concerns about both safety and fraud, critical questions also arose about the efficacy of Ketek, which had been examined only in noninferiority trials

Nevertheless, the FDA approved Ketek entirely on the basis of noninferiority trials.  [NEJM]

In the following video, Attorney Emord discusses the Ketek fraud case, which ought to bring healthcare consumers to demand total reforms at FDA, if not its total dismantling in favor of a new federal agency totally free of Big Pharma influences—financial or otherwise, specifically the revolving door policy that exists between former employees of Big Pharma, FDA and the CDC.  Americans deserve better!

In another video, Attorney Emord is interviewed by Health Ranger Mike Adams regarding

Medical/Health/Drug Censorship Occurs in Countries that Regulate Drugs
An interview with Jonathan Emord, Esq. Apr. 27, 2010
The paradigm has to collapse because it’s contrary to scientific profusion of information in the literature.
Censorship literally sacrifices human life!

Read More @



by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept:

SCHOOLS ARE INCREASINGLY becoming fortresses: packed with metal detectors, police officers, and other countermeasures designed to counter the threat of a school shooter. Six states now even require mandatory active shooter drills.

In the wake of the tragedy of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, many local, state, and federal officials are responding by promoting an expansion of these measures — some, including the president, are even calling for arming teachers. One Democratic member of Congress in Georgia even suggested posting the National Guard outside of schools.

But ideally, policy should be proportionate to the danger faced. And that leaves us with a question: Are schools actually increasingly dangerous?

New research released this week by Northeastern University researchers shows that they aren’t.

Criminology professor James Alan Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel charted the path of mass shootings and school shootings over three decades, from 1992 to 2015. They used a variety of government and nonprofit data sources, including data collected by the FBI, USA Today, and Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates for gun reform. Their research is the basis of a chapter that will be published in an upcoming book on school violence, “The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education.”

They found that schools are actually increasingly free of mass shootings, which they define as a shooting in which four or more individuals are killed by firearms. “There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” Fox said in a statement about the research, noting that there were four times as many children shot and killed in schools in the early 1990s as today.

More children are killed every year drowning in pools or in bicycle accidents than in school shootings, Fox added. Over the past 25 years, around 10 students per year were killed in gunfire at school. To put that into perspective, in the fall of 2017, around 56 million students attended public and private public elementary and secondary schools.

In an interview with The Intercept, Fridel made clear that the researchers are not using this data to argue against all school safety measures, gun law reforms, or expanded access to mental health care. Their intent, rather, is to put the scope of the problem in the proper perspective — allowing for a reasoned response that doesn’t needlessly scare people or encroach on civil rights.

“A lot of the measures that people are suggesting such as increased gun control or increased mental health services — those are great ideas that we should do in general for looking at gun violence in America or mental health in America, but mass murders are so rare that they should not be driving policy,” Fridel said. “If you change gun laws, you’re likely not necessarily going to affect mass murders because they’re such unpredictable events. But it’s a worthwhile endeavor to work on changing gun laws in order to prevent more common incidents or single-victim shootings, whether or not they occur at a school.”

Mass shootings, as gruesome as they are, claim the lives of relatively few young people every year. In 2016, the Population Reference Bureau foundthat more adolescents die by suicide than homicide. (Accidents are the No. 1 cause of death.) Almost 1,300 children die annually from gunshot wounds; while a majority are killed in homicides, 38 percent of those deaths are a result of suicide.

Read More @

The IRS Comes for Bitcoin


by Jim Rickards, Daily Reckoning:

A lot of bitcoin advocates sold the idea that it was invisible to the IRS. Well, not really, I said all along. And now that’s becoming evident, as you’re about to see.

I was reminded of a story from about 15 years ago…

A Swiss banker loaded all of the confidential information on Americans with Swiss bank accounts that he could find onto a CD-ROM. He then flew to the United States and handed the information over to the U.S. Treasury and the FBI.

The banker was in trouble for helping Americans evade taxes, and this was his play to avoid prosecution. He blew the whistle on his clients. What ensued was a 10-year manhunt by U.S. tax authorities to find the tax evaders and many more whose information was not included on the original CD.

The U.S. played rough not by chasing the individuals but by putting pressure on the Swiss banks themselves. The big Swiss banks like UBS and Credit Suisse have huge capital markets and wealth management operations in the U.S. The U.S. told those banks they could either hand over the information or we would shut down their U.S. operations.

They handed it over.

Some of the tax evaders got lawyers, turned themselves in and paid their taxes (plus interest and penalties) to avoid jail time. Others waited and ended up in jail. Today, if you go to Switzerland and try to open a bank account, they will turn you away; they have zero interest in taking on U.S. clients.

Now something similar is happening in cryptocurrencies.

The bitcoin fans who mock the government and play “catch me if you can” are finding out the hard way that the U.S. government has the resources to track them to the ends of the earth.

The IRS is already demanding all records of cryptocurrency transactions from cryptocurrency exchanges including name, address, Social Security number and bank account information about their clients.

Consider the latest developments…

IRS Form 1099 is the form used to report most income other than regular wages that go on the W-2. The person paying the income — it could be a bank, broker or any supplier — files a copy of the 1099 with the IRS and sends one to the income recipient.

It’s the recipient’s job to report the income on their tax return. IRS computers match 100% of the 1099s they receive with what taxpayers put on their tax returns. It’s a kind of computerized audit. Those who don’t report the income may not get a knock on the door, but they will definitely receive an official letter asking the income recipient to explain the discrepancy.

Coinbase, a major U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange (not to be confused with Coincheck), just sent a Form 1099 to one of its customers identified only by the initial “K.”

K was initially freaked out even to be receiving a 1099 from a crypto exchange. What happened to the anonymity in the crypto world?

Apparently, it doesn’t exist, as I have been warning for years.

But when K read the 1099, it got even worse. It showed that he owed $2.4 million in taxes, despite his estimate that he only put $8,000 into cryptos. K has decided to sit tight in the belief that he does not owe the taxes.

Big mistake.

The IRS will take its copy of the 1099 from the exchange and assert that K does owe the taxes. The IRS puts the burden of proof on the taxpayer to show they don’t.

Read More @

The Pentagon’s “Ides of March”: Best Month to Go to War

by Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research:

Is it a coincidence?

In recent history, from the Vietnam war to the present, the month of March has been chosen by Pentagon and NATO military planners as the “best month” to go to war.

With the exception of the War on Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO and allied led military operations over a period of more than half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Ides of March (Idus Martiae) is a day in the Roman calendar which broadly corresponds to March 15.  The Ides of March is also known as the date on which Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC.

Lest we forget, the month of March (in the Roman Calendar) is dedicated to Mars (Martius), the Roman God of War.

For the Romans, the month of March (Martius) marked  “the time to start new military campaigns.”

As in the heyday of the Roman Empire, the US Department of Defense has a mandate to plan and implement a precise “timeline” of military operations.

Does the month of March –identified by the Romans as a “good time” to initiate new military undertakings–, have a bearing on contemporary military doctrine?

Throughout history, seasons including the transition from Winter to Spring have played a strategic role in the timing of military operations.

Do Pentagon military planners favor the month of March?

Do they also –in some mysterious fashion– “idolize” Mars, the Roman God of War?

March 23 (which coincides with the beginning of Spring) was the day “Romans celebrated the start of the military campaign and war fighting season.”

“Homage was paid to Mars the god of war with festivals and feasting. … For the Romans March 23 was a huge celebration known as Tubilustrium”.

Under these festivities which celebrated the Roman god of war,  a large part of the month of March “was dedicated to military celebration and preparedness.”

Timeline of March Military Interventions (1965- 2017)

Recent history confirms that with the exception of Afghanistan (October 2001) and the 1990-91 Gulf War, all major US-NATO led military operations over a period of almost half a century –since the invasion of Vietnam by US ground forces on March 8, 1965– have been initiated in the month of March.

The Vietnam War

The US Congress adopted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon Johnson to dispatch ground forces to Vietnam on March 8, 1965.

On 8 March 1965, 3,500 U.S. Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam marking the beginning of “America’s ground war”.

NATO’s War on Yugoslavia

NATO’s war on Yugoslavia was launched on March 24, 1999. 

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia code-named by the US Operation “Noble Anvil”. started on March 24, 1999 and lasted until June 10, 1999.

The Iraq War

The War on Iraq was launched on March 20, 2003. (Baghdad time)

The US-NATO led invasion of Iraq started on 20 March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

(The 1991 Gulf War on Iraq began on 17th January. However, after the 28th February ceasefire was agreed and signed – following the Basra Road massacre of withdrawing soldiers and fleeing civilians on 26th/27th February – the US 24th Mechanised Infantry Division slaughtered thousands on 2nd March.“)

The Covert War on Syria

The US-NATO Covert War on Syria was initiated on March 15, 2011 with the incursion of Islamist mercenaries and death squads in the southern city of Daraa on the border with Jordan. The terrorists were involved in acts of arson as well as the killings of civilians. This incursion of terrorists was from the very outset supported covertly by the US, NATO and its Persian Gulf allies: Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

NATO’s “Humanitarian” R2P War on Libya

NATO commenced its bombing of Libya on March 19, 2011.  The United Nations Security Council passed an initial resolution on 26 February 2011 (UNSC Resolution 1970), (adopted unanimously).

A subsequent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted on 17 March 2011. It authorized the establishment of “a no-fly zone” over Libya, and the use “all necessary measures” “to protect the lives of civilians”.

Libya was bombed relentlessly by NATO warplanes starting on March 19, 2011 for a period of approximately seven months.


On 25 March 2015, an international coalition led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the US launched air strikes against the Huthi armed group in Yemen.


The US and its NATO allies, not to mention Israel, are on a war footing.

Several military scenarios are currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon including Lebanon, North Korea and Iran.

We cannot speculate, however, regarding US-NATO war plans pertaining to the Ides of March 2018.

But for your information here is the latest New York Times (Feb 27) “authoritative” analysis of how North Korea is helping the Syrian government to wage a chemical war against the Syrian people. Nice and not fake, timely (Ides of March) and of course “carefully documented”  by the Newspaper of Record.

Read More @

Florida high school active shooter drill: Video tells all


by Lexi Morgan, Intellihub:

What really happened in Parkland and who is responsible?

(INTELLIHUB) — For those out there who don’t think that active shooter drills and crisis actors are real here’s one report explaining how thirteen such active shooter drills were conducted by one Florida school district in just the past year alone.

As NBC News 5 reports, many students and facility who were at Majority Stoneman Douglas High School during the Valentine’s Day shooting thought it was just a drill after they were told in advance that role-players would be conducting a fake ‘code red’ which is an active shooter scenario.

The exclusive footage obtained by NBC News shows an active shooter drill in which blanks and fake blood were used by students and crisis actors to simulate a code red.

“Cause’ they told us they were going to have like fake, you know, like people being taken away and like have them scream,” one student who attends Majority Stoneman Douglas H.S. told NBC News 5 on the day of the shooting. “They must be fake, like a drill.”

Several other students, a Freshman named Crystal Lanham, and Sophmore Alexis McCourt, participated in one of the thirteen active shooter drills in which McCourt was shot with blanks in the face and had to play dead, fake blood and all.

“I saw the gunman like right in front of me and then I stopped and I meant to run but I was kinda frozen in my spot and he shot me and I died,” McCourt explained. “So.”

Could the Parkland shooting have been just a drill? Did the police load live ammunition instead of blanks or did another element capitalize on the drill and take it live?

Read More @

Trump: “Take The Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second”


by Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost:

This is not only a really, really bad idea, it’s a totally unconstitutional one on several fronts.

Well, now it should be very clear to anyone who voted for President Donald Trump on which side of the Constitution and the Second Amendment he is actually on.  The man who claimed, “The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedomshas come to a crashing end,” to the NRA, and added, “You have a true friend and champion in the White House” is now attacking the very rights protected in that Amendment, as well as the rights protected in the Fifth Amendment head on.

President Trump has already violated his oath of office on several occasions, but recently, he’s done it with attack on the Second Amendment, targeting bump stocks for ban (something that wouldn’t stop a single shooting) and calling on Congress to raise the minimum age to obtain a rifle (something that wouldn’t stop a single shooting either).  No authority is given in our Constitution to Congress to restrict or regulate arms at all.  It certainly is not provided to the Executive Branch.

On Wednesday, Trump took a step further, not only attacking the Second Amendment, but also the Fifth in the process.

Trump threw his support behind another Manchin-Toomey bill, and we know both of those guys suffered a humiliating defeat under Obama for their gun grabbing legislation.

However, following comments from Vice President Mike Pence, who was claiming the DC could somehow give help to local law enforcement and families in taking weapons from people considered “a danger to others or themselves,” the president spoke up and completely went anti-Constitutional.

“I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

No, Mr. Trump.  You have due process of law, Sir.  Then, and only then, may you lawfully deny rights.  Trump took an oath to uphold this part of 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 offence 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.

Read More @

Why is Google/YouTube taking down these videos and threatening the sites that post them?


by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

Scroll down this URL to the last video of the blond female student at Parkland, Alexa Miednik. She says she walked out of the building with the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, while shots were still occuring in other parts of the building.

This Parkland teacher, Stacy Lippel, describes the shooter as police in full armor that Lippel also says the shooting was occuring after the fire alarm went off. Isn’t the official story that Cruz pulled the fire alarm after his rampage was over so that he could escape by walking out with the other students?

How did Cruz get rid of his full armor in time to walk out of the building with Alexa Miednik?

Why is David Hogg, the suspected crisis actor, the witness of choice of the presstitutes and not Alexa Miednik and Stacy Lippel? Hogg can’t seem to remember his lines:

Who do we believe, the eyewitness students and teachers, or the authorities and presstitutes, who never tell the truth.

Read More @

Why we’re calling for the regulation of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to halt malicious censorship and create a fair platform for public debate


by Mike Adams, Natural News:

Today, I’m calling for the government regulation of Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to halt these tech giants’ nefarious, malicious censorship, “shadow banning” and blacklisting of independent media content.

The focus of this regulation is not to order tech giants what content they must allow, but rather to enforce a level content playing field so that a free society can engage in debate, discussion and independent journalism without the constant threat of being bullied, blacklisted or shadow banned by the internet’s wildly biased, left-wing gatekeepers.

In essence, we need “content neutrality” enforcement that prohibits these tech giants from punishing or censoring content simply because the psychologically fragile “crybully” employees who work at those companies can’t handle a point of view they don’t like. Sadly, over the last several years as cultural lunacy has taken over the liberal landscape, tech giants like Google have descended into delusional left-wing cults, dominated by totalitarian weirdos and deranged techno-loonies who believe they alone have the right to determine what content the public sees. (Read details of Google’s bizarre, delusional dystopitardian work environment from James Damore’s shocking lawsuit.)

This was underscored recently when YouTube began wholesale banning or blacklisting of accounts that dared to question the official (false) narrative of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting. Any video that dared to state confirmed facts such as sheriff’s deputies being ordered to stand down was subjected to extra scrutiny and, often, an outright ban.

When tech giants protect one point of view while banning all opposing views, that’s extremely dangerous to any free society

The fact that YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter are now picking one point of view while banning all contradictory content is not merely unfair, but dangerous to any democratic society. Who decides which point of view is the “correct” one? How does YouTube glean divine truth in order to justify such decisions in the first place?

More importantly, what is the cost to democracy when one side of every debate is never allowed to participate in any real discussion? Can democracy even exist in such an ecosystem where merely asking unpopular questions gets you permanently silenced and blocked from public discourse? (Answer: The tech giants are following in the footsteps of totalitarian regimes, not freedom-oriented democracies or republics. They despise real debate for the simple reason that the irrational Left can never win any real debates if they’re rooted in facts and reason. Their only remaining tactic is to silence their opposition and thus “win” the argument by eliminating any disagreement.)

The fact that YouTube and other tech giants so easily and quickly decided they had the sole right to banish unpopular views without any real justification proves just how dangerous these techno-monopolies have become. They have now demonstrated they’re willing to exploit and abuse their positions of power in order to systematically suppress information for purely political reasons which have nothing at all to do with genuine violations of “community guidelines.” In essence, YouTube and other tech companies have decided that a “community violation” means “anything with which we disagree.” That’s not merely irresponsible; it’s dangerous.

The First Amendment protects speech from GOVERNMENT oppression, but not censorship inflicted by powerful corporations

The First Amendment was written to protect Americans from totalitarian government that might seek to abolish the right of an individual to express their own thoughts, ideas or religion. Unfortunately, the First Amendment does not restrict politically-motivated censorship by tech companies which are now more powerful than governments in terms of shaping the public debate “ecosystem.” It’s now clear from the nefarious actions of the technology giants that First Amendment-like protections need to be extended to include protections from the oppression of free speech inflicted by technology corporations.

Because of a lack of such protections, myself and nearly every other member of the independent media have all been victims of deliberate, malicious, underhanded actions by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter to silence our views. We’ve all been shadow banned, blacklisted, punished, demonetized or selectively targeted in acts that can only be called severe civil rights violations by the technology giants. These are malicious acts that surely qualify as criminal assaults on the civil rights of individuals, yet they continue to be carried out right now, seemingly immune to government regulation or lawsuits that merely seek content fairness.

Ultimately, I believe that every conservative voice or independent media content creator who has been targeted by these malicious censorship actions should take part in a nationwide class action lawsuit that demands billions in damages from the nefarious, deliberate violations of civil rights that have been maliciously carried out by our nation’s most powerful technology firms. Class action lawsuit discovery would no doubt prove that Google, Facebook and Twitter have systematically and maliciously targeted content solely for reasons of political bias, and that they sought to conceal their malicious agenda through the use of “shadow banning” or search algorithm tweaking that was configured specifically to punish conservative or independent content producers. (Eric Schmidt, for example, has been named the mastermind behind the Clinton-coordinated “fake news” narrative that further sought to silence and blacklist independent media sources.)

Google is EVIL, and it’s time to defeat evil across the ‘net

Simply stated, Google is pure evil. Facebook is evil. Twitter is evil. Worse yet, they are malicious in their intent, demonstrating no regard whatsoever for the very fabric of a democratic nation which is rendered utterly unsustainable when the voices of half the citizens are silenced by decree. If these techno-tyrants are capable of such dangerous abuse of power that threatens the very fabric of our society, they must be heavily regulated and exposed for their vile Orwellian tactics.

Read More @

Armed and Dangerous: If Police Don’t Have to Protect the Public, What Good Are They?


by John Whitehead, Rutherford Institute:

In the American police state, police have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.

In fact, police don’t usually need much incentive to shoot and kill members of the public.

Police have shot and killed Americans of all ages—many of them unarmed—for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

So when police in Florida had to deal with a 19-year-old embarking on a shooting rampage inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., what did they do?


There were four armed police officers, including one cop who was assigned to the school as a resource officer, on campus during that shooting. All four cops stayed outside the school with their weapons drawn (three of them hid behind their police cars).

Not a single one of those cops, armed with deadly weapons and trained for exactly such a dangerous scenario, entered the school to confront the shooter.

Seventeen people, most of them teenagers, died while the cops opted not to intervene.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now before your outrage bubbles over, consider that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed (most recently in 2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect members of the public from harm.

Yes, you read that correctly.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, police have no duty, moral or otherwise, to help those in trouble, protect individuals from danger, or risk their own lives to save “we the people.”

In other words, you can be outraged that cops in Florida did nothing to stop the school shooter, but technically, it wasn’t part of their job description.

This begs the question: if the police don’t have a duty to protect the public, what are we paying them for? And who exactly do they serve if not you and me?

Why do we have more than a million cops on the taxpayer-funded payroll in this country whose jobs do not entail protecting our safety, maintaining the peace in our communities, and upholding our liberties?

Why do we have more than a million cops who have been fitted out in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making?

I’ll tell you why.

It’s the same reason why the Trump Administration has made a concerted effort to expand the police state’s power to search, strip, seize, raid, steal from, arrest and jail Americans for any infraction, no matter how insignificant.

This is no longer a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

It is fast becoming a government “of the rich, by the elite, for the corporations,” and its rise to power is predicated on shackling the American taxpayer to a life of indentured servitude.

Cops in America may get paid by the citizenry, but they don’t work for us.

They don’t answer to us. They’re not loyal to us.

And they certainly aren’t operating within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.

That “thin, blue line” of loyalty to one’s fellow cops has become a self-serving apparatus that sees nothing wrong with advancing the notion that the lives—and rights—of police should be valued more than citizens.

The myth of the hero cop really is a myth.

Cops are no more noble, no more self-sacrificing, no braver and certainly no more deserving of special attention or treatment than any other American citizen.

This misplaced patriotism about police and, by extension, the military—a dangerous re-shifting of the nation’s priorities that has been reinforced by President Trump with his unnerving knack for echoing past authoritarian tactics—paves the way for even more instability in the nation.

Welcome to the American police state, funded by Corporate America, policed by the military industrial complex, and empowered by politicians whose primary purpose is to remain in office.

It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from the police state we’re operating under right now to a full-blown totalitarian regime ruled with the iron fist of martial law.

The groundwork has already been laid.

Read More @

Why U.S. GDP Hasn’t Really Increased Since 2000


by Steve St. Angelo, SRSrocco:

While official sources forecast U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to surpass $20 trillion this year, the real figure is probably much less.  So how much less is real U.S. GDP?  Well, that depends on how it is measured.  If we factor in energy consumption and the increase in total public debt, U.S. GDP is likely less than half of the current figure.

Yes, it sounds insane to say that the current U.S. GDP is likely overstated by at least 50%, but if we go by fundamental data, it isn’t that crazy at all.  Unfortunately, Americans have been conditioned to believe that money grows on trees and energy comes from the Wizard of Oz.  Thus, if we need more money, then the U.S. Treasury can print more Federal Reserve Notes, or we can swipe the credit card.  And, if we need electricity, we just switch on the light.  Easy… Peasy.

Due to the highly complex nature of the world in which we live in today, the individual is clueless as to the tremendous amount of energy and work that it takes to produce the foods we eat and the goods, energy, and materials we consume.  So, it should be no surprise that U.S. GDP can be overstated by 50%+.

If we go by the data that shows the growth of Global GDP is related to the growth of Global Oil Supply, then it is very quite easy to spot inflated GDP figures.  However, you have to be able to understand this essential ENERGY=GDP relationship.  Of course, this is not taught in business or economic classes in high school or college. Instead, the economic teachers focus on the insane theory of SUPPLY vs. DEMAND.  If individuals are taught GARBAGE, then their thinking and reasoning is GARBAGE.  So, we really can’t blame them.

In looking at the following chart by Gail Tverberg, the increase in Global GDP corresponds to the rise in Global Oil Supply:

As the annual growth percentage of World Oil Supply declined in the periods shown in the chart above, the same trend took place in World GDP.  If we can understand the OIL-GDP relationship figures in the chart, then it is impossible for a country to grow its GDP if it does not increase its energy consumption.

A perfect example of a country that increased both its energy consumption and GDP, is China.  We can clearly see that as China’s total energy consumption increased from 2000 to 2011, so did its GDP:

Read More @



by Adam Salazar, Infowars:

‘Name names on stage or shut the hell up!’ another billboard reads

Billboards have been installed in Hollywood shaming hypocrites who covered up for sexual deviants ahead of the 90th Academy Awards.

Street artist Sabo launched a “Three Billboards” offensive Wednesday calling out Hollywood stars who kept silent about sexual exploitation in the industry.

“We all knew and still no arrests,” one billboard reads.

Read More @