Is the "1 Percent" Becoming the "2 Percent"? Reply

By Colin Liddell.


Not every Occupy Wall Street protester is trying to relive the 1960s. At least some want to return to the 1360s, or some other lost decade from the Middle Ages, when public consciousness of ethnic patterns in the world of credit and finance was not so repressed.

Unlike middle-class White protesters, who know better than to make such appalling faux pas, this slightly over-articulate Catholic mulatto gentleman has no reservations about joining the dots in this very public fashion.

Note how the reporter, who is apparently from Glenn Beck TV, tries to lure him into saying something we can all safely abhor. At 3:09 he asks, “So would you advocate something special, attacks or something, on just Jewish billionaires?”

What OWS is Saying Reply

By Richard Spencer.


I instinctively dislike “Occupy Wall Street,” and its primitive, let’s hold-hands-with-the-99%” egalitarianism. That said, it’s hard not to conclude that the OWSs have a more penetrating critique of the American elite than the Tea Party.

The Evil 1% Reply

Article by Lew Rockwell.


The “occupy” protest movement is thriving off the claim that the 99% are being exploited by the 1%, and there is truth in what they say. But they have the identities of the groups wrong. They imagine that it is the 1% of highest wealth holders who are the problem. In fact, that 1% includes some of the smartest, most innovative people in the country – the people who invent, market, and distribute material blessings to the whole population. They also own the capital that sustains productivity and growth.

But there is another 1% out there, those who do live parasitically off the population and exploit the 99%. Moreover, there is a long intellectual tradition, dating back to the late middle ages that draws attention to the strange reality that a tiny minority lives off the productive labor of the overwhelming majority.

I’m speaking of the State, which even today is made up of a tiny sliver of the population, but is the direct cause of all the impoverishing wars, inflation, taxes, regimentation, and social conflict. This 1% is the direct cause of the violence, the censorship, the unemployment, and vast amounts of poverty, too.


U.S. Embassy warns of imminent terror threat in Kenya Reply

Hide under you bed.



Kenyan soldiers pursue Islamic militants near Liboi, Somalia, on October 18.
Kenyan soldiers pursue Islamic militants near Liboi, Somalia, on October 18.

  • The embassy urges citizens to consider deferring travel
  • Kenya has sent troops across the border into Somalia to pursue suspected Islamic militants
  • Recent abductions of tourists and aid workers in Kenya have heightened tensions

Nairobi, Kenya (CNN) — The U.S. Embassy in Kenya warned it has credible information of an imminent terror attack, days after the east African nation announced it is sending troops to Somalia to battle Islamist militants.

The attack is likely to target places that foreigners congregate in Kenya, including malls and night clubs, the embassy said.

The U.S.Embassy did not offer details on who might carry out such an attack, but said it has taken measures to limit official U.S. government visits. It urged its citizens to consider deferring travel to Kenya.

The warning comes after Kenya sent troops across the border into Somalia to pursue Islamist Al-Shabaab militants. The terror group has threatened Kenya with retaliatory attacks, saying it considers the forces’ incursion an affront to Somalia’s sovereignty.

Al-Shabaab, which is linked to al Qaeda and has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, is fighting to impose its own interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, on Somalia.


U.S. Government Creates 500 Jobs……. Reply

… Finland.

This is the kind of stuff I will bring up when debating with friends of a conservative, Republican, pro-war, “patriotic” perspective. Their typical refrain will be something like: “Don’t you want your country to be a superpower? Don’t you want to live in the most powerful nation on Earth? Don’t you know that without the military the other countries will take us over?”‘

To which I will respond: ‘With a government like this, why worry about a foreign occupation?”


ABC’s Brian Ross on Friday investigated a $500 million government loan to a car company that is now operating in Finland. Ross highlighted how Vice President Joe Biden in 2009 claimed this would create jobs in America. Yet, the Good Morning America reporter left out a key component for the network version of the story: Fisker, the European car company involved, have ties to big Obama campaign bundlers.

Ross began the segment by explaining to viewers: “[Henrik] Fisker got a federal loan two years ago of more than $500 million, with Vice President Joseph Biden saying the company would employ auto workers in his home state, Delaware.” Yet, the 500 jobs created are in Finland, not the United States.  [See video below. MP3 audio here.]


Are You Owned by the Government? Reply

Article by Andrew Napolitano.


Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? If the government exists to serve us and if freedom is part of our humanity, how can the government take freedom from us? Tonight, is human freedom in America a myth, or is it reality?

Today is the release date of my newest book, It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong. This is my sixth book. All have been about human freedom and the government’s failure to protect it. In all my previous works, I’ve emphasized the theme that all human beings possess natural rights as part of our humanity. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, we view these rights as gifts from our Creator. This is particularly so if you are an American, and if you mark the founding of this nation at July 4th 1776, as it was then that the Continental Congress promulgated in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson’s immortal – though hardly novel – words to the effect that we humans are all created equal, and we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Stated differently, I have argued in my work at Fox News, as a judge, as a lawyer, as an author, lecturer, and law school professor that our basic human liberties – thought, speech, press, worship, travel, privacy, association, self defense, bodily integrity, dominion over ownership of property, fairness from the government, and the presumption of liberty at all times under all circumstances and in all conflicts – are the essence of humanity. If you read the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments of the Constitution – you will see that the theme of my other works, and of this book, was pretty much accepted by the Framers. As I recount in this new book, they, like I, were skeptical of Big Government. Some, like Patrick Henry and George Mason, were, like I am, skeptical of all government. Historians have speculated that Jefferson originally planned to use the concept of property ownership in that iconic litany of human rights, but he feared that addressing slavery in the same document in which he had characterized the long train of abuses visited upon the colonists by the king of England would have opened the Declaration and its signers to charges of hypocrisy. Nevertheless, Talmudic and Christian scholars, and renowned skeptics, even atheists and deists, had long held, by Jefferson’s time, that the divine right of kings was a myth, that all humans own their own bodies, and that personal freedoms are integral to those bodies. Whether the ultimate source of human freedom is found in theology or biology, freedom exists, freedom is ours by nature, and the long history of the world is really one unceasing, increasing catalogue of the epic battles for personal freedoms against government tyranny. 


Moammar Gadhafi, R.I.P. Reply

Article by Justin Raimondo.


The grisly scenes of Gadhafi’s body being dragged through the streets of Sirte, and the unseemly celebrations of the Libyan dictator’s death in the Western media, are enough to make any decent person wince. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, and I hold no brief for him or his works, but is this kind of savagery really what we want to see in the “new” Libya?

Whether or not we want it, it is coming: the crew in charge of that unfortunate nation is no better, and perhaps worse, than Gadhafi. The fate of the rebels’ former commander-in-chief, Abdul Fatah Younis, prefigures a revolution that eats its own, and the ferocity of that revolutionary fervor is hardly abated.

Gadhafi loyalists include the largest tribe in the country, and after the smoke clears and the new regime extends its grip over dissident pockets of resistance, nostalgia for the relatively peaceful days of Gadhafi’s reign is more than likely to set in. Worse, the arsenals of the Libyan military have been systematically looted, with missiles and other sophisticated weaponry falling into the hands of radical Islamist militias. These militias are not fringe elements in the Libyan revolution, but rather they are in charge, with one of their number taking the place of the slain Younis as head of the rebel “armed forces.”

Indeed, the rebels’ military leadership consists largely of members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which is still prominently featured on our official list of designated terrorist organizations. Now we are allied with them — under a new name, the “National Transitional Council” – and US taxpayer dollars are pouring into their coffers. That money will be used to consolidate the rebels’ rule, a regime that promises to be every bit as repressive as the one that preceded it – albeit friendly, at least at first, to its Western sponsors.

There are several lessons to be learned from this episode. The first is directed at those anti-American despots still left standing in the region, and it is this: make no concessions. Gadhafi, it will be recalled, had his Great Reconciliation with the Western powers, earning Tony Blair’s and Gordon Brown’s imprimatur in the process – and look where it landed him. This lesson is not lost on Bashar al-Assad, the beleaguered Syrian dictator, nor is it lost on pro-American despots, like the King of Bahrain, the Saudis, and any of the other pro-Western crowned thugs who lord it over their long-oppressed peoples. What these royals have learned from the example of Gadhafi’s – and Mubarak’s – fall is not to expect any help from Washington if they suddenly find themselves hiding in a drain pipe. Quite the contrary: they can fully expect to feel the wrath of the West, as it sides with the rebels and calls in its drones to rain death from the skies.


The War on Drugs Has Become the War on the American People Reply

Article by John W. Whitehead.


“On July 29, 2008, my family and I were terrorized by an errant Prince George’s County SWAT team. This unit forced entry into my home without a proper warrant, executed our beloved black Labradors, Payton and Chase, and bound and interrogated my mother-in-law and me for hours as they ransacked our belongings… As I was forced to kneel, bound at gun point on my living room floor, I recall thinking that there had been a terrible mistake. However, as I have learned more, I have to understand that what my family and I experience is part of a growing and troubling trend where law enforcement is relying on SWAT teams to perform duties once handled by ordinary police officers.”

~ Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo in testimony before the Maryland Senate

Insisting that the “damage done by drugs is felt far beyond the millions of Americans with diagnosable substance abuse or dependence problems,” President Obama has declared October 2011 to be National Substance Abuse Prevention Month. However, while drug abuse and drug-related crimes have unquestionably taken a toll on American families and communities, the government’s own War on Drugs has left indelible scars on the population.

Indeed, although the Obama administration has shied away from using the phrase “War on Drugs,” its efforts to crack down on illicit drug use – especially marijuana use – have not abated. Just consider – every 19 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for violating a drug law. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for violating a marijuana law, making it the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States.

So far this year, approximately 1,313,673 individuals have been arrested for drug-related offenses. Police arrested an estimated 858,408 persons for marijuana violations in 2009. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent were charged with possession only. Moreover, since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year, with about 25 percent sentenced for drug law violations.

The foot soldiers in the government’s increasingly fanatical war on drugs, particularly marijuana, are state and local police officers dressed in SWAT gear and armed to the hilt. These SWAT teams carry out roughly 50,000 no-knock raids every year in search of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. As author and journalist Radley Balko reports, “The vast majority of these raids are to serve routine drug warrants, many times for crimes no more serious than possession of marijuana… Police have broken down doors, screamed obscenities, and held innocent people at gunpoint only to discover that what they thought were marijuana plants were really sunflowers, hibiscus, ragweed, tomatoes, or elderberry bushes. (It’s happened with all five.)”


The Stark Truth: Interview with Michael Parish 1

 Listen to the interview here.

Robert Stark interviews Michael Parish. Topics include:

  • The origins & psychology of modern liberalism;
  • Alternatives to liberalism after the system’s decline;
  • The reasons for the Right‘s current malaise;
  • Activist strategies;
  • The American New Right;
  • Economic and political alternatives.

Michael Parish is an independent journalist and blogger based in Appleton, Wisconsin, specializing in race, political science, and the psychology of social and political movements.


Noam Chomsky, anarchist, on the impossibility of anarchism Reply

Article by Charles Davis.

I’ll always respect Noam as the leading critic of U.S. foreign policy during the latter Cold War period. He also has a much better understanding of the relationship between the state and business power than many leftists do.  He rejects the “Israel exception” ethos that many Jewish-American leftists seem to hold to. I’ve corresponded with him and like him personally as well. That said, we need much better spokespeople for the anarchist perspective than Chomsky with his “anarcho-social democratic” outlook. Anarchism is more than just leftism and it is certainly more than just anti-capitalism.


After my last typically tedious post about Noam Chomsky, a blogger friend who took issue with my taking issue with the professor — meaning he’s of course now dead to me — sent along another interview with the Chomster on what anarchism means to him. To clear up any misconceptions: I realize Chomsky is well aware of the corporate-state nexus. My issue is not his analysis of the status quo, but his solution to it, which he reiterates yet again in this excerpt:

Q: As far as we favor a stateless society in the long run, it would be a mistake to work for the elimination — I’ve said that it would be a mistake to work for the elimination of the state in the short run, and we should be trying to strengthen the state, ’cause it’s needed on the check of power of large corporations. Yet the tendency of a lot of anarchist research — my own, too — is to show that the power of large corporations derives from state privilege, and governments tend to get captured by concentrated private interests. That would seem to imply that the likely beneficiaries of a more powerful state is going to be the same corporate elite we’re trying to oppose. So if business both derives from the state and is so good at capturing the state, why isn’t abolishing the state a better strategy for defeating business power than enhancing the state’s power would be?

Chomsky: Well, there’s a very simple answer to that: it’s not a strategy, and since it’s not a strategy at all, there can’t be a better strategy. The strategy of “eliminating the state” is back on the level of “let’s have peace and justice”. How do you proceed to eliminate the state? Okay? Can you think of a way of doing it? I mean, if there were a way of doing it in the existing world, everything would collapse and be destroyed. You just can’t do it. I mean, there is nothing to replace it. If there was a rich, powerful network of, you know, cooperatives, community organizations, worker-controlled industry, you know, extending over the whole country, and the whole world, in fact, yeah, then you can talk about eliminating states. But to talk about eliminating the state in the world as it exists is simply to keep yourself in some remote academic seminar or small group, you know, saying, “Gee, this would be nice.” It’s not a strategy, so there can’t be a better strategy. We are faced with realities. What is described here, and in fact it’s true (I’ve written plenty about it, too), is that we have a number of systems of power, closely interlinked. One of them’s corporate power, business power. That’s by far the most dangerous of all. That means, effectively, unaccountable private tyrannies. A second, pretty closely linked to them, is state power. And the comment is correct (as the commentator says, I’ve written about it, too, a lot) that state power tends to be overwhelmingly influenced by concentrated private power.

Hey, Noam: You’re an anarchist, bro! So why are you so condescendingly dismissive of strategies to eliminate the state? Peace and justice are also long-term, elusive goals, and yet we strive for them anyway — and, importantly, we do so not by advocating more conflicts and instances of injustice, politicians and professional pundits excepted. Fighting wars to end war hasn’t turned out so well and, mock though you may the smash-the-state crowd, Noam, increasing the power of the institution with a legal monopoly on the use of violence, the state, as part of a strategy to eventually abolish it — which, if Chomsky’s anarchism is anything more than intellectual pose, we can only assume is his goal as well — is fraught with the same error in logic.

That is not to say corporate power is not a great evil. It undoubtedly is. But it is an evil enabled by the institution of the state; when I rail against the latter, I am railing against the former. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that the target of my blogging wrath is the corporate-state nexus Chomsky identifies, for without the coercion and legal cover government currently provides in the form of everything from the police and military to intellectual property and the tax code, corporations as we know them could not exist.

Argue all you want about which is the greater evil, but it’s about as useful as debating which came first, the chicken or the egg. Atomic weapons, for example, may be built by nominally private companies, but it’s the U.S. government that provides the tax money that makes them possible — and the only institution that has actually used them. Private prisons may be evil, but it is the state that fills them with prisoners. Rather than adversarial, the corporate-state relationship is symbiotic.

Chomsky’s own work shows this, which is why I find it all the more irksome he chooses to argue against what seems to me an anarchist strawman. There may be a few anarchists who would like to smash the state tomorrow, but most that I’ve come across believe an anarchist society can only come about after the long-term process of creating a society of anarchists and the building up of institutions, like cooperatives and mutual aid associations, built on consensus, not coercion. We talk about eliminating the state because that is a long-term goal to strive for, like peace and justice, not because it’s something we think can or should happen overnight.

Yet all Chomsky seems to have is disdain for the mere talk of a stateless society as he argues against an anarchist caricature, falsely suggesting those anarchists who do not share his opinion on the wisdom of increasing state power would like to keep intact all the corporate privileges it provides; as if their enemy is corporate taxes, not corporate personhood.

And while Chomksy casts himself as wisely pragmatic, the more I read about his solutions the more I find them naive and indistinguishable from those offered by a standard-issue liberal. Indeed, later in the interview excerpted above he even bemoans the loss of the loathsome Martha Coakley in the Massachussets Senate race a few years back, complaining that the electorate yet again voted against its own self-interest — as if the Democrats, and former prosecutor no less, favor anything more than a marginally more subtle assault on those interests.

If one wants to be pragmatic, there are many ways a philosophical anarchist can act that don’t depend on the dubious notion of short-term increases in state power. Economist Dean Baker details this in his new book, from patent reform to removing tax loopholes, and I’d argue they’re at least as politically viable as instituting a the type of national health care system Chomsky favors. Indeed, when Democrats took back the White House and both chambers of Congress and had the opportunity to implement that very health care reform, which Chomsky accurately notes enjoys broad public support, they instead turned around and only increased the power of pharmaceutical giants and corporate insurance providers, even mandating the purchase of the latter’s products.

And that illustrates a key point: increasing the power of the state, as the individual insurance mandate indisputably does, has historically been accompanied not by a decrease in corporate power, but an expansion of it. Just as wars for peace have only led to more wars, expansions of state power often enable only greater economic exploitation. While the state may be subject to influence as Chomsky contends, it’s those with the most money who tend to do most of the influencing — and who in turn use the state to ensure their power is not subject to the nuisance of labor unions and general strikes.

So who’s really naive: the person who wants to limit corporate power by decreasing the power of the state, historically its chief enabler, or the one who believes that this time around the power of the state can be harnessed for good — and that the road to a less coercive society depends on increasing the power of an institution whose unique feature is its legal monopoly on coercion?

Gar Alperovitz on the Evolutionary Reconstruction strategy for social change Reply

Article by Michel Bauwens.


In Dissent magazine, Gar Alperovitz proposes and describes a political/policy strategy for radical change, which is based neither reform within the system (reformism), nor replacement of the system (revolution), but transformation within the system through the use of innovative institutional frameworks.

Below, we excerpt the part of the essay explaining the strategy, with two examples.

Gar Alperovitz:

“For over a century, liberals and radicals have seen the possibility of change in capitalist systems from one of two perspectives: the reform tradition assumes that corporate institutions remain central to the system but believes that regulatory policies can contain, modify, and control corporations and their political allies. The revolutionary tradition assumes that change can come about only if corporate institutions are eliminated or transcended during an acute crisis, usually but not always by violence.

But what happens if a system neither reforms nor collapses in crisis?

Quietly, a different kind of progressive change is emerging, one that involves a transformation in institutional structures and power, a process one could call “evolutionary reconstruction”.

Traditional liberalism, dependent on expensive federal policies and strong labor unions, is moribund. The government no longer has much capacity to use progressive taxation to achieve the goal of equity or to regulate corporations effectively. Congressional deadlocks on such matters are the rule, not the exception. At the same time, ongoing economic stagnation or mild upturns followed by further decay, and “real” unemployment rates in the 15 percent to 16 percent range appear more likely than a return to booming economic times.


Detroit as the Exemplar of the Next Revolution Reply

Article by Michel Bauwens.


Boggs sees Detroit as the forefront of changes sweeping the industrialized world. Once the front line of industrialization, Detroit could be the model of what the future of the deindustrialized world looks like. That thought has led her to work on seemingly small projects in Detroit neighborhoods. For instance, she sees urban gardening as the beginning of a major shift in the way we feed ourselves as well as a way to connect generations in a widely inclusive movement.

Excerpted from a profile in the Metro Times on the occasion of her new bookThe Next American Revolution Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century. Grace Boggs is a famous activist, now 95. See also the wonderful video lecture below.

(here is another background article about what is happening in Detroit)

Excerpts from Larry Gabriel:

“Grace, a widow recently turned 95, is the leader of the nonprofit Boggs Center, headquartered at her home, which is the hub around which a number of efforts — Detroit Summer, the Allied Media Project, Detroit City of Hope, the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality and others — maintain their philosophical grounding and connection to a broader, growing movement in Detroit.

Boggs’ revolution is not a call to seize political power from the government. “A cultural revolution has begun to take place,” says Boggs. “It’s a phenomenon as historic and as far-reaching as the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, and from agriculture to industry. Now we’re at the heart of a change from industry to a world where people work not so much at jobs. Work is something that we do to develop skills as much as to produce goods and services. We’re so used to the idea that we work in order to make money, but that’s not why people have worked throughout history and that’s the kind of way we’re going now. It provides a very different perspective of revolution. It’s not about seizing state power to plan the economy.


Yet Another Crack in the PC Coalition Reply

An African-American public school teacher in New Jersey comes under attack for negative comments about gays. 


UNION TOWNSHIP, N.J. (The Blaze/AP) — The husband of an embattled, New Jersey high school teacher accused of posting anti-gay messages on her Facebook page is defending his wife’s comments.

Gene Knox told WCBS-TV in New York that “everybody’s entitled to an opinion.” He also told the station: “They can persecute her but they can’t prosecute her.”

As The Blaze reported on Tuesday, his wife, Viki Knox, is a Christian who holds views on gays that relate to her personal faith. The comments she posted clearly indicated this, as they focused upon her view that homosexuality as a sin. Below, see the WCBS interview for yourself:


Gaddafi and American Empire Reply

Article by Richard Spencer.


In some ways, I’m glad that Colonel Gaddafi has (apparently, at least) been captured and killed in his hometown of Sirte by the barbaric hordes that he had kept at bay for so long. I don’t say this because I have much hope for the democratic dawn in Libya. Indeed, my guess is that one of two outcomes are most likely under the new leadership:

1) The rebels become Washington’s puppets, who make sure that the oil flows (and gets denominated in U.S. dollars), enrich themselves through foreign aid, hold onto power by their fingernails, and become justly reviled by their people;

2) The rebels begin slitting each others’ throats, and the country swiftly descends into failed-state status.

Instead, I am somewhat gladdened by the reported outcome because there is a certain heroism to Gaddafi’s demise, which would have been lost were he to live out his life in secluded exile. We can now remember Gaddafi in happier times, when he cut the figure of a dashing dictator.


But what does it all mean? Here are three perspectives:


Another Crack in the PC Coalition? 3

An African-American public school teacher in L.A. is fired for anti-Zionist comments.


Patricia McAllister, a substitute teacher in Los Angeles was recently caught making the following anti-Semitic statement at the Occupy Los Angeles protest:

“Patricia McAllister, I’m here representing myself but I do work for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve — which is not run by the federal government — they need to be run out of this country.”

Zombie online now reveals that McAllister has in fact lost her job with the school district:

L.A. teacher loses job over anti-Semitic comments

Los Angeles school officials say a substitute teacher has lost her job after making anti-Semitic comments during an interview.

In a statement Tuesday, schools Superintendent John Deasy condemned remarks made by Patricia McAllister during a protest rally last week.

In an Oct. 12 interview with at a Los Angeles rally, McAllister said “Zionist Jews and the Federal Reserve” need to be run out of this country.

Deasy says that although freedom of speech is a protected right of public employees, the LAUSD can’t set a good example for students while tolerating disrespectful, intolerant or discriminatory behavior.

2011 Index of Economic Freedom Reply

As determined by the collection of neocons, theocons, vulgar libertarians, and stooges for the military-industrial complex that comprise the Heritage Foundation.


world rankcountryfreedom scorechange from previous world rankcountryfreedom scorechange from previous


1Hong Kong89.70.0 93Morocco59.6+0.4
2Singapore87.2+1.1 94Mongolia59.5-0.5
3Australia82.5-0.1 95Ghana59.4-0.8
4New Zealand82.3+0.2 96Egypt59.1+0.1
5Switzerland81.9+0.8 97Swaziland59.1+1.7
6Canada80.8+0.4 98Nicaragua58.8+0.5
7Ireland78.7-2.6 99Honduras58.6+0.3
8Denmark78.6+0.7 100Tunisia58.5-0.4
9United States77.8-0.2 101Serbia58.0+1.1
10Bahrain77.7+1.4 102Cambodia57.9+1.3
11Chile77.4+0.2 103Bhutan57.6+0.6
12Mauritius76.2-0.1 104Bosnia and Herzegovina57.5+1.3
13Luxembourg76.2+0.8 105The Gambia57.4+2.3
14Estonia75.2+0.5 106Kenya57.4-0.1
15The Netherlands74.7-0.3 107Sri Lanka57.1+2.5
16United Kingdom74.5-2.0 108Tanzania57.0-1.3
17Finland74.0+0.2 109Mozambique56.8+0.8
18Cyprus73.3+2.4 110Gabon56.7+1.3
19Macau73.1+0.6 111Nigeria56.7-0.1
20Japan72.8-0.1 112Vanuatu56.7+0.3
21Austria71.9+0.3 113Brazil56.3+0.7
22Sweden71.9-0.5 114Mali56.3+0.7
23Germany71.8+0.7 115The Philippines56.2-0.1
24Lithuania71.3+1.0 116Indonesia56.0+0.5
25Taiwan70.8+0.4 117Benin56.0+0.6
26Saint Lucia70.8+0.3 118Tonga55.8+2.4
27Qatar70.5+1.5 119Malawi55.8+1.7
28Czech Republic70.4+0.6 120Moldova55.7+2.0
29Georgia70.40.0 121Senegal55.7+1.1
30Norway70.3+0.9 122Côte d’Ivoire55.4+1.3
31Spain70.2+0.6 123Pakistan55.1-0.1
32Belgium70.2+0.1 124India54.6+0.8
33Uruguay70.0+0.2 125Djibouti54.5+3.5
34Oman69.8+2.1 126Niger54.3+1.4
35South Korea69.8-0.1 127Yemen54.2-0.2
36Armenia69.7+0.5 128Tajikistan53.5+0.5
37Slovakia69.5-0.2 129Suriname53.1+0.6
38Jordan68.9+2.8 130Bangladesh53.0+1.9
39El Salvador68.8-1.1 131Papua New Guinea52.6-0.9
40Botswana68.8-1.5 132Algeria52.4-4.5
41Peru68.6+1.0 133Haiti52.1+1.3
42Barbados68.5+0.2 134Mauritania52.1+0.1
43Israel68.5+0.8 135China52.0+1.0
44Iceland68.2-5.5 136Cameroon51.8-0.5
45Colombia68.0+2.5 137Guinea51.7-0.1
46The Bahamas68.0+0.7 138Argentina51.7+0.5
47United Arab Emirates67.8+0.5 139Vietnam51.6+1.8
48Mexico67.8-0.5 140Syria51.3+1.9
49Costa Rica67.3+1.4 141Laos51.3+0.2
50Saint Vincent and the Grenadines66.90.0 142Seychelles51.2+3.3
51Hungary66.6+0.5 143Russia50.5+0.2
52Trinidad and Tobago66.5+0.8 144Ethiopia50.5-0.7
53Malaysia66.3+1.5 145Micronesia50.3-0.3
54Saudi Arabia66.2+2.1 146Nepal50.1-2.6
55Macedonia66.0+0.3 147Bolivia50.0+0.6
56Latvia65.8-0.4 148Burundi49.6+2.1
57Malta65.7-1.5 149Sierra Leone49.6+1.7
58Jamaica65.7+0.2 150São Tomé and Príncipe49.5+0.7
59Panama64.9+0.1 151Guyana49.4+1.0
60Bulgaria64.9+2.6 152Central African Republic49.3+0.9
61Kuwait64.9-2.8 153Togo49.1+2.0
62Thailand64.7+0.6 154Maldives48.3-0.7
63Romania64.7+0.5 155Belarus47.9-0.8
64France64.6+0.4 156Lesotho47.5-0.6
65Cape Verde64.6+2.8 157Equatorial Guinea47.5-1.1
66Slovenia64.6-0.1 158Ecuador47.1-2.2
67Turkey64.2+0.4 159Guinea-Bissau46.5+2.9
68Poland64.1+0.9 160Liberia46.5+0.3
69Portugal64.0-0.4 161Angola46.2-2.2
70Albania64.0-2.0 162Solomon Islands45.9+3.0
71Belize63.8+2.3 163Uzbekistan45.8-1.7
72Dominica63.3+0.1 164Ukraine45.8-0.6
73Namibia62.7+0.5 165Chad45.3-2.2
74South Africa62.7-0.1 166Kiribati44.8+1.1
75Rwanda62.7+3.6 167Comoros43.8-1.1
76Montenegro62.5-1.1 168Republic of Congo43.6+0.4
77Paraguay62.3+1.0 169Turkmenistan43.6+1.1
78Kazakhstan62.1+1.1 170Timor-Leste42.8-3.0
79Guatemala61.9+0.9 171Iran42.1-1.3
80Uganda61.7-0.5 172Democratic Republic of Congo40.7-0.7
81Madagascar61.2-2.0 173Libya38.6-1.6
82Croatia61.1+1.9 174Burma37.8+1.1
83Kyrgyz Republic61.1-0.2 175Venezuela37.6+0.5
84Samoa60.6+0.2 176Eritrea36.7+1.4
85Burkina Faso60.6+1.2 177Cuba27.7+1.0
86Fiji60.4+0.1 178Zimbabwe22.1+0.7
87Italy60.3-2.4 179North Korea1.00.0
88Greece60.3-2.4 N/AAfghanistanN/AN/A
89Lebanon60.1+0.6 N/AIraqN/AN/A
90Dominican Republic60.0-0.3 N/ALiechtensteinN/AN/A
91Zambia59.7+1.7 N/ASudanN/AN/A

Qaddafi Is Dead, Libyan Officials Say Reply

From the New York Times.


Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters

Libyan government fighters celebrated after routing the last remaining forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from the coastal town of Surt on Thursday. More Photos »

TRIPOLI, Libya — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the former Libyan strongman who fled into hiding after rebels toppled his regime two months ago in the Arab Spring’s most tumultuous uprising, was killed Thursday as fighters battling the vestiges of his loyalist forces wrested control of his hometown of Surt, the interim government announced.


AWA: Americans With Attitude Reply

From DumpDC.Com.


by Bob Moriarty

(Editor’s note: The penultimate paragraph is one of the most sobering I’ve read in many months. And it’s nearly impossible to argue with the author’s conclusions. Blood will likely be spilled, and that may just be the beginning of the end.)

It doesn’t take long to overthrow a government. Algeria took a couple of months, Egypt took only three weeks. As of now, the Occupy Wall Street event is in its fourth week. It took three weeks of total silence for the news media before they even began to pay attention.

The Revolution probably started on September 24th as Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna of the New York Police Department casually took out a pepper spray canister and blasts some young women already in the custody of the police. It was all caught on camera as he slithered away.

The mainstream media has yet to really come to grips with the protest. Neither Wall Street nor Washington DC has yet to come to terms with the protests that have now spread all over the country.

It’s true there is no coherent and single message coming from the protestors. All revolutions begin as an unorganized mob of people each with their own agenda. What neither Washington, nor Wall Street get is that Americans are finally waking up. Sure, lots of people were talking about the dangers of derivatives years ago and the stealing going on in Wall Street. But Americans had it pretty good and as long as the paychecks came in, everything was just fine.

Paychecks have stopped for 23.1% of Americans now unemployed; many will never again hold a well-paid job. Those jobs have been shipped overseas and today some 46 million Americans are on food stamps. You can take your pick as to what has caused this attitude adjustment on the part of Americans. An incredible 22.5% of mortgages are underwater. Do the owners of those houses really believe prices will recover or are they hanging on like a cat trying to climb a chalkboard?

Americans have an attitude. It’s going to get worse until we have a massive revolution in the way this country is run. Objectively speaking, it is a no win situation. The government has made promises they cannot possibly honor. Many jobs have been lost forever and Americans are going to go through a long and painful process of adjusting to living with less, in many cases, a lot less.

The 1% doesn’t get it and every time a Rove or Bloomberg or Cantor open their mouths, it becomes more obvious. Americans are pissed and they will continue to multiply on the streets until we have a change of government and attitude.

We can count on the government and police to overreact. They always do and it always makes the change far more violent. The police will start shooting protestors with no reason. Protestors will go home, pick up some of the 194 million guns in the United States and come back and start shooting cops.

This is all very predictible and the outcome is predestined. $195 trillion dollars worth of debt exists in the world and only $150 trillion dollars worth of assets exist. We have to write down the debt and start over with an honest financial system. You cannot have honesty in government without honesty in money.

Bob Moriarty is president of

Copyright ©2001-2011 321gold Ltd. All Rights Reserved

War and the Return of Populism Reply

Article by Justin Raimondo.


What’s behind the recent upsurge in anti-Iranian war propaganda coming out of the Obama administration? This is the question Stephen Walt posed on his blog

“What’s the endgame here? What is the positive purpose to be gained from this new campaign? If there really is hard and reliable evidence of a serious Iranian plot to bomb buildings in the United States and to kill foreign emissaries on our soil, then that’s one thing. But if this turns out to be a much more ambiguous business – either a rogue Iranian operation, a false flag scheme, or a case of FBI entrapment – then what are we trying to accomplish by rolling out a seemingly well-orchestrated round of new accusations, especially when there’s little chance of getting the sort of ‘crippling sanctions’ that might actually alter Iran’s behavior? Are we just trying to divert attention from other issues (the economy, the ‘Arab Spring,’ the failed diplomacy on Israel-Palestine, etc.), or is this somehow linked to the 2012 campaign?”

He’s getting warmer. The Obama cult is drawing what sounds like its last breath on the American political scene, with the President’s reelection increasingly in doubt. Yet that doesn’t begin to explain why Obama is risking alienating his base with yet another overseas conflict that we can’t afford, and the American people don’t want. Nor does it explain why he is making unambiguous statements in support of a narrative that has been met with undisguised disdain by nearly every Iran expert withany credibility: almost no one believes the Quds force, the Iranian version of our “Special Forces,” would employ an alcoholic used car salesman to recruit a Mexican drug cartel to off the Saudi ambassador and commit terrorist acts in the US (and Argentina, an allegation that appears to have been thrown into the mix for good measure). No one, that is, but the President of the United States and the anonymoushigh government officials who have been spinning this absurd story behind the scenes.