Daily news sites

Release of video about border incident.


Flyers were distributed in Tijuana by Border Rush organizers that Mexican nationals were going to cross over into the U.S. border. At least a three camera news crew members from Milenio dot com captured the failed massive rush attempt into the U.S.

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

One of these guys is going to be very happy on Election Night 2014 (Photo: EPA/Aude Guerrucci)

As the tumble from lofty heights and the expectations that accompanies such heights continues Peresident Obaba and his fellow Democrats have reason to be concerned. VERY concerned.

With the horrendously botched ACA roll out and the huge credibility gap created by the Presidents misleading statement that "If you like your health insurance keep you can keep your health insurance plan, PERIOD" the opportunity for the Republican party to retain the House and retake the Senate in 2014 is becoming increasingly possible.

With the tide turning against the Presidents party the enthusiasm within the ranks of Republican and Libertarian activists will build and grow exponentially. Not unlike the "Hope and Change" of 2008 and 2012.

From The Washington Post no less.

President Obama’s poll numbers are at record lows. The health care law that serves as the cornerstone of his domestic policy legacy is even more unpopular. And there are few chances to change the conversation among a skeptical public that isn’t happy with Washington.

Sound familiar? It should: The national political climate today is starting to resemble 2010, when Republicans won control of the House of Representatives by riding a wave of voter anger.

Wave elections are rare. Only a handful of times in the previous century has one party racked up big wins. Democrats won big handfuls of House seats in 1930, 1932, 1948, 1958, 1974, 2006 and 2008. Republicans won back more than 40 seats in 1938, 1942, 1946, 1966, 1994 and 2010. And with nearly a year to go before Election Day, voters’ moods can change dramatically.

But the rocky rollout of the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s crumbling support suggests another wave might be building. While voters usually punish a president’s party in at least one midterm election, they may be winding up to deliver another smack to President Obama’s allies on Capitol Hill.

Voter dislike of ObamaCare cost Democrats the House in 2010. It could cost them the Senate in 2014.

The poll numbers hint at the toll the Affordable Care Act has taken on the Democratic Party. A CNN/ORC International poll conducted November 18-20 shows 49 percent of registered voters favored a generic Republican candidate for Congress, compared with 47 percent who favored a Democratic candidate. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted November 6-11 shows the generic ballot tied, at 39 percent each. {Read the Full Report}

Keep the popcorn and the beer close at hand, it's going to be VERY interesting.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Brave New World and Big Brother continuing to grow in the Land of the Free, the United States of America. Government is simply growing too effing big for its britches. Thank you GWB, BHO, and all your henchmen.

A very disturbing trend, one the government is very likely to accelerate in the coming months and years.

The Washington Post - Microsoft is moving toward a major new effort to encrypt its Internet traffic amid fears that the National Security Agency may have broken into its global communications links, said people familiar with the emerging plans.

Suspicions at Microsoft, while building for several months, sharpened in October when it was reported that the NSA was intercepting traffic inside the private networks of Google and Yahoo, two industry rivals with similar global infrastructures, said people with direct knowledge of the company’s deliberations. They said top Microsoft executives are meeting this week to decide what encryption initiatives to deploy and how quickly.

Documents obtained from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden suggest — but do not prove — that the company is right to be concerned. Two previously unreleased slides that describe operations against Google and Yahoo include references to Microsoft’s Hotmail and Windows Live Messenger services. A separate NSA e-mail mentions Microsoft Passport, a Web-based service formerly offered by Microsoft, as a possible target of that same surveillance project, called MUSCULAR, which was first disclosed by The Washington Post last month.

Though Microsoft officials said they had no independent verification of the NSA targeting the company in this way, general counsel Brad Smith said Tuesday that it would be “very disturbing” and a possible constitutional breach if true.

Microsoft’s move to expand encryption would allow it to join Google , Yahoo , Facebook and other major technology firms in hardening its defenses in response to news reports about once-secret NSA programs. The resulting new investments in encryption technology stand to complicate surveillance efforts — by governments, private companies and criminals — for years, experts say.

Though several legislative efforts are underway to curb the NSA’s surveillance powers, the wholesale move by private companies to expand the use of encryption technology may prove to be the most tangible outcome of months of revelations based on documents that Snowden provided to The Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. In another major shift, the companies also are explicitly building defenses against U.S. government surveillance programs (emphasis mine) in addition to combating hackers, criminals or foreign intelligence services.

Certainly this should be a very big concern for those in the liberty camp that understand too much of a good thing is dangerous to your well being. Including and especially Government.

Via: Memeorandum

Is it possible? As Dana Milbank, Washington Post opinion writer points out most likely for the birthers, those, who like Donald Trump believe President Obama forged his birth certificate, is not a USA born citizen, and therefore an illegitimate president. So much for the loonies.

However, the Obama Administration and its practice of excluding photo journalist in favor of in house photographers to record official events is troublesome, at least IMO it is.

From the Washington Post opinion pages.

Is the Obama White House airbrushing history?

It was a hallmark of the Stalin era: Fallen Soviet leaders vanished from official photographs. Nobody accuses President Obama of such subterfuge (well, nobody except for those who believe he forged his birth certificate), but a change in longtime practice in the White House has raised questions about the integrity of images Americans see of their president.

The White House has increasingly excluded news photographers from Obama’s official events and is instead releasing images taken by in-house photographers, who are government employees. These photos often appear online and in newspapers, even though they lack the same standards of authenticity that govern those taken by photojournalists.

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government,” the White House Correspondents’ Association, joined by the Associated Press and other news organizations, wrote in a letter to White House press secretary Jay Carney last week. “You are, in effect, replacing independent photojournalism with visual press releases.”

New York Times photographer Doug Mills likens the administration’s actions to Tass, the Soviet Union’s news agency.

The most famous of the photo press releases was the image from the White House Situation Room on the day U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden; the image was digitally altered so that material on the table in front of the secretary of state could not be seen.

Maybe that alteration was an exception. And photojournalists don’t expect to be granted access to the Situation Room. But the doctored image raises the question of whether other photo releases are altered, too; in the age of Photoshop, it’s easy — at the start of the year, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s staff (clumsily) altered a group photo of Democratic women in Congress to add four absent members. And often, it’s undetectable. {Read More}

What say you?

Via: Memorandum

Edgar N. Jiménez Lugo

Let the countdown begin!
In less than one month we celebrate Christmas and yes, it is the most wonderful time of the year! With this being said I have here today a post with my favorite picks for holidays from JOE FRESH:
 Cashmere Sweaters ( to stay warm), Sequins Tops & Tuxedo (for a little bit of glam) and some Opulent Baroque Print Dresses/ Skirts ( for Party).
All these and many other festive pieces you can find them in Joe Fresh stores and, If you are from New York or you will be there for Holidays, check their NEW store in SoHo (Here). Canadian residents are lucky to shop online (Here )

Also I included here a few photos from my last trip In their SoHo store.
What piece is your favorite?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs-Tyranny

For some strange reason I'm getting the sense "the deal" may very well turn out quite unfortunately to be a dude. This from FARS News Agency.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Tuesday.

She said that the four-page text under the name of the Joint Plan of Action (which has been released by the Iranian foreign ministry) was the result of the agreement reached during the Geneva talks and all of its sentences and words were chosen based on the considerations of all parties to the talks. In fact one of the reasons why negotiations between Iran and the G5+1 took so long pertained to the accuracy which was needed for choosing the words for the text of the agreement, Afkham said, explaining that the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.

Afkham said that the text of the Joint Plan of Action was provided to the media a few hours after the two sides agreed on it.

After the White House released a modified version of the deal struck by Iran and the six world powers in Geneva early Sunday morning, the Iranian Foreign Ministry released the text of the agreement.

Read the full text of "the deal."

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs-Tyranny

As the floodgates of bad news for ObamaCare and President Obama seem to continue to widen. Or, is it just more anti Obama nutter talk fueled by the wacko right wing extreme obstructionists of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party?

According to Mark Halperin health care rationing and "death panels" are going to be a reality of the ACA. This from TPM

One of the Beltway's best-known pundits gave credence this week to perhaps the fringiest of all Obamacare conspiracy theories.

In an interview on Monday with the conservative Newsmax, Time's Mark Halperin said that so-called "death panels" are enshrined in the Affordable Care Act.

"It's going to be a huge issue," Halperin said. "And that's something else about which the President was not fully forthcoming or straight-forward."

"So, you believe there will be rationing, a.k.a 'death panels'?" host Steve Malzberg asked Halperin, the co-author of the 2012 election chronicle "Double Down."

"It's built into the plan. It's not like a guess or like a judgment. That's going to be part of how costs are controlled," Halperin said before arguing that it's necessary to ration care. {Read More}

Well there you have it. You, the loyal readers be the judge because I haven't an idea who to believe anymore. I guess it's time for more popcorn and beer because this ObamaCare thing is becoming almost as interesting and exciting as any Sunday NFL game.

Via: Memeorandum

Zacatecas authorities removed several women that were apparently tortured, raped and then hanged from a bridge with a narco sign hung next to them.

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Is it all scare tactics? Right wing hyperbole orchestrated to bring down the hated ACA and deny President Obama's hoped for legacy? A bunch of nutters as the left not so fondly refers to those who have opposed the ACA since the start just being obstructionists?

Certainly the ACA roll out has been riddled with difficulty, including security concerns. President Obama's credibilty has unquestionably been damaged, a result of promises broken with respect to oe being able to keep there insurance if they liked it. And now this... From Fox News.

Almost 80 million people with employer health plans could find their coverage canceled because they are not compliant with ObamaCare, several experts predicted.

Their losses would be in addition to the millions who found their individual coverage cancelled for the same reason.

Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute said that in addition to the individual cancellations, "at least half the people on employer plans would by 2014 start losing plans as well." There are approximately 157 million employer health care policy holders.

Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute added, "the administration estimated that approximately 78 million Americans with employer sponsored insurance would lose their existing coverage due to the Affordable Care Act."

Last week, an analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, showed the administration anticipates half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies canceled or be compelled to send workers onto the ObamaCare exchanges. They predicted up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year. {Read More}

Related reading, Democrats Fear Obamacare Will Cost Them The Senate

Via: Memeorandum

A filibuster is a lengthy speech used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block legislative action, a mechanism with a long history.

The U.S. Senate Website explains that, “In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.”

Senate rules have permitted a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The filibuster, thought by some to be an unconstitutional, unfair, historical relic, is thought by others to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. And only eight years ago prominent Democrats loudly defended the filibuster and lambasted the Republican majority for suggesting an end to it.

In 2005, then-Senator and now-President of the United States Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said, “What [the American people] don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”

During the same debate then-Minority Leader and current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a ‘procedural gimmick.’ … No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new. The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history. … It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. … And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government. Separation of Power. Checks and Balances. Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”

Other notable Democrats also supported the filibuster, which is known as "The Soul of the Senate." Joe Biden, then-Senator and now Vice President of the United States, former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senator Diane Feinstein were part of the opposition. In the end, the idea of changing the rules was abandoned.

But that was then. Last week the Senate Democrat majority changed the very rule it so strongly defended in 2005.

In their assault on this well respected legislative device they strongly defended in 2005, when the majority shoe was on the other foot, the majority party changed it for presidential appointments, which now require only a simple majority. Their excuse: Republicans did not agree with the president’s nominations for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and administrative agency appointments.

The National Center for Policy Analysis opines that in addition to judicial positions “the change will almost certainly result in more confirmations of presidential nominees – for example, the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board tasked with controlling health care spending.” Which is interesting, given the potential for this issue to have been brought forth to distract the nation’s attention from the Obamacare debacle.

In 1975 the Democrat majority of the Senate reduced the majority vote needed to end a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes). Now it’s just 51 votes.

Senate Democrats decided that if they can’t get their way playing by decades-old rules, they could just change them. Yes we can!

It is important for the Senate to debate appointments so that people who are not qualified or whose agenda is narrow and ideological can be identified and defeated. That is precisely why the filibuster exists: to prevent the presidency from becoming a monarchy. Given the performance of the IRS, the NSA, the State Department’s gross failure in Benghazi, and the destructive actions of the EPA, there is more than enough evidence to warrant closely examining and perhaps blocking some of this president’s appointments.

Democrats like this new arrangement with a Democrat in the White House but, God willing, that won’t always be the case. The ability of a president to put questionable and even unqualified people on the federal bench and at the head of federal agencies just became much easier.

The Founders saw the dangers of a tyrannical majority party and built in safeguards to insure that Congress’ activities would be slow and difficult. Senate Democrats substantially gutted those safeguards a second time.

Cassandra E. LaFave

The following chart shows the producer price index for intermediate foods and feeds divided by the index of the average hourly earnings of private production and nonsupervisory employees. The low point was achieved in May of 2002 (represented as 1.0 on the chart).


Click to enlarge.

Stick a fork in it. The old trend's over. Welcome to the new trend. Who doesn't like higher asset prices?

Not all of these price increases are making it down to the consumer of course. Value is "added" by heavily processing the food, placing it in cheap boxes and cans, slapping a well known brand name in colorful print on the outside, and then marking up the price. We may not have infinite global food supplies well into the distant future, but at least we have an ample supply of presentation!

September 20, 2013
Our Chat With Jeremy Grantham


November 13, 2013
Experts: world's soil is at risk


What would Carl Spackler say though?
And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

Not everything is inflating of course. Take Redux for example. Some miracle drugs are not all they are cracked up to be apparently.

Redux: The Miracle Weight-Loss Drug

I'm not trying to imply that the Fed's miracle drug won't work over the long run. No, sir. ZIRP is all but guaranteed to restore all lost prosperity and then some! Common knowledge! Everyone knows it! Trapped in ZIRP like the Japanese isn't a long-term curse, it's a long-term blessing! Genius!

See Also:
The Fed's Wealth Effect (Musical Tributes)

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

With many lawmakers wary over the Iran nuclear deal its looks like the right and the left may have rediscovered bipartisanship

Top lawmakers on both side of the aisle on Sunday voiced skepticism about the newly struck agreement with Iran, and vowed to keep up the pressure with sanctions.

Senior members in both chambers said that, at first glance, Iran got the better end of the deal with western powers, China and Russia – effectively exchanging looser sanctions for very little progress in impeding Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

Some powerful lawmakers have said they’re willing to seek new sanctions now, but delay their implementation until after the six months covered by the current deal. But others weren’t even willing to go that far.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the No. 3 Democrat in the chamber, called the deal disproportionately good for Iran, and that it was only strong sanctions that gave the United States and its allies any leverage over Tehran.

“This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December,” Schumer said in a Sunday statement.

In fact, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office pointed out Sunday that the Virginia Republican and Schumer – rarely allies on any issue – had sounded similar concerns about the deal, and the impact sanctions have had on Iran.

President Obama and top members of his administration, like Secretary of State John Kerry, have stressed that the pressure has been successful – but that pressing ahead with further sanctions could “derail” the new deal.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are among the lawmakers to say they’d be open to putting sanctions in place for six months down the line.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had vowed last week to move ahead with sanctions legislation, but has yet to comment on the agreement finalized this weekend in Geneva.

Menendez added Sunday that he expected any Senate deal on sanctions to allow the U.S. to immediately restart sanctions if Iran fails to live up to its part of the deal.

“Given Iran's history of duplicity, it will demand ongoing, on-the-ground verification,” Menendez said. “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions.”

“Given Iran's history of duplicity, it will demand ongoing, on-the-ground verification,” Menendez said. “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions.”

Under the deal announced Sunday, the U.S. and its allies will loosen temporarily loosen sanctions on Iran’s sale of crude oil, its automotive sector and other parts of the economy.

Iran, on the other hand, agreed to tougher outside inspections and to cap its nuclear stockpile. Tehran will also halt work at a heavy water reactor at its Arak site and suspend the installation of new centrifuges. The two sides disagree on whether the agreement allows Iran to enrich its uranium, and whether it takes any military action against the country off the table.

The initial agreement does not cover the construction of new centrifuges or the reversal of progress Iran has made in its nuclear program. {Read More}

I like the idea of developing additional sanctions now to be used only if Iran over the next six months fails to conduct itself in accordance with "the deal."

Via: Memeorandum