Senator Hints At Obama Impeachment ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up in American History’ // Mr. Conservative

Senator Hints At Obama Impeachment ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up in American History’ // Mr. Conservative.

Senator Hints At Obama Impeachment ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up in American History’

Advertisements

We Are Now One Year Away From Global Riots, Complex Systems Theorists Say | Motherboard

We Are Now One Year Away From Global Riots, Complex Systems Theorists Say | Motherboard.

By Brian Merchant

What’s the number one reason we riot? The plausible, justifiable motivations of trampled-upon
humanfolk to fight back are many—poverty, oppression, disenfranchisement, etc—but the big oneis
more primal than any of the above. It’s hunger, plain and simple. If there’s a single factor that reliably
sparks social unrest, it’s food becoming too scarce or too expensive. So argues a group of complex
systems theorists in Cambridge, and it makes sense.

In a 2011 paper, researchers at the Complex Systems Institute unveiled a model that accurately
explained why the waves of unrest that swept the world in 2008 and 2011 crashed when they did.
The number one determinant was soaring food prices. Their model identified a precise threshold
for global food prices that, if breached, would lead to worldwide unrest.

The MIT Technology Review explains how CSI’s model works: “The evidence comes from two
sources. The first is data gathered by the United Nations that plots the price of food against time,
the so-called food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN. The second
is the date of riots around the world, whatever their cause.” Plot the data, and it looks like this:

Pretty simple. Black dots are the food prices, red lines are the riots. In other words, whenever
the UN’s food price index, which measures the monthly change in the price of a basket of food
commodities, climbs above 210, the conditions ripen for social unrest around the world.
CSI doesn’t claim that any breach of 210 immediately leads to riots, obviously; just that the
probability that riots will erupt grows much greater. For billions of people around the world,
food comprises up to 80% of routine expenses (for rich-world people like you and I, it’s like 15%).
When prices jump, people can’t afford anything else; or even food itself. And if you can’t
eat—or worse, your family can’t eat—you fight.

But how accurate is the model? An anecdote the researchers outline in the report offers us
an idea. They write that “on December 13, 2010, we submitted a government report analyzing
the repercussions of the global financial crises, and directly identifying the risk of social unrest
and political instability due to food prices.” Four days later, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on
fire as an act of protest in Tunisia. And we all know what happened after that.

Today, the food price index is hovering around 213, where it has stayed for months—just
beyond the tip of the identified threshold. Low corn yield in the U.S., the world’s most important
producer, has helped keep prices high.

“Recent droughts in the mid-western United States threaten to cause global catastrophe,” Yaneer
Bar-Yam, one of the authors of the report, recently told Al Jazeera. “When people are unable to
feed themselves and their families, widespread social disruption occurs. We are on the verge
of another crisis, the third in five years, and likely to be the worst yet, capable of causing new
food riots and turmoil on a par with the Arab Spring.”

Yet the cost of food hasn’t quite yet risen to the catastrophic levels reached last year. Around
the time of the riots cum-revolutions, we saw the food price index soar through 220 points and
even push 240. This year, we’ve pretty consistently hovered in the 210-216 range—right along
the cusp of danger. But CSI expects a perilous trend in rising food prices to continue. Even
before the extreme weather scrambled food prices this year, their 2011 report predicted that
the next great breach would occur in August 2013, and that the risk of more worldwide rioting
would follow. So, if trends hold, these complex systems theorists say we’re less than one year
and counting from a fireball of global unrest.

But the reality is that such predictions are now all but impossible to make. In a world well-warmed
by climate change, unpredictable, extreme weather events like the drought that has consumed
60% of the United States
 and the record heat that has killed its cattle are now the norm. Just
two years ago, heat waves in Russia crippled its grain yield and dealt a devastating blow to
global food markets—the true, unheralded father of the Arab Spring was global warming, some say.

And it’s only going to get worse and worse and worse. Because of climate change-exacerbated
disasters like these, “the average price of staple foods such as maize could more than double
in the next 20 years compared with 2010 trend prices,” a new report from Oxfam reveals. That
report details how the poor will be even more vulnerable to climate change-induced food price
shocks than previously thought. After all, we’ve “loaded the climate dice,” as NASA’s James
Hansen likes to say, and the chances of such disasters rolling out are greater than ever.

This all goes to say that as long as climate change continues to advance—it seems that nothing
can stop that now—and we maintain a global food system perennially subject to volatile price
spikes and exploitation from speculators, without reform, our world will be an increasingly
restive one. Hunger is coming, and so are the riots.

By Brian Merchant 8 months ago
Read more at : Motherboard

6 Reasons the IRS Scandal Leads to Obama

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/irs-to-obama/

Obama is today’s definition of Treason…. Our country takes a very rigid posture on trader’s or anyone in public office that abuses their office for personal gain; with total disregard for the will of the people.  He is the antithesis of the American culture and the destroyer of the American Dream.  He has shifted the country’s civil liberties through omission of support for our Allied like minded nations  and unilaterally redirected the tax payers aid to promote the Muslim brotherhood and Al Qaeda causes in black ops efforts without the shadow of responsibility that would enlighten the true Obama agenda to the people. He is responsible for enslaving the children of the United States in the years to come and further burdening the middle class citizens with a debt that will essentially wipe the world currency dollar into a realized three cent value as the nation gets overwhelmed with civil war and a house divided in a conflict that will be the last stand for the democracy that once was considered to be the most powerful country in existence. Just remember that you made the choice that are making today to either sit idle and await the quite transformation of American freedoms…  Or fight like hell to keep your Freedoms and way of life.

The Real Scandal

source found here
MAY 27, 2013, VOL. 18, NO. 35 • BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

Everyone in Washington, except those in the crosshairs, likes a good scandal, and THE WEEKLY STANDARD is no exception. What’s more, in the case of the Obama administration, comeuppance is well deserved and overdue. So while it may be a dubious pleasure to enjoy watching the high brought low and the proud en route to their fall, we’re willing to indulge in it.

The Real Scandal

LANDOV

THE WEEKLY STANDARD also appreciates the comic and relishes the absurd. So we’re enjoying the excuses being offered for President Obama by his courtiers. Surveying the IRS’s abuses, David Axelrod has taken a break from years of justifying ever-bigger government to complain that “the government is so vast” that the president can’t be expected effectively to supervise it. White House aides plaintively explain (on background) that when the State Department and the CIA tangled bureaucratically over talking points about Benghazi, neither the White House—nor the president himself!—could do anything but stand helplessly by. The Justice Department subpoenaed vast swaths of phone records from the Associated Press, but it’s unreasonable to expect any explanation from the attorney general. He decided, you see, to recuse himself—but not in writing, no need to stand on formalities. And why not? He’s working for a president who seems to have informally recused himself from running the executive branch.

So THE WEEKLY STANDARD will do its part, with pleasure, to unravel the tangled web the Obama administration’s woven as they’ve practiced to deceive. But as we unravel, and as the administration does too, we should recall this: The true indictment of the Obama administration isn’t found in what they’re embarrassed about. It’s found in what they boast about.

The health care legislation of which President Obama is so proud is more dangerous to our freedoms than the (admittedly serious) abuses of the IRS about which President Obama professes to be apologetic. The defense cuts and the foreign policy doctrines—such as “leading from behind”—that President Obama embraces are more dangerous to our national security than the (certainly deplorable) cover-up over Benghazi. The views openly advocated by his Justice Department with respect to religious freedom, racial preferences, and constitutional interpretation are more dangerous to our constitutional system than the (undoubtedly shocking) management failures
at the department.

Obama’s scandals are damaging to the country. Congress should do its duty in getting to the bottom of them, and if the scandals weaken Obama’s ability to push through bad legislation, conservatives have no obligation to look that gift horse in the mouth. But Obama’s liberal policies are more dangerous than his managerial scandals.

That’s why making the substantive case against the Obama administration’s policies remains job one for an opposition that hopes to persuade the American people that it deserves to govern. So the key task is to demonstrate how Obama’s policies are failing, to explain why they’re destructive to the country, and to elucidate why conservative policies have worked in the past and how they can be updated to shape a better future.

This isn’t that hard. But it’s easy to be distracted by the scandal of the day. The real scandal, though, is the Obama administration, whose purposes and policies exemplify a liberalism that degrades popular self-government and embraces American decline.

 

Obama Aide: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where President Was During Benghazi Attacks

Source found here
9:48 AM, MAY 19, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said it’s an “irrelevant fact” where the president physically was during
the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012:

Host Chris Wallace reminds Pfeiffer that Obama didn’t really talk with Secretary Clinton,
Secretary Panetta, or Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that night.
“He was talking to his national security staff,” Pfeiffer insists.

Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, “I don’t
remember what room the president was in on that night, and that’s a largely irrelevant fact.”

Pfeiffer then argues that Wallace’s questions about the president’s handling of the Benghazi
terror attack are “offensive.”

UPDATE: Here’s a full rush transcript of the exchange:

WALLACE: let’s turn to benghazi. he had a meeting with panetta in the afternoon, heard
about this on an unrelated subject, wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible.
The next time he shows up, hillary clinton says she spoke to him at around 10:00 that night
after the attack at the consulate, not the annex, but the attack at the consulate had ended.
question, what did the president do the rest of that night to pursue benghazi?

PFEIFFER:  the president was kept up to do throughout the entire night, from the moment
it started till the end. this is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are
in risk, people who work for him. i recognize that there’s a series of conspiracy theories the
republicans are spinning about this since the night it happened, but there’s been an
independent review of this, congress has held hearings, we provided 250,000 pages
of — 250,000 pages of documents up there. there’s been 11 hearings, 20 staff briefings.
everyone has found the same thing. this is a tragedy. the question is not what happened
that night. the question is what are we going to do to move forward and ensure it doesn’t
happen again? congress should act on what the president called for earlier this week, to
pass legislation to actually allow us to implement the recommendations of the accountability
review board. when we send diplomats off into far-flung places, there’s inherent risk. we need
to mitigate that risk.

WALLACE: with all due respect, you didn’t answer my question. what did the president do
that night?

PFEIFFER:  kept up to date with the events as they were happening.

WALLACE: he didn’t talk to the secretary of state except for the one time when the first
attack was over. he didn’t talk to the secretary of defense, he didn’t talk to chiefs. the
chairman of the joint who was he talking to?

PFEIFFER:  his national security staff, his national security council.

WALLACE: was he in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  he was kept up to date throughout the day.

WALLACE: do you know know whether he was in the situation room?

PFEIFFER:  i don’t know what room he was in that night. that’s a largely irrelevant fact.

WALLACE: well —

PFEIFFER:  the premise of your question, somehow there was something that could
have been done differently, okay, that would have changed the outcome here. the
accountability roof board has looked at this, people have looked at this. it’s a horrible
tragedy, and we have to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

WALLCE: here’s the point, though, the ambassador goes missing, the first ambassador
in more than 30 years is killed. four americans, including the ambassador, are killed.
dozens of americans are in jeopardy. the president at 4:00 in the afternoon says to the
chairman of the joint chiefs to deploy forces. no forces are deployed. where is he while
all this is going on?

PFEIFFER:  this has been tested to by —

WALLACE: well, no. no one knows where he is, who was involved, the —

PFEIFFER:  the suggestion of your question that somehow the president —

WALLACE: i just want to know the answer.

PFEIFFER:  the assertions from republicans that the president didn’t take action
is offensive. there’s no evidence to support it.

WALLACE: i’m simply asking a question. where was he? what did he do? how did
he respond in who told him you can’t deploy forces and what was his president?

PFEIFFER:  the president was in the white house that day, kept up to date by his
national security team, spoke to the joint chiefs of staff earlier, secretary of state,
and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.