Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

  1. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Since the Council, an idea has been spreading that Judaism is not superseded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ; that Jews still have available to them the Covenant of the old Law, by which they can be saved. It is therefore unnecessary for them to turn to Christ; unnecessary for anybody to convert them to faith in Christ. Indeed, attempting to do so is an act of aggression not dissimilar to theFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com11
  2. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    S Paul loved his fellow Jews, his 'kinsmen' and believed "the gifts and call of God are irrevocable". He believed that at the End, those among them who had rejected Christ would be brought in to the chosen people. He believed that they were like olive branches which had been cut off so that the Gentiles, wild olive branches, could be grafted in. But, when the fulness of the Gentiles had entered Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com3
  3. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Lex orandi lex credendi. I have been examining the Two Covenant Dogma: the fashionable error that God's First Covenant, with the Jews, is still fully and salvifically valid, so that the call to saving faith in Christ Jesus is not made to them. The 'New' Covenant, it is claimed, is now only for Gentiles. I want to draw attention at this point to the witness of the post-Conciliar Magisterium of theFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com13
  4. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    We have seen that the Two Covenant Theory, the idea that Jewry alone is guaranteed Salvation without any need to convert to Christ, is repugnant to Scripture, to the Fathers, even to the post-Conciliar liturgy of the Catholic Church. It is also subversive of the basic grammar of the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. Throughout  two millennia, in Scripture, in Liturgy, in her Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com7
  5. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    The sort of people who would violently reject the points I am making are the sort of people who would not be impressed by the the Council of Florence. So I am going to confine myself to the Magisterium from the time of Pius XII ... since it is increasingly coming to be realised that the continuum of processes which we associate with the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period was already in operationFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com0
  6. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    In 1980, addressing a Jewish gathering in Germany, B John Paul II said (I extract this from a long sentence): " ... dialogue; that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant (never revoked by God, cf Romans 11:29) and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time ..." In 2013, Pope Francis, in the course of his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, also referred to the Old Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com10
  7. Site: Mises Institute
    0 sec ago
    Author: Murray N. Rothbard

    The fifth volume of Conceived in Liberty highlights the most important battle of the American project — one that continues to this day — the conflict between those who want to centralize power, and those who choose to stand to defend the American heritage of liberty.

    This book features a foreword by Judge Andrew Napolitano, a preface by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, and an introduction by Dr. Patrick Newman. Narrated by Millian Quinteros.

    Download the complete audiobook (41 MP3 files) in one ZIP file here. This audiobook is also available on Soundcloud, iTunes, Google Play, and via RSS.​

  8. Site: Mises Institute
    0 sec ago
    Author: Murray N. Rothbard

          Since World War II, mainstream neoclassical economics has followed the general equilibrium paradigm of Swiss economist Leon Walras (1834-1910).1 Economic analysis now consists of the exegesis and elaboration of the Walrasian concept of general equilibrium, in which the economy pursues an endless and unchanging round of activity—what the Walrasian Joseph Schumpeter aptly referred to as “the circular flow.” Since the equilibrium economy is by definition a changeless and unending round of robotic behavior, everyone on the market has perfect knowledge of the present and the future, and the pervasive uncertainty of the real world drops totally out of the picture. Since there is no more uncertainty, profits and losses disappear, and every business firm finds that its selling price exactly equals its cost of production.

         It is surely no accident that the rise to dominance of Walrasian economics has coincided with the virtual mathematization of the social sciences. Mathematics enjoys the prestige of being truly “scientific,” but it is difficult to mathematize the messy and fuzzy uncertainties and inevitable errors of real world entrepreneurship and human actions. Once one expunges such actions and uncertainties, however, it is easy to employ algebra and the tangencies of geometry in analyzing this unrealistic but readily mathematical equilibrium state.

         Most mainstream economic theorists are content to spend their time elaborating on the general equilibrium state, and simply to assume that this state is an accurate presentation of real world activity. But some economists have not been content with contemplating general equilibrium; they have been eager to apply this theory to the real world of dynamic change. For change clearly exists, and for some Walrasians it has not sufficed to simply translate general equilibrium analysis to the real world and to let the chips fall where they may.

         As someone who has proclaimed that Leon Walras was the greatest economist who ever lived, Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883-1950) faced this very problem. As a Walrasian, Schumpeter believed that general equilibrium is an overriding reality; and yet, since change, entrepreneurship, profits, and losses clearly exist in the real world, Schumpeter set himself the problem of integrating a theoretical explanation of such change into the Walrasian system. It was a formidable problem indeed, since Schumpeter, unlike the Austrians, could not dismiss general equilibrium as a long-run tendency that is never reached in the real world. For Schumpeter, general equilibrium had to be the overriding reality: the realistic starting point as well as the end point of his attempt to explain economic change.2

         To set forth a theory of economic change from a Walrasian perspective, Schumpeter had to begin with the economy in a real state of general equilibrium. He then had to explain change, but that change always had to return to a state of equilibrium, for without such a return, Walrasian equilibrium would only be real at one single point of past time and would not be a recurring reality. But Walrasian equilibrium is a world of unending statis; specifically, it depicts the consequences of a fixed and unchanging set of individual tastes, techniques, and resources in the economy. Schumpeter began, then, with the economy in a Walrasian box; the only way for any change to occur is through a change in one or more of these static givens.

          Furthermore, Schumpeter created even more problems for himself. In the Walrasian model, profits and losses were zero, but a rate of interest continued to be earned by capitalists, in accordance with the alleged marginal productivity of capital. An interest charge became incorporated into costs. But Schumpeter was too much of a student of Böhm-Bawerk to accept a crude productivity explanation of interest. The Austrian approach was to explain interest by a social rate of time preference, of the market’s preference for present goods over future goods. But Schumpeter rejected the concept of time-preference as well, and so he concluded that in a state of general equilibrium, the rate of interest as well as profits and losses are all zero.

          Schumpeter acknowledged that time-preference, and hence interest, exist on consumption loans, but he was interested in the production structure. Here he stressed, as against the crude productivity theory of interest, the Austrian concept of imputation, in which the values of products are imputed back to productive factors, leaving, in equilibrium, no net return. Also, in the Austrian manner, Schumpeter showed that capital goods can be broken down ultimately into the two original factors of production, land and labor.3 But what Schumpeter overlooked, or rather rejected, is the crucial Böhm-Bawerkian concept of time and time-preference in the process of production. Capital goods are not only embodied land and labor; they are embodied land, labor, and time, while interest becomes a payment for “time.” In a productive loan, the creditor of course exchanges a “present good” (money that can be used now) for a “future good” (money that will only be available in the future). And the primordial fact of time-preference dictates that every one will prefer to have wants satisfied now than at some point in the future, so that a present good will always be worth more than the present prospect of the equivalent future good. Hence, at any given time, future goods are discounted on the market by the social rate of time-preference.

         It is clear how this process works in a loan, in an exchange between creditor and debtor. But Böhm-Bawerk’s analysis of time-preference and interest went far deeper, and far beyond the loan market for he showed that time-preference and hence interest return exist apart from or even in the absence of any lending at all. For the capitalist who purchases or hires land and labor factors and employs them in production is buying these factors with money (present good) in the expectation that they will yield a future return of output, of either capital goods or consumer goods. In short, these original factors, land and labor, are future goods to the capitalist. Or, put another way, land and labor produce goods that will only be sold and hence yield a monetary return at some point in the future; yet they are paid wages or rents by the capitalist now, in the present.

          Therefore, in the Böhm-Bawerkian or Austrian insight, factors of production, hence workers or landowners, do not earn, as in neoclassical analysis, their marginal value product in equilibrium. They earn their marginal value product discounted by the rate of time-preference or rate of interest. And the capitalist, for his service of supplying factors with present goods and waiting for future returns, is paid the discount.4 Hence, time-preference and interest income exist in the state of equilibrium, and not simply as a charge on loans but as a return earned by every investing capitalist.

    Schumpeter can deny time-preference because he can somehow deny the role of time in production altogether. For Schumpeter, production apparently takes no time in equilibrium, because production and consumption are “synchronized.”5 Time is erased from the picture, even to the extent of assuming away accumulated stocks of capital goods, and therefore of any age structure of distribution of such goods.6 Since production is magically “synchronized,” there is then no necessity for land and labor to receive any advances from capitalists. As Schumpeter writes:

    There is no necessity [for workers or landowners] to apply for any “advances” of present consumption goods. . . . The individual need not look beyond the current period. . . . The mechanism of the economic process sees to it that he also provides for the future at the same time. . . . Hence every question of the accumulation of such stocks [of consumer goods to pay laborers] disappears.

         From this bizarre set of assumptions, “it follows”, notes Schumpeter, “that everywhere, even in a trading economy, produced means of production are nothing but transitory items. Nowhere do we find a stock of them fulfilling any functions.” In denying, further, that there is any “accumulated stock of consumer goods” ready to pay laborers and landowners, Schumpeter is also denying the patent fact that wages and rents are always paid out of the accumulated savings of capitalists, savings which could have been spent on consumer goods but which laborers and landowners will instead spend with their current incomes.

         How can Schumpeter come to this conclusion? One reason is that when workers and landowners exchange their services for present money, he denies that these involve “advances” of consumer goods, because “It is simply a matter of exchange, and not of credit transactions. The element of time plays no part.” What Schumpeter overlooks here is the profound Böhm-Bawerkian insight that the time market is not merely the credit market. For when workers and landowners earn money now for products that will only reap a return to capitalists in the future, they are receiving advances on production paid for out of capitalist saving, advances for which they in effect pay the capitalists a discount in the form of an interest return.7

         In most conceptions of final equilibrium, net savings are zero, but interest is high enough to induce gross saving by capitalists to just replace capital equipment. But in Schumpeter’s equilibrium, interest is zero, and this means that gross saving is zero as well. There appear to be neither an incentive for capitalists to maintain their capital equipment in Schumpeterian equilibrium nor the means for them to do so. The Schumpeterian equilibrium is therefore internally inconsistent and cannot be maintained.8

         Lionel Robbins puts the case in his usual pellucid prose:

    If there were no yield to the use of capital . . . there would be no reason to refrain from consuming it. If produced means of production are not productive of a net product, why devote resources to maintaining them when these resources might be devoted to providing present enjoyment? One would not have one’s cake rather than eat it, if there were no gain to be derived from having it. It is, in short, an interest rate, which, other things being given, keeps the stationary state—the rate at which it does not pay to turn income into capital or capital into income. If interest were to disappear the stationary state would cease to be stationary. Schumpeter can argue that no accumulation will be made once stationary equilibrium has been attained. But he is not entitled to argue that there will be no decumulation unless he admits the existence of interest.9 (emphasis added)

         To return to Schumpeter’s main problem, if the economy begins in a Walrasian general equilibrium modified by a zero rate of interest, how can any economic change, and specifically how can economic development, take place? In the Austrian-Böhm-Bawerkian view, economic development takes place through greater investment in more roundabout processes of production, and that investment is the result of greater net savings brought about by a general fall in rates of time-preference. Upon such a fall, people are more willing to abstain from consumption and to save a greater proportion of their incomes, and thereby invest in more capital and longer processes of production. In the Walrasian schema, change can only occur through alterations in tastes, techniques, or resources. A change in time-preference would qualify as a very important aspect of a change in consumer “tastes” or values.

         But for Schumpeter, there is no time-preference, and no savings in equilibrium. Consumer tastes are therefore irrelevant to increasing investment, and besides there are no savings or interest income out of which such investment can take place. A change in tastes or time-preferences cannot be an engine for economic change, and neither can investment in change emerge out of savings, profit, or interest.

         As for consumer values or tastes apart from time-preference, Schumpeter was convinced that consumers were passive creatures and he could not envision them as active agents for economic change.10 And even if consumer tastes change actively, how can a mere shift of demand from one product to another bring about economic development?

         Resources for Schumpeter are in no better shape as engines of economic development than are tastes. In the first place, the supplies of land and labor never change very rapidly over time, and furthermore they cannot account for the necessary investment that spurs and embodies economic growth.

          With tastes and resources disposed of, there is only one logically possible instrument of change or development left in Schumpeter’s equilibrium system: technique. “Innovation” (a change in embodied technical knowledge or production functions) is for Schumpeter the only logically possible avenue of economic development. To admire Schumpeter, as many economists have done, for his alleged realistic insight into economic history in seeing technological innovation as the source of development and the business cycle, is to miss the point entirely. For this conclusion is not an empirical insight on Schumpeter’s part; it is logically the only way that he can escape from the Walrasian (or neoWalrasian) box of his own making; it is the only way for any economic change to take place in his system.

         But if innovation is the only way out of the Schumpeterian box, how is this innovation to be financed? For there are no savings, no profits, and no interest returns in Schumpeterian equilibrium. Schumpeter is stuck: for there is no way within his own system for innovation to be financed, and therefore for the economy to get out of his own particularly restrictive variant of the Walrasian box. Hence, Schumpeter has to invent a deus ex machina, an exogenous variable from outside his system that will lift the economy out of the box and serve as the only possible engine of economic change. And that deus ex machina is inflationary bank credit. Banks must be postulated that expand the money supply through fractional reserve credit, and furthermore, that lend that new money exclusively to innovators—to new entrepreneurs who are willing and able to invest in new techniques, new processes, new industries. But they cannot do so because, by definition, there are no savings available for them to invest or borrow.

         Hence, the conclusion that innovation is the instrument of economic change and development, and that the innovations are financed by inflationary bank credit, is not a perceptive empirical generalization discovered by Joseph Schumpeter. It is not an empirical generalization at all; indeed it has no genuine referent to reality. Suggestive though his conclusion may seem, it is solely the logical result of Schumpeter’s fallacious assumptions and his closed system, and the only logical way of breaking out of his Walrasian box.

         One sees, too, why for Schumpeter the entrepreneur is always a disturber of the peace, a disruptive force away from equilibrium, whereas in the Austrian tradition of von Mises and Kirzner, the entrepreneur harmoniously adjusts the economy in the direction of equilibrium. For in the Austrian view the entrepreneur is the main bearer of uncertainty in the real world, and successful entrepreneurs reap profits by bringing resources, costs, and prices further in the direction of equilibrium. But Schumpeter starts, not in the real world, but in the never-never land of general equilibrium which he insists is the fundamental reality. But in the equilibrium world of stasis and certainty there are no entrepreneurs and no profit. The only role for entrepreneurship, by logical deduction, is to innovate, to disrupt a preexisting equilibrium. The entrepreneur cannot adjust, because everything has already been adjusted. In a world of certainty, there is no room for the entrepreneur; only inflationary bank credit and innovation enable him to exist. His only prescribed role, therefore, is to be disruptive and innovative.

         The entrepreneur, then, pays interest to the banks, interest for Schumpeter being a strictly monetary phenomenon. But where does the entrepreneurinnovator get the money to pay interest? Out of profits, profits that he will reap when the fruits of his innovation reach the market, and the new processes or products reap revenue from the consumers. Profits, therefore, are only the consequence of successful innovation, and interest is only a payment to inflationary banks out of profit.

         Inflationary bank credit means, of course, a rise in prices, and also a redirection of resources toward the investment in innovation. Prices rise, followed by increases in the prices of factors, such as wages and land rents. Schumpeter has managed, though not very convincingly, to break out of the Walrasian box. But he has not finished his problem. For it is not enough for him to break out of his box; he must also get back in. As a dedicated Walrasian, he must return the economy to another general equilibrium state, for after all, by definition a real equilibrium is a state to which variables tend to return once they are replaced. How does the return take place?

         For the economy to return to equilibrium, profits and interest must be evanescent. And innovation of course must also come to an end. How can this take place? For one thing, innovations must be discontinuous; they must only appear in discrete clusters. For if innovation were continuous, the economy would never return to the equilibrium state. Given this assumption of discontinuous clusters, Schumpeter found a way: When the innovations are “completed” and the new processes or new products enter the market, they out-compete the old processes and products, thereby reaping the profits out of which interest is paid. But these profits are made at the expense of severe losses for the old, now inefficient, firms or industries, which are driven to the wall. After a while, the innovations are completed, and the inexorable imputation process destroys all profits and therefore all interest, while the sudden losses to the old firms are also ended. The economy returns to the unchanging circular flow, and stays there until another cluster of innovations appears, whereupon the cycle starts all over again.

         “Cycle” is here the operative term, for in working out the logical process of breakout and return, Schumpeter has at the same time seemingly developed a unique theory of the business cycle. Phase I, the breakout, looks very much like the typical boom phase of the business cycle: inflationary bank credit, rise in prices and wages, general euphoria, and redirection of resources to more investment. Then, the events succeeding the “completion” of the innovation look very much like the typical recession or depression: sudden severe losses for the old firms, retrenchment. And finally, the disappearance of both innovation and euphoria, and eventually of losses and disruption—in short, a return to a placid period which can be made to seem like the state of stationary equilibrium.

         But Schumpeter’s doctrine only seems like a challenging business cycle theory worthy of profound investigation. For it is not really a cycle theory at all. It is simply the only logical way that Schumpeter can break out and then return to the Walrasian box. As such, it is certainly an ingenious formulation, but it has no genuine connection with reality at all.

         Even within his own theory, indeed, there are grave flaws. In the Walrasian world of perfect certainty (an assumption which is not relaxed with the coming of the innovator), how is it that the old firms wait until the “completion” of the innovation to find suddenly that they are suffering severe losses? In a world of perfect knowledge and expectations, the old firms would know of their fate from the very beginning, and early take steps to adjust to it. In a world of perfect expectations, therefore, there would be no losses, and therefore no recession or depression phase. There would be no cycle as economists know it.

          Finally, Schumpeter’s constrained model can only work if innovations come in clusters, and the empirical evidence for such clusters is virtually nil.11 In the real world, innovations occur all the time. Therefore, there is no reason to postulate any return to an equilibrium, even if it had ever existed in the past.

         In conclusion, Schumpeter’s theory of development and of business cycles has impressed many economists with his suggestive and seemingly meaningful discussions of innovation, bank credit, and the entrepreneur. He has seemed to offer far more than static Walrasian equilibrium analysis and to provide an economic dynamic, a theoretical explanation of cycles and of economic growth. In fact, however, Schumpeter’s seemingly impressive system has no relation to the real world at all. He has not provided an economic dynamic; he has only found an ingenious but fallacious way of trying to break out of the static Walrasian box. His theory is a mere exercise in equilibrium logic leading nowhere.

         It is undoubtedly at least a partial realization of this unhappy fact that prompted Schumpeter to expand his business cycle theory from his open-cycle model of the Theory of Economic Development of 1912 to his three-cycle schema in his two-volume Business Cycles nearly three decades later.12 More specifically, Schumpeter saw that one of the problems in applying his model to reality was that if the length of the boom period is determined by the length of time required to “complete” the innovation and bring it to market, then how could his model apply to real life, where simultaneous innovations occur, each of which requires a different time for its completion? His later three-cycle theory is a desperate attempt to encompass such real-life problems. Specifically, Schumpeter has now postulated that the economy, instead of unitarily breaking out and returning to equilibrium, consists of three separate hermetically sealed, strictly periodic cycles—the “Kitchin”, the “Juglar,” and the “Kon-dratieff”—each with the same innovation-inflation-depression characteristics. This conjuring up of allegedly separate underlying cycles, each cut off from the other, but all adding to each other to yield the observable results of the real world, can only be considered a desperate lapse into mysticism in order to shore up his original model.

         In the first place, there are far more than three innovations going on at one time in the economy, and there is no reason to assume strict periodicity of each set of disparate changes. Indeed, there is no such clustering of innovations as would be required by the theory. Secondly, in the market economy, all prices and activities interact; there therefore can never be any hermetically sealed cycles. The multicycle scheme is an unnecessary and heedless multiplication of entities in flagrant violation of Occam’s Razor. In an attempt to save the theory, it asserts propositions that cannot be falsifiable, since another cycle can always be conjured up to explain away anomalies.13 In an attempt to salvage his original model, Schumpeter only succeeded in adding new and greater fallacies to the old.

         In the years before and during World War II, the most popular dynamic theory of economic change was the gloomy doctrine of “secular stagnation” (or “economic maturity”) advanced by Professor Alvin H. Hansen.14 The explanation of the Great Depression of the 1930s, for Hansen, was that the United States had become mired in permanent stagnation, from which it could not be lifted by free market capitalism. A year or two after the publication of Keynes’s General Theory, Hansen had leaped on the New Economics to become the leading American Keynesian; but secular stagnation, while giving Keynesianism a left-flavor, was unrelated to Keynesian theory. For Keynes, the key to prosperity or depression was private investment: flourishing private investment means prosperity; weak and fitful investment leads to depression. But Keynes was an agnostic on the investment question, whereas Hansen supplied his own gnosis. Private investment in the United States was doomed to permanent frailty, Hansen opined, because (1) the frontier was now closed; (2) population growth was declining rapidly; and (3) there would be hardly any further inventions, and what few there were would be of the capital-saving rather than labor-saving variety, so that total investment could not increase.

         George Terborgh, in his well-known reputation of the stagnation thesis, The Bogey of Economic Maturity, concentrated on a statistical critique.15 If the frontier had been “closed” since the turn of the century, why then had there been a boom for virtually three decades until the 1930s? Population growth too, had been declining for many decades. It was easy, also, to demolish the rather odd and audacious prediction that few or no further inventions, at least of the labor-saving variety, would ever more be discovered. Predictions of the cessation of invention, which have occurred from time to time through history, are easy targets for ridicule.

         But Terborgh never penetrated to the fundamentals of the Hansen thesis. In an age beset by the constant clamor of population doomsayers and zero-population-growth enthusiasts, it is difficult to conjure up an intellectual climate when it seemed to make sense to worry about the slowing of population growth. But why, indeed, should Hansen have considered population growth as ipso facto a positive factor for the spurring of investment? And why would a slowing down of such growth be an impetus to decay? Schumpeter, in his own critique of the Hansen thesis, sensibly pointed out that population growth could easily lead to a fall in real income per capita.16

         Ironically, however, Schumpeter did not recognize that Hansen, too, in his own way, was trying to break out of the Walrasian box. Hansen began implicitly (not explicitly like Schumpeter) with the circular flow and general equilibrium, and then considered the various possible factors that might change—or, more specifically, might increase. And these were the familiar Walrasian triad: land, labor, and technique. As Terborgh noted, Hansen had a static view of “investment opportunities.” He treated them as if they were a limited physical entity, like a sponge. They were a fixed amount, and when that maximum amount was reached, investment opportunities were “saturated” and disappeared. The implicit Hansen assumption is that these opportunities could be generated only by increases in land, labor, and improved techniques (which Hansen limited to inventions rather than Schumpeterian innovations). And so the closing of the frontier meant the drying up of “land-investment opportunities”, as one might call them, the slowing of population growth, the end of “labor-investment opportunities,” leading to a situation where innovation could not carry the remaining burden. And so Hansen’s curious view of the economic effects of diminishing population growth, as gloomily empirical as it might seem, was not really an empirical generalization at all. Indeed, it said nothing about dynamic change or about the real world at all. The allegedly favorable effect of high population growth was merely the logical spinning out of Hansen’s own unsuccessful variant of trying to escape from the Walrasian box.

         And so Hansen’s curious view of the economic effects of diminishing population growth, as gloomily empirical as it might seem, was not really an empirical generalization at all. Indeed, it said nothing about dynamic change or about the real world at all. The allegedly favorable effect of high population growth was merely the logical spinning out of Hansen’s own unsuccessful variant of trying to escape from the Walrasian box.

    The author learned the basic insights of this article many years ago from lectures of Professor Arthur F. Burns at Columbia University.

    • 1. Before World War II, the dominant paradigm, at least in Anglo-American economics, was the neo-Ricardian partial equilibrium theory of Alfred Marshall. In that era, Walras and his followers, the earliest being the Italian Vilfredo Pareto, were referred to as “the Lausanne school.” With the Walrasian conquest of the mainstream, what was once a mere school has now been transformed into “microeconomics.”
    • 2. In maintaining that Schumpeter was more influenced by the Austrians than by Walras, Mohammed Khan overlooks the fact that Schumpeter’s first book, and the only one still untranslated into English, Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der Theoretischen Nationalekonomie (The Essence and Principal Contents of Economic Theory) (Leipzig, 1908), written while he was still a student of Böhm-Bawerk, was an aggressively Walrasian work. Not only is Das Wesen a nonmathematical apologia for the mathematical method, but it is also a study in Walrasian general equilibrium that depicts economic events as the result of mechanistic quantitative interactions of physical entities, rather than as consequences of purposeful human action—the Austrian approach. Thus, Fritz Machlup writes that Schumpeter’s emphasis on the character of economics as a quantitative science, as an equilibrium system whose elements are “quantities of goods,” led him to regard it as unnecessary, and, hence, as methodologically mistaken for economics to deal with “economic conduct” and with “the motives of human conduct” (Fritz Machlup, “Schumpeter’s Economic Methodology,” Review of Economics and Statistics 33 (May 1951: 146-47). Cf. Mohammed Shabbir Khan, Schumpeter’s Theory of Capitalist Development (Aligarh, India: Muslim University of India, 1957). On Das Wesen, see Erich Schneider, Joseph Schumpeter: Life and Work of a Great Social Scientist (Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Bureau of Business Research, 1975), pp. 5-8. On Schumpeter as Walrasian, also see Schneider, “Schumpeter’s Early German Work, 1906-17,” Review of Economics and Statistics (May 1951): 1-4; and Arthur W. Marget, “The Monetary Aspects of the Schumpeterian System,” ibid. p. 112ff. On Schumpeter as not being an “Austrian,” also see “Haberler on Schumpeter,” in Henry W. Spiegel, ed., The Development of Economic Thought (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1952), pp. 742-43.
    • 3. Thus, Schumpeter wrote that in the normal circular flow the whole value product must be imputed to the original productive factors, that is to the services of labor and land; hence the whole receipts from production must be divided between workers and landowners and there can be no permanent net income other than wages and rent. Competition on the one hand and imputation on the other must annihilate any surplus of receipts over outlays, any excess of the value of the product over the value of the services of labor and land embodied in it. The value of the original means of production must attach itself with the faithfulness of a shadow to the value of the product, and could not allow the slightest permanent gap between the two to exist. . . . To be sure, produced means of production have the capacity of serving in the production of goods. . . . And these goods also have a higher value than those which could be produced with the produced means of production. But this higher value must also lead to a higher value of the services of labor and land employed. No element of surplus value can remain permanently attached to these intermediate means of production (Joseph A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961, pp. 160, 162).
    • 4. See the attack on this Austrian view from a Knightian neoclassical perspective in Earl Rolph, “The Discounted Marginal Productivity Doctrine,” in W. Fellner and B. Haley, eds., Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1946), pp 278-93. For a rebuttal, see Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State vol. I (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing Co., 1970), 431-33.
    • 5. On this alleged synchronization, see Khan, Schumpeter’s Theory, pp. 51, 53. The concept of synchronization of production is a most un-Austrian one that Schumpeter took from John Bates Clark, which in turn led to the famous battle in the 1930s between the Clark-Knight concept of capital and the Austrian views of Hayek, Machlup, and Boulding. See ibid., p. 6n. Also see F.A. Hayek, “The Mythology of Capital,” in Fellner and Haley, Readings, pp. 355-83.
    • 6. In Khan’s words, for Schumpeter “capital cannot have any age structure and perishes in the very process of its function of having command over the means of production” (Khan, Schumpeter’s Theory, p. 48). Schumpeter achieves this feat by sundering capital completely from its embodiment in capital goods, and limiting the concept to only a money fund used to purchase those goods. For Schumpeter, then, capital (like interest) becomes a purely monetary phenomenon, not rooted in real goods or real transactions. See Schumpeter, Economic Development, pp. 116-17.
    • 7. See Schumpeter, Economic Development, pp. 43-44.
    • 8. Clemence and Doody attempt to refute this charge, but do so by assuming a zero rate of time-preference. Capitalists would then be interested in maximizing their utility returns over time without regard for when they would be reaped. Hence, capital goods would be maintained indefinitely. But for those who believe that everyone has a positive rate of time-preference, and hence positively discounts future returns, a zero rate of return would quickly cause the depletion of capital and certainly the collapse of stationary equilibrium. Richard V. Clemence and Francis S. Doody, The Schumpeterian System (Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1950), pp. 28-30.
    • 9. In the excellent critique of Schumpeter’s zero-interest equilibrium by Lionel Robbins, “On a Certain Ambiguity in the Conception of Stationary Equilibrium,” Economic Journal 40 (June 1930): pp. 211-14. Also see Gottfried Haberler, “Schumpeter’s Theory of Interest,” Review of Economics and Statistics (May 1951): 122ff.
    • 10. Thus, Schumpeter wrote: “It is not the large mass of consumers which induces production. On the contrary, the crowd is mastered and led by the key personalities in production” (italics are Schumpeter’s) in “Die neuere Wirtschaftstheorie in den Vereinigten Staaten” (“Recent Economic Theory in the United States”) Schmollers Jahrbuch (1910), cited in Schneider, Joseph A. Schumpeter, p. 13.
    • 11. See Simon S. Kuznets, “Schumpeter’s Business Cycles,” American Economic Review (June 1940).
    • 12. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939).
    • 13. This does not mean that all propositions must be falsifiable; they can be selfevident or deduced from self-evident axioms. But no one can claim that the alleged Kitchin, Juglar, and Kondratieff cycles are in any sense self-evident.
    • 14. See Alvin H. Hansen, Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles (New York: W.W. Norton, 1941). For a clear summary statement of his position, see Hansen, “Economic Progress and Declining Population Growth,” in G. Haberler, ed., Readings in Business Cycle Theory (Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1944), pp. 366-84.
    • 15. George Terborgh, The Bogey of Economic Maturity (Chicago: Machinery and Allied Products Institute, 1945).
    • 16. Schumpeter, Business Cycles, p. 74.
  9. Site: Henrymakow.com
    0 sec ago
    GOODMAN.jpeg















    (NOT AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE)

    More Evidence That Illuminati Controls Corporate America

    from APRIL 1, 2010
    By Stephen Baldwin
    The Western Center for Journalism


    (Abridged and Edited by Henry Makow)


    Over the course of its 33 year history, a little known group, operating as "the Tides Foundation" and "the Tides Center"  has given a half billion dollars to anti-free enterprise groups, gun control groups, anti-private property groups, abortion rights groups, homosexual groups, groups engaged in voter fraud, anti-military groups, and organizations that seek to destroy America's constitutional basis. All told, over 100 leftist organizations have received funding from one of the two Tides groups.

    Indeed, its financial disclosures show that the Tides Center has raised between $48 and $71 million each year since 1998 [for] far left groups. The closely-aligned Tides Foundation has reported revenues of between $59 and $77 million every year since 2002.  The two tax exempt groups are supposed to be non-partisan, but they are certainly extremely political and they push the envelope regarding what non-profit groups are allowed to do politically.  

    The list of hard-left causes is long and there is not enough space to review them all.  But here's a brief review of a few of them:

    Environmental Extremist groups



    The Ruckus Society is a group of environmental anarchists dedicated to the violent overthrow of America.  One of its projects is to train people to disrupt events such as political party conventions using street blockades and other violent techniques.  Its director has publicly stated that, "you can use vandalism strategically." They received $200,000 from the Tides Foundation.


    Islamic groups

    Apparently, the Tides Foundation does not consider any Islamic group to be a threat, even if they have been implicated in terrorist activities by the government.  It has funded the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), probably the leading front group for Islamic radicals in America.  Indeed, three of CAIR's leaders have been arrested for pro-jihadist activities and CAIR spends much of its time attacking American efforts to track, monitor, and arrest domestic terrorists.  They have opposed, for example, virtually every effort by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to monitor Islamic radicals known to be engaged in pro-jihadist activity.

    But rather then be concerned with Islamic terrorism after 9/11, the Tides Foundation poured half of a million dollars into an effort to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs.  Another Tides recipient, the Democratic Justice Fund, works to east restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States from countries designated as "terrorist nations."

    The Tides groups also funds other groups who work against the creation of internal security measures such as the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Voter Fraud groups

    When the story broke last year about how ACORN founder Wade Rathke was caught embezzling a million dollars from ACORN, it was Tides founder Drummond Pike who reimbursed ACORN for the missing money.  Pike did not want an investigation of ACORN that would force it to open its books.  With ongoing investigations in at least a dozen states involving ACORN and voter fraud, you can understand Pike's concern.  Not only that, but Rathke sits on the board of both the Tides Center and Tides Foundation.

    Drummond Pike, a scruffy, California-based, anti-war activist, founded the Tides Foundation in 1976 and managed to raise millions of dollars from America's leading foundations.  What he promises them is anonymity since they are able to claim they are simply contributing to a foundation self described as being "committed to a society based on fairness, equal justice and equally shared economic opportunities..." 

    That sounds fairly innocuous.  The contributors therefore have some "deniability" about how their money is used but Pike then directs this money to a massive network of hard-left groups.  Indeed, Pike even states, "Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with."

    FUNDERS

    Four of its largest supporters are as follows:

    The Heinz Endowment.

    Led by John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, this group has contributed at least $8.1 million to the Tides entities since 1994.  This is the endowment created by the Heinz food empire which Teresa Heinz still has ownership interest in.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    George Soros.

    Soros has given more than $7 million to the Tides Foundation.  Tides founder Drummond Pike serves as the treasurer for Soros's Democracy Alliance, a major funder of ACORN.

    Ford Foundation. This foundation consistently supports causes Henry Ford would never have supported and has become one of the largest donors to Tides, giving them millions of dollars since 1997. Not only that, but the Ford Motor company also gives to Tides.

    Rockefeller Foundation:  They have been funding the left in America for 40 years, so this is no surprise.

    Other large Tides donors include: the Pew Charitable Trust, the James Irvine Foundation, Citigroup Foundation,  Kellogg Foundation, Hearst Foundation, Fannie Mae Foundation, JP Morgan Foundation, Bank America Foundation, Chase Manhattan Foundation, Verizon Foundation, David & Lucile Packard Foundation, AT & T Foundation, Bell Atlantic Foundation, Citicorp Foundation, ARCO Foundation, US West Foundation, John D. MacArthur Foundation, ALCOA Foundation, Richard King Mellon Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation.

    Americans need to realize that this is how the hard left in America is now funded. Indeed, this is the same network used by the Obama campaign machine to manipulate public opinion.  This coalition of left wing groups and hijacked foundations will destroy America unless Americans wake up and quit funding the corporations linked to these foundations.

    BOYCOTT THE FUNDERS

    One way to reduce the power of this alliance would be to boycott the products and services these organizations are involved with such as Ford automobiles, Heinz food products, Bank of America, Kellogg cereals, HP computers, etc. While these foundations usually no longer have any financial association with the corporations that originally endowed them, you can be sure the people from both entities still travel in the same circles. If thousands of Americans, for example, told Ford dealers they will no longer buy Ford cars as long as the Ford Foundation funds anti-American causes, the Foundation will quickly get the message.  If thousands of Americans wrote the Hewlett Packard Company and informed them they will cease to purchase HP computer products as long as its foundation funds the left, you can be sure HP will pressure its foundation to back off its agenda.


    Complete article here






  10. Site: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP
    2 hours 54 min ago
    Author: abyssum

    Dershowitz Launches Crushing Defense Against Dems in Impeachment Trial: ‘The Wrong Criteria’

    This is the argument the Senate – and the country – needed to hear.

    Day 2 of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense Monday brought famed attorney Alan Deshowitz to explain the kind of assault on the Constitution that characterizes the Democratic impeachment attempt on the grounds of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.”

    Advertisement – story continues below

    And he used some of the biggest names in American history to do it.RNC Research✔@RNCResearch

    Dershowitz lists Presidents that would have been impeached under Democrats’ “view of the Constitution”https://youtu.be/KyN8bVPncL0 

    Embedded video

    7017:53 PM – Jan 27, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy459 people are talking about this

    Going back to the earliest days of the Republic, Dershowitz noted that presidents beginning with George Washington could have faced impeachment under the loose, patently unconstitutional standards being used by Democrats in the 21st century.

    TRENDING: Sex Offender Defends His Child Porn Collection by Claiming To Identify as Girl, 8

    The self-acknowledged supporter of Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2016 election, stressed to the senators that impeachment was a remedy established by the Founders for behavior so extreme it was beyond the normal boundaries of politics in a democracy.

    Advertisement – story continues below

    From Washington and fellow Founders Thomas Jefferson and John Adams through Republicans like Abraham Lincoln and Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Dershowitz said, presidents have been accused by political opponents of abusing their power — however, the answer was not in a radical impeachment drive, but in working for their defeat in constitutional elections.

    “I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents,” Dershowitz said.Do you think impeachment will hurt Democrats more than President Trump in the November election?Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

    Naturally, thanks to a conveniently timed leak to The New York Times (the anti-Trump “newspaper of record”), Dershowitz was forced to address the story that former National Security Adviser John Bolton has written a bookthat supports Democratic charges that Trump abused his power by withholding military aid to the country of Ukraine by demanding it investigate corruption allegations that could involve former Vice President Joe Biden.

    As Dershowitz described it, the Bolton story might or might not be serious, but it’s essentially irrelevant to an impeachment trial — with the potential to overturn the results of a presidential election.

    “If a president, any president, were to have done what The Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said.

    Advertisement – story continues below

    “Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution.”Rep Andy Biggs✔@RepAndyBiggsAZ

    “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense.

    That is clear from the history.

    That is clear from the language of the Constitution.” – @AlanDersh

    Embedded video

    2,2707:47 PM – Jan 27, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy1,148 people are talking about this

    RELATED: Huckabee: Too Bad Romney’s Not President — Then He Could Be Impeached

    And that is the heart of the matter.

    Advertisement – story continues below

    RECOMMENDED

    The Highest Paying Cash Back Card Of 2020 Has Hit The MarketBy Revcontent

    What Democrats are doing now is turning their destructive, deranged dislike for Trump and the revolution he’s brought to American politics into an attempt to drive him from office that’s dressed up in constitutional finery.

    But that finery can’t disguise the inherently undemocratic nature of the Democratic effort.

    The place to settle political differences is in a political campaign and the November election.

    Just because Democrats are clearly afraid they won’t win that campaign is no excuse to indulge in a poorly veiled assault on the Constitution that comes close to qualifying as a coup.

    Advertisement – story continues below

    Democrats might think the rules are different because the president is Donald Trump, but the lesson Dershowitz, a retired Harvard law professor, was teaching was that the precedent they are trying to set now would shake the constitutional system at its foundation of co-equal branches of government.

    Personal political preferences are not the issue, he said.

    “I stand against the application, and misapplication, of the constitutional criteria in every case and against every president without regard to whether I support his or her parties or policies,” he said.Tom Elliott@tomselliott

    .@AlanDersh: “I would be making the very same constitutional argument, had Hillary Clinton, for whom I voted, had been elected, and a Republican House had voted to impeach her on these unconstitutional grounds”

    Embedded video

    1,3167:07 PM – Jan 27, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy521 people are talking about this

    Advertisement – story continues below

    That’s the reality of it. Even a Hillary Clinton supporter like Dershowitz sees the inherent danger of an impeachment process that seeks to make Congress supreme over the presidency, regardless of whether the current president is a man most Clinton supporters despise.

    The stakes of the Trump impeachment are higher than any so-called revelations from Bolton, higher than Trump himself, and considerably higher than the benighted political aspirations of swamp dwellers such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her flying monkeys in the mainstream media.

    That was the argument Dershowitz was making, and it’s just what the Senate — and the country — needed to hear.

    We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.Submit a Correction
    Share on FacebookTweetEmailPrint

    Joe SaundersStory EditorSummary More Info Recent Posts ContactJoe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro desk editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He’s been with Liftable Media since 2015.

  11. Site: Home Living
    2 hours 57 min ago
    There was an interesting question I have been thinking about, concerning the problem of open-floor plans.  Or, sometimes a room is too long and needs to be divided.  Here are some ideas about sectioning off rooms without walls. One lady took her book shelves, which were rather tall, and placed them between the kitchen and the living room., with the backs toward the kitchen, so that they Lydiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15530969871397361970noreply@blogger.com0
  12. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 5 min ago
    Author: Frontline

     

    Two of the most persistent offensives of the Reagan presidency have been the war against communism in Central America and the war on drugs here at home.

    But investigations of America’s secret war in Nicaragua have revealed mounting evidence

    The post Video: Guns, Drugs and the CIA appeared first on Global Research.

  13. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 11 min ago
    Author: Lin Liangduo

    Translated from Chinese for Global Research.

    Enough is enough. Enough hypocrisy for this one world.

    What do you want from us, anyway? What Do You Really Want from Us?

    When we were the sick man of Asia, we were called …

    The post China’s Message to Donald: What Do You Want from Us? appeared first on Global Research.

  14. Site: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP
    3 hours 31 min ago
    Author: abyssum

    THE ENEMIES OF POPE BENEDICT XVI

    JANUARY 28, 2020

    FROM ROME

    by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

    What really has been going on in the Church since the reign of Pius XII? — And what really was going on in the Church during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI?  These questions raise themselves in the mind of those who seek an explanation for Vatican II and the coup d’etat which drove  Pope Benedict XVI from power in February of 2013.

    I have previously written about that Coup d’etat in my article entitled, The Vatican Coup d’etat of February 2013. And in my articles, entitled, Pope Benedict’s Forced AbdicationThe Imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI and How Benedict has defeated ‘Francis’. All of which should be read to better understand what I am about to say here.

    Also, before reading here, see my article on Facts vs. Conjecture, so you can better understand what I am about to say.

    The House of Cardinal Bertone

    One of the major factions in the Roman Curia is the House of Cardinal Tarcisio PIetro Evasio Bertone, that is, the group of Cardinals and Bishops of whom he is the principal consecrator or co-consecrator. You can see the entire list, in the right column of his page at Catholic-Hierarchy.org. He was Pope Benedict XVI’s replacement for Cardinal Sodano in the all important post of Secretary of State, a position to which he was promoted on September 15, 2006, the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows.

    His influence even today is being felt on account of the members of his faction: Cardinal Parolo and Archbishop Gänswein, whom he co-consecrated in 2009 and 2013 respectively.

    During the recent Book Flap, no less than Archbishop Viganò testified that Archbishop Gänswein, who was at the time of Pope Benedict XVI’s election as Roman Pontiff, a mere priest secretary, had a radical change in character following Benedict’s election as the Vicar of Christ (See FromRome.Info’s authorized English translation of Viganò’s testimony, here). He went from being a secretary who facilitated communication with Cardinal Ratzinger to being a control valve for information arriving in the hands of Pope Benedict. Marco Tosatti was given information to the contrary, however.

    The Book Flap as well as the angry phone call I got from Archbishop Gänswein made me realize that we need to re-evaluate the Archbishop’s role in the history of Pope Benedict’s Pontificate. I discussed that in my article for investigative journalists, here.

    I have speculated that on account of the failure of the St. Gallen Mafia to secure the papacy for Bergoglio in the legitimate conclave of 2005, they became convinced that it was necessary to apply pressure upon Benedict XVI to resign. I have reported that Gänswein himself seems to refer to a pact in the Conclave of 2005, whereby Ratzinger’s ascension to the Papal Throne was secured with a promise of resignation in the near future.

    This pressure may have been applied only by the St. Gallen Mafia and members of the House of Rampolla del Tindaro. However, they may have convinced other factions to join in this control on account of agreements for votes in the Conclave.

    One line of investigation is whether one of those other factions was none other than the House of Cardinal Bertone.

    According to sources who have spoken to FromRome.Info, the agreement in the Conclave was that Pope Benedict XVI would reign for 5 years, until 2010, and then abdicate. The House of Cardinal Bertone was a signatory, as it were, on this pact.

    As can be seen from the episcopal lineage of Cardinal Bertone, his co-consecrators were each from two different factions: The House of Rampolla del Tindaro and the House of Saint Pius X. A clear choice of a man who wanted to keep his career options open in the future, by bridging or functioning as a middle-man between irreconcilable factions.

    According to this reconstruction, Cardinal Bertone was urged as the new Secretary of State to replace Cardinal Sodano, who was out of favor with Pope Benedict XVI on account of what he had learned as Cardinal in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for concealing the moral depravity of Father Maciel of the Legionaires of Christ and other institutes. This has been widely reported.

    Little did Pope Benedict XVI know, however, that it was perhaps already at this time that Bertone was in agreement with Bergoglio about the change of power. The interference and obstacles grew, and when Benedict was asked to resign in 2010, and refused, open warfare began.

    The Persecution of Pope Benedict XVI

    First, beginning in 2006, the year Bertone became Secretary of State, there was organized in Austria and then in Germany (where the House of Rampolla had deep roots) a movement called the Pfarrer Initiative (Pastor’s Initiative).

    In 2011, they circulated a petition among hundreds of priests demanding changes in the Catholic Religion which were fundamental and intolerable: married clergy and women priests. They threatened schism if they were not heard.  The Vienna Review, on Dec. 1, 2011, quoted in part their manifesto:

    They [the priests] want to be accepted as the intermediaries between God and the people, yet “Jesus was a layman, and he made no effort to install a clerical class…he encouraged people to confront God on their own. Hence communion is enacted by a parish community and a leader together. While according to current Church doctrine, this leader has to be an ordained priest, there is no reason that it should stay that way. “There needs to be a revival of the importance of the parish for the celebration of communion.

    The group which called their petition a “Call to disobedience” ( Aufruf zum Ungehorsam) was lead by Father Helmut Schueller, former Vicar General of Cardinal Christopher Schoenborn, of Vienna, a key member of “Team Bergoglio” and a Rampolla House member. He went on a tour in 2012 to spread the rebellion.

    But even before the tour, Pope Benedict XVI made an apostolic visit to Germany to quell rising resentment among the German Episcopate to his resistance to the agenda of the movement. In a stunning reproof, numerous Bishops refused to shake the Pope’s hand on camera. Though denied by many news outlets, the proof is in the seeing:

    Threats of Assasination

    At the same time in February of 2012, the pro-Bergoglian Mass Media in Europe spread the rumor that if Benedict XVI did not resign within 12 months he would be assassinated. This rumor was spread in the United Kingdom, Italy and Colombia, all bases of power of the St. Gallen Mafia.

    In response it appears that Cardinal Walter Brandmüller called for severe punishments on this group in an editorial in 2012, which perhaps reflects the counsel he gave Pope Benedict XVI on this matter from the beginning.

    Pope Benedict XVI stood his ground, and did not cave. Father Schueller received a slap on the hand, as it were, in 2012, according to a report by Reuters in what appears to be an diplomatic attempt to diffuse the confrontation without ceding on principles. However, that a St. Gallen Mafia protege was the key figure in this pressure placed upon Pope Benedict was no coincidence.

    Vatileaks as a tool of psychological disruption

    However, at about the same time as the Austrian Protest was gaining steam, we know from published reports on the Vatileaks scandal, that the private Butler of Pope Benedict XVI began to borrow and copy sensitive correspondence of the Pope from the desk of Father Gänswein, in what would come to be called the Vatileaks Scandal.

    What makes this fact worthy of note is, that the collaborator with the Butler in the distribution of the correspondence was a woman of a rather notorious character who had ties with the St. Gallen Mafia. Among the letters which were leaked, were those of Archbishop Viganò complaining about financial corruption at the Vatican (Documents which at least in their first delivery never made it into the hands of the Pope, according to the testimony of Viganò, published here at FromRome.Info). In an attempt to silence one of the financial investigators, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, he was fired without Pope Benedict XVI’s consent, according to his own testimony of what Cardinal would tell him on Feb. 7, 2013.

    The news of the thefts was published on Italian TV in January of 2012. Pope Benedict XVI initiated an investigation in March of the same year. He could not bring himself to understand who among those so intimate to him had betrayed him.

    The financial corruption investigation eventually revealed other things, such as unexplained double payments for the renovations of an apartment used by Cardinal Bertone. The removal of Tedeschi and Pope Benedict, who began the investigations as a result of Vatileaks, was thus a political necessity for a lot of people.

    Perhaps to protect himself in the future after the abdication, and as an act of gratitude for service, Cardinal Bertone was one of Father Ganswein’s co-consecrators, when Pope Benedict XVI made him an Archbishop on January 7, 2013. His appointment in the previous December as Head of the Pontifical Household sealed his control over Pope Benedict after any abdication he might make.

    Finally, according to my source, the concept of “Pope Emeritus” was not the invention of Pope Benedict, but was created by the new Archbishop to conceal the failed renunciation, the invalidity of which no one around Pope Benedict XVI noticed or admitted before it was too late, for Pope Benedict had check-mated them all!

    This title also serves to keep Benedict under the control of the Archbishop, instead of allowing him to return home to Bavaria, a thing which the Pope himself recently admitted in the Bavarian State TV documentary about himself, entitled, Ein Besuch bei Papst Benedikt XVI. em. Klein Bayern im Vatikan.

    + + +

    Support FromRome.Info

    Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

    $10.00

  15. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 33 min ago
    Author: BBC

    A French publisher has apologised after a history textbook that appeared in bookshops in recent weeks suggested the 11 September 2001 attacks were probably “orchestrated by the CIA”.

    The debunked conspiracy theory was apparently highlighted on social media initially by …

    The post France Apology after History Textbook Links CIA to 9/11 appeared first on Global Research.

  16. Site: PeakProsperity
    3 hours 34 min ago
    Author: Adam Taggart

    Executive Summary

    • The outlook from our endorsed financial advisor, New Harbor Financial
    • 6 strategies for positioning your portfolio for the next market downturn
    • Deciding which strategies are most appropriate for you

    If you have not yet read Part 1: The Coronavirus Is The Black Swan Markets Have Feared, available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

    As we take close note of the current disconnect in the markets, we supplement our own analysis with that of other experts we respect. Are they seeing similar signs of imminent risk?

    New Harbor Financial is an independent financial advisory firm that manages investor capital using a philosophy that takes many of the key trends within The Crash Course into account. We asked them for an update on their current market outlook, and here’s their response:

    The stock market, particularly in the US, is completely disconnected from reality.  It’s clear to us that the global economy has been slowing, and various data series point to a deceleration of global demand, starting in late 2018. For many years central banks have been able to create the illusion of growth by creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and throwing the money into the financial markets, with the primary objective of pushing asset prices higher.  It is becoming clear that not only did central banks fail to create sustainable growth, but by stealing growth from the future, they likely have made the situation even worse.

    Stock valuations remain near the highest levels in all of history. Returns from these levels, particularly in the US markets, are likely to be pitiful, perhaps even negative, over the next decade.  Of course, market retreats to more reasonable levels make all the difference in reestablishing valuations that can support healthy subsequent returns.  At New Harbor, our portfolio for most clients has minimal net exposure to the stock market and a healthy percentage of short-term Treasury bills. While we can’t predict the exact path of stock market returns in the future, we believe it is imperative to hold a significant amount of cash to be able to take advantage of lower prices ahead.

    Based on the data, we can’t stress enough how historically overvalued these markets are. While many professional investors acknowledge the data, and how extreme it is, all too often many of these investors will use phrases like “The Fed has the market’s back” as justification for dismissing these extremes.  We do not think that central banks have abolished bear markets, nor business cycles.  We urge investors to dramatically reduce equity exposure, or short of that, to implement a robust hedging program to guard against downside risk.

    Ways To Position For A Downturn

    In the rest of this report, we revisit our recommended steps for positioning against lower market prices.

    New Harbor advises implementing “a robust hedging program to guard against downside risk”

    OK –  sounds prudent. But how do you do it?

    Our focus here in this report is to cover the most common vehicles used in hedging strategies. Each one merits its own dedicated report to truly understand how and when to best deploy, so this report will focus on providing you with a good introduction to each, with guidance on how to further explore the ones that strike you as appropriate for your needs and personal risk tolerance.

    But before continuing further, let me make a few things absolutely clear. This is NOT personal financial advice. This material is for educational purposes only, and as an aid for you to discuss these options more intelligently with your professional financial adviser(s) before taking any action.

    (If you do not have a financial advisor or do not feel comfortable with your current adviser’s expertise with the investment vehicles discussed in this Part 2, then consider scheduling a free portfolio review/consultation with our endorsed advisor)

    Suffice it to say, everything discussed in this report should be reviewed with your financial adviser before taking any action. Am I being excessively repetitive here in order to drive this point home? Good…

    Cash & Cash Equivalents

    These are the “safest” investments (i.e., least likely to result in the loss of your principal). As such, their expected returns are the lowest vs other options.

    • Bank savings accounts — The most liquid way to store cash. During the record-low interest rates of the past 7+ years, bank savings rates have been insultingly low, around 0.06%, vastly underperforming inflation. Savings rates are getting slightly better, with a number of banks offering teaser rates (usually only for new deposits) as high as 2%. Cash stored in a bank savings account is subject to any bank failure/bail-in risk higher than the FDIC coverage limit.
    • Money Market accounts — Banks and brokerage firms both offer these MMAs to their customers. They offer slightly higher interest rates than traditional savings accounts because they demand a minimum balance and limit the number of withdrawals a customer can make in a given month. As with savings accounts, MMAs are subject to any bank/brokerage failure higher than the FDIC/SIPC coverage limit.
    • Bank Certificates of Deposits (CDs) — Similar to a bank savings account except your money is ‘locked up’ with the bank for a period of months (most commonly 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 & 60). For the right of using your savings during this period, the bank pays you a higher interest rate. The best rates on the market today range between 0.6% for 6-mo CDs up to 3% for 60-mo ones. Cash stored in a bank CD is also subject to any bank failure/bail-in risk higher than the FDIC coverage limit.
    • US Treasury Bills — Currently, you can get notably better returns from 4-week to 1-year T-bills than from bank CDs or savings. Current yields are range between 2.4% to 2.6%. Moreover, you avoid the risk of bank failure/bail-ins. You can purchase T-bills directly from the US Treasury through its TreasuryDirect program, which we’ve written about extensively here. As long as you hold them to maturity, which is easy given their short durations, you’ll receive the promised yield (usually paid up front) and all of your principal back. Income received from T-bills is tax-free at the state & local levels (though remains subject to federal tax).

    There is NOTHING wrong with remaining 100% in cash and simply letting your cash appreciate relative to stocks/bonds/etc when the correction hits.

    But, if you want to have some upside exposure to the correction, now is a good time to consider how much of your portfolio to allocate to that strategy. And what to put it in. And to start putting small positions in place.

    Below are the most common hedging options.

    Stops

    An easy way to limit your downside on large positions in your portfolio is to set stops.

    (Stops can be used on positions of any size, but you’ll typically want to employ them on your largest ones first, where your exposure is greater.)

    A stop order (also referred to as a “stop-loss” order) is used to trigger the sale or purchase of a stock once its price reaches a predetermined value, known as the stop price.

    As an example, let’s say you bought a stock for $50. You may decide you want to sell your shares in the event the stock drops by 10%, so you enter a stop order for $45. Then, if the price of the stock subsequently drops below $45, your stop activates an order to sell the stock at market.

    If instead of falling, the stock you buy climbs higher, your stop is not triggered and you continue owning the security.

    As the name “stop-loss” implies, stops are intended to help you guard against experiencing uncomfortably large losses in your positions. You decide your maximum pain threshold, and the stop is designed to keep you from exceeding it. And your upside potential in the position remains unchanged.

    You can also set a trailing stop order, which raises your exit price target as your position appreciates. Building on the above example, if your stock rises to $60, a 10% trailing stop order would then raise your stop price. A subsequent fall in the stock would trigger a market sale order in the event the stock retreats to $54 (90% of $60), rather than $45 if you hadn’t had the trailing feature in place.

    Stops are one of the most useful, easiest to deploy and cheapest forms of portfolio insurance; but the majority of individual investors don’t use them. Why? Mostly out of unfamiliarity, which is a shame as they’re quite easily mastered.

    There are a few risks with stops, though. The most important one to be aware of is that the more volatile a security is, the more likely it is your stop will be triggered. So even though a stock closes higher at the end of a trading day, it may have temporarily dipped down low enough to trigger your stop, causing you to sell at a loss. Moreover, in today’s HFT-manipulated markets, the dubious practice of “running the stops” has been known to happen. This is the nefarious act of a big player deliberately pushing the stock price temporarily to intentionally trigger the open stop orders. For example, it might start selling small amounts of a stock to push its price down in order to trigger the existing stops, then buy the stock back in larger volume at these lower prices before removing the selling pressure and allowing it to bounce back — making a quick profit at the expense of the stop holders it just fleeced. So give careful thought when you set your stop price, taking volatility into consideration.

    Second, note that when a stop is triggered, it creates an order to buy/sell the security “at market” (i.e., the current market price). If the price is rapidly falling, it can fall further than your stop price before the market order is triggered. In extreme (and rare) cases, like a flash crash, your market order could potentially get filled at a fraction of your declared stop price.

    Inverse & Leveraged ETFs

    There are instruments that trade like stocks and allow you to bet against the direction of an index or an underlying benchmark asset. These are called inverse ETFs. They have a lot in common with the practice of shorting securities (which we’ll discuss in a moment), with the important distinction that they have limited downside.

    Think the S&P 500 is overvalued and due for a correction? There’s an ETF you can buy (actually, many of them) designed to appreciate as the S&P loses value.

    In this example, you could buy shares of the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF (ticker: SH) in the exact same way you buy shares of any other security. If your assumption is correct and the S&P declines in value during the trading day, the price of SH will rise on a (roughly) 1-to-1 basis. If you’re wrong, SH will decline on the same basis, but your worst-case scenario is losing no more than the money you put in (unlike shorting or certain options trades).

    Now, let’s say you’re feeling really confident in your bet the S&P 500 is going to drop in value. Rather than SH, you could consider a leveraged inverse ETF like SDS, which inversely tracks the S&P 500 on a 2-to-1 basis throughout the day. Meaning you’ll make gains at twice the rate the S&P falls, and lose value twice as fast as it rises. But again, your downside is capped at the original principal amount you invested.

    There are a plethora of inverse ETFs (leveraged and unleveraged) to choose among. A list of some of the most commonly traded ones can be found here.

    Now for the caveats. Inverse ETFs have costs that erode performance over time. First, they require active management and therefore have fees. Second, they are designed to track their underlying benchmarks over the course of a single trading day. As time goes on, there are portfolio rebalancing costs that can eat into gains, and if enough time goes by, potential significant tracking error can cause the underlying performance of your holding to bear increasingly less relationship to the performance of the underlying benchmark asset. So, in general, when using inverse/leveraged ETFs, plan to hold them for shorter time frames. They are NOT “set it and forget it” holdings.

    Shorting

    Shorting acts in much the same way as owning an inverse ETF, with some important differences.

    Shorting a security essentially means selling it first (vs buying) because you expect it to go down in value. If it does, you then buy it back at the lower price, and pocket the difference between your initial sale price and ultimate purchase price.

    Shorting generally works on a 1-to-1 basis; should the security you’re shorting drop by $1, you’ll make $1. Unlike inverse ETFs, this basis doesn’t decay over time or lose its connection to the underlying security. And there are no management fees to pay that may reduce performance. That’s why, in general, for longer-term bets, investors typically go short versus using ETFs.

    But it’s critically important to be aware that the fixed 1-to-1 relationship works in reverse, too. If the security you’re short appreciates, your position will lose the equivalent amount. And since most securities have no theoretical limit on how high their price can go, your potential losses are theoretically unlimited, too. Should you be unfortunate to short the next Netflix right before its price takes a moonshot, you’d lose an awful lot of money — fast.

    So, should you choose to short a security, consider using stop order similar to that discussed above (a buy stop order, in this case) to limit your exposure to losses.

    One other thing to know about holding a short position: if the security you’re short issues a dividend, you will need to pay out that dividend. So be mindful of that risk when planning your shorts.

    If you decide to employ shorting, you’ll be required to use a brokerage account with margin agreements. Margin refers to an amount you’re required to hold in reserve inside your account while your short trade is in play, as an indication that you can make good on the trade should it go against you. In the event that a security you have shorted moves sharply higher from the price at which you shorted it, you might be required to post additional margin (i.e., deposit additional cash) into the account in order to maintain your position. If you fail to post the required additional margin, your short position will be force liquidated by the brokerage. This provides another good argument for setting buy stop orders, which help prevent you from getting into this type of trouble.

    Options

    Options are agreements to buy/sell a security (or other asset) at an agreed upon price at or before a specific future date.

    They are more complex than the instruments mentioned so far, and because of this, they are deemed riskier. To trade options, you’ll need to apply for permission from your broker/brokerage, which will require signing your acknowledgement of the involved risk.

    Call Options

    A call option affords the buyer the right to buy a security at a set price (called the exercise price) on or before a specified future date (the expiration date). The purchaser of a call option is hoping the underlying security rises in value before the end of the contract, so s/he can collect the difference between the market price and the (lower) exercise price.

    To purchase a call option, the buyer pays an option price (commonly called the option premium) to purchase the contract. This is often expressed on a per share basis (e.g., $0.50), but typically represents 100 shares of the underlying security (making the total option price = $0.50 x 100 = $50). The value of the call option must rise above this option price paid for the investor to begin making a profit on the position.

    If by the time the contract ends, the market price of the underlying security exceeds the exercise price, then the contract is exercised and the underlying security is “called away”. Essentially, the call option holder pockets the difference between the market price minus the exercise price, times 100.

    However, if the exercise price is higher than the market price at the contract’s expiry, then the contract expires worthless. The investor loses the entire initial up front investment of the total option price s/he paid.

    Put Options

    A put option afford the buyer the right to sell a security at a set price on or before a set date in the future. The purchaser of a put option is hoping the underlying security falls in value before the end of the contract, so s/he can collect the difference between the exercise price and the (lower) market price.

    To purchase a put option, the buyer pays an option price to purchase the contract. Similar to call options, a put contracts is often expressed on a per share basis (e.g., $0.50), but typically represents 100 shares of the underlying security (making the total option price = $0.50 x 100 = $50). The value of the put option must rise above this option price paid for the investor to begin making a profit on the position.

    If by the time the contract ends, if the exercise price is indeed higher than the value of the market price of the underlying security, then the contract is exercised and the underlying less-valuable shares are able to be “put” on the seller of the option by the buyer. Essentially, the put option holder pockets the difference between the exercise price minus the market price, times 100.

    However, if the exercise price is lower than the market price at the contract’s expiry, then the contract expires worthless. The investor loses the entire initial up front investment of the total option price s/he paid.

    Options Behavior

    Once purchased, the price of a call or put option will rise and fall based on several factors. The first is its intrinsic value, which is the difference between the market value of the underlying security and the exercise price specified by the option contract. The second is its time value, which is a multi-variate non-linear function based on several factors including how much time is left until the contract’s expiry, the implied volatility of the underlying security, and the “risk free” interest rate.

    Due to the complexity of how option prices change and their great sensitivity to volatility in the securities underlying them, those who use them need to pay close attention to the price action. It’s not uncommon for an options contract to swing wildly from gain to loss throughout a single trading day.

    It’s important to note that options contracts can be closed at any time prior to the expiration date (though if you wait until expiry, they will automatically be exercised if “in the money”). Your decision to cover (or “close out”) your options will be based on many factors, including (not not limited to) price, your future expectations for the price performance of the underlying security, remaining exposure to time decay, and others. The point is: you can exit your trade at any time you want prior to expiration (this differs from futures, which we’ll address shortly).

    Using Options

    There are numerous strategies for trading options which would be folly to attempt to summarize in this high-level overview.

    But for hedging, the most common use is as insurance against a drop in core portfolio holdings.

    For example, if your portfolio is heavily long the general stock market, buying some “protective” put options against the S&P 500 would offer a measure of defense against a general market sell-off. Given the leverage involved with options (100 shares per contract), the magnitude of protection they offer when successfully exercised is outsized compared to their cost. Of course, if the S&P had risen by the contract’s expiry in this example, your contract would have expire worthless — but your loss on it was limited, and your larger position had appreciated in the interim.

    Options are also frequently used for speculating, but for the purposes of this article, we’ll stick to hedging. The general strategy is to use them as you do car or fire insurance. Create a regular, affordable program where you pay for protection. If your contracts expire worthless, be happy about it — it means your core holdings are performing well. But if the market goes against your portfolio and your options get exercised, you’ll be grateful to have the proceeds to use in limiting your losses.

    Suffice it to say, if you are not currently quite familiar with trading options, DO NOT start trading them until you have consulted a financial adviser experienced in their use. Yes, they can offer valuable insurance when intelligently used, but they are a fast way to lose money in the hands of the inexperienced.

    Futures

    Similar to options, a futures contract represents an agreed-upon transaction, based on an underlying asset or security, at a future date and price (called the spot price). Futures are frequently used for commodities, where producers hedge against volatility in the market prices of the goods they bring to market.

    They differ from options in that futures require the transaction to take place at expiration. With options, the contract represents the right to transact, but does not obligate each party to go through with it. With futures, the transaction must occur. This can be done via physical delivery of the underlying asset (metal, corn, etc), but typically settlement is made in cash.

    Purchasers of futures contracts are required to put down a margin payment of typically 5-15% of the contract’s value. This is done to promote confidence in the holder’s ability to afford the transaction at settlement date. If the market value of the underlying asset decreases, the holder will receive a margin call asking them to add in more capital in order to maintain the margin ratio required by the contract. Be warned: in the case of a price collapse in asset underlying the contract, losses from margin calls can be massive.

    So, when would an individual investor prefer to use a futures contract over an option? It varies by investor preference, but a usual factors are transaction size (futures work well with large volumes), ease of trading (futures are a bit more straightforward — once your dedicated futures account is set up), and impact of time decay (futures have less than options). Bottom line: unless you’re an experienced futures trader, DON’T venture into the world of futures without the close guidance and counsel of a financial adviser well-seasoned in their use.

    Deciding Which Hedging Strategies Are Appropriate For You

    Here is where professional advice is well worth paying for if you are not already well-experienced with the hedging vehicles described above.

    There are a mind-boggling number of combinations in which the above vehicles can be applied (writing a covered call on a leveraged inverse ETF, is just one example). As mentioned, a dedicated report on each is merited to get a real sense for their capabilities, nuances, and best practices.

    And so we’ve intentionally just stuck to the plain vanilla options here. But even within this simpler sandbox, it takes a while to truly understand how these instruments work – particularly so with options and futures. Without experienced guidance, you’re practically assured to make costly mistakes that could have been avoided.

    So, for the vast majority of you reading this: yes, you should seriously consider hedging your current long positions given today’s market risk. That may be as simple as selling some securities to increase the cash percentage of your portfolio. But a range of the tactics discussed above may well be appropriate given your portfolio’s positioning, and your tolerances for both losses and risk. Discuss them with your financial adviser (or talk to our endorsed adviser if you don’t have one) and develop a plan. Even if you ultimately do nothing, at least make that a calculated decision. Don’t put yourself at risk of being one of the millions who will look at their statements after the next market correction and lament: Why didn’t I consider protecting what I had?

    ~ Adam Taggart

    The post Positioning For A Downturn appeared first on Peak Prosperity.

  17. Site: PeakProsperity
    3 hours 35 min ago
    Author: Chris Martenson

    The 2019-nCoV “coronavirus” outbreak remains serious and fluid.

    Over the past several days, we’ve been publishing a steady stream of videos, reports and podcasts to keep you as up-to-date and informed as possible on the science behind this fast-developing situation. You can follow our full coverage of the coronavirus here.

    But the TL;DR version is this:

    The first order of business is stopping the spread of the disease, which means prevention.  Your immediate and top concern should be readying yourself and your household and loved ones for the arrival of 2019-nCoV. We cover the most useful practices in this report.

    Second, help your co-workers and students, passengers, or other such dependents become aware and prepared by practicing good hygiene and educating them about how the virus spreads.

    IMPORTANT:  Anyone who is sick, whether with nCoV or a standard flu/cold, needs to be isolated for the duration of the disease, which means 24 hours after their last fever. They should always, always, always wear a surgical mask to block virus particles before they are expelled into the air.   Masks can be worn by everyone, but do the most good when worn by those who are ill.

    But in addition to presenting a major public health risk, the coronavirus is already doing serious economic damage. China, the world’s second-largest economy, is essentially “closed for business” right now.

    The disruption to global trade the coronavirus is likely to cause is going to be material, perhaps severe. And that will have serious negative consequences for the financial markets, which have been (and is still!) trading at the highest valuations in history.

    The coronavirus has all the hallmarks of a true Black Swan event.

    Markets and Global Economy Already Impacted

    Note:  This is really fast-moving situation and the data is coming in so quickly that it has to be presented as a mosaic.  I’ll do my best to make sense of it, but I really want you to allow yourself to trust your own assessment of what sort of a pattern the dots make. Much of this data I gathered this morning (1/28/20) some just a few minutes ago.

    Remember: it’s not the fall that harms you, it’s how fast you stop.

    For years now, the global economy has been debt-strangled and limping along, kept alive by constant central bank interventions and money printing. Like any weakened victim, the last thing it needs is any kind of serious shock.

    Why is the impact of the coronavirus is the proverbial Black Swan event we’ve long been worried about.  Nobody saw it coming, it hit hard and fast, and is spreading far faster than government bureaucracies and the markets can adjust.

    It’s the equivalent of slipping an iron bar into the front spokes of your moving bicycle.

    We can’t possibly predict how all the implications of this will manifest. Our globalized economy is just too complex.  We have a world-wide, just-in-time manufacturing and delivery system.  Which just got a huge stick shoved between its spokes.

    What does it mean to completely shut down the normal business activities of cities with 5, 10 and even 25 million inhabitant?  Particularly in a country with massive property bubbles, where the median price-to-income ratio can be as sky-high as 40(!!)?

    Shanghai has a population of 24 million and Suzhou another 10.7 million.  Both are now all but completely shut down.

    Shanghai is China’s equivalent of New York City.  It hosts the main stock exchange and is where the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) is located.  Suzhou is a vital manufacturing hub.

    I can’t express just how crazy it is to see the videos and pictures from these towns showing empty 8-lane roads, which are normally crammed 24/7 with cars and trucks.  Empty subway cars.  Nearly abandoned railway stations.  Empty sidewalks.

    Like literal ghost towns. ‘Ghost cities’ in this case.

    Shanghai

    (Source)

    No cars, no trucks, no people, no commerce.

    If that isn’t a stick in the spokes, I don’t know what is.  There’s just no way to plan for such an event. You just have to brace for the impact.

    Once people self-isolate (which is exactly what they should be doing, and what I will do myself should the virus makes it to my town), economic activity just… stops.

    And this is being woefully underappreciated by the global equity markets right now.

    Of course, I’ve long ranted that we now bastardized ““markets””, deformed by the terribly misguided and ultimately destructive actions of the world’s central banks and their misguided money printing.

    Well, good luck trying to print your way past a virus. Or of a nation’s bus drivers and factory workers staying home.

    Below is a graphic showing the location of Apple’s Foxconn plants relative to the coronavirus outbreak:

    And yet Apple stock is still trading within a whisker of its all-time high, up nearly 3% as I’m typing this.

    See any disconnect?

    Beijing

     

    I can’t really wrap my head around this cavernous train station being all but completely deserted.  Anyone who’s been to Beijing knows that this place is usually furiously humming with commuters like a beehive. The contrast is really stunning.

    Wuhan

    The above is a usually completely crammed intersection. All we see now is a single parked car.

    (Source)

    A few people just strolling across the equivalent of 5th Ave NY in the middle of the day without even bothering to look either way. There’s no one about.

    Global Travel

    Whether for business or pleasure, global travel is being impacted.  Tourism is taking a huge hit.  Again, there are almost too many data points to process.  But here are a few:

    Too Much To Process

    I have too many other such data points to present.  I don’t want to overload you or make this article encyclopedic.  But hopefully I’ve provided enough examples above to give you a sense of the near-instantaneous halt the coronavirus has placed on China’s domestic economy and travel.

    The data on its impact on manufacturing and trade won’t be known for a little longer, but it’s safe to guess it will be ‘significant.’

    This is the nature of fast-moving situations.  You have to rapidly grasp a lot of fragmentary data and turn it into something actionable.

    And I’ll give you my sense: This is already a massive shock to the Chinese economy.  Which in this hyper-connected world, will quickly translate into a shock to the entire global economy. 

    That hasn’t fully registered yet for most people, and therefore, the markets. But that’s coming.  Soon.

    The US Is Especially Vulnerable

    In the US, healthcare costs are the #1 economic threat to households.  More families go bankrupt due to our predatory and inhumane medical care system that any other cause.

    Because people can’t afford to call an ambulance or dare to go to the emergency room for fear of being financially destroyed, they will resist seeking treatment until the very last minute.  This means detecting people infected with the coronavirus will be slower than in many other countries. Which means the illness will be able to spread farther and faster as the unhospitalized sick and untreated infect more people.

    “If The Dow Is Up, Everything’s OK. Right?”

    Financial price bubbles require two things to sustain themselves: ample credit and a compelling story.

    Ample credit has been supplied by increasingly desperate central banks willing to do “whatever it takes” to keep stock and bond prices elevated.

    A normal market confronted with all the above evidence and uncertainty would be experiencing a sell-off here. Markets are supposed to based on future earnings. Less economic activity = less future earnings. Some sort of downwards repricing would be prudent, healthy and mathematically sound at this point.

    But what are they doing?

    Being bought furiously in the overnight ““markets””.  Here’s a  chart from this morning (Tuesday 1/28/20):

    This is how silly and stupid things have become.  The Fed and the Plunge Protection team (PPT) are now on a daily mission to keep stocks from selling off.

    This is wrong, perhaps even evil. As it keeps people from appreciating the gravity of the situation. Falling markets would signal that maybe, possibly, something is wrong. That investors should start adopting more caution.

    Which they should at this time. Current stock prices simply can’t be justified given what the coronavirus is doing to the world economy. No way, no how.

    What Happens If….?

    As I said, bubbles need two things: ample credit and a good story.  The main “story” of the markets over the past few years has become almost entirely this; “The Fed won’t let them fall.”

    There’s been a lot of truth to that sentiment.  It’s not wrong.  Or at least it hasn’t been.

    But can Fed printing and market-propping make China’s empty mega-highways and grounded flights start burning more oil?  No, it can’t.  So, oil prices will fall. And US oil companies will suffer.

    Can Fed printing and market-propping compel the Chinese workers to return to their factories? No.

    Can Fed printing and market-propping make tourists return when no one wants to be around crowds?  Again, no.

    These and a dozen other such questions all end in “no.”

    Which is why the story that has been driving the stock market bubble suddenly is breaking.

    So, what will happen when the Fed is revealed to be impotent?

    Well, then that’s the end.  No narrative = no bubble.

    And at today’s record highs?

    A painful market correction, perhaps even a full-blown crash (stocks down 30-50%), will be the inevitable result.

    Conclusion

    Today markets are still clinging to the idea that the Fed “has got this.”  The sell-off on Monday (just -1.5% on the S%P 500) was entirely too minor to count as anything at all. The vigorous futures buying the next morning says the same thing.

    The market doesn’t yet believe that the coronavirus risk is real.

    Which means that this may be one of those very rare moments in market history where the immediate future is briefly visible to us, just a little bit before everyone else.

    Once you’ve taken the necessary steps to protect your family’s health against the coronavirus threat, then do the same for your money.

    Minimize risk. Reduce your exposure to a market crash. And, for those with the risk tolerance, possibly position yourself to profit from one. (Full disclosure I am net short the US equity markets at present)

    There are many ways to reduce risk in your portfolio. In this report for our premium readers, Positioning For A Downturn we detail out the wide range of options that investors have for both protecting against a downturn and, for the more courageous, profiting from one.

    Again, we are in a rare and likely very brief moment where we see the risks from the coronavirus that the market does not. Use this time wisely.

    Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

    The post The Coronavirus Is The Black Swan Markets Have Feared appeared first on Peak Prosperity.

  18. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 35 min ago
    Author: Juan Cole

    The Palestinian leadership has entirely rejected what is known of the Trump plan for Israel and Palestine, and warned that they see it as destroying the Oslo Peace accords. The Trump administration did not consult the Palestinians in drawing up

    The post Palestinian Rejection: End of Oslo Peace Process and the Trump-Netanyahu Apartheid “Steal of the Century” appeared first on Global Research.

  19. Site: Henrymakow.com
    3 hours 35 min ago


    bill-gates-605x403.jpg

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation co-hosted a pandemic exercise in late 2019 that simulated a global coronavirus outbreak.

    They also just happen to fund the group who owns the patent to the deadly virus and are working on a vaccine to solve the crisis.


    by Hushnews

    (henrymakow.com)


    On June 19, 2015, the UK government-funded Pirbright Institute filed an application for a patent for the live coronavirus, which was approved on Nov 20, 2018.

    Suspiciously, a Pirbright Institute "primary funder" is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Specifically, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $189,232 to the Pirbright Institute in a 2013 grant looking "to improve our understanding of, and effective use of, current control tools and measures (including vaccines) against peste des petits ruminants and foot and mouth disease, two serious diseases affecting livestock that are widespread in developing countries."

    Then, in November of 2019, the Pirbright Institute's website published an article focusing on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's funding of "a Livestock Antibody Hub" to the sum of $5.5 million.

    Outbreak Emanates From Chinese City With Controversial Lab

    The deadly virus, called the Wuhan coronavirus based on the Chinese city it emanated from, comes just years after a controversial lab was opened in Wuhan to work with the world's most dangerous pathogens.

    As of January 15, the virus made its way to America with a man carrying the illness from Wuhan, China to Washington state.

    Now, a report out of Texas on Thursday claims officials at the Brazos County Health District are investigating a suspected case of the coronavirus.

    At the time of writing this article, the death total has reached 25 and the estimated number of people infected with coronavirus in Wuhan is around 4,000.

    Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Look To Develop Coronavirus Vaccine 

    But don't worry, the same globalists who own the patent to the virus and predicted its rise are "scrambling to develop vaccines for the deadly Wuhan coronavirus."

    According to Business Insider, "A coalition backed by Bill Gates is funding biotechs" who are attempting to develop a coronavirus vaccine.

    Is this illness being intentionally spread so governments worldwide can join forces in the name of stopping the virus, or so groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can step in and become saviors, or is it all just a massive coincidence?

    The good news is internet users are wise to the activities of the Gates' and the global elite's depopulation agenda.

    ---------

    Watch Infowars' special reports on the Wuhan coronavirus and remember to share these censored videos and links to defy the anti-free speech agenda of Big Tech.

    --------------------

  20. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 38 min ago
    Author: Andrew Korybko

    Russian-Pakistani relations have remarkably improved in recent years as a result of their diplomatic coordination in Afghanistan and the launch of annual joint anti-terrorist drills in 2016, with both of these trust-based developments setting the stage for finally strengthening their

    The post Russia-Pakistan Relations. A Five-Phase Strategy. Building Afro-Eurasia appeared first on Global Research.

  21. Site: LifeSite News
    3 hours 39 min ago
    Abortion fuels sex-trafficking of US girls
  22. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 43 min ago
    Author: South Front

    On January 27 evening, units of the Syrian Army continued their operation in southeastern Idlib. Government troops liberated Hamidiya, Bseida, Maasaran, Tal Al-Shih, Maziyan and several other villages. By this advance, the army fully besieged Maarat al-Numan from the northern,

    The post Video: Syria War Report, Maarat Al-numan South of Idlib Is Liberated appeared first on Global Research.

  23. Site: Sputnik Opinion
    3 hours 58 min ago
    The British government’s so-called “Get Ready for Brexit campaign” has come under fire from the UK’s National Audit Office. The adverts were widely circulated on social media, in the run-up to October’s initial Brexit deadline day, a date that ultimately proved to mark yet another extension to Article Fifty.
  24. Site: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP
    3 hours 58 min ago
    Author: abyssum


    The Constitution and the March for Life

    Hadley Arkes

    TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2020

    As we reached the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, pro-lifers gathered again in the March for Life, in what is usually the coldest weather that Washington D.C. will suffer.  The March began with speeches on the Mall and then it would move, en masse, down Constitution Avenue until it culminated at the Supreme Court, the scene of the crime.

    In January 1973, seven judges had taken upon themselves to sweep away, in a stroke, the laws in all of the States and the District of Columbia that cast protections over the life of a child in the womb.  And now, the pro-lifers head to the Court with the sense of seeking redress for the wrong that emanated from that place, transforming the culture as well as the laws.

    They go with a livelier hope that the Court, as it is now constituted, is closer to the moment when Roe v. Wade may be overruled, or at least scaled back, in a decisive move that would lead, step by step, to its withering away.

    In my last column, I recalled the classic example of the political branches, led by Lincoln, countering the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, the decision that threatened to sweep away all laws that barred slavery.  As I sought to show, Lincoln’s argument for the constitutional role of the political branches was anchored in the very logic of the separation of powers under the Constitution.

    Over the last twenty years some of us have sought to make Lincoln’s understanding explicit as part of the preamble, or understanding, attached to pro-life legislation.  That effort failed, for various reasons until 2002 when we succeeded in passing the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act, the Act that sought to protect children who had survived abortions.

    And now some of us have sought to raise the issue again with the sequel, the bill that seeks to attach serious penalties for the surgeons who kill those babies surviving abortion. If the political class had been clear on this understanding in the run-up to Roe v. Wade, there would have been no need for pro-lifers to be marching in the cold every January.

    The argument begins by returning to the classic case of Cohens v. Virginia (1822).  Chief Justice John Marshall observed there that any question arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States may rightly come within the reach of the judicial branch of the federal government.

    *

    But if that were the case, we suggested that the corollary clearly followed:

    If the Supreme Court can articulate new “rights” under the Constitution, the legislative branch must be able to vindicate the same rights under the same Clause in the Constitution where the Court claims to have found them.  And in filling out those rights, the Congress, at the same time, may mark their limits.  The one thing that should not be tenable under this Constitution is that the Court may articulate new rights – and then assign to itself a monopoly of the legislative power in shaping those rights.

    With the benign logic of the separation of powers, it would have made the most profound difference if Justice Brennan and his colleagues had understood, at the very outset, that if they loosed upon this country this new “right to abortion,” the judges could not keep control of it.  Congress would have laid hands on it at once, and we know, from the record, what Congress was likely to have done.

    Lest we forget, the parties were not as polarized as they are now on this question. There were strong pro-life Democrats in Congress, reflecting the outrage of their voters, and quite ready to do something.  If Congress laid its hands on this matter, it would have been to counter forcefully the decision in Roe, not to endorse and promote it as a breakthrough in our jurisprudence.

    Justice William Brennan was no mean reader of the political winds, and with this cast of things, it seems highly unlikely that he would have encouraged his colleagues to spring this decision, especially with two judges in bristling dissent.

    In that event we would have been spared the scene of pro-lifers marching every year in the cold, winding around the Capitol until they reached the Court – and with that move confirming a premise even worse yet: that, among the branches of our government, the Court is truly the most sovereign of all in governing our lives.

    What I am suggesting is that the simple logic of the separation of powers – the logic explained by Lincoln and exemplified by his Administration – that this logic of the Constitution could have been enough to have spared us the decision that disfigured our laws and altered the moral sensibilities of our people.

    If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would be on a day in June, when the Court announces its decisions on the cases most freighted with controversy.  In that event, the pro-life March of celebration could be held in the spring, with the signs of life renewing.

    And yet my sense of the pro-lifers is that they would still march every January in the cold. For something in them just doesn’t want to make things easy.  They might prefer to remember with cold sobriety that the temptation to do thoughtless, even murderous things, may spring even from decent people living in good places.

    *Image: The Old Supreme Court Chamber, designed by Architect of the Capitol, Benjamin Latrobe, which was in use between 1810 and 1860.

    © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

    Hadley Arkes

    Hadley Arkes

    Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

  25. Site: Global Research
    3 hours 59 min ago
    Author: Manlio Dinucci

    Enquanto a atenção político-mediática estava concentrada na campanha eleitoral, em Itália, o ponteiro do “Relógio do Apocalipse” – o relógio simbólico que no Boletim de Cientistas Atómicos dos EUA indica a quantos minutos estamos da meia-noite da guerra nuclear – …

    The post A política ‘100 segundos para a meia-noite’ appeared first on Global Research.

  26. Site: LifeNews
    4 hours 15 min ago
    Author: Cheryl Sullenger

    In a scene that has been replicated thousands of times at abortion facilities across America, an ambulance and fire unit responded to a 911 call for help on December 18, 2019, when a woman who had undergone an abortion experienced “possibly dangerous” hemorrhage.

    This incident took place at the Baltimore Health Center Planned Parenthood, located near downtown Baltimore, Maryland.

    Heavily redacted 911 records, including a recording and CAD printout, supplied to Operation Rescue by the pro-life organization Defend Life, revealed little about the emergency, except that the call was placed by a Planned Parenthood worker going by the name “Jessica Smith” using a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) at 11:27 a.m.

    Smith claimed that there was no direct number to the clinic and that all calls are routed through a central appointment call center, which was the call-back number she gave to the 911 dispatcher.

    Video taken at the scene by a Defend Life activist showed the arrival of a Baltimore City ambulance and fire unit at the Planned Parenthood facility.  A final video clip showed a woman on a gurney covered head to toe with a sheet as she was being loaded into the ambulance for emergency transport to an unidentified hospital emergency room.

    Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

    Operation Rescue obtained a clip of the 911 emergency radio dispatch for the incident, where a dispatcher was heard notifying emergency responders that the incident involved a hemorrhage using the priority code “21 Bravo 1” or 21-B-1.

    That alpha-numeric code is a standard EMS determinate code that informs responders of the nature and severity of the medical emergency.  The number 21 represents the general reason for the emergency, which was a hemorrhage.  The “Bravo” code indicates a Basic Life Support ambulance was needed to run “hot,” using lights and sirens.

    The final number gave more specific information about the hemorrhage.  In this case, it represented “Possibly dangerous hemorrhage.”

    Hemorrhaging is a life-threatening condition that is the most common abortion complication for which ambulances are called.  Hemorrhaging can occur as a result of a number of abortion-related mishaps, including incomplete abortions, lacerations, and/or perforations of internal organs.

    The Baltimore Planned Parenthood was last inspected during a routine re-licensing survey on August 6, 2018, where several deficiencies were cited.  Those violations included the discovery of expired drugs and other supplies throughout the facility.  Planned Parenthood was also cited for leaving a used syringe in a cabinet, and the dangerous practice of re-using a single-dose vial of a drug used in cervical blocks three different times that day.  Single dose vials do not contain preservatives necessary for safe re-use, and must be disposed of after each use.

    “Women suffer as the result of botched or mishandled abortions nearly every day at substandard abortion facilities in this country. We have documented hundreds of abortion-related medical emergencies at abortion facilities, including several maternal deaths.  This body of evidence proves that abortion is not safe,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.  “There is no doubt that the Abortion Cartel is lying to the American people and covering up the real dangers of abortion.  Women deserve to know the truth that abortion not only takes the lives of their innocent babies, but places their own lives in danger as well.”

    Earlier this month, Operation Rescue released a powerful compilation video featuring 100 medical emergencies at abortion facilities nationwide that required ambulance transport to hospitals in 2019.

    LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

  27. Site: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP
    4 hours 15 min ago
    Author: abyssum
    Register Logo

    Alonso Cano, “St. Vincent Ferrer Preaching,” c. 1645

    Alonso Cano, “St. Vincent Ferrer Preaching,” c. 1645 

    BLOGS | 

    APR. 5, 2019

    The Prophetic Saint Who Foretold What the End of the World Will Be LikeWhen the pope used the term “Angel of the Apocalypse” in the Middle Ages, people knew he was talking about St. Vincent Ferrer

    Joseph Pronechen

    St. Vincent Ferrer earned the title preaching the Gospel powerfully and persuasively, often on the Final Judgment and the coming of the Antichrist. Even Pius II’s Bull of Canonization called St. Vincent Ferrer “the Angel of the Apocalypse, flying through the heavens to announce the day of the Last Judgment, to evangelize the inhabitants of the earth.”

    This year marks the 600th anniversary of St. Vincent Ferrer’s death on April 5, 1419, yet his words remain as powerful and necessary as ever. Before looking at his preaching on the Last Judgment, the Antichrist and the End of the World, let’s understand how powerful a preacher he was all over Europe, beginning in his native Spain, by looking at a mere speck of who he reached and the miracles he performed.

    As a Dominican priest, Vincent Ferrer preached in his own native language or Latin, yet wherever he went, everyone miraculously understood his every word as if he were preaching in their language. Sinners by the thousands, even the most hardened, repented. When the curious Moorish king sent for him, after Vincent Ferrer gave just three sermons, 8,000 Moors converted and wanted to be baptized. Modest estimates put his conversion of Jews in city after city in Spain at 25,000.

    At one major Church conference, Vincent’s preaching saw 14 of 16 rabbis converted on the spot. In Toledo as Jews became Christians they turned their synagogue into a church under the Blessed Mother.

    Like Jesus raising the widow of Naim’s son, thorough the power of Christ St. Vincent stopped a funeral procession and commanded the corpse to rise, restoring the dead man to life. In all, he restored 28 dead people back to life. Even after he died, two dead people placed on his tomb came back to life.

    He cured countless physical infirmities, working wonders through the name of Jesus and the Sign of the Cross. In one, he restored the use of the limbs of an incurably crippled boy who eventually became the Bishop of Barcelona.

    In confession, he could read souls. He shared heavenly previews of future events, such as telling a mother her little son would become pope and canonize him — which happened as the boy became Callixtus III. (At the canonization Vincent Ferrer’s body was found incorrupt.) Earlier, during a Barcelona famine, he announced two ships were coming loaded with corn. Nobody believed. That same day, as predicted, the ships arrived.

    Highly devoted to the Blessed Mother, he preached and demonstrated the power of the Rosary through immediate conversion obtained through praying it.

    Preaching the Last Judgement

    Jesus will come not like his first coming in humility and poverty, but “in such majesty and power that the whole world will tremble,” began Angel of the Apocalypse in a sermon. When he powerfully detailed the glory and the horror of separating the sheep and goats described in Matthew 25, record has it sinners were frightened and cried. He wanted them to do so because he himself was fearful of that day and fearful for all those he preached to.

    Vincent told the throngs:

    People will say ‘to the mountains and the rocks: Fall upon us, and hide us from the face of him who sits upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb’ (Revelation 6:16). Yet Jesus said, ‘But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads,’ ‘because your redemption is at hand’ (Luke 21:28).The Blessed Mother shall sit with him. Jesus will separate the peoples of the nations as a shepherd separates sheep from goats.

    St. Vincent cautioned, “On that day it will be better to be a sheep of Jesus Christ that to have been a pope, or king, or emperor.”

    Vincent powerfully detailed five virtues revealed in Scripture that distinguishes the sheep: “simple innocence, ample mercy, steadfast patience, true obedience, and worthy penance.”

    First, simple innocence is when a person “lives simply, nor hurts anyone in his heart, by hating, nor by defaming in speech, nor striking with hands, nor by stealing. Such a life “is called simple innocence, which makes a man a sheep of Christ.”

    In each case, St. Vincent next colorfully details reasons why. A sheep doesn’t attack with horns like a bull…

    …nor bite with its teeth like a wolf, nor strike with hooves like a horse… if you wish to be a sheep of Christ, you should strike no one with horns of knowledge or of power, for lawyers strike by the horns of knowledge, jurists, advocates, or men who have great knowledge. Merchants by deceiving others. Lords and bullies strike with the horns of power, plundering or injuring, and extorting, using calumnies and threats, and the like. Listen to what the Lord says by the mouth of David: ‘And I will break all the horns of sinners: but the horns of the just shall be exalted’ (Psalm 74:11).

    “Biting” is to defame your neighbor’s reputation, and devour by saying “nothing good praising someone, but only the bad,” so “defamers are not the sheep of Christ, but wolves of hell.”

    Kicking like horses means to despise. Therefore, he warns, “children, do not hate your parents; nor parents, children; nor young people, old folks; nor the healthy, the sick; nor rich, the poor; nor masters, their servants; nor prelates, their clergy; and vice versa. It is clear what is simple innocence.”

    Second, ample mercy means distributing your God-given temporal and spiritual gifts to the needy. “Because,” Vincent illustrates, “among all the animals a sheep is the most beneficial of animals.  For the sheep by growing wool, shows us mercy and benefits of mercy, because how many poor people does a sheep clothe?” Sheep give milk and food to eat to. We imitate and give love this way: our wool is “external and temporal goods, bread and wine, money and clothes and the like.” The milk is “interior and spiritual goods, by giving good teaching to the ignorant… If you have the milk of knowledge, of devotion, or of eloquence, you should give to those not having them.” Vincent reminds of Jesus telling the sheep, “For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink… naked, and you covered me” (Matthew 25:35-36).

    Third, steadfast patience takes different forms, such as when someone “suffering from injuries inflicted or spoken to him does not want to concern himself with taking revenge. Rather he loves everyone in general, and prays for them all.” The analogy? The “sheep is a most patient animal, for if harassed while eating, or if struck, it does not defend itself, but goes elsewhere, nor does it avenge itself like a dog or a goat would do, but humbly yields.  O blessed is the person, man or woman, who has such patience, and takes no vengeance for injuries, but forgives, as God forgives him.”

    Fourth, true obedience means ordering all thoughts, words and actions according to God’s will, not ours, just as sheep are so obedient that a child with a staff easily “can easily guide 30 or 40 sheep.” Remember Psalm 23? Remember Jesus illustrating the shepherd was able to leave 99 safely alone as he searched for the lost sheep?

    Vincent Ferrer’s simple summary for the shepherd’s commands includes these: “First that we live humbly” because Jesus said “learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart” (Matthew 11:29). Those with pride aren’t Christ’s sheep but the devil’s goat. Second, give with mercy and generosity. Who “disobediently goes by the way of avarice by committing usury, robbery, theft, etc., is not a sheep of Christ, but a goat of the devil.” Next, we must “walk by the way of cleanness, of chastity, etc.” Matthew 19:12). “Whoever therefore goes by the way of uncleanness and the filthiness of lust and carnality, such is not a sheep of Christ but a goat of the devil.”

    Fifth, worthy penance must be performed for sins we’ve committed. The Angel of the Apocalypse emphasizes no one is exempt from sin, As Ecclesiastes (7:21) noted, “For there is no just man upon earth that does good, and sins not.”

    “Therefore worthy penance is necessary, by sorrowing for sins and proposing not to relapse, confessing, and making satisfaction. And in this way penance makes a man a sheep of Christ.” To make the analogy, he explains in detail how a sheep is modest, but concludes a goat reflects “the notoriously shameless person, because everyone knows his wicked life and sins, like wicked clergy, and other notorious cohabiters, nor do they wish to cover it up with the tail of penitence; they are impenitent.”

    The End of World and the Antichrist

    St. Vincent Ferrer not only preached about these in detail but explained them in a letter to Pope Benedict XIII in 1412. Because his sermon is very long, encompassing explanations that focus on Luke 21:25-28, we’ll touch only on the highlights.

    Jesus “warns us of the great evils and tribulations which are to come at the end of the world, and tells us of the signs which will precede His coming in judgment,” the Angel of the Apocalypse begins. He knew the Bible by heart and connected everything to Scripture.

    God doesn’t leave us clueless. In his mercy, he often sends signs, “so that people forewarned of impending tribulation by means of these signs, through prayer and good works, may obtain in the tribunal of mercy a reversal of the sentence passed against them by God the judge in the heavenly courts; or at least by penance and amendment of life, may prepare themselves against the impending affliction.” Remember Noah, and Jonah?

    Three of the “greatest and most terrible” afflictions will be “Antichrist, a man but a diabolical one; second, the destruction by fire of the terrestrial world; third, the universal judgment. And with these tribulations the world will come to an end.” Providence will give us warning signs in the heavens — sun, moon and stars.

    The first is “Antichrist, a diabolical man, who will bring distress on the whole world.” He will deceive Christians in four ways.

    First, in the sign of the sun (Luke 21:25).Vincent Ferrer explains, “In Holy Scripture Christ is called the Sun… Taking the word etymologically, we have: S-O-L (Super omnia lucens) – ‘Shining above all things’… God the Father sent Him into the world, saying: ‘But unto you who fear my name the Sun of justice shall arise’ (Malachi 4:2).” So what’s the sign given by the sun for arrival of the enemy?

    St. Vincent reveals St. Matthew gives it precisely: “The sun will not give its light.” How’s that? Vincent explains the sun will and cannot be darkened in itself, but only when clouds obscure it:

    In the same way, in the time of Antichrist, the Sun of justice will be obscured by the interposition of temporal goods and the wealth which Antichrist will bestow on the world, inasmuch as the brightness of faith in Jesus Christ and the glow of good lives will no longer shine among Christians. For, lest they should lose their dominion, temporal rulers, kings and princes will range themselves on the side of Antichrist. In like manner, prelates for fear of losing their dignities, and religious and priests to gain honors and riches, will forsake the Faith of Christ and adhere to Antichrist. Now he will be a veritable man, but so proud that, not only will he desire to have universal dominion in the whole world, but will even demand to be called a god, and will insist on receiving divine worship.

    The evil one will be able to accomplish because Daniel (11:43) prophesies — ‘He shall control the riches of gold and silver and all the treasures of Egypt.’ “With this wealth he will gather together in arms all the nations of the world, to fight against those who oppose him — (Revelation 20:7)” and “seduce the nations” and “peoples, that is, with gold and silver and honors.”

    St. Vincent continues, “There will indeed be signs in the Sun of justice, for then it will be obscured in the hearts of Christians, since from those hearts it will not give forth the light of Faith; all preaching of a better life will cease, owing to the interposition of… clouds of temporal goods.”

    Materialism takes over.

    St. Vincent tells us in every case why God all-powerful would permit this error the answer is the same — Wisdom 11:17: “By what things a man sinneth, by the same also is he tormented.”

    “If therefore you do not wish to be deceived, now with all your hearts contemn and despise all earthly goods, and long for those of heaven, considering that the goods of this world are transitory and empty, while heavenly and celestial goods are eternal. In this way you will be strong.”

    Next, signs in the moon. “In the Holy Scripture the moon signifies our holy Mother the Universal Church, which implies the worldwide union of Christians.” Reflecting the moon’s phases, the Church in the last phase “no longer in the state in which Christ founded it,” but “turned round to pride, pomp and vanity… mercy and liberality are changed into simony, usury and rapine; chastity becomes licentiousness, uncleanness and corruption; the brightness of virtue is changed into envy and malignity; temperance has become gluttony and voracity; patience has given place to anger, war and divisions among the peoples; diligence is superseded by negligence.”

    Christ warned us: “There will arise false christs and false prophets. And they will show great signs and wonders in so much to deceive, if possible, even the elect” Matthew (24:24). Fooled with false “miracles.” “Since the people of the world sin against God by having recourse to the works of the devil, such as divination and fortunetelling… instead of laying their needs before the omnipotent God.” Think of all the occult around today.

    Don’t be deceived but “place the whole of your faith and confidence in the name of Jesus Christ., and refuse to acknowledge any miracle unless it is worked in that same name; and so you will be strong against seduction.”

    Third, “Stars shall fall from heaven,” Christ said (Matthew 24:29). Looking to Daniel (12:3), Vincent proves that refers to the masters, doctors, and licentiates in theology, some of whom “will fall from heaven, that is from the heights of the Faith (Daniel 11:36). Christ also permits this “because of the scandalous and wicked lives and the many sins” of some.

    Christ warns us (24:21): “For there shall then be great tribulation such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened.”

    The Antichrist will reign for three and a half years, 1,290 days. When he is slain “by lightning on Mount Olivet and his death has been made widely known throughout the world, this our earth will exist for 45 more days; I do not say years, but days” (Daniel 12:11-12). The Doctors said “these 45 days will be given by God for the conversion of those who have been seduced by Antichrist, but Antichrist will have left behind him so great riches and pleasure that hardly any of the nations will be converted to the Faith of Christ. For there is no savior but Christ, and yet they will not be converted.” In Luke 17 Christ warns us it will be like in the days of Noah and Lot when people went about as usual.

    Then “a certain dreadful expectation of the judgment and the rage of a fire shall consume the adversaries” (Hebrews 10:27). As David says (Psalm 96:3): “A fire shall go before him and shall burn his enemies round about. His lightnings have shone forth to the world; the earth saw and trembled. The mountains melted like wax at the presence of the Lord; at the presence of the Lord of all the earth.”

    “Therefore,” Vincent Ferrer warns, “do penance now, forgive injuries, make restitution of any ill-gotten goods, live up to and confess your religion; If it were certain that in a short time this town was going to be destroyed by fire, would you not exchange all your immovable goods for something that you could take away with you?”

    Only the treasure piled up already in heaven.

  28. Site: southern orders
    4 hours 21 min ago

    As coronavirus spreads, churches outside China take preventive measures

    Hong Kong, Taiwan and Thailand are the worst affected outside the mainland, and the Diocese of Hong Kong issued guidelines that included all priests and eucharistic ministers wearing surgical masks while distributing Communion.

    In a Jan. 23 statement, the diocese noted the epidemic was only considered “serious.”

    The diocese noted that hospitals had suspended day-to-day visits and said eucharistic ministers and visitors should abstain from visiting or giving Communion to sick people in hospitals. If a priest is needed for the sacrament of the sick, “he should comply with the directions of the hospital, consult the matron of the ward concerned, and wear a surgical mask. Before leaving the ward, he must wash his hands.”
    Diocesan guidelines included cleaning directions - including microphones used by lectors - and instructed people to bow their heads instead of shaking hands during the sign of peace.
  29. Site: LifeNews
    4 hours 21 min ago
    Author: Virginia Aabram

    A personal connection to their cause drives her daily, Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James told a gathering of young, pro-life Americans in Washington.

    “When you have been at this for 40 years, you cannot imagine the joy of seeing a crowd this size,” James said Saturday to more than 3,000 attendees, most of them high school or college students, at the National Pro-Life Summit. 

    The event was a one-day training conference for pro-life leaders sponsored by Students for Life of America, Live Action, The Heritage Foundation, and Alliance Defending Freedom.

    James, who held key positions in federal and state governments beginning in the 1980s, said the issue of abortion was her greatest motivation to pursue improved public policy.

    “I got into government and public policy because of the life issue, and when I’m 90 years old, that’s the issue that’s going to get me out of bed in the morning,” she said in her speech at the Marriott Marquis, titled “Life and Leadership.”

    James recalled that during a debate on abortion, she asked her opponent how she would counsel a poor woman, pregnant with her sixth child, whose husband was an abusive alcoholic.

    Her debate opponent replied that abortion would be the most loving choice for the abused woman, the children she already had, and the child she carried.

    “I had the privilege to say to her, ‘I have a vested interest in how you would counsel that woman, because that woman was my mother, and the child she carried was me,’” James said, receiving a standing ovation that lasted nearly a minute.

    “That woman had no idea the plans and purposes that God had for my life, that I would have the opportunity to dine with kings and princes, to serve presidents, and be the president of The Heritage Foundation. When I speak, I speak for those children.”

    LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.

    What a thrill to speak at the National Pro-Life Summit to thousands of students dedicated to helping save the lives of innocent children! Their passion is an inspiration to us all. pic.twitter.com/fbE0Rs5voy

    — Kay C. James (@KayColesJames) January 25, 2020

    Although there are many important policy issues, James said, the right to life is foundational:

    We can fight for strong national defense, but to defend what? We need to defend the right of every American citizen to be born and live, and walk in love among us. And we will fight constantly for free trade and free markets and civil society, but those things are only important if you have the right to live.

    James concluded by calling her audience to “fearless” involvement in the pro-life movement through financial support, bringing more people into the cause, voting for pro-life candidates, and praying.

    “If you do nothing else for this issue, I need you to vote and I need you to pray,” James said.

    “I need you to be absolutely fearless as you fight for life.

    LifeNews Note: Virginia Aabram writes for The Daily Signal, where this column originally appeared.

  30. Site: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP
    4 hours 30 min ago
    Author: abyssum
    American Thinker

    January 23, 2020

    The Rage of the Democrats

    By Amil Imani

    What underlies the rage of the Democrat Party and of the leftist Democrat Establishment vis-à-vis President Donald Trump?

    Over forty years ago, during my high school years in Iran, my father and I had a conversation.  He was an avid Republican, even though he lived on the other side of the world.  Right before I prepared to leave Iran for the U.S., he gave me some fatherly advice.  He explained why the Democrat Party was bad for America, bad for Iran, and bad for the world.  He advised me that if I ever became a US citizen, I should never vote for Democrats.  After all these years, I now understand what he meant by those words of wisdom.

    For over twenty years, I did not vote simply because I was not a U.S. citizen.  Even after I became one, I was not fully aware of the depth of this party’s evil ideology, although eight long years of Obama’s presidency was enough to make me realize where America was headed and what brand of Democrats were in charge.  But it was not until the election of President Trump that exposed just how corrupt the Democrats and every government institution were.  Now that that genie is out of the bottle, they cannot put it back in.  Public trust is out the door — all because it was Hillary’s turn to be president.

    After the election was over, Clinton and her campaign staff were stunned and angry.  So they went on a crusade and would remain there.  They blamed everyone in the book for her loss, except the very person who lost the election.  For the past three years, these phony investigations cost American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.  They were fully aware that  it was just a hoax and a fraud.  In the process, they hurt the country and the American people.  

    President Trump’s opponents mostly are from the camp of Hillary Clinton– and Barack Obama–supporters.  Both Obama and Clinton were students of Saul Alinsky.  Alinsky was a self-professed radical, obsessed with leftist ideology.  Moreover, the Left, rooted in Marxism, is atheistic and steeped in multicultural moral relativism.  Hence, the pro-American nationalism of President Trump — his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again” — infuriates the Left, which flatters itself as being internationalist or “cosmopolitan” as well as the trend of the future.  

    Lastly, the Left is pantheistic and thus abhors the basic differential nature of existence, which is opposed to the Left’s unqualified egalitarianism.

    If you think of Harry Truman’s electoral victory over Thomas Dewey, you have a precedent for what is happening today.  Truman’s victory stunned the media, just as Trump’s victory has done.  “Give ‘Em Hell Harry,” who worked as a haberdasher, reminds us of Trump, despite Trump being a billionaire. 

    Since the election of Donald Trump, the Left has lost its collective mind.  Leftists have gone into a stage of sheer lunacy and have not returned from it.  It seems the entire liberal world has combined its efforts to take Trump out at all cost.  In this devilish process, the left has exposed its true nature.

    I have stated many times that multiculturalism and the doctrine of moral relativism are destroying the moral fabric of America.  Moral relativism is the core of the social sciences, hence of sociology, anthropology, psychology, and political science.  It corrupts judges, opinion-makers, policymakers, and decision-makers. 

    Moral relativism denies the existence of evil.  This doctrine is evident in the writings and pro-Palestinian attitude of former President Barack Obama.  It was evident in the American policy of détente vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

    This Democrat Party no longer hides its agenda.  They now openly encourage millions of illegal aliens to violate our laws and break into our country, and they want to sign them up for free welfare, free health care, and free education — and the right to vote with the help of their ace in the hole, the “Fake News” media.

    What is the Democrat Party’s mantra?  It is basically “We’re not Trump.”  Hillary Clinton tried it, and it did not work well.  Given the uncertainty that is about to envelop us, it is time for us to step out, and fight back, and although it will be difficult, and many won’t join us, I think it’s our only hope.  Let’s just make up a story and impeach him.  Just do everything we can to disrupt the conscience of the nation.

    The Democrats have thrown all their eggs into the “Hate Trump” basket, but that doesn’t seem to be helping their poll numbers.

    It is obvious that the Democrat Party is at war with America, and Democrats are not interested in stopping any time soon.

    The radical left enjoys controlling people from cradle to grave.  (Sounds like Muslims.)  They want socialism.  They want to be in charge for eternity.  The leftist agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and fosters government reliance, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, promotes sharia law, denigrates the sanctity of marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship and much more.

    For decades, the Democrat Party has shown by both words and deeds that they despise the U.S. Constitution while they bend over backward to embrace Islamists, illegal aliens, and anyone who hates America and feels entitled.  The left is interested only in power and nothing else — even if it means sacrificing our safety and security.

    In short, America is on a precarious path to lose its freedom and our Constitution we have cherished for over 200 years.  We must accept that the current Democrat Party is no longer the party of Kennedy.  It has become the greatest threat to our national security and our survival as a nation.

    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_rage_of_the_democrats.html#ixzz6CLlWkr29
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  31. Site: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
    4 hours 56 min ago
    Alex Schadenberg
    Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition


    On January 14, I wrote an article urging EPC supporters to participate in the Canadian Department of Justice Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) consultation questionnaire. In my article I stated:
    The language of the consultation questionnaire is not great, nonetheless, the questionnaire does allow you to leave further comments.Alex SchadenbergOn January 15, I published a guide to answering the Canadian MAID euthanasia questionnaire. I am pleased to report that more than 18,000 different people used the guide.

    The online consultation is now closed and the Department of Justice has stated that 280,000 Canadians participated in the online consultation. 

    Here is my experience with the process.

    The online consultation questionnaire was a sham.

    Many of the questions implied an outcome. It is a sham to ask people to complete a questionnaire when some of the questions are designed to provide a predetermined outcome.

    For instance, Question 2 asked about safeguards. Question 2a asked:
    A different reflection period (currently a 10-day reflection period) between the submission of a person’s written request for MAID and receiving MAID.The answers to this question lacked meaning because they didn't indicate whether it is important to maintain the waiting period, increase the waiting period or remove the waiting period. In other words, the data is useless.

    The other (Question 2) safeguard questions assume that the participant supports MAID.

    Once again, the only good part of the consultation questionnaire is that it provided a box (500 words) that enabled the participant to offer their concerns or thoughts.

    The online consultation questionnaire was fraudulent.

    After encouraging our supporters to participate in the consultation questionnaire, I began to receive emails stating that the website kicked them out as they completed the questionnaire. I simply urged these people to try again.

    The second complaint was far more of an issue. Several of our supporters indicated that the consultation website enabled them to complete the questionnaire more than once. One person contacted me stating that he had completed the questionnaire more than 50 times from the same computer.

    I did not encourage this nor did I tell others about this problem. I only encouraged our supporters to participate in the questionnaire that was questionable to begin with. 

    If one of my supporters completed the questionnaire more than 50 times, how many euthanasia supporters did the same?

    The Department of Justice stated that 280,000 people completed the questionnaire. Since the website did not prevent people from participating multiple times they have no idea how many people actually participated and the data collected in the online consultation is unreliable.

    If the government wanted to do a proper consultation it would have asked clear questions that were written in a neutral manner and enabled people, who oppose killing, to answer in that manner. 

    Since some of the questions implied support for euthanasia many of our supporters refused to participate.

    Question 2a concerning the 10 day "reflection period" lacked meaning and is therefore null and void. Based on the online questionnaire, the government cannot conclude that the questionnaire provided data for a policy to: maintain, extend, or remove the waiting period.

    EPC asked our supporters to participate in the online consultation questionnaire.

    Other than the odd story, the media and the government have ignored the failures of Canada's euthanasia law, even though there are several key problems and abuses of the law.

    If you have any comments or concerns, email me at: alex@epcc.ca

    For further information please read some of these articles:
    • Historical: Canadian Senate passed euthanasia law in time for summer break (Link).
    • Approximately 5000 Canadians died by assisted death in 2019 and 13,000 assisted deaths since legalization (Link).
    • Ontario euthanasia deaths are rising quickly (Link).
    • UN Disability rights envoy urges changes to Canada's euthanasia law (Link).
    • Québec court expands euthanasia law by striking down the terminal illness requirement (Link).
    • Physically healthy depressed man died by euthanasia in BC (Link).
    • Ontario doctor experiences abuse of euthanasia law (Link).
    • Québec Fourth Interim Euthanasia Report, 13 deaths did not comply with the law (Link).
    • BC Health Minister orders Delta Hospice to do euthanasia by February 3 (Link).

  32. Site: Global Research
    5 hours 3 min ago
    Author: Philip Giraldi

    No group in the United States has labored so hard as the friends of Israel to destroy the First Amendment to the Constitution, which commits the government to prohibit any “abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the

    The post Killing Free Speech in America appeared first on Global Research.

  33. Site: Global Research
    5 hours 6 min ago
    Author: Peter Koenig

    In a positive appeal to the Chinese people, last Saturday, President Xi Jinping has called on the nation’s courage to defeat the deadly epidemic which has already claimed more than 80 lives and more than 2,000 infected worldwide, the vast

    The post The Coronavirus Epidemic: Chinese Resilience and Silent, Simple and Steady Resistance – A Model for Mankind appeared first on Global Research.

  34. Site: Ron Paul Institute - Featured Articles
    5 hours 9 min ago
    Author: Daniel McAdams
    President Trump dropped more bombs on Afghanistan last year than in any of the past ten years. Yet "victory" is further away than ever. Aside from the riches being reaped by the bombmakers, what are we achieving in this 19 year war? Watch today's Liberty Report:

  35. Site: LifeNews
    5 hours 11 min ago
    Author: Micaiah Bilger

    Nicole Adame’s 24-week ultrasound was supposed to be a joyous appointment where she and her husband would learn their baby’s sex.

    Instead, the Adames received crushing news about their unborn son’s health, followed by a doctor’s callous recommendation to “just get rid of IT and try again.”

    Nicole Adame recently shared her story in a column for Live Action News. Her experience with her son, Samuel, prompted her to become active in the pro-life movement to help society understand that every child’s life, no matter what their abilities, is valuable.

    Adame said she and her husband struggled with fertility problems and lost their first baby to miscarriage.

    “Like many women desperate to carry a child, I began to pray daily. We chose the name Samuel for the child we longed to have,” she said.

    In 2012, she began to hope when they became pregnant again and carried the baby to the 24-week mark. Scheduled for an ultrasound that week, Adame said she and her husband, Gabriel, were excited to see their baby’s tiny hands and feet and learn if their child was a boy or girl.

    She remembered, “Upon our request, the ultrasound technician wrote the gender of our baby on a piece of paper and sealed it in an envelope for a surprise gender reveal with family and friends.”

    A few minutes later, however, their excitement turned to dismay when a doctor came in and quietly performed a second ultrasound.

    “When she was finished, she turned to my husband and said with a cold smile, ‘Well, your child has a severe brain malformation called holoprosencephaly.’ Without missing a beat, she began to discuss our abortion options, not once giving even a glimmer of hope or any idea of what our options would be should we choose life,” Adame remembered.

    Coldly, the doctor told the couple that they could “just get rid of IT and try again,” she recalled.

    They refused.

    Still, Adame said they left feeling heartbroken, and she began to wonder if she would ever see her child alive. Holoprosencephaly is a brain abnormality in which the brain does not divide correctly into the right and left hemispheres.

    Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. //

    She said they were told that their baby was “incompatible with life” and probably would die before birth.

    “… my husband stood firm. Gabriel looked in my eyes and said, ‘We are stronger than this. God will take care of our baby.’ His faith and words gave me comfort and peace that everything would be alright,” she said. “… Gabriel and I decided to open the envelope in the car before heading home. The unfolded piece of paper said ‘boy.’ Peace overcame us as we thought about our son, Samuel.”

    The Adame’s situation is increasingly common. Parents frequently report feeling pressured to abort their unborn babies after a poor prenatal diagnosis. LifeNews has reported on numerous stories of parents being pressured to abort their unborn babies because of a Down syndrome diagnosis — or even a cleft lip.

    In 2016, an Australian survey of parents of children with Down syndrome found that more than 60 percent were asked if they wanted an abortion a second time after they initially refused and about 20 percent said they frequently were asked if they wanted an abortion, according to the Daily Mail.

    But as more families choose life and share their stories, there is hope that others will reject abortion and recognize the value of every baby’s life.

    Samuel was born on May 30, 2013. Today, he is 6 years old, and he brings joy and encouragement to his family.

    Adame said Samuel does not have many of the problems connected with holoprosencelphaly, such as chromosomal abnormalities and major organ defects. Still, he has struggled through multiple health problems, and he never will be able to take care of himself, she said.

    Though Samuel never will walk or talk, his mother said he is happy, and his life has a purpose.

    “… the value of Samuel’s life is not defined by his diagnosis. His imperfections, vulnerability and weaknesses do not determine his value. In fact, they make him more precious and worthy of protection from a society that deems his life as disposable,” she said. “Samuel’s diagnosis isn’t perfect, but he is.”

  36. Site: Creative Minority Report
    5 hours 17 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (matthew archbold)
    We were getting ready for my 10-year-old’s basketball game. She could not find her jersey or her right shoe. I’ll never understand how my children lose just one shoe, but it happens all the time. Do they come home, take one shoe off, and then hobble around for an hour or two thinking the floor is oddly uneven?

    We settled on wearing a yellow shirt that sort of resembled the same color that all the girls with responsible parents were wearing and her old sneakers that were too tight.

    So we were already late when my 16-year-old ran up and asked if she could come.

    Um, sure.

    I wondered to myself why anyone would want to submit themselves to basketball played by 10-year-olds, but I didn’t question it. I had to be there (I was the coach), but she had a choice. I received my answer as soon as we stepped onto the driveway.
    “Hey Dad, can I … um … drive?”

    Oh.

    Please continue reading at The Catholic Digest>>>

  37. Site: Global Research
    5 hours 29 min ago
    Author: Global Research News

    A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

     

    If, like us, this is a

    The post Selected Articles: How Far Can Imperialism Go? appeared first on Global Research.

  38. Site: AsiaNews.it
    5 hours 42 min ago

    Religious schools enjoy administrative autonomy under the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court now opens them up to state interference. “Minority institutions must respect minimum criteria for the admission of students as well as the recruitment of teachers, like any other institution,” Kolkata teacher noted.

  39. Site: Sputnik Opinion
    5 hours 45 min ago
    MOSCOW (Sputnik), Tommy Yang - Iris Liu, a 30-year-old Wuhan native, waited in line for more than eight hours on Wednesday at a hospital before her mother could receive Intravenous Therapy (IV) to improve her condition. Her 57-year-old mother had been fighting a mysterious lung infection since mid-January.
  40. Site: Mises Institute
    5 hours 46 min ago
    Author: David Gordon

     

    Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide
    By Jonathan Rodden
    Basic Books, 2019
    313 pages

    Jonathan Rodden is unhappy. In American elections, Democrats often receive a larger number of votes than their Republican rivals, but they nevertheless frequently fail to win elections. “In most democracies, the path to victory is simple: win more votes than your competitors. For the Democratic Party in the United States, however, this is often not good enough.… Democrats must win big in the overall popular vote, as they did in the ‘blue wave’ elections of 2018 and 2006, in order to win a majority of seats in the House. The Democrats’ problem with votes and seats is even more pronounced in state legislatures.”

    Rodden, who is a professor of political science at Stanford, specializes in political geography. In Why Cities Lose, he devotes enormous effort to finding out the reasons the situation just described has come about, but the gist of his answer is simple. Democrats are highly concentrated in cities, but Republicans are spread out in the suburbs and rural areas. As a result, a Democrat who wins in a city will likely gain a large majority. In our “first-past-the-post” electoral system, a large majority is no better than a narrow victory. The winner of a seat in Congress, for example, gets one seat regardless of the margin of his victory. “Surplus” votes do him no good. Republicans in rural areas are more spread out. Their votes tend to be more “efficient,” as Rodden puts it, than the wasted votes of the concentrated Democrats. They win by narrower margins but gain more seats. Rodden spends a great deal of time showing that partisan gerrymandering does not bear exclusive responsibility for the situation. Through careful comparison with Britain and the Commonwealth nations that have a “first-past-the-post” system but no gerrymandering, he shows that cities still suffer from “wasted” votes.

    Rodden argues that proportional representation would change matters. Under this system, votes are not wasted. “There are important variations from one country to another, but in most cases, the country is divided up into a series of multimember districts, and within each district, every party receives a number of seats that is proportionate to its share of the vote.…In highly proportional systems with large districts, like those in northern Europe, the geography of a party’s support is largely irrelevant for the transformation of votes to seats. It is just as useful to have 30 percent of the vote that is highly concentrated in cities as to have 30 percent of the vote evenly dispersed throughout the country.” I have said that Rodden is unhappy with the dilution of votes in American cities, but why does he regard this situation as bad? (One might object that this misreads him; he is simply an objective political scientist describing and analyzing an important trend in voting patterns. But his dismay is unmistakable.) Speaking of countries in northern Europe with proportional representation, he says: “Above all, the proportional systems of Europe have developed larger public sectors, more generous social expenditure, higher levels of redistribution, and more stringent efforts at environmental protection.”

    These are the measures Rodden favors, but then the question arises, what is so good about them? Not only does Rodden fail to tell us, but his way of looking at political values prevents him from doing so. He never discusses the reasons in favor of and against any “progressive” legislation. Instead, he amalgamates all political values into “objective” scales. “In joint work with Aina Gallego, I [Rodden] have selected a series of questions about abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues.…We used these questions to generate a scale measuring how liberal or conservative each respondent is on this set of social issues. We have done the same thing for classic economic issues related to the role of the government in the economy.”

    Rodden might reply that he has done this purely as a way to analyze trends, and that he has not claimed to have shown that progressive measures are good and conservative ones bad. But if that is so, he has not given us any reason to endeavor to alter the urban-rural disparity in voting about which he spends so much time complaining.

    One might object to what I have so far contended in this way: “Even if you are not an urban progressive, we do after all live in a democracy. Shouldn’t people be equally represented, rather than have fewer representatives than others? Isn’t it unfair that some votes pack more electoral ‘power’ than others?” To which our answer must be, “No, not at all. It depends on aims sought by those voting. People cannot legitimately invade the rights of others, and to the extent they try to do so, a weakening of their voting power is to be welcomed.”

    As Murray Rothbard, writing in Power and Market, noted with characteristic wisdom: “Democracy may be thought of, not so much as a value in itself, but as a possible method for achieving other desired ends. The end may be either to put a certain political leader into power or to attain desired governmental policies. Democracy, after all, is simply a method of choosing governors and issues, and it is not so surprising that it might have value largely to the extent that it serves as a means to other political ends. The socialist and the libertarian, for example, while recognizing the inherent instability of the democratic form, may favor democracy as a means of arriving at a socialist or a libertarian society. The libertarian might thus consider democracy as a useful way of protecting people against government or of advancing individual liberty.” Like democracy, equal voting power isn’t an end itself, but valuable only to the extent it protects people’s rights.

    A similar point applies to the proportional representation that Rodden favors. It is true that voters have more choices than they do in a system with only two parties, but whether this is good or bad depends on the nature of the choices. More choices for socialism are not a good thing. Further, European political parties in proportional systems are often rigidly controlled by the central party organization. Those who vote against the party’s dictates will be expelled from the party. Voters have a choice only between ideological platforms, not persons.

    Rodden at one point adopts a more sensible position. Given the unalterable fact that people differ so widely in their political preferences, is it not desirable to deal with problems at the state or, even better, local level rather than to engage in a futile effort to impose the same policies on diverse regions? “As federal politics becomes increasingly mired in gridlock, investigations, and partisan posturing, voters come to rely on state and municipal governments for practical policy solutions to everyday problems.…As long as people with strong preferences are clustered conveniently into different jurisdictions, decentralization can, at least in theory, increase the number of people who are satisfied with government policy.”

    But decentralization from his perspective is of limited value. “A broad constraint on decentralization as a way of managing polarization is the fact that local governments must often compete with one another.…Wasteful taxes and regulation and poor governance can lead to capital flight, which forces local governments to be prudent. For the left, this has always been a liability, not an asset of decentralization. Strong labor unions and protections for workers were hard to maintain in the North when southern states began competing for investment, and today, intergovernmental competition makes it difficult for blue cities and states to enact generous welfare policies or costly regulations.” (Possibly, though, what Rodden calls the “third industrial revolution” may brighten the prospects for a leftist local government, at least in the wealthiest cities.)

    Contrary to Rodden, the path to progress does not lie in tinkering with our political system to make it easier for the Left to enact its political and social agenda. Instead, we need a free people living in a free market.

  41. Site: Fr. Z's Blog
    6 hours 7 min ago
    Author: frz@wdtprs.com (Fr. John Zuhlsdorf)

    A little anxiety can create clear thinking.  A lot of anxiety can cause paralysis.   We need information to help us game things out in our heads, which ought to be a constant, commonsense, practice of situational awareness.

    I’ve been a reader of dystopian novels for some time, though I had taken a bit of a break.   They help you game things out.  I’m now calling back to mind some books that dealt with pandemics as one of the SHTF scenarios.

    You can get these on Kindle, my reader of choice especially for current events books or just entertainment.  Great for travel.  And you can search the books.  Moreover, they don’t gather dust in stacks around my apartment.

    First, there’s one from the writer of Dune, Frank Herbert.  A truly creepy scenario.

    The White Plague

    US HERE – UK HERE

    There is another dated book by Stephen King

    The Stand

    US HERE – UK HERE

    Closer to our own calendar date

    THE JAKARTA PANDEMIC: A Modern Thriller (Alex Fletcher Book 1) by Stephen Konkoly.

    US HERE – UK HERE

    This next fellow, Bobby Akart, writes without strong language, vulgarities or sexual innuendo.  He wants young people also to be able to read.

    Pandemic: Beginnings: A Post-Apocalyptic Medical Thriller Fiction Series (The Pandemic Series Book 1)

    US HERE – UK HERE

    Remember also…

    The Plague by Albert Camus

    The Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton

    Executive Orders by Tom Clancy

    With Kindle Unlimited you can read lots of books for free.

    I once heard an interview with someone from the CDC, who talked about cycles of pandemics.  He said that we are way over due, in the cycles of these outbreaks.  He commented that, were a bad one to break out, we will be totally overwhelmed.  The image he used was “stacking bodies like cord wood”.

    In any event,

    GO TO CONFESSION.

    Share

  42. Site: LifeNews
    6 hours 15 min ago
    Author: Steven Ertelt

    Over the weekend, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg created a nationwide controversy when he refused to welcome pro-life Democrats into the party. Now he’s creating another controversy — by refusing to condemn infanticide.

    Yesterday, Buttigieg refused to say whether the supports or opposes the Virginia bill that produced nationwide outrage last year — coming to light when Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam defended it and infamously defended infanticide.

    Here’s more:

    The Buttigieg campaign refused to say if the candidate’s position differs from that of Northam or New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who signed a bill last year that expands access to late-term abortions if the health of the mother is at risk or doctors believe the fetus in not viable. Northam faced a backlash over his comments, and both governors’ positions — considered the most extreme abortion policies in the country, according to pro-life groups — stirred weeks-long controversy in their respective states.

    Asked directly whether Buttigieg’s abortion position is any different than that of Northam or Cuomo, campaign spokesman Chris Meagher said only that “I think he made his position clear in the town hall last night” and provided a transcript of Buttigieg’s exchange with Fox News anchor and moderator Chris Wallace.

    This is not the first time Buttigieg has refused to condemn abortions up to birth or infanticide. Last year, he failed to condemn legislation in two states, New York and Virginia, that legalized abortions up to birth, and even infanticide. As he told MSNBC:

    SCARBOROUGH: Do you support the late-term abortion legislation that was passed in the New York state legislature, as well as in Virginia?

    BUTTIGIEG: I don’t think we need more restrictions right now. And, you know, what I’ve learned in Indiana, being in a place where a lot of my friends, a lot of my supporters even, come from a different place than I do, being pro-choice, I just believe that when a woman is in that situation, and when we’re talking about some of those situations covered by that law – extremely difficult, painful, often medically serious situations where life or health of the mother is at stake – the involvement of a male government official like me is not helpful.

    SIGN THE PETITION: Stop Infanticide! Stop Abortions Up to Birth!

    Buttigieg’s steadfast defense of unlimited abortion — and now possibly infanticide — is not putting winning him any pro-life voters.

    Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion nonprofit group Susan B. Anthony List, accused Buttigieg of “doubling down on abortion extremism.”

    “Last night Mayor Buttigieg could not identify a single instance where he could limit abortion or even acknowledge room for debate on this issue within the Democratic Party,” she said. “The modern Democratic Party is the party of abortion on demand through birth, paid for by taxpayers, even infanticide.”

    Buttigieg is no different than other Democrats when it comes to abortion. Like them, he believes in abortion on demand and will support abortion up to birth as president. Buttigieg previously went as far as saying the only way women can truly be free as if they are able to kill their babies in abortions.

    The presidential hopeful is merely repeating the tired line that abortion (women’s legal ability to kill their unborn babies) is empowering for women as they compete with men for power. Yet Buttigieg demeans women by suggesting that women cannot be equal to men unless they can kill their own children.

    Ashleen Menchaca-Bagnulo, an assistant professor at Texas State University, recently responded to this dangerous and pervasive idea at The Public Discourse.

    “Identifying abortion with women’s freedom is conceding the idea that male biology and male experience are the paramount ideal for human experience,” Menchaca-Bagnulo wrote. “… freedom does not require women to become like men. The price of freedom should not force us to change something essential about ourselves and our capacities.”

    Nor should freedom come at the price of one’s own children. Yet, this is what abortion activists like Buttigieg openly and proudly advocate for today.

  43. Site: Moon of Alabama
    6 hours 17 min ago
    Author: b
    Today the Syrian Arab Army liberated the city Maarat al-Numan in south-east Idleb. Before the war on Syria the city had some 60,000 inhabitants. This followed after several week of steady progress during which two dozens villages were taken from...
  44. Site: AsiaNews.it
    6 hours 25 min ago

    The Archdiocese of Mumbai celebrated the first Sunday of the Word of God at the Archdiocesan seminary in Goregaon. “Jesus is the light of the nation,” he said, whilst “The Bible gives us the faith experience of the apostles and the communities they founded.” The prelate also highlighted the values ​​enshrined in the Constitution as the celebration fell on Republic Day.

     

  45. Site: AsiaNews.it
    6 hours 28 min ago

    We too happen to feel joy "when we are with the Lord" and, perhaps in the parish or in the villages, people celebrate.  "The Word of God is not ashamed of celebrations".  "It is true sometimes the danger of joy is to go too far and believe this is it.  No: this is the party atmosphere "


     

  46. Site: AsiaNews.it
    6 hours 38 min ago

    The vicar of Arabia underlines the openness to "students of different nationalities" under the banner of common basic values.  The school must prepare people capable of making "effective contributions" to the encounter between "cultures and traditions".  To date, it hosts 300 pupils from 22 countries, but at full capacity it can accommodate up to 1800.

     

  47. Site: Ron Paul Institute for Peace And Prosperity
    6 hours 47 min ago
    Author: Adam Dick
    In a new interview with host Scott Horton at the Scott Horton Show, politics writer James Bovard describes some of the latest ominous developments in the rollout of United States government-prescribed identification requirements arising from the 2005 REAL ID Act.

    Bovard discusses the heroic efforts of former US House of Representatives member Ron Paul (R-TX) and other people across the political spectrum to prevent the imposing of the identification mandate. Bovard also provides an update on how the march toward REAL ID’s expanded implementation is proceeding with help from the Trump administration and state governments.

    Listen to Bovard’s complete interview, including his telling of the hassle the Maryland state government put him through in the interest of making his drivers license compliant with REAL ID requirements, here.

    For more of Bovard’s analysis of REAL ID, and plenty of links to additional related information, read his Friday The American Conservative article “Washington is Ramming REAL ID Down Our Throats.”

    Watch here then-Representative Ron Paul’s 2005 House floor speech in the debate over the REAL ID Act:



    In his speech, Paul explains that the REAL ID Act supports the imposing of a national ID system, with no limitation on what — including biometric information, RFID transmission, and personal details such as whether a person belongs to a pro-gun group — the US government can require be included in REAL ID-compliant identification cards.

    Efforts by REAL ID opponents have slowed the implementation of REAL ID over the last 15 years. But, as Bovard warns, the system’s implementation continues to move forward, ensnaring more and more Americans.
  48. Site: Ron Paul Institute for Peace And Prosperity
    6 hours 47 min ago
    Author: Adam Dick
    In a new interview with host Scott Horton at the Scott Horton Show, politics writer James Bovard describes some of the latest ominous developments in the rollout of United States government-prescribed identification requirements arising from the 2005 REAL ID Act.

    Bovard discusses the heroic efforts of former US House of Representatives member Ron Paul (R-TX) and other people across the political spectrum to prevent the imposing of the identification mandate. Bovard also provides an update on how the march toward REAL ID’s expanded implementation is proceeding with help from the Trump administration and state governments.

    Listen to Bovard’s complete interview, including his telling of the hassle the Maryland state government put him through in the interest of making his drivers license compliant with REAL ID requirements, here.

    For more of Bovard’s analysis of REAL ID, and plenty of links to additional related information, read his Friday The American Conservative article “Washington is Ramming REAL ID Down Our Throats.”

    Watch here then-Representative Ron Paul’s 2005 House floor speech in the debate over the REAL ID Act:



    In his speech, Paul explains that the REAL ID Act supports the imposing of a national ID system, with no limitation on what — including biometric information, RFID transmission, and personal details such as whether a person belongs to a pro-gun group — the US government can require be included in REAL ID-compliant identification cards.

    Efforts by REAL ID opponents have slowed the implementation of REAL ID over the last 15 years. But, as Bovard warns, the system’s implementation continues to move forward, ensnaring more and more Americans.
  49. Site: Ron Paul Institute for Peace And Prosperity
    6 hours 47 min ago
    Author: Adam Dick
    In a new interview with host Scott Horton at the Scott Horton Show, politics writer James Bovard describes some of the latest ominous developments in the rollout of United States government-prescribed identification requirements arising from the 2005 REAL ID Act.

    Bovard discusses the heroic efforts of former US House of Representatives member Ron Paul (R-TX) and other people across the political spectrum to prevent the imposing of the identification mandate. Bovard also provides an update on how the march toward REAL ID’s expanded implementation is proceeding with help from the Trump administration and state governments.

    Listen to Bovard’s complete interview, including his telling of the hassle the Maryland state government put him through in the interest of making his drivers license compliant with REAL ID requirements, here.

    For more of Bovard’s analysis of REAL ID, and plenty of links to additional related information, read his Friday The American Conservative article “Washington is Ramming REAL ID Down Our Throats.”

    Watch here then-Representative Ron Paul’s 2005 House floor speech in the debate over the REAL ID Act:



    In his speech, Paul explains that the REAL ID Act supports the imposing of a national ID system, with no limitation on what — including biometric information, RFID transmission, and personal details such as whether a person belongs to a pro-gun group — the US government can require be included in REAL ID-compliant identification cards.

    Efforts by REAL ID opponents have slowed the implementation of REAL ID over the last 15 years. But, as Bovard warns, the system’s implementation continues to move forward, ensnaring more and more Americans.
  50. Site: Ron Paul Institute for Peace And Prosperity
    6 hours 47 min ago
    Author: Adam Dick
    In a new interview with host Scott Horton at the Scott Horton Show, politics writer James Bovard describes some of the latest ominous developments in the rollout of United States government-prescribed identification requirements arising from the 2005 REAL ID Act.

    Bovard discusses the heroic efforts of former US House of Representatives member Ron Paul (R-TX) and other people across the political spectrum to prevent the imposing of the identification mandate. Bovard also provides an update on how the march toward REAL ID’s expanded implementation is proceeding with help from the Trump administration and state governments.

    Listen to Bovard’s complete interview, including his telling of the hassle the Maryland state government put him through in the interest of making his drivers license compliant with REAL ID requirements, here.

    For more of Bovard’s analysis of REAL ID, and plenty of links to additional related information, read his Friday The American Conservative article “Washington is Ramming REAL ID Down Our Throats.”

    Watch here then-Representative Ron Paul’s 2005 House floor speech in the debate over the REAL ID Act:



    In his speech, Paul explains that the REAL ID Act supports the imposing of a national ID system, with no limitation on what — including biometric information, RFID transmission, and personal details such as whether a person belongs to a pro-gun group — the US government can require be included in REAL ID-compliant identification cards.

    Efforts by REAL ID opponents have slowed the implementation of REAL ID over the last 15 years. But, as Bovard warns, the system’s implementation continues to move forward, ensnaring more and more Americans.

Pages

Subscribe to Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds