Growth is the summum bonum of economic policy. Tough to arrange at home: stimulus packages don’t work very well, and monetary policy produces lots of fiat money but not very many jobs. The solution: export-led growth—the other guy will buy so much of your goods and services that your economy will grow. There are two ways to make this sort of growth happen. Lower the international value of your currency so that your output is cheaper overseas, or increase productivity at home by lowering labor and other costs and therefore the prices you need to charge foreigners. The first is painless, or so it seems initially. The second requires a politically difficult assault on benefits and union created labor market rigidities.
We have seen many examples of where the police have arrested bystanders for filming interactions between the police and the public. This has been understood to be an effort by the police to intimidate anyone from recording police behavior that might be used against them in court.
Apparently, the Department of Justice has ruled that the laws protect people when they film police in public doing public work.
In the statement filed this week in a federal court in Maryland, the Justice Department argues that not only do individuals have a First Amendment right to record officers publicly doing their duties, they also have Fourth and 14th Amendment rights protecting them from having those recordings seized without a warrant or due process.
The following is a video discussing the NDAA signed recently by President Obama. About this video,
This is an excerpt from Journalist Amber Lyon`s speech at Harvard Law School on Feb. 27, 2013. Investigative journalists who cover those the U.S. Government deems ¨terrorists¨ fear they could be indefinitely detained under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in retaliation for giving a voice to the other side. The NDAA allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial until the end of hostilities and is perhaps the most egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution in history.
I want to discuss a part of the Book of Genesis where God has made a garden and has Adam and Eve living in it. God warns these two that they are allowed much, but, they are not supposed to eat of a certain plant, or else.
I want to make the claim that this story depends on a metaphor, that our understanding of this story depends on our having this metaphor in mind. Furthermore, part of my claim is that when this story in Genesis was written, it was understood by the writer and those who read it, that there was a metaphor involved in it, and that it’s purpose depended on keeping that metaphor in mind.
Senator Warren has been asking some good questions while she has been starting out her first term. She has mostly been asking about financial issues. However, she raises a question in the following video about “money laundering.” This is an interesting topic in itself. There has been discussion for years about how at certain times it is only the infusion of Drug Money from Mexican cartels and Central Asian Heroin production that has kept the American Economy afloat. I imagine this would be a sensitive issue and one reason why financial regulators do not think about prosecuting financial institutions for money laundering. It’s an important prop for the nation’s economy.
WARREN: So what you're saying to me is you are responsible for these banks, and again, I read your testimony and you talk about the importance of vigorous enforcement here. But you're telling me you have no view when it's appropriate to consider even a hearing to raise the question of whether or not these banks should have to close their operations when they engage in money laundering for drug cartels?
WARREN: I understand that I'm over my time. And I'll just say here, if you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail. If it happens repeatedly you may go to jail for the rest of your life. But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night. Every single individual associated with this. I just, I think that's fundamentally wrong.
The following video discusses the U.S. government’s support of Mexican Drug cartels.
The following video discusses the historical context of American Drug running in Central Asia.
The following article is a post from Boiling Frog Post’s website,
Connecting the Dots: Afghan Heroin, NATO, Azerbaijan Hub & Cargo Business
Over the last few weeks James Corbett and I have been discussing
US-NATO Gladio Operations in the Islamization and Terrorization of Central Asia- Caucasus, and the real lords of the booming Afghan heroin business. If you haven’t already, watch our video interview series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3,Part 4 and Part 5.
The following is a brief, about 6 minute, video explaining wealth disparity in the United States.
And a brief quote from an accompanying article,
“…In terms of information, Politizane’s video isn’t offering anything new: Its analysis of American perceptions of wealth distribution, the line between rich and poor and the issue of America’s wealth continuum echo stories that have been in the media for years. But there’s something about seeing the country’s wealth gap in easy-to-follow animations that allows the dry analysis to hit home. Or, as the video puts it, these illustrations make it easier for viewers to “wake up and realize that the reality in this country is not at all what we think it is.”
About a third of the way into in a Department of Justice white paper explaining why and when the President can kill American citizens, there is a citation that should give a reader pause. It comes in a section in which the author of the document, which was given to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees last year—and obtained by Michael Isikoff, of NBC, on Monday—says that this power extends into every country in the world other than the United States, well beyond those where we are engaged in hostilities. The reference is to an address that John R. Stevenson, a State Department legal adviser, gave before the Association of the Bar in New York in May, 1970, to justify the Nixon Administration’s incursion into Cambodia. Does that make everyone, or anyone, feel better about what the Obama Administration has decided it can do, or the extent to which it thought through the implications, unintended consequences, precedents, and random reckless damage it may be delivering with this policy?
The white paper is a summary of something that had long been sought: the Obama Administration’s legal analysis of its killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen who was hit by a drone strike in 2011. That memo has been described to reporters but never released. It needs to be. The question isn’t whether al-Awlaki, who worked with Al Qaeda, was an innocent—the question is at what point he crossed the line and became killable without any judicial proceedings, and when, by extension, the rest of us could be put on a “kill list.” John Brennan, the President’s nominee for head of the C.I.A., has been deeply involved in the
We have certain rights, which have been hidden from us, apparently. One of these rights as a free people is something called “jury nullification.” The following video and clip from an article suggest a little of what that right involves. One can see that it would not be in the interest of the powers-that-be to have the people and their juries understand and exercise this right. It might lead to the questioning and nullification of unjust laws by an informed citizenry.
Anyway, here is that material on “jury nullification”:
And here is the beginning of one of many articles on this subject:
Jury Nullification Why you should know what it is
by Russ Emal
Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience? "True," you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?
In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.
But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law.