Tuesday, December 31, 2013


Super Moon January 1st


We start of the New Year with a New Moon in Capricorn! A SuperMoon with some strong aspects at play calling us to activate and unearth that which has been lying dormant within.

There will be 5 SuperMoons this year. This one and another on January 3oth, both New Moons, and the other three will be Full Moons. Here is the scoop on SuperMoons, EarthSky.org says:
“The term supermoon didn’t come from astronomy. We used to call them perigee… ‘near Earth.’ An astrologer, Richard Nolle, is credited with coining the term supermoon. He defines them as:

. . . a new or full moon which occurs with the moon at or near (within 90% of) its closest approach to Earth.

harvest_moon

“By this definition, a new moon or full moon has to come within 361,863 kilometers (224,851 miles) of our planet, as measured from the centers of the moon and Earth, in order to be a supermoon.”
Supermoon, What is it, and What Does it Mean To You?

What is a Supermoon?

The supermoon occurs when a full moon lines up with the Earth and the sun at a specific point in its orbit, called the lunar perigee. That’s the point at which the moon is nearest to Earth as it traces its elliptical path around our planet.

supermoon

When will Supermoons occur during 2014?

Lunar enthusiasts will be able to ring in the new year with a January 1 supermoon – one of two that will occur during January of 2014, and the first of five that will take place before the end of the calendar year, mark your calendars.

January 1, 2014, will be the second and third closest for the year
January 30, 2014
July 12, 2014
August 10, 2014, will be the closest supermoon of the year
September 9, 2014

What does the Supermoon mean to you?

Will the supermoon destroy the earth?
Despite the claims of some people around the world, the supermoon will not destroy the Earth.
Will the supermoon change my behavior?

Have no fear: The supermoon will not turn you into a lunatic.

The sun’s gravity is actually responsible for pulling the Earth and moon into a closer alignment, causing the orbital variation.

They should. The Earth is closest to the sun in December each year, meaning that the star’s gravity pulls the moon closer toward the planet. Because of this effect the largest supermoons happen in the winter.

Get your supermoon fix while you can; the moon is moving on to greener pastures. Supermoons will get smaller in the distant future because the moon is slowly propelling itself out of Earth’s orbit, moving 3.8 centimeters farther from Earth each year.

boatmoon

Each month, on the day of the new moon, the Earth, moon and sun are aligned, with the moon in between.

This line-up creates wide-ranging tides, known as spring tides.

High spring tides climb up especially high, and on the same day low tides plunge especially low.

The January 1 and 30 extra-close new moons will accentuate the spring tide, giving rise to what’s called a perigean spring tide.

If you live along an ocean coastline, watch for high tides caused by the two January 2014 new moons – or supermoons.

Will these high tides cause flooding?

Probably not, unless a strong weather system accompanies the perigean spring tide.

Still, keep an eye on the weather, because storms do have a large potential to accentuate perigean spring tides.

The second supermoon will occur on January 30, according to Bruce McClure of Earthsky.

However, the moon will be at the new phase on both days, meaning that very few people will actually be able to see the phenomena.

moon

Generally supermoons photos are amazing but don’t expect to see the new moon on January 1 or January 30.

At the vicinity of new moon, the moon hides in the glare of the sun all day long, rising with the sun at sunrise and setting with the sun at sunset.

On the other hand, if you were on the moon looking at Earth, you’d see a full Earth.

Are you ready for a radically different and more joyful 2014?

Set your intentions now, in these last moments of 2013 and energize them on New Year’s when we have the first super moon of the year!

The January 1 new moon, called a super moon because of its powerful energy, is a true blessing for intention setting. New moons are typically a great time to set in motion new concepts, projects, and intentions – having one on the very first day of a new year is even more potent.

Knowing this in advance can help you to become more mindful of your year-end clearing and goal setting for the coming year. We’re not talking about resolutions. The person making a resolution is looking at a problem and resolving to fix it.

To help with that awareness and open your flow of opportunities for 2014, consider doing some clearing out of clutter and old energies before this year ends. You don’t have room for this baggage where you are headed.

As you are doing your end-year clearing, keep your thoughts positive.

web-Harvest-Moon

Here’s some advice from Selacia.

New Year’s New Moon Process

Here’s a process to begin preparing now so you can energize it January 1 at the new moon. Approach it as a blessing and it will be. If you feel resistance to New Year’s intentions, ask yourself what part of you is resisting and why you would resist manifesting your own good. If something is really in your highest good, why would you care what others think? This is a gift for you. Here are the steps.

FIRST, find a quiet place and sit still, quieting your mind by tuning out distractions and centering yourself in your heart. If desired, hold a favorite crystal, light a candle, or focus your mind on something spiritual – helping you to connect with the sacred. Do some deep breathing to relax and let go.

SECOND, invite your higher self to participate with you in this process, now and through New Year’s day when you are energizing your intentions. Ask for spirit’s view of where you are on your spiritual path, your progress to date, and what kinds of specific things to include in your intentions list. Remember in this process that you can ask spirit questions of clarification.

THIRD, self-reflect to create a specific list of positive intentions for 2014. Ideally, you have 10 or fewer intentions and they are both specific and powerful. As you write these on a sheet of paper, connect with your heart, saying each one out loud. Doing this helps you to engage a number of your senses simultaneously – visual, sensory, feeling, auditory – adding to the benefit of the process. A bonus is that as you read your intentions, you may connect with new helpful insights, too.

FOURTH, place your intentions list on your sacred altar or by your bedside. Ask spirit to energize it continually and to give you guidance about course corrections or attitude adjustments needed to manifest what is on your list. Write down these insights on another sheet of paper – giving you a tool for action steps during 2014.

FIFTH, twice daily before New Year’s, read your intentions list, feeling each one of them in your heart.

SIXTH, on January 1, read your intentions again. Invite your higher self to energize each one and the list in general. Become still and silent for a few moments afterwards, visualizing a golden light as your intentions are energized. Feel this energy in your heart.

SEVENTH, to complete the process, say a prayer of gratitude – for your life and for the amazing potentials you have in this most precious life.
Selacia is an internationally acclaimed writer, author of Earth’s Pivotal Years, intuitive healer, and guide to others on the path of spiritual awakening. A pioneer in DNA intuitive healing, serving people everywhere who desire wholeness and a heart-centered life. Selacia has dedicated her life to spirit, and to opening the way for others to progress on their path of enlightenment. www.Selacia.com.
Source: http://earthspivotalyears.com/future-potentials/magnify-2014-potentials?utm_source...

AlbertEinsteinquote

Newmooninjan.

via BeforeItsNews.com

Subscribe Our Newsletter

Join over 3,000 people who get free and fresh content delivered automatically each time we publish.


pixel
Respected Readers:

Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi

December 28, 2013
A boyish-looking American diplomat was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias.
It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.
“Since Benghazi isn’t safe, it is better for you to leave now,” Mohamed al-Gharabi, the leader of the Rafallah al-Sehati Brigade, later recalled telling the Americans. “I specifically told the Americans myself that we hoped that they would leave Benghazi as soon as possible.”
Yet as the militiamen snacked on Twinkie-style cakes with their American guests, they also gushed about their gratitude for President Obama’s support in their uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They emphasized that they wanted to build a partnership with the United States, especially in the form of more investment. They specifically asked for Benghazi outlets of McDonald’s and KFC.
The diplomat, David McFarland, a former congressional aide who had never before met with a Libyan militia leader, left feeling agitated, according to colleagues. But the meeting did not shake his faith in the prospects for deeper involvement in Libya. Two days later, he summarized the meeting in a cable to Washington, describing a mixed message from the militia leaders.
Despite “growing problems with security,” he wrote, the fighters wanted the United States to become more engaged “by ‘pressuring’ American businesses to invest in Benghazi.”
The cable, dated Sept. 11, 2012, was sent over the name of Mr. McFarland’s boss, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Later that day, Mr. Stevens was dead, killed with three other Americans in Benghazi in the most significant attack on United States property in 11 years, since Sept. 11, 2001.
The Diplomatic Mission on Sept. 11, 2012
Four Americans died in attacks on a diplomatic mission and a C.I.A. compound in Benghazi.
As the attacks begin, there are seven Americans at the mission, including five armed diplomatic security officers; the information officer, Sean Smith; and Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Both Mr. Smith and Ambassador Stevens die in the attack.
The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
Mr. Abu Khattala, who denies participating in the attack, was firmly embedded in the network of Benghazi militias before and afterward. Many other Islamist leaders consider him an erratic extremist. But he was never more than a step removed from the most influential commanders who dominated Benghazi and who befriended the Americans. They were his neighbors, his fellow inmates and his comrades on the front lines in the fight against Colonel Qaddafi.
To this day, some militia leaders offer alibis for Mr. Abu Khattala. All resist quiet American pressure to turn him over to face prosecution. Last spring, one of Libya’s most influential militia leaders sought to make him a kind of local judge.
Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.
One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.
The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
The C.I.A. Annex
A 20-person team from the Central Intelligence Agency is in the compound known as the Annex, about a half-mile from the mission, where the security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty are later killed.
The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda, several officials who received the briefings said. Like virtually all briefings over that period, the one that day made no mention of Mr. Abu Khattala, Ansar al-Shariah or the video ridiculing Islam, even though Egyptian satellite television networks popular in Benghazi were already spewing outrage against it.
Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.
More broadly, Mr. Stevens, like his bosses in Washington, believed that the United States could turn a critical mass of the fighters it helped oust Colonel Qaddafi into reliable friends. He died trying.

Ex-WH Spokesman: Bad 'Parsing' to Believe I Said Al-Qaeda Part of Benghazi Attack

Ex-WH Spokesman: Bad 'Parsing' to Believe I Said Al-Qaeda Part of Benghazi Attack

Ex-White House National Security spokesman Tommy Vietor said on Tuesday that reconciling his previous statements of Al Qaeda involvement in the terrorist attack on Benghazi—as compared to claims by the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick that Al Qaeda was not involved—is nothing more than a “parsing game.”

Vietor, who left the White House earlier this year to form consulting firm Fenway Strategies with President Barack Obama’s longtime speechwriter Jon Favreau, told this reporter via Twitter that pointing out the contradiction between his past and current stances on who is behind the attack in Benghazi is just a "game."
The Times’ Kirkpatrick attempted to downplay the connections of Al Qaeda-linked terrorists involved in the attack in a lengthy piece published over the weekend. But, as Breitbart News reported in the wake of the Kirkpatrick story, the claim the Times published directly contradicts comments made by Vietor in May 2013, among other statements and talking points documents the Obama administration itself prepared.
In an email to specific reporters that liberal Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent published on May 15, 2013, Vietor admitted that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were in fact part of the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
“[W]hile it’s true that some of the Benghazi attackers had links to al Qaeda,” Vietor wrote in part then, before adding, “no one has ever claimed that this was a long-planned AQ operation by Zawahiri or AQ’s leadership like 9/11.”
Over the course of the past several days since the Times piece, this reporter has been asking Vietor about the previous statements he made when he was a National Security spokesman for the White House. Vietor’s first response via Twitter was that the comment was not in context, arguing that whether or not Al Qaeda was involved in the attack has something to do with a political “worldview” of an observer. “you wanna cut and paste the line after that, or does it not fit your worldview?” Vietor wrote.
When asked whether or not he stood by his previous statement as published by the Washington Post, Vietor said comparing his previous comments that confirmed—as a National Security spokesman for the president of the United States—that Al Qaeda was, in fact, involved in the attack on Benghazi, Vietor said comparing one statement to another is a “parsing game” and cast doubt on his previous statements that there were links to Al Qaeda with the attack.
“read that next sentence I wrote,” Vietor tweeted. “And tangential ‘links' are addressed in the NYT story. Your parsing game is weak.”
The "next sentence" in Vietor's May email states: "The charge that there was an administration effort to 'sell' a normalization narrative in Libya is nonsensical," which neither refutes nor addresses his statement that Al Qaeda had at least some involvement in the attack.
Vietor has not answered whether he had prior knowledge of the Times story pre-publication. Through a spokesman, now-former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denied any prior knowledge of the story.

Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free

Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...
President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.
there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase.
The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights.
Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.)
That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?
I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.
Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.
Radical capitalists are just beginning to have a slight effect on the Right wing. The overwhelming majority on the Right are eclectic. Which is a nice way of saying inconsistent.
The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.”
They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.
Obama blames economic woes, some real some invented (“inequality”) on a philosophy and policy that was abandoned a century ago. What doesn’t exist is what he says didn’t work.
Obama absurdly suggests that timid, half-hearted, compromisers, like George W. Bush, installed laissez-faire capitalism–on the grounds that they tinkered with one or two regulations (Glass-Steagall) and marginal tax rates–while blanking out the fact that under the Bush administration, government spending ballooned, growing much faster than under Clinton, and 50,000 new regulations were added to the Federal Register.
The philosophy of individualism and the politics of laissez-faire would mean government spending of about one-tenth its present level. It would also mean an end to all regulatory agencies: no SEC, FDA, NLRB, FAA, OSHA, EPA, FTC, ATF, CFTC, FHA, FDA–to name just some of the better known of the 430 agencies listed in the federal register.
Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for over a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive PGR +0.41% Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington.



We radical capitalists say that it was the regulatory-welfare state that imploded in 2008. You may disagree, but let’s argue that out, rather than engaging in the Big Lie that what failed was laissez-faire and individualism.
The question is: in the messy mixture of government controls and remnants of capitalism, which element caused the Great Depression and the recent financial crisis?
By raising that question, we uncover the fundamental: the meaning of capitalism and the meaning of government controls. Capitalism means freedom. Government means force.
Suddenly, the whole issue comes into focus: Obama is saying that freedom leads to poverty and force leads to wealth. He’s saying: “Look, we tried leaving you free to live your own life, and that didn’t work. You have to be forced, you have to have your earnings seized by the state, you have to work under our directions–under penalty of fines or imprisonment. You don’t deserve to be free.”
As a bit of ugly irony, this is precisely what former white slave-owners said after the Civil War: “The black man can’t handle freedom; we have to force him for his own good.” The innovation of the Left is to extend that viewpoint to all races.
Putting the issue as force vs. freedom shows how the shoe is on the other foot regarding what Obama said. Let me re-write it:
there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The government will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just pile on even more regulations and raise taxes–especially on the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the losers are protected by more social programs and a higher minimum wage, if there is more Quantitative Easing by the Fed, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle up to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle up, well, that’s the price of the social safety net.
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our intellectuals’ collectivism and Paul Krugman’s skepticism about freedom. That’s in Harvard’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the Soviet Union. It’s not what led to the incredible booms in India and China. And it didn’t work when Europe tried it during over the last decades. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this statist theory.
How does that sound? That’s blaming an actual, existing condition–government controls and wealth-expropriation–not a condition that ended in the late 19th century.
So which is the path to prosperity and happiness–freedom or force? Remember that force is aimed at preventing you from acting on your rational judgment.
Obama’s real antagonist is Ayn Rand, who made the case that reason is man’s basic means of survival and coercion is anti-reason. Force initiated against free, innocent men is directed at stopping them from acting on their own thinking. It makes them, under threat of fines and imprisonment, act as the government demands rather than as they think their self-interest requires. That’s the whole point of threatening force: to make people act against their own judgment.
The radical, uncompromised, laissez-faire capitalism that Obama pretends was in place in 2008 is exactly what morality demands. Because, as Ayn Rand wrote in 1961: “No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. . . . To claim the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man–the right to compel his agreement by the threat of physical destruction–is to evict oneself automatically from the realm of rights, of morality and of the intellect.”
Obama and his fellow statists have indeed evicted themselves from that realm.

because of the fuckers at twitter i wont be back

Think Your Money is Safe in an Insured Bank Account? Think Again.

Think Your Money is Safe in an Insured Bank Account? Think Again.

A trend to shift responsibility for bank losses onto blameless depositors lets banks gamble away your money.
When Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem told reporters on March 13, 2013, that the Cyprus deposit confiscation scheme would be the template for future European bank bailouts, the statement caused so much furor that he had to retract it. But the “bail in” of depositor funds is now being made official EU policy. On June 26, 2013, The New York Times reported that EU finance ministers have agreed on a plan that shifts the responsibility for bank losses from governments to bank investors, creditors and uninsured depositors.
Insured deposits (those under €100,000, or about $130,000) will allegedly be “fully protected.” But protected by whom? The national insurance funds designed to protect them are inadequate to cover another system-wide banking crisis, and the court of the European Free Trade Association ruled in the case of Iceland that the insurance funds were not intended to cover that sort of systemic collapse.
Shifting the burden of a major bank collapse from the blameless taxpayer to the blameless depositor is another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, while the real perpetrators carry on with their risky, speculative banking schemes.
Shuffling the Deck Chairs on the Titanic
Although the bail-in template did not hit the news until it was imposed on Cyprus in March 2013, it is a global model that goes back to a directive from the Financial Stability Board (an arm of the Bank for International Settlements) dated October 2011, endorsed at the G20 summit in December 2011. In 2009, the G20 nations agreed to be regulated by the Financial Stability Board; and bail-in policies have now been established for the US, UK, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, among other countries. (See earlier articles here and here.)
The EU bail-in plan, which still needs the approval of the European Parliament, would allow European leaders to dodge something they evidently regret having signed, the agreement known as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who played a leading role in imposing the deposit confiscation plan on Cyprus, said on March 13 that “the aim is for the ESM never to have to be used.”
Passed with little publicity in January 2012, the ESM imposes an open-ended debt on EU member governments, putting taxpayers on the hook for whatever the ESM’s overseers demand. Two days before its ratification on July 1, 2012, the agreement was modified to make the permanent bailout fund cover the bailout of private banks. It was a bankers’ dream – a permanent, mandated bailout of private banks by governments.  But EU governments are now balking at that heavy commitment.
In Cyprus, the confiscation of depositor funds was not only approved but mandated by the EU, along with the European Central Bank (ECB) and the IMF. They told the Cypriots that deposits below €100,000 in two major bankrupt banks would be subject to a 6.75 percent levy or “haircut,” while those over €100,000 would be hit with a 9.99 percent “fine.” When the Cyprus national legislature overwhelming rejected the levy, the insured deposits under €100,000 were spared; but it was at the expense of the uninsured deposits, which took a much larger hit, estimated at about 60 percent of the deposited funds.
The Elusive Promise of Deposit Insurance
 While the insured depositors escaped in Cyprus, they might not fare so well in a bank collapse of the sort seen in 2008-09. As Anne Sibert, Professor of Economics at the University of London, observed in an April 2nd article on VOX:
Even though it wasn’t adopted, the extraordinary proposal that small depositors should lose a part of their savings – a proposal that had the approval of the Eurogroup, ECB and IMF policymakers – raises the question: Is there any credible protection for small-bank depositors in Europe?
She noted that members of the European Economic Area (EEA) – which includes the EU, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland – are required to set up deposit-insurance schemes covering most depositors up to €100,000, and that these schemes are supposed to be funded with premiums from the individual country’s banks.  But the enforceability of the EEA insurance mandate came into question when the Icelandic bank Icesave failed in 2008. The matter was taken to the court of the European Free Trade Association, which said that Iceland did not breach EEA directives on deposit guarantees by not compensating U.K. and Dutch depositors holding Icesave accounts. The reason: “The court accepted Iceland’s argument that the EU directive was never meant to deal with the collapse of an entire banking system.” Sibert comments:
[T]he precedents set in Cyprus and Iceland show that deposit insurance is only a legal commitment for small bank failures. In systemic crises, these are more political than legal commitments, so the solvency of the insuring government matters.
The EU can mandate that governments arrange for deposit insurance, but if funding is inadequate to cover a systemic collapse, taxpayers will again be on the hook; and if they are unwilling or unable to cover the losses (as occurred in Cyprus and Iceland), we’re back to the unprotected deposits and routine bank failures and bank runs of the 19th century.
In the US, deposit insurance faces similar funding problems. As of June 30, 2011, the FDIC deposit insurance fund had a balance of only $3.9 billion to provide loss protection on $6.54 trillion of insured deposits. That means every $10,000 in deposits was protected by only $6 in reserves. The FDIC fund could borrow from the Treasury, but the Dodd-Frank Act (Section 716) now bans taxpayer bailouts of most speculative derivatives activities; and these would be the likely trigger of a 2008-style collapse.
Derivatives claims have “super-priority” in bankruptcy, meaning they take before all other claims. In the event of a major derivatives bust at JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America, both of which hold derivatives with notional values exceeding $70 trillion, the collateral is liable to be gone before either the FDIC or the other “secured” depositors (including state and local governments) get to the front of the line. (See here and here.)
Who Should Pay?
Who should bear the loss in the event of systemic collapse? The choices currently on the table are limited to taxpayers and bank creditors, including the largest class of creditor, the depositors. Imposing the losses on the profligate banks themselves would be more equitable , but if they have gambled away the money, they simply won’t have the funds. The rules need to be changed so that they cannot gamble the money away.
One possibility for achieving this is area-wide regulation. Sibert writes:
[I]t is unreasonable to expect the area as a whole to bail out a particular country’s banks unless it can also supervise that country’s banks. This is problematic for the EEA or even the EU, but it may be possible – at least in the Eurozone – when and if [a] single supervisory mechanism comes into being.
A single regulatory agency for all Eurozone banks is being negotiated; but even if it were agreed to, the US experience with the Dodd-Frank regulations imposed on US banks shows that regulation alone is inadequate to curb bank speculation and prevent systemic risk. In a July 2012 article in The New York Times titled “Wall Street Is Too Big to Regulate,” Gar Alperovitz observed:
With high-paid lobbyists contesting every proposed regulation, it is increasingly clear that big banks can never be effectively controlled as private businesses.  If an enterprise (or five of them) is so large and so concentrated that competition and regulation are impossible, the most market-friendly step is to nationalize its functions.
The Nationalization Option
Nationalization of bankrupt, systemically-important banks is not a new idea. It was done very successfully, for example, in Norway and Sweden in the 1990s. But having the government clean up the books and then sell the bank back to the private sector is an inadequate solution. Economist Michael Hudson maintains:
Real nationalization occurs when governments act in the public interest to take over private property. . . . Nationalizing the banks along these lines would mean that the government would supply the nation’s credit needs. The Treasury would become the source of new money, replacing commercial bank credit. Presumably this credit would be lent out for economically and socially productive purposes, not merely to inflate asset prices while loading down households and business with debt as has occurred under today’s commercial bank lending policies. 
Anne Sibert proposes another solution along those lines. Rather than imposing losses on either the taxpayers or the depositors, they could be absorbed by the central bank, which would have the power to simply write them off. As lender of last resort, the central bank (the ECB or the Federal Reserve) can create money with computer entries, without drawing it from elsewhere or paying it back to anyone.
That solution would allow the depositors to keep their deposits and would save the taxpayers from having to pay for a banking crisis they did not create. But there would remain the problem of “moral hazard” – the temptation of banks to take even greater risks when they know they can dodge responsibility for them. That problem could be avoided, however, by making the banks public utilities, mandated to operate in the public interest. And if they had been public utilities in the first place, the problems of bail-outs, bail-ins, and banking crises might have been averted altogether.
_________________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including Web of Debt and its recently-published sequel The Public Bank Solution. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com, http://PublicBankSolution.com, and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared

Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared

Updated: Aug 23, 2007 09:38 PM CDT
     Could martial law ever become a reality in America?  Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that.  KSLA News 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us.
     Charleton Heston's now-famous speech before the National Rifle Association at a convention back in 2000 will forever be remembered as a stirring moment for all 2nd Amendment advocates.  At the end of his remarks, Heston held up his antique rifle and told the crowd in his Moses-like voice, "over my cold, dead hands."
     While Heston, then serving as the NRA President, made those remarks in response to calls for more gun control laws at the time, those words live on.  Heston's declaration captured a truly American value:  An over-arching desire to protect our freedoms.
     But gun confiscation is exactly what happened during the state of emergency following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, along with forced relocation.  U.S. Troops also arrived, something far easier to do now, thanks to last year's elimination of the 1878 Posse Comitatus act, which had forbid regular U.S. Army troops from policing on American soil.
     If martial law were enacted here at home, like depicted in the movie "The Siege", easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical.  And that's exactly what the 'Clergy Response Team' helped accomplish in the wake of Katrina.
     Dr. Durell Tuberville serves as chaplain for the Shreveport Fire Department and the Caddo Sheriff's Office.  Tuberville said of the clergy team's mission, "the primary thing that we say to anybody is, 'let's cooperate and get this thing over with and then we'll settle the differences once the crisis is over.'"
     Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other.  "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis.  He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
     For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13.  Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know.  And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith.  That's what's stated in the scripture."
     Civil rights advocates believe the amount of public cooperation during such a time of unrest may ultimately depend on how long they expect a suspension of rights might last.

Story by Jeff Ferrell

Putin Orders Saudi Arabia “Destroyed” After Volgograd Terror Strikes

Of the terror attacks themselves, Russian Deputy Emergency Situations Minister Vladimir Stepanov is reporting to the Kremlin that the two Volgograd explosions have hurt 104 people, of which 32 were killed.

Volgograd (formerly known as Stalingrad) is located 650 kilometers (400 miles) from Sochi which is the site of the 2014 Winter Olympics, and the twin explosions hit a crowed trolleybus and train station.

This FSB memo reports that the trolleybus suicide bomber has been identified as Pavel Pechyonkin [photo 2nd left], born in the Mari El region and who joined resistance forces in 2012.
According to this FSB information, Pechyonkin, aged 32, is a former paramedic. In 2012, he joined the bandit underground, having left a note for his mother on his lap topcomputer. Pechyonkin has since communicated with his parents two or three times via the Internet.
Of particular concern about Pechyonkin for Putin, this memo continues, was this suicide bombers location this past year which the FSB confirms was in Islamic rebel held territories of Syria controlled and funded by Saudi Arabia.

Critical to note, and as we had reported on in our 27 August report Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, this past August, secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria.
When Putin refused Prince Bander’s “offer,” however, and as reported by London’s Telegraph News Service, this Saudi Prince stated to Putin, “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Barely over a fortnight ago, this FSB memo says, Prince Bandar, again, came to the Kremlin and in a secret meeting with Putin reiterated his threat to cause terror in Russia to which Putin suggested to the Saudis that they abandon“sectarian instigations and supporting terrorism, because it is a double edged sword that will rebound inside Saudi Arabia and gather momentum in a manner that you will not be able to control.”

Equally critical to note, and as we had, likewise, reported on in our 30 August report Saudis Go On Full Alert As Putin War Threat Stuns Muslim World, this FSB memo warns that Putin’s previous orders to the Armed Forces of the RussianFederation to prepare for a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia are still in effect.

This FSB memo further states that both Russia and Iran are outraged over Saudi Arabia’s latest “donation” of $3 billion to the Lebanese army (twice the national military budget of Lebanon) made by Saudi King Abdullah while the Volgograd attacks were occurring and described as “a bid to cover up its bloodstained hands in violence hitting the Middle East and beyond.”

To the fears of the Saudis themselves, FSB Director Bortnikov notes in his memo, was evidenced this past week by Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia’s royals and officials, who stated: “The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years, we feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama.”
And in his grim summation, Bortnikov notes that with Saudi Arabia now a “pariah nation” with both Russia and the US seeking retribution against them, Putin’s angry desire to see the Saudis totally destroyed is a wish that will, indeed, come true much sooner than later.
Source

Putin Orders Saudi Arabia “Destroyed” After Volgograd Terror Strikes

How to find keylogger or any spyware in PC

How to find keylogger or any spyware in PC

Hello friends, today i will explain share with a great method to find or detect a keylogger or any other spyware in your PC or system. As we all know nowadays keyloggers and spywares are big concern as hackers are trying their best to infect the victims to hack their accounts. Today i will teach you how to find a keylogger or Trojan or spyware in your PC or Laptop. There are several ways to find them but using this method you will know the exact path of the keylogger and where its saving the log file. Also once you have the keylogger server now you can reverse engineer the server and hack the hackers account password which he used in keylogger server. Lets first start with keyloggers introduction..
hack keyloggers, password hacking softwares
Find keylogger or spywares in your PC or system


What is Keylogger and How it actually works?
Keylogger as the name suggests somethings that logs keystrokes. Yup its right, keylogger is a password hacking tool which is used to steal victims passwords, logging the keystrokes pressed by victim and also some advanced keyloggers are even used to retrieve stored confidential data. Based on internet scope keyloggers are of two types:
1. Physical Keylogger: These keyloggers are installed if hacker has physical access to your system. User has to install this type of keylogger manually on your PC or system. These types of keyloggers are hard to find but i will show you today how to find that also.
2. Remote Keylogger: Remote keyloggers are new generation keyboard hook hacking software's which does not require a physical access to the system that means they can be installed remotely. These usually comes into your PC through torrents, porn websites, hacking tools(software's like Facebook hack tool, Gmail hack tool, Hotmail hacker) and cracks, keygens and patches. As most users usually ignore these files as antivirus usually shows virus in these files. So hackers exploit this loophole and attach their keyloggers and keyboard hook programs with such things like keygens, patches, cracks and torrents etc.
Remote keyloggers logs the data into a file and send these logs to hackers FTP or his email. So friends, always try to avoid above mentioned things as far as possible.

How to detect or find keylogger or any spyware in your system:
1. Download the Forensic investigation tool OPENFILESVIEW and Install it.
2. Now open openfilesview and you will see a complete list of all processes and temporary files currently being used by your system or PC along with their full path from which they have been running. Here is the snapshot:
find keyloggers in PC or detect viruses in PC
How to Find Keyloggers or Trojans in PC

3. Now in above snapshot you can clearly identify the keylogger and system files. Check the Program name and then check its corresponding location in full path. Also you can verify with time at which keylogger file has  been created.
4. Now we have find the location of Keylogger or spyware. Go to that location and open the File with bintext or any binary debugger and search for @ or ftp in that. This will help you to get the email ID or FTP address at which keylogger is sending logs. 
You can also use Wireshark and capture the packets for 20-30 minutes and filter ftp and smtp packets. By this methods you can will get email and password of hacker. I will explain this in my coming tutorials.

I hope you all found this article helpful and get a little deeper knowledge of computer forensics. If you like my article or have any queries please comment.

How to fix or repair corrupt files in Windows


How to fix or repair corrupt files in Windows

Hello Friends, first of all welcome to my new website Hacking Loops to learn hacking and securing yourself online from hackers and unwanted malicious viruses and Trojans. So in my very first post on Hacking Loops, i will explain you how to fix or repair corrupt files in windows XP, vista and windows 7 too.

fix corrupt files in windows XP, windows 7 and vista
How to fix or repair corrupt file error in windows

Most of times, we face problem of corrupt file and unwanted error messages pops up after regular intervals which frustrates the user a lot. Many users thinks that antivirus will fix all the things but that's not the truth. Antivirus just removes the viruses from your system but it did not return back you the original files so virus problems might be fixed but error messages keep on popping. There are two methods to fixed or repair corrupt files in windows:
1. Format your PC and install everything fresh.
2. Without format.

First method is absolutely cheap as anyone can do that so i will not explain that. Now as we are hackers and always looking for hacking the security loop or vulnerabilities. But here there is no need to do that, what we have to do just use the existing windows command technique. Its a two step procedure.

Requirement:
Windows Operating System CD.

Steps to fix or repair Corrupt files in Windows without formatting:
1. First of all Scan your system with your updated antivirus thoroughly and ensure that all viruses and malwares are removed according to antivirus.
2. Now after scanning system, the only problem remains is corrupted files pop up messages that come because their dynamic linking has been modified by virus or due to some file deletion issues.
3. Now place your WINDOWS CD into CD/DVD drive.
4. After putting your CD. Go to Start and then open RUN.
5. Now type the following command into RUN text field.
'sfc /scannow'
 without quotes and press enter.
6. Now it will load all your windows file and fix all your corrupted files.

That's all....try this trick..
I hope you all liked it. If you have any queries ask me in form of comments.

Egypt Security Forces Seize Assets Of 572 Muslim Brotherhood And Jihadi Leaders

Egypt Security Forces Seize Assets Of 572 Muslim Brotherhood And Jihadi Leaders
Home  »  Egypt  »  Egypt Security Forces Seize Assets Of 572 Muslim Brotherhood And Jihadi Leaders

Dec 31, 2013 0 Comments Infidel Alie A poster of ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi is seen on the walls at El-Thadiya presidential palace during a protest by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and supporters of Mursi in Cairo
Excerpted from WASHINGTON TIMES: Interim governing authorities in Egypt ordered security forces on Tuesday to seize the assets of more than 500 Islamist leaders and Muslim Brotherhood members, the latest in a crackdown on the organization just slapped with the terrorist label.
The Associated Press reported that Abdel-Azzem el-Ashri, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry, said that one of the department’s committees ordered the seizure of all “movable and immovable properties” of 572 leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood. Some of those leaders actually helped oust former President Mohammed Morsi from office and send his family into hiding.
The list of targeted members also included females such as Assa el-Garf and the wife of leader Khairat el-Shater and his daughter, AP reported.
The Muslim Brotherhood was declared a terrorist group by the Egyptian government on Dec. 25.

i busted out the new york times bull shit

and now twitter blocked me
fuck you all
i know i am the best on here
i am glad i gave my video to megan kelly and rand paul
i know you hacked me but bicthes watch out foe me now here i come i have every ones ip addrress
wait for the videos
i will hack every one that hacked me you wont be standing when i get done with you all suck my mother fucking dick

i busted out the new york times bull shit

and now twitter blocked me
fuck you all
i know i am the best on here
i am glad i gave my video to megan kelly and rand paul
i know you hacked me but bicthes watch out foe me now here i come i have every ones ip addrress
wait for the videos
i will hack every one that hacked me you wont be standing when i get done with you all suck my mother fucking dick

Trey Gowdy BLASTS NY Times Benghazi report and in one question DESTROYS video narrative

By The Right Scoop

Trey Gowdy blasted the Benghazi report by the NY Times, saying that it took them 15 months to learn how to spell Benghazi. And when asked about the video being the cause of the attack, as suggested by the article, Gowdy responds with a question that simply destroys any notion that the video was the cause of the attack:
The video was translated into Arabic in early September of 2012… What in the world explains the violence in Benghazi prior to the video being translated and released? Our consulate was attacked way before the video was released. The British Ambassador was almost assassinated way before the video was released. The International Red Cross was attacked twice in Benghazi, well before this video was ever released.
So if the video is really the impetus for the violence, what in the world explains the violence prior to the release of the video?
BOOM! That’s what you call an argument based on facts and logic, not on political motivations.
But there’s more, including Gowdy asking if you’d know who the Secretary of State was after reading the NY Times article.
Watch:

Monday, December 30, 2013

twitter supended me i guess they dont want the truth come in out

Obama Secretly Places Ban On Free Speech)
our military leaders suck they are with obama
they dont care about you are me
i didnt know i had that much power that they would stop me
but it is all good

Long gone may the days be where the people of the United States have the right to express themselves freely under the First Amendment.  Obama just signed a bill into law secretly that allows for Secret Service to arrest anyone publicly protesting within their vicinity.
The bill turned law, H.R. 347, has passed through congress with little objection from either side, or the American public.  This could be on account of lawmakers sneaking it through congress allowing for no real discussion on the matter until after it was passed.
(See also: Obama Secretly Places Ban On Free Speech)
The law effectively allows for secret service, or anyone under secret service protection, to dictate public demonstrations.  If they find anyone to be in violation of the law, people arrested would be charged with a felony and potentially subjected to over a year in prison.
We all remember this, right:
freespeach
Well now, it just might get you thrown in jail.
H.R. 347 certainly isn’t the first act of aggression on the first amendment this administration has portrayed, but it certainly is the boldest.  It’s no wonder the bill went through congress so silently because it gives Secret Service, and more importantly anyone under their protection, the right to control the atmosphere wherever they go.
So if you know the president is going to be nearby and you decide to stand across the street holding a sign, you could be arrested and thrown in jail.
(See also: Judge Rules That Obama Admin NSA Spying Is LEGAL)
This violation of the freedom of speech is unacceptable and frankly, quite frightening. We all know, if you give a mouse a cookie, he’ll ask for a glass of milk, so what’s stopping politicians there?
Why not restrict more negative speech on the President?  How about the news? Maybe anything said online in a negative tone against the President will soon be banned. Who knows, in a few years with the NSA listening to your phone calls, Secret Service may just randomly show up and haul you away.
Either way it’s a slippery slope but wrong no matter what way you look at it. Read the First Amendment and see if you can pick out what’s wrong here:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
H.R. 347 is in clear violation of the First Amendment being that it limits our free speech, our right to assemble peaceably, and to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Isn’t this a country of the people, for the people and by the people?
(See also: Retired U.S. General Destroys Obama Criticizing His “Amateur” Leadership)
What purpose does a democracy have when all its citizen’s rights are taken away and leaders are given free rein to do as they please and arrest anyone that may oppose them?  Sounds like something else doesn’t it? Isn’t that exactly what we fought for so many years ago, and what our forefathers made so perfectly clear trying to make sure it would never happened again?
This is exactly what is so wrong with liberals—they will argue nonsense until they’re blue in the face in order to twist the constitutions words to fit their agenda.  We’ve seen it with the Second Amendment, and now we’re seeing an all out assault on the first.
What do you guys think—is this a sign of bigger things to come? Let us know what you think in a comment below!