History and the media

Krugman is right on many points pertaining to the economic situation in America. Yet, he is wrong to assume that war is good for economic development. This military Keynesianism isn’t right. His words aren’t new at all. The Rand Corporation has been accused of lobbying the Pentagon to start a war to save the economy. Even Washington Post writer the late David Broder promoted war as an economic panacea. Former Goldman Sachs analyst Charles Nenner and economist Marc Faber predicted a major war and people are starting to pay more attention. Paul Krugman believed that World War II got us out of the Great Depression since he felt that increases in government spending serves a positive effect in stopping a depressive economy. Yet, later, Krugman went into the extreme by calling for a major war and manufacturing a false justification for starting one. A fiscal stimulus can’t come by fear mongering. Many economists have documented that war is very bad for the economy. We have wars presently and these wars haven’t radically improved our economic straits at all. Krugman used a false alien threat example as an excuse to promote more military spending. Also, Krugman ought to receive that governments have carried out false flag attacks in order to justify nefarious aims of war plus control for years (they have even admitted to it like the CIA’s participating in Operation Ajax against the sovereign nation of Iran for Iran’s nationalization of its oil supplies). All out war certainly doesn’t benefit us. Stimulus can create jobs, but you have to have a long term economic growth plan to sustain economic growth (like an infrastructure banks, new structures for growth, and other populist solutions). The economy can’t be better when we have hands off approach since unemployment will remain high permanently if we refuse to act. We need radical new institutions to handle jobs, foreclosures, public investments, our environment, and have real public purpose. Also, it’s true to witness that the rich gets more in tax breaks than the poor receive from welfare. In other words, welfare checks, food stamps, and unemployment benefits don’t equate into the more than 1 trillion dollars in indirect tax awards that are given annually to America’s middle class and upper classes. Tax breaks cause recipients to keep more money and reduce the amount of money that people would otherwise owe. Even Suzanne Mettler from the current issue of the Washington Monthly wrote that: “…As a matter of budgeting, however, there is no difference between a tax break and a social program: both have to be paid for, either by raising tax rates or by adding to the deficit.” Subsidies and social tax expenditures readily show benefits to the most affluent Americans. Social programs for the wealthy can consume the federal budget. Even in 2009, 69 percent of the benefits of America’s home mortgage interest deduction were claimed by households with incomes of $100,000 or above. This is the top 15 percent of the income distribution according to Mettler.  According to Mettler, “…That same group also reaped 55 percent of the benefits emanating from the tax-free status retirement benefits and 30 percent of those from employer-provided health benefits. This is because most tax expenditures reward activities that people with greater resources are better poised to take part in: buying more expensive homes and qualifying for mortgages far bigger than those of the typical home buyer; or obtaining generous employer-provided benefits, whose previously broad coverage has declined sharply, particularly among those with low to moderate incomes.” People who are welfare recipients have decreased since the 1996 reforms (or that many of the poorest of the poor have been lopped off the lists). The affluent cashing in on tax breaks have increased rapidly. Many subsidies are provisions for especially the wealthy, while some Americans hypocritically have disdain for government social spending. Mettler goes on to write, “Tax expenditures also exacerbate economic inequality by dramatically reducing the revenues government collects, leaving considerably fewer resources available for the programs like Head Start and Pell grants that benefit lower-income Americans.” These expenditures for individuals and families went up from 4.2 percent of GDP in 1976 to 7.6 percent of GDP in 2008 (Social Security made up of 4.3 percent of GDP in 2008 along with Medicare and Medicaid being 4.1 percent). These tax breaks deals with real estate, health care industries, and even in the nonprofit foundation world. Real estate sector giving to political campaigns jumped from $43 million in 1992 to $138 million in 2008. Some tax expenditures have nothing to do with populism, gut promoting the status quo.

There has been new research that moving or exercises for just 15 minutes a day can save your life and increase your life expectancy. This action of exercise improves no pills or drugs. This has been found in the conclusion of a study. The study has been published in the online version of the Lancet. Dr. Chi-Pang Wen of the National Health Research Institutes in Taiwan and China Medical University Hospital, and Dr. Jackson Pui Man Wai of the National Taiwan Sport University headed a research team that investigated a large range of physical activity levels to see just how much exercise produces important health benefits. Previous research has come up with unclear about exercising less than 150 minutes a week can help you live longer. The new study involved over 400,000 Taiwanese people. They participated in standard medical screening in Taiwan from 1998 to 2008. They had an average follow up of 8 years. They discovered the information in how they exercised per week. The study participants were placed in one of five categories of exercises. These categories were: virtually no exercise (inactive), or low, medium, high, or very high physical activity. The scientists calculated the hazard ratios (or HR) or the statistical measurement used to find out the odds of an event occurring within a group at a particular time. They wanted to see what the risk of death was for every group that was active compared with the inactive group. The research team calculated life expectancy for each research participant group. Those who were active had dramatic health benefits as compared with individuals with inactive exercises. The researchers found that even people who exercised for an average of 92 minutes for week (or about 15 minutes a day) had a 14 percent reduced risk of all cause mortality, a 10 percent reduced risk of dying from any type of cancer, and on average a three year longer life expectancy. An additional 15 minutes of exercise per day beyond the minimum amount reduced all causes by another 4 percent and reduced death from cancer by another 1 percent. These benefits were found across all age groups and among both men and women. The benefits were even applicable to the people with risks for cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, those in the inactive group who had a 17 percent increased risk of mortality compared with individuals in the low exercise group. "In Taiwan, if inactive individuals engage in low-volume daily exercise, one in six deaths from all causes could be prevented," the scientists said in a statement to the media. "If the minimum amount of exercise we suggest is adhered to, mortality from heart disease, diabetes, and cancer could be reduced. This low volume of physical activity could play a central part in the global war against non-communicable diseases, reducing medical costs and health disparities." In commentary about the study, Dr. Anil Nigam and Dr. Martin Juneau of the Montreal Heart Institute and Universite de Montreal in Quebec, Canada stated: "The knowledge that as little as 15 minutes per day of exercise on most days of the week can substantially reduce an individual's risk of dying could encourage many more individuals to incorporate a small amount of physical activity into their busy lives. Governments and health professionals both have major roles to play to spread this good news story and convince people of the importance of being at least minimally active."

 

There is a wolf in sheep clothing minister that supports Planned Parenthood. Vincent Lichina is a proponent of Planned Parenthood. He spoke to a crowd of Mississippi voters. He claimed to be a Southern Baptist minister and being prolife and prochoice. That’s an oxymoron since being pro-life isn’t being pro-abortion at all. He spoke to a crowd of religious people. Lachina preached in favor of abortion and talked about how he grew up in Jackson plus having a Mississippi heritage. He called for a vote of no on prolife Amendment 26, but he left out or omitted information from his speech. He failed to mention to the crowd that he’s the Washington State Chaplain at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. He is in the board of NWIRP that describes in his this way: “…In November of 2004, Lachina was hired for the position of Washington State Chaplain for the Planned Parenthood affiliates of Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Northwest Oregon, based in Seattle…” He’s a speaker at NARAL or the National Abortion Rights Action League. Jacob Dawson is from the American Family Association. He was in the audience and did a Google search of Lachina. He didn’t find a link to him to the Southern Baptist Church or a pro-abortion, clerical collar weaing Southern Baptist preacher. He or Lachina lives in Seattle and is a chaplain for Planned Parenthood. This Planned Parenthood representative opposed a Pro-Life law and he isn’t a Southern Baptist minister (most people in the denomination believe in the sanctity of unborn children). According to the group Live Action which has investigated other lies by Planned Parenthood and their employees, A Google cache of Planned Parenthood Votes! Northwest shows a profile of Vincent Lachina that you can see in its original size. The profile reads of Lachina: “He is now aligned with the more progressive American Baptist Conference and the United Church of Christ.” Planned Parenthood removes Vincent Lachina’s profile from their website. So, he used to be a part of a Southern Baptist Church and then became more active in the more liberal American Baptist Organization. People question if Planned Parenthood paid money to Lachina to fight against a pro-life ballot measure.

Juba is the new capital of Southern Sudan. Juba is a fast growing city. Regardless of what you think about Sudan, we wish any brother and sister well in Africa. Juba transformed from being a small outpost to one of Africa’s fastest growing towns. People are relaxing, working, and doing other activities in Juba. Until the signing of the north-south peace agreement in 2005, Juba only had a few paved roads and buildings. It’s a thriving capital city today. Government official Deng Degan came to Juba in 2006. Government official William Deng first came to Juba in 2006. “When we came to Juba, we used to live in the camp here," he said. "There were no buildings. We used to live in the tents along the river in putting up small tents here and there. In a very short time, now when you look at Juba, if somebody came now and have never seen Juba, they would think that it has always been like this. It has not been like that, it just exploded.” Businesses are run by those from Kenya, Ethiopia, and China in the Juba town square. Hellen Wairimu, a Kenyan working for a Sudanese women’s group, said she finds Juba a welcoming place. “I would really like to thank the Sudanese for accepting us working in their country," said Wairimu. "I just want to wish them a happy independence day.” The Konyo Konyo market is where traders sell food, clothing, and other good mainly from Uganda. The Bari ethnic group lives in the outskirts. There is the mausoleum having the body of John Garang de Mabior. He was the former head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. The infrastructure is growing in Juba and people are fighting to improve sanitation in Juba as well. Luka Deng is the supervisor of the capital’s “Keep Juba Clean and Green” program.

Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1953 had his anti-communist witchhunt. He supported Roy Cohn. Cohn has been accused of sexual entrapment operations and Europe’s fascist underground. He was recommended to McCarthy by J.Edgar Hoover. Many of these fascists have ties to Le Cercle, aristocrats, reactionary politicians, and companies like Wackenhunt. These interests are influenced by the Knights of Malta, the JBS, etc. in promoting paranoia about Communism. Joseph Milteer had links to KKK Chapters and was involved in the very subversive Congress of Freedom. Guy Bannister had ties to anti-Castro operations and hobnobbed with Permindex people. Cohn was a board member of the Permindex firm. People in the group have connections to the CIA, FBI, the Mossad, and the Mafia. Banister was a racist, a John Bircher, a Minuteman, and he published the Louisiana Intelligence Digest. These groups like the Minutemen wanted to use extreme methods in order to get their points across like lies, slander, and subversion. In laymans terms, these groups are enemies since they promote white supremacy. The JBS have tried to infiltrate the patriot movement under the guise of “anti-communism.” In 2006, the JBS used Partin’s explosives expertise in an effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth community. Partin believed that a Russian submarine took out the TWA-800 airplane years ago. Today, the Pilgrim Society is allied with the Georgetown Set/ CIA leadership. The Pilgrims Foundations rules the William J. Donovan Foundation in 2010. The reactionaries today support speculation, no regulation to handle corrupts of banks, no introduction of large scale construction projects for the unemployed with public funds, no public support of the homeless, and other resources that we take for granted. The false gospel of Ayn Rand has been accepted by numerous reactionaries as well.

By Timothy