DEMS  ISSUE  FLURRY  OF  NEW  GUN  CONTROL  BILLS

Timed with Obama's controversial visit to Oregon town hit by tragedy

Published: 20 hours ago

October 8 2015
WND

 

Leo Hohmann

 

"If school security guards pack heat, then shooters like the one in Roseburg, Oregon, could not wreak havoc on American school children", said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

 

Democrats unleashed a flurry of new gun-control laws in Congress Thursday, and one senator from Connecticut accused Congress of being “an accomplice” in the recent spate of mass shootings at school campuses.

Senate Democrats fortified their efforts with a threat to block other legislation until their gun-control bills are brought to the floor.

And there are a lot of them.

According to Time magazine, the package features a version of an earlier proposal to expand background checks, but now also includes online gun purchases and firearms bought from unlicensed dealers at gun shows.

It also contains a bill announced by Connecticut’s senators last week that would bar gun sales until background checks are complete. Under current law, if a background check is not completed within 72 hours, the sale can be consummated.

Gun Owners of America, one of the nation’s largest gun-rights organizations, agrees, said Larry Pratt, executive director of the group, that something needs to be done to stop mass shootings.

“Congress must act,” he said in an email to WND. “Away with Gun-Free School Zones. Such zones have been the site of all but two of the mass murders in the U.S. since 1950. We join with our Dear Leader in calling for Congress to act.”

Any other type of action would be irresponsible, ineffective and mere pandering to the Democrat base, he said.

Unwelcome in Roseburg?

Meanwhile, it could be a chilly welcome for President Obama when he arrives Friday in Roseburg, Oregon, where many residents believe he is coming to their town solely to politicize the tragic shooting at their local community college.

David Jacques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, told Bill O’Reilly Monday the people of Roseburg would not welcome Obama if he came to town to politicize the funerals of the Umpqua College shooting victims.

Chris Harper-Mercer, the 24-year-old son of a white man and black woman who was born in Britain, gunned down eight students and a teacher last week.

Jacques said he is not the only one who is less than excited about the arrival of the president. Community leaders, including Douglas County commissioners, the police chief and local sheriff feel the same way, he said. They do not want Obama to grandstand in Roseburg for political gain on the issue of gun control.

In fact, several thousand people have signed up to attend a rally to protest Obama on Friday. The rally is being organized by a Facebook group called “Not Welcome: Defend Roseburg, Deny Barack Obama.”

According to Douglas County Commissioner Chris Boice, the Umpqua College hero who helped stop the shooter is among those who does not want to see Obama. Chris Mintz, 30, was shot seven times after he jumped into action to save the lives of fellow classmates. He is recovering in a local hospital.

According to Boice:

“I was fortunate enough to go in and visit with Chris Mintz and hear his story and what an amazing young man, just an extremely humble individual. And, when I mentioned to him that the president is coming he was not real excited about getting involved in the political part of this thing either, but humbled by the fact that the president of the United States would be interested in coming to visit him. … My understanding is he hasn’t spoken with anyone from the White House yet and he’s not really interested in doing that. I’m not sure where that stands as off this minute.”

Democrat 'incensed' at lack of action on gun control. Sen Chris Murphy, D-Conn., was "incensed" at the press conference last week when he unveiled his legislation with fellow Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal, according to Time.

"Congress has become an accomplice in these murders," Murphy said. "We are quietly endorsing this mass slaughter by refusing to act … I don’t care how many members of Congress send out tweets saying they're sorry. You aren’t sorry, you aren't truly sympathetic if you're not willing to act."

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sees it differently.

Paul argued against making schools gun-free zones, and said schools would fare better if they put stickers on their windows warning potential gunmen to proceed at their peril.

Paul spoke with Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson Tuesday and said it's "sad" how Obama has tried to make the Oregon shooting about guns.

He said the problem is mental illness and that "people are going to places where guns are prohibited."

Paul said it’s also quite possible that a falloff in basic morality is what's behind many of the shootings. He said America was lacking "a certain belief in right and wrong, a certain Christian foundation or religious foundation to our country."

As he has done after past mass shootings, immediately after Thursday's shooting, Obama called for "common sense" gun control measures. That did not resonate with some Roseburg-area residents.

Roseburg residents weigh in

"We do not want him to come, and the veterans don’t want him to come," Patti Sciapiti, who said her husband is involved with the American Legion in Roseburg, told the Register-Guard.

"I don’t want him here because I don’t think it was proper for him to talk about gun control when the tragedy was just happening," Sciapiti told the local newspaper from the parking lot at Mercy Medical Center. "He politicized it; he even said he politicized it. That's just not right. ... He's not welcome."

One man who said he is a military veteran and provided only his first name, Dave, said he doesn't plan to try to see Obama on the visit, calling him "a jerk."

"They have laws on the books now that cover gun control," he said. "They don’t need any more because they already have them. All they got to do is enforce them."

Roseburg is a conservative area more than 160 miles outside of Portland. In 2012, Douglas County residents favored GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney over Obama 61 percent to 34 percent.

The county has 25,751 registered Republican voters and 16,474 registered Democrats, according to the county elections office, the Register reported.

Obama plans to visit Roseburg on Friday during a four-day West Coast visit that had already been scheduled. He is not holding a public event, but rather plans to meet privately with the families of those killed, the White House said.

Roseburg resident Chanty Lytsell offered conditional support for Obama’s visit. Lytsell told the Register she doesn’t object to Obama coming to offer his support to grieving families. But if he is coming to start a political debate, she said, “Don’t bother."

"I can see that he’s coming here maybe because of the fact that he wants to be supportive of our city. But it doesn’t really feel that way,” Lytsell said. “I feel like it’s another political scheme for him. Our town has gone through a lot already, and I don’t think we need the president here for his support.

"We support each other as a community, and that’s what’s important in our community, and we need our time to grieve," she said. "We don't need to listen to what his views are on gun control. That is not what we need to talk about right now."

City releases statement in support of visit

While many residents, the county commissioners and sheriff are on record against the president's visit, the mayor and city council of Roseburg are throwing their arms wide open to embrace him.

"We wish to be clear that Mayor (Larry) Rich, City Council President (Tom) Ryan and the Roseburg City Council welcome the president to Roseburg and will extend him every courtesy," the city said in a statement.

Rod Cotton, a lifelong resident of Roseburg, has lived in the neighborhood directly across from the UCC campus for 25 years. He said he doesn’t mind if the president comes to visit but hopes Obama will narrow the focus of his visit.

"He is the president of the United States, and there are many of his policies that I don’t agree with, but he has every right to come,” Cotton, who describes himself as a political conservative, told the Register-Guard. "There's a lot of negative out there from folks who I don’t think really represent the community as a whole. I think he's sincere about coming to grieve with the folks."

Kimberly Roberts — who attends UCC but was not on campus when the shooting occurred — told the newspaper she believes the president committed a faux pas by politicizing the issue.

"He turned it into such a controversy, and that’s not very intelligent because this community is full of a lot of gun-carrying people," she said. "People are hunters. That’s how they survive. That’s how they live."
 

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/dems-issue-flurry-of-new-gun-control-bills/ 

 

 

 

TRAMPLING THE NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE

Hillary would render the Second Amendment a useless dead letter

Andrew P. Napolitano

Wednesday, October 7, 2015 

While the FBI continued to analyze the emails Hillary Rodham Clinton thought she deleted and her advisers pressed her to hire a Republican criminal defense attorney in Washington, a madman used a lawfully purchased handgun to kill a professor and eight students at a community college in Roseburg, Ore. Looking to change the subject away from her emails, Mrs. Clinton was quick to pounce.

She who has ripped into Republicans for seeking political gain from the four American deaths in Benghazi now seeks her own political gain from the dozens of murdered children and young adults in Newtown, Conn., and Roseburg. On the heels of the latter and referring to both tragedies, she launched an emotional attack early this week on the two most recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the personal right to keep and bear arms. She offered to “fix” them should she be elected president.

Her so-called fix consists of a dead-on-arrival

legislative proposal making gun manufacturers financially liable for the misuse of their products and an executive order determining the meaning of certain words used in federal statutes.

The liability-shifting proposal is akin to punishing General Motors whenever a drunken driver misuses his Chevy and injures someone. The courts would surely reject that.
The executive order proposal assaults the Constitution. 

Those in the gun sale business must conduct background checks via computer services offered by the FBI. The background checks look for reports of crimes of violence, domestic violence and mental illness. Private people who occasionally sell their hardware or give guns as gifts are exempt from conducting background checks.

Mrs. Clinton would create a presidentially written and mandated definition of occasional sales and gifts so as to require background checks for all gun transfers — a requirement Congress rejected.

We are 13 months from Election Day 2016, and Mrs. Clinton has already promised that she would rule by pen and phone rather than govern by consensus.

As a lawyer, Mrs. Clinton should know that only the federal courts — not the president — can decide what statutory language means. Moreover, if she knew anything about FBI background checks, she would know that they are only as good as the database on which they rely. If a madman hides his mental illness, no database will reveal it.

Her attacks on the Supreme Court decisions were direct. She rejects their characterization of the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right — meaning that it is akin to thought, speech, press, association, worship and travel.

Yet if she were to become president, she would take an oath to uphold the Constitution; that means the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The presidential oath of office would require that she execute her duties “faithfully — whether she agrees with the law or constitutional provision or not. She apparently has no intention of fulfilling the presidential oath of office.

We are 13 months from Election Day 2016, and Mrs. Clinton has already promised that she would not enforce Supreme Court decisions with which she disagrees.

What did both the Newtown and the Roseburg tragedies have in common? Both murderers were madmen. Yet neither had a record of mental illness, so the background checks the anti-self-defense lobby loves would not have prevented either of these killers from buying a gun and using it to murder indiscriminately. 

If killers are prepared to murder innocent children, does Mrs. Clinton really think they would obey the laws regulating gun ownership?

Both mass murders occurred in no-gun zones. A no-gun zone is the most dangerous place on the planet when a madman intent on killing enters. No-gun zones are arbitrarily designated on public property by local authorities, stripping law-abiding folks of their lawfully owned guns — their natural right to self-defense — and exposing them to terror and death.

The Constitution does not permit public no-gun zones any more than it does public no-free-speech zones. If the right to keep and bear arms is truly fundamental, the government cannot interfere with it based on geography. 

If the Army veteran-college student who stopped seven bullets with his body last week and saved the lives of his classmates (and survived!) had been permitted to carry a gun into the school building, the madman who murdered nine innocents would have been stopped long before police arrived — long before he completed his killings.

The right to keep and bear arms has more than just the Second Amendment to protect it. By characterizing the right as fundamental and pre-political, the high court accepted the truism that this right is merely a modern extension of the ancient right to self-defense. And the right to defend oneself does not come from the government; it comes from our humanity. It is a natural right.

Who among us, when confronted with the terror of nearly certain annihilation, would concern himself with the niceties of the law? Life itself is at stake. The right to self-defense is a manifestation of the natural instinct for survival, borne in the hearts of all rational people.

But Hillary Rodham Clinton rejects that instinct because she prefers we become dependent upon the government — as long as she is running it.

The police cannot stop mass killings because they cannot be everywhere all the time. And madmen willing to kill do not fear being lawbreakers. 

Guns in the hands of the people give not only tyrants second thoughts, but also madmen.

Even madmen fear an early death.

• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a contributor to The Washington Times and Fox News. He is the author of seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-would-crush-seco/

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that theIran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.

As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.

Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.

But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.

It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, toldPOLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo….We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from…engaging in most commercial activities.”

Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced….U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”

Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.

Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using…to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”

Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.

However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.

One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.

At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.

“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.

McCain: Let's Arm ISIS To Fight Russia

 

MCCAIN:   "LET'S  ARM  ISIS  TO  FIGHT  RUSSIA!!!"

 

 

 

 

Published on Oct 2, 2015

 

 

On this Thursday, October 1 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we look into Sen. John McCain's plan to arm ISIS-linked Syrian rebels to shoot down Russian airplanes, which would likely spark World War 3. We also analyze the myth of "moderate" rebel groups because ISIS and ISIS-linked groups make up the vast majority of militants in Syria. Also, Joe Biggs is live streaming from UT Austin where Second Amendment supporters are staging a counter-protest against a gun control group on campus. And geopolitical expert Joel Skousen explains what can plausibly happen next in Syria and why everyone should be paying attention. 

 

MCCAIN AND KERRY - TWO TRAITORS WHO BETRAYED THEIR FELLOW AMERICAN SERVICE MEN  CONTINUE TO THIS DAY TO BETRAY AMERICA - THEY ARE STILL WALKING THE STREETS OF AMERICA SCOT FREE, STILL NOT PROSECUTED FOR THEIR TRAITOROUS ACTIONS AND STILL BETRAYING AMERICA

HOW CAN THIS BE?

 

41 NEW SANCTUARY CITIES IN JUST 4 MONTHS!!!!

 

Releasing thousands of criminal aliens into communities

 

Published: 5 hours ago

October  9 2015

WND

 

Leo Hohmann

 

 

The number of sanctuary cities has exploded since July, when the issue came into the national spotlight after a young woman was gunned down by an illegal criminal immigrant on a pier on San Francisco.

In July, there were 276 sanctuary cities and counties. Now there are 340, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies citing data from the Department of Homeland Security.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at CIS and author of the report, said the reckless actions of these cities and counties have resulted in the release of an average of 1,000 criminal aliens per month.
One violent illegal-alien offender who is now roaming U.S. streets because of a local sanctuary policy is Francisco Javier Chavez.

Francisco Chavez was released by a sanctuary county after alleged beating a 2-year-old girl.

In August 2015, Chavez was arrested for brutally beating the 2-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, breaking a leg and both of her arms. Chavez has a long rap sheet, including felony drug and drunken-driving convictions and a prior deportation. ICE issued a detainer, but the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office released him anyway after he posted bail, even though California’s law would have permitted them to hold him.

According to an updated report prepared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, for Congress, between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice.

Out of these, 5,947, or 62 percent, of the criminal aliens had criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. And 58 percent of those with a prior history had felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors.

“An alarming number – 2,320 – of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries,” Vaughan wrote.

One of these is Victor Aureliano Hernandez Ramirez, one of two suspects in the brutal July 24 hammer attack against an elderly California woman. Together with an accomplice, he was charged with raping and then bludgeoning 64-year-old Marilyn Pharis of Santa Maria, California. She died eight days later.

Victor Ramirez

Ramirez avoided deportation twice in 15 months. He had been arrested for battery in May 2014 and was in the custody of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff. 

ICE issued a detainer to begin the deportation process after the charges were resolved, but the sheriff did not comply, apparently in accordance with California’s state sanctuary law that went into effect Jan. 1, 2014.

“Our elected officials must not sit back and watch these sanctuary jurisdictions continue to release thousands of criminal aliens back into our communities in defiance of ICE efforts to deport them, and then witness the harm that inevitably ensues when these removable offenders strike again,” said Vaughan.

Sanctuary cities exploded onto front pages in July, when a Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman, was killed while walking with her father in San Francisco, and an illegal immigrant released by the county was charged with the shooting.

Vaughan said San Francisco ranked eighth worst on the list of offenders, releasing some 252 immigrants in 2014 that federal officials had asked be held.

ICE was not able to re-apprehend most of the offenders released by the sanctuaries. As of last year, 6,460 or 69 percent were still at large. Of those still at large, 1,377 or 20 percent had another criminal arrest following the one that resulted in the ICE detainer.

Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802, or 58 percent, had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.

New sanctuary listings

In July, CIS reported that ICE had identified 276 jurisdictions that, as of September 2014, had policies obstructing immigration enforcement, primarily policies to ignore ICE detainers. ICE updated this list in December 2014 to add another 41 jurisdictions that adopted sanctuary policies. 

They are:

• Lafayette Parish, Louisiana
• Rio Arriba, New Mexico
• Prince George’s County, Maryland
• Montgomery County, Maryland
• Douglas County, Nebraska
• All New Mexico counties
• Northampton, Massachusetts
• Chesterfield County, Virginia
• Clayton County, Georgia

“These jurisdictions have been added to our map of sanctuaries. No jurisdictions were removed from the list by ICE,” Vaughan said.

View the interactive sanctuary cities map.

Vaughan said a DHS spokesperson confirmed to her on Oct. 5 that roughly 340 jurisdictions had adopted non-cooperation policies, but that some of those jurisdictions had recently revised their sanctuary policies to allow at least some cooperation with ICE.

“The spokesperson declined to provide either a list of the 340 total non-cooperative jurisdictions or a list of the ones that had allegedly improved their policies,” according to Vaughan.

Top offenders

ICE has identified the 20 jurisdictions with the most rejected detainers. The vast majority are in California.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/41-new-sanctuary-cities-in-just-4-months/

 

 

ASTEROID IS ON CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH EARTH WITHIN HOURS

NASA  CONFIRMS  MASSIVE  ASTEROID  IS  ON  CLOSE  ENCOUNTER  WITH  EARTH  WITHIN  HOURS 

IT'S HURTLING THROUGH SPACE AT 40,000 MILES PER HOUR AND THIS TWO MILE WIDE LUMP OF SPACE ROCK WILL HAVE A VERY CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH EARTH

Asteroid: The giant 86666 (2000 FL10) asteroid could be 1.6 miles wide

Conspiracy theorists were left bemused when the giant asteroid predicted by the Blood Moon Prophecy didn't slam into the planet bringing death and destruction as predicted last week.
But now NASA has taken the unusual step of confirming a giant asteroid is hurtling through space - close to earth - and at eye watering speeds.
While they've not been able to confirm its exact size it is believed the colossal lump of fast moving space rock - also known as 86666 (2000 FL10) - could be anything up to 1.6 miles wide.
And as it hurtles close to earth at 40,000 miles per hour - it is expected to pass the moon's orbit of the earth this weekend.

 

Speeding rock: Asteroid 86666 (2000 FL10) first spotted by 5925 days ago by NASA scientists

According to NASA , the asteroid was first spotted by 5925 days ago or 16 years ago and is classified as a Near-Earth asteroid whose orbit crosses the Earth's orbit similar to that of 1862 Apollo.
The 1862 Apollo was classified as a potentially hazardous object (PHO) that has the potential to make close approaches to the Earth and is of a size large enough to cause significant regional damage in the event of impact.
An object is considered a potentially hazardous if it comes within 4,600,000 miles.
But while 86666 (2000 FL10) is certainly a large object that will come close to earth it is not thought that it will come close enough to cause any damage.
NASA uses its highly automated collision monitoring system Sentry to continually scan the most current asteroid catalog for possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years.

Tracking device: NASA first spotted the giant asteroid 16 years ago and say it will pass earth on Saturday

And for those worried about the future then you can rest easy for another 23 years.
The next recently observed major object 2015 RN35 is currently projected to come relatively close earth anytime from 2038 to 2114.
None of the thousands of objects on NASA's risk monitoring system are regarded as likely to impact earth greatly.
The maximum detected hazard rating using the Torino Impact Hazard Scale is 10.
A Torino Scale rating of 1 indicates an event that "merits careful monitoring" but currently all threats have been marked at zero.
The ten point scale is defined only for potential impacts less than 100 years in the future.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/nasa-confirms-massive-asteroid-course-6598472

 

Clear Signs That The Great Derivatives Crisis Has Now Begun

Global Financial Meltdown Coming? Clear Signs That The Great Derivatives Crisis Has Now Begun

By Michael Snyder, on October 7th, 2015 

Warren Buffett once referred to derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction“, and it was inevitable that they would begin to wreak havoc on our financial system at some point.  While things may seem somewhat calm on Wall Street at the moment, the truth is that a great deal of trouble is bubbling just under the surface.  

As you will see below, something happened in mid-September that required an unprecedented 405 billion dollar surge of Treasury collateral into the repo market.  I know – that sounds very complicated, so I will try to break it down more simply for you.  

It appears that some very large institutions have started to get into a significant amount of trouble because of all the reckless betting that they have been doing.  This is something that I have warned would happen over and over again.  In fact, I have written about it so much that my regular readers are probably sick of hearing about it.  But this is what is going to cause the meltdown of our financial system.

Many out there get upset when I compare derivatives trading to gambling, and perhaps it would be more accurate to describe most derivatives as a form of insurance.  The big financial institutions assure us that they have passed off most of the risk on these contracts to others and so there is no reason to worry according to them.

Well, personally I don’t buy their explanations, and a lot of others don’t either.  On a very basic, primitive level, derivatives trading is gambling.  This is a point that Jeff Nielson made very eloquently in a piece that he recently published…

No one “understands” derivatives. How many times have readers heard that thought expressed (please round-off to the nearest thousand)? Why does no one understand derivatives? For many; the answer to that question is that they have simply been thinking too hard. For others; the answer is that they don’t “think” at all.
Derivatives are bets. This is not a metaphor, or analogy, or generalization. Derivatives are bets. Period. That’s all they ever were. That’s all they ever can be.

One very large financial institution that appears to be in serious trouble with these financial weapons of mass destruction is Glencore.  At one time Glencore was considered to be the 10th largest company on the entire planet, but now it appears to be coming apart at the seams, and a great deal of their trouble seems to be tied to derivatives.  

The following comes from Zero Hedge…
Of particular concern, they said, was Glencore’s use of financial instruments such as derivatives to hedge its trading of physical goods against price swings. The company had $9.8 billion in gross derivatives in June 2015, down from $19 billion in such positions at the end of 2014, causing investors to query the company about the swing.

Glencore told investors the number went down so drastically because of changes in market volatility this year, according to people briefed by Glencore. When prices vary significantly, it can increase the value of hedging positions.

Last year, there were extreme price moves, particularly in the crude-oil market, which slid from about $114 a barrel in June to less than $60 a barrel by the end of December.
That response wasn’t satisfying, said Michael Leithead, a bond fund portfolio manager at EFG Asset Management, which managed $12 billion as of the end of March and has invested in Glencore’s debt.

According to Bank of America, the global financial system has about 100 billion dollars of exposure overall to Glencore.  So if Glencore goes bankrupt that is going to be a major event.  At this point, Glencore is probably the most likely candidate to be “the next Lehman Brothers”.

And it isn’t just Glencore that is in trouble.  Other financial giants such as Trafigura are in deep distress as well.  Collectively, the global financial system has approximately half a trillion dollars of exposure to these firms…

Worse, since it is not just Glencore that the banks are exposed to but very likely the rest of the commodity trading space, their gross exposure blows up to a simply stunning number:

For the banks, of course, Glencore may not be their only exposure in the commodity trading space. We consider that other vehicles such as Trafigura, Vitol and Gunvor may feature on bank balance sheets as well ($100 bn x 4?)

Call it half a trillion dollars in very highly levered exposure to commodities: an asset class that has been crushed in the past year.

The mainstream media is not talking much about any of this yet, and that is probably a good thing.  But behind the scenes, unprecedented moves are already taking place.

When I came across the information that I am about to share with you, I was absolutely stunned.  It comes from Investment Research Dynamics, and it shows very clearly that everything is not “okay” in the financial world…

Something occurred in the banking system in September that required a massive reverse repo operation in order to force the largest ever Treasury collateral injection into the repo market.   Ordinarily the Fed might engage in routine reverse repos as a means of managing the Fed funds rate.   However, as you can see from the graph below, there have been sudden spikes up in the amount of reverse repos that tend to correspond the some kind of crisis – the obvious one being the de facto collapse of the financial system in 2008:

What in the world could possibly cause a spike of that magnitude?

Well, that same article that I just quoted links the troubles at Glencore with this unprecedented intervention…

What’s even more interesting is that the spike-up in reverse repos occurred at the same time – September 16 – that the stock market embarked on an 8-day cliff dive, with the S&P 500 falling 6% in that time period.  You’ll note that this is around the same time that a crash in Glencore stock and bonds began.   It has been suggested by analysts that a default on Glencore credit derivatives either by Glencore or by financial entities using derivatives to bet against that event would be analogous to the “Lehman moment” that triggered the 2008 collapse.

The blame on the general stock market plunge was cast on the Fed’s inability to raise interest rates.  However that seems to be nothing more than a clever cover story for something much more catastrophic which began to develop out sight in the general liquidity functions of the global banking system.

Back in 2008, Lehman Brothers was not “perfectly fine” one day and then suddenly collapsed the next.  There were problems brewing under the surface well in advance.

Well, the same thing is happening now at banking giants such as Deutsche Bank, and at commodity trading firms such as Glencore, Trafigura and The Noble Group. And of course a lot of smaller fish are starting to implode as well.  I found this example posted on Business Insider earlier today…

On September 11, Spruce Alpha, a small hedge fund which is part of a bigger investment group, sent a short report to investors.
The letter said that the $80 million fund had lost 48% in a month, according the performance report seen by Business Insider.
There was no commentary included in the note. No explanation. Just cold hard numbers.

Wow – how do you possibly lose 48 percent in a single month?

It would be hard to do that even if you were actually trying to lose money on purpose.

Sadly, this kind of scenario is going to be repeated over and over as we get even deeper into this crisis.
Meanwhile, our “leaders” continue to tell us that there is nothing to worry about.  For example, just consider what former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is saying…

Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke doesn’t see any bubbles forming in global markets right right now.
But he doesn’t think you should take his word for it.
And even if you did, that isn’t the right question to ask anyway.
Speaking at a Wall Street Journal event on Wednesday morning, Bernanke said, “I don’t see any obvious major mispricings. Nothing that looks like the housing bubble before the crisis, for example. But you shouldn’t trust me.”

I certainly agree with that last sentence.  Bernanke was the one telling us that there was not going to be a recession back in 2008 even after one had already started.  He was clueless back then and he is clueless today.

Most of our “leaders” either don’t understand what is happening or they are not willing to tell us.  So that means that we have to try to figure things out for ourselves the best that we can.  And right now there are signs all around us that another 2008-style crisis has begun.

Personally, I am hoping that there will be a lot more days like today when the markets were relatively quiet and not much major news happened around the world.  Unfortunately for all of us, these days of relative peace and tranquility are about to come to a very abrupt end.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/global-financial-meltdown-coming-signs-that-the-great-derivatives-crisis-has-now-begun

CNN clearly states ISIS is supported by USA

CNN  CLEARLY  STATES  ISIS  IS  SUPPORTED  BY  THE  (BANKRUPT CORPORATE)  USA  'GOVERNMENT' 

 Oops!  Did CNN Just Admit the U.S. Is Working with ISIS?

 

24 Times Hillary Clinton Championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership

24 AND AGAIN 45 TIMES HILLARY CLINTON CHAMPIONED THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP WHILE SECRETARY OF STATE - THEN OPPOSED IT!

SHE DOES

SHE DOES

 SHE DOES NOT

 

June 19, 2015 5:00 am
Daniel Bassali contributed to this article.

Hillary Clinton consistently pushed for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal while Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, but since she left the Obama administration and is now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, she is hedging her stance.

CNN host Jake Tapper and his staff uncovered 45 examples of Clinton promoting the TPP while secretary of state, and we were able to uncover video of 24 of those instances. In speeches around the world, Clinton touted it as “far-reaching,” “innovative,” “high-quality,” and an “exciting opportunity” for the United States and its potential partners in the Pacific by lowering barriers and getting rid of most tariffs.

Last Sunday, one day after her “re-launch” of her campaign, Clinton had a different tone:

After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that “the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don’t get it, there should be no deal.”

Clinton said, “there are some specifics in there that could and should be changed. So I am hoping that’s what happens now — let’s take the lemons and turn it into lemonade.”

But as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State.

Now, as the left flank of the Democratic Party has come out strongly against it and dealt Obama an embarrassing legislative defeat last week on trade authority, Clinton seems unsure what the best political step to take is.

During a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa Clinton was asked about TPP where she responded that the deal was not fully negotiated and that she did not know the full provisions yet?!!

http://freebeacon.com/politics/24-times-hillary-clinton-championed-the-trans-pacific-partnership-while-secretary-of-state/