The solar wind is almost nonexistent at 299 km/sec and there are only three sunspot clusters on the Sun.

Despite a very quiet weekend so far, NOAA forecasters are still predicting geomagnetic activity in response to an incoming solar wind stream. The odds of a polar geomagnetic storm on Jan. 18th are as high as 50%. Arctic sky watchers should be alert for Northern Lights. Aurora alerts: text, voice

INCREDIBLY LONG COMET TAIL: Standing under the stars in the countryside, people are looking up and seeing the green head of Comet Lovejoy not far from the Pleiades star cluster. There's also a hint of a tail, faint but long. Note to sky watchers: It's even longer than you think. Astrophotographers doing long exposures of the comet find that the tail extends an incredible 15o to 20o across the night sky.

TransAtlantic Banks and the Blood Colored Glasses

Switzerland's economy is in great shape. Low debt. Low unemployment. Tons of exports.

In recent months, this economic strength has created a huge problem for Switzerland. Panicked investors around the world, who see Switzerland as a safe haven, have been buying Swiss francs like mad.

That made the value of the franc shoot up — which in has caused big problems for Switzerland.

On the show today, we look into the franc's crazy rise. Charles Wyplosz, an economist Charles Wyplosz, en economist at the Graduate Institute in Geneva had this to say: The Swiss are proud of being politically neutral, but there is no economic neutrality. In a big part, their good economic health is directly due to fact that they are integrated in the world economy and that they are exporting all over the world. So the fairness is that if your customers are in deep, deep trouble, it would probably not be quite natural that you stay in top impeccable situation, while everyone around you is in deep trouble. I mean the Swiss dream of isolating themselves from trouble is just an impossible dream. They are part of the whole thing.

The magnitude of the crisis for U.S. currency traders became clear Friday when New York-based FXCM, a publicly traded U.S. currency broker, and the largest so far to announce it was in financial trouble after suffering a 90-percent drop in the firm’s stock price, reported the firm would need a $200-$300 million bailout to prevent capital requirements from being breached. Highly leveraged currency traders, including retail customers, were unable to come up with sufficient capital to cover the losses suffered in their currency trading accounts when the Swiss franc surged.

Currency traders worldwide allowed to leverage their accounts 100:1, meaning the customer can bet $100 in the currency exchange markets for every $1.00 the customer has on deposit in its account, can result in huge gains from unexpected currency price fluctuations or massive and devastating losses, should the customer bet wrong.

Foreign exchange brokers in London, Europe and New Zealand joined their New York counterparts in issuing a steady stream of warnings that numerous currency exchange firms are struggling to remain solvent.

The losses also impact major financial institutions in the currency exchange markets with Citigroup announcing a $150-million loss as a result of the Swiss franc’s appreciation, losses comparable to those suffered by Deutsche Bank, with Barclays reporting a somewhat smaller loss of close to $50 million.

In the fashion of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, the U.S. Commodity and Futures Trading Commission announced Friday that the regulator would be carrying out a review of FXCM currency trading losses, as regulators worldwide began contemplating reining in this highly leveraged market.

The Swiss National Bank decision also means more rough going for the currently devaluating euro given that the Swiss National Bank will no longer be a buyer of euros while keeping the price of the Swiss franc artificially low.

Currency experts speculated the Swiss National Bank made the decision to remove the currency cap because of expectations the European Central Bank, at its policy meeting scheduled for Thursday, will make the decision to begin a policy of quantitative easing, known in financial markets as QE, effectively authorizing the European Central Bank to print billions of euros as it agrees to buy government debt of the economically struggling euro-zone member countries.

Under the QE bond-buying spree, the Federal Reserve balance sheet ballooned to a record $4.48 trillion accumulated since announcing the first round of QE purchases in November 2008, as outgoing President George W. Bush tried to deal with a systemic financial markets collapse that helped propel Barack Obama into the White House as the housing market bubble fueled by speculative mortgages issued below investment grade s collapsed.Yellen assumed the Fed chair on Jan. 6, 2014, determined to “taper” QE borrowing down to zero by the end of 2014, a goal Yellen quietly achieved last October.

The news this week about the resignation of the chairman of the Swiss National Bank made us wonder how that whole currency peg is working out for them.

Switzerland faced an unusual problem this year — it's economy was doing so well that nervous investors around the world started flocking to its currency. That made the value of the franc shoot up — which caused big problems for the country's exporters.

In September, the central bank announced that it would "buy foreign currency in unlimited quantities" in order to drive the value of the franc down. Essentially, the bank pledged to sell as many francs as investors wanted and to take in their euros, yen and dollars in return. Their goal is to keep the exchange rate from dropping below 1.2 Swiss Franc per euro.

At the time, Charles Wyplosz, an economist at the Graduate Institute in Geneva warned us that maintaining a peg to the euro would be difficult to do:

The central bank goes and says "You people want swiss franc...I will provide you whatever you need." This whatever you need can be totally gigantic given the small size of the Swiss economy, and the huge size of world financial market. The Swiss central bank might have to absorb, twice, three times, four times its own money supply before it has any effect on the market.

The peg has been in effect for four months now, so we called back Wyplosz to see how it's working out:

Before the decision in September, [the Swiss National Bank] took in something like 200 billion euros which means a tripling of their balance sheet, since then nothing much has happened. The day they made their announcement that spooked the markets and the markets stopped pressing.

Investors believed the central bank would do whatever it took to maintain the peg and they backed off. For now, it seems to be working, although Wyplosz stresses that is for now.

"The world has become even more uncertain and more dangerous than before so that's why there might be new pressure on the franc," he says.

Even though the franc has weakened in recent months, many people in the country feel it has not gone low enough. They are pushing the central bank to raise the ceiling. Why? Switzerland sells most of its goods to the rest of Europe and these days the rest of Europe isn't really buying. The Swiss are facing the double whammy of a strong currency and a struggling customer base. This currency appreciation occurred because investors are worried over finding secure investments in a period of economic uncertainty. However, because the global economy remains depressed (slow growth, high unemployment), this appreciation is unwelcome. It makes it more difficult to export goods and can lead to lower growth. For an economy like Japan which relies on a strong export sector, this decline in competitiveness could be very damaging for the their economy. As a result, their economy is expected to grow just 0.2 percent next year.

A wide range of factors interact to determine the exchange rate level: the government, market forces of supply and demand for a particular country's currency, interest rates, inflation, a country's balance of trade and/or payments, and consumers' expectations about what will happen in the future.

While a discussion of the relationships among these factors is beyond the scope of this publication (in fact some of these relationships are still unknown), the discussion can be simplified by focusing on the two main factors influencing the level of the exchange rate: the government and market forces of supply and demand.

How Does the Government and Market Forces Influence the Rate (Level) of the Exchange Rate?Governments can influence the level of the exchange rate directly or indirectly. Governments influence the exchange rate level directly by setting "fixed" exchange rates. This means that the rates stay at the same value until such time as a government sees fit to change them. For example, since 1994, China has fixed (pegged) its exchange rate relative to the U.S. dollar at 8.28 yuan = US$1. Governments influence the exchange rate level indirectly by changing interest rates (the amount of money in circulation) or by purchasing other currencies on foreign exchange markets (the place where different currencies are bought and sold).

In addition, many countries, including the United States, Japan, and Canada, set "flexible" or "floating" exchange rates that change on a daily, or even hourly, basis, depending on currency demand and supply. Figure 1 illustrates how the U.S. dollar exchange rate for the European euro changed over the period 2001 to 2004. The downward sloping curve indicates a weakening of the U.S. dollar.

The Currency Trading Game

Money is traded like stocks. That is to say you can buy Swiss Francs, hold them for a short while and watch the slight up and down exchange rates of other currencies. When the cycle is down for Yen, you by Yen with your Swiss Francs. Then, when the value for Yen goes up, and the value for Euros goes down, you buy Euros, etc. Now, normally, you won’t make much for a trade. 0.2% is normal, 1% is a very good trade, and 30% is enough to make you wealthy in no time.

There are millions of traders, and most of the very sophisticated investors use private firms that have connected computers to the market to do the trading for you. They might make 15 to 50 trades a month, and the total gain might be 10%, of which the trading firm usually takes half. You earn 5% on your investment. That is amazingly good for a one month investment. On an annual basis, that is a 60% return on your investment.

There are other traders that don’t need to hire a firm. They are the firm. They can actually shift the market with their investment if it is large enough. They have the power to make or break most currencies. As I have told you before, George Soros became a billionaire by breaking the Bank of England. He has been a investment gangster ever since, declaring his own war against people or countries he does not like and using his money like the guy who takes a low position behind you while someone else pushes to make you fall down. That kind of guy.

Well, the middle of the game requires banks. They too play the game, and their brokers can make 200-500% bonuses plus commissions if enough money moves through their hands. You see, unlike stocks, money does not usually delist. It might drop today, but someday that money will come back in value. Investors like buying cash, because they don’t have to rely on some CEO to stay healthy and out of jail. All they have to do is watch the other investors from behind a little disguise. Sort of like going to an art auction to bid on something, but dressing like a beggar, so no one runs the bid up knowing you have tons of money.

the UK fined five major banks 1.1 billion pounds ($1.75 billion) for “failings” in currency trading in a landmark settlement after a scandal that has roiled the world's largest market.

In what appeared like a coordinated move, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) said it was fining five banks $1.4 billion for attempted manipulation in the foreign exchange market.

The CFTC said traders had used private online chat rooms to communicate. They had disclosed confidential customer order information and trading positions, and altered their positions accordingly to do what they call "benefit the interests of the collective group".

Gold prices have been under increased regulatory scrutiny this year. Barclays Plc was fined 26 million pounds ($43.8 million) in May for manipulating gold prices. The bank claimed the “failures” were due to lax internal controls that allowed a trader to manipulate gold prices rather than a systematic attempt to manipulate the gold price.

Banks continue to get mere slaps on the wrists for breaking the law. Very few traders or bankers have faced prosecution or jail time. Instead, regulators levy completely ineffectual fines that are tiny when compared to their annual bonuses and indeed profits. 

As long as this continues, we will continue to see criminal behavior and banks attempting to manipulate and rig markets at the expense of investors and other financial market participants.

Such behavior is creating huge distortions in markets and will likely contribute to another financial crash and crisis. Keep in mind that the money from fines for the CFTC

is how they get paid. If they kill the host, they too will die. It is merely the cost of doing business.

Supply Chain Wars

War is hell, they say. There is a fog of death and smoke and stray bullets and missiles. But there is an aspect that usually marks the path to victory. It is not the best planes, if you have no fuel to fly them. It is not the best weapons, if you have no way to deliver them. It is not the best trained foot soldiers, if you cannot feed them and provide them water.

The US has won all its foreign wars mostly because of our endless supply chain. Why endless? Because in all our wars, declared and undeclared, there has never been a bomb or a bullet land on our soil since 1814. By the way, we beat the British twice because our supply chain from farms and factories was completely unfettered.

Germany lost the war because its enemies attacked their supply chain. Oil, ball bearings, iron, gold, and even bridges were attacked to keep them from restocking their battle positions.

Well, the value in world today is not perceived in terms of land anymore. Military victors do not face armies in uniforms anymore. They face a world lined with razor blades and poison. Little cuts and attacks by ghosts minute by minute eventually erode a country’s will to remain there. So, they leave. Defeat.

The value is now seen in money, because it can control the nation without any physical presence there. It sounds a little like a virtual world, but that is exactly what I am describing. If you control the money of a nation, you don’t have to blow up its oil supply. That nation will consume it all by itself and not make any more. You don’t have to blow up a bridge, because it will fall down on its own without constant repair and maintenance. You don’t have to kill its people, because they will elect officials who will feed them and give them someplace to live. The leader of such a conquered nation would never be able to consider a foreign war, or even a foreign policy for that matter, because the victor would control all the money.

So, the virtual war in a virtual world is fought online. The electrical connectedness of the planet is how money moves now. There are no wagons coming with the payroll. There are no purchases or sales made without some kind of electronic component to them. This is why the NSA is seeking the smartest, geekiest, and most bloodthirsty hackers the world has even known to work for them.

Normally, internship applicants need to have polished resumes, with volunteer work on social projects considered a plus. But at Politerain, the job posting calls for candidates with significantly different skill sets. We are, the ad says, "looking for interns who want to break things."

ANZEIGEPoliterain is not a project associated with a conventional company. It is run by a US government intelligence organization, the National Security Agency (NSA). More precisely, it's operated by the NSA's digital snipers with Tailored Access Operations (TAO), the department responsible for breaking into computers.

Potential interns are also told that research into third party computers might include plans to "remotely degrade or destroy opponent computers, routers, servers and network enabled devices by attacking the hardware." Using a program called Passionatepolka, for example, they may be asked to "remotely brick network cards." With programs like Berserkr they would implant "persistent backdoors" and "parasitic drivers". Using another piece of software called Barnfire, they would "erase the BIOS on a brand of servers that act as a backbone to many rival governments."

An intern's tasks might also include remotely destroying the functionality of hard drives. Ultimately, the goal of the internship program was "developing an attacker's mindset."

The internship listing is eight years old, but the attacker's mindset has since become a kind of doctrine for the NSA's data spies. And the intelligence service isn't just trying to achieve mass surveillance of Internet communication, either. The digital spies of the Five Eyes alliance -- comprised of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- want more.

The Birth of D Weapons

According to top secret documents from the archive of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden seen exclusively by SPIEGEL, they are planning for wars of the future in which the Internet will play a critical role, with the aim of being able to use the net to paralyze computer networks and, by doing so, potentially all the infrastructure they control, including power and water supplies, factories, airports or the flow of money.

During the 20th century, scientists developed so-called ABC weapons -- atomic, biological and chemical. It took decades before their deployment could be regulated and, at least partly, outlawed. New digital weapons have now been developed for the war on the Internet. But there are almost no international conventions or supervisory authorities for these D weapons, and the only law that applies is the survival of the fittest.

Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan foresaw these developments decades ago. In 1970, he wrote, "World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between

military and civilian participation." That's precisely the reality that spies are preparing for today.

The US Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force have already established their own cyber forces, but it is the NSA, also officially a military agency, that is taking the lead. It's no coincidence that the director of the NSA also serves as the head of the US Cyber Command. The country's leading data spy, Admiral Michael Rogers, is also its chief cyber warrior and his close to 40,000 employees are responsible for both digital spying and destructive network attacks.

Surveillance only 'Phase 0'

From a military perspective, surveillance of the Internet is merely "Phase 0" in the US digital war strategy. Internal NSA documents indicate that it is the prerequisite for everything that follows. They show that the aim of the surveillance is to detect vulnerabilities in enemy systems. Once "stealthy implants" have been placed to infiltrate enemy systems, thus allowing "permanent accesses," then Phase Three has been achieved -- a phase headed by the word "dominate" in the documents. This enables them to "control/destroy critical systems & networks at will through pre-positioned accesses (laid in Phase 0)." Critical infrastructure is considered by the agency to be anything that is important in keeping a society running: energy, communications and transportation. The internal documents state that the ultimate goal is "real time controlled escalation".

One NSA presentation proclaims that "the next major conflict will start in cyberspace." To that end, the US government is currently undertaking a massive effort to digitally arm itself for network warfare. For the 2013 secret intelligence budget, the NSA projected it would need around $1 billion in order to increase the strength of its computer network attack operations. The budget included an increase of some $32 million for "unconventional solutions" alone.

The Invisible Nation

Inside this virtual world is a nation of people who have chosen to remain invisible. They do not have bank accounts in their own names. They have facades. They are worth billions as a whole, but it isn’t worth confiscating.

Now, this nation attracts three types of citizens:

The discards. These are the people who thought high school was a drag. They got high with friends who had jobs, as long as their good body parts were working and looking good. When that wore out, or when their lifestyles got them sick or pregnant, then they were discarded by society. They will never own a home. They will never buy a new car. They likely will not live past the age of 50. There are millions of them everywhere, but no one wants them because there is

a profound belief that this condition is contagious. It is sort of why a racecar driver never goes to another driver’s funeral.

The escapees. These are not refugees. Far from it. These are smart people who have become awakened and are so frustrated with how much the victors, who control all the money, steal from them. They have seen some or all their wealth stolen by the agency government, or by others in the craft of financial cannibalism. They chose to leave the system. They also deal in cash, but they have an online presence in the form of business. They operate online businesses for money. Each business stays small, so the agencies don’t see them as anything more than a ripple on the pond. They don’t know what caused the ripple, nor do they care where it goes. The escapee has figure out a way to live, eat, and play in the defeated territory. It is the fastest growing sector in America, but it is still less than 1% of the population.

The cannibals. These are the ones who are genius order beings who see the advantage to be taken in this virtual world. To them, a firewall is like a mountain that must be climbed. They can be crafty, taking a small piece of millions of pies so that they become wealthy at very little expense of others. They are experts at identity theft. They know how to eat their neighbors without ever getting caught. The government has become an organized crime syndicate with millions of soldiers who eat the population they govern. They have become so large and powerful, that they rule the entire world. It is in this world that whole nations can be destroyed in a single day. They are ever confident that the population of self-slaves they feed and propagandize into a slumber of apathy will never wake up and take any action to overthrow their victory over America.

Natural Gas Cut Off Through Ukraine

Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian state energy giant Gazprom to cut supplies to and through Ukraine amid accusations, according to The Daily Mail, that its neighbor has been siphoning off and stealing Russian gas. Due to these "transit risks for European consumers in the territory of Ukraine," Gazprom cut gas exports to Europe by 60%, plunging the continent into an energy crisis "within hours." Perhaps explaining the explosion higher in NatGas prices (and oil) today, gas companies in Ukraine confirmed that Russia had cut off supply; and six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas. The EU raged that the sudden cut-off to some of its member countries was "completely unacceptable," but Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller later added that Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey; and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak stated unequivocally, "the decision has been made."

As Bloomberg reports ,

Russia plans to shift all its natural gas flows crossing Ukraine to a route via Turkey, a surprise move that the European Union’s energy chief said would hurt its reputation as a supplier.

 

The decision makes no economic sense, Maros Sefcovic, the European Commission’s vice president for energy union, told reporters today after talks with Russian government officials and the head of gas exporter, OAO Gazprom, in Moscow.

 

Gazprom, the world’s biggest natural gas supplier, plans to send 63 billion cubic meters through a proposed link under the Black Sea to Turkey, fully replacing shipments via Ukraine, Chief Executive Officer Alexey Miller said during the discussions. About 40 percent of Russia’s gas exports to Europe and Turkey travel through Ukraine’s Soviet-era network.

Sefcovic said he was “very surprised” by Miller’s comment, adding that relying on a Turkish route, without Ukraine, won’t fit with the EU’s gas system.

 

Gazprom plans to deliver the fuel to Turkey’s border with Greece and “it’s up to the EU to decide what to do” with it further, according to Sefcovic.

Which, as The Daily Mail reports, has led to a major (and imminent) problem for Europe...

Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 60 per cent today, plunging the continent into an energy crisis 'within hours' as a dispute with Ukraine escalated.

This morning, gas companies in Ukraine said that Russia had completely cut off their supply.

Six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas shipped via Ukraine today, in a sharp escalation of a struggle over energy that threatens Europe as winter sets in.

 

Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments from Russia through Ukraine.

*  *  *As Bloomberg goes on to note, Gazprom has reduced deliveries via Ukraine after price and debt disputes with the neighboring country that twice in the past decade disrupted supplies to the EU during freezing weather.

“Transit risks for European consumers on the territory of Ukraine remain,” Miller said in an e-mailed statement. “There are no other options” except for the planned Turkish Stream link, he said.

“We have informed our European partners, and now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border,” Miller said.

Russia won’t hurt its image with a shift to Turkey because it has always been a reliable gas supplier and never violated its obligations, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters today in Moscow after meeting Sefcovic.

“The decision has been made,” Novak said. “We are diversifying and eliminating the risks of unreliable countries that caused problems in past years, including for European consumers.”

The Syndicate Begins its Sacrifices

Embattled Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner is resigning her post overseeing Obamacare just months after she admitted that the Obama White House’s highly publicized 8 million Obamacare enrollment figure was inflated by at least 1.3 million.

“The mistake we made is unacceptable,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell. “I will be communicating that clearly throughout the department.”

Tavenner sent the House Oversight and Government Reform committee a letter blaming the Obama administration’s unfinished back-end system for the inflated figures.

“Once the automated system for effectuated enrollment is functional, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will be able to more easily report the number who has paid their premiums,” wrote Tavenner.

Tavenner, whose agency spends more than the Pentagon each year, was also a key figure overseeing the busted Obamacare website that cost U.S. taxpayers at least $2.1 billion. Tavenner later apologized for the HealthCare.gov disaster.

Defense: What the president calls “my military” is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com’s Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded.”

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.” Vallely  thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He’s

intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that “they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.”

For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be “his” military and used only for “his” purposes.

There are More

Dr. Janey Thornton, the USDA Deputy Under-Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, has resigned her post effective at close of business Friday, January 9, 2015. 

Secret Service Director Julia Pierson: Resigned after multiple security breaches including a one-man invasion of the White House.

David Petraeus: Resigned after an affair with Paula Broadwell was made public. The decision to prosecute by the Justice Department depends on how well he destroys the evidence of presidential wrongdoing. Diane Feinstein, called for no prosecution, because as a ranking senator, she committed treason and endangered thousands of US secret assets around the world.

General Erik Shinseki, VA head: Resigned after proof that the VA developed a policy of putting terminal veterans into a holding queue until they died rather than tarnish their service metric, because it lowered their bonuses. It has been widely held by many that this was a test platform for Obamacare death panels.

Kathlene Sebelius, Head of HHS: Resigned after the billions spent on the Obamacare website turned out to have squandered on other things. The president’s lies about the system were discovered, but it was Kathlene that paid the price.

Shirley Sherrod USDA: Resigned after she was secretly taped telling a white farmer that was going to lose his farm that there were so many black farmers that lost their farms before him, that she was not going to help him.

General Stanley McChrystal: Commander of US forces in Afghanistan was fired for making what were termed disparaging comments about the president in Rolling Stone Magazine interview. No dissent will be allowed under any circumstances.

Desiree Rogers: Resigned after two uninvited guests were able to attend the White House state dinner. No uninvited people are allowed.

Suzanne Barr: Senior Obama appointee and longtime Janet Napolitano aide resigned over allegations Customs Enforcement employees were having inappropriate sexual activities.

Gas Prices Drop, Making Possible New Taxes

The incoming Republican leader, Bill Shuster(PA) of the Senate Transportation Committee said Sunday an increase is up for consideration, as "we have to look at all the options."

"I don't think we take anything off the table at this point," John Thune said on "Fox News Sunday."

Prices at the pump are at the lowest point in years -- the nationwide average has tumbled more than a dollar in the last year, reaching $2.20 on Monday.

That's given drivers significant relief at the same time as the federal highway fund continues to face huge shortages. Thune said the fund is looking at "about a $100 billion shortfall."

On top of that, the law behind the fund is set to expire in May.

And the nation's infrastructure is in dire need of repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated the country's roads and bridges a D+. Why is this? Because the money taken from hundreds of billions of gallons of gas, were robbed to pay for other things, while the federal road and bridge repair and maintenance programs were kicked down the road for another Congress to worry about. The cracks grew, and the potholes got bigger, and the bridges rusted, but the pet projects of these gluttons got funded to buy votes or to line the pockets of large campaign contributors. This happens every day in every state.

Some of Mr. Shuster’s colleagues, led by Republican Senator Bob Corker and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, have proposed an increase of 12 cents per gallon over the next two years, then linking increases to inflation. That is a nearly 50% increase in the federal tax giving an already corrupt federal overlord hundreds of billions more to conduct his activities.

Business leaders, including the Chamber of Commerce, have also called for an increase. Their ranks have grown to thousands of employees and contractors making an average of $120,000 a year. This is a committee whose budget has been cited

countless times for fraud, graft, and corruption. The Mafia made more money building roads and bridges than any casino they ever operated.

On December 17, 2014, state criminal complaints were filed in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, charging ten individuals for their alleged roles in a widespread $1.2 million corruption and bribery scheme that affected 27 federally funded maintenance and construction contracts in Pennsylvania. 

The complaints allege that Alex Morrone, former PENNDOT permits manager, and William Rosetti, former Philadelphia County permit manager, demanded kickbacks from project inspectors while requiring them to falsify time, attendance, and payroll records to generate illicit cash flow. They also allege that the corrupt inspectors were paid more than $500,000 through false payroll and invoice submissions. Additionally, two leading inspection firms, CMC Engineering and CZOP Corporation, were allegedly paid more than $700,000 for their employees unearned overtime. 

The complaints also state that project inspectors performed home improvement services for PENNDOT officials while payroll records falsely indicated that they were performing inspection duties. In addition to the monetary fraud, the state grand jury contended that the scheme jeopardized safety because paid project inspectors, hired to protect the public and Pennsylvania highway infrastructure, were often absent from jobsites and therefore failed to perform inspection duties. 

The investigation further revealed that the subject PENNDOT managers instructed the consultant inspectors, who were close friends and relatives, to falsify their resumes, and in turn, the PENNDOT officials allegedly used their influence with the contract engineering companies to hire these unqualified individuals as consultant inspectors. These inspectors then falsified documents to inflate overtime income and mileage reimbursements and then kicked money back to the PENNDOT managers. 

In addition to Morrone and Rosetti, those charged included PENNDOT inspectors Frank DiMichele and Generoso Palmieri, and consultant inspectors Joseph DiSimone, John Cavanaugh, John Laspada, Brandon Grosso, David Betzner, and Christopher Lauch

President Obama isn't currently on board with this new tax idea, probably because he didn’t make the public announcement that he was instructing HIS dot to raise the tax, but he is open to "compromise," his spokesman said Monday. This is the craft code for, “As long as I get what I want out of this tax, I will approve it.”

"We don't believe the best way to fund modernizing our infrastructure is to raise the gas tax," said Press Secretary Josh Earnest. "But some people do and we're willing to consider those proposals." In other words, we don’t like it but hey…who am I to turn down money?

Obama has instead called for eliminating what he says are unfair tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. He is more than likely against national fuel contracts through which large organizations like the airlines and trucking companies can buy fuel futures in bulk at a discount. While everyone pays higher fuels prices, they still buy at the contract price.

The Two Front Approach

An environmental bill long championed by the Obama administration and environmental groups was quietly signed into law this week. The bill, initially expected to fail, was bolstered by last-minute support from a group of moderate Republicans seeking reelection in predominantly Democratic leaning states. This is the classic cannibal position, meaning that I am happy to eat my own constituents as long as I save the ones who vote for last. The bill strengthens environmental pollution penalties, emission standards and creates a surprising new three dollar a gallon tax increase on gasoline.

Many House members who voted for the bill say they are shocked by the significant tax increase on gasoline included in it, and claim that they were unaware of its inclusion. At over one thousand pages long many of the subsections of the bill likely remained unread by congressional appointees or their aides. The tax authorization was buried in a supplemental section dealing with otherwise minor changes to infrastructure standards. The three dollar tax appears to be earmarked to a newly created environmental fund that will be used to modernize transportation infrastructure, making it more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly. A provision in the bill allows for redistribution of the funds for other green projects, with approval of the house environmental committee, following the completion of the modernization overhaul mandated by the new law.

Environmental advocates claim that the increase, which would bring the national average cost of gas to six dollars and eighty cents per gallon, will bring U.S. prices more in line with the global norm of between six and eight dollars per gallon. They also contend that the tax will encourage automakers to develop next generation fuel-efficient cars for the American market. One major initiative the tax will fund, replacing America’s outdated streetlights with modern LED technology, will reduce the total energy expenditure of America by roughly seven percent.

Critics of the tax claim that it is excessive and was passed in an underhanded manner. The Average yearly cost to fuel a vehicle that gets thirty mpg will increase to thirty-four hundred dollars up from nineteen hundred dollars once this tax takes effect in 2015. Many families, critics charge, will be unable to absorb this increased cost and as a result will see their standard of living decrease.

Trey Gowdy, congressman from South Carolina, called the passage of the bill a miscarriage of American justice. “Here we have a President who hurts the country he should be helping”, said Gowdy. “Instead of helping our citizens live better, and save money by approving the keystone pipeline so there is more fuel, this President wants to

take the bread from people’s mouths. He wants them to pay more and suffer more and live with less”

Gowdy went on to decry the Republicans who voted with the Democrats and enabled the passage of the bill, calling them Republicans in name only. Gowdy also called for a complete repeal of the new gasoline tax.

President Barack Obama is turning to his biggest television audience of the year to pitch $300 billion in tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and put the new Republican Congress in the position of defending top income earners over the middle class.

Obama also will ask Congress for as much as $68 billion more than current budget limits in fiscal 2016, two people familiar with the administration’s proposal told Bloomberg News.

The request sets up a fight with the Republican-led House and Senate over whether to reverse part of the spending limits that the U.S. Congress and the White House agreed to in fiscal deals earlier this decade.

The new spending would mean as much as $34 billion each for the national security and domestic sides of what will be a budget of almost $4 trillion. It will be detailed in the budget proposal Obama will send to Congress on Feb. 2.

As Obama continues to signal what he will propose during Tuesday's State of the Union address, senior administration officials said during the weekend that he will call for raising the capital gains rate on top income earners and eliminating a tax break on inheritances. The revenue generated by those changes would fund new tax credits and other cost-saving measures for middle-class taxpayers, officials said.

Tax increases are rarely welcomed by congressional Republicans, who now hold majorities in the House and the Senate for the first time in Obama's presidency. Obama's tax proposals will likely be dismissed, if not outright ignored, by lawmakers outside the Democratic Party's liberal base.

"Are they going to agree on everything? Absolutely not. But I think we should have a debate in this country between middle-class economics and trickle-down economics," White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said the theme of the speech would be "middle-class economics."

Obama also is expected to call for lawmakers to make community college free for many students, increase paid leave for workers and enact broad cybersecurity rules. Administration officials disclosed details on the tax proposals on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the proposals by name ahead of the president's speech.

The centerpiece of the president's tax proposal is an increase in the capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year to 28 percent, the same level as under President Ronald Reagan. The top capital gains rate has already been raised from 15 percent to 23.8 percent during Obama's presidency.

Obama also wants to close what the administration is calling the "trust fund loophole," a change that would require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they're inherited. Officials said the overwhelming impact of the change would be on the top 1 percent of income earners.

While GOP leaders have said they share Obama's desire to reform the nation's complicated tax code, the party has long been opposed to many of the proposals the president will outline Tuesday. For example, most Republicans want to lower or eliminate the capital gains tax and similarly want to end taxes on estates, not expand them.

Administration officials pointed to a third proposal from the president as one they hope Republicans would support: a fee on the roughly 100 U.S. financial firms with assets of more than $50 billion. Officials said the fee is similar to a proposal from former Republican Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, who led the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Camp's plan, however, was part of a larger proposal to lower the overall corporate income tax rate.

Raising the capital gains rate, ending the inheritance loophole and tacking a fee on financial firms would generate $320 billion in revenue over a decade, according to administration estimates. Obama wants to put the bulk of that money into a series of measures aimed at helping middle-class Americans. Among them:

—A credit of up to $500 for families in which both spouses work. The administration says 24 million couples would benefit from the proposal, which would apply to families with annual income up to $210,000.

—Expanding the child care tax credit to up to $3,000 per child under age 5. The administration says the proposal would help more than 5 million families with the cost of child care.

—Overhauling the education tax system by consolidating six provisions into two, a move that could cut taxes for 8.5 million families. Republicans have been open to the idea of consolidating education tax breaks.

Obama's call for higher taxes on the wealthy could further antagonize Republicans who are already angry with the president over his vows to veto several of the party's priorities, including legislation to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, make changes to the president's signature health care legislation and block his executive actions on immigration.

"Slapping American small businesses, savers and investors with more tax hikes only negates the benefits of the tax policies that have been successful in helping to expand the economy, promote savings and create jobs," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chairman of the Finance Committee, said in a statement. "The president needs to stop listening to his liberal allies who want to raise taxes at all costs and start working with Congress to fix our broken tax code."

Even before officials revealed Obama's tax proposals, Republicans were saying that his veto threats are a sign of a president who didn't get the message from voters who relegated his party to minority status in the November election. New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the president still has a chance to change his tone.

"Tuesday can be a new day," McConnell said Friday. "This can be the moment the president pivots to a positive posture. This can be a day when he promotes serious realistic reforms that focus on economic growth and don't just spend more money we don't have. We're eager for him to do so."

Beyond rolling out new proposals, Obama's address is also expected to focus on making the case to the public that recent economic gains represent a real and lasting recovery. The approach reflects the White House's belief that it has been too cautious in promoting economic gains out of fear of looking tone deaf to the continued struggles of many Americans.

Obama isn't expected to make any major foreign policy announcements. He is likely to urge lawmakers to stop the pursuit of new penalties against Iran while the U.S. and others are in the midst of nuclear negotiations with Tehran, defend his recent decision to normalize relations with Cuba, and argue for the effectiveness of U.S. efforts to stop Russia's provocations in Ukraine.

The King vs The Tenthers

“The fundamental political question is why do people obey a government? The answer is that society tends to enslave itself, to let tyrants to rule over them. Real freedom from servitude comes not from violent action, but from the refusal to serve. Tyrants fall when the people withdraw their support.”

The Tenth Amendment exists, and it actually means what it says. Of course States are sovereign. Of course States can ignore edicts not among the few and enumerated powers of the subservient (not master) federal government; or even, if the People of a State so choose, leave the voluntary union when the benefits of union are found to be outweighed by onerous detriments. That’s what all the States and ‘The People’ thought they were getting when they ratified the Constitution. And any with doubts, need only look to the very first sentence of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve, or to Madison’s counterpart Virginia Resolve, which address these very issues when related questions arose for the first time in our nation’s history.

There is no need for violence. All that is required is for we the people to stop providing government with the tools of oppression.

“Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away.

You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.

“Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows – to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free.“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.”

States can start ignoring the executive orders and executive memoranda that are issued like royal edicts. Governors need to resolve that they will protect its citizens from attack by the Federal government.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 1 is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.345, to read as follows:

Any federal regulation or rule promulgated as a result of an executive order of the President of the United States repugnant of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Missouri shall be declared invalid in the state of Missouri. Such regulations and rules shall be considered null and void and of no effect.

It shall be the duty of the general assembly to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of regulations and rules issued by a presidential executive order.

“Are we going to be free men or are we going to be slaves to the federal government of the United States?” retired state trooper and current State Delegate Charles W. Carrico, Sr. asked of the 1,000-strong rally gathered on the steps of the Virginia state capitol in January. While the like-minded crowd reacted with enthusiasm, such a rhetorical question might strike the average American as overdramatic. Are U.S. citizens really becoming “slaves to the federal government”?

There can be no mistake that the present-day federal government bears little resemblance to the extremely limited national government designed by our Founders, where the majority of domestic governing was to be left to the state and local levels. Fast forward 200-plus years and now Americans face a seemingly unstoppable centralized leviathan based out of Washington. Consider the following mind-blowing facts about the current U.S. government:

• With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the federal government, excluding the Postal Service, is the nation’s largest employer.

• The U.S. national debt just blew past $18 trillion with no end in sight. If interest rates rise at all, the debt will be unpayable, even with the entire US GDP.

The enormous size of the federal government is not very popular either. A Gallup poll conducted last September found that more than half of Americans believe that “the federal government has too much power.” Unpopularity aside, keep in mind that history has well established that government cannot grow without a corresponding decline in the economy, peace, and the rule of law. One need look no further than past empires to see what fate awaits a citizenry that concentrates all its power in one central government. How is it then that the U.S. government has morphed from a limited Republic designed by the Constitution to a virtually all-powerful behemoth? How did the Constitution, which was designed to carefully define and limit the powers of the national government, become

an open-ended grant of power to that very same government? Perhaps an answer can be found in the U.S. Supreme Court, the entity “conventional wisdom” believes is entrusted with the sole power to interpret the Constitution.

A federal government website, “Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government,” contains a cartoon version of Ben Franklin explaining how our current system of government works. The site includes the following proclamation: “One of the Supreme Court’s most important responsibilities is to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution.… Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.” (Emphasis added.)

What’s wrong with this you might ask? New York Times best-selling author and historian Thomas Woods provided the answer clearly and concisely at the Campaign for Liberty’s January 15 regional meeting when he discussed the views of Thomas Jefferson: “Jefferson’s concern was that if we say the federal government has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, what do you think is going to happen? This is not brain surgery. If they have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, they’re going to interpret it in their own favor. Surprise! Then we all scratch our heads and wonder, ‘Why has the government gotten so completely out of control?’” Woods hammered home how completely preposterous it is for the Supreme Court to have the sole and final say on the extent of federal power with the following analogy: “If you enter into a contract with somebody, never, ever would you say that the other party in the contract can exclusively interpret what it means…. Obviously, if only one party in a contract can interpret it, it’s going to interpret it in its own favor!”

The Rise of the “Tenthers”Madison explains: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Proponents of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have been starting to rise up en masse to remind the national government of its proper constitutional role under the principles of federalism. This loose network of activists, widely referred to as the state sovereignty movement or Tenth Amendment movement, were given the derisive nickname “tenthers” by detractors, but in a witty reversal, they gladly adopted the label. The Tenth Amendment Center, the major hub online for state sovereignty activism, has even renamed its blog, “the tenther grapevine.”

Typically, the response by some of the biggest names in the news media has been to

actively disparage anyone who strictly adheres to the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution. David Shuster of MSNBC proclaimed that most “people in their right-thinking mind know that the Tenth Amendment is a bunch of baloney.”

Fellow MSNBC news anchor Lawrence O’Donnell, filling in for Keith Olberman, also raged against what he ridiculed as “tenthers” — individuals who believe in the Jeffersonian principles of a government limited to the powers specifically enumerated within the four corners of our founding document: “The tenther movement ... erroneously claims that the federal government cannot force changes in health care law on the states.”

In O’Donnell’s view, anyone who would make such a claim is clearly ignorant and trying to dredge up areas that are now settled law. But what can be more settled than the fact that words have meaning, and the Constitution means what it says? Consider the clear language of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet Supreme Court justices and others ignore and circumvent language such as this, based on the absurd theory that the Constitution must be constantly redefined to fit our “enlightened times,” with the power of constitutional interpretation vested solely with the federal government.

O’Donnell and similar critics should read some of the speeches of our seventh Vice President, John C. Calhoun, who warned that such a viewpoint would destroy the Republic and pave the way for tyranny. Calhoun addressed this directly in his Fort Hill address:

Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten that, where the majority rules without restriction, the minority is the subject; and that, if we should absurdly attribute to the former the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there would be, in fact, between the sovereign and subject, under such a government, no Constitution, or, at least, nothing deserving the name, or serving the legitimate object of so sacred an instrument.

Calhoun was but one of many of the most prominent advocates of state sovereignty throughout American history who were true believers in limited government. (For more of a historical explanation, see our article "Nullification in a Nutshell.")

Early last year, tenthers were instrumental in getting a number of state legislatures to introduce 10th Amendment resolutions that, while legally non-binding, not only invoked the 10th Amendment but stated: “This resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key was on the ground floor of the modern state sovereignty movement when it first started way back in the early ’90s, and was successful last year in getting a new 10th Amendment resolution passed in the house legislature in Oklahoma. In an interview with The New American, Key explained the educational importance of the 10th Amendment resolutions. “I feel very strongly about this system of government that we have as it was originally created. I feel very strongly about how we have moved far away from that and that we need to return to it. I saw the resolution as both a statement and a tool for informing and educating people but primarily as a first step to correct the problem.” Key explains that this first step is similar to a landlord delivering a notice of eviction to a tenant who has violated the terms of his lease. “If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck. First, you serve notice. That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government. And there definitely will be follow up.” So that brings us to the next step: nullification.

No one ever accused the feds of being good listeners, so when some states passed these state sovereignty resolutions, the feds continued merrily on their unconstitutional path. States, however, are no longer just rolling over. Something exciting and unexpected is happening. States across the nation are either passing statutes or proposing amendments that directly conflict with federal statutes.

State nullification is actually an elaborate term for a simple concept that is taught to young children. When a child has a problem with another child who is verbally teasing him or her, they are often told “ignore them and they’ll go away.” State nullification basically follows this same directive. If the feds pass a law that a state deems to be outside the boundaries of its proper constitutional authority, the state will simply ignore the law and refuse to comply with it. This might sound revolutionary to some, but it shouldn’t. It’s already happened.

Nullification Illustrations• The REAL ID Act: REAL ID was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2005,  and the resistance to it illustrates a likely scenario for state nullification. More than two dozen states have passed laws or resolutions denouncing the act or refusing to comply with it. Have the feds responded by sending in federal agents with their guns blazing? Absolutely not! Instead, the feds were all too quick to chicken out and postpone enactment of the law. Michael Boldin, founder of the influential Tenth Amendment Center, writes, “Another indicator of victory for state-level nullification — the 2005 Real ID act was originally to be implemented in early 2008, and today, it’s still in limbo. Going on 2 years later, with more than two dozen states passing laws and resolutions denouncing or flat-out refusing to comply — and D.C. has no choice but to continue backing off…. Why? With such massive resistance among the states, the Feds just have no way to enforce it.”

REAL ID seems to have just been the start. As the nullification cat is out of the bag, states all across the nation are attempting to nullify federal laws covering such disparate

topics as healthcare and firearms.

• Healthcare: Wisconsin’s Grandsons of Liberty and other groups began lobbying state legislators to pursue healthcare nullification by proposing an amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution allowing the state to opt out of government healthcare. This effort isn’t unique to Wisconsin, as activists in 28 other states are also involved in similar actions.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that members of at least 18 legislatures are submitting bills that would oppose or limit all or parts of federal healthcare reform efforts. Delegate Robert G. Marshall, the sponsor of Virginia legislation that would nullify Democratic healthcare legislation, said, “If this starts to roll across the United States, it’s going to send a big signal to Congress: You are messing with things you have no power to do.”

In Missouri, on January 13, 30 lawmakers and Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder joined a rally at the state capitol to endorse an amendment to the state Constitution that would nullify any national healthcare plan that makes it mandatory for Americans to purchase health insurance. The Missouri amendment states:

No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

The idea to amend state constitutions to nullify federal healthcare legislation first started at the Goldwater Institute in the state of Arizona, where it will be on the ballot later this year. Clint Bolick, a lawyer at the Goldwater Institute who helped devise the idea, said, “The measures are an opportunity for people to make their views known in a tangible way, to generate some rumble at the grass roots.… Our system of federalism was designed to ensure that the federal government acts only within the boundaries of its defined powers and that states may give broader protection to individual liberty than does the federal Constitution. The system can endure only if its principles are applied consistently.”

This is just the beginning according to Wisconsin activist Tim Dake in an interview with The New American. He and the Grandsons of Liberty have their sights set on other targets for nullification. “Our group has actually hammered out a 12-item agenda we would like to see done legislatively in Wisconsin over the next two years. We’re interested in a healthcare freedom amendment to nullify nationalized healthcare but we also want to nullify cap and trade, card check, as well as passing laws like the federal

firearms freedom act.”

• Firearms Freedom Act: While nullification legislation spreads like a wildfire, perhaps no other issue has generated as much controversy and excitement as the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), which has been passed in Montana and Tennessee, has been proposed in Wyoming, and is being considered in 10 other states. The FFA openly challenges the federal contention that it has the authority to regulate firearms under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

The Montana FFA states that a “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) informed all licensed arms dealers via an open letter that such legislation is unconstitutional under the supremacy clause. Government lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in federal court against the FFA.

Timothy Baldwin, attorney and son of the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate Pastor Chuck Baldwin, is co-counsel in the federal litigation to validate the Montana FFA. In an interview with The New American, Timothy Baldwin explained what he thought of the -BATFE’s response that the supremacy clause preempts any state legislation in this area. “That is simply an incorrect political position based upon the very nature and character of the Union in 1787. When the Ratifiers ratified the compact, it was understood to be what they called both concurrent powers and lines of sovereignty. The states were left with powers they did not concede. This was expressed through The Federalist Papers. When the federal government usurps those powers, it is the right of those people of those states to defend and repel those encroachments.”

Possible PitfallsThis is not to say that all is rosy and state nullification is on its way to restoring our constitutional republic. A number of nullification laws have been vetoed by Governors or stalled in state legislatures. If nullification is going to succeed, many in the movement have to be wise about their next steps. The state nullification movement definitely does have major obstacles obstructing its goal of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits.

Some activists are heading down the fruitless path of endless legal challenges in federal courts to validate their state nullification legislation. The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court to uphold the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. While good-hearted, these groups are unnecessarily expending their time and energy. Just as

Thomas Woods explained at the Campaign for Liberty conference, entrusting one party (the federal government) with the sole power to interpret a contract (U.S. Constitution) is the problem. Most observers familiar with the centralizing nature of the federal courts would be shocked if the courts suddenly did a complete 180 and ruled that an act like the Freedom Firearms Act was constitutional. This was exactly why citizens took their battles to the state legislatures. If Montanans were serious about their sovereignty, they would simply start following the terms of the Freedom Firearms Act and ignore any federal directives.

This brings us to the next and biggest problem: How will the feds retaliate if states do start ignoring federal laws? The most likely scenario if states refuse to comply with federal mandates is the often used tactic of “power of the purse.” An example of the feds using funding as an incentive for a state to play ball is the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required the states to uniformly raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10 percent of their federal highway funds. The states all complied, and the rest is history. If states start resisting federal direction, the feds will utilize this tactic of threatening to bankrupt the states to silence the opposition. Can the feds blackmail the states into compliance?

Many of the 10th Amendment resolutions contain a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s case New York v. United States, as precedent that the federal government cannot “commandeer States into the service of federal regulatory purpose” via funding. While Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did make this statement in her opinion, it was in regard to a specific clause of federal regulation that actually would have forced the states to “take title” to radioactive waste. The Court actually did rule that two other funding-related clauses were constitutional under the taxing and spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Court has ruled that “Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives.” Tenthers have another think coming if they think federal precedent is on their side.

Timothy Baldwin is concerned, but told The New American that such action will be more detrimental to the feds in the long run. “Certainly the strings that are attached to federal funding are conditioned on the states going along. They may attempt to use that, but what I believe is that they will reveal their hand. They’re revealing that they are using federal funding as a method of enslaving the states. They will no longer have good faith in governing through the Constitution but rather are simply looking out for the power of the federal government. I think it will unravel for the federal government the more and more they press the issue.”

But will state residents support this if they’ll lose out on what many perceive as free cash? How would state residents react if a state that passes a healthcare nullification amendment loses out on all federal funding for popular programs?

Besides hoping to make D.C. appear like an extortionist by withholding federal funding,

there is also another tactic states may use. A proposed state law entitled State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act, which has already been introduced in three states, would enable the states to interpose themselves between the federal tax collectors and state citizens. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, such “laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people of the state.” A bold move like this might stop the flow of money to the feds before they could even use it to force the states into submission. Again, tenthers will need to be wise about how they handle the political gamesmanship with the feds because they risk alienating the average voter if their tactics are too aggressive or confrontational. Perhaps even the threat of such legislation might be enough to make the feds back off on their threats of cutting off funds.

Finally, another potential pitfall lies in the possibility of someone taking the state nullification movement too far in the wrong direction. The goal of nullification should simply be inaction when the feds want action; however, some newer nullification legislation has become more forceful. A Firearms Freedom Act has been introduced in New Hampshire that contains the following clause:

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

The bill’s prime sponsor, state Representative Daniel Itse, said, “This is about protecting the rights of our citizens when the federal government has no jurisdiction.” This is the first FFA in the nation where federal officials could be criminally prosecuted for trying to enforce federal firearms laws. While that might sound good to some, the states need to be cautious about appearing as the aggressor. One false move could tarnish the state sovereignty movement and forever damage the cause in the court of public opinion. The key to successfully using nullification is to expose the federal government as the aggressive, unconstitutional usurper, and states would be wise to not directly confront them.

The Future of NullificationWhile many mainstream media news articles on nullification paint it as a GOP tactic of merely paying lip-service to their anti-Obama base, nullification legislation appears to be cutting across the political spectrum. Some legislation is not limited to causes typically associated with the conservative movement. For instance, there is state nullification in the areas of marijuana decriminalization, as well as efforts to bring National Guard units home from unconstitutional wars overseas.

The “Bring the Guard Home” legislation, currently introduced in seven states and active in 20, was initially proposed by a liberal activist, but it is now being embraced by the grass roots from all walks of life. The proposed legislation would simply require a state’s Governor, and/or the legislature, to evaluate the legality of orders for Guard deployments and first have an opportunity to either allow or deny the deployment. One can only imagine how popular such legislation will be considering that opposition to the war in Afghanistan has risen almost as high as 60 percent.

Many within the freedom movement are excited by the prospect of liberal grass-roots activists in blue states nullifying unconstitutional conservative federal actions, with conservative grass-roots activists in red states nullifying unconstitutional liberal federal actions.

If the tenthers continue to play it smart, there is a good chance the sovereignty movement will continue to thrive and grow. If it does, it will continue to spark debate over not only the proper separation of power between state and federal governments but who decides when the federal government oversteps its proper authority and how to rein in the federal government when it does overstep. All of America will be watching to see how the federal and state governments actually react to these measures. As more states become involved in the surging nullification movement, the feds will find themselves faced with a veritable uprising of noncompliant states. The strong potential for the nullification movement to move far beyond partisan politics means that even if control of the capital shifts back and forth among the two main political parties, D.C. might begrudgingly find itself limited to doing only what’s allowed in the Constitution.

Elon Musk: Ego, Inc.

Elon Musk, the man who's determined to move our civilization to Mars, will also tackle creating an Internet in space.

The CEO of Tesla Motors and SpaceX said Friday night that he will use a fleet of satellites to make the Internet speedier and to bring it to those without access, according to media reports of a private event in Seattle. Details of the plan were shared before the event with Bloomberg.

While this new network would initially benefit only those of us on Earth, Musk said he has much loftier plans: using the profits to build a Martian city.

"We see it as a long-term revenue source for SpaceX to be able to fund a city on Mars," Musk told Bloomberg. He didn't offer specifics on how he'll make money off the project, but he did mention the possibility of selling satellites after the network is completed. SpaceX did not return a request for comment.

To create the new network, SpaceX will build and launch roughly 4,000 satellites orbiting about 750 miles above earth, GeekWire reported.

Musk is known for his determination to colonize Earth's relatively nearby neighbor, with plans to put humans on Mars by the mid 2020s. A member of the so-called "PayPal Mafia" -- co-founders of the payment service who have found continued success after selling the company to eBay -- Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 to "to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets," according to the SpaceX website. It won a $2.6 billion contract from NASA last year, becoming one of the first private companies -- the other is Boeing -- set to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, beginning as early as 2017.

SpaceX unveiled its first manned spacecraft, the Dragon V2, in May. The craft is intended for trips to and from the space station, and the company successfully sent a cargo capsule to the ISS this month, but the "reusable" rocket crashed into its floating landing pad in the Atlantic Ocean.

And now it looks like Musk sees his space Internet project as another way of getting him to Mars. The network would take at least five years to develop and cost around $10 billion, he told Bloomberg. Instead of sending data through a network that uses fiber optic cables, the proposed system would bounce signals from satellite to satellite. Musk said the setup would also connect underserved communities that don't have Net access. The project will be overseen at SpaceX's new Seattle headquarters.

Musk isn't the only space enthusiast who wants to make it to Mars. Living on the Red Planet has been a longtime science-fiction fantasy, and in recent years, a goal of many technologists. Mars One, for example, is trying to fund a human mission to Mars in 2025 by offering investors interplanetary product placement.

How about a Floating City Above Venus

A number of agencies, including, of course, NASA, are focusing solar system exploration efforts on Mars. At first glance, though, Mars doesn't really seem like the best candidate. Venus is much closer -- at a distance that ranges between 38 million kilometres and 261 million kilometres, compared to Mars' 56 million to 401 million kilometres, it's Earth's closest neighbour.

It's also comparable in size to Earth -- a radius of 6,052km to Earth's 6,371 -- and has similar density and chemical composition.

Related articles

NASA's Kepler telescope identifies new 'Super Earth' Curiosity has discovered organic matter on Mars

Why NASA looks to Europa to find the building blocks of life Top great space moments in 2014 (pictures)

But everything else about it makes it almost utterly unvisitable. While probes have been sent to the planet's surface, they lasted, at most, just two hours before surface conditions on Venus destroyed them. These conditions include an atmospheric pressure up to 92 times greater than Earth's; a mean temperature of 462 degrees Celsius (863 degrees Fahrenheit); extreme volcanic activity; an extremely dense atmosphere consisting mostly of carbon dioxide, with a small amount of nitrogen; and a cloud layer made up of sulphuric acid.

In short, Venus? Not a top holiday destination, really.

NASA thinks it might have a solution that will allow sending humans up to check it out, though: Cloud City.

The High Altitude Venus Operational Concept -- HAVOC -- is a conceptual spacecraft designed by a team at the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center for the purposes of Venusian exploration. This lighter-than-air rocket would be designed to sit above the acidic clouds for a period of around 30 days, allowing a team of astronauts to collect data about the planet's atmosphere.

While the surface of Venus would destroy a human, hovering above its clouds at an altitude of around 50 kilometres (30 miles) is a set of conditions similar to Earth. Its atmospheric pressure is comparable, and gravity is only slightly lower -- which would allow longer-term stays, effectively eliminating the ailments that occur during long-term stays in zero G. Temperature is about 75 degrees Celsius, which is hotter than is strictly comfortable, but would still be manageable. Finally, the atmosphere at that altitude offers protection from solar radiation comparable to living in Canada.

Artist's concept of the cockpit of the crewed zeppelin. NASA Langley Research Center

The mission would, NASA outlined to IEEE Spectrum, begin with a robotic probe deployed to Venus to perform initial checks and investigations. With the return of this data, a crewed mission would spend 30 days floating above the planet; followed by missions that would see teams of two astronauts spending a year each. The end goal would be a permanent human presence in a floating cloud city.

While this city would be fixed, exploration would be made possible with a mobile unit -- a crewed, 130-metre-long Zeppelin filled with helium, accompanied by a smaller, 31-metre robotic Zeppelin. This Zeppelin would take advantage of Venus' closer proximity to the sun: its top would be adorned with over 1,000 square metres of solar panels for power.

And it's all designed to be built using existing or near-to-existing technology -- although of course it's at least a decade or two from actual implementation. But, should it come to fruition, it may provide another way to see humanity inhabit the universe beyond Earth.

The next step would be performing simulations of Venusian conditions on Earth -- and NASA is already across it, with a paper that outlines the current capabilities and facilities for performing just such tests.

"Venus has value as a destination in and of itself for exploration and colonization, but it's also complementary to current Mars plans," said Chris Jones of the Langley

Research Center. "If you did Venus first, you could get a leg up on advancing those technologies and those capabilities ahead of doing a human-scale Mars mission. It's a chance to do a practice run, if you will, of going to Mars."