Today, LIVE from a Top Secret location, Kevin explains why he feels happy when he witnesses parents feeding their children junk food and why government officials are experts at saying absolutely nothing!
Swine Flu Hoax of 2009 Falls Apart At The Seams
515 Deadly Chemicals Women Wear
A Threat To The Profit of Drug Company
Three New Companies Jump on The Anti-Obesity Drug Bandwagon
Fish Oil May Slow Genetic Aging In Heart Patients
Antidepressants No More Effective Than Placebos
Nearsightedness on the Rise
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Click BELOW to watch The Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!
June 28, 2010
The Wall Street Journal
By Andy Pasztor
The Obama administration as early as Monday is expected to call for significantly greater international cooperation than ever before in outer space, covering a wide range of civilian and national-security programs.
The new policy, according to industry and government officials familiar with the details, also endorses the pursuit of verifiable arms-control proposals for space. And it envisions stepped-up U.S. government efforts to bolster domestic rocket and satellite manufacturers, making them more economically viable and competitive overseas.
The principles, according to these officials, reflect President Barack Obama’s desire to have Washington and various foreign governments increasingly share funding and expertise on major projects, while negotiating conflicts if possible and exchanging more data about orbiting debris and other hazards in space.
The policy paper’s call for more international cooperation was reported by Space News, an industry publication.
The policy paper doesn’t specifically spell out which countries would be invited to take part, but the intent is to open participation to allies and other established space powers, such as China and Russia, and emerging powers including India and Brazil, according to the officials.
Breaking sharply from earlier White House policies that relied largely on all-U.S. solutions, the latest document foresees international ventures spanning everything from environmental and other types of earth-observation satellites to critical space-based navigation systems that were previously considered off-limits to foreign partnerships.
Some national-security officials and outside experts, worried about potential threats posed by China and other countries developing anti-satellite weapons, are likely to balk at elements of the revised strategy.
June 8, 2010
FARS News Agency
“The conditions we are experiencing today need planning for new orders in the world and (our) cooperation and co-thinking for organizing the conditions,” Ahmadinejad told reporters before departing for Istanbul, Turkey to take part in the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA).
Reminding that major world and Asian players will take part in the Istanbul conference, the Iranian president underlined that “Iran, too, will have active participation in drafting the final statement, taking stances as well as mutual consultations” with participants in the conference.
Ahmadinejad said that his visit will take place at the invitation of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, and pointed out that he is slated to meet other foreign officials during the visit.
February 4th, 2010
The United States is at risk of a crippling cyber attack that could “wreak havoc” on the country because the “technological balance” makes it much easier to launch a cyber strike than defend against it, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said Wednesday.
Blair, speaking to the House Intelligence Committee, said U.S. tools are not yet up to the task to fully protect against such an attack.
“What we don’t quite understand as seriously as we should is the extent of malicious cyberactivity that grows, that is growing now at unprecedented rates, extraordinary sophistication,” Blair said. “And the dynamic of cyberspace, when you look at the technological balance, right now it favors those who want to use the Internet for malicious purposes over those who want to use it for legal and lawful purposes.”
Blair said the United States must “deal with that reality,” and warned of the catastrophic consequences of a major attack.
“Attacks against networks that control the critical infrastructure in this country … could wreak havoc,” Blair said. “Cyber defenders right now, it’s simply the facts of the matter, have to spend more and work harder than the attackers do, and our efforts frankly are not strong enough to recognize, deal with that reality.”
He said one critical “factor” is that more and more foreign companies are supplying software and hardware for government and private sector networks.
“This increases the potential for subversion of the information in … those systems,” Blair said.
Blair also told Congress Wednesday that the Internet is providing the fuel for the growing problem of “homegrown radicalization.”
“That … has been one of the most dangerous uses of the Internet,” Blair said, explaining that foreign groups are using the Internet to organize attacks, give instructions and arrange financing.
Intelligence officials are on the Hill to discuss the annual threat assessment, which is garnering particular interest in the wake of the failed bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.
Senior intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday that Al Qaeda could try to carry out an attack in the United States in the next three to six months.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said Al Qaeda is sending operatives to the United States to carry out new attacks from inside the country and inspiring homegrown extremists.
Obama has promised to make cyber security a priority in his administration, but the president’s new budget asks for a decrease in funds for the Homeland Security Department’s cybersecurity division.
The government’s first quadrennial homeland security review states high consequence and large-scale cyberattacks could massively disable or hurt international financial, commercial and physical infrastructure.
The report, obtained by The Associated Press, said these types of cyber attacks could cripple the movement of people and goods around the world and bring vital social and economic programs to a halt.
November 16, 2009
PhD economist Marc Faber predicts that the U.S. will launch a war to distract people from the bad economy.
China’s largest media outlet – Sohu.com – wrote in October 2008 that the Rand corporation, a leading U.S. military advisor, lobbied the Pentagon for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy:
According to French media, well-known U.S. think tank RAND Corporation … has submitted [to the Pentagon] an evaluation report assessing the wage a war to shift the feasibility of the current economic crisis…
Continued deepening of the U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis and economic downturn, developed to a certain extent, is likely to trigger a war in order to achieve the purpose of the crisis passed.
(Google’s translation services are crude approximations, but Yihan Dai confirmed the translation of the original).
Is Faber right? Is the Sohu.com report accurate?
I don’t know. For example, I won’t take the Sohu.com claim very seriously until someone can point to the French media source, so that I can assess it’s credibility.
However, “military Keynesianism” – using military spending to stimulate the economy – has been U.S. policy for half a century. And the economist who coined that term said that such a policy always and “inexorably” leads to “an actual war” in order to justify all of the military spending.
Therefore, any studies which disprove the efficacy of war as an economic stimulus -see this and this – are important for balance.
In addition, contrary to popular belief, some writers say that the reason that WWII actually stimulated the U.S. economy was not because of America fighting the war. Specifically, they argue that America’s ramped-up production of armaments for the British before the U.S. entered the war was the thing which stimulated our economy.
To try to sort some of this out, I spoke with a PhD professor of economics with a background in international conflict in July 2008 to find out whether war is really good for the economy.
I asked if conventional wisdom that war is good for the economy is true, especially given that all of the spending on the war in Iraq seems to have weakened America’s economy (or at least, greatly increased its debt).
The economist explained the seeming paradox:
“War always causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into a recession and hurt its economy.”
Given that America has been fighting both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars longer than it fought WWII, the exception obviously doesn’t apply.
Can America go beat up some poorly-armed country to get a quick war?
It is more unlikely than many assume. Given that many believe that the U.S. started the Iraq war based on false pretenses, and that the Iraq war was really about oil (see this, this, this, this and this), I am skeptical that many would buy America’s stated justifications for another war.
Indeed, the Sohu.com article – even if wholly untrue – proves my point.
In addition, even a war against a small, poorly-armed and resource-poor country could be considered a proxy war. In other words, other heavily-armed countries might fight the U.S. through local proxies, dragging the war out for years, just as the U.S. did with Russia in Afghanistan. America today is not the empire it was even 10 years ago, and – as Afghanistan and Iraq show – America no longer has the financial resources to project force and impose its will world-wide.
The bottom line is that anyone advocating for war to help our economy is mistaken.