Monday, February 25, 2013

90% of Americans Earn Less Than 1950 Minimum Wage Standard

The good ol' days. We always hear about them from our parents and grandparents. Some of us were there and still look back with fond nostalgia to the heyday of American capitalism. The 1950's defined the American ideal. We had emerged from World War II as the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, and we were ready to cash in on our victory.

There was a suburban home with a white picket fence, a new car built from American steel sitting in the driveway, a regular 9-to-5 job, good schools for your children, and a good wife who managed the homefront with aplomb and a fresh baked apple pie. The American dream was not just a television show in black-and-white television re-runs, that was how we actually lived. It was a way of life that was attainable for just about anyone willing to work hard, and work hard we did.

Our parents and grandparents were no slackers. They had paid their dues through the most destructive war mankind had ever known, they had struggled through the misery of the Great Depression before that. They were grateful to be rewarded now with an honest day's pay for an honest day of work, and spiteful of those godless Communists who could promise only drudgery. Our own social contract worked out just fine. Our obligations to our neighbors and to our country were tempered by the personal liberty prescribed in our nation's Constitution. The harder we worked, the better life would be, and there were no free rides for anyone. The promise of freedom was never more clear. Each man would be made or broken on the basis of his very own efforts. And for the time-being, it was upheld by a government we still believed was for the people and by the people, serving the interests of the people.

In 1950, the Federal minimum wage in the United States was set at 75-cents per hour. This meant that no matter what a person did for a living, according to national productivity standards for workers, their work was worth a minimum of 75 pennies for an hour worked, $30 for an average work week, or a little over $1560 a year. At that time, this was a bit more than the average cost of a brand new automobile.A worker could work all year, save every penny, and buy a brand new mid-grade car without taking out a loan.

In 2012, the average cost for an automobile was $30,748, slightly more than double what a minimum wage worker would be paid, before taxes, working full time.

So does this mean that the average American worker only works half as hard as his counterpart in 1950?

A lot of people would be quick to answer yes, absolutely. The average worker in 1950 probably did work twice as hard as today's worker, many might agree. Which might explain too, why even someone like a grocery clerk, a department store salesperson, a delivery driver, why so many jobs paid well enough for a person to actually support a family on back then, while today most people think of such jobs as "lowly" or "meant for high-school kids."

I remember when I first entered the labor market myself back in the late 1980's, that being a grocery store cashier or department clerk was still considered to be a viable career option. There were plenty of adults supporting households on what they earned in those postilions. No one was getting rich, but the bills got paid. For a young teenager like myself, there was the promise of a competitive wage, regular raises, benefits, and even retirement if I put in the time there. Hardly what a worker today can expect from a company like Wal-Mart.

But is this because people are actually working less, are they any less skilled? Quite the opposite actually.

A projectionist in a movie theater was once considered to be a prestigious technical grade career, that required an apprenticeship rather than a college degree. Today, it's a minimum-wage job. While much of the "old art" has gone the way of the Dodo bird due to changes in technology, and while more and more classic projectionists are finding themselves out of work entirely, movie projection itself is not completely automated. Even with the newest digital projectors, a knowledgeable technician is still required. 

There are still some old techniques and skills that the worker still needs to understand, the fundamentals of projection with lighting and lenses and so forth. But rather than splicing together platters of film, the modern projectionist must understand complex  computer programs. There is also the hardware to maintain, such as the computer terminal used to control the projectors, or even the speakers and sound system components of a theater. While the technology has indeed made a dramatic shift, the need for a skilled technician still remains. So why are the old projectionists out of work now, and why has this job become a minimum wage endeavor with little prestige?

Quite simply, because worker productivity has been undermined by depressed wage standards. The projectionist unions have had their backs broken, and the high-school kid who is good with computers will come in and do the job for video game money. There ends the once prestigious career of movie theater projectionist. Either that high school kid will move on to college in a year or two to be replaced by another high school kid, or he will be stuck in a dead-end job with his pay raises tied to the Federal minimum wage increases. A minimum wage that is far less than what he would have earned in 1950. 

From 1950 to 2000, the productivity of the American worker increased roughly 400%. This means that the standard of living for the average American worker should be 4 times higher, or that it should only take one-fourth the number of work hours to enjoy the same standard of living as someone working the same job in 1950. In the year 2000, we were working 4 times harder and/or smarter than our parents and grandparents were in 1950. One worker today, is doing the work of four or more employees in 1950.

This runs contrary to what they tell us of course, and what we even tell ourselves, about everyone being lazy good-for-nothings today. But clearly this self-hating mindset is brought on by psychosocial factors, rather than mathematical truth. 

Productivity and Workweek

The hard data for that particular study only runs up to the year 2000, but we want to get a little bit closer to where we are at today. Using the data from that study, we can project that by 2010 worker productivity had increased by at least 425% since 1950, and even more by 2013. For the purposes of this essay though, with the the data that is readily available, we will adjust the entire data set to 2010 dollars.

If we take the inflation adjusted minimum wage for 1950 then multiply that by 4.25 to account for increased productivity, according to the working standards of previous generations, a minimum wage worker today should be paid $28.56 per hour in 2010 dollars. That is $2.48 cents more than 75%  of American workers in 2010 who were paid less than $26.08 per hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The disparity in wages versus productivity has no doubt only increased in the last few years, for which the numbers have not yet been fully published. More alarmingly though, the picture is actually worse than that portrayed by the flawed methodology of the BLS statistics. For example, if they reported the unemployment rate the way it was measured back in the 1930's we would see that unemployment was actually higher in 2012 than at any point during the Great Depression.

But these aren't the only numbers they tinker around with ni order to trick the public. Another example is how they make it rather difficult to find what the median hourly wage is, or how they make a mean wage appear as a median wage. Mean average income and median income are not the same thing at all in most cases. Knowing about weighted averages and an understanding of the difference between mean and median are fundamental to understanding these figures. The mean average income is simply the average of all incomes combined. But because of widening income disparity, because the highest wage earners are paid proportionally much more than the majority of other workers, the "average" is now only what about the top 35% of workers actually earn, rather than half of Americans in the job-place. The median is the true dividing point where 50% of workers earn either less, or more than the given amount, and is much lower than the mean average of salaries paid out to American workers.

The BLS reports that in 2010 the mean hourly rate was $21.35 with a median figure of $16.27/hr. Annually this amounts to $44,410 and $33,840 respectively. Both figures fall well below our inflation-adjusted productivity-based 1950 minimum wage rate of $28.56/hr, yet these numbers both appear to be much higher than actual income when compared to figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to that agency, the mean annual income for Americans was $38,328 and the median was a mere $26,175. This means that in 2010, half of American workers earned less than $12.58/hr. That is 227% less than a minimum wage worker in 1950 when the increased 425% productivity is factored. 

The discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and those provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is roughly 130%. This means that actual wages are 1.3 times lower than what is reported by the BLS. According to them, the 90th percentile of workers earned less the $39.97/hr. But if we reduce that wage by 130% to be in line with the more accurate methodology of the Census Bureau, we can extrapolate that 90% American workers actually earned less than $27.98/hr. This is 58-cents per hour less than our adjusted 1950 minimum wage.

With that remainder change, and considering that we have not factored increased productivity and inflation between 2010 and today, it could easily be said that even more than 90% of American workers earn less then a minimum-wage worker in 1950.

So just to recap here. If we were paid for our output as an employee today as compared to the standard expected of a worker in 1950, the minimum wage in 2010 would have been $28.56. (The actual minimum wage was only $7.25/hr.) $28.56 was slightly more than 90% of Americans who earned less than $27.98 per hour. Hence, 90% of American workers earn less than a minimum wage worker earned in 1950.

This serious disconnect between how hard we work and how we are actually compensated for our labor is clearly reflected in the bulging income disparity between the majority of Americans, and the wealthy who are reaping the profits of our labor.

Not only are we working harder in every hour than ever before, we are also working more hours in a week. Back in 1950, most Americans enjoyed a 9-to-5 sort of job. The 40-hour workweek was absolutely typical, sick time and vacation time were expected in almost any field of work, and most household operated on a single income.

Today, roughly 75% of us work more than 40 hours a week. Although 134 countries have a law which caps the maximum number of hours for employment each week, the U.S. does not. We often think of the Japanese as fanatically dedicated workers, yet the average American worker spends 137 more hours per year on the job. The U.S. has no law requiring sick time, and is the only industrialized nation that does not require any annual paid leave time of any sort.

The United States is also the only industrialized nation in the world that does not offer any parental leave. The average in Europe is 20 weeks, and even in the rest of the world a worker can expect at least 12 weeks parental leave. In Lithuania they enjoy a year off fully paid, and a second year at 80% pay to split between two parents however they like. In Ethiopia, workers enjoy 90 days of full-pay parental leave.

Despite not having any time off to care for them, 70% of children are raised in a home where all adults work. In 1960, that figure was only 20%. The impact on our children has been severe, with depression, suicide, and juvenile crime at unprecedented levels. Pharmaceutical companies offer up chemical solutions to social problems, while public schools have been transformed from institutions of learning to indoctrination hubs for corporatist ideals.

Contrary to the popular belief which has been brought about through clever social conditioning and propaganda, pushing women into the workplace never actually had anything to do with empowerment of women. By 1950 there was nothing stopping a woman from holding a full time job or pursuing a career if she chose to. Indeed, many women had held jobs once thought of as "man's work" during the war years. Some women stayed on in those jobs, others went back home to raise families. If the so called "women's liberation" movement of the 50's and especially the 60's had actually been about freedom for women, ask yourself why so many women today are utterly depressed over the fact that they are unable to stay home to raise their children and be the glue which holds their family together.

Beginning in 1950, under the Truman Administration, the United States became the first known industrialized nation to explicitly (albeit secretly) and permanently forswear a reduction of working time. Given the military-industrial requirements of the Cold War, the authors of the then secret National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) proposed the US government undertake a massive permanent national economic expansion that would let it “siphon off” a part of the economic activity produced to support an ongoing military buildup to contain the Soviet Union. In his 1951 Annual Message to the Congress, President Truman stated: 

"In terms of manpower, our present defense targets will require an increase of nearly one million men and women in the armed forces within a few months, and probably not less than four million more in defense production by the end of the year. This means that an additional 8 percent of our labor force, and possibly much more, will be required by direct defense needs by the end of the year. These manpower needs will call both for increasing our labor force by reducing unemployment and drawing in women and older workers, and for lengthening hours of work in essential industries."

From this we see that drawing in women (and old folks) to the workforce was a move to support the same military-industrial-complex the President Eisenhower would warn us about in his farewell address a decade later, not for anything as noble as freedom for the fairer sex.

Ignoring the greater social implications of political feminism and whether or not you want to buy into some of these larger agendas that have been spelled out, we are still left with certain simple economic facts. By enticing the vast majority of women into the workplace the demand for labor was seriously undermined, essentially cutting pay-rates in half. The net result was that every time a woman went to work, she wound up cutting her husband's pay rate in half. Which is why we see today that it takes both parents working full time to support a family, rather than the traditional roles of breadwinner and homemaker.

None of that should be interpreted as a gender bias either. It makes no real difference whether the father or the mother chooses to stay home with the children. The economic concern is simply that the labor pool was flooded, depressing wages and bargaining leverage across the board. By the end of the 1970's, the labor pool of America's women had been fully exploited, and the government-supported corporatists set their sights south of the border to Mexico and Latin America for another labor pool to exploit in order to further reduce wages in the United States.

The end result of all of this comes back again to the main topic of this essay. That today, more than 90% of American workers now earn less than a minimum wage worker in 1950. This is why we always feel like we can never get ahead no matter how much harder we work. This is why the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer. This is how our economy has been reduced to rubble. It was no accident. Welcome to Third World America.

What can we do about it?

We can stand up and demand, in one unified voice as American workers, an honest day's pay for an honest day of work. We can demand a minimum wage that reflects a basic standard of living without need of welfare assistance, social programs, and predatory loans from vampire bankers.

For more information on the minimum wage and how it effects you, please read:

Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage

Wal-Mart: Lower-Prices, Higher Taxes

One in Three Americans Face Poverty, Latest Census Study Shows

World's Richest Woman Wants You to Work Harder for $2 a Day





The Collapse of the American Dream Animation (VIDEO)

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Minimum Wage vs. Libertarian

I like a lot of stuff Julie does, and consider myself a libertarian as well, but I have to completely disagree with her on this issue. Her reasons for opposing a minimum wage are logically unsound, based more on Neo-Con propaganda than facts.

Rebuttal to Minimum Wage Argument Made by Julie Borowski

In her first few sentences, I do agree with Julie. I would like to know where the heck Obama came up with that figure as well. It does sound awfully arbitrary. Speech rhetoric that probably won't go anywhere anyway, but will appease the working poor for a time fooling them into believing that the Democrats are actually looking out for them. I don't trust politicians, and as much as I support an increase in minimum wage, I don't expect Obama to deliver any better than he delivered on his promise to close GITMO or to repeal so much of the tyranny imposed by the Bush administration.

There is another standard we can look at though, regarding minimum wage. Something a little more thought- out than the hollow promises of political speechwriters. Let's have a look here for a moment, at the proposal by the Minumum Wage Workers' Union of America:

Analyzing a Pracitcal Minimum Wage

On this page, we will itemize a sample budget for a single person in order to analyze what a fair standard would be for a minimum-wage worker. It is our position that a person working eight hours a day, five days a week, at any job, should be able to support themselves to a minimum basic standard of living. This practical wage is necessary in order to elevate the class of working poor to contributing members of society. Working for anything less than what is needed to subsist on independently, is nothing short of slavery.

All figures are based on national averages, for a Federal standard.

RENT ------------------------------$1000
BASIC UTILITIES --------------$200
FOOD ------------------------------$300
CLOTHING -----------------------$75
TRANSPORTATION ----------$500
HEALTHCARE -----------------$350
MISCELLANEOUS -----------$400
Average Basic Monthly Expenses  $3,025

A full-time job at 40 hours per week is 173.2 hours per month calculating 4.33 weeks in each month. To find a reasonable minimum wage, we divide the average basic monthly expenses figure, by the number of hours worked. For the average American worker to support themselves without government assistance or by borrowing beyond their means, that worker must earn...

$17.47 per hour

Of course, that figure must be after all taxes and contributions are taken, or that anyone earning that amount must be exempt from all such garnishments and liability. A person who cannot even afford to pay their own way, cannot afford to pay taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes that will jeopardize their basic standard of living, is unsound economics and in the long run will only force other taxpayers to subsidize those workers, in turn jeopardizing their own living standard, in a perpetual cycle that we see happening today as more workers descend into deep poverty. 

If $17.47 per hour seems unreasonable to you, or just downright impossible, consider a few more facts. There was a time when a grocery clerk, or a department store salesperson could actually support themselves on what they earned. That is not so today.

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.
At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011.  Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

Click link for full article and detailed description of how budget figures were calculated.


Essentially, what that author is pointing out, is that anything less than a practical minimum wage is slavery. And not only slavery, but slavery subsidized by taxpayers who are next in line to become slaves themselves, in perpetual economic decline, as designed by the Federal Reserve System.

In the days of racial slavery, the slave owners were obligated to provide for the needs of their workers. To pay for the food, shelter, clothing, and even provide the basic medical care for their slaves. Contrary to some modern perceptions of those times, a slave worker was as expensive as an automobile is today and treated accordingly. Sure, there are some people who beat on their cars. But for the most part, responsible car owners make sure that their car is well kept and given proper maintenance. That was true too, in the shameful era of the slave laborer.  

Now some may see it as vulgar to compare a human being to an automobile, but this is only to highlight the depravity of what we are seeing today with the exploitation of low-wage American workers. They are treated worse than slaves, worse than automobiles, in many ways. No oil changes and running on empty, yet expected to run hotter and faster each and every day.

As if the abuse of the low-wage worker were not enough, the middle class-worker, the common taxpayer, is being forced to subsidize the labor costs of the corporations. Rather than mandating a corporation like Wal-Mart pay their own true labor costs, by paying a wage so that their employees can subsist, you, the taxpayer, are now forced to make up the difference through social welfare programs. Now you must pay for the "oil changes" on their equipment and put "gas in the tank" so to speak, with foodstamps, medical care, and so forth, to keep the corporate labor force running.

As a libertarian, I believe that providing for liberty over slavery is a noble cause, not to mention lower taxes and making companies pay their own expenses. 

But I digress. Let's dig into Julie's next point now.

"Why not 50 or 100 dollars...? (paraphrased)

Because Julie, we are trying to establish a minimum wage, not a free-for-all.

Now this cuts right to the core of the role of government. As a libertarian, I believe that the only role of government is to protect the interests of the people, individually and/or collectively, from those who would exploit our liberty to nefarious ends. Therefore, I believe it is within the purview of Constitutional governance for the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce in such a way that a worker must be paid an equality wage that will provide for their most basic living expenses as a human being, in order to prevent said workers from requiring social welfare subsidies.

In essence, if you want to do business in the United States, you must pay your workers enough so that they may afford the bare essentials without need for government assistance to merely survive.

Without such protection from our own government, there is nothing to stop exploiters from demanding that we all work harder for $2 a day. There is no liberty for a working stiff who makes less than a worker in some third-world country.

As Americans, we are supposed to be doing it better and smarter than the other guy, to be a beacon of hope, not to reduce ourselves to a point of global communism. If Libertarians, as a political party don't agree with that, then maybe I am in the wrong camp.

"Any minimum wage... will prevent some people from getting a job."

Is it your position then, Julie, that there should not be a minimum wage at all? That we should take our $2 a day and be grateful for it?

The reality is that a higher minimum wage will only marginally cut into the profits of companies, who exploit the welfare system in order to subsidize their own labor costs. As we showed above, you only get lower prices at Walmart, because you pay more in taxes to pay the food, healthcare, daycare costs, etcetera, for their workers... whether or not you even shop at Walmart.

If a company could actually afford to lay off workers, they would, will, and do, regardless of payroll obligations. Millions of people have been laid off in recent years, without any minimum wage increase. They have already been doing this to the detriment overall economy, as quality of goods and services plummet, while CEO's are steadily increasing historically unprecedented wealth. If you can't afford to pay your employees an honest day's wage for an honest day of work, then you simply cannot afford to be in business and it's time to close your doors.

If it takes 100 employees to operate your shopping center, then you can't lay off 20 of those people simply to protect your profit margin. Your business will not function properly and customers will move to your competitor, who provides better service and/or products. A company only hires as many people as they need. That is true no matter what the minimum wage is.

"Gee, I got a fat bonus, I think I will hire some people I don't need."" -said no CEO ever

In short, no, a minimum wage increase will not prevent anyone from getting a job if there is a job to be done.

"Let's say I'm a ... teenager."

Between the "why not $50 an hour" bit and now this teenager gambit, Julie is clearly relying on false-logic tactics of disinformation, with "straw-man/red herring" arguments.

Teenagers are not the only minimum wage employees, and only make up a small portion of that labor class today, thanks to depressed wages and skilled workers being forced into unskilled jobs.

More and more adults with families are trying to support those families with minimum wage jobs. Minimum wage standards are not there to protect some high school kid who is living at home with their parents, and who needs the money for a new set of headphones. The people who are filling these jobs today are trying to feed their own children and keep a roof over their heads. The less they are paid by the companies who are profiting from their labors, the more the taxpayers will have to contribute in order to keep these families from starving to death in the streets.

"...I want to work for $7 an hour, you want to hire me for $7 an hour..."

This is the one point in her argument that cuts to the core of libertarian principles. The free will of two people to enter into a business arrangement. In an overly simplistic interpretation, Julie sees the minimum wage mandate as infringing upon the liberty of these two persons. What she fails to acknowledge is that without a minimum wage standard in this country, companies will be infringing on the liberty of people who don't want to make that same deal, but who are then forced to by circumstances outside of their own control and the impositions of corporate greed.

No man is an island, no business arrangement exists in a vacuum. This is why we have codes of ethics and laws to protect against unfair business practices from Wall Street to your local farm stand. This is why you can't put a gun to someone's head and say, "either your brains or your signature will be on the contract." This is why you can't serve someone a plate of food that will make them sick a half-hour after they walk out of your restaurant, and then claim, "buyer beware."

If this potential employee and the employer were to enter into an arrangement for pay below the minimum wage, they would not be practicing liberty, they would be in effect conspiring to undermine the worth of other workers who were not party to this arrangement.

There will always be someone who is willing to work for less. There are people in India and China who work for pennies a day. Here in America, illegal immigration and related labor exploitation has been detrimental to our economy, thanks to the dampening effect on wages and thanks to a total lack of labor bargaining leverage by American workers. This hasn't just effected minimum wage workers either, but the entire working class across the board. The market is flooded with workers who will work under the table for less than what is mandated by labor laws, putting everyone's wages and jobs in jeopardy.

If the majority of jobs in America only paid pennies per hour, what do you think that would do to your own pay rate? Again, minimum wage standards are not there to protect some teenager who wants his first job, the standard is there to protect the labor market as a whole.

"...and maybe in a month or two would have given you a raise if you were any good."

Well, if the employer can afford to give a raise in a few months, he can afford to pay a fair wage right now! If you hire someone, at any pay rate, and they cannot perform the job, you fire them. It's as simple as that.

Besides, entry level pay rates are not a negotiation. They are a set standard regardless of your resume and skills. If your local burger joint is hiring a cashier, it's a minimum wage position, whether you are a teenager looking for an after school job, or you are a single mother who just got laid off from your job as the manager of a burger place across town that just closed down. A manager looking to fill the cashier position isn't going to pay someone with experience a few more dollars per hour to do the same job that the kid with no resume can do for less. They also are not going to give that cashier a raise, ever. Now granted, a cashier who works hard might be promoted in time to another position that pays better, if someone else gets fired or leaves, but that cashier position will always pay the same minimum wage amount.

As a side note and personal anecdote, I used to work in a contract position with a state government. When the contract was originally signed, it called for the employees to be paid a rate that was double the minimum wage at that time. If the minimum wage were to go up under this Obama plan, it would be the first raise for those employees in 20 years.

" employees, cut their hours..."

False. An employer cannot cut the number of man-hours required to perform a task. It's as simple as that. Also, employers do not keep people on the payroll as a matter of charity. If they didn't need that employee, they would have already fired them, regardless of what they were being paid. Even if you are paying a person $2 an hour, if you don't need that person there, it's a waste of money to keep them there.

"...and raise their hiring standards..."

To what? College educated burger flippers? The market is already flooded with unemployed and underemployed skilled workers. The employers don't have to raise their hiring standards, the market has done that for them already. In the past several years, studies have shown that half of college graduates are either unemployed, or are working minimum wage jobs unrelated to their field of study.

So if a raised hiring standard really is of relevance here, then clearly the employers need to start paying a lot more for these college-educated grocery baggers.


Wikipedia explains this principle stating...

"In business, economics or investment, market liquidity is an asset's ability to be sold without causing a significant movement in the price and with minimum loss of value."

This is a concept that seems to be foreign to people like Julie and opponents of a minimum wage increase. Low-wage workers are more likely than any other class of worker to spend what they earn. If you pay them more, they will spend more, creating economic stimulus.

This was the principle and reasoning behind former President Bush's economic stimulus plan, when he mailed everyone a $300 check.

Why is the economy in such dire straits right now? Because employers are forced to pay too much for unskilled and entry-level workers? No, it's because no one is buying anything. How do you get people to start buying things again? Make sure they have the money to go buy things, while instilling consumer confidence in the markets.

Increasing the minimum wage will create market liquidity through increased spending. More spending means greater demand  for goods and services to be delivered. Greater demand means more jobs for people who are out of work right now, to deliver more goods and services. More goods and services being delivered, means lower per-unit cost for all of the things we spend money on. More people with jobs, cheaper goods and services, means even more spending, creating economic vitality and prosperity for all.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Were Meteorites Actually Attacks By Secret U.S. Weapon System?

Just a few hours before U.S. President Barack Obama took to the airwaves with his State of the Union address, he was alerted to a potential crisis in the Pacific.

Two Russian Tu-95H Bear long range strategic bombers were intercepted by U.S. F-15 fighters as the interlopers made a circumnavigation of Guam.

The island of Guam is a U.S. territory that is of key strategic importance in the Pacific region. The bombers were reportedly armed with live nuclear cruise missiles, possibly Kh-55's which can deliver a 200-kiloton fireball on a target up to 1800 miles away. Each bomber can carry six of these weapons.

The incursion comes amid heightened tensions in the Pacific between China and Japan, with Russia signaling that it stands with the red Chinese. On February 7, Russian Su-27 fighters violated the sovereignty of Japan's airspace with an incursion that was intercepted over the northern Hokkaido province. Japan is a close U.S. ally.

The timing of this latest event was clearly meant to be a message directly to the American President. The flight is also unprecedented, in that Russian bombers have never been known to operate that far south and so far away from their bases.

U.S. military officials were relatively tight-lipped about the incident, citing security concerns, but a few more details are available at the following link.

The question now becomes, how does the U.S. respond to these threats? Diplomatic protests, tit-for-tat incursions of our own? Or does the U.S. escalate, and send a very clear message that we can and will destroy our enemies? That last option certainly sounds like a better option if we could get away with it, but how does one send such a message without actually escalating events to the point where they get out of hand and a war suddenly unfolds? How does one send a very bold message that will instill fear, without the opponent needing to respond in order to save face?

What if there were a way we could actually attack Russia, with a weapon as powerful as a nuclear bomb, but without doing any serious damage but rather as a demonstration of our capabilities? A show of force, but one that the Russians would never dare accuse America of. Unless of course, they wanted to sound like lunatics, wanted to send their people into a state of utter panic, and basically were willing to start WWIII over it.

What if we could attack Russia with a weapon that would cause a blast 20 times larger than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the close of WWII?

Sounds pretty crazy of course, but it would have to, to make the plan actually work. It would have to sound crazy enough for the rest of the world to not even think about it, while at the same time sending a very clear message to those few in Russian leadership who would know better. Who know of secret things and who can read between the lines. They would also be the ones who could examine the debris for tell-tale signs of a deliberate strike, as opposed to an amazingly coincidental falling star.

So coincidental in fact that Cuba, Russia's notorious and key ally in the western hemisphere, also happened to get hit with a powerful meteorite as well, within hours of the Russian event.

But this is still just crazy talk right? We couldn't nuke a country without everyone knowing about it. Someone would see a missile get launched, and it's totally illegal to put nuclear missiles on satellites in space. Not to mention that there would be fallout and all sorts of telltale signs of a nuclear detonation. Unless of course the weapon wasn't nuclear, but still just as powerful. Does any sort of weapon like that actually exist?

It's quite possible actually.

The basic theory is called kinetic bombardment. The US Navy has already been successfully experimenting with various contractors to develop a ship-mounted kinetic energy railgun. Rather than delivering an explosive munition to a target, kinetic energy weapons simply deliver a hunk of inert solid material on a target with such extreme velocity that the impact energy is equal to or greater than that of an explosive device.

Military Video Captures Destructive Power of Navy’s Newest Railgun

The Navy weapons are technically considered to be a siege weapon, or a hyper-tech advancement of weapons like the catapult or trebuchet. To be a true kinetic bombardment weapon, it must be staged on an orbital platform, a satellite. Such a weapon would not violate the treaty which forbids nuclear weapons in space, but could actually be more deadly, less complex, and less costly. It is also something that the US military has been taking an interest in as early as the 1950's.

Check out this sub-entry from Wikipedia on Project Thor:

Project Thor

Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[1][2]

The most described system is "an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance". The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.[citation needed] The system described in the 2003 United States Air Force (USAF) report was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.[3][4][5]

The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons. The system is prohibited by neither the Outer Space Treaty nor the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[4][6]

The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 225 kg conventional bomb.[citation needed] Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[5] These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster.[4][7]

In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 USAF report above, a 6.1m x 0.3m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite). The mass of such a cylinder is itself over 8 tons, so it is clear that the practical applications of such a system are limited to those situations where its other characteristics provide a decisive advantage - a conventional bomb/warhead of similar weight to the tungsten rod, delivered by conventional means, provides similar destructive capability and is a far more practical method.

The highly elongated shape and high density are to enhance sectional density and therefore minimize kinetic energy loss due to air friction and maximize penetration of hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets.[8] The smaller "crowbar" size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.[citation needed]

The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.[9]

While the larger version might be individually launched, the smaller versions would be launched from "pods" or "carriers" that contained several missiles.[citation needed]

The phrase "Rods from God" is also used to describe the same concept.[10] A USAF report called them "hypervelocity rod bundles".[11]

Now check out this Wiki entry on the Prompt Global Strike system. Some key points have been highlighted:

Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour,[1][2] in a similar manner to a nuclear ICBM. In April 2010, Marine Corps General James Cartwright explained the system's rationale, stating that "Today, unless you want to go nuclear, [the conventional military response time is] measured in days, maybe weeks".[3] A PGS system could also be useful during a nuclear conflict, potentially replacing nuclear weapons against 30 percent of targets.[4]

The PGS system will be designed to complement existing American rapid-response forces, such as Forward Deployed Forces, Air Expeditionary Groups (which can deploy within 48 hours) and carrier battle groups (which can respond within 96 hours).[5] Possible delivery systems include:
In 2010, the United States Air Force prototyped a PGS system based on a modified Minuteman III ICBM.[3] In March 2011, Air Force Major General David Scott stated that the service had no plans to use a sea- or land-based ICBM system for Prompt Global Strike, as they would be expensive to develop and potentially "dangerous." Instead, efforts would focus on a hypersonic glider.[6] However, the following day, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that an ICBM-based PGS system was still an option.[7]

The administration of George W. Bush considered developing such a weapon in the 2000s, but rejected the idea because of fears that an ICBM-launched weapon would trigger the Russian nuclear-launch warning system, potentially provoking a nuclear war.[8] However, the Obama administration continued development of the system later in the decade.

A potential enemy cannot be certain that a launched ICBM contains only a conventional warhead, not a nuclear one. It is thus currently unclear what design features or precautions could convince China and Russia, two countries with launch-detection systems and nuclear ICBMs, to ignore their early-warning systems. Current ideas include a low-trajectory missile design, or allowing Russian and Chinese inspection of PGS missile sites.[3][5]

On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States already had a Prompt Global Strike capability.[9] This coincided with the New START disarmament treaty signed on 8 April 2010, which set new, lower limits on ballistic missiles and their warheads. The treaty does not distinguish between conventional and nuclear versions of weapons, meaning any ballistic PGS missiles and warheads would count toward the new limit. However, the U.S. State Department has stated that this does not constrain plans for PGS deployment, since current plans do not come near the limits.[10] Nonetheless, in December 2010, Russian military experts indicated that the forthcoming S-500 missile defense system would include anti-hypersonic defenses.[11]

So as bizarre as the it sounded at first, we now see that the technology is actually there for such a strike on Russia (and Cuba) as the one just theorized. It is not science-fiction at all, but may have been the first real word application of such a radically advanced weapon platform.

Obviously the United States is never going to admit to launching a non-lethal but destructive show-of-force attack on another country. So that leaves it up to Russia to examine the debris and make the determination. Then of course, they will have clearly gotten the message in no uncertain terms, but it would not be in their interests either to accuse the United States of such an attack.

Therefore, this little conspiracy theory is something that will probably be never proven in my lifetime, but something interesting to consider just the same. And maybe in a hundred years from now, when a bunch of documents come to light and the world is a very different place, some historian will read this what I have written here today and say "Gee, that Captain Six really had his thinking cap on."

Or maybe I'm just off my nut, lol.

Here is a video of the meteorite strike in Russia. Note the strange "twin" tail coming off of it as it descended. Doesn't really seem to fit with what one would expect from a space rock tumbling into the atmosphere. On the other hand, this twin plume could be a sign of this "rods of the gods" weapon.


'That's no meteor, it's an American weapon test': Russian politician's bizarre claim about 10 ton space rock as Cuba claims it was also hit earlier in the week


Video appears to show object striking "meteor" causing it to explode. Some conspiracy buffs are saying that it was a UFO/aliens intervening to help mankind. I'm not really buying that, but I certainly would not rule out that perhaps the Russians intercepted the inbound traffic with a railgun of their own. Or perhaps it was part of the US plan to shoot down their own weapon as part of the demonstration and in order to make the threat that much more acute? Hard to say, but the video certainly does show a collision between two objects. Check it out.

...The local newspaper Znak reported the meteorite was intercepted by an air defense unit at the Urzhumka settlement near Chelyabinsk. Quoting a source in the military, it wrote a missile salvo blew the meteorite to pieces at an altitude of 20 kilometers.

Regnum news agency quoted a military source who claimed that the vapor condensation trail of the meteorite speaks to the fact that the meteorite was intercepted by air defenses...



Friday, February 15, 2013

Million-Dollar Motive For Cops to Kill Dorner

Loophole May Hold Up Dorner Reward

A legal loophole could prevent good Samaritans, instrumental in ending the manhunt for a fugitive ex-cop accused of killing four people, from claiming more than $1 million in reward money because Christopher Dorner died and was not captured.

Last weekend, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pledged $1 million, sourced from private individuals, companies and unions, "for information that will lead to Mr. Dorner's capture."

The L.A. City Council followed up with its own promise of a $100,000 reward, for information "leading to the identification, apprehension and conviction of Christopher Dorner." 

But Dorner, accused of killing four people and threatening the lives of several dozen more, was never captured, apprehended or convicted. Instead, he died following a standoff with police near Big Bear, Calif., when the cabin in which he was barricaded burned down with him inside. 

The mayor's office has not yet determined if the reward could still be paid out given Dorner died. 

Full article at link:

It is disturbing that authorities are even questioning whether or not to pay out the reward. For one thing, it is a betrayal of public trust that may impact future investigations and undermine efforts to locate dangerous fugitves. Anyone with potential leads will think twice about risking their own lives, reputation, and privacy in order to share information with authorities. This move, quite simply, invalidates the purpose of offering a reward at all in cases like this.

More alarmingly though, this shows that police had a very large financial incentive to kill Dorner, rather than bring him to justice. Not to mention of course, that they already had a strong motivation to kill him as revenge for the deaths of other officers, and to silence him from speaking any further regarding corruption in the LAPD. Adding a million dollar financial incentive to kill the suspect now goes well beyond a simple question of ethics. Especially when one considers now that police burned down the cabin Dorner was holed up in.

The San Bernadino County Sheriff denies that the cabin was burned down intentionally, but given the motivations we have already seen here, that denial is quite dubious. Consider too, that we are talking about a Sheriff who allows his deputies to violate their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution, simply in order to harass a woman out for a walk, as seen here in this video. Why should we believe that those deputies would adhere to the law when the stakes are so much higher?

The denial becomes downright feeble when one listens to what was actually said by police that day at the scene. Are we to believe that they were simply incompetent, and "accidentally" burned that cabin down after they clearly voiced their intention to burn the cabin down?

BREAKING: Meteor Impacts Injure Hundreds In 6 Cities

Read more:

Witnesses in NY state reported bizarre lights last night. Now, fires are reported in Kansas, US, and northern UK.


Injured in Russia now exceeds 1,100

Meteorites impact in Cuba and Kazakhstan as well 

Thursday, February 14, 2013

BREAKING: Americans Now Fighting Alongside Rebels in Syria (VIDEO)

Beginning at about 20 seconds of this video, you will see an American rejoicing with rebels after a Syrian military helicopter was shot down. According to the American, they have just "smoked... about ten, twenty" Syrian soldiers. 

Let's not forget, that the Syrian rebels are al-Qaeda, the same people who toppled Quadaffy in Libya at the same time we whine about al-Qaeda attacking our own consulate in Benghazi.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Pope Resigns, Rise of 'Petrus Romanus' and End of Days Prophecy

In a shocking headline this morning, we learn that Pope Benedict XVI will resign as of February 28. The only reasons given is failing health, despite the fact that he will be the first Pope to not go to the pearly gates while in office in over 600 years.

This strange turn of events has electrified the conspiracy-theory community and has left devout followers trembling in fear of the Prophecy of Saint Malachy.

(Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday he will resign on Feb 28 because he no longer has the strength to fulfill the duties of his office, becoming the first pontiff since the Middle Ages to take such a step. 

The 85-year-old pope said he had noticed that his strength had deteriorated over recent months "to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter," he said according to a statement from the Vatican. 

A Vatican spokesman said the pontiff would step down from 1900 GMT on February 28, leaving the office vacant until a successor is chosen.

This now sets the stage for a prophecy to be fulfilled, culminating in the destruction of Rome and the end of days. While some dismiss this entirely, it certainly is curious how accurate the prophecy has actually been throughout the ages.

From Wikipedia:

The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy, is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with the successor of current pope Benedict XVI, a pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome


The prophecy was first published in 1595 by Arnold de Wyon, a Benedictine historian, as part of his book Lignum Vitæ. Wyon attributed the list to Saint Malachy, the 12th‑century bishop of Armagh in Ireland. According to the traditional account, in 1139, Malachy was summoned to Rome by Pope Innocent II. While in Rome, Malachy purportedly experienced a vision of future popes, which he recorded as a sequence of cryptic phrases. This manuscript was then deposited in the Roman Archive, and thereafter forgotten about until its rediscovery in 1590.

On the other hand, Bernard of Clairvaux's biography of Malachy makes no mention of the prophecy, nor is it mentioned in any record prior to its 1595 publication.[1] Some sources, including the most recent editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, suggest that the prophecy is a late 16th‑century forgery. Some have suggested that it was created by Nostradamus and was credited to Saint Malachy so the purported seer would not be blamed for the destruction of the papacy. Supporters, such as author John Hogue, who wrote a popular book titled The Last Pope about the claims, generally argue that, even if the author of the prophecies is uncertain, the predictions are still valid.

See the Wiki entry for the full list and attributes of the Popes.

Check out the interview with the author on Coast to Coast AM:

Author and publisher with a specialty in End Times and prophecy, Tom Horn, discussed his new research on the prophecy of the Popes, and how 2012 will be the fulfillment of St. Malachy's prediction that the Catholic Church will see one final Pope before its destruction. Almost 900 years ago, the Irish seer, St. Malachy, came to Rome and "suddenly had this frenzied vision in which he wrote down the descriptives of every Pope that would ever exist from his day to the final Pope," Horn reported. According to Malachy's prophesied list, the next Pope after the current one (Pope Benedict) will be the last one, #112. This final Pope, Petrus Romanus (or Peter the Roman) will lead the Church into the great tribulation period and the destruction of Rome. Some Catholic mystics believe he will be an infiltrator under Satanic control. Evangelical prophecy refers to this person as the "False Prophet" who helps to usher in the Antichrist, Horn continued.

If an Italian is voted in as the next Pope, that could be the fulfillment of Malachy's prophecy, Horn noted, adding that a number of church scholars going back hundreds of years have cited 2012 as the year when the False Prophet emerges. This timing coincides with other prophetic material such as from the Mayans, and Cherokee, as well as the Kabbalah's Zohar book, which named 2012 as the year when the Messiah returns, he detailed. Further, in 1951, a French Jesuit named Rene Thibaut, a codebreaker and mathematician, verified the accuracy of Malachy's predictions, and calculated that Petrus Romanus would arrive in 2012.

Horn also spoke about the late Father Malachi Martin's warning of a secret plan by the "Illuminati/Freemasons" to infiltrate the Vatican and use it to bring about a New World Order. A friend of Martin's, Father Alfred Kunz, was murdered, and Martin believed he was killed by Satanists at the Vatican. The case is still unsolved, and Horn has investigated the possible conspiracy. For more, check out this video trailer, for his new book, Petrus Romanus.

Some have said that Petrus Romanus will not actually be a Pope at all, but will lead the Church in the days when the seat is left vacant, as an agent of Satan. That interpretation is certainly up for discussion at this point, with this "last Pope" now vacating the post.


The prophecy speaks of a "Black Pope" called Peter Romanus ascending to lead the Church in the End of Days. Well folks, meet Peter Turkson.They say the odds of him becoming the next Pope are 1-in-4.

Peter Cardinal Turkson 
Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson is a Ghanaian Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He is the current president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace since his appointment by Pope Benedict XVI on 24 October 2009.


Sunday, February 10, 2013

Domestic Violence, Feminism, and Setting the Record Straight

FACT: Women are as violent, or more violent than men in domestic relationships.

With the disastrous and completely misguided bill known as the Violence Against Woman Act about to go before Congress for renewal/re-introduction, we felt it appropriate to point out some conveniently overlooked and politically incorrect facts about domestic violence. 

In a quick Google search of why VAWA is bad, this brief popped up:

These are the 5 reasons why VAWA is profoundly flawed: 

1. VAWA does not recognize the fact that men are as likely to victimized by domestic violence as women. 

2. Because VAWA regulations specifically prohibit the provision of services to battered men, VAWA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

3. VAWA gives rise to false allegations. Some attorneys now recommend that women seeking child custody file a domestic violence complaint, even if it has no basis in fact. 

4. VAWA makes it harder for fathers to get joint custody. Once a charge of domestic violence is on the books, the legal system views the father as a menace to his children. And some versions of VAWA have proposed that child custody be awarded to the "primary caretaker," a code word for "mother." 

5. VAWA promotes the radical Marxist-feminist belief that men as a class use violence as a tool to dominate and oppress women. This simplistic analysis does a profound disservice to male-female relationships. As a result, VAWA ends up pitting men against women. 

VAWA relentlessly scapegoats men as abusers and batterers. VAWA teaches women to play the victim. And VAWA is responsible for the removal of children from their loving father. VAWA is bad for fathers, women, and children. (And families as a whole.) We don't need a gender war in this country. Oppose VAWA.

Source: Shattered Men

But no matter what men have to say, no matter how pertinent it may be, political-feminists don't care to hear about it and will even violently oppose the resistance to their agenda.

Nevermind that a number of women's groups and female individuals themselves actually oppose VAWA as well.

Women Against VAWA Excess 

Concerned Women For America

Phyllis Schlafly

Freedom Works

Wow, that an awesome chick. (Pretty darn cute too.)

But let's go back now to what we said at the top of the page. That women are as likely, if not more likely to be violent in a domestic relationship. Keep in mind that this does not include the disproportionate rate of women who hire/manipulate other males to harm/kill their boyfriend/husband. These studies show that directly, woman are at least, if not more violent than men in domestic relationships.

Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

“We’re seeing women in relationships acting differently nowadays than we have in the past,” said Angela Gover, a UF criminologist who led the research. “The nature of criminality has been changing for females, and this change is reflected in intimate relationships as well.” 

In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men. The students took selected liberal arts and sciences courses. Forty percent were men and 60 percent were women, reflecting the gender composition of these classes. 

Full article at:

The single largest and most comprehensive study on the subject, compiled over the course of many years through the exhaustive efforts of the contributors,  confirms this. Here is a brief:


Martin S. Fiebert 
Department of Psychology 
California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: May 2011 

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

Despite the facts displayed there, we still have this notion in society that men are more violent than women, and even that a woman's violence should be excused while male violence should be regarded as loathsome. 

Perhaps it is hard-wired into us to think that way. After all, for tens of thousands of years males have been called upon to perform the violent tasks and heaviest physical labors, required of both their family and society as a whole. In the meantime, women cultivated a more psychological, coercive lifestyle in order to achieve goals and to protect their young. Brute force is certainly not always the defining factor of victory, and nature seems to have seen fit to diversify the strengths of the family unit in order to strengthen our species survival as a whole. This certainly doesn't mean that women are smarter or men more violent, it only goes to show how we may be smart, and violent, in different ways. 

But how does this all play out in modern society? Particularly in the last century or so, where tens of thousands of years of hereditary natural selection mechanisms have been overturned by industry, politics, and so forth? 

This woman makes some very profound observations on the subject, which she has shared with the public on YouTube with the piece "Feminism and the Disposable Male."

Wow, it still impresses me every time I watch that video. What a wonderful, intelligent woman. But with everything she has said there, it is almost as if there is some agenda. 

Is all this confusion simply the result of a new stage in evolution for mankind? The natural result of industrialization, technology, a global village? Or is someone pulling the strings?

While some folks might reject such conspiratorial talk as pure lunacy, we simply cannot ignore the very real damage being done to our society, to our families. Conspiracy or not, there are very bad things happening, and these things are being done deliberately for profit and power.

Miss Carol Rhodes speaks to a gathering back in 2010, in this video. She reveals "secret rules" used by Child Protection Services, which of course has huge influence when it comes to domestic violence cases where children are involved, custody disputes and so forth, and the dynamics of gender relations.

Even without all of these facts, statistics and insights, the VAWA is clearly gender-biased and discriminatory. When we do actually take into consideration what has been presented here, it's no wonder that society is disintegrating right before our eyes. Everything that is being done contradicts all common sense based on the scientific data, as well as the philosophical, and is counterproductive to the problems we are actually hoping to solve as a society.

We will leave off here now with one final video, in closure, to show some uncomfortable facts about domestic violence that are not usually considered by either society as a whole or legislators who pretend to know and dictate what is in our interests.


False Allegations of Domestic Violence, Why You Should be Concerned

6 Things Everyone Knows About Women (That Aren't True)