news site RSS Email Alerts


[Entertainment] Casey Kasem wrongful death suit 18 months after radio legend Casey Kasem's death. The America's Top 40 host's children have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Kasem's widow Jean Kasem.
Published:11/26/2015 3:25:41 PM
[80584deb01241510VgnVCM100000d7c1a8c0RCRD] Casey Kasem's children, brother file wrongful death suit against widow Three of the radio personality Casey Kasem's children and his brother sued his widow on Wednesday, claiming her actions led to his death in 2014. Published:11/25/2015 9:39:23 PM
[World] How Would A President Ben Carson Overturn Roe v. Wade?

Ilya Shapiro

Dr. Ben Carson’s recent announcement on Meet the Press that he’d like to see Roe v. Wadeoverturned isn’t particularly surprising. The media is having a field day with Carson’s comparison of abortion to slavery, as well his cheeky explanation that “I’m a reasonable person and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen,” but that’s all par for the course.

After all, most Republicans and all the GOP presidential candidates—except George Pataki, but including the latest version of Donald Trump—are pro-life. There’s disagreement regarding appropriate exceptions: Carson says he’s open to discussing the “extraordinarily rare situation” where the mother’s life is in danger, but again, this isn’t particularly newsworthy unless you’re an MSNBC host.

Yet there is one thing about this episode that got me thinking: How exactly would a President Carson (or anyone else) go about overturning Roe v. Wade?

Before going through the legal mechanics, the first thing to recognize is that Roe isn’t even the governing legal precedent regarding abortion—and hasn’t been for over two decades, since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). While Roe recognized a right to abortion as part of constitutional privacy protections, it set up a trimester framework to balance that right against the governmental interest in protecting the “potentiality of human life.” First-trimester abortions were to be at the complete discretion of the woman and her doctor, states could ban third-trimester abortions, and there was a gray area in the middle.

In short, overturning Roe v. Wade has to be a long-term project that catches a bit of luck along the way.”

Casey collapsed that framework, upholding Roe’s “essential holding” about the abortion right but replacing the trimester framework with one that focused on viability. No regulations that placed an “undue burden” on the abortion right would be allowed before viability, while after viability states had more leeway so long as they made exceptions for maternal life and health. What constitutes an “undue burden”? In effect, it’s whatever you can get five votes for at the Supreme Court.

In other words, if you’re pro-life, returning to a world where Roe v. Wade is the law of the land would actually be an improvement over the current situation.

But let’s say that, like Ben Carson, you want to go back even further to the pre-Roe days, where abortion regulations were left to the political process. Setting aside the possibility of an executive order that nullifies a Supreme Court ruling—even President Obama hasn’t tried that—what can the nation’s chief executive really do?

The answer is not much, at least not directly. The president can’t simply ask the Supreme Court to reverse a precedent. He or she can’t even file a lawsuit, except perhaps in his or her individual capacity upon being personally harmed by an abortion regulation.

And even that sort of thinking is beside the point: Every year the Supreme Court is asked to review abortion-related cases. At least a couple of petitions are currently pending, involving challenges to new restrictions in Mississippi and Texas. The justices could take one of these cases and overrule Casey and Roe, or modify the governing doctrine in some way.

But that’s unlikely to happen as a practical matter. If and when the Court next takes an abortion case, it’s much more likely to tinker around the edges with the “undue burden” standard, or simply apply it in a particular case to uphold or strike down a specific regulation.

There simply aren’t five votes to overturn Roe, not while one of Casey’s authors, Justice Anthony Kennedy, remains the Court’s decision maker on this (and most) hot-button issues. There may not even be four votes, given that Chief Justice John Roberts believes strongly not just in jurisprudential stare decisis—not disturbing established precedents—but in maintaining the political status quo.

So the only thing left to an anti-Roe president is to wait for opportunities to replace pro-Roe justices, with the most likely such vacancies to come from the seats currently occupied by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who’ll be 83 at the next election) and Stephen Breyer (78), as well as Kennedy himself (80). And, of course, that president would have to be accurate with his assessment of that nominee—with which Republican presidents have had decidedly mixed results. (Forget John Roberts and Obamacare; President Reagan intended to overturn Roe but two of his three nominees, Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, eventually joined with David Souter, a George H.W. Bush nominee, to reaffirm it in Casey.)

Finally, even if President Carson were absolutely sure that his nominees would fulfill his goal, such an assurance would provoke fierce resistance from Senate Democrats. Justice Samuel Alito was only confirmed by a 58-42 vote in 2006, and replacing liberal icon Ginsburg with a conservative would likely trigger a filibuster. It’s not at all clear that Senate Republicans would then extend Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters of Supreme Court nominees.

And if Democrats retake the Senate—a possibility even if a Republican wins the White House, and again in 2018—fuhgeddaboudit.

In short, overturning Roe v. Wade has to be a long-term project that catches a bit of luck along the way. Good luck to Ben Carson, but I wouldn’t advise anyone to maintain “undue” hope (or fear), at least not in the near future.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Published:10/29/2015 7:45:48 AM
[Precious Metals] Deflation on the Horizon



Hold your real assets outside of the system in a private, non-government controlled, international facility   -->



Deflation on the Horizon

Written by Jeff Thomas (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)


For years, a rather pointless argument has been ongoing amongst economists - that of inflation vs. deflation.

The principle countries of the world have amassed a greater level of debt than the world has ever seen and, of course this can only end badly. But will it end in inflation or deflation? To me, this discussion is akin to arguing whether the sun will rise in the morning or set in the evening.

Those who predicted inflation and those who predicted deflation will both get to be right. This will be an “equal-opportunity disaster.”


Certainly, whenever there’s an increase in the currency in circulation, there will be inflation. Yet we don’t seem to be witnessing significant inflation. But, then, the massive quantitative easing that’s occurred hasn’t been widely circulated. It has, instead, been pumped into the banks, where most of it has stayed. Also, there has been inflation in the world in general, but less so in the US, as the US dollar is rising against most currencies. As a result of these factors, the traditional inflation before a crash has been limited.

The next major event in the row of dominoes is likely to be a crash in markets. Whilst it’s obvious to anyone who studies economics that the bond and stock markets are in a bubble of historical proportions, the majority of people (those who rely upon the media for their financial guidance) are vainly hoping that political leaders will come up with an economic aspirin of some sort that will make the debt problem go away, eliminating the possibility of market crashes.

But, now, we’re beginning to close in on the first crash. It’s within view and is finally giving pause even to the many who had maintained that it would somehow not come to pass. It’s beginning to look more real to the average person.

The bellwether has been a significant drop in the stock market. This drop does not constitute a crash, butnor is it an anomaly. It’s merely the first downward leg in the overall decline. There will be a correction to the upside, then another downward lurch, and so on. Decades from now, economics students will look back on The Greater Depression and their education will include a graph that begins in late 2015 – a jagged downward line than finally bottoms at or below 50% of the present level.

Plan on deflation following the crash.

Deflation always follows a crash. The dollar won’t go down right away. That will happen in the inflationperiod. (More about that later.)

Investors tend to muse that, if a market begins to decline, they will view the situation carefully and decide whether to sell some stocks and which ones to sell. Unfortunately, in a crash it’s very unlikely to turn out that way. In a crash, the price is heading south rapidly and there’s little time to ponder the situation. The investor is likely to find that his broker has made the decision for him.

When the equity in a brokerage account falls below the maintenance margin, the brokerage issues a margin call that forces the investor to either pony up more cash, or have his portfolio sold off to make up the loss. This may come as an unwelcome and badly-timed shock, but there’s worse to come. The greater downside is that the broker is not obliged to contact the investor prior to the sell-off. The broker may choose to sell any of the stocks he chooses in order to save himself, so, not surprisingly, he may well choose to sell those stocks that are not headed south, as it will be easier to find buyers.

Plan on a drop in the Gold Price

Many investors maintain in their portfolio a percentage of precious metals stocks “just in case.” This, they consider to be a diversification; an insurance policy. If the stock market heads south in a significant way, there’s every likelihood that this will drive up the price of precious metals. But, of course, in a crash, even a moderate one, this position will be the easiest one for the broker to sell. The investor may discover that, overnight, both his more conventional stocks and his insurance policy have diminished or disappeared.

In addition to the above, those who hold physical gold as an insurance policy against stocks may find that, if they depend upon the stocks for income, they cannot afford to pay their bills if stock earnings suddenly disappear. Something will have to go. Maybe it will be the family boat, or that beloved Harley in the garage. Maybe it will be the precious metals.

For these reasons, even the most adamant of goldbugs should be prepared for a downward spike in precious metals following a significant crash. And, if the overall crash is a series of downward thrusts, interspersed with smaller upward corrections, it shouldn’t be surprising if the gold price follows a similar path.

So, does that mean that gold and silver are not a safe haven against stormy economic periods? Not at all. It merely means that, in addition to the major clean-out of the gamblers and traders from the gold market from 2011 to 2015, there will be a final (and possibly very sudden) cleanout after a fall in the market. In my estimation, it will reflect the crash – the more severe the crash, the greater the downward spike in metals. However, the reverse will be true, in terms of its duration. The deeper the crash, the quicker those investors who still have cash will jump onto the gold truck. Therefore, the spike could be very brief and pronounced.

For those who have been prudent enough to exit the market prior to the crash and still be holding money in their hands, this would be an excellent time to buy gold. In fact, it may be the very best opportunity, because, at that point, it’s likely that gold will have reached its bottom and will be poised for an historic rise.

Plan on Inflation, in Addition to Deflation

At this time, or relatively soon thereafter, the central banks can be expected to fulfil their oft-repeated promise that they will fight deflation with money printing. In all likelihood, we will see quantitative easing like never before. The banks will print as much as they feel is necessary to counteract deflation. However, this will have a more dramatic effect on increasing the cost of commodities than to relieve the fear of purchasing assets. (The average person will readily buy food and fuel, but will not buy the boat or Harley that’s for sale in the driveway down the block.)

The increase in the cost of commodities will exacerbate the situation and the banks will respond by doing the only thing they know how to do – keep printing. Historically, when this happens, wages never keep pace with the rising prices of commodities, so the situation will worsen – deflation in asset prices with inflation in commodities.

Again, historically, this is a recipe for dramatic inflation that becomes hyperinflation. To my mind, this is the only uncertainty. Whilst the other dominoes described above are almost certain to fall, each in their turn, hyperinflation is the wild card. Hyperinflation occurs when the people of a country lose faith in the political/economic governance of the system. If it occurs, no government has ever succeeded in reversing it. It plays out until full economic collapse occurs.

If and when this happens, precious metals will most certainly retain their lustre and may provide a soft landing for those who have held their metals position during the doubtful times.

One caution: Since most of the traders and gamblers are already out of the gold market and most gold is now held by those who are long, the window of opportunity will be brief if a spike does occur. Whatever precious metals are on offer will be gobbled up quickly.


Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE



Jeff is British and resides in the Caribbean. The son of an economist and historian, he learned early to be distrustful of governments as a general principle. Although he spent his career creating and developing businesses, for eight years, he penned a weekly newspaper column on the theme of limiting government.

He began his study of economics around 1990, learning initially from Sir John Templeton, then Harry Schulz and Doug Casey and later others of an Austrian persuasion. He is now a regular feature writer for Casey Research’s International Man.


Published:10/28/2015 3:41:05 AM
[World] [David Post] Those amazin’ Metropolitans (and why I’m not a Mets fan)

A New York Mets fan holds up a sign after the Mets’ 3-2 victory against the Los Angeles Dodgers in game five of the National League Division Series at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 15 in Los Angeles. (Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

The Mets’ run to the World Series has been, in a word, remarkable; by the final game against the Cubs they seemed utterly invincible, each of their pitchers more unhittable than the others, their offense unstoppable, and Daniel Murphy suddenly transformed into the bastard offspring of Roy Hobbs and Babe Ruth. It could all change, I suppose, against Kansas City; but for a team that was consistently mediocre for the first three months of the season, it has been a thoroughly breathtaking turnaround.

As many others have pointed out, the acquisition of Yoenis Cespedes at the end of July was the transformative moment. From the day he arrived, the entire Mets lineup suddenly became fearsome; the Mets, who had been dead last in the National League in runs scored up through July 31, led the majors in runs scored for the remainder of the season. Amazing! I don’t think that’s ever happened before, and I know for certain that no team that was last in runs scored through July 31 has ever made it to the World Series. And while it’s not due entirely to Cespedes’s arrival, his performance was, clearly, the key element, and that, too, is possibly unprecedented; I certainly can’t recall ever seeing (or hearing of) a single player who made that much of a difference in a team’s lineup during a season.  Though my heart, as a Nationals fan, is with Bryce Harper for MVP in the National League, my head tells me that I would vote for Cespedes if called upon.

And that starting rotation! All of a sudden it looks overwhelming. How in heaven’s name did Cespedes pull that off?

All this does give me some small degree of satisfaction, as a Nats fan; it feels a little better to realize that, while the Nats’ collapse at the end of the season was soul-crushing, it wasn’t unjust — the Mets are, in fact, the better team.

I wish I were rooting for them. I’ve always been a little puzzled by the fact that I don’t root for them, and never have. I grew up right in the bulls-eye of the Mets’ demographic when the team arrived in 1962 to fill the void left by the departure of the Dodgers and the Giants in the late ’50s: a baseball-obsessed 11-year-old boy, in Brooklyn, N.Y., with no team of my own. Couldn’t keep rooting for the Dodgers after what they did to us (though, astonishingly to me at the time, a few of my friends did so).

And as for the Yankees, turning in that direction was, if anything, even more unthinkable. Dodgers v. Yankees was probably the greatest rivalry in U.S. pro sports at the time — six of the 10 World Series between ’47 and ’56 were between the Dodgers and the Yankees! Hatred for the Yankees ran pretty deep in my neighborhood; it wasn’t just that we hated the Yankees, we hated the very idea of the Yankees, and we hated everything — Ballantine beer, Mel Allen, the Bronx — touched by Yankeehood. How could someone just toss all of that aside? Falling into the arms of one you hate because you have been abandoned by the one you love seemed deeply unpalatable, even to my 7-year-old self.

So along come the Mets, in their blue-and-orange (to invoke Dodger Blue and Giants Orange), making the pitch for the jilted fans. It never took, for me, nor do I recall any of my friends becoming serious Mets fans, either. Not quite sure why, but the Mets seemed awfully far away — compared, at least, with the Dodgers, who really were embedded in Brooklyn in a particularly intense way. Most of the most visible Dodgers — Robinson, Snider, Reese, Hodges and several others —  actually lived in Brooklyn, so a lot of people found themselves one or two degrees of separation away from an actual living, breathing Dodger; Hodges’s son went to my elementary and high schools, for example, and we’d see the great man himself, driving a white Chrysler Imperial down Bedford Avenue, every once in a while. It makes for a very intense relationship — and I think that’s what we thought it meant to “have a team” — and the Mets couldn’t replicate that.

Plus, they actually were far away, geographically — as far away as the Yankees were, hours by subway.

And they went and hired Casey Stengel, late of the despised Yankees, to be their first manager! You expect me to root for Casey Stengel??

And they stunk — a total laughingstock for the first few years. I like the underdog as much as the next guy, but going from the Dodgers — one of the great teams in baseball history, with four future Hall of Famers (Robinson, Campanella, Snider and Reese) in the everyday lineup, and who played damned good ball — to the ’62 Mets was too much to ask.

I don’t know if my friends and I are the rule or the exception to the rule; I’d love to see some data on the changes in team rooting patterns in the New York metropolitan area between, say, 1956 and 1966.  What happened to all those Giants and Dodgers fans?  Did Dodgers fans living on Long Island respond differently from Dodgers fans living in New Jersey? Did any of them jump to the Yankees?, etc.

So though a Mets victory in the Series would be nice, I think I’m okay (and maybe even more than okay) with the Royals — a really attractive team in its own right — taking the crown. And they will: Royals in 6.

Published:10/27/2015 9:58:02 AM
[Life] Senate Democrats Block Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions Senate Democrats have blocked the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act from moving forward in the Senate. The Pain-Capable Act needed 60 votes in order to invoke cloture, but failed Tuesday in a 54-42 vote. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.; Bob Casey, D-Pa.; and Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., were the only Democrats to support the bill. Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Susan Collins, Published:9/23/2015 6:26:04 PM
[Senate] Obama Gains Support of Two Senators for Iran Deal Senators Bob Casey and Chris Coons, both Democrats, said they would back the nuclear accord, putting the White House within one vote of the 34 needed to block the opposition.

Published:9/1/2015 12:50:56 PM
[Entertainment] Weekend picks for book lovers Spend your weekend reading about dolphins in 'Voices in the Ocean.'
Published:8/22/2015 3:55:52 AM
[Politics] Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly vote to defund Planned Parenthood Bob Casey and Heidi Heitkamp will both vote against defunding the group, while Joe Manchin announced that he will vote for the measure.

Published:8/3/2015 3:44:46 PM
Top Searches:
dow jones

Jobs from Indeed

comments powered by Disqus