Inflation is an especially insidious tax because it is not just a tax on your income for one year. It is a continual tax on every single dollar that you own. As your money sits in the bank, it is constantly losing value. Over time, the effects of inflation can be absolutely devastating. For example, if you put 100 dollars in the bank in 1970, those same dollars today would only have about 17 percent of the purchasing power that they did back then. In essence, you were hit by an 83 percent “inflation tax” and all you did was leave your money in the bank. So who is responsible for this? Well, the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy in the United States, and the inflationary monetary policy that the Fed has gotten all of us accustomed to is taxing the living daylights out of us. This is madness, and it needs to stop.

Right now, the US government says that the annual rate of inflation is somewhere around 2 percent. Those of you that have to buy food and gas on a regular basis realize how much of a joke that is. Thankfully, there are others out there that keep track of these statistics as well. According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if inflation was measured the same way that it was back in 1980, the annual rate of inflation would be more than 10 percent right now. This is why so many economists get so upset when the Federal Reserve starts printing money like there is no tomorrow. Inflation is a tax that is very cruel to average American families. It destroys their wealth and it destroys the purchasing power of their paychecks.

This is one of the reasons why so many people out there are talking about “real money” like gold and silver. Unlike fiat currency, precious metals tend to hold value over a very long period of time. For example, it will take you about three times as much US currency to buy a gallon of gasoline in 2012 as it did back in 1990. But an ounce of silver will actually buy you more gasoline today than it did back then. Back in 1990, an ounce of silver would buy you about 4 gallons of gasoline. Today it will buy you more than 8 gallons of gasoline.

Talk about holding value. We see the same kind of thing happening with gold. When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was selling for about $850. Today an ounce of gold costs more than $1700 an ounce. It is not that gold is becoming so much more valuable. It is just that the US dollar is losing value on a continual basis.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is expected to raise the issue at a White House meeting on Monday after weeks of intense diplomacy in which Mr Obama has dispatched senior officials – including his intelligence, national security and military chiefs – to Jerusalem to try and dampen down talk of an attack.

Diplomats say that Israel is angered by the Obama administration's public disparaging of early military action against Iran, saying that it weakens the prospect of Tehran taking the warnings from Israel seriously. The two sides are attempting to agree a joint public statement to paper over the divide but talks will not be made easier by a deepening distrust in which the Israelis question Mr Obama's commitment to confront Iran while the White House is frustrated by what it sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilise support for Israel's position in the US Congress.

"They are poles apart," said one diplomatic source. "The White House believes there is time for sanctions to work and that military threats don't help. The Israelis regard this as woolly thinking. They see Iran as headed towards a bomb, even though they agree there is no evidence Tehran has made that decision yet, and they want the White House to up the ante. The White House has the Europeans behind its position but it's losing Congress." The mood is not helped by worsening distrust between the two leaders. Relations soured within weeks of Mr Obama coming to power after he attempted to pressure Mr Netanyahu to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.

David Miles, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, defended quantitative easing which has been blamed for pushing down gilt rates and therefore the income earned by pensioners. Campaigners representing the elderly claim that the scheme has left more than a million pensioners “permanently poorer”. However, Mr Miles, a senior economist, said that the £325 million quantitative easing programme had widespread economic benefits and had stopped share prices from slumping.

In the most forthright defence of the policy launched by a Bank of England figure, he said: “It is inevitable that there are some people that have been made worse off by the direct impact of the Bank’s asset purchases on gilt yields... It will not be any comfort for people in this position to be told that any monetary policy action will have some distributional impacts... But if monetary policy actions could be vetoed so long as someone was made worse off then there could be no monetary policy.”

Mr Miles added: “In the absence of the Bank’s asset purchases [quantitative easing] I am sure that investment and consumer spending would have been significantly weaker than they have been. Many more people would be much worse off. Unemployment would have been higher than it currently is.”

The Metropolitan Police yesterday said it had investigated 83 “faith-based” child abuse cases involving witchcraft in the past 10 years but believed it was still an “under-reported, hidden crime”. Children’s charities and campaigners urged communities to report abuse and said social workers must be firmer in confronting abuse in immigrant groups.

Kristy Bamu, 15, was relentlessly tortured and eventually drowned in a bath on Christmas Day 2010 by his sister, Magalie, and her partner, Eric Bikubi. The killers are facing life sentences. They believed he had cast spells on another child and punished him with increasing viciousness. The teenager “begged to die” because he was in such pain after three days of being attacked with knives, sticks, metal bars and a hammer and chisel, suffering 130 separate injuries.

DataSift announced this week that it will release Twitter data in packages that will encompass the last two years of activity for its customers to mine, while Gnip can go back only 30 days.

"Harvesting what someone said a year or more ago is game-changing," said Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego. As details emerge on the kind of information being mined, he and other privacy rights experts are concerned about the implications of user information being released to businesses waiting to pore through it with a fine-tooth comb.

"As we see Twitter grow and social media evolve, this will become a bigger and bigger issue," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for British-based Internet security company Sophos Ltd. "Online companies know which websites we click on, which adverts catch our eye, and what we buy ... increasingly, they're also learning what we're thinking. And that's quite a spooky thought."

In response, the UK government said any discussions on flights were a matter for the Falkland Islands government. But the Foreign Office said it expected Argentina to honour its commitments under a 1999 agreement allowing flights from Chile. In recent months Argentina has stepped up its territorial claim to the Falklands, which it calls the Malvinas.

President Fernandez was speaking in a state-of-the-nation address to the Argentine people. She repeated her demand that the UK enter negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands, and again accused Britain of "militarising" the South Atlantic. And she said she had asked her foreign minister to renegotiate the 1999 agreement with Britain allowing flights from Chile to the Falklands.

"We want flights to the islands from mainland Argentina - Buenos Aires - operated by our flag-carrier, Aerolineas Argentinas," she said. There have been concerns in the Falklands that Argentina might block the flights operated by Chilean airline LAN, which are the islands' only air link with South America. "The weekly flight to and from Chile is a well-established route, and is valued greatly by the Falkland Islanders, including the Chilean community and others," a UK Foreign Office spokeswoman told the BBC. "It would be deeply disappointing and utterly unjustifiable if Argentina put pressure on this flight to be suspended".

But the bailout must await the debt swap with private bondholders on 8 March, he said. EU leaders are meeting in Brussels again to discuss the debt crisis. As the summit got under way UK Prime Minister David Cameron complained that ideas to stimulate economic growth, which he set out recently in a joint letter with 11 other EU leaders, had been ignored.

Mr Cameron said the summit's draft conclusions ought to reflect the letter's call for swift action to lift regulatory burdens and expand the EU's single market. Intensive negotiations over the Greek debt mountain dominated the run-up to the summit. Private bondholders, such as banks and private investors, recently agreed to take a 53.5% loss on their Greek bonds.

Their 107 billion euros losses - the "haircut" - and a huge package of public sector cuts aim to reduce Greek debt from 160% to 120.5% GDP by 2020. And a global financial body, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, announced on Thursday that the debt write-off did not constitute a default. A ruling of a "credit event" - a default - would have meant insurance against bond losses, called credit default swaps, would have been paid out. That would have caused further losses and uncertainty for already fragile financial institutions.

Saudi officials denied the reports, however, helping prices fall back from their highs in Asia on Friday. A number of issues have pushed prices higher, including tensions over Iran's nuclear plans and regional unrest. The new high set on Thursday beat the level seen during the Libyan civil war last year.

In early trading on Friday, Brent was trading at $125.49 per barrel, with US light sweet crude at $108.47 per barrel. The problem facing the oil market at the moment is that events in a number of countries could have an impact on supply and demand, often causing traders to react more quickly to speculation and increasing volatility.

On Thursday, the trigger was a report in the Iranian media that an explosion had occurred at a pipeline in Saudi Arabia. The report came at a time when there has been a steady increase in friction between the US, its allies and Iran.

Reding told BBC Radio Four data control authorities in Europe asked French counterparts to analyze the new policy. "And they have come to the conclusion that they are deeply concerned, and that the new rules are not in accordance with the European law, and that the transparency rules have not been applied," Reding said. Google said in January it was simplifying its privacy policy, consolidating 60 guidelines into a single one that will apply to all its services including YouTube, Gmail and social network Google+.

Users cannot opt out of the new policy if they want to continue using Google's services. Asked in what respects the policy could be breaking EU law, Reding said: "In numerous respects. One is that nobody had been consulted, it is not in accordance with the law on transparency and it utilizes the data of private persons in order to hand it over to third parties, which is not what the users have agreed to."

It would have been impossible for Google to instigate the policy under proposed legislation she laid out on January 25, Reding said. "Protection of personal data is a basic rule of the European Union. It is inscribed in the treaties. It is not an if, it is a must," she said. Google earlier posted a blog defending its policy after what it called "a fair amount of chatter and confusion." "Our privacy policy is now much easier to understand," the company said.

Even a healthy baby could have its life snuffed out if the mother decides she can’t afford to look after it, the article published by the British Medical Journal group states. The journal’s editor has defended the piece, saying the publication’s role is to present well-reasoned arguments, rather than promote one particular moral view.

Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Dr Minerva, a research associate at Oxford, and co-author Alberto Giubilini, a University of Milan bioethicist, argue that ‘after-birth abortion’ should be permissible in all cases in which abortion is. They state that like an unborn child, a newborn has yet to develop hopes, goals and dreams and so, while clearly human, is not a person – someone with a moral right to life. In contrast, parents, siblings and society have aims and plans that could be affected by the arrival of the child and their interests should come first. The article, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? first addresses scenarios in which parents are unaware their child is disabled until after it is born.

The piece argues that, though the child may be happy, it will not reach the potential of a normal child. ‘To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole… On these grounds, the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.’ The ethicists are also in favour of the infanticide of a healthy baby when the woman’s circumstances have changed and she no longer has the time, money or energy to care for it.

Trevor Stammers, a lecturer in medical ethics and former chairman of the Christian Medical Fellowship, described the viewpoint as ‘chilling’. Gill Duval, of the ProLife Alliance, said every life is precious and added: ‘Everybody talks about what women want but women wouldn’t want this.’ Julian Savulescu, the journal’s editor, said that the article’s argument has been made before by eminent figures. He added: ‘I’m not defending practising infanticide. I’m defending academic and intellectual freedom.’ He said that Dr Minerva has a ‘loose relationship’ with Oxford and her main position is at the University of Melbourne.

The Greek papers are not much better. Any taboos about references to the Nazi occupation of Greece have been dropped long ago. Across southern Europe, the “ugly German” is back – accused of driving other nations into penury, deposing governments and generally barking orders at all and sundry.

There is also a much more polite form of German-bashing going on at the official level. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund’s head, Tim Geithner, the US Treasury secretary, and David Cameron, the British prime minister, all made essentially the same point.

Germany has to pay up. The argument goes that if the eurozone is to survive – and the world economy is to avoid disaster – Germany has to do much more, and pay much more, to keep the single currency afloat. These arguments are deeply unfair. They fail to recognise how much Germany has already done for southern Europe. And they make demands for financial commitments that would risk economic and political disaster back in Germany.

Much of the current German-bashing is wild and unfair. But there is one respect in which Germany does bear responsibility for the current crisis. Germany was in the forefront of the countries pushing for the creation of the euro. And yet it is increasingly apparent that creating a single currency, without a single nation behind it, is at the root of the current crisis. The result is that the euro is in a dangerous and unstable position. The actions that are being urged on Germany are unreasonable. But Germany’s own solution – structural reform now, political union later – is unworkable.

Behind the scenes, however, some of the brightest minds in the German government have a sense of deep foreboding. Twice in the past year I have found myself sitting next to different senior German officials at a dinner who have proceeded to tell me that the whole single currency was a terrible mistake. Speaking of the euro, one of my companions said: “It seems to me that we have invented a machine from hell that we cannot turn off.”

The research also indicates that the NATO countries, including Germany, either are engaged in the majority of these armed conflicts with their own troops as aggressors or are instigating local proxies. These wars are concentrated on countries in the Arab world and South Saharan-Africa, which are in the focus of western interests because of their natural resources or their geostrategic situation. The West's leading position in waging war is in correlation with the fact that western nations have the world's largest military budgets and are its largest exporters of combat material - supplying NATO member countries or its allies.

As the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research ascertained in its recently published "Conflict Barometer 2011," last year, the number of wars being waged around the world has risen to a new record high since 1945. Whereas in 2010, the institute recorded six wars, in 2011 the number had more than tripled to 20 wars. None of the six wars registered by the institute for 2010 gave way to peace.

Our lives are governed by millions of laws, rules and regulations and more are being piled on all the time. In fact,40,000 new laws just went into effect in January. Every single new law restricts your freedom just a little bit more. The truth is that America has become a crazy control freak nation where virtually everything that we do is highly regulated. You have probably broken multiple laws today that you don’t even know exist. We have all become criminals and lawbreakers because almost everything is illegal at this point.

Our politicians are convinced that they are “making life better” by piling gigantic mountains of laws on to our backs, and law enforcement authorities are convinced that they are helping society by “cracking down on crime”, but the reality is that our liberties and our freedoms are being strangled by all of this government oppression. This is not the way that America is supposed to work.

Yes, every society needs laws. But the laws should be short enough and simple enough that everybody can read them and understand them. In America today, there is no possible way that any of us could ever read all of the laws that apply to us. Most of us just live our daily lives and try to do the “right” thing. But there is no guarantee that men with guns will not show up at your door one evening because of some obscure regulation that you have broken.

Ever complain on Facebook that you were feeling “sick?” Told your friends to “watch” a certain TV show? Left a comment on a media website about government “pork?” If you did any of those things, or tweeted about your recent vacation in “Mexico” or a shopping trip to “Target,” the Department of Homeland Security may have noticed.

In the latest revelation of how the federal government is monitoring social media and online news outlets, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has posted online a 2011 Department of Homeland Security manual that includes hundreds of key words (such as those above) and search terms used to detect possible terrorism, unfolding natural disasters and public health threats. The center, a privacy watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request and then sued to obtain the release of the documents.

The 39-page “Analyst’s Desktop Binder” used by the department’s National Operations Center includes no-brainer words like ”attack,” “epidemic” and “Al Qaeda” (with various spellings). But the list also includes words that can be interpreted as either menacing or innocent depending on the context, such as “exercise,” “drill,” “wave,” “initiative,” “relief” and “organization.”

These terms and others are “broad, vague and ambiguous” and include “vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters,” stated the Electronic Privacy Information Center in letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Read the full list - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/homeland-security-manual_n_1299908.html

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of HR 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence. Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under HR 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."