After a few non-stop years on the road searching for clean breaks and untouched powder A Restless Transplant photographer and adventurer (and friend of ACL) Foster Huntington finally hit the brakes. The Spring of this year saw his second photo book published – Home Is Where You Park It -  and the summer brought him home to his family property in the Columbia River Gorge where he has begun constructing a life-long dream.

He and his group of friends have gathered on top of a long-dormant cinder cone in Skamania County, Washington to build a three-platformed treehouse connected by suspension bridges forty feet up in the air and a skatepark formed and poured into the top of the hillside. There’s a real community that has developed at the Cinder Cone – friends from around the country are camping for weeks, months at a time, sleeping in their trucks and in tents, pitching in to help realize Foster’s vision – an idea he’s had since he was a young boy growing up on the property. While a cynic might see a Tom Sawyer who has rallied his pals to help white wash a fence, something much bigger, much more substantial is happening.

Although they are being smart and thrifty about using some salvaged materials, this is no hack job. They’re not cobbling together a fort to last a few summers – arborists, treehouse architects, carpenters, cranes, tractors and cement trucks – the dream is big and it’s real. Foster is thinking long term – a retreat for when he and his Lost Boys grow weary from their home on the road.

Family meals, swimming holes, a wood-fired hot tub, an archery range, a family of weed wacking goats, a summer sunrise from 40 feet up – the story is told with Foster’s photos at The Cinder Cone. And like every other Foster Huntington project, be inspired by one simple question… “What if?”  —AJ

If the voters of Switzerland do choose to back their currency with gold I promise you that there will be MUCH more interest in the Swiss franc.

Read More

"But I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet." With those words, President Barack Obama summarized the weakness and incompetence of his own administration. Nearly six years into office, and several years after the Syrian civil war began, and the avatar of "smart power" still cannot figure out what to do. He is paralyzed by his own postmodernism: to act is to lose the moral high ground of perspective, to become the object rather than the subject of criticism. So he talks, and talks, and talks--and does nothing.

Obama has gotten away with it until now, largely because the media continue to treat him as if he actually deserved that Nobel Prize, but also because the conservative opposition doesn't have a strategy yet, either. Some Republicans content themselves with talking about how we need a "stronger America." That is a posture, not a strategy. It is the GOP version of "smart power"--an attitude rather than a policy, one whose basic purpose is to convey a contrast with the incumbent, but which does not actually point to a particular set of goals or actions.

Actually, the "ISIS crisis" has provided the U.S. with a unique opportunity to undo some of the mistakes of the recent past and to secure key strategic gains against our most dangerous enemies. If the U.S. were to take the fight directly to the so-called Islamic State, we could not only stop the brutal atrocities ISIS is committing against civilians and soldiers alike, but we could also restore stability to Iraq, replace the brutal Assad regime in Syria, and reestablish a military deterrent against a nuclear Iran, with the aim of toppling that regime over time.

Yes, there is a case for war. 

It is a tough case to make, but the American people are broadly in favor of taking tough action against the emerging threats in the Middle East. Americans are not "war-weary" as much as we are tired of wars that fail because of poor leadership. In that regard, the American people are far ahead of American politicians, who are terrified of speaking honestly about what it will take to confront the emerging threats to freedom and prosperity--and how the costs of inaction continue to rise the longer we wait to do what we must.

The fact is that American liberty and security are incompatible with the following: an expansionist Russia that flouts international boundaries; an aggressive China that threatens free trade in the Pacific and Indian oceans; a revolutionary regime in Iran that is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, and continues to arm, fund and inspire terrorists around the world; and a pseudo-state run by violent Sunni extremists with access to oil money and heavy weaponry. War may not be the solution to all these problems, but it is the only solution to the latter.

Obama is resisting that conclusion, rather desperately. We know that he believes in a world where there is "no victor, no vanquished." He is now applying that philosophy to ISIS/ISIL. We are not "about to go full scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL," he said. Rather than defeat the terror group, he said, he hoped to "degrade ISIL's capacity to engage in the terrible violence and disruptions that they've been engaging in." But presumably, they would be allowed to survive, lest their defeat lead to a resentment that breeds future conflict.

Effectively, Obama wants to wind the clock back to September 10, 2001, when the Taliban regime was tolerated so long as it kept to itself. It seemed impossible, the next day, that America would ever be able to forget the folly of that approach. And yet we have an American president today who insists that we are not at war with ISIS, even after it has declared it is at war with us. 

Say this about George W. Bush: he made some glaring foreign policy mistakes, but he was often willing to correct his approach when circumstances so demanded. Not Obama.

There is a rare opportunity to stop ISIS before it becomes an even greater threat--and to forge bipartisan unity at home. After all, even Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), one of Obama's most vehement critics, has said he might support the president if he came to Congress for a declaration of war. 

The longer Obama waits, however, the less confidence Congress will have that he intends to see a war to its conclusion, and the more it will resent any action Obama does take as a usurpation of its constitutional powers. 

And while Obama dithers, ISIS destroys.

On August 28 The Washington Post (WaPo) reported that "every one of the country's mass shooters since January 2009 could have slipped through NICS" (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).

Such statements are part of a larger push for gun control that has temporarily moved from expanding background checks to discrediting, then revamping, our current NICS background check system.

WaPo got this information from "a July 2014 study by [Michael Bloomberg's] Everytown for Gun Safety." 

The biggest problem with claiming that "every... mass shooter since January 2009" could have passed a NICS background check is that the claim is false, and demonstrably so.

For example, Jared Padgett – the Reynolds High School gunman (June 10, 2014) – could not have passed a NICS background check because of his age alone. Padgett was only fifteen years old.

So he stole his guns.

Sandy Hook Elementary gunman Adam Lanza (December 14, 2012) did not pass a combined state/federal NICS background check. So he stole his guns too.

It is important to note that Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), the author of the Senate's failed expanded background check legislation, even admitted that his expanded background check bill would not have stopped the Sandy Hook gunman.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that journalist James Wright Foley, whom ISIS beheaded last week, was also waterboarded by the terrorist groups “several times.” The Post wrote, “James Foley was among the four [hostages] who were waterboarded several times by Islamic State militants who appeared to model the technique on the CIA’s use of waterboarding to interrogate suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.” One witness told the Post, “They knew exactly how it was done.”

This, of course, provided headline fodder over at The Huffington Post, where George W. Bush’s anti-terror policies are seen as the cause of every evil befalling mankind. The Post explained, “Waterboarding became perhaps the most notorious method of torture practiced by American interrogators in the years after September 11^th.” The rest of the media have fallen into line as well, suggesting that if America had not waterboarded terrorists, James Foley would have been spared waterboarding.

This may be correct. But focusing in on the waterboarding of James Foley seems mildly disproportionate given that ISIS cut off his head. And ISIS routinely engages in activities far worse for its victims than waterboarding, including systematic rape of women. Nonetheless, the leftist tendency to blame America’s war on terror – rather than its abandonment of Iraq – for the rise of ISIS seems to be growing in volume.

Speaking to the American Legion, President Obama stated, “The crisis in Iraq underscores how we have to meet today’s evolving terrorist threat. The answer is not to send in large scale military deployments that overstretch our military and lead for us occupying countries for a long period of time, and end up feeding extremism.”

The notion that America’s occupation of Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, rather than President Obama’s intervention in Syria, his vacating of Iraq, and his refusal to take military measures against ISIS in its initial run through Iraq, is ridiculous. But for Obama, American strength is always to blame for terrorists’ increase.

Obama isn’t alone in this notion.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made similar sounds with regard to Iraq in June. He stated, “What’s going on now I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq war on the chaos that is in the Middle East.”

Two weeks ago, Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek suggested that the rise of ISIS came thanks to the Bush administration’s failure to negotiate a new status of forces agreement – not Obama’s withdrawal of troops in 2011. And why couldn’t Bush negotiate a new status of forces agreement? According to Eichenwald:

The Iraqis steadfastly refused to continue granting immunity to American troops (it didn’t help that memories still lingered of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the Haditha incident, in which 24 Iraqi civilians were killed by American Marines).

Of course, that ignores reports from The New Yorker that Obama deeply wanted to withdraw all forces from Iraq:

President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said.

The left has long argued that American intransigence in the war on terror – and the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the utilization of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, the pictures from Abu Ghraib – have led to a rise in terror. But that’s a convenient argument rather than a correct one, given the fact that all of those preconditions existed long before the rise of ISIS. ISIS’ rise is a direct result of American fecklessness in the Middle East – a fecklessness that began under President Bush and has multiplied exponentially under President Obama. And to suggest that the CIA’s waterboarding of terrorists is somehow the cause of James Foley’s suffering is to ignore the nature of America’s enemies.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

 

Scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, have solved the mystery-phenomenon of Death Valley's moving rocks, which have for years moved across the desert on their own.

Theories which have been floating around since the 1940s surrounding the movement of the rocks, which zig-zag across California's Racetrack Playa in Death Valley National Park, have finally been proven with the formal discovery that the rocks are propelled forward by winds "on sunny, clear days, following nights of sub-freezing temperatures." That according to a report which was published by researchers, and cousins, Richard Norris and James Norris in the online scientific journal PLOS ONE on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

The pair concluded that on rare occasions when the desert would receive overnight rains, the cold temperatures – which are common during the winter months – would freeze the moisture, creating ice sheets. Those ice sheets would then be melted by the rising desert sun, resulting in a muddy and slippery surface on the flat and ordinarily hard ground. The slippery surface moisture in conjunction with light winds would then propel the rocks forward.

"We were sitting on a mountainside and admiring the view when a light wind kicked up and the ice started cracking. Suddenly, the whole process unfolded before our eyes," said Richard Norris to the Los Angeles Times.

In December of last year, the cousins Norris compiled a list of 60 rocks which they noticed had moved across the Death Valley's playa surface, which used to be a lake bed. Following that, and with permission from the National Park Service, they reportedly installed a weather station along with 15 "GPS stones" which were engineered to record movement and velocity, notes the AP.

According to their report, the rocks would move at an average of 15 feet per minute.

The "GPS stones" were placed in the same area of the playa where the mysterious moving rocks would begin their journey after they would come tumbling down from the cliffs. Upon their return to the site at the end of last year, the Norris's noticed "fresh rock trails near shards of thin ice stacked up along the shoreline." That is when they witnessed first-hand the phenomenon unfold before their eyes.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) slammed officials in the Obama administration for failing to anticipate the threat of ISIS while guest-hosting “The Sean Hannity Show” on Friday.  He declared “we have politicians that are simply clueless.”

Gohmert directed particularly pointed criticism at CIA Director John Brennan, stating, “The man has no clue about the threat that is facing us.” And “I guess between the NSA and CIA, they’re spending so much time listening to and reading about what American citizens are saying.  They’re so worried about veterans and people that are clinging to their God and their gun ... [that] they hadn’t come to grips with the fact that there really are people who want to have a caliphate.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Twenty live giant millipedes were seized after arriving from Germany in a large foam box labeled “toy car model” and landing at a San Francisco mail facility.

The large package arrived in the U.S. Postal Service International Service Center at SFO and was run as usual through x-ray screening.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agriculture specialists singled out the package for further inspection due to an anomaly observed during x-ray. Upon further examination, the package was found to contain the giant, foot-long millipedes inside a large mesh bag within a large foam box. The bag also contained large chunks of soil and paper.

“Customs and Border Protection officers and agriculture specialists routinely x-ray and inspect packages arriving from foreign locations for contraband and other prohibited items before they are permitted to enter the U.S.,” said Brian J. Humphrey, CBP director of Field Operations in San Francisco, who further stated, “The agriculture specialists on duty were quick to notice the deception and took the necessary action.”

CBP reported that importing exotic animals is not illegal; however, these imports do require permits and documentation and are regulated by federal agencies.

As this package was misrepresented with the label “toy car model” and lacked proper documentation and permits, it was turned over to USDA. The package was referred for additional action, to the USDA-Smuggling Interdiction and Trade.

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Government engineered false-flag terrorism is a historically established fact. For centuries, political and financial elites have been sinking ships, setting buildings on fire, assassinating diplomats, overthrowing elected leaders, and blowing people up, then blaming these disasters on convenient scapegoats so that they can induce fear in the public and transfer more power to themselves. Skeptics might argue whether certain calamities have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be false-flag events, but no one can argue that such tactics have not been used by the establishment in the past. Governments have openly admitted to creating bloody and catalyzing tragedies under false pretenses, like Operation Gladio, a false-flag program in Europe supported by European and American covert agencies which lasted decades, from the 1950's to the 1990's.

Gladio utilized well-paid and trained rogue groups and agents as well as patsies, compartmentalized and controlled, who would commit atrocities against the European public. These atrocities would then be blamed on “left wing extremists”, galvanizing the citizenry and political representatives towards the false East/West paradigm. The superficial motivation given by whistleblowers was that Gladio was to be used to keep the right wing in power. However, the broader and deeper goal was clearly to manipulate Europeans into accepting a unification mindset, paving the way for the eventual centralization of Europe into the EU supranational block. Gladio, is only one well documented example of false-flag terrorism being exploited by governments to mold mass psychology towards greater collectivism.

It is therefore vital that the public question the legitimacy of EVERY so-called “terrorist attack” or geopolitical incident, otherwise, we may find ourselves duped into supporting wars and unconstitutional actions that only end up poisoning our society and elevating tyrants.

Why do I believe a new false-flag event is imminent? America has not suffered a large scale terrorist attack for over 13 years, after all. I can only say that current trends and international developments seem to be spiraling towards a breaking point; a kind of singularity, and if you understand that the majority of these events are deliberately engineered, then you also understand that the inevitable singularity (or primary disaster) is engineered as well.

The foremost current threat and most useful scapegoat is, of course, the ISIS insurgency in the Middle East. If one's source of information was the mainstream media alone, one might be inclined to believe that ISIS has materialized out of nowhere to become a menace so organized and effective it has eclipsed Al-Qaeda as the hot button boogeyman used by the establishment. ISIS is certainly a disturbing militant group that goes out of its way to play the villain, complete with scary Muslim clothing and beards, not to mention the severed heads and indiscriminate genocide. Where is Jack Bauer when you need him, right?

The cartoonish nature of ISIS is not accidental, but I can see why they frighten a subset of the American population; if I didn't know that they were funded by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, with military aid from Israel, then I might find them a terrifying enigma as well.

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was held at a U.S. run detention facility called Camp Bucca from 2005 until 2009. Before his imprisonment, Baghdadi's friends and family reported him to be a “quiet, studious fellow who was also a talented soccer player”. Only one year after being released from U.S. detention, however, he was a fanatical Islamic extremist who would go on to command the ISIS caliphate. In 2011, the U.S. State Department listed Bagdhadi as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” with a bounty of $10 million. There is no public record as to why Baghdadi was originally detained.

Former U.S. Air Force security officer, James Skylar Gerrond, served at Camp Bucca while Bagdhadi was held there, and is quoted as saying "Many of us at Camp Bucca were concerned that instead of just holding detainees, we had created a pressure cooker for extremism." Indeed...

Let's look at the culmination of events that led to the current incarnation that is ISIS:

George W. Bush signed and Barack Obama enforced (sorry politifact cultists, but they are BOTH to blame) a new foreign policy framework which allowed the release of numerous (and now somehow radicalized) prisoners from facilities like Camp Bucca in 2009.

The Libyan civil war erupts, as “rebels” are aided by the CIA and multiple foreign governments. These are the same rebels who would ultimately participate in the Benghazi raid on a U.S. consulate/CIA complex.

Libyan agents along with CIA operatives move into Jordan, where they have been training Syrian insurgents for over a year (officially - much longer unofficially), and still train them to this day, despite the apprehensions of the Jordanian government.

Libyan insurgents along with newly trained operatives have also shifted into Syria, turning general civil unrest into outright war.

ISIS recently gave praise to one of its commanders, a man from Libya, who had fought in the Libyan civil war, and in Syria, and in Iraq.

The U.S. has been secretly arming and training ISIS extremists in Syria for years, but only at the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 did it begin a more open campaign to provide support.

The Israeli government also aided insurgent groups in Syria using airstrikes to cripple Syrian Government regional command centers. It is also currently providing medical aid to Syrian rebels.

It was insurgent Sunni majority groups, trained in Jordan and funded by Saudi Arabia that have linked with Saudi funded groups in Iraq to form what we now know as ISIS. These are NOT separate groups acting autonomously. These are U.S. backed organizations acting in concert, and coalescing into a single movement – ISIS.

Violent genocidal actions, mass executions, as well as torture have become the common calling card of the establishment organized Islamic insurgent groups. Despite this horrifying development, Barack Obama is STILL seeking over $500 million in aid to Syrian rebels, though the rhetoric now specifies that funds and arms will only go to “moderate and well-vetted” insurgents. As far as I can tell, there are no “moderate” insurgents in Syria; insurgents that are now moving into Iraq and bringing their distinct brand of barbarism with them.

On the Council On Foreign Relations website, the globalist think-tank argued that the inclusion of extremist Al-Qaeda elements in the Syrian insurgency “improved the moral” of the movement, stating that the “Free Syrian Army needs Al-Qaeda now”. The CFR acknowledges that the goal of Al-Qaeda operatives in Syria is not necessarily to overthrow Assad, but to establish an Islamic state. Despite this, the CFR still continues its support of the strategy to overthrow Assad.

In an absurd display of forced schizophrenia, globalist organizations along with the puppet White House now argue that the existence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the same ISIS insurgency THEY CREATED, requires the U.S. to execute air strikes and military intervention in the region. Of course, to remain “fair and balanced”, the White House proposes to strike Syrian Government targets as well in order to avoid “strengthening Assad”. Yeah, read that twice, folks...

Remember the Syrian crisis at the end of last year? Remember how the U.S. and Russia were on the verge of conflict over Obama's funding of the insurgency as well as his proposal to provide air support? Well, now the plan is to utilize air strikes against the same insurgents we had originally planned to help with air strikes.

Now, I have asked this question in the past, and I'll ask it again – Is it merely irony that the White House is going to war with the covert militant group it gave birth to?

No, it is not irony. It is planned. ISIS is the new and improved Al-Qaeda. All of the terrorist disaster scenarios showcased in propaganda shows like '24' that seem rather ridiculous to many Americans if plotted by Al-Qaeda goat herders hiding in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan now become believable if plotted by highly organized and savvy ISIS operatives.

Don't believe ISIS is savvy? I don't either, aside from the CIA agents pulling their strings. However, DoD officials and others have been bombarding the mainstream media with one specific meme: ISIS is awesome!

Chuck Hagel, Department of Defense Secretary, has made statements claiming that “ISIL (ISIS) poses a threat greater than 9/11... “

"They're beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology with a sophisticated strategic and tactical military prowess and they're tremendously well-funded. This is way beyond anything we have seen. We must prepare for everything. Get Ready!"

U.S. Special Operations sources argue that ISIS is an “incredible fighting force”, acting more like a “state with a military” than a disorganized band of guerrillas. I would argue that ISIS tactics appear sophisticated exactly because they are receiving sophisticated direction from state funded covert intelligence agencies like the CIA.

Retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney recently revealed that he believed a new 9/11 event is looming, and I would like to note that even if this is true, the Neo-Conservatives are no more a solution to the problem than the Neo-Liberals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee claims that ISIS members are “rapidly developing a method of blowing up a major U.S. city...”

Governor Rick Perry of Texas (a Bilderberg attendee) claims that ISIS agents may have already crossed into the U.S. from Mexico.

In the meantime, Senators on both sides of the fake aisle are warning the Obama Administration that ISIS is the “best funded terror group in history”.

With all this hype circling ISIS, I have to suggest that maybe, just maybe, we are being given the ultimate scapegoat for the ultimate false flag attack. When building the narrative of a traditional story, the hero is really a secondary character, because the hero is only as impressive as the villain he must eventually defeat. If you look at mainstream media and geopolitics as a theater script, rather than a series of random events, it appears as though ISIS is being built up as a villain so pervasive and devious the group could accomplish ANYTHING.

I believe the time is in fact ripe for a large scale false-flag on American soil. It may be a singular attack limited to a city or region, or, numerous smaller attacks executed in concert. I see the media overload of ISIS fever as a means to condition the public to believe in the ISIS myth – the myth that they are a sophisticated international super-terrorist conglomerate; a real life Legion of Doom. If Americans are conned into buying this myth, they may also be fooled into abandoning their Constitutional liberties and natural freedoms in the face of a well planned attack blamed on ISIS elements.  I believe there will likely come a day when the mere act of exposing the lie or standing against government overreach will be called "treason", and people like myself will be labeled "no better than ISIS".

If an attack does take place in the name of ISIS, it is vital that Americans remember that this is not the violent invasion of a foreign army, that there is no Islamic enemy except that which our government created, that this is not some unexpected form of “blowback” from terrorists who used to be our allies, that this is an engineered attack by contracted employees of our own defense and intelligence apparatus leading a horde of useful psychopaths, and just like during Operation Gladio, the goal will be to terrify you and those around you into seeking out a more powerful, more centralized government authority to protect your security, to provide cover for the continued planned collapse of American society into third world status, and out of these ashes, the centralization of the political and financial foundations of our world into the hands of an elite few.

Analyst: Fed's low interest rates could bring 'scary' 60% market crash...


(First column, 7th story, link)

---

Most people enjoy an open floor plan these days, but it's impossible to achieve that look in older homes without taking down a few walls. Since some of those walls might be keeping the rest of the house standing, it's important to understand how load-bearing walls work and be able to identify them.

Read more...

Our intrepid editor traveled to the incomparable Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance in California at the wheel of an equally impressive BMW i8. Read on for further adventures…

A Ferrari won Best in Show at the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance, and without a doubt it was Ferraris that dominated the show field.

In particular the awe-inspiring sight of 20—you read that correctly—Ferrari 250 Testa Rossas lined up in a row.

With coachwork by the likes of chief designer Scaglietti and Fantuzzi—including several “pointy snout” models as in the example above—over $100 million worth of Modenas finest was one of the most amazing displays one is ever likely to see in the world of classic automobiles.

There were both street and racing versions on display, including some rare and well-known cars including one-offs worth many millions in their own right.

A good example can go for $8 million or more, while the record price achieved was for a 1957 model sold in 2011 for $16.4 million.

That makes the Testa Rossa, or TR, second only to the legendary 250 GTO in terms of the world’s most expensive Ferrari model.

The distinctive design was inspired by Formula 1 race cars.

Of course, Testa Rossa racers were some of the most successful in their day, with variations emerging victorious at Le Mans in 1958, 1960 and 1961.

Only 34 were built between 1956 and 1961, so the Pebble field represented the lion’s share of those still extant.

The name “Testa Rossa,” in case you were wondering, means “red head” and refers to its valve covers.

Of course, this being Pebble Beach, there were plenty of other fabulous Ferraris to be found dotted about the greens.

Our favorites included a couple of 275 GTBs—the coolest prancing horse ever, in our opinion—as well as some earlier 250 models and one-offs like James Glickenhaus’s 1967 Ferrari 206 Dino Competizione Pininfarina Coupe with gullwing doors.

And though the 1954 Ferrari 375 MM that took home top honors wasn’t our favorite of the bunch, it certainly caught the judges’ attention.

So feast your eyes on our selection of photos from this once-in-a-lifetime occasion—and don’t say we never do anything for you…

All images © Jared Paul Stern / DRIVEN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All images © Jared Paul Stern / DRIVEN

EL PASO, Texas — A Mexican national who was deported seven times from the U.S. after incarceration for crimes vows to illegally re-enter during an interview with Breitbart Texas. The discussion occurred across the U.S.-Mexico border at the point where Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico meet near El Paso, Texas. The only indication of the international boundary in the area is a sign and a few small steal posts driven in the ground.

The illegal alien vowed to return in “a couple of months” and acknowledged that he had served time in either a jail or prison in Texas. This reporter can be seen in the video sitting just a few feet from the man; he is in Mexico and this reporter is in the United States. The man spoke English well and acknowledged that he illegally lived within Texas with his family. He acknowledged going to school in the U.S. and said he served a month in jail before being deported a month ago. 

The man told Breitbart Texas that he intended to illegally cross the border in Laredo, Texas.

Breitbart Texas reporter Ildefonso Ortiz and producer Dan Fleuette can also be heard asking question in the video.

Follow Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby on Twitter: @brandondarby

HOUSTON, Texas — The scandal has intensified surrounding Transportation Security Administration (TSA) allowing illegal aliens to fly without sufficient identification and lying about the matter to news outlets and to the American public. Border Patrol agent Hector Garza joined the popular Fox and Friends morning news show to publicly confront the TSA. “It was a bold attempt to fool the American public,” said Agent Garza, acting as spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) Local 2455.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

The TSA scandal first erupted when Border Patrol agents came forward and alerted the public that the TSA was allowing illegal aliens to fly on domestic commercial airliners with only a Notice to Appear form, a document often based solely on the word of the illegal alien as to who they are and where they are from. The agents went to the NBPC with their information and the council then spoke out publicly.

This reporter broke the news on Breitbart Texas and almost immediately the head TSA spokesman used social media to claim that both this reporter and the Border Patrol agents were lying about the report.

Ultimately, a Texas congressman wrote the TSA about the matter and the TSA acknowledged in an official letter that they were in fact allowing illegal immigrants to fly with the easily replicated forms.

Follow Breitbart Texas Managing Director on Twitter: @brandondarby

In polite society, the correct opinion to hold about Scottish independence is that the Union must stay together. But I've been wondering: might not England thrive, freed from the yoke of those whining, kilted leeches? The more you think about it, the more persuasive the argument seems to be.

I've been invited to debate this question - whether or not we long-suffering Sassenachs would be better off without our sponging Caledonian neighbours  - in early September, at a debate held by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.

How might I begin? Well, there are of course the immediate political consequences. A break-up of the Union would be indelible on David Cameron's record, and absolutely devastating to his reputation and legacy. Never mind anything else the Tories have achieved in government: Cameron would go down in history as the PM who lost Scotland. 

But, as joyful as the prospect of Dave's humiliation will be to some Breitbart London readers, there are even more spectacular potential effects. Not only will the West Lothian Question be settled in the only satisfactory manner possible, but the structural bias in our constituency boundaries that favours the Labour Party will be blown apart. 

Now, you might not think much of the Conservatives - and you would not be alone in the comment section, I suspect - but I think we can all agree that, given the choice, we'd rather the Tories had the electoral upper hand. Not only can we send Cameron off into retirement in disgrace, but we can safeguard our own country against Ed Miliband. 

Let's consider for a moment how Scotland herself might fare. In my view, she would be well served by some time alone to consider who she really is. Historically, Scotland was renowned across the world for entrepreneurial spirit and engineering genius. Both reputations have been lost after a century of Labour government and the overweening arrogance and control freakery of the trades unions.  

These days, Scotland is more commonly associated with work-shy dole scroungers and skag-addled prostitutes than with the industriousness of Adam Smith or with its glorious pre-Reformation spirituality. Sorry, no offence, but it's true. 

Absent subsidies from the British taxpayer, supposedly "Scottish" institutions might be forced to rediscover their zeal for enterprise. They're Scottish in name only, you understand, paid for by the English. So you see, independence might be a way for this once-great nation to shine again. 

A country that loses no opportunity to paint itself as independent, despite being the recipient of largesse from elsewhere, and which drones on and on and on about its "rich heritage" and "distinct identity" - almost to the point of psychosis - should really be given the chance to prove how exceptional it is. Don't you think? 

It's true that after independence Scotland would have to take some hard decisions. They won't get the pound, and any new Scottish currency would be so quickly devalued the country would be forced to start exporting to the Congo. So it's the euro. And I think we all know how that would end for a country whose net contribution to the Union would be wholly negative. 

But, although the Scots have an unparalleled national genius for misery, they also have an innate national resourcefulness and cunning. Just look at Alex Salmond's ducking and diving, and his crude, disingenuous populism. Give Scots something to be really miserable about – say, the need to slash government spending to within an inch of its life – and that entrepreneurial vigour we were just talking about might reappear.

A newly independent Scotland, with a revived sense of national pride, would be an attractive place for the current generation of Scottish broadcasters, every one of whom seems to be ensconced in London at the BBC. "Aural torture" is perhaps putting it too strongly, but can anyone deny the benefit to Radio 4 of the repatriation of James Naughtie? Jeremy Hunt, for one, is sure to be relieved.

Returning to England, then, let us imagine a Kingdom relieved of burdensome Scottish misanthropy. Surely it would experience an almost immediate burst of post-divorce gaiety. Think of our city centres, free of garrulous Glaswegian drunks slurping Buckfast tonic wine, or English literary festivals liberated from sour, spiky-haired Caledonian lesbians hawking grim thrillers about child abuse.

And here’s one last, even more delicious prospect: right-on Scottish stand-up comedians permanently banished to Edinburgh, where their ancient jokes about Thatcher or the Pope will make their equally ossified Stalinist audiences laugh so bitterly that Scotland’s famously dedicated healthcare workers will be left mopping up the leakage.

It makes you wonder whether we shouldn't offer up Liverpool as well, to sweeten the deal. After all, the north of England is in a similarly bad state. What do you reckon of my modest proposal? Would a taste of the Calvinist lash persuade that feckless and conceited community to get off its behind and look for work? Why not let Holyrood underwrite their disability benefits bill for a while, and see what happens?

Some upgrades are subjective—like moving from pen and paper to a digital note-taker. Other upgrades, however, change the way you use technology, and make it impossible to go back to something inferior. Here are 10 of those things.

Read more...

Because average prices for similar goods are much higher in California or New York than in Mississippi or South Dakota, The Tax Foundation notes points out that the same amount of dollars will buy you comparatively less in the high-price states, or comparatively more in low-price states. Regional price differences are strikingly large, and have serious policy implications. The same amount of dollars are worth almost 40 percent more in Mississippi than in DC, and the differences become even larger if metro area prices are considered instead of statewide averages.

 

 

For example, Tennessee is a low-price state, where $100 will buy what would cost $110.25 in another state that is closer to the national average. You can think of this as meaning that Tennesseans are about ten percent richer than their nominal incomes suggest.

The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57). That same money goes the furthest in Mississippi ($115.74), Arkansas ($114.16), Missouri ($113.51), Alabama (113.51), and South Dakota ($113.38).

A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer.

 

Source: The Tax Foundation

I am so happy we have the TSA. And now that the TSA is unionized things are sure to only get better! This happened in July but it’s still worth a view. Not to worry though TSA is on it now.

Read More

50,000 Bees Found Living In NYC Woman's Ceiling...


(Third column, 14th story, link)

---

As a photographer, whether it be professional or hobbyist, you have several skill sets to juggle and many hats to wear; you’ll need to be an artist when composing your photo’s scene, technically proficient with your camera and settings, and in the case of professionals, an adept businessperson who can maintain a business and satisfy clients consistently.

One of the most important roles you play as a photo enthusiast is that of image editor. Rarely do our images come straight out of the camera exactly as we had envisioned, so before release we are required to put our shots through the post-processing phase; this is where our raw photos are enhanced, adjusted, toned, and sharpened to give us the final image we want to deliver.

Although we have many tools at our disposal these days to help us through this phase of processing, the industry juggernaut has undoubtedly been Adobe Photoshop since its first version’s release in 1990. The software has been used by amateurs and professionals alike year after year, and is considered an essential part of most photographer’s toolboxes.

Through the following years, and the popularity surge of digital photography, Adobe realized the need for a tool more targeted for photographers, and in 2007, released Lightroom. This workflow-centric and management software has become incredibly popular in its own right, and maintains a massive following in today’s industry.

So the obvious question is, as a photographer, which software package do you need? Both titles are excellent and carry their own strengths and weaknesses, so let’s drill down and examine them in a bit more detail to discover which one is right for you!

What we require in post-processing software

Rarely do we get a perfect result in camera that allows us to bypass the post-processing workflow, and even then, some editing is almost always required to prepare the photo for different mediums.

Generally, photos will need to be altered in size, adjusted for exposure and contrast, edited for blemishes or other imperfections, and possibly toned or have their appearance altered through filters, presets or other means. The file then needs to be exported in its final format, ready for the client, printing, or for web use.

Photoshop’s strengths

• Pixel-level editing - images created or opened in Photoshop are comprised of pixels, which are the small physical points in a raster image, and are the smallest addressable elements in a photo. The software allows for editing even at this tiny level, meaning limitless manipulation is possible. Raster and vector images can be created from scratch.
• Layers – Photoshop allows for multiple layers to be stored within a master file, meaning that you can keep different images or edits on separate layers, and then hide, modify or enhance any of those layers independently.
  

  Photoshop’s layers

  

  Layer blending modes in Photoshop

• Actions  – an extremely useful feature, actions allow manipulation steps to be chained together and recorded, letting you recreate an entire editing process with a click of the mouse.
• Compositing and blending - because of the ability to layer components within an image, it is possible to blend those layers together in unique ways. Masking allows you to protect specific parts of the photo from any adjustments being made down to the pixel level, simply by painting out the area you’d like to keep.
• Huge toolbox – each progressive release of Photoshop seems to bring more and more useful tools into the mix. From content-aware filling, reducing camera shake effects, photo filters, and automatic panoramic image stitching, there is a tool for almost every task a photographer would need.

Photoshop’s weaknesses

• Steeper learning curve - with great power comes… a steep learning curve. Although you have a massive array of tools at your disposal, mastering them is something that takes time and practice.
• No built-in RAW editing - unlike Lightroom’s native ability to manipulate RAW files directly from your camera, Photoshop must rely on a plugin like ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) or something similar in order to import and modify these files.
• No image management - Photoshop is built from the ground up to be a powerful image creation and editing tool. Although there are batch import and export tools available to make some aspects of the process easier, there isn’t a fully-recognized  built-in management or workflow system for photographers.

Lightroom’s strengths

• Built-in RAW editing – no plugin required! Lightroom natively accepts RAW files straight from your camera, and allows all of the editing you’d expect from within the software.
• Image management and workflow centric - Lightroom was born from the desire to give photographers something better to manage their photo libraries with.  The entire program is based on creating a solid, consistent workflow that will help you make the most of the post-processing phase.
  

  Lightroom’s image management system

• Simple and easy to use - since Lightroom doesn’t have the huge toolbox found in Photoshop, there is MUCH less to learn. Everything from the tools available, to the interface itself, is simple and easy to manipulate.
• Presets - a photographer’s dream; imagine having the ability to string together exposure levels, contrast, and toning, and then save those to a handy file. Then imagine you can have unlimited variances of these, and apply them to any photo with a click of the mouse. Welcome to Lightroom’s presets! Photographers around the world share these online as well, giving you limitless potential options for your photo’s look and feel.

Lightroom’s weaknesses

• No advanced editing tools - because Lightroom wasn’t intended as a full-on raster editor, most of the editing functions Photoshop users take for granted are not present here. With the exception of a few basic tools, you’ll want to use Photoshop in situations where heavy image editing is necessary.
• No layer management - the powerful layer system in Photoshop is non-existent as well. Effects and modifications can be stacked on an image, but there is no real separation of image segments or any ability to use blending modes.
• Photos only - again, Lightroom is intended as a workflow system for photographers, meaning you’ll only be able to import existing photos and modify them; there are no raster or vector image creation tools to be found here as there are in Photoshop. Lightroom is assuredly one-track minded.

 

Creative Cloud and pricing models

?Up until fairly recently, Photoshop would have had one additional disadvantage compared to Lightroom, and that would be price. In the past, purchasing Photoshop could set you back $400 to $900, depending on the version and any discounts you could use.  Comparatively, Lightroom could be had for less than $100. The huge up front cost made buying Photoshop outright a financial strain for budding photographers on a slim budget.

Those days are gone, thanks to Adobe’s awesome cloud and subscription program. As of the last release, all of Adobe’s main products have been converted to cloud-based programs and are all rooted in the new Creative Cloud subscription model. Generally, $20 per month will give you unlimited access to one Adobe title, such as Photoshop or Lightroom, and ample cloud storage, enabling you access to your files regardless of where you were. $50 per month will give you access to Adobe’s entire Creative Cloud suite, which is quite a deal.

This year, however, Adobe unveiled their Photography Program, and if you haven’t already gotten involved, you might want to take a look. For less than $10 per month, Adobe gives you Photoshop CC AND Lightroom CC, along with the aforementioned cloud storage. It’s an unbeatable deal, and eliminates the need to pick and choose which image program to use.

Which one is right for you?

Since pricing is no longer an issue, the choice as to which program to use for your photography work comes down to what is most important to you.

Use Lightroom if…

You value a smooth clean workflow more than infinite control over the editing of your images. Having said that, Lightroom is no slouch when it comes to processing photos, and you can recreate almost any look using the controls available to you in this software.

The presets provide an endless array of styles, and thousands more are available on the internet. Lightroom’s clean, efficient interface will allow you to process those multiple wedding or portrait shots quickly and consistently, and make managing all of those photos simpler than you could have imagined.

Use Photoshop if…

You need more control over your images. Photoshop can do it all, but of course the cost of that is a higher learning curve. Quick presets are not what the program does best; instead, it offers complete image editing with masks, layers, and a multitude of other tools, giving you all of the options you could ever need.

At the end of the day…

BOTH titles can be an integral part of the post-processing workflow.  Like anything else they both have strengths and weaknesses.  Fortunately, with Adobe’s wonderful new Creative Cloud subscription model, you can enjoy both programs, and employ the advantages of each within your workflow, without breaking your bank.

For more information and tutorials on both programs check out these dPS articles:

• Save Tons of Editing Time with Lightroom Presets
• A Concise Guide to Lightroom Develop Presets
• 4 Quick Tips For Getting The Most Out of Lightroom Presets
• How to Convert Photos to Black and White in Lightroom
• Improve Your Images with the Lightroom Graduated Filter Tool
• 3 Easy Steps Using Photoshop to Making your Images POP
• Ten Go-to Editing Tips for Using Photoshop
• 6 Commonly Used and Confused Tools in Photoshop Explained
• Changing Color in Photoshop
• Photoshop Tutorial: How to Color, Brighten and Sharpen Eyes

The post Photoshop Versus Lightroom Which is Right for You? by Tim Gilbreath appeared first on Digital Photography School.

On August 21 the California State Assembly voted 66-1 to pass AB 2444, banning the state from selling Confederate flags or displaying them.

An exemption would exist for "the flag's use in school textbooks, public museums and other educational settings."

According to The Huffington Post, AB 2444 was sponsored by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton). Hall said, "No Californian should be exposed to the kind of hate or threat of violence caused by the display of the Confederate flag."

Hall says his bill "respects Constitutional protections" inasmuch as it restricts "government speech, not individual speech." He said the bill also sends "a strong message that California and its taxpayers will not be in the business of promoting racism, exclusion, oppression or violence toward others."

In July, CA Governor Jerry Brown (D) "had all Confederate Flag materials swiftly removed from the California State Fair" after Hall complained about their "increased presence."

AB 2444 now goes to Brown to be signed.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Even as controversy swirls on nearly a daily basis over the name of the Washington Redskins, residents of Wiscasset, Maine, succeeded in getting a street renamed "Redskin's Drive" even after local schools were forced to abandon the name.

Four years ago schools in Wiscasset bowed to pressure to remake the district's mascot. They jettisoned the "Redskins" and took on the name "Wolverines" instead. But residents of a private lane in the town as well as members of their town council were not ready to wipe the name from the town's history.

A group living on the private drive submitted a list of names for the street to the town council, one of which was "Redskin's Drive" and when the matter of selecting the name of the street came before the council, Selectmen Vice Chairman Ben Rines, Jr. asked, "What’s wrong with Redskin’s Drive?"

Town Manager Marian Anderson erred on the safe side of the matter saying, "I have no opinion on that."

But Rines wasn't done and went on noting that he was educated in Wiscasset schools that proudly featured the Redskins name. "I graduated a Redskin, and I will always be a Redskin," he exclaimed.

When the issue came to a vote, Rines and Selectman Barnes and Merry voted to approve the new street name. Only one board member voted no, Selectwoman Pam Dunning. Selectman Jeff Slack abstained.

Explaining her "no" vote, Dunning claimed that many Native Americans do not like the use of the name. "They consider it very bigoted," she huffed.

Resident Ashley Gagnon, who will now be living on the newly minted Redskin's Drive, said she was overjoyed about the name. "We should be proud," she insisted. Gagnon went to the local schools when they were "Redskins" and also says she has Native American ancestry but isn't offended at all by the use of the name. She told the Wiscasset Newspaper that she hoped to lessen controversy by using the singular "Redskin" for the street name in that she believes it refers to any former "Redskin" who participated on the town's teams.

After the meeting, Selectman Rines spoke more about his reasoning on adopting the new street name.

"As I said in the meeting Tuesday night, I am a native of Wiscasset and went through the Wiscasset schools and was a Wiscasset Redskin all my life, and I don’t see it as a disparaging word whatsoever," Rines told the media. "Our heritage should be respected as much as any others."

The school system in Wiscasset was more or less forced to abandon the name under threat of lawsuits when the schools joined RSU district 12 in 2010.

But Rines opposes the change at his schools.

"I didn’t grow up knowing or even thinking that redskin is a bad word. It’s only since the politically correct police come along has it been a bad word. To me, redskin is synonymous with Wiscasset," Rines said.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com

Nearly four in five Americans don't think the Redskins should change their name. Support among Washington Post editorial board members for ditching "Redskins" remains significantly higher.

The Redskins' hometown paper has long called on the team to come up with a new nickname from its editorial-page perch. But the newspaper that brought down Richard Nixon hasn't been as effective in bringing down "Redskins." Impotent to get ownership to change the name, the editorial page has decided to stop using the word that they have long called on the team to stop using. And in true grandstander fashion, the Post uses the forbidden word to headline their editorial boasting that they refuse to use the forbidden word any longer. That's not a promising start to the Washington Redskins becoming the Washington Redacteds.

The Post announces that "the matter seems clearer to us now than ever, and while we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves." Presumably, the 79 percent of Americans who disagree with the Post don't represent "thoughtful opinion," to say nothing of "common decency." 

The Post fingers former NFL referee Mike Carey, who earlier this week admitted to asking out of officiating Redskins games because of objections to the name, as one figure representing such attributes. The editorial praised his "quiet integrity." The Post points out, "He never made any announcement about it."

The Post could have imitated Carey's "quiet integrity" and permitted self-censorship for writers objecting to the word without fanfare. Instead, they did the opposite. They made a loud announcement that they so object to the term that anybody writing in the name of the editorial page no longer would be permitted to say "Redskins." At the same time that they say this, they do the opposite by using the term--as though quotation marks quoting no one in particular work as as a magic trick enabling them to say the word without actually saying it--in the headline and the text of the article. The do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do approach sums up Washington nicely.

Rather than focus on the nickname, the Post would be wise to ponder the widespread public disapproval of the geographic designation that the team shares with the newspaper. Just 11 percent of respondents told the Associated Press that the Redskins should change their name. Do more Americans have a favorable opinion of Washington?

Hail to the Redskins. Washington? Not so much.

Say what you want about gold but it has held its value for thousands of years. The fiat dollar? Well let’s just say its been a steady march toward becoming trash.

If we want a high value economy, if we want high value jobs, we should have “high value” money. Sound money. Gold backed money. We should have money which can’t be eroded at the whim of our central bank.

Read More

Granted it’s a metals company. But this is a trend which is quietly spreading around the world.

Read More

How’s this for a depressing passage. It comes from the attached article.

“There’s just a lot more regulation going on,” Zelizer said. “There’s a lot of intersection between the economy and Washington.”

Read More

I have begun reading The Lion's Gate, an oral history of the Six-Day War by the talented military author Steven Pressfield. During that war, Israel was a tiny, poor country surrounded by enemies bent on its annihilation. And yet it stunned the world by defeating all its enemies with stunning speed [...]