Five years have passed since the onset of what is sometimes called the Great Recession. While the economy has slowly improved, there are still millions of Americans leading lives of quiet desperation: without jobs, without resources, without hope.

Who was to blame? Was it simply a result of negligence, of the kind of inordinate risk-taking commonly called a "bubble," of an imprudent but innocent failure to maintain adequate reserves for a rainy day? Or was it the result, at least in part, of fraudulent practices, of dubious mortgages portrayed as sound risks and packaged into ever more esoteric financial instruments, the fundamental weaknesses of which were intentionally obscured?

If it was the former - if the recession was due, at worst, to a lack of caution - then the criminal law has no role to play in the aftermath. For in all but a few circumstances (not here relevant), the fierce and fiery weapon called criminal prosecution is directed at intentional misconduct, and nothing less. If the Great Recession was in no part the handiwork of intentionally fraudulent practices by high-level executives, then to prosecute such executives criminally would be "scapegoating" of the most shallow and despicable kind.

But if, by contrast, the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years. Indeed, it would stand in striking contrast to the increased success that federal prosecutors have had over the past fifty years or so in bringing to justice even the highest-level figures who orchestrated mammoth frauds. Thus, in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the "junk bond" bubble that, in many ways, was a precursor of the more recent bubble in mortgage-backed securities, the progenitors of the fraud were all successfully prosecuted, right up to Michael Milken.

In temporarily blocking enforcement of the part of President Obama's health care law that requires many employers to provide health insurance coverage for birth control or face penalties, Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday opened a second

The initial front opened in November, when the justices agreed to hear a pair of cases from for-profit companies challenging that provision. Now Justice Sotomayor has ordered the Obama administration to file a brief by Friday morning responding to a different kind of challenge, this one from groups affiliated with religious organizations.

In the meantime, she issued a temporary injunction barring the administration from enforcing the birth control requirement against an order of Colorado nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and related groups.

After the brief is filed, Justice Sotomayor or the full court could extend or dissolve Tuesday's temporary injunction while litigation moves forward in the lower courts. It is also possible that the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case immediately.

To understand the context of Justice Sotomayor's decision, it helps to look at the details of the Affordable Care Act. The law distinguishes among three kinds of organizations: religious employers, for-profit corporations and nonprofit groups affiliated with religious organizations but not owned or controlled by them.

The facts that we know so far - from Fisa court documents to LOVEINT - show that the NSA has overstepped its powers

Time and again since the world learned the extent of what the NSA was doing, government officials have defended the controversial mass surveillance programs by falling back on one talking point: the NSA programs may be all-powerful, but they have never been abused.

President Obama continually evokes the phase when defending the NSA in public. In his end-of-year press conference, he reiterated, "There continues not to be evidence that the [metadata surveillance] program had been abused". Former NSA chief Michael Hayden says this almost weekly, and former CIA deputy director and NSA review panel member Mike Morrell said it again just before Christmas.

This mantra is likely to be repeated often in 2014 as Obama is set to address the nation on government surveillance, and Congress and the president debate whether any reforms are necessary.

There's only one problem: it's not true.

Israel and its powerful lobby in Washington D.C. are considered a risk to "our Western politics," said a London-based political activist on Monday, in a reference to Tel Aviv's opposition to a newly-reached nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 - the five permanent members of the UN Security council plus Germany.

People around the world start to realize that the price we are paying "for the Jewish lobby's interfering with our Western politics is severe," said Gilad Atzmon in a phone interview with Press TV.

After Iran and the six world powers reached an interim deal in Geneva on Nov. 24 over Tehran's nuclear energy program, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fiercely opposed the agreement calling it "weak and desperate."

Netanyahu even appealed to members of the US Congress as negotiations were underway to kill the Geneva deal, which is set to ease some of sanctions imposed on Tehran.

Atzmon said "it is Israel that imposes civil threats, not just to the region but to the world" but now it is opposing a deal that will bring peace to the region.

The Israeli regime is obliterating Palestine through its continued expansionist policies while the world turns a blind eye to the plight of Palestinians, says a political analyst.

"Over the past 20 years, Palestine has been plundered by Israel, its rich arable lands confiscated, its water resources rerouted to benefit illegal settlers and its people treated as mere cattle awaiting slaughter," Catherine Shakdam wrote in a Monday article for Press TV.

"After decades of injustice, humiliation and bloodshed, the land of Palestine is but a shadow of its former self, a fractured country whose ever-shrinking borders will soon collapse on themselves to leave behind only the memory of what once was," she added.

Shakdam said the Tel Aviv regime has mastered the practicing of "apartheid" policies over the past decades, adding, "Far beyond security concerns, Israel seeks to eat away at Palestine until nothing is left but memories, believing otherwise would simply be utterly naïve."

Over the last seven months, we have learned an incredible amount about the government's post-9/11 surveillance efforts. But there is a crucial gap in our basic understanding.

We now know, for example, a good deal about how the government conducts surveillance that targets Americans, and about surveillance of foreigners that sweeps up Americans' international communications when the actual surveillance takes place on U.S. soil (for example, from a Google facility in the United States). But we still know very little about Executive Order 12,333, which governs the NSA's surveillance abroad - even when that surveillance sweeps up Americans' communications.

To fill that gap, the ACLU, along with the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, today filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding that the government release basic information about its use of Executive Order 12,333 to conduct surveillance of Americans' international communications.

The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning.

In a bulletin sent Christmas Eve to about 18,000 police organizations, the FBI said terrorists may use almanacs "to assist with target selection and pre-operational planning."

It urged officers to watch during searches, traffic stops and other investigations for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways.

"The practice of researching potential targets is consistent with known methods of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that seek to maximize the likelihood of operational success through careful planning," the FBI wrote.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the bulletin this week and verified its authenticity.

Established in 1920, Scholastic is the largest publisher and distributor of children's books in the world. Scholastic titles are found in thousands of schools and libraries across America, and also internationally.

It's Orwellian sounding history book series, 'Cornerstones of Freedom', contains many items with a Marxist-Globalist slant. The putrid vomit is sold to gullible parents, teachers, and administrators as "American History". Most disturbing of all the titles is one of its 2012 releases, entitled 'Homeland Security', in which the HS & TSA Army of liberty killing goons are glorified for their work in border protection, airline security, and disaster response.

This year's top stories get to the heart of critical issues like privacy, government transparency and government overreach. From the death of internet icon Aaron Swartz to the historic military trial of Chelsea Manning to unprecedented scrutiny of the drone campaign, RT correspondent Liz Wahl takes a look at the seven top stories we covered that the mainstream media underreported or overlooked 2013.

Anyone reviewing the data is likely to conclude that there must be some mistake. It doesn't seem possible that one out of twenty American families could each have made a million dollars since Obama became President, while the average American family's net worth has barely recovered. But the evidence comes from numerous reputable sources.

Some conservatives continue to claim that President Obama is unfriendly to business, but the facts show that the richest Americans and the biggest businesses have been the main - perhaps only - beneficiaries of the massive wealth gain over the past five years.

1. $5 Million to Each of the 1%, and $1 Million to Each of the Next 4%

From the end of 2008 to the middle of 2013 total U.S. wealth increased from $47 trillion to $72 trillion. About $16 trillion of that is financial gain (stocks and other financial instruments).

The richest 1% own about 38 percent of stocks, and half of non-stock financial assets. So they've gained at least $6.1 trillion (38 percent of $16 trillion). That's over $5 million for each of 1.2 million households.

The next richest 4%, based on similar calculations, gained about $5.1 trillion. That's over a million dollars for each of their 4.8 million households.

The least wealthy 90% in our country own only 11 percent of all stocks excluding pensions (which are fast disappearing). The frantic recent surge in the stock market has largely bypassed these families.