Today’s News 30th September 2016

• France's New Sharia Police

  Submitted by Yves Manou via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Are French institutions sacrificing one freedom for another? Is equality between men and women being sacrificed to freedom of religion (Islam) to impose its diktats on French society?
  • If someone still does not realize that the Islamic dress code is the Trojan horse of Islamist jihad, he will learn it fast.
  • For years, "big brothers" have been obliging their mothers and sisters to wear a veil when they go out. Now that this job is done, they have begun to fight non-Muslim women who wear shorts and skirts — no longer just in the sensitive Muslim "no-go zones" of the suburbs, where women no longer dare to wear skirts — but now also in the heart of big cities.
  • "The law guarantees women, in all fields, same equal rights as men."
  • What people do not seem to know is that in the heart of Paris, a Muslim man can insult a woman for drinking a cola in the street and is served in stores first, before women.
  • Many people evidently still do not know that Islam is a religion and a political movement at war with the West — and openly intent on subjugating the West. It must be responded to as such. The problem is, every time it is responded to as such, Muslim extremists run for cover under the claim of freedom of religion.
  • It is crucial for Western societies to start making a distinction between freedom of speech and incitement to violence, and to begin seriously penalizing attacks on innocents, as well as calls to attack innocents.

  The Council of State, the highest administrative court in France, decided that, to allow freedom of religion, the burkini must not be banned. At first the ruling looked sound: why should people not be able to wear what they wish when they wish? What is not visible, however, is that the harm comes later.

  If someone still does not realize that the Islamic dress code is the Trojan horse of Islamist jihad, he will learn it fast.

  A few recent incidents include:

  September 7. In Guingamp, Brittany, a 17-year-old girl in shorts was beaten by a man who considered her outfit "too provocative". Although the attacker escaped, so that the police have no idea who he is or what his background might be, it is a taste of things to come.

   

  September 7. In Toulon, southern France, two families were on a bicycle path when they were insulted by a gang of 10 "youths" (the French press uses "jeunes" [youths] in order not to say Arabs or Muslims). According to the local prosecutor, the "youths" shouted at the women, "whores!" and "strip naked!" When the women's husbands protested, the "youths" approached and a fight began. One of the husbands was found unconscious with multiple facial fractures.

   

  At first, the motive of the attack was reported to be linked to the women wearing shorts, but in fact the women were not wearing shorts; they were wearing leggings.

   

  July 19. In a resort in Garde-Colombe (Alps), a Moroccan man stabbed a woman and her three daughters, apparently because they were scantily dressed. One of the girls was seriously injured. The attacker, Mohamed, says that he was the "victim," because he claims the husband of the woman he stabbed scratched his own crotch in front of Mohamed's wife. According to the prosecutor, "the husband of the victim does not remember having made such a gesture."

   

  July 7. A day-camp center in Reims, eastern France, circulated a note asking parents to avoid dressing their daughters in skirts because of the improper conduct of boys aged 10 to 12. A mother published the document on Twitter and commented on Facebook: "Obviously the idea did not occur to them that it is not for little girls to adapt their dress to big creeps, but for big creeps to get educated? "

   

  In early June, 18-year-old Maude Vallet was threatened and spat on by a group of girls on a bus in Toulon because she was wearing shorts. She posted a photo of herself on Facebook with the caption, "Hello, I'm a slut." The posting was shared by more than 80,000 people. The attackers were Muslim girls, but Maude, according the "politically correct" who believe "thntdwi" (this has nothing to do with Islam), did not want to reveal their ethnic origin.

   

  April 22. Nadia, a 16-year-old girl wearing a skirt, was severely beaten in Gennevilliers, a suburb of Paris, by three girls who were apparently Muslims.

  Snapshots of France's new sharia police. Left: In Toulon, 18-year-old Maude Vallet was threatened and spat on by a group of Muslim girls on a bus, because she was wearing shorts. She posted a photo of herself on Facebook with the caption, "Hello, I'm a slut." Right: In a resort in Garde-Colombe, a Moroccan man stabbed a woman and her three daughters on July 19, apparently because they were scantily dressed.

  These cases were dramatically publicized in all media, both official and social. Ironically, however, none of these incidents triggered the international attention and outrage that greeted a Burkini incident in Nice: A woman, apparently Muslim, was lying alone on a beach with no towel, no book, no parasol, no sunglasses, no husband (or brother, or father) to "protect" her, in the full glare of the midday sun near a police post — with a photographer nearby ready and waiting to take pictures of her surrounded by four policemen. Who alerted them? The woman was issued a fine and possibly ordered to remove some of her clothes on the beach. Pictures of the incident were first published on August 23 by the Daily Mail and within minutes went viral, provoking international indignation against these seemingly racist French people discriminating against innocent Arab women. A week later, however, the Daily Mail suggested that this incident may well have been "staged" and the "pictures may be SET UP."

  So the real question is: Are Islamists in France now using photos and videos, the way the Palestinians are doing against Israel: to film and disseminate fake and staged situations in order to provoke global indignation about supposedly poor Muslim "victims" — especially women who are allegedly "discriminated against" in France?

  If fabricated propaganda is allowed to persist, the defrauders will win a big war.

  "In the war that Islamism is leading with determination against civilization, women are becoming a real issue," said Berenice Levet, author and professor of philosophy at the École Polytechnique to the daily Le Figaro.

  She added:

  "Rather than produce figures that say everything and nothing, I want it recognized once and for all that if today the roles of the genders are forced to regress in France, if domination and patriarchy are spreading in our country, this fact is related exclusively to our having imported Muslim values."

  Ironically, at the same moment, France's Minister for Family, Children and Women's Rights, Laurence Rossignol, decided to spend public money on an ad campaign against "ordinary sexism" — the supposed sexism by all French men against supposedly eternally victimized women. But there was not a word in this campaign about the possible victimization or potential outcome from the increasing proliferation of the burqa, veil or burkinis on Muslim women.

  Commenting the ad campaign, Berenice Levet added:

  "Laurence Rossignol should read Géraldine Smith's book, Rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud. Une vie de famille entre barbus et bobos ("Jean-Pierre Timbaud Street: The life of a family among bearded men [Islamists] and Bohemians"). She would learn — among other things — that in some stores or bakeries, men are served first, before women."

  In this book, we can learn also that in the heart of Paris, a Muslim can insult a woman for drinking a cola in the street. But for many, including Rossignol, it seems the only enemy is the white Frenchman.

  Two serious questions are at stake:

  • Are sharia police emerging in France?
  • Are French institutions sacrificing one freedom for another? Is the principle of equality between men and women being sacrificed to freedom of religion (Islam) to impose its diktats on French society?

  Sharia Police

  In France, no organized Islamist brigades patrol the streets (as in Germany or Britain) to fight alcohol consumption or to beat women for the way they are dressed. Yet gangs of "youths", again, both men and women, are increasingly doing just that in practice. For years now, "big brothers" have been obliging their mothers and sisters to wear a veil when they go out. And now that this job is done, they have begun to fight non-Muslim women who wear shorts and skirts — no longer just in the sensitive Muslim enclaves, the "no-go zones" of the suburbs, where women no longer dare to wear skirts — but now also in the heart of big cities.

  More and more, the equivalent of "Islamist Virtue Police" try to impose those standards by violence. As Celine Pina, former regional councilor of Île-de-France, said in Le Figaro:

  "In the last recorded attack [on the families in Toulon], with cries of "whores" and "strip naked", the young men were behaving as a "virtue police" that we had thought impossible here in our parts…

   

  "It cannot be expressed more clearly: it is a command to modesty as a social norm and self-censorship as a behavioral norm… [it]… illustrates the rejection of the female body, seen as inherently impure and dirty…

   

  "The question of the burkini, the proliferation of full veils, assaults against women in shorts and the beating of their companions, share the same logic. Making body of the woman a social and political issue, a marker of the progress of an ideology within society."

  Laurent Bouvet, a professor of political science, noticed on his Facebook page that after the men were beaten in Toulon, so-called human rights organizations — supposedly "professionals" of "anti-racism" — remained silent in the debate.

  The prosecutor of #Toulon said: "the fight was trigger by a women's dress code. These women were not wearing shorts… Sexism is undeniable. Where are the professionals of public indignation?"

  Laurence Rossignol, Minister for Women's Rights, remained silent too. So a new rule has emerged in France: the more politicians and institutions do not want to criticize Islamists norms, the more violent the debate on social networks.

  Equality between Men and Women or Freedom of (Islamic) Religion?

  The silence of politicians and human rights organizations, when non-Muslim women are violently assaulted because they wear shorts that are not compatible with sharia — as opposed to their thundering indignation against police for issuing a fine to a Muslim woman in a burkini — signals an immensely important political and institutional move: A fundamental and constitutional principle, equality between men and women, is being sacrificed in the name of freedom of religion, thereby enabling one religion (Islam) to impose its diktats on the rest of society.

  Studying the burkini case in Nice, Blandine Kriegel, philosopher and former president of Haut Conseil à l'intégration (High Council of Integration) published an analysis in which she establishes that in the burkini case, secularism or individual freedom were not even in danger in the first place. But "fundamentally an openly, the principle of equality between men and women" was surrendered:

  In its remarkable ordinance, the Council of State refers to the jurisprudence of 1909 concerning the wearing of a cassock and does not pay attention to more recent laws voted on by sovereign people, prohibiting the veil at school (2004) and burqa in public places (2010).

   

  The Council of state did not feel inspired either by the constitutional commitment towards women: "the law guarantees women, in all fields, same equal rights as men."

   

  In the burkini affair, neither secularism nor individual freedom is at stake; but fundamentally and openly the principle of equality between men and women. … This term "burkini" integrates intentionally the word "burqa"; this word does not express the desire to go swimming at the beach (nothing prohibits this); or the affirmation of a religious freedom (no mayor has ever prohibited the exercise of the Muslim religion); the word burkini express only the essential inequality of women.

   

  Contrary to their husbands, who feel free to exhibit their nudity, some women must be covered from head to toe. Not only because they are impure, but mostly because of the legal status conferred to them: they are under the private law of the husband, the father or the community.

   

  The Republic cannot accept something opposed to its laws and values. Inequality of women cannot be defended on the ground of religious freedom… of freedom of conscience. This issue was addressed three centuries ago by our European philosophers, who are founding fathers of the Republic. To those who were legitimating oppression, slavery and inequality were merely the expression of free will, explained the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, inspiring our 1789 Declaration [of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen], and that freedom and equality are inalienable possessions.

  France's socialist government and administrative judges have apparently found it politically useful to make concessions to Islamists. Perhaps they originally agreed to burkinis not only because they may think that people should wear what they like, but also in the vain hope of calming down the permanent pressure that increasingly appears to be a cultural jihad. It may not even have occurred to them that they were potentially sacrificing the principle of equality of women.

  Many people evidently still do not know that Islam is a religion and a political movement at war with the West — and openly intent on subjugating the West. It must be responded to as such. The problem is, every time it is responded to as such, Muslim extremists run for cover under the claim of freedom of religion.

  It is high time for French and European politicians to draw a hard line between where one person's right to worship as they see fit ends, and where society's right to freedom and security begins. And it is time to outlaw, not necessarily the burkini, but the very real problem of aggressive supremacism.

  The root problem is incitement to violence. It is crucial for Western societies to start making a distinction between freedom of speech and incitement to violence, and to begin seriously penalizing attacks on innocents, as well as calls to attack innocents.

  

  

• This Is How Much Liquidity Deutsche Bank Has At This Moment, And What Happens Next

  It is not solvency, or the lack of capital – a vague, synthetic, and usually quite arbitrary concept, determined by regulators – that kills a bank; it is – as Dick Fuld will tell anyone who bothers to listen – the loss of (access to) liquidity: cold, hard, fungible (something Jon Corzine knew all too well when he commingled and was caught) cash, that pushes a bank into its grave, usually quite rapidly: recall that it took Lehman just a few days for its stock to plunge from the high double digits to zero.

  It is also liquidity, or rather concerns about it, that sent Deutsche Bank stock crashing to new all time lows earlier today: after all, the investing world already knew for nearly two weeks that its capitalization is insufficient. As we reported earlier this week, it was a report by Citigroup, among many other, that found how badly undercapitalized the German lender is, noting that DB’s “leverage ratio, at 3.4%, looks even worse relative to the 4.5% company target by 2018” and calculated that while he only models €2.9bn in litigation charges over 2H16-2017 – far less than the $14 billion settlement figure proposed by the DOJ – and includes a successful disposal of a 70% stake in Postbank at end-2017 for 0.4x book he still only reaches a CET 1 ratio of 11.6% by end-2018, meaning the bank would have a Tier 1 capital €3bn shortfall to the company target of 12.5%, and a leverage ratio of 3.9%, resulting in an €8bn shortfall to the target of 4.5%.

  When Citi’s note exposing DB’s undercapitalization came out, it had precisely zero impact on the price of DB stock. Why? Because as we said above, capitalization – and solvency – tends to be a largely worthless, pro-forma concept. However, when Bloomberg reported today that select funds have withdrawn “some excess cash and positions held at the lender” the stock immediately plunged: the reason is that this had everything to do with not only DB’s suddenly crashing liquidity, but the pernicious feedback loop, where once a source of liquidity leaves, the departure tends to spook other such sources, leading to an outward bound liquidity cascade. Again: just ask Lehman (and AIG) for the details.

  Which then brings us to the $64 trillion (roughly the same amount as DB’s gross notional derivative exposure) question: since DB is suddenly experiencing a sharp “liquidity event”, how much liquidity does Deutsche Bank have access to as of this moment, to offset this event? The answer would allow us to calculate how long DB may have in a worst case scenario if we knew the rate of liquidity outflow.

  For the answer, we go to a just released note by Goldman Sachs, which admits that it is now facing “crisis” questions from clients, among which “can a large European bank face a liquidity event” to wit”

  Deutsche Bank stands at the center of the European financial system – it is a major counterpart of all relevant European banks, and broader. Recent reports of potential litigation hits have compounded capital concerns, and raised the overall level of market anxiety. “Crisis” questions are being asked: “is there risk of a financial crisis re-run” and “can a large European bank face a liquidity event”?

  So what is the answer: how much liquidity does Deutsche Bank have access to? The answer is two fold, with the first part focusing on central bank, in this case ECB, backstops in both $ and €. 

  Goldman starts with an overview of said back-stops, summarized below. These facilities are available to all Eurozone banks (and, naturally, also to Deutsche Bank) – they are generous in terms of volume (full allotment), price (fixed rate at 0%) and tenure (from short term, all the way to 4-years). These ECB facilities are key to ensuring the bank’s long-term funding stability, in Goldman’s view, and were put in place following the funding market fallout in 2007, in order to contain the effects from the Lehman crisis. They were further bolstered to contain the Eurozone sovereign crisis in 2011-12. All of the liquidity provisions remain in place, and broadly, they fall into the following two categories:

  1. Regular market operations: 1-week Main Refinancing Operations or “MRO” (priced @0%), and 3-month Long Term Refinancing Operations or “LTRO” (@0%);
  2. Non-standard measures, which split between € funding facilities with 4-year Targeted LTROs (@0%, with the option to fall to -0.4% if lending targets are met) and the emergency liquidity assistance to solvent financial institutions and a US$ funding facility: 1-week US$ MRO (@0.86%).

  

  Stepping away from the ECB – because if Deutsche is forced to come crawling to Draghi and beg for central bank liquidity assistance to continue as a going concern, the outcome may be just as dire (recall the stigma associated with US banks using the Fed’s Discount Window) especially since  unlike Lehman, DB has nearly €600 billion in deposits which are susceptible to a retail depositor run – what about Deutsche Bank’s own liquidity position? It is this which appears to be concerning the market most, because as Goldman writes, following the Bloomberg report that hedge fund clients have pulled excess cash, the market has reacted aggressively (ADR down 6.7%), indicating concerns have moved from DBK’s equity to question the resilience of the banks’ funding position.

  Below, Goldman provides an overview of DBK’s liquidity position, noting that its last reported liquidity reserve stood at €223 bn or ~20% of its total assets. DBK’s high quality liquid assets (or HQLA) balance stood at €196 bn or 16% of its total assets; its liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) stood at 124%. DBK’s LCR is above that of many largest European banks (BNP 112%), as well as US banks (Citigroup
  121%).

  

  Here is the breakdown:

  • Liquidity reserve: €223 bn, or ~20% of total assets. In total, DBK’s liquidity reserve stood at €223 bn, representing ~20% of the banks total net assets (where assets are US GAAP equivalent). The 2Q16 level of liquidity reserve compares to €65 bn in 2007, showing that DBK has grown its liquidity reserve by 3.4x from pre-crisis levels.
  • Cash: €125 bn. The liquidity reserve breaks down between €125 bn of cash and cash equivalents, and €98 bn of securities, available for use at the central banks. As highlighted in Exhibit 2, the € portion of the securities can be used to obtain liquidity of varied duration (between O/N to 4-years) at a cost of 0% (and as low as -40 bp, if lending benchmarks are met).
  • LCR: 124%. DBK’s Liquidity Coverage ratio stood at 124%, which is ~1.5x the current regulatory minimum, and a cut above the 2019 fully-loaded requirement of 100%. This compares favorably to, say, Citigroup (121%), BNP (112%). Other US banks (e.g. JPM, BofA) do not disclose their LCR other than to say that they are “compliant”, suggesting LCR is at or above 100%.

  Where does this liquidity come from? Exhibit 3 above examines DBK’s funding composition – this is relevant in the context of media reports highlighting a decline in prime brokerage balances (Bloomberg, September 29). These include:

  • Lowest volatility funding: 57%. Lowest volatility sources of funding – retail deposits, transaction banking balances (corporate and institutional deposits from corporate banking relationships) and equity account for 57% of total funding. Over half of the groups’ funding therefore, stems from this source.
  • Low volatility funds: 15%. Debt securities in issue account for 14% of total funding. Together with the previous category, “lowest” and “low” volatility funding accounts for 72% of total funding.
  • Other customers – this includes prime brokerage cash balance – 7%. The total amount of “other customer” funds, which includes: fiduciary, self-funding structures (e.g. X-markets), margin/Prime Brokerage cash balances (shown on a net basis (see DBK 2015 annual report, p178). Importantly, this represents ~7% of total funding, and is 3.1x covered with the liquidity reserve.
  • Other parts of funding – unsecured wholesale, secured funding – account for the residual.

  In other words, all else equal, even in a worst case Prime Brokerage situation, one where all €71 billion in “other customer” funds flee, DB should still have about €152 billion of the €223 billion in liquidity reserve as of June 30, once again assuming there have been no other changes. Stated simply, if the hedge fund outflow accelerates and depletes all the liquidity at the Prime Brokerage division, DB would part with about a third (just over  €70 billion) of its €220 billion liquidity reserve.

  Some other observations: even if one assumes the full loss of PB balances, DB would still have a Liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) of 124%.  The LCR is equivalent to HQLA/net stressed outflows over 30 day period. This ratio shows the banks’ ability to meet stressed funding conditions over a period of 1 month. For Deutsche bank, the LCR stood at 124% with the ratio composed of:

  1. High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLAs) of €196 bn. These include Level 1 assets (the most liquid securities which include cash and equivalents, bonds issued or guaranteed by a government and certain covered bonds); Level 2A assets, which are subject to a haircut (third country government bonds, bonds issued by public entities, EU covered bonds, non-EU covered bonds, corporate bonds) and Level 2B assets (high quality securitisations, corporate bonds, other high quality covered bonds).
  2. The net stressed outflows: €158 bn as of 2Q16 (YE15 €161 bn). DBK’s net stressed outflows amounted to €161 bn at year-end 2015, and include an assumption of loss of prime brokerage deposits. As per Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/61 “Deposits arising out of a correspondent banking relationship or from the provision of prime brokerage services shall not be treated as an operational deposit and shall receive a 100 % outflow rate.”
  3. The minimum level is 100% (effective 2018) and is phased in gradually from 2015; the 2016 requirement is 70%.

  Of course, the “stressed outflow over a 30 day period” is an assumption, one which can accelerate rapidly, especially if the stock price of DB continues to fall crushing what is any bank’s most critical asset: counterparty confidence, either from retail investors or institutional peers.

  Still, what the above calculations reveals is that the Bloomberg report suggest that while substantial, the Prime Brokerage outflow would not be, on its own, deadly.  But therein lies the rub: since any bank’s collapse is a procyclical event in which liquidity flees in all directions, with a speed that is usually inversely proportional to the stock price, the lower the price of DB goes (and the higher its CDS), the more dire its liquidity situation.

  However, as noted above, the biggest threat to DB is not so much its hedge fund client base, whose damage potential is limited, but the depositor base. Again: while Lehman failed, it did so as a result of its corporate counterparties suffocating the bank by rapidly pulling out their liquidity lines. Lehman, however, was lucky in that it didn’t have retail depositors: it death would have likely come far faster as the capital panic was not limited to institutions but also included a retail depositor bank run.

  This is where Deutsche Bank is very different from Lehman, and far riskier, because if the institutional panic spreads to the depositor base, which as the table below shows amounts to some €566 billion in total, and €307 billion in retail deposits…

   

  

  … then all bets are off.

  Which is why it is so critical for Angela Merkel to halt the plunging stock price, an indicator DB’s retail clients, simplistically (and not erroneously) now equate with the bank’s viability, and the lower the price drops, the faster they will pull their deposits, the quicker DB’s liquidity hits zero, the faster the self-fulfilling prophecy of Deutsche Bank’s death is confirmed.

  Which ultimately means that DB really has four options: raise capital (sell equity, convert CoCos, which may results in an even bigger drop in the stock price due to dilution or concerns the liquidity raise may not be sufficient), approach the ECB for a liquidity bridge (this may also backfire as counterparties scramble to flee a central bank-backstopped institution), appeal for a state bailout (Merkel has so far said “Nein”) or implement a bail-in, eliminating billions in unsecured claims (and deposits) and leading to a full-blown systemic bank run as depositors everywhere rush to withdraw their savings, leading to a collapse of the fractional reserve banking mode (in which there is only 10 cents in physical deliverable cash for every dollar in depositor claims). 

  Which of the four choices Deutsche Bank will pick should become clear in the coming days. Until it does, it will keep the market on edge and quite volatile, because as Jeff Gundlach explained today, a “do nothing” scenario is no longer an option for CEO John Cryan as the market will keep pushing the price of DB lower until it either fails, or is bailed out.

  

  

• The Run Begins: Deutsche Bank Hedge Fund Clients Withdraw Excess Cash

  Deutsche Bank concerns just went to ’11’ as Bloomberg reports a number of funds that clear derivatives trades with Deutsche Bank AG have withdrawn some excess cash and positions held at the lender, a sign of counterparties’ mounting concerns about doing business with Europe’s largest investment bank.

  While the vast majority of Deutsche Bank’s more than 200 derivatives-clearing clients have made no changes, some funds that use the bank’s prime brokerage service have moved part of their listed derivatives holdings to other firms this week, according to an internal bank document seen by Bloomberg News.

  Millennium Partners, Capula Investment Management and Rokos Capital Management are among about 10 hedge funds that have cut their exposure, said a person familiar with the situation who declined to be identified talking about confidential client matters.

   

  The hedge funds use Deutsche Bank to clear their listed derivatives transactions because they are not members of clearinghouses. Millennium, Capula and Rokos declined to comment when contacted by phone or e-mail.

  Which explains why short-dated CDS is soaring.

   

   

  

   

  “Our trading clients are amongst the world’s most sophisticated investors,” Michael Golden, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank, said in an e-mailed statement.

   

  “We are confident that the vast majority of them have a full understanding of our stable financial position, the current macroeconomic environment, the litigation process in the U.S. and the progress we are making with our strategy.”

  Clients review their exposure to counterparties to avoid situations like the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and MF Global’s 2011 bankruptcy when hedge funds had billions of dollars of assets frozen until the resolution of lengthy legal proceedings.

  As expected, Deutsche Bank stock in NY is sliding.

  

   

  If the most sophisticated professionals in the world are withdrawing cash, why are German depositors leaving their life savings at risk… ahead of a long weekend in Germany (Monday is a bank holiday).

  *  *  *

  And for those believing that there is no contagion and this is all ring-fenced…

   

  

  And US banks are sliding…
  

  

   

  As a reminder, if the liquidity run forces DB to start unwinding or being forced to novate derivatives, it could get ugly.

  

   

  Those who have cash parked at Deutsche Bank, and at last check there was about €566 billion, they may want to consider moving it for the time being to a safer bank.

  

   

  * * *

  Earlier this morning, we reported that Europe is experiencing a sudden and acute dollar shortage, which we attributed to Deutsche Bank. It now appears this was accurate. Since Deutsche’s recent highs, the short-end of the EUR-USD basis swap curve has collapsed:

  

  Simplifying – this chart measures the degree of USD shortage
  (willingness to spend money just to get USD now) across time – the lower
  the level, the more desperate for USDs.

  And no, it’s not a quarter-end issue:

  

   

  Still not sure… Then explain why European banks just increased
  their demand for USDs from The ECB’s 7-day lending facility by over
  2000%…

  

  As @Landonthomasjr notes, since 2009: DB shareholders put up 13.5 billion euros in equity. DB has paid 19.3 billion euro in bonuses. Perhaps they should have saved some of that cash eh?

  Simply put – trust in the European Banking system is faltering, counterparty risk hedging is accelerating:

  

   And liquidity concerns are exploding, ahead of Germany’s bank holiday on Monday.

  

  

• Pizzaflation and the US Dollar collapse

  Sometimes the best economic analysis comes anecdotally.  Why not explain the most important economic issue of our day with America’s favorite food: PIZZA.  As we explain in our book Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex, the real reason of inflation is because of monetary policy, not supply and demand.

  In case you didn’t know, facts about Pizza

  Pizza is actually America’s favorite food.  The Atlantic covered a DOA report that showed the cheesy stats:

  Like football, pop music, and democracy itself, pizza follows in the long American tradition of things that began overseas before the United States imported, violently altered, and eventually defined the institution. Although the first pizza shops didn’t open in the U.S. until the early 20th century, hundreds of years after the original Neapolitan pies, we now spend $37 billion a year on pizza, accounting for a third of the global market. The obsession deepens. On any given day, about 13 percent of Americans eat pizza, according to a new report from the Department of Agriculture. One in six guys between the ages of two and 39 ate it for breakfast, lunch, or dinner today. In part due to this obsession, per capita consumption of cheese is up 41 percent since 1995. Drawn from the report, here are seven facts about Americans and pizza, presented free of moralizing comments about whether or not it is healthy or sensible for the American diet to consist so overwhelming of bread adorned with tomato-cheesey gloop.

  Pizza, is actually an AMERICAN food, brought to America by the Italians.  Pizza was invented in Italy, but in Italy, Pizza is completely different, and not very popular.  In fact, Pizza is most popular in America.  It’s more American than Apple Pie.  Check it out:

  In 1905, a slice of pizza cost five cents. During the Depression, when families did not have much money, pizza became popular with everyone in the United States. Families were eating different types of pizza on the east and west coasts. A thick-crust pizza was called double-crust pizza or west coast pizza. When they had a large exhibit about pizza at the Texas State Fair, more people inquired about this food than any other.The first recipe for pizza appeared in a fundraising cookbook published in Boston in 1936. The recipe, for Neapolitan pizza, was made by hand. Dough had to be hand-stretched by pizzaiolos and housewives until it was half an inch thick. The pizza had cheese, tomatoes, grated parmesan cheese, and olive oil. Surprisingly, the dough was not made by hand, but cooks were told to buy it at a good Italian bake shop.However, pizza was mostly limited to Italian immigrant communities until after World War II, when American soldiers returning from Italy still wanted their pies. Popularity spread, and various American styles developed. Pizzeria Uno is credited with the invention of the Chicago deep dish pizza in 1943. This is known as tomato pie and was baked in rectangular pans in bakeries. Its crust was extra thick and it had seasoned tomato puree and was dusted with Romano cheese before it went into the oven. Some eventually had meat and thick cheese, and it was so thick, it often had to be eaten with a knife and fork.

  The American Dollar is collapsing

  From five cents a slice to $20 a Pizza.  What happened?  During this time, the US Dollar went down by more than 95%.  Let’s take a look at one of America’s favorite Pizzas, Numero Uno Pizza.  For those of you who have not had the pleasure to live in the greater Los Angeles area, where Numero Uno has had 95% name recognition, Numero Uno Pizza is a household name.  Interestingly, Numero Uno was founded in Los Angeles right around the time Nixon created Forex; 1970.  We’ve obtained an old Numero Uno menu (we think though, it’s from the 80s) that shows prices from that time:

  

  

  Wow!  .85 House Wine, less than $5 for a Carafe!  

  Now take a look at prices we’ve lifted from current NU store sites, such as Numero Uno Palmdale:

  

  The most popular NU pizza is the S5 “Slaughterhouse 5” which currently stands at $16.95.  We confirmed with the manager of Palmdale location that indeed; prices are due for a rate hike in January.

  From $10.85 to $16.95 isn’t too bad, Pizzaflation is not nearly as bad as inflation in other markets, most notably, real estate, groceries, coffee, and other items.  Using an inflation calculator, $1 in 1970 is about $6.21 today.  If the menu is from 1985, the S5 should be $24.29.  Other NU stores have it priced at $19.99.  In any case, for older folk, $20 is a lot to pay for a Pizza, in their mind.  But that’s only because of memory, of times past.  Inflation is a slow subtle tax.  From a ‘real dollar’ perspective, Numero Uno Pizza is cheap.

  Let’s understand the second component of inflation that’s less obvious – the deterioration of QUALITY.  You can get a Pizza today for $5 – but it’s a bunch of crap.  Like any product, you get what you pay for.  This part of inflation, the decline in quality, is less obvious but more damaging.  Every year, products get a little worse and worse.

  The real cause of Pizzaflation

  Real analysts must always seek the CAUSALITY  

  Inflation happens only for one reason:  Central Bank prints more currency.  More currency, chasing the same or fewer goods and assets, makes the price go up.  It’s really simple!  QE (Quantitative Easing) has been rampant in recent years.  Fortunately for consumers, most inflation has happened in financial markets, real estate, and other markets.

  This phenomenon has been covered well in “The Burrito Index:”

  In our household, we measure inflation with the “Burrito Index”: How much has the cost of a regular burrito at our favorite taco truck gone up?

  Since we keep detailed records of expenses (a necessity if you’re a self-employed free-lance writer), I can track the real-world inflation of the Burrito Index with great accuracy: the cost of a regular burrito from our local taco truck has gone up from $2.50 in 2001 to $5 in 2010 to $6.50 in 2016.That’s a $160% increase since 2001; 15 years in which the official inflation rate reports that what $1 bought in 2001 can supposedly be bought with $1.35 today.

  If the Burrito Index had tracked official inflation, the burrito at our truck should cost $3.38—up only 35% from 2001. Compare that to today’s actual cost of $6.50—almost double what it “should cost” according to official inflation calculations.

  Since 2001, the real-world burrito index is 4.5 times greater than the official rate of inflation—not a trivial difference.

  Between 2010 and now, the Burrito Index has logged a 30% increase, more than triple the officially registered 10% drop in purchasing power over the same time.

  Those interested can check the official inflation rate (going back to 1913) with the BLS Inflation calculator by clicking here.

  My Burrito Index is a rough-and-ready index of real-world inflation. To insure its measure isn’t an outlying aberration, we also need to track the real-world costs of big-ticket items such as college tuition and healthcare insurance, as well as local government-provided services. When we do, we observe results of similar magnitude.

  The takeaway? Our money is losing its purchasing power much faster than the government would like us to believe.

  It’s important for consumers to understand, Pizzaflation is not caused by Pizza makers.  Numero Uno actually is doing a great job keeping prices low, because their food cost, rent, and other costs, are all exploding parabolic.

  Los Angeles has the highest rent burden in America:

  

  Overall, rents in Los Angeles have doubled since the 1970s:

  

  But of course, that’s not counting other various fees, taxes, increased regulatory costs, increased insurances due to higher crime rates, and other factors.  Pizzaflation has hit Los Angeles hard, creating a ‘double whammy’ for businesses like Numero Uno.  And with LA’s median income flat since 1970, it makes one wonder who can afford a $20 Pizza.  But the remaining Numero Uno stores are mostly packed and have great reviews, so it seems that it takes something really Magic to survive the pressure of the Fed.

  To learn more about how the Fed decreases the value of the US Dollar via Quantitative Easing, checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – your pocket guide to make you a Forex genius!  

  The good news, Forex is artificial so you can learn about it online.  It’s all digital.  If you want the best Pizza you’ve ever had in your life – you’ll have to drive all the way to Palmdale, California and visit Numero Uno Palmdale.

  

  

• A Conspiracy Theory About Conspiracy Theories

  Submitted by Paul Rosenberg via FreemansPersepctive.com,

  One of the funny things about conspiracy theories, including false flag attacks, is how often they are proven to be true. You have to wonder how long the shame-inducing slam, “That’s a conspiracy theory,” will keep working.

  But that’s not my point for today. Today, I want to introduce a conspiracy theory of my own, a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories. Here it is:

  The powers that be – the elite, the deep state, whomever – want wild conspiracy theories to spread. Because after these wild theories set the “outrage meter” very high, they can get away with almost anything below that line.

  In other words, wild theories ensure that the “I’ll act if I see that” trigger is never reached and Joe Average remains docile, even as he is progressively abused.

  I hope I haven’t given any nefarious people ideas, but I think this is already happening. And in any event, I’m fairly certain it’s worth pointing out.

  A Second Theory

  There is a second reason for the lords of the status quo to love conspiracy theories, which is that such theories make it easy to discredit troublesome ideas.

  For example, we now know – thank you again, Edward Snowden – that government agents are infiltrating websites to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, as well as to destroy reputations.

  So, rather than just pulling out the usual manipulation to discredit a troublesome idea (“conspiracy theory!”), why not tie it to some really nasty racist crap?

  Lots of people have avoided discussions of the Federal Reserve, for example, because trolls attached to the discussions demonize Jews. Disgusted by anti-Semitism, people turn away from the whole subject, and the central banking scam remains unquestioned.

  There are reasons open comment boards are overrun with hate-spewing trolls, and it’s not that deeply deluded people make up that much of the general populace. (Though they do exist, and they do love to spew their filth.)

  So, this is my second conspiracy theory:

  Disgusting trolls are paid to promote certain ideas… ideas the elite want to eliminate.

  And nowadays, paid trolls aren’t even needed; artificial intelligence bots can carry out the work quite well and can even respond to counter-posts.

  Can I Prove This?

  Not entirely, no. And I’m not going to spend hundreds of hours tracking down evidence. That’s not my job; I’m not an investigative journalist. (Neither is anyone else these days, but that’s a separate point.)

  Still, the links I’ve inserted above prove a lot of what I’m writing, and the rest will have to remain my own personal theories… and I’m just fine with that. People can take them or leave them as they choose.

  The Other Problem

  Beyond everything covered above, the other problem with conspiracy theories is that they are far too hopeful. Yes, hopeful.

  The implication buried in conspiracy theories is that the world is being controlled. Whether it’s controlled by the Illuminati, the Jews, the Masons, or whomever, there is a strange sort of comfort in the idea that the world is controllable.

  The comforting thought goes like this:

  The world is being controlled by evil people. So, if we can just get rid of them, control will revert to good people, and things will be great again.

  This thought is false. The world is not controlled by any single group of people. Rather, it’s a large, chaotic mess. Yes, the deep staters, central bankers, and so on do manipulate a lot of things, but they struggle endlessly and very often fail. Consider just two recent examples:

  • If they were that smart, these groups wouldn’t have allowed the internet to jump onto the scene in the early 1990s.

  • If they were that potent, they would have killed Bitcoin as soon as it appeared.

  The truth is that they’re not that smart, and they’re not all-powerful. In fact, they have power only to the extent that they hoodwink people into serving them. And that’s not an iron-clad arrangement.

  So…

  Presuming that everything above is true, what do we do about it?

  My first thought is that we should stick to facts, not imaginings. I suspect, for example, that Building 7 at the World Trade Center was purposely brought down, but I don’t know that. My suspicions don’t make it true. Furthermore, it isn’t worth obsessing over. There are dozens of more important things to invest with time and energy – like actually building a better world.

  I can’t think of a single conspiracy theory that’s worth majoring upon. Aliens at Roswell or the Kennedy assassination may be fun speculations – and I’d love to know the God’s-honest truth about both – but they’re simply not that important.

  Rather, we should be busy building a better world, bypassing the institutions of abuse that dominate life in the West.

  

  

• FBI Investigating More Dead People Voting In The Key Swing State Of Virginia

  For years the political elites, backed by funding from George Soros, have fought common sense voter ID laws as blatant attempts of racist right wingers to suppress the votes of minority and low-income citizens.  These same people tirelessly argue that there is no evidence of voter fraud despite the mountain of facts that keeps piling up the contrary.  In fact, per the National Review, United States District Judge Lynn Adelman of Wisconsin, in response to a voter ID complaint in that state, recently claimed that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs” in Wisconsin and that “no evidence suggests that voter-impersonation fraud will become a problem at any time in the foreseeable future.”

  Well, we guess that could be true if the pesky facts would just stop getting in the way.  According to research conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2012, the capacity for voter fraud in the U.S. is substantial with nearly 2mm dead people found to be registered voters and nearly 3mm people registered in multiple states. 

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state

  And, just earlier today we wrote about how Arcan Cetin, the 20 year old Turkish citizen who recently killed 5 people at the Cascade Mall in Washington, somehow managed to vote in the past 3 election cycles despite not being a U.S. citizen.  When asked about the news, Washington Secretary of State, Kim Wyman, simply said “we don’t have a provision in state law that allows either county elections officials or the Secretary of State’s office to verify someone’s citizenship.”  Sure, because why would someone’s citizenship status be important for determining his eligibity to vote?

  Now, courtesy of WaPo, we know that the FBI is investigating how exactly 19 dead people were recently re-registered to vote in the critical swing state of Virginia.  A few months ago we noted Virginia Governor, and long-time Clinton confidant, Terry McAuliffe‘s willingness to go to great lengths to hand his state’s 13 electoral votes to Hillary by registering 200,000 felons to vote, but adding dead people to the voting rolls seems a bit excessive (see “FelonsVotesMatter (To Hillary) – Clinton’s Election Fate In Virginia Lies With 200,000 Unregistered Offenders“).

  

  Alas, according to WaPo, all 19 deceased voters were originally registered to vote in Harrisonburg and attempts to re-register the deceased voters were only discovered by chance after a clerk recognized one of the names as the deceased father of a local judge.

  All 19 were initially registered as voters in the Shenandoah Valley city of Harrisonburg, although a clerk double-checking the entries later raised questions about one. She recognized the name of Richard Allen Claybrook Sr., who died in 2014 at age 87, because his son is a well-known local judge. She happened to recall that the judge’s father had died.

   

  “He was a retired Fairfax County elementary school principal and had fought in World War II,” said his son, retired Harrisonburg General District Court Judge Richard Allen Claybrook Jr. “So our family is very disgusted that they would pick his name, because he was such a law-abiding citizen devoted to public service.”

   

  All of the forms had been submitted by a private group that was working to register voters on the campus of James Madison University, according to the Harrisonburg registrar’s office. The group was not identified. No charges have been filed.

  Meanwhile, state republicans pointed to this as obvious evidence of voter fraud…

  Republicans in the state House of Delegates, who in recent years have supported tighter voter ID laws, held a conference call with reporters to call attention to the investigation.

   

  “Oftentimes we hear our Democratic colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia, or it’s a myth,” House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said. “This is proof that voter fraud not only exists but is ongoing and is a threat to the integrity of our elections.”

  …while democrats responded with the same ole argument that no fraud occurred because no one actually voted. 

  “First of all, there was no voter fraud — they caught him,” Toscano said. “Nobody cast a vote. . . . There’s still no evidence of that going on in the state. But there is evidence every time you turn around that the Republicans are trying to make it more difficult for citizens to vote in elections.”

  Of course, we just pointed out how the dead in Colorado are actually voting and have been doing so for years…but we’re sure that’s not a concern to Toscano either.

  But something tells us, no matter how many of these types of situations emerge over and over, that U.S. citizens, and common sense for that matter, will never prevail in the war against George Soros and the simple political narrative that voter I.D. laws are somehow racist and/or disenfranchise low-income voters.  

  

  

• US Outcry Over Syria… Tears Followed By NATO Bombs

  Submitted by Finian Cunningham via Strategic-Culture.org,

  The crescendo of US-led condemnations against Syria and Russia over alleged humanitarian crimes in Syria grows louder by the day. The eerie sense is that this «outcry» is being orchestrated as a prelude to a NATO-style intervention in Syria.

  Such a NATO maneuver would follow the template for former Yugoslavia and Libya, leading to greater civilian deaths, territorial disintegration, a surge in regional terrorism and more international lawlessness by Western states.

  The concerted, emotive appeals over the past week – bordering on hysteria – indicate a propaganda campaign coordinated between Washington and its Western allies, the mass media and the US-led NATO military alliance.

  It was US ambassador the United Nations Samantha Power who led the chorus of accusations against Russia and its Syrian ally, using the Security Council emergency meeting last weekend to condemn «barbarism» of renewed violence around the northern Syrian city of Aleppo. Britain and France piled in with more unsubstantiated condemnations of war crimes, as did shameless UN officials, Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general, and Staffan de Mistura, the UN’s special envoy to Syria.

  Few people would countenance war, but surely Syria has the sovereign right to defend its nation from a foreign-fueled war on its territory. In all the lachrymose lecturing from the likes of Samantha Power, the pertinent question of who started this war in the first place gets lost in rhetorical fog.

  Days later, NATO civilian chief Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement denouncing Russia and Syria for «blatant violation of international laws» in Aleppo, adding that the military actions by both were «morally totally unacceptable».

  All the while, Western news media outlets have run saturation coverage of what they depict as a humanitarian hell in Aleppo, the strategic Syrian city where the final throes of the country’s nearly six-year war seem to be playing out.

  The New York Times published an article with the gut-wrenching headline: ‘The Children of Aleppo, Syria, Trapped in a Killing Zone’.

  It goes on to say: «Among the roughly 250,000 people trapped in the insurgent redoubt of the divided northern Syrian city are 100,000 children, the most vulnerable victims of intensified bombings by Syrian forces and their Russian allies.»

  In a separate article, euronews.com reports: ‘Nowhere to hide’ – volunteer describes conditions inside Aleppo’.

  The implication in the Western mass media is that Syrian and Russian air forces are bombarding indiscriminately across civilian districts of the city. The same desperate tone and bias is ubiquitous in all Western media outlets.

  However, if we ascertain the sources for this saturation information, it turns out to be a limited range of anonymous «activists», or the Western-funded group known as the White Helmets, which purports to be a humanitarian response network, but which in actual fact is integrated with illegally armed insurgents, including the al Qaeda terror organization Jabhat al Fatah al Sham (al Nusra Front), as writer Rick Sterling details.

  Western TV news outlets are routinely using video footage from the White Helmets, supposedly taken in the aftermath of air strikes on Aleppo. This is an astounding abdication of any journalistic ethics of independence and impartiality.

  These same media outlets rarely, if ever, carry reports from the western side of Aleppo where a six-fold greater population – 1.5 million – live in government-held districts, compared with the «rebel-held» eastern quarter.

  As independent writer Vanessa Beeley recently reported, some 600,000 people fled to the western side of Aleppo from the al Nusra-dominant stronghold on the eastern side. According to medics quoted by Beeley, the majority of the population in the eastern quarter are being held hostage as human shields by the insurgents, or as the Western governments and media call them «moderate rebels» and «activists». There are also credible witness reports of terrorists shooting at people fleeing from the east through humanitarian corridors set up by the Syrian government.

  In recent weeks, hundreds of civilians in the western districts of Aleppo have been killed from indiscriminate shelling and sniping by militants from the eastern side.

  When do you ever hear or read the Western media reporting on those crimes? You don’t, because that would unravel the propaganda narrative aimed at demonizing, criminalizing and delegitimizing the Syrian government and its Russia ally.

  And a key leitmotif of the official Western narrative is to create the perception that innocent civilians in Aleppo are being slaughtered by Syria and Russian forces. Both Damascus and Moscow reject claims that they are targeting civilian areas. Moscow has vehemently refuted Western claims that it is committing war crimes. Even the normally jingoistic US outlet Radio Free Europe quotes a legal expert from Amnesty International as saying that there is no evidence to indict Russia of such crimes.

  And because the anti-government militants restrict access to their stronghold, including for UN aid agencies, it is hard to verify the claims and footage coming out of there. Which notwithstanding has not restrained Western media from broadcasting the information verbatim.

  The Western mantra of «humanitarian crisis» and «war crimes» has the unmistakable connotation of contriving a public acceptance of certain policy objectives that Washington and its allies are striving for. At the very least, one of those objectives is to create a political atmosphere whereby Syria and Russia are obliged to comply with calls for no-fly zones, as recently demanded by US Secretary of State John Kerry. So far, Syria and Russia have rebuffed any such initiative, saying that it would give succor to the illegally armed groups who are now decisively in retreat.

  Still, a more far-reaching objective could be Washington and its allies fostering a public mandate for military intervention by the NATO alliance. The outcry over «humanitarian suffering» in eastern Aleppo is a repeat of the «responsibility to protect» (R2P) ploy which NATO invoked to previously intervene and dismember former Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, and a decade later in Libya in 2011.

  The US official inimitably qualified for such a political objective is Washington’s ambassador at the UN – Samantha Power. Her recent diatribes against Russia show a total disregard for diplomatic or legal protocol. Suffused with self-righteousness and selective «humanitarian» concern, Power is evidently leading a media campaign to mandate a NATO force being deployed to Syria’s Aleppo in order to «protect the children trapped in a killing zone» as the New York Times might put it.

  Forty-six-year-old Power has made her entire professional career out of formulating the «R2P» doctrine that has in the past well-served Washington’s imperialist goals.

  As a young reporter in the 1990s, Power wrote one-sided screeds about ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans, which conveniently demonized Serbia, culminating in the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999 and the subsequent carve up of Kosovo to become a NATO base. For this service to imperial interests, she was subsequently rewarded with a professorship at Harvard University and a Pulitzer-prize-winning book about genocide, a book which eminent scholars like Edward Herman have debunked as a load of plagiarism and self-serving historical distortions.

  The fiery, Irish-born Power was later promoted by President Barack Obama as an advisor on his National Security Council. It was in this position that she pushed the policy of NATO bombing Libya in 2011 with a reprise of her «R2P» doctrine.

  These NATO military assaults facilitated by emotive appeals to «humanitarian values» have since been shown to be reckless violations of international law amounting to foreign aggression. Earlier this year, the late Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was officially exonerated over war crimes allegations, charges that NATO had leveled to justify its bombardment of his country. Also, earlier this month a British parliamentary committee denounced former prime minister David Cameron for his involvement in the NATO intervention in Libya as being unfounded on claims that then Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was preparing to slaughter residents in the city of Benghazi.

  But it was so-called «liberal hawks» like Samantha Power who were instrumental in providing political and moral cover for Washington and the NATO military to conduct these illegal foreign invasions and regime changes under the pretext of protecting human rights and civilian lives.

  Obama assigned his useful apparatchik Samantha Power to the United Nations in August 2013, where she has proven to be completely out of her depth in terms of diplomatic finesse. She has infused her position on the Security Council with anti-Russian vitriol in the pursuit of Washington’s hegemonic interests, regardless of international law or objective historical analysis.

  The «humanitarian» propaganda drumbeat over Aleppo belies the facts and circumstances of Washington’s covert war for regime change in Syria. A dirty war in which it and its NATO allies have colluded with a proxy army of terrorist gangs, as this recent German media report by Jurgen Todenhofer confirms.

  Faced with a losing covert war in Syria, through the defeat of its terror proxy forces, it appears that Washington is striving for a more robust intervention in the guise of NATO military deployment, perhaps as «peacekeepers» overseeing a no-fly zone, as seen previously in Libya with disastrous results.

  Emoting about humanitarian concerns is a well-worn prelude for NATO barbarism on behalf of Washington’s geopolitical interests. Crocodile tears followed by bombs. And no better person to carry out this subterfuge than UN ambassador Samantha Power.

  

  

• 4 States Sue To Block Obama's Internet Transition Set For Tomorrow Night

  The US government, much to the chagrin of Senator Ted Cruz, is set to officially relinquish the Department of Commerce’s oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as of tomorrow night at midnight.  ICANN is a California nonprofit that has supervised website domains since 1998, essentially under subcontract from the Commerce Department. Under the Obama transition plan oversight by the U.S. Commerce Department would end and be replaced by a multi-stakeholder community, which would include the technical community, businesses, civil society and governments.

  Cruz had attempted to block the internet transition by tying the recently passed funding bill to the reversal of the ICANN turnover.  That said, apparently his harsh admonishments on the Senate floor failed to draw enough support from his fellow republicans to force a government shutdown over the topic. 

  “In 22 short days, if Congress fails to act, the Obama administration intends to give away control of the Internet to an international body akin to the United Nations,” Sen. Cruz said. “I rise today to discuss the significant, irreparable damage this proposed Internet giveaway could wreak not only on our nation, but on free speech across the world.”

   

  “The Obama administration is instead pushing through a radical proposal to take control of Internet domain names and instead give it to an international organization, ICANN, that includes 162 foreign countries. And if that proposal goes through, it will empower countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the Internet, your speech. Countries like China, Russia, and Iran are not our friends, and their interests are not our interests.

   

  “Imagine searching the Internet and instead of seeing your standard search results, you see a disclaimer that the information you were searching for is censored. It is not consistent with the standards of this new international body, it does not meet their approval. Now, if you’re in China, that situation could well come with the threat of arrest for daring to merely search for such a thing that didn’t meet the approval of the censors. Thankfully, that doesn’t happen in America, but giving control of the Internet to an international body with Russia, and China, and Iran having power over it could lead to precisely that threat, and it’s going to take Congress acting affirmatively to stop it.

  

   

  Supporters of the plan counter that critics’ harsh rhetoric fails to recognize that ICANN will be turned over to management by an independent board with representation from all over the world with no single body holding undue influence over decisions.  According to Yahoo, the transition has drawn support from Google and several democrat senators who commented to TechCrunch that “the internet belongs to the world, not to Ted Cruz.”

  “The transition will further strengthen the internet as a stable, resilient and secure tool for empowering billions of people across the globe for decades to come.”

   

  Google senior vice president Kent Walker also endorsed the shift, saying it would “fulfill a promise the United States made almost two decades ago: that the internet could and should be governed by everyone with a stake in its continued growth.”

   

  “The internet belongs to the world, not to Ted Cruz,” Senators Brian Schatz and Chris Coons, and Representatives Anna Eshoo, Doris Matsui, Frank Pallone and Mike Doyle said in an article for the TechCrunch news site.

   

  “If the Republicans successfully delay the transition, America’s enemies are sure to pounce. Russia and its allies could push to shift control of the internet’s core functions to a government body like the UN where they have more influence.”

  But, in a last ditch effort to block the transition, 4 state attorneys general from Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas, have filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court alleging that the transition, in the absence of congressional approval, amounts to an illegal forfeiture of U.S. government property.  According to Politico, the lawsuit also expresses concern that the reorganized ICANN would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”  

  “Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement. “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

   

  “I think, as a matter of philosophy, turning this over ultimately is maybe a great idea in the long run,” the attorney general said, “but I do think there are a lot of stakeholders involved, and we want to make sure no one in the future can limit or suppress access to the internet or punish people for speaking their minds.”

  Given Obama’s recent humiliating loss on the 9/11 lawsuit bill, we’re sure that efforts to block his internet transition plan will draw some attention at the White House.
  

  

  

• Trump Campaign Releases "Ten Inconvenient Truths About The Clinton Foundation"

  Just a few weeks back we introduced you to the work of Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel who spent the past year and a half digging into the Clinton Foundation and subsequently labeled it as a “Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions” (see our full post on the findings here:  ““Clinton Foundation Is Charity Fraud Of Epic Proportions”, Analyst Charges In Stunning Takedown“).  As many of our readers know, Ortel is the analyst that uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008, and was described by the Sunday Times of London as “one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet” in a 2009 story detailing the troubles at AIG.

  After a year and a half of looking into the Clinton Foundation, Ortel summarized his findings as follows:

  “An educated guess, based upon ongoing analysis of the public record begun in February 2015, is that the Clinton Foundation entities are part of a network that has defrauded donors and created illegal private gains of approximately $100 billion in combined magnitude, and possibly more, since 23 October 1997.“

  With that, here’s 10 more things that the Trump campaign thinks you should know about the Clinton Foundation.

  * * *

  Here Are Ten Facts Everyone Should Know About The Massive Conflict Of Interest And Corruption Issues Facing The Clinton Foundation

  FACT ONE – There Are Major Overlaps Between Clinton’s Campaign Donors And Her Foundation Donors, Raising Ethical Red Flags:

  According To The Washington Post, Nearly Half Of The Major Donors To Ready For Hillary And Nearly Half Of Her 2008 Campaign Bundlers Have Given At Least $10,000 To The Foundation. “Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run.” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

  • “The Clintons Have Relied Heavily On Their Close Ties To Wall Street, With Donations From The Financial Services Sector Representing The Largest Share Of Corporate Donors.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

  The Foundation “Has Given Contributors Entree, Outside The Traditional Political Arena, To A Possible President.” “The financial success of the foundation, which funds charitable work around the world, underscores the highly unusual nature of another Clinton candidacy. The organization has given contributors entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable giving.” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

  The Washington Post’s Review Of The Foundation’s Seven Biggest Donors Found “That There Is Strong Overlap Between The Family’s Political Base And The Foundation,” And That A Substantial Number Of Its Donors Are Based Outside Of The U.S. “The review found that there is strong overlap between the family’s political base and the foundation and that a substantial number of the foundation’s largest donors — those who have given at least $1 million — are based outside of the United States. Financial institutions also make up the largest portion of the foundation’s corporate giving.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, “Here Are The Seven Biggest Donors To The Bill, Hillary And Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” The Washington Post, 2/19/15)

  Bill Allison Of The Sunlight Foundation: “The Clinton Foundation Is A Unique Non-Profit That Can’t Be Separated From The American Political System.” “Bill Allison, senior policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, a campaign finance watchdog group, says the Clinton foundation is a unique non-profit that can’t be separated from the US political system. ‘If there is foreign money coming into the Clinton Foundation, it will raise the question of – is the president going to be doing favors for a foreign business, a foreign government, a foreign individual? And you just cannot have that in the American system of government, where the president is supposed to represent the American people,’ Allison said.” (Julianna Goldman, “Chinese Company Pledged $2 Million To Clinton Foundation In 2013,” CBS News, 3/16/15)

   

  FACT TWO – Several Major Clinton Foundation Donations Came From Companies Lobbying The Federal Government:

  The Wall Street Journal Headline: “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  As Secretary Of State Clinton “Was One Of The Most Aggressive Global Cheerleaders For American Companies…” “Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  • “At The Same Time, Those Companies Were Among The Many That Gave To The Clinton Family’s Global Foundation…” “At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  “At Least 60 Companies That Lobbied The State Department During Her Tenure Donated A Total Of More Than $26 Million To The Clinton Foundation…” “At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  “At Least 44 Of Those 60 Companies Also Participated In Philanthropic Projects Valued At $3.2 Billion That Were Set Up Though A Wing Of The Foundation Called The Clinton Global Initiative…” “At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up though a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which coordinates the projects but receives no cash for them.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  “As Secretary Of State, She Created 15 Public-Private Partnerships Coordinated By The State Department, And At Least 25 Companies Contributed To Those Partnerships.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  Clinton “Has A Web Of Connections To Big Corporations Unique In American Politics—Ties Forged Both As Secretary Of State And By Her Family’s Charitable Interests.” “As Mrs. Clinton prepares to embark on a race for the presidency, she has a web of connections to big corporations unique in American politics—ties forged both as secretary of state and by her family’s charitable interests.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

  “Those Relationships Are Emerging As An Issue For Mrs. Clinton’s Expected Presidential Campaign As Income Disparity And Other Populist Themes Gain Early Attention.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

   

  FACT THREE – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Foreign Governments:

  

   

  “Rarely, If Ever, Has A Potential Commander In Chief Been So Closely Associated With An Organization That Has Solicited Financial Support From Foreign Governments.” “Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.” (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Foreign Governments Gave Millions To Foundation While Clinton Was At State Dept.,” The Washington Post, 2/25/15)

   

  FACT FOUR – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Other Foreign Sources While Clinton Served As Secretary Of State:

  “More Than 40 Percent Of The Top Donors To The Clinton Foundation Are Based In Foreign Countries.” “More than 40 percent of the top donors to the Clinton Foundation are based in foreign countries, according to an analysis by McClatchy.” (Anita Kumar, “Clinton Foundation Limits Foreign Donations,” McClatchy, 4/15/15)

  According To The Wall Street Journal, While The Clinton Foundation “Swore Off Donations From Foreign Governments,” It Was Still Raising Millions From “Foreigners With Connections To Their Home Governments. “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

  While Bill Clinton Promised The Obama Administration To Stop Accepting Money From Foreign Governments, The Agreement Did Not “Place Limits On Donations From Foreign Individuals Or Corporations.” “Former President Bill Clinton promised the Obama administration the foundation wouldn’t accept most foreign-government donations while his wife was secretary of state. The agreement didn’t place limits on donations from foreign individuals or corporations.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

  The Donors Have Personal, Familial, And Business Ties To Foreign Governments. “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

  During Clinton’s Tenure At The State Department, Foreign Donors And Their Organizations Accounted For Between $34 And $68 Million In Donations And $60 Million In Commitments To The Foundation. “All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)

   

  FACT FIVE – Last Week The Clinton Foundation Announced They Wouldn’t Take Foreign Or Corporate Money If Clinton Is Elected, But Other Charities Still Will Be Allowed To:

  Last Week Bill Clinton Said The Clinton Foundation “Would Only Accept Contributions From U.S. Citizens And Independent Charities” If Hillary Clinton Is Elected President. “The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president. … Bill Clinton said if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the family’s foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities.” (Ken Thomas, “Clinton’s Foundation To Alter Donations Policy If Elected,” The Associated Press, 8/18/16)

  Other Clinton Charities Will Continue To Take Foreign And Corporate Donations Should Clinton Become President. “Big chunks of the Clinton family’s charitable network would be exempt from a self-imposed ban on foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, loopholes that highlight the complexity of disentangling her from the former first family’s myriad potential conflicts of interest.” (Annie Linskey, “Not All Clinton Charities Bound By New Set Of Rules,” Boston Globe, 8/20/16)

  These Charities Include The Clinton Health Access Initiative, The Alliance For A Healthier Generation And The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership. “The most prominent of the exceptions applies to the Boston-based Clinton Health Access Initiative, which in 2014 accounted for 66 percent of spending by the Clinton network of charities. … They include the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, an entity cofounded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, a joint venture between Bill Clinton and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra.” (Annie Linskey, “Not All Clinton Charities Bound By New Set Of Rules,” Boston Globe, 8/20/16)

   

  FACT SIX – The FBI Wanted To Open An Investigation Into The Clinton Foundation, But The Effort Was Scuttled By The Obama Administration:

  The FBI And Department Of Justice Met In Early 2016 To Discuss Opening A Public Corruption Case Into The Clinton Foundation. “Officials from the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, according to a US official.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

  Three FBI Field Offices Wanted To Investigate If Suspicious Banking Activity From A Foreigner Was Involved A Criminal Conflict Of Interest With The State Department And The Clinton Foundation. “At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official. FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure. The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash,’ but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

  Obama’s Department Of Justice Pushed Back Against Opening A Case. “As a result, DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year. Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton’s presidential campaign.”(Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

  The FBI Field Offices Were “Waved Off” By The DOJ. “Accusations that Clinton has committed crimes, and gotten away with them, have colored Republican campaigns for decades. They’ve picked up since the FBI announced that it would take no further steps to investigate her ‘careless’ use of a private email server after a year-long probe; they’ve gained more steam after reports that three (of 56) FBI field offices wanted to probe the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation over a foreign donation but were waved off by a DOJ that had come up empty in a similar probe.” (David Weigel, “‘Lock Her Up’ Sentiment Comes To A Congressional Campaign,” The Washington Post, 8/12/16)

   

  FACT SEVEN – Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At State Had A Deep And Simultaneous Involvement In The Clinton Foundation:

  CNN Headline: “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation” (Drew Griffin, “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/26)

  It Was Discovered That Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At The State Department Cheryl Mills Went To New York In 2012 To Interview Executives For A Top Position At The Clinton Foundation. “A CNN investigation found that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was involved in the Clinton Foudnation while she was also employed as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. On a trip to New York in 2012, Mills interviewed two executives for a top position at the Clinton foundation. The State Department said she was on personal time. Mills’ attorney says she was, doing ‘volunteer work for a charitable foundation. She was not paid.’” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

  “The Fact That The Aide, Cheryl Mills, Was Taking Part In Such A High Level Task For The Clinton Foundation While Also Working As Chief Of Staff For The Secretary Of State Raises New Question About The Blurred Lines That Dogged The Clinton As Secretary Of State.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

  The State Department Has Been Stonewalling Congressional Investigators On This Matter. “The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, has tried to get answers about Mills’ New York trip as well. Grassley sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter in January asking the purpose of Mills’ trip. The State Department did not officially respond to the letter.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)

   

  FACT EIGHT – Sidney Blumenthal Collected $10,000 A Month From The Clinton Foundation While Providing Libyan Intelligence To Clinton:

  Clinton Wanted To Bring Blumenthal On Board To The State Department In 2009, But The Hire Was Turned Down By The Obama White House Because Of His “Harsh Attacks” In The Democratic Primary. “As White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel was the one to bring the hammer down on Sidney Blumenthal. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ more than a decade ago. But President Obama’s campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year. So Mr. Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton, said Democrats informed about the situation, and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go.” (Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny, “Emanuel Wields Power Freely, And Faces The Risks,” The New York Times, 8/15/09)

  Blumenthal “Earned About $10,000 A Month As A Full-Time Employee Of The Clinton Foundation” While At The Same Time He Provided Intelligence On Libya To Then-Secretary Clinton. “Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.” (Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10K per month while he advised on Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

  • Politico Headline: “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya”(Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

  Blumenthal Was Added To The Clinton Foundation’s Payroll In 2009, “Not Long After Advising Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign — At The Behest Of Former President Bill Clinton…” “Blumenthal was added to the payroll of the Clintons’ global philanthropy in 2009 — not long after advising Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — at the behest of former president Bill Clinton, for whom he had worked in the White House, say the sources.” (Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

  Some Clinton Foundation Officials “Questioned” Blumenthal’s “Value And Grumbled That His Hiring Was A Favor From The Clintons.” “While Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency, some officials at the charity questioned his value and grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons, according to people familiar with the foundation.”(Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

  “When The Clintons Last Occupied The White House, Sidney Blumenthal Cast Himself In Varied Roles: Speechwriter, In-House Intellectual And Press Corps Whisperer.” “When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight.”(Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,” The New York Times, 5/18/15)

  Blumenthal’s Work With Clinton Has Been “Wide-Ranging,” “Complicated,” And Embodied “The Blurry Lines Between Business, Politics And Philanthropy That Have Enriched And Vexed The Clintons And Their Inner Circle For Years.”“But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.” (Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,” The New York Times, 5/18/15)

  “It May Be Difficult To Determine Where One Of Mr. Blumenthal’s Jobs Ended And Another Began.” “But interviews with his associates and a review of previously unreported correspondence suggest that — once again — it may be difficult to determine where one of Mr. Blumenthal’s jobs ended and another began.”(Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,” The New York Times, 5/18/15)

  “[T]he Clintons’ Past Does Provide Some Evidence That When It Comes To Friends And Politics, They Prize Loyalty Over All Else.” “Why didn’t Clinton do either of those things? Who knows. But, the Clintons’ past does provide some evidence that when it comes to friends and politics, they prize loyalty over all else.” (Chris Cillizza, “Hillary Clinton Is Defending Her ‘Loyal Old Friends.’ Here’s Why That’s A Mistake.,” The Washington Post, 5/19/15)

   

  FACT NINE – The Clinton Foundation Failed To Disclose $26.4 Million In Speaking Honoraria While Clinton Was Secretary Of State:

  Politico Headline: “New Clinton Speech Disclosures Reveal Foundation’s Take”(Josh Gerstein, “New Clinton Speech Disclosure Reveal Foundation’s Take,” Politico, 5/21/15)

  In May 2015, The Clinton Foundation Reported That It Has Received As Much As $26 Million In Previously Undisclosed Speaking Fees. “The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups … The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

  “The Clinton Foundation Confirmed Thursday That It Received As Much As $26.4 Million In Previously Unreported Payments From Foreign Governments And Corporations For Speeches Given By The Clintons.”(Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, “Clinton Foundation Didn’t Disclose As Much As $26M In Speaking Fees,” CNN, 5/21/15)

  The Disclosure Came As The Foundation Faced Questions “Over Whether It Fully Complied With A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Reveal Its Donors And Whether Any Of Its Funding Sources Present Conflicts Of Interest. “The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.”(Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

  The Disclosure Of Speaking Fees Was “The Latest In A String Of Admissions From The Foundation That It Didn’t Always Abide By A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Disclose Its Funding Sources Publicly.” “It’s the latest in a string of admissions from the foundation that it didn’t always abide by a 2008 ethics agreement to disclose its funding sources publicly. That agreement, penned as Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, is certain to continue the headache that the foundation’s work and donors have become for Clinton as she makes another run at the White House.” (Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, “Clinton Foundation Didn’t Disclose As Much As $26M In Speaking Fees,” CNN, 5/21/15)

  The Clinton’s Paid Speaking Honorariums Included Six Figure Speaking Fees From Foreign Companies And Wall Street Banks. “The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

  Clinton Herself Delivered 15 Speeches On The Foundation’s Behalf, “Including One Address To Goldman Sachs And Another To JPMorgan Chase.” “But the new disclosure indicates that the former president has also spent considerable time speaking on the foundation’s behalf — 73 times since 2002. Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)

   

  FACT TEN – Since 2003, The Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel:

  The New York Post Headline: “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

  From 2003 To 2012, The Clinton Foundation Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel. “Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

  In Just 2011, The Clinton Associated Foundations Spent $12.1 Million On Travel. “The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That’s enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

  The William J. Clinton Foundation Spent $4.2 Million On Travel In 2011. “That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

  “The Clinton Global Health Initiative Spent Another $730,000 On Travel In 2011, While The Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) Spent $7.2 Million On Travel.”(Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest