Today’s News 13th June 2017

  • 9 Of The World's 10 Least-Peaceful Nations Were All Targeted By US Intervention

    Authored by Whitney Webb via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The annual Global Peace Index, recently released for June 2017, has found that while the world is more peaceful now than last year, violence has increased significantly overall in the past decade.

    Although the situation has improved in many countries, the ten lowest-ranking nations – known as the world’s “least peaceful” countries – have shown little change in recent years.

    Infographic: The World's Most And Least Peaceful Countries  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    However, nine of those ten countries share one commonality in the violence that they’ve experienced: U.S.-led destabilization efforts and regime change operations

    Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan: Targets for regime change and manufactured sectarianism

    Syria, which ranked last in the June 2017 index, has been in the throes of a U.S.-led regime change effort for the better part of six years – a conflict that has ravaged one of the most prosperous nations in the Middle East and turned it into the latest battleground for a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.

    The U.S. has been planning the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at least as far back as 2006. Since the 2011 “uprising,” the U.S. has continuously funded and armed opposition groups in Syria along with several extremist groups, many of which have since joined terrorist organizations like Daesh (ISIS) and the al-Nusra Front.

    The nations that rank just above Syria – Iraq and Afghanistan – were both targets of major U.S. invasions in the early 2000s and the U.S.’ continued presence in both of these countries has greatly contributed to the still-deteriorating situations in both nations.

    With the U.S. troop presence growing in Iraq and set to surge dramatically in Afghanistan with the deployment of over 50,000 troops, more conflict is inevitable.

    South Sudan: “Nation-building” gone awry

    South Sudan, which ranked fourth, has also been victimized by U.S. intervention and “nation-building.”

    The U.S. pushed South Sudan to secede from Sudan in 201,1 as South Sudan held 75 percent of Sudan’s oil reserves — the largest oil reserves in all of Africa. Analysts argued that the U.S. sought to create an independent South Sudan in order to dislodge Chinese claims to Sudanese oil, as the Chinese had previously signed oil contracts with the (now Northern) Sudanese government. The U.S.’ significant aid contributions to South Sudan, totalling $1.6 billion between 2013 and 2016, suggest that Washington has sought to influence the government there for that very purpose.

    Just two years later, however, South Sudan dissolved into a deadly civil war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced more than 1.5 million. Some analysts have suggested that the civil war broke out between South Sudanese President Salva Kiir Mayardit and his former deputy Riek Machar only when Mayardit started to cozy up to China.

    The chaos from U.S. meddling in South Sudan has reached beyond its borders and brought trouble to Sudan, with that nation ranking as the eighth least peaceful nation.

    Yemen: U.S.-backed Saudi aggressors responsible for famine, war crimes

    Yemen, which ranked fifth, has also been involved in a U.S.-linked conflict, though the United States’ role has been less direct. While the U.S. is not leading the fight in Yemen, it has ardently backed the war’s aggressor – Saudi Arabia – from the beginning and has supplied the Saudis with billions of dollars in weapons, as well as occasionally bombed locations in Yemen to aid their Gulf allies.

    In addition, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the Saudis’ numerous war crimes in Yemen, despite the enormity of the tragedy unfolding there, including blocking aid shipments and consequently triggering widespread famine. The U.S. has been eager to see Saudi influence continue in Yemen – as it was prior to the conflict – due to Yemen’s location, which grants it control over the strategic strait of Bab al-Mandab, a chokepoint for the Saudi oil trade.

    Yemen is followed by Somalia in the rankings.

    Somalia: State of anarchy persists thanks to U.S. involvement

    U.S. involvement in Somalia has a long history and reached a climax in the early 1990s, when the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Siad Barre was overthrown, plunging the nation into civil war.

    Thanks to Somalia’s strategic location for global oil markets at the mouth of the Red Sea, the U.S. became involved and, according to a staffer for the chief of the UN Somalia operation, “dragged the UN into Somalia kicking and screaming.” Somalia remained in a state of anarchy for 16 years until a coalition of Islamic courts took over the capital in 2006. However, this government was soon overthrown by Ethiopia with U.S. support.

    Current U.S. anti-terrorism policy in Somalia, which includes the use of airstrikes, has been blamed for worsening the nation’s conflict and its burgeoning humanitarian crisis, having driven the nation into famine.

    Libya: Plunged into chaos after challenging U.S. petrodollar

    Another recent victim of U.S. regime change efforts, Libya now ranks as the seventh least peaceful nation in the world. Once one of the most prosperous nations in Africa, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made the “mistake” of challenging the U.S. petrodollar system by creating a gold-backed pan-African currency known as the dinar. Following his ouster, Libya was essentially transformed into a failed state where there is still no clear government, terrorism runs rampant and slaves are now openly traded in public.

    Ukraine: Targeted by U.S.-led coup over gas industry

    Ukraine, which was the target of a U.S.-led coup in 2014 to weaken the influence of Russia’s lucrative gas industry on European gas markets, now ranks tenth among the least peaceful nations in the world. The only nation ranking near the bottom that has not experienced clear U.S. involvement is the Central African Republic, which ranks ninth.

    The United States’ not-so-peaceful ranking

    The United States itself also plummeted dramatically in this year’s Global Peace Index, now ranking 114 out of the 163 nations surveyed. This decrease was the greatest decline measured in any country this year.

    Statisticians have blamed divisiveness that has made itself plain following the 2016 presidential election, as well as a continued rise in homicide rates.

    The United States’ involvement in military conflicts abroad is not factored into its ranking, meaning that this placement is conservative at best. As indicated by the ten lowest-ranking nations, if this factor were taken into consideration, the U.S. could likely find itself at the bottom of the list for its role in spurring disastrous and deadly conflicts around the world under the guise of foreign policy.

  • Hillary Clinton Explains The Way To Stop Terrorism Is To "Understand" Other Cultures & Their Food

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Infowars.com,

    If you thought Hillary Clinton would stop talking any time soon then think again.

    The defeated presidential candidate told a fundraiser for a youth program that the best way to stop terrorism was to “understand” other cultures and their food.

    Yes, really.

    Hillary defended London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the man who once represented 9/11 Al-Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui, called moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms” and said terrorism was “part and parcel” of living in a major city.

    Clinton said that Khan, who has called for Donald Trump to be banned from entering the UK for a state visit (while actual terrorists from Syria are free to return), had shown “steady, determined leadership”.

    Hillary said the best way of combating terror was to “reach out to the world” in order to “understand” people living in foreign countries.

    “Getting to know one another. Learning about the experiences, the lives, the cultures, the religions, the food,” she added.

    One wonders what kind of “cultures” Clinton is referring to? Maybe the ‘culture’ of Bacha b?z?, where elderly Muslim men dress up young boys as girls and then rape them? Or could she be referring to female genital mutilation? Another expression of Islamic ‘culture’ now endorsed by imams living in America.

    “This is not a time to lash out, to incite fear or to use tragedy and terror for political gain,” said Clinton.

    A comment obviously aimed at Donald Trump and anyone else who has correctly identified political correctness and tolerance of Islamism as creating a fertile ground for terrorist attacks in the west.

    Maybe Hillary is right.

    Maybe we don’t need to arrest the thousands of jihadists who walk our streets.

    Maybe we don’t need to stop terrorists who have fought alongside ISIS in Syria and Iraq from returning to the west.

    Maybe we just need to get a better grip on the dietary habits of Muslims.

    Who knew it would be this easy to stop suicide bombers, rampaging knifemen and jihadists who plough vehicles into crowds of people?

  • Gingrich Questions Special Counsel's Impartiality – "Republicans Are Delusional…Look Who He Is Hiring"

    Since his appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has enjoyed fairly bipartisan praise in Washington D.C. for his apparent impartiality. 

    That said, Newt Gingrich, a former ‘informal advisor’ to President Trump, thinks that Comey cast a dark shadow over Mueller’s independence last week when he admitted under oath, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that he leaked FBI documents to the New York Times with the express intent of getting a Special Counsel appointed to investigate Trump and various members of his campaign team.  All of which prompted the following tweet from Gingrich early this morning:

    “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he is hiring.check fec reports. Time to rethink.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As The Hill notes, several of Mueller’s early, notable hires have all been contributors to Hillary’s and/or Obama’s previous campaigns.

    Michael Dreeben, who serves as the Justice Department’s deputy solicitor general, is working on a part-time basis for Mueller, The Washington Post reported Friday.

     

    Dreeben donated $1,000 dollars to Hillary Clinton’s Senate political action committee (PAC), Friends of Hillary, while she ran for public office in New York. Dreeben did so while he served as the deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department.

     

    Jeannie Rhee, another member of Mueller’s team, donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign PAC Hillary for America.

     

    Andrew Weissmann, who serves in a top post within the Justice Department’s fraud practice, is the most senior lawyer on the special counsel team, Bloomberg reported. He served as the FBI’s general counsel and the assistant director to Mueller when the special counsel was FBI director.

     

    Before he worked at the FBI or Justice Department, Weissman worked at the law firm Jenner & Block LLP, during which he donated six times to political action committees for Obama in 2008 for a total of $4,700.

     

    James Quarles, who served as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, has donated to over a dozen Democratic PACs since the late 1980s. He was also identified by the Washington Post as a member of Mueller’s team.

     

    Starting in 1987, Quarles donated to Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis’s presidential PAC, Dukakis for President. Since then, he has also contributed in 1999 to Sen. Al Gore’s run for the presidency, then-Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential bid in 2005, Obama’s presidential PAC in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton’s presidential pac Hillary for America in 2016.

    This latest Twitter warning followed similar comments made by Gingrich over the weekend on Fox News.  Among other things, the former Speaker of the House said that Mueller’s investigation is shaping up to be a “witch hunt.”

    “First of all, look at what Comey said.  Comey said ‘I deliberately leaked, through an intermediary, to create this counsel’…who happens to be one of his closest friends.  And look at who Mueller is starting to hire.  I mean these are people that frankly look to me like they’re setting up to go after Trump.  Including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information in two major cases.”

     

    “I think this is going to be a witch hunt.  Comey himself, by his own testimony, tainted this particular process.”

     

    “You know, the Director of the FBI deliberately leaking in order to create a special counsel, who we’re now supposed to believe is going to be this neutral figure, I think that’s just nonsense.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Meanwhile, appearing on the John Catsimatidis radio show, Gingrich went one step further and called on Congress to “abolish the independent counsel.”

    “I think Congress should now intervene and they should abolish the independent counsel, because Comey makes so clear that it’s the poison fruit of a deliberate manipulation by the FBI director leaking to the New York Times, deliberately set up this particular situation. It’s very sick.”

     

    “It’s very clear that Comey hates Trump.”

    Of course, as a former surrogate of the Trump campaign, Gingrich’s opinions on the topic of Mueller’s independence will undoubtedly be quickly dismissed by the left and most of the media.

    So what say you, does Gingrich raise valid concerns in light of Comey’s testimony or is he just a conflicted surrogate attempting to mount a Trump offensive?

  • Gallup Finds Stunning Decline In Americans' Respect For US Government

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    On June 9th, Gallup’s Editor-In-Chief, Frank Newport, headlined «Americans Want More Than Just Budget Cuts» and reported that, «Gallup's latest update shows that 28% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the federal government, while 55% have an unfavorable opinion. That's the lowest rating for any business or industry sector we tested». Here are the details on that net minus 27% (55% minus 28%) favorability-rating for «The federal government»:

    Dr. Newport then points out that, the last time when Gallup had reported about Americans’ opinions of Congress, which was on 28 September 2015, «The More Americans Know Congress, the Worse They Rate It»; and, specifically, that, whereas only 7% of Americans who answered either 4 or 5 out of five questions about Congress correctly were rating Congress either «Excellent» or «Good», a far higher 27% of Americans who had answered none of the five questions correctly were rating Congress either «Excellent» or «Good».  29% of Americans who had answered zero questions correctly were rating Congress as either «Poor» or «Bad», but a far higher 66% of Americans who had answered either 4 or 5 of the questions correctly were rating Congress as «Poor» or «Bad». Consequently, «The Knowledgeable Are the Most Negative About Congress» according to Gallup’s latest available information, published there.

    The basic point in Dr. Newport’s June 9th article is that the reason why Americans dislike «The federal government» isn’t that it’s ‘too big’ or ‘spends too much money’ or any of the other excuses that the (widely despised) Republican Party claims, but is instead that, «Americans think that Congress is corrupt and not focused on the interests of the people. They want their representatives to compromise rather than rigidly stick to principles».

    By «principles» there, might be meant such things as ‘a balanced budget’ or ‘cutting spending’ (as Republicans would like to be hearing), but it might also mean ‘consideration and decent treatment of the poor’ (as Democrats would like to be hearing); and, so, in a survey such as this, it is really meaningless overall.

    What is far more meaningful was Gallup’s survey about Americans’ perceptions about corruption in Congress: 52 % thought that «Most members» of Congress are corrupt, but only 32 % thought that their own particular member of Congress is corrupt. Obviously, if the perceptions on that matter had been correct nationwide, and 52% of Congress is corrupt, then 52% of the survey’s respondents should have been saying that their own Representative in Congress is corrupt. In other words: the U.S. public are widely deceived to believe that their own Representative is not corrupt but that a substantial majority (52% saying that Congress is «Corrupt», versus only 42 % saying it’s «Not corrupt») believe that «Congress» is corrupt.

    Gallup’s 28 September 2015 report about perceptions of Congress made note, also, that there was an extraordinary jump in 2006 in the percentage saying that «Most members are corrupt», from 38 % saying that in 2005, up to 47 % saying that in 2006. After 2006, the percentages saying that, rose only slightly. Perhaps 2006 was a post-Iraq-invasion syndrome, in which increasing numbers of Americans came to distrust the U.S. government that had clearly lied and invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The Gallup Poll’s findings about Americans’ perceptions regarding the question »In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?» first peaked at 61% right before the invasion, in the poll taken on «3/3-5/03» or March 3-5 of 2003, then subsided a bit but finally rose even higher, to 62%, in the poll taken during «8/22-25/05» or August 22-15 of 2005, and then it stayed generally above that and briefly soared into the 80s during 2011, but is now in the high 60s, still slightly higher than the post-Iraq-invasion disillusionment period.

    In any case, what seems clear is that Americans now strongly dislike ‘our’ federal government and generally consider it to be «corrupt» or not really «our» government, but instead to be somehow «their» government of »us». And, also obviously, if this long-term trend continues, then the American public will be heading into a pre-revolutionary condition, and, beyond that, into a revolutionary one. If the existing long-term trend continues, then the result will be either the overthrow of the U.S. federal government, or else a lock-down of first the Internet and then the public, at a time of already overcrowded prisons. Of course, when there is not space to accommodate additional prisoners, then military compounds become resorted to — and martial law.

    No longer is it at all reasonable to characterize the United States as a stable democracy. It’s certainly not stable now; and, also, it’s certainly not a democracy. And the present long-term trend is in the wrong direction.

    The United States is certainly a country that is currently heading into some kind of convulsive transition — but, certainly, also, an extremely unpleasant transition, even if, somehow, one that can reach a stability which is better, not worse, than that of the earlier post-WW-II era. And, of course, if it turns out to be a pre-WW-III transition, then the result will be catastrophic for the entire world.

    The way that the U.S. federal government has responded to the current transition, up till now, is to continue the lies. But there is no certainty that that will continue to work, even for the people at the very top.

  • Opioids Killed More People In One Ohio County Last Year Than Car Accidents, Homicides, & Suicides Combined

    As the national opioid crisis rages in the midwest and along the northern and mid-Atlantic states, Cuyahoga County has reported yet another disturbing statistic about the growing death toll from one of America’s most pressing health crises: Last year, deaths from drug overdoses in the county – the bulk of which were caused by powerful synthetic opioids like fentanyl – surpassed deaths from homicides, suicides and car crashes combined.

    The county medical examiner’s office in Cuyahoga, which abuts the southern shore of the Ohio River, said the country, which is centered around Cleveland, recorded 666 overdose deaths lasts year.  Officials see no end in sight to the crisis and are projecting deaths to climb in 2017, according to the Cleveland.com.

    "What we've seen over the beginning of 2017 is it's getting off to a start that's worse than 2016," Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Gilson said last week in a news release.

    Here’s a rundown of data from the county medical examiner’s office, as compiled by Cleveland.com.

    The powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl was a factor in 399 of the 666 overdose deaths reported last year. Prevalence of these synthetic drugs has risen sharply since 2013 when it was involved in just five deaths. Another reason for the spike in deaths is that fentanyl is sometimes being mixed in with other drugs, usually heroin but also sometimes cocaine. The 399 fentanyl deaths reported last year included 117 deaths caused by fentanyl alone and 141 caused by a mix of fentanyl and heroin. Sixty-eight deaths were caused by a mix of fentanyl and cocaine, and 73 were caused by a mix of fentanyl, heroin and cocaine.

    Two other powerful fentanyl analogues, Carfentanil and acetyl fentanyl, were responsible for 54 and 43 deaths, statistics show.

    Deaths from opioid overdoses are most prevalent among young white males aged 18-24, according to expert who monitor the epidemic. But in Cuyahoga County, opioids are increasingly killing minorities as well. Fentanyl contributed to the deaths of 58 black people last year in Cuyahoga County, up from 25 in 2015. Just five black people were died from fentanyl use in 2014, according to Cleveland.com.

    Still, 85 percent of the people killed by fentanyl last year were white.

    Although opioid deaths accounted for the bulk of overdoses, cocaine related deaths also rose sharply in 2016.

    There were 260 people who died after overdosing on the drug, or on cocaine mixed with other drugs, statistics show.

    Cocaine resulted in 115 deaths in 2015; in fact, cocaine-related deaths have not risen higher than roughly 125 at any point in the past decade.

    Fentanyl has been involved in the bulk of drug deaths. But heroin and painkillers were also linked to a greater number of deaths.

    Opioids, which include heroin and fentanyl, were linked to 557 of the 666 overdose deaths last year in Cuyahoga County.

    Overdose deaths worsened in each four-month trimester of 2016, the medical examiner's office said.

    According to the data, the county reported 140 deaths from January through April and 181 from May through August and 196 deaths between September and December.

    In 2016, the county reported 475 violent deaths; that included 184 homicides, 172 suicides and 119 fatal crashes. Heroin and fentanyl, by contrast, killed 506.

    Drug overdose deaths in the country are projected to increase from 666 in 2016 to 775 in 2017, the medical examiner’s office said. Heroin deaths are projected to drop, but officials are projecting an additional 200 cases involving fentanyl or cocaine.

    "We are seeing epidemic levels of drug overdose deaths in this country," medical examiner Gilson told Cleveland.com in a statement. "It's a big issue."

    Cuyahoga is hardly unique; deaths from drug overdoses nationwide surpassed homicides for the first time in 2015 as the epidemic of heroin and opioid related deaths in the US continues to grow amid the dismal failure of the 'war on drugs'. 

    One coroner in Montgomery Country, PA told a local newspaper that the morgue's freezer is running out of room for bodies because of the high death toll from the epidemic.

    President Donald Trump has vowed to combat the crisis, saying that his border wall would help curb the flow of drugs over the border from Mexico. But increasingly, drug dealers are ordering their drugs through websites hosted on the dark web, where fentanyl and other super-powerful synthetic opioids are widely available. These sites connect buyers with labs in China who will mail the drugs to US-based customers in unassuming packages that are difficult for customs to intercept.
     

  • Putin Meets With Ethereum Founder To Create National Virtual Currency

    Two weeks ago, in our latest comparison of Bitcoin and its up and coming competitor, Ethereum, we said “step aside bitcoin, there is a new blockchain kid in town.” Actually, we said that for the first time back in February when Ethereum was still trading in the low teens (the return on ETH since then is roughly 3000%), but the most recent glance provided some perspective on where the competition between the two largest cryptocurrencies may culminate, because according to at least two venture capitalists, the market cap of Ethereum – currently roughly $35 bilion – and whose share of the market has been soaring, will surpass that of Bitcoin, at ~$43 billion although it changes by the second, sometime before the end of 2018.

    Two things: first, at the current rate of gains in Ethereum market share (and loss in Bitcoin’s), the inflection point between the two will come not in months, or weeks, but perhaps days.

    Second, said inflection point may come in even faster if Vladimir Putin has anything to say about it, because as Bloomberg reports, “Ethereum has caught the attention of none other than the Russian president as a potential tool to help Russia diversify its economy beyond oil and gas.” Putin met Ethereum’s young founder Vitalik Buterin on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg Economic Forum last week and supported his plans to build contacts with local partners to implement blockchain technology in Russia, according to a statement on Kremlin’s website.

    Speaking at the Economic Forum, Putin said that “the digital economy isn’t a separate industry, it’s essentially the foundation for creating brand new business model” and discussed means to boost growth long-term after Russia ended its worst recession in two decades. As explained repeatedly over the past 6 months, besides being a method of exchange, Ethereum is also a ledger for everything from currency contracts to property rights, speeding up business by cutting out intermediaries such as public notaries. It also does not suffer from some of the size limitations that have paralyzed bitcoin in recent months.

    Furthermore, just like the western Enterprise Ethereum Alliance which consists of JPMorgan, Intel, Microsoft and other leading blue chips, Russia’s central bank has already deployed an Ethereum-based blockchain as a pilot project to process online payments and verify customer data with lenders including Sberbank PJSC, Deputy Governor Olga Skorobogatova said at the St. Petersburg event. She didn’t rule out using Ethereum technologies for the development of a national virtual currency for Russia down the road.

    Adoption of Ethereum in Russia has been brisk also in the private sector: last week, Bloomberg reports that Russia’s state development bank VEB agreed to start using Ethereum for some administrative functions. Steelmaker Severstal PJSC tested Ethereum’s blockchain for secure transfer of international credit letters.

    Blockchain may have the same effect on businesses that the emergence on the internet once had — it would change business models, and eliminate intermediaries such as escrow agents and clerks,” said Vlad Martynov, an adviser for The Ethereum Foundation, a non-profit organization that backs the cryptocurrency. “If Russia implements it first, it will gain similar advantages to those the Western countries did at the start of the internet age.”

    What about price targets? Pavel Matveev, co-founder of Wirex told CNBC today that Ethereum could reach $600 by the end of the year, leaving bitcoin in the dust. Until just a few short weeks ago, such a forecast would seem ludicrous. However, considering the recent surge in ethereum prices – recall it hit an all time high of $412 earlier today before sharply dropping then again erasing virtually all losses – it may reach that particular target in just a few weeks.

  • 'Madoff Whistleblower' Harry Markopolos Has Uncovered A New Fraud

    Authored by Robert Huebscher via Advisor Perspectives,

    Harry Markopolos, the investigator who exposed the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, has uncovered a new fraud. The unfunded status of the pension fund of the Boston Transit Authority (the “MBTA”) is $500 million bigger than previously thought, according to Markopolos. This will have a significant impact on the municipal bond market, especially if it turns out that the MBTA’s problems are endemic among similar pension funds.

    The unfunded status of a pension fund is the market value of the assets minus the present value of the liabilities, discounted at an actuarially determined interest rate. For most public pension plans, this number is negative; the liabilities exceed the assets and it is underfunded.

    Although the full details are not yet known, Markopolos said the $500 gap is due to bad investments, fraudulent accounting and unrealistic actuarial assumptions.

    Markopolos spoke on June 9 at Northfield Information Service’s 22nd annual summer seminar, held in Newport, RI. Northfield is a provider of advanced analytics to institutional investment managers and wealth managers. Its CEO, Dan diBartolomeo, worked with Markopolos in the Madoff investigation and is helping with the MBTA case.

    Markopolos called what is left of the MBTA’s pension a “Tender Vittles retirement plan,” meaning (sarcastically) that its participants would be eating cat food.

    The underlying cause of the MBTA’s problems was poor management and oversight. “No good outcomes result when you mix politics and money,” Markopolos said.

    The problems began with failed investments in two hedge funds and culminated in the more widespread problems that Markopolos uncovered.

    Buddy Fletcher

    The troubles at the MBTA began in 2012, when it was revealed that it had lost $25 million in an investment in Fletcher Asset Management, a hedge fund run by Alphonse “Buddy” Fletcher. The MBTA had been hiding this loss until it was exposed by an investigative reporter from The Boston Globe.

    Fletcher had promised guaranteed returns of 12%, similar to Madoff’s sales pitch. It was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. In addition to the MBTA, three Louisiana pension funds lost $100 million in the scheme.

    What made the Fletcher loss so galling, according to Markopolos, was that its chief investment officer, Karl White, had been the executive director of the MBTA pension fund. One year after leaving the MBTA, he convinced it to fund Fletcher.

    “There are a lot of Ponzis,” Markopolos said, “and they are stealing customers from legitimate managers.”

    Fletcher used the money it raised to invest in a movie, Violet and Daisy, which his brother was making and in a “penny stock” called ANTS, on which it booked a 1,000% return over a 16-day period. At one point, Fletcher reported 127 months of positive returns without a down month; it later revised this to show 14 down months.

    The Fletcher irregularities went unnoticed by the MBTA’s board, which Markopolos said consisted of mostly non-college graduates – union members who worked on or operated the city’s busses and subways. The board had one person with an MBA and a couple of lawyers, who Markopolos said were not experts in investing.

    Neither the MBTA’s auditor, KPMG, nor Marco Consulting, its pension consultant, reported any problems with the Fletcher investment.

    Weston Capital

    In 2013, the MBTA invested approximately $10 million in Weston Capital, a hedge fund run by Jason Galanis, whose father had run a big Ponzi scheme in the 1970s, stealing approximately $400 million from mostly Hollywood investors.

    Markopolos said in 2007 that Galanis bought shares in Penthouse magazine, filed a false 10Q with forged signature, and had caused its auditor, Deloitte, to resign. All this happened before the MBTA made its investment in 2009.

    “How much due diligence do you have to do to invest with Weston Capital?” Markopolos asked, rhetorically.

    By the end of 2013, the MBTA had written off the value of its Weston investment.

    Galanis, Markopolos said, would look for struggling RIAs. He would overpay for an ownership interest in firm, with the stipulation that its minority interest not be disclosed on its form ADV (which is illegal). He would then arrange to invest all or a portion of the RIA’s fixed-income portfolio with a promise of 8-9% returns. He would then raid those funds to pay Ponzi-style interest, Markopolos said.

    Markopolos warned that fraudulent schemes to buy struggling RIAs are ongoing. RIAs should be aware that the damage goes beyond the firm’s assets, he said. A good criminal defense starts at $1 million, according to Markopolos, and even if you beat the charge anyone will be able to Google the result.

    The larger problem

    After recounting the Fletcher and Weston debacles, Markopolos described the larger problem facing the MBTA.

    Based on audited financials, he said that the MBTA plan’s assets are only 29% of its liabilities, an underfunding of approximately $470 million. But Markopolos claims the actual number is closer to $1 billion.

    The gap is due to overstating of asset values and returns, underestimating employee’s life expectancies and using an unrealistic discount rate for its liabilities.

    The MBTA is “one bear market away from disaster,” Markopolos said.

    Markopolos presented data from the MBTA’s 2012 and 2013 annual reports, when its market value jumped by $200 million. The most alarming aspect in those years was the outperformance of its public equity (large-cap, small-cap and emerging markets) and fixed-income holdings. Equities outperformed their benchmark by 6.28% and 5.63%; bonds beat its benchmark by 7.60% and 2.86%, respectively in the two years. Similar returns were reported for the MBTA’s real estate holdings.

    That degree of outperformance is highly unusual, since the MBTA was using multiple asset managers in both its equity and fixed-income allocations. Across all asset classes, it used 71 asset managers. According to diBartolomeo, a single manager might achieve such outstanding results, but the chances of a team of managers performing that well was “essentially zero.”

    The investigation is ongoing as to how the MBTA was able to report such spectacular results. Most likely, it was due to accounting manipulations. The MBTA may have switched the accounting standard it used (such as GAAP or GASB) in order to report the most favorable result. It may also have used provisions which allows pension plans to report performance smoothed over a five-year period to inflate its numbers.

    By contrast, the MBTA reported dismal results for the 20% of its assets held in alternative funds – private equity, hedge funds and something it called “diversified beta.” Each of those fund categories underperformed their benchmarks in 2012 and 2013 by between 9% and 17%.

    Markopolos questioned the due diligence procedures that led to such poor investments and why those managers had not been fired after achieving such poor results.

    “Why did it keep investing in alternatives?” he asked, rhetorically.

    The MBTA used actuarial tables from 1994 to determine the expected lifetimes of its employees. This resulted in shorter lifetimes than the rest of the pension industry, which was using tables from 2000. By assuming its employees would have shorter lifetimes, it was able to artificially reduce its projected liabilities and underfunded status. This represents approximately $105 million of the half-billion shortfall.

    Long-term implications

    Of the roughly $500 million shortfall, Markopolos calculated that $106 million is due to using an unreasonable discount rate to calculate the present value of its liabilities. The MBTA used an 8% discount rate and had increased its rate in 2012 by 0.5%, when almost all pension plans were decreasing their rate or leaving it constant.

    The use of unreasonable discount rates is well-known and its impact widely estimated. The plans justify the use of an unreasonably high rate by claiming adherence to an actuarial standard; in reality, the economically appropriate discount rate – one which reflects the riskiness of the liabilities – is much lower. Markopolos said it should be about 4.5%.

    The more troubling problems uncovered by Markopolos are driven by other factors, such as poor due diligence on its investments, overstating of returns, overstating of asset values and faulty life-expectancy estimates. These problems appear to be driven by a pension board that, at best, was unable or unwilling to scrutinize its investments or, at worst, willingly investing its assets with known criminals and past employees.

    Nobody knows how widespread problems like these are.

    The MBTA falls into the category of multi-employer public pension plans, which are among the smaller state-run plans. According to diBartolomeo, there are approximately $3 trillion in assets in about 6,000 smaller plans, roughly about 30% of the total assets in public pension plans. Markopolos said there are “plenty of other plans in Massachusetts with similar problems.”

    Don’t expect help from supporting vendors. In addition to KPMG and Marco, Markopolos said that neither State Street Bank, the MBTA’s custodian, nor Buck Consultants, the plan’s actuarial consultant, warned of any problems.

    KPMG should have found the discrepancies. But Markopolos said its auditors are typically “22-year olds who catch more colds than frauds.”

    The investigation into the MBTA plan will continue. But if the plan fails – as Markopolos warned – it will surely have an impact on the municipal market. If the state of Massachusetts needs to bail out the plan, it will need to raise money through the bond market. It would be politically unpopular to let the plan fail, since the blue-collar MBTA workers are unwitting victims of the fraud and incompetence.

    If problems like this are endemic among multi-employer state pension plans, it will mean higher rates for municipal bonds.

     

  • How Russians Feel About Corruption

    Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was arrested at his apartment just before taking part in an anti-corruption protest in Moscow. His wife tweeted the news of his arrest as crowds prepared to descend on Tverskaya Street near the Kremlin. Navalny had moved the rally there from a different location in the capital. Even though his initial request to hold a demonstration was granted by the authorities, he decided to change location, claiming they prevented him from hiring key items such as sound equipment and a stage.

    As Statista's Nial McCarthy notes, after shifting the focus of his event to one of Moscow's main thoroughfares, Navalny was always on a collision course with the police, unsurprisingly resulting in his arrest. That's nothing new for the former lawyer who has been arrested countless times over the years, most notably in 2012 when he was accused of embezzlement and fraud, charges he denied.

    The numbers attending protests in Moscow and over 200 other cities will be an indicator of how much support Navalny actually has ahead of his plans to contest next year's presidential election.

    His cause will undoubtedly be helped by a survey from the Levada Center which shows that Russians are angry about high-level corruption in the government.

    Infographic: How Russians Feel About Corruption  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    The research found that 47 percent of people think corruption has taken a significant hold in the government while 32 percent think it has fully permeated it from top to bottom.

    Interestingly, 25 percent of those polled think Vladimir Putin bears full responsibility for the corruption and financial abuse frequently cited by his opponents. 42 percent said the Russian president is responsible in large part and only 9 percent say he could not be responsible for all of it.

    Even though Navalny wants to contest next year's elections, authorities say he is barred due to his fraud conviction, a conviction he feels is fabricated. Even though that theory might gain more traction after his latest arrest, Navalny will find it extremely difficult to dislodge Putin who nevertheless enjoys very high approval ratings.

  • China Auto Sales Post First Consecutive Monthly Drop Since 2015

    The Chinese auto market is having it’s own version of a “cash for clunkers” moment.  After artificially pulling sales forward for all of 2016 with a purchase tax that was cut in half from 10% to 5%, the Chinese auto market is now suffering the consequences of removing that stimulus.  As Reuters notes, Chinese auto sales have declined sharply so far in 2017 with April and May registering the first consecutive monthly declines since 2015.

    Chinese auto sales slipped in May from a year ago, registering two straight months of declines for the first time since 2015, with the automakers’ association saying the weakness may drag on as the rollback of a tax incentive continues to hurt.

     

    The world’s biggest auto market got a shot in the arm in 2016, growing at its fastest pace in three years, after Beijing halved the purchase tax on smaller-engined vehicles. But buyers have shied away since taxes climbed to 7.5 percent, from 5 percent, at the start of this year.

     

    Auto sales in China fell 0.1 percent in May from a year ago to 2.1 million vehicles, China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) said on Monday. In April, sales recorded their steepest fall in 20 months.

     

    Of course, for those of old enough to remember 2009, the U.S. auto market had it’s own, albeit short-lived, experience with massive government subsidies for auto purchases.  Unfortunately, sales crashed as soon as the stimulus was removed.

     

    Meanwhile, as China Association of Automobile Manufacturers spokesman Xu Haidong notes, the downturn in China is probably far from over given that auto purchases taxes will increase again in 2018 back to their original 10%.

    The current downturn in China’s auto market could extend through July or August, said Xu Haidong, a CAAM spokesman.

     

    “Last year was just too strong and now the policy impact is fading away,” said Yale Zhang, managing director of Shanghai-based consultancy Automotive Foresight. “The growth (last year) overdrew some of the demand.”

     

    China’s auto market recorded a 13.7 percent rise in sales last year, helped by the tax incentive. The purchase tax on vehicles with engines of 1.6 litres or below will rise to the normal 10 percent next year.

    Seems as though China is experiencing an auto plateau of their own…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 12th June 2017

  • The "Islamization Of Europe"? What's Behind Erdogan's New Muslim Political Network

    Authored by Yves Manou via The Gatestone Institute,

    • What is notable is that France's new Muslim party, the Equality and Justice Party (PEJ), is an element of a network of political parties built by Turkey's President Erdogan and AKP to influence each country of Europe, and to influence Europe through its Muslim population.
    • What is their program? The classic one for an Islamic party: abolishing the founding secularist law of 1905, which established the separation of church and state; mandatory veils for schoolgirls; and community solidarity (as opposed to individual rights) as a priority. All that is wrapped in the not-so-innocent flag of the necessity to "fight against Islamophobia", a concept invented to shut down the push-back of all people who might criticize Islam before they can even start.
    • "[The Islamist party's] purpose is to conquer the world, not just have a mandate. Its mechanics were already established…. Islamists took power in the name of democracy, then suspended democracy by using their power…. Convert the clothes, the body, the social links, the arts, nursing homes, schools, songs and culture, then, they just wait for the fruit to fall in the turban… An Islamist party is an open trap: you cannot let it in. If you refuse it, your country switches to a dictatorship, but if you accept it, you are at risk of submission…." — Kamel Daoud, Algerian writer, in Le Point, 2015.

    In the legislative elections that will take place June 11 and 18 in France, political parties are finalizing preparations: choosing their candidates, and printing posters and stickers. Business as usual? Not really.

    (Image source: Rama/Wikimedia Commons)

    One newcomer arose in the political spectrum: a Muslim party, the Parti Egalité Justice ("Equality and Justice Party"; PEJ).

    What is notable is that PEJ is an element of a network of political parties built by Trukey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), to influence each country of Europe, and to influence Europe through its Muslim population.

    PEJ: A Pro-Erdogan Party in France

    The PEJ was created in 2015 in Strasbourg, the de facto capital of eastern France, on the border with Germany. PEJ has already approved 68 candidates — not enough to cover the whole territory but enough to compete efficiently in districts where Turkish and Muslim populations are strongly represented. French citizens of Turkish origin are estimated to represent 600,000 people in France, out of a Muslim population estimated at 5-15 million, but official statistics do not exist.

    Another Muslim party, "Français et Musulmans" ("French and Muslims"), is also quietly preparing to erupt on the political scene of the French legislative elections. "Français et Musulmans" originates from L'Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) which has been rebaptized "Muslims of France". "Français et Musulmans" is the French branch of Muslim Brotherhood.

    The PEJ, is the first party in France established by Turks. PEJ already participated in elections of the Provincial General Assembly in March 2015, but was eliminated in the first round. According to the magazine Marianne: "PEJ is closely connected to Council for justice, equality and peace (Cojep), an international NGO which represents, everywhere it is based, an anchor for AKP", the party of Turkey's president, Recep Tayip Erdogan. According to L'Express "many managers of PEJ are also in charge in Cojep".

    What is their program? The classic one for an Islamist party: abolishing the founding secularist law of 1905, which established the separation of church and state; veils mandatory for schoolgirls in public schools; halal food for all schools; support for Palestinians; and community solidarity (as opposed to individual rights) as a priority. All that is wrapped in the not-so-innocent flag of the necessity to "fight against Islamophobia", a concept invented to shut down the push-back of all people who might criticize Islam before they can even start.

    According to the magazine Marianne, Mine Gunbay, responsible for women's rights in the city council of Strasbourg, fearlessly and tirelessly denounced the metamorphosis of Strasbourg into "political laboratory of the AKP". Strasbourg is the city where Erdogan was authorized by former president Hollande to hold an electoral rally in October 2015. Legally.

    Another noteworthy Turkish move in France is the probable nomination of Ahmet Ogras, the representative of Turkish Islam in France, as next president of the Conseil français du culte musulman ("French Council of Muslim worship", CFCM). Ahmet Ogras is known for his good relationship with Erodgan's AKP party. CFCM is the legal structure built by French politicians to have a single Muslim talking-partner. Until now, all presidents of CFCM were of Algerian or Moroccan origin.

    Austria

    In Austria, in 2016, "Turkish citizens" founded the New Movement for the Future (NBZ) party. The goal of the party is to give Turks a voice in politics across Austria. The NBZ Chairman, Adnan Dinçer, explained that the rise of extremist right-wing parties have caused them to work faster. "Political actors are making decisions about the minorities working here, but we are not involved in this decision-making mechanism," he said. The NBZ makes it clear that they support controversial Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and condemn the "Gülen movement", which the Turkish government claims carried out a coup attempt in July 2016.

    Netherlands

    Denk, a party founded by Tunahan Kuzu and Selçuk Öztürk in March 2017, became the first-ever ethic minority party in the Dutch parliament. The party, apparently a mouthpiece for Turkish president Erdogan, won three seats in the recent election, which was focused on immigration.

    Party leader Tunahan Kuzu said: "This is the beginning of a new chapter in our history. The new Netherlands has given a vote in the House."

    Bulgaria

    The Muslim population of Bulgaria is made up of Turks (Sunni), some Shi'ites, Bulgarians and Roma, who together represent 7-8% of the total population. In Bulgaria, there are three Muslim political parties, in which most of the members are Turkish and Muslim.

    One of these parties is The Movement for Rights and Freedoms (HÖH), founded in 1990 by Ahmet Do?an. In 2014, HÖH was represented by 38 people in the 240-member parliament and had four MEPs in the European Parliament (EP).

    HÖH, which made a coalition with the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), thus has a say in the country's administration, even though leadership changed after a 2013 assassination attempt against Do?an.

    Because Erdogan was not satisfied with HÖH, he has worked to create other pro-Turkish parties in Bulgaria.

    Germany

    Many Germans of Turkish descent have chosen to invest in German established political parties and influence them from within. Some, however, are trying to influence policy from without.

    The Allianz Deutscher Demokraten ("Alliance of German Democrats", ADD) is a small party founded by Remzi Aru, evidently as a reaction to the German Parliament's recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

    ADD is friendly toward Erdogan and has been trying to establish an electoral base within immigrant and Muslim communities. Its leaders nevertheless had difficulty collecting the 1,000 signatures necessary to participate in the May 2017 North Rhine-Westphalia state election.

    Another Muslim-German party is the Bündnis für Innovation und Gerechtigkeit ("Alliance for Innovation and Justice", BIG), which has existed since 2010, but without much success.

    German law prohibits foreign funding of political parties, and a party of Turks would have to fulfill a certain range of obligations to get its certification as an official political party.

    The Islamist Trap

    An Islamist party in a democracy is, according the Algerian writer, Kamel Daoud, "a trap". Especially in France. In an op-ed published in Le Point in 2015, he writes:

    "An Islamic party in France? What a fascinating political object: one cannot refuse it, but one cannot accept it. Nothing better summarizes the situation as a French trap… If France says Yes, she submits in the long term. An Islamic party is an Islamist party by a natural slope…. By definition. Its purpose is to conquer the world, not just to have a mandate. Its mechanics were already established…. Islamists took power in the name of democracy, then suspended democracy by using their power. At best. At worse, Islamists opted for the approach of the crab that keeps its claws behind his back: no political ambitions, but a millenary ambition in the mind: convert the clothes, the body, the social links, the arts, nursing homes, schools, songs and culture, then, they just wait for the fruit to fall in the turban… An Islamist party is an open trap: you cannot let it in. If you refuse it, your country switches to a dictatorship, but if you accept it, you are at risk of submission….

     

    "As soon as it bursts onto the political scene, the same consequences appear as in Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, the Sahel or Tunisia: it divides the country between Eradicators (those who want to eradicate the Islamists) and Reconcilers (those who advocate dialogue with Islamist monologue) and the Fatalists (those who are waiting for something good to happen)."

    As a fine political analyst, Kamel Daoud knows — and everybody knows with him — that nobody in France has the solution to confront the Islamist problem. The only question is: who will win? Reconcilers or Eradicators? One thing is sure for now, Reconcilers are in power for the next five years.

    Another thing is sure: the first veiled woman elected as a Member of Parliament will trigger a civilizational that which has no equivalent in French history.

  • Former CIA Director, James Woolsey ‘Stunned’ Comey Leaked Private Discussions With President to Press

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

    Former CIA Director under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, is ‘stunned’ that former FBI Directors, James Comey leaked notes of private conversations with the President of the United States to his friend and then the press.

    The CNN host, Fareed Zakaria, attempted to advocate on Comey’s behalf, suggesting that since Comey was a ‘private citizen’ he had the right to leak his notes. Woolsey was having none of that horseshit and said it was ‘stunning’ that ‘he would give up the secrecy of a conversation with the President of the United States.’

    In the land of snitches, everyone is a leaker.

  • Florida Sheriff Declares "This Is War!!", Tells Americans To Arm Up

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    A Florida Sheriff’s video, which urges civilians to arm themselves and prepare for war, is quickly making the rounds on social media.  But he has a point when one listens logically.  He warns that when a mass murderer strikes, the government won’t immediately be there to save you; it’ll be your job to save yourself.

    Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey posted the controversial video message on Facebook Wednesday, two days after a deadly workplace shooting in nearby Orlando claimed the lives of five people.  The Florida sheriff urged citizens to arm themselves in self-defense saying “this is war.”

    He doesn’t mean war in the sense that nukes will be flying, but the war against mass homicides and sociopaths who only seek the destruction of human life.

    “What’s next is to fully understand that this is war, and you better be prepared to wage war to protect you, your family, and those around you if attacked,” he said. Ivey stressed that attackers rely on people running, hiding, and waiting for help, rather than fighting back.  

     

    And they will use guns, knives, bombs, and even trucks to kill innocents. “What they don’t count on is being attacked themselves, having to become defensive to save their own lives,” Ivey argued.

    Become the first line of defense to prevent the loss of life, and protect yourselves and others.  That was the underlying message the sheriff sought to convey.

    Ivey’s video is irritating anti-gun lobbyists and politicians who seem content with letting people die with a minimal chance of survival.  Ivey encouraged people to take self-defense classes and urged those with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns with them at all times. “No matter who you are or what your position is on guns, there’s no denying the fact that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun or a knife is an armed and well-prepared citizen or law enforcement officer,” Ivey said.  Ivey is simply stating the obvious.  Yet, he’s being called “controversial.”

    Ivey’s being accused of “fear mongering” and riling up vigilantes for refusing to toe the line. As those in government, police included, continue to lean toward more gun control, (for everyone but themselves, of course) it’s becoming obvious that those in charge want us to suffer at the whims of the sociopathic mass murderers. Leonard Papania, the police chief in Gulfport, Mississippi, spoke out against weakening gun regulations to the New York Times, saying, “Do you want every incident on your street to escalate to acts of gun violence?”

    Gun control is a sensitive issue for most, as the logical in society understand that gun ownership doesn’t make one a mass murdering homicidal maniac or terrorist.  But the emotional side of people inhibits their brain from understanding that a gun can be used in self-defense, and may even prevent the loss of innocent life. When guns become outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  An old saying, but one the hoplophobes seem to continue to forget.

  • In Showdowns With The US President, The FBI Is 4-0

    Tim Weiner, Pulitzer-prize winning author of “Legacy of Ashes” and a longtime chronicler of US intelligence agencies, sat down for an interview with Bloomberg’s Tobin Harshaw to discuss how the FBI has handled previous investigations involving the White House.

    The feud between President Donald Trump and former FBI Director James Comey is hardly unprecedented in modern US history. As Weiner explains, there have been four instances during the past 45 years – excluding the present day – where the FBI has confronted a sitting president. And up until now, the bureau has prevailed every time.

    Here’s Weiner:

    Five times in the last 45 years the bureau has gone up against the White House. With all due respect to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, it was the FBI that brought down Richard Nixon. Twelve years later it was the FBI that served search warrants and subpoenas on members of Ronald Reagan's National Security Council after the Iran-Contra imbroglio. Agents recovered 5,000 documents from their computers – a forensic feat unprecedented in technological virtuosity. That led to the indictments of a dozen of Reagan's national security aids.

     

    A decade later, it was the FBI, in the form of a subpoena to the White House physician who drew blood from the arm of President Bill Clinton for DNA evidence to match the famous blue dress of Monica Lewinsky, that proved he committed perjury and led to his impeachment in the House.

     

    In 2004, then-director Robert Mueller, along with Comey, who was acting attorney general, directly confronted the George W. Bush administration over the unconstitutional and illegal effects of the eavesdropping program Stellar Wind. Bush later wrote in his memoirs that the two men threatened to resign, and that visions of the Saturday Night Massacre  flashed before his eyes. The president backed down.”

    The role of the FBI, and its director, has changed dramatically since the bureau was created by President Teddy Roosevelt and then-Attorney General Charles Bonaparte (a great-nephew of the French emperor) in 1908. Then known as the Bureau of Investigations, its primary duty was rooting out organized criminals and other “malefactors of great wealth," though it was also tasked with investigating corruption in Congress.

    But the bureau's focus shifted away from this original intent after J Edgar Hoover became director in 1924, Weiner said. Hoover, remembered for his crackdowns on political radicals and civil rights activists, ran the agency for decades, until his death in 1972. Afterward, Congress tried to impose statutory limits on his former post to make it expressly apolitical, eventually imposing a term limit of 10 years.

    But Congress was unsuccessful. If the tensions between Comey and his old boss, the Trump-appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, have taught us anything, it's that it's impossible for the FBI director to be 100% free from political considerations, Harshaw said.

    Weiner agreed.

    “Statutorily, the FBI is part of DOJ. But there is a reason its DC headquarters is located equidistant between the White House and the Capitol. The director has to answer to both the executive and legislative branches,” Weiner said.

    Moving on from the Trump investigation, Harshaw asked Weiner about the so-called “Comey effect” – the idea that Comey cost Hillary Clinton the election by deciding to reopen the FBI’s investigation into her mishandling of classified information a week before the vote.

    Weiner said this explanation for why Clinton lost is a “false assumption," and far down the list of reasons why Clinton lost.

    “It’s a false assumption. I know Hillary disagrees, but I think the Comey effect, knowing what we now know about Russian meddling in the election, is farther down the Top 10 list of why she lost.”

    Weiner closed the interview by drawing one more comparison between Nixon and Trump – an apparent reference to the fact that Congressional investigators have subpoenaed any tapes Trump might have of his conversations with Comey.

    “Let's not forget what the smoking gun tape of Nixon was: an attempt to get the FBI to stop the Watergate investigation dead in its tracks. Once it was revealed by order of the Supreme Court, Nixon was finished. He resigned two days later.”

    We can't help but believe that by the end of President Trump's term (whenever that is), The FBI will be leading 5-0 in this epic Deep State vs Democracy battle.

  • "Burn Them And Their Families": As ISIS Crumbles, Vigilantes Run Amok in Iraq

    Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

    It’s hard to appreciate the effect ISIS has had on ordinary Iraqis and Syrians who wanted nothing to do with the terror group.

    There are cities in these countries that have been ruled by these monsters for several years. Monsters whose cruelty and depravity knows no bounds. Most people in the West can’t imagine what that must be like, because the vast majority of us have never lived under those conditions.

    So what does happens to people who have been living under ISIS for so long?

    Well, try to imagine what you would do if a bunch of lunatics had been running your community for several years. Imagine if they had cut you off from the outside world, tortured and killed family members and neighbors, sold female relatives into sexual slavery, and indoctrinated your children.

    Some people manage to move on with their lives after those conditions pass. Others do not. In Iraq for instance, there are now vigilante groups that have risen in the wake of the Islamic State’s collapse, and they’re targeting members of ISIS, as well as their families.

    Eleven suspected jihadists who were recently found blindfolded, bound and shot to death on the side of the road 20 miles south of Mosul are some of the victims of the group, which on its Facebook page tells supporters to ‘burn’ the families and homes of ISIS members.

     

    The vigilante group, which has dubbed themselves the Hammam al-Alil Revolution, created a Facebook group to launch revenge on ISIS members in May. It now has 650 members.

     

    ‘Soon we will start our operation, we are now locating Deash families,’ read the first post on the page from May 28. ‘We will make them regret joining. Good luck everyone,’ it signs off.

    This is what happens when law and order breaks down. People don’t just mete out justice. They are free to go on bloody rampages.

    ‘Today we targeted Mohammad Atrash, we threw two grenades and attacked the family with gunfire, as they did to us,’ the post said.

     

    The Facebook page posts the addresses of dead and imprisoned ISIS fighters, encouraging its members to go after them and their families.

     

    The group told its followers last month to ‘burn them and their families’.

     

    One member of the group told The Telegraph that it was carrying out attacks as revenge after his cousin was killed by ISIS militants.

     

    The man, only identified as Omar, said: ‘It’s a reciprocity. They hurt my family, now we will hurt theirs.’

    So these people, who have had their families shattered by ISIS, are now doing the same thing to the noncombatant families of ISIS fighters. It reminds me of a famous quote from Friedrich Nietzsche. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

  • Iran Claims To Have Proof Of "Direct US Support" For ISIS

    Days after Trump issued a characteristically undiplomatic statement on last week’s s terrorist attack in Iran by ISIS which killed 17 people and which the US president accused Tehran of basically provoking by stating that “states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote”, which prompted Iran to slam the “repugnant WH statement… as Iranians counter terror backed by US clients…. Iranian people reject such US claims of friendship”, on Sunday senior Iranian officials responded by accusing the US of supporting the Islamic State and effectively forming an alliance with it, claiming that Tehran possesses documents to prove the allegations.

    Tbe deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mostafa Izadi, said that Iran is “facing a proxy warfare in the region as a new trick by the arrogant powers against the Islamic Republic,” according to Fars News Agency.

    “As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei) said, we possess documents and information showing the direct supports by the US imperialism for this highly disgusting stream (the ISIL) in the region which has destroyed the Islamic countries and created a wave of massacres and clashes,” he added.


    Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mostafa Izadi

    So far, however, Iran has yet to present any evidence.

    Izadi’s statement echoed remarks made by Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani on Friday, who condemned the Wednesday terrorist attacks in Tehran, and said that Washington is behind most of the terrorist acts in the world.

    “The United States has aligned itself with the ISIL in the region,” Larijani said on Friday, addressing a funeral ceremony held for the victims of ISIL’s Wednesday terrorist attacks on the Iranian parliament and the holy shrine of late Imam Khomeini in Tehran. Larijani’s was addressing a funeral ceremony of the victims of Wednesday terrorist attacks in Tehran. Larjani added that “The terrorist attacks indicated that the terrorist groups had failed to achieve their main goal and targeted the parliament and Imam Khomeini Mausoleum, finally resorted to martyring the innocent people and the staff at the parliament.”

    Thousands of Iranians had gathered to commemorate the dead, shouting “Death to Saudi Arabia” and “Death to America.”

    Also on Friday Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – whose clerical protege recently lost the Iranian presidential elections – said the attacks would only increase Tehran’s hatred against the US and its “stooges,” including Saudi Arabia. He is not wrong.

  • In Her First Interview, Chelsea Manning Explains Why She Went To Prison For You

    Authored by Andrea Germanos via TheAntiMedia.org,

    In her first interview since being released from prison, whistleblower said she felt “responsibility to the public.”

    US Chelsea Manning has given her first interview since being released from prison last month in which she explains her motivations for making public thousands of military documents.

    Excerpts of her interview with ABC‘s “Nightline” co-anchor Juju Chang aired Friday on the network’s “Good Morning America.”

    Asked about why she leaked the trove of documents, she says,

    “I have a responsibility to the public … we all have a responsibility.”

     

    “We’re getting all this information from all these different sources and it’s just death, destruction, mayhem.

     

    “We’re filtering it all through facts, statistics, reports, dates, times, locations, and eventually, you just stop,” she adds.

     

    “I stopped seeing just statistics and information, and I started seeing people.”

    Asked by Hing what she would tell President Obama, Manning, choking up, says,

    “I’ve been given a chance,” she says. “That’s all I asked for was a chance.”

    Watch excerpts from the interview below:

  • The Risk To The "Bull" Thesis

    Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

    Following the election, the markets began pricing in a strongly recovering economic environment driven by a wave of legislative policies. While the market has indeed advanced, the economic and fundamental realities HAVE NOT changed since the election. As noted on Friday:

    Economic data is not buying it either. Headline after headline, as of late, has continued to disappoint from new and existing home sales to autos, inventories, and employment. This also puts the Fed at risk of further rate hikes this year.

     

    ‘It appears traders are losing faith in the rest of the year as the odds of a hike occurring in December is now above that of September (as both drop to around 25%). As economic data has crashed since The Fed hiked rates in March, so the markets expectations has dropped to just 1.44 rate-hikes this year (one in June guaranteed), well below The Fed’s guidance of 2 more rate-hikes minimum.’”

     

    Another huge risk going forward, as well, is the risk to further stock buybacks to support higher EPS as the lack of legislative reforms to boost the bottom line fade. As noted by Goldman just after the election:

    “We expect tax reform legislation under the Trump administration will encourage firms to repatriate $200 billion of overseas cash next year. A significant portion of returning funds will be directed to buybacks based on the pattern of the tax holiday in 2004.” – Goldman Sachs

    share-buybacks-112116

    But it is not just the repatriation but lower tax rates that will miraculously boost bottom line earnings, but as noted from Deutsche Bank tax cuts are the key.

    Every 5pt cut in the US corporate tax rate from 35% boosts S&P EPS by $5. Assuming that the US adopts a new corporate tax rate between 20-30%, we expect S&P EPS of $130-140 in 2017 and $140-150 in 2018. We raise our 2017E S&P EPS to $130.”

    Maybe not so fast. Here is the problem.

    While you may boost bottom line earnings from tax cuts, the top line revenue cuts caused by higher interest rates, inflationary pressures, and a stronger dollar (as expected would be the result of tax reform) will exceed the benefits companies receive at the bottom line.

    I am not discounting the rush by companies to buy back shares at the greatest clip in the last 20-years to offset the impact to earnings by the reduction in revenues. However, none of the actions above go to solving the two things currently plaguing the economy – real jobs and real wages.

    Economic realities and wishful fantasies eventually reconnect and generally in the worst possible way.

  • The Anatomy of Brown’s Gold Bottom, Report 4 June, 2017

    As most in the gold community know, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown announced on 7 May, 1999 that HM Treasury planned to sell gold. The dollar began to rise, from about 110mg gold to 120mg on 6 July, the day of the first sale. This translates into dollarish as: gold went down, from $282 to $258. It makes sense, as the UK was selling a lot of gold… or does it?

    We won’t get into the theories of his motivation. However, we note that if he wanted to—pardon the dollarish—push down gold, he was not particular effective. He squandered half of Britain’s gold to get the price to drop 8.5%. That lasted but a few months. By the end of September, the price was not only back up to $282 but rising rapidly on its way past $320. Then it came down with volatility, rose, slowly fell to just under $260 about two years later. The price bottom just about coincides with the end of his selling.

    This is history, and it’s been discussed and analyzed many times. What has not been seen until now is a look at the gold basis and cobasis during this time. Was gold becoming abundant due to selling? Or did something else happen?

    Here is a graph showing the continuous gold basis and cobasis, overlaid with the price of the dollar.

    letter-jun-11-brown-bottom-basis

    Several features are noteworthy:

    1. The basis begins to fall on the announcement, but not a lot yet. The cobasis may be arguably said to begin to rise. Both appear to change character.
    2. The dollar begins rising immediately (i.e. the price of gold falls), but nothing alarming happens in the basis yet. Almost the entire initial price move occurs, with little move in the basis.

    We believe this confirms our view that there is a lot of gold out there. This was as clear a case of short selling as can be. Brown wasn’t even selling yet, and the market price was driven down 8.5%. Actually, the market price began falling before the announcement, which suggests that privileged information may have leaked. Yet the market makers handled this with aplomb. The basis moved, but not that much.

    1. Once he began the actual selling, the price did not move much further. Notably, the basis and cobasis begin much larger moves. Gold became significantly scarcer.
    2. Three months later, we see a wicked backwardation. That is no small number, like the many little temporary backwardations of today. That was a cobasis of +1.95%. And not a near-month contract cobasis, but the continuous cobasis. This is big, albeit only one day.

    Wait… Brown is selling large quantities of gold and yet gold is become less abundant and scarcer, peaking at significant scarcity indeed? Selling physical metal should—all else being equal—cause it to become more abundant. But it didn’t.

    It’s appropriate to quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle here (doubly so, as Keith is in London at the moment). “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    Those fool speculators thought they could short gold with impunity. After all, the price dropped. A major country was selling in quantity. We assume the charts painted a bearish picture. Even some gold bugs may have thought that with major governments against them, the price could be driven down even further. This was the end of a long period of a falling gold price. Sentiment must have been in the pits.

    1. Gold could become scarcer for a while, and to a point.
    2. But when the shorts push it past the breaking point, the price of gold snaps violently to the upside.

    If you were watching the basis, you would have seen this move coming. Here is a graph of our fundamental price, zoomed in to show just a small window around the price explosion.

    letter-jun-11-brown-bottom-fund

    The difference between the fundamental and market prices gives us the premium or discount. Here is a graph of that for the same time period.

    letter-jun-11-brown-bottom-prem

    You might have traded before the fundamental moved decisively based on the basis graph. In any case, by 27 Sep the fundamental was up sharply and the market price was still only $281.

    You might have closed the trade when the price hit $325 by 5 Oct. A week later, and you had a 16% gain. The fundamental by itself would still have gotten you out of the trade. By 14 Oct, it had overshot and come back down and was clearly falling. The exit price was only $4 lower that day, $321.

    Daily updated charts of the basis, both near contract and continuous, fundamental, and premium/discount are available on our website.

    There is one other thing worth mentioning. Linear thinking may be tempting and convenient. However, we see here that Brown set something in motion. A linear view would ask how much price drop to expect for a given quantity of gold. Like draining a tank of liquid, how much will the level drop for a gallon pumped out?

    That is not what happened. This is more like a resonant system. Brown jerked on a spring. He set it in motion, reverberating for quite some time. And the price ended up moving higher, both in the short term (4 ½ months later) and long term (a bull market that went for a decade, and took the price up more than 6 ½ times).

    Obviously, many buyers increased their purchases of gold perhaps in response to the drop in price. New buyers came into the market. Perversely, in a world where central banks are selling their gold—literally debasing their currencies—there is more reason to own gold.

    A linear model like supply and demand curves cannot explain what happened (or predict what will happen). Virtually all of the gold mined over thousands of years is potential supply, at the right price and under the right conditions. Everyone is potential demand, at the right price and under the right conditions. Brown had a modest effect on price, but he perturbed the market and that changed the conditions.

    The other sellers of gold (metal, not futures contracts) decided they might rather not sell and/or buyers stepped up their purchases. Ironically, it could even have been the British, who had been happy to own pounds knowing that each pound represented a certain amount of gold backing. Brown’s move convinced them to buy the gold, and he ended up simply shifting gold to the people. This is just conjecture, but it would fit.

    This week, the prices of the metals fell. However, with all the previous discussion, we are sure you want to see the fundamentals of supply and demand.

    letter-jun-11-prices

    Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It moved up a bit.

    In this graph, we show both bid and offer prices. If you were to sell gold on the bid and buy silver at the ask, that is the lower bid price. Conversely, if you sold silver on the bid and bought gold at the offer, that is the higher offer price.

    letter-jun-11-ratio

    For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

    Here is the gold graph.

    letter-jun-11-gold

    We had a rising price of the dollar (the mirror image of the dropping price of gold), and a slightly falling abundance (the basis) and slightly rising scarcity (the cobasis). Our gold fundamental price shows a decrease of $10 (to $1,324).

    Now let’s look at silver.

    letter-jun-11-silver

    In silver terms, the dollar rose more (i.e. the price of silver fell more). The metal became less abundant and scarcer. Our silver fundamental price shows a decrease of 11 cents (to $17.52).

     

    Keith will be in London the week of June 19, and in New York the week of June 26. If you’re interested in attending a Monetary Metals seminar on GOFO and transparency in the gold market in either city, or to meet with Keith to discuss gold investment, please click here.

     

    © 2017 Monetary Metals

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th June 2017

  • Liberal Van Jones Shreds Hillary: 'They Took a Billion Dollars and Lit it on Fire'

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

     

    It appears the lack of momentum in removing the Orange God from the Oval office is beginning to take its toll on the left. As reality sinks in and the hard facts of life with Trump become apparent, the left are eating themselves.

    CNN’s Van Jones shreds the Hillary campaign to pieces, only like a social justice warrior can.

    “The Hillary Clinton campaign did not spend their money on white workers, and they did not spend it on people of color. They spent it on themselves,” Jones told a packed house at McCormick Place in Chicago. “They spent it on themselves, let’s be honest.”
     
    “Let’s be honest,” Jones continued. “They took a billion dollars, a billion dollars, a billion dollars, and set it on fire, and called it a campaign!”
     
    “That wasn’t a campaign. That’s not a campaign.”
     
    Jones continued, attacking the Clinton campaign’s reliance on consultants and polling data that proved to be wrong.
     
    “A billion dollars for consultants. A billion dollars for pollsters. A billion dollars for a data operation, that was run by data dummies who couldn’t figure out that maybe people in Michigan needed to be organized.”
     
    “And now they want us to fight about whether black folks or white workers or Latinos or any other group should get the money,” Jones said. “First of all, you need to give the money back to the people, period.”
     
    “Quit getting rich off people’s struggles,” Jones finished.

     

    Van Jones has been redpilled to the divide and conquer politics of DC.

  • Trump Jr. Rips into Comey: 'You're the Head of the FBI, You're Not Some Baby'

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

     

    Donald Trump took away James Comey’s job, now his son will take away any semblance of dignity he has left. In an interview with Judge Jeanine, Trump Jr. laced into Comey, mocking the former FBI head and flat out calling him ‘dishonest’ and of ‘bad character.’
     

    “He has proven himself to be a dishonest man of bad character,” Trump Jr. told Jeanine Pirro on Fox News. “They spent 10 months chasing a rabbit down a hole with the sole purpose of taking down my father.
     
    “We were vindicated.”
     
    “Of all the things that were leaked, the only thing that wasn’t leaked was that Trump was never under investigation,” he said. “Because there is nothing there.
     
    “How come that’s not leaked?

     
    Trump Jr. hit Comey with a verbal gravity hammer, saying “I think his divisiveness, the way he handled things, everything that leads up to this that we’ve seen over the last few months, and now that we know how he handled the Loretta Lynch thing, explains perfectly why he totally should’ve been fired.”
     
    Judge Jeanine posited the idea, in light of the revelation that Comey had leaked to the NY Times, the possibility that he had leaked to the media in the past.

    Trump Jr. concurred, “I think almost without question. He said he’s a leaker. You know, if he did it this time, how many time did he do it? I wish there was a follow up for that.
     
    He added, “If the head of the FBI is saying ‘well if I was a stronger individual, I may…’, give me a break. You’re the head of the FBI. You’re not some baby, pretending, like, does anyone believe this? And if he is, he’s that guy? He’s not strong enough to say something that he believes is right that he goes and writes a memo and then leaks it to the NY Times? I mean, I can’t imagine anyone actually believing that that happened.”

  • The Fourth Turning: A Summer Of Rage And The Total Eclipse Of The Deep State

    Authored by By Michael Hart and StockBoardAsset,

    “If you do a worldwide survey of eclipse lore, the theme that constantly appears, with few exceptions, is it’s always a disruption of the established order,” said E. C. Krupp, director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, California. That’s true of both solar and lunar eclipses. 

     

    “People depend on the sun’s movement,” Krupp said. “[It’s] regular, dependable, you can’t tamper with it. And then, all of a sudden, Shakespearean tragedy arrives and time is out of joint. The sun and moon do something that they shouldn’t be doing.”

    On August 21st of this year, the United States will witness its first total solar eclipse seen across the totality of the country in nearly forty years. For millennia, humans have gazed towards the skies in awe, observing that heavenly bodies move regularly and predictably with mathematical certainty, and this has inspired poets, philosophers, and other thinkers to ruminate on man’s relationship to the universe, and the possibility that human activity is ruled by laws and patterns independent of human activity.

    Although many of these ideas that were fashionable hundreds of years ago, such as astrology, have been put to rest by contemporary scientific knowledge, perhaps there is value to be gleaned from entertaining the possibility that there are indeed larger forces and patterns governing human affairs. Against the backdrop of this cosmically anomalous event, are we on the cusp of a more temporal form of disruption this summer in the United States?

    Since President Donald Trump’s stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, much of the press have made note of Steve Bannon’s interest in an influential book published in 1997 called, “The Fourth Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous With Destiny.”

    In this book, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe make the argument that our ideas about the nature of history, linear time, and progress are illusory, and that if we want a more accurate concept about the way that history unfolds, we would do well to study the ancient Greek concept of cyclical time. This concept views national and global historical phenomenon not as randomly occurring events, or the linear march of historical “progress,” but instead sees them as recurring archetypes placed into a larger tapestry of a greater repeating historical cycle.

    According to Strauss and Howe, the relative geographic and historical isolation of the United States provides a unique opportunity to view this cycle unfolding regularly and predictably every 80 years.

    This 80-year cycle can be divided into four stages or seasons, each lasting approximately twenty years:

    1. High– This initial stage occurs immediately following a period of crisis. The High is characterized by strong institutions, a sense of collective destiny, and a weakness of individuality. The most recent example of this would be the period of prosperity and conformity in the U.S. immediately following the conclusion of World War II.
    2. Awakening– The second stage, or turning, is a period of questioning established values and asserting one’s independence from established norms and morals, be they spiritual or political. This stage may be seen as a rebellion of the previous era’s emphasis on material wealth and conformity. The 1960’s, with the psychedelic revolution, anti-war protests, Civil Rights marches, and New Age spiritual movements can be seen as recent characteristics of this second stage, as well as Reaganomics and the mid-1980s Wall Street ethos.
    3. Unraveling– The emphasis on autonomy and the questioning of spiritual, political, and individual authority in the Awakening stage eventually destabilizes society, leading to the Third Turning, in which institutions are weak and untrusted while the subjective experience of the individual is emphasized. This stage can be thought of as the inverse of the initial High stage, where collective destiny is replaced by atomization. Recent symptom of this stage would be the culture wars, corporate malfeasance, a lack of faith in government, social justice movements, and political correctness.
    4. Crisis– In the Fourth Turning, a destabilizing event, usually involving warfare, leads to the destruction and reconstruction of institutions of power. In the face of destruction, Americans are forced to unite and forge a vision to restructure a disrupted society. This fourth stage can be seen as the inverse of the Awakening stage, and the authors cite World War II as the defining event of the most recent period of Crisis.

    Strauss and Howe predicted that the next Crisis period that the U.S. would face would happen sometime around 2005 and end around 2025. Anyone who has been paying attention over the last decade would have a difficult time refuting this. The financial crisis of 2008 threw the planet into discord, and we are now just beginning to see some of the political ramifications of this. We may be reaching the apex of this crisis this summer, or at least we will witness a significant acceleration of it.

    The institutions that once defined American stability are rapidly crumbling. Mounting debt, unsustainable consumerism, and illegal immigration are chipping away at once sturdy foundation of America.

    And the robust civil discourse needed to solve these problems has been interrupted by advocates of social justice, sometimes violently. Recent small skirmishes between the two sides may be headed toward larger eruptions.

    Some analysts are predicting a ‘Summer of Rage’, which will boil over in violent protests all across the United States. The DNC has called for a George Soros-financed ‘Resistance Summer’, in which protestors are encouraged to invade town halls, and organize rallies and neighborhood meetings to undermine President Trump. This will culminate in a national training being billed as a ‘Resistance Summer Camp’ to effectively train operatives inorganizing strategies.

    Meanwhile, other leftist groups are calling for a day of ‘Impeachment Marches’ on July 2nd in dozens of major cities across the country. Their goal is to pressure congressional representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

    Emboldened by a mainstream media apparatus which functions as a mouthpiece of Deep State interests, these activists are determined to overturn democratically elected officials and overturn law and order on the grounds that they personally disagree with the results.

    As we have seen in recent months, Trump supporters, conservatives, and other patriots are not afraid to confront leftist activists in the streets, and this is likely to intensify as these DNC-backed groups become more desperate and confrontational in their tactics.

    James Comey’s congressional testimony this week showed that the Trump administration is indeed attempting to break the old political order and its far-too-power Deep State. The cracks are surfacing now, and this will likely shatter and spill into many facets of social life outside of the realm of politics.

    This shattering seems to be the apex, or perhaps the precursor to the major Crisis event described by Strauss and Howe in the Fourth Turning, and it is proving to be a global movement, as evidenced by the recent elections this week in the United Kingdom.

    As the Soros-backed DNC footsoldiers wreak havoc in American cities this summer, and the old political order is eclipsed by what is shaping up to be a much more democratic order, we can expect these types of events to increase in frequency as well as intensity.

  • 57% Of Americans Think Government "Works Better" When Women Get Involved

    How are women viewed in different countries across the world? Views fluctuate massively depending on where you live with Russians particularly negative about women's responsibilities in the government or companies…

    Infographic: How The World Sees The Role Of Women  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    The data used in the infographic was compiled by Ipsos MORI.

    Only 34 percent of people in Russia say things would work better if women held positions with responsibilities in government or companies while 69 percent say the role of a woman in society is to be a good mother and wide.

    In India, views are far more mixed where a woman's role is in society is seen as a part of government and business as well as a good mother and wife.

    In the United States, 57 percent of people think things would improve with more women in government and companies while 41 percent say the role of women is to be good mothers and wives.

  • Next Generation Risks, Part 1: "Super EMP" Attack

    Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

    The global financial system’s ever-increasing leverage pretty much guarantees another crisis in coming years – unless it’s pre-empted by new weapons that can, in theory, shut down entire national banking systems, thus screwing up the best-laid plans of today’s savers and investors.

    This series will consider some of them, beginning with the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. From The Wall Street Journal:

    North Korea Dreams of Turning Out the Lights

    Pyongyang doesn’t need a perfect missile. Detonating a nuke above Seoul—or L.A.—would sow chaos.

     

     

    In 2001 Congress established a commission to study the danger of an electromagnetic pulse generated by the detonation of a high-altitude nuclear weapon. It concluded that while there would be no blast effects on the ground, critical electricity-dependent infrastructure could be rendered inoperable. The commission’s chairman, William R. Graham, has noted that several Russian generals told the commissioners in 2004 that the designs for a “super EMP nuclear weapon” had been transferred to North Korea.

     

    Pyongyang, the Russian generals reported, was probably only a few years away from developing super EMP capability. According to Peter Vincent Pry, staff director of the congressional EMP commission, a recent North Korean medium-range missile test that was widely reported to have exploded midflight could in fact have been deliberately detonated at an altitude of 40 miles.

     

    Was it a dry run for an EMP attack? Detonation at that altitude of a nuclear warhead with a yield of 10 to 20 kilotons—similar to those tested by North Korea—would produce major EMP effects and inflict catastrophic damage to unhardened electronics across hundreds of miles of surface territory. It is a myth that large yield nuclear weapons of hundreds of kilotons are required to produce such effects.

     

    Although some analysts have dismissed the possibility of a successful North Korean EMP attack—either on South Korea or the United States—several factors could make it a more appealing first-strike strategy for Kim Jong Un’s nuclear scientists than a direct, missile-delivered nuclear strike. For one thing, accuracy is not a concern; the North Koreans simply need to get near their target to sow chaos. Nor would they need to worry about developing a reliable re-entry vehicle for their ballistic missiles.

     

    Conventional wisdom aside, a North Korean EMP attack on the U.S. may also not be far-fetched. “North Korea could make an EMP attack against the United States by launching a short-range missile off a freighter or submarine or by lofting a warhead to 30 kilometers burst height by balloon,” wrote Mr. Graham earlier this month on the security blog 38 North. “Even a balloon-lofted warhead detonated at 30 kilometers altitude could blackout the Eastern Grid that supports most of the population and generates 75 percent of US electricity. Moreover, an EMP attack could be made by a North Korean satellite.” Two North Korean satellites currently orbit the earth on trajectories that take them over the U.S.

     

    This is not mere theory. In 1962 the United States detonated a 1.4-megaton nuclear warhead over the South Pacific, 900 miles southwest of Hawaii. Designated “Starfish Prime,” the blast destroyed hundreds of street lights in Honolulu, caused electrical surges on airplanes in the area, and damaged at least six satellites. Only Hawaii’s undeveloped electric power-transmission infrastructure prevented a prolonged blackout. It was the era of vacuum-tube electronics. We are living in the digital age.

    Some conclusions

    Lots of actors in addition to North Korea have this capability. And we can’t stop it. Preventing a nuke-laden plane or balloon from detonating miles above a populated area is hard to the point of impossibility.

    Banking and brokerage networks would be shut down – possibly for a long while – by such an attack, which means no access to ATM machines or credit card readers. People without ready cash would be stuck without access to life’s necessities. Meanwhile cars, which have in recent years become rolling computer networks, won’t run, making it hard to get to distant supplies.

    The fiat currency of a system shut down in this way might or might not hold its value. This is uncharted financial territory so it’s not certain that cash under the mattress will be of use. And forget about cryptocurrencies in this scenario. Virtual money evaporates when the network on which it circulates goes down.

    The solution?

    Start upgrading to hardened electronics as part of a basic prepping program. That’s beyond the technical scope of this article, but Google it and you’ll find plenty of resources. And hold precious metals in small enough denominations to use as currency. One of history’s lessons is that gold and silver remain valuable whatever else is going on. If we’re destined to spend a few months back in the Middle Ages, spendable money will make the experience a lot more manageable.

  • Tracking Hacking: Visualizing The World's Biggest Data Breaches

    The graphic below shows a timeline of some of the biggest data breaches on record. As Visual Capitalist's Chris Matei notes, each bubble represents the number of records lost in any given breach, with the most sensitive data clustered toward the right side.

    This data visualization comes to us from Information is Beautiful. Go to their site to see the highly-recommended interactive format that visualizes the same data, while providing additional details on each specific hack.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

     

    Before 2009, the majority of data breaches were the fault of human errors like misplaced hard drives and stolen laptops, or the efforts of “inside men” looking to make a profit by selling data to the highest bidder. Since then, the volume of malicious hacking (shown in purple) has exploded relative to other forms of data loss.

    FROM MILLIONS TO BILLIONS

    Increasingly sophisticated hacking has altered the scale of data loss by orders of magnitude. For example, an “inside job” breach at data broker Court Ventures was once one of the world’s largest single losses of records at 200 million.

    However, it was eclipsed in size shortly thereafter by malicious hacks at Yahoo in 2013 and 2014 that compromised over 1.5 billion records, and now larger hacks are increasingly becoming the norm.

    SMALL BUT POWERFUL

    The problems caused by hacks, leaks and other data breaches are not just ones of scale. For example, the accidental 2016 leak of information from spam/email marketing service River City Media stands out at an alarming 1.37 billion records lost. However, sorting by data sensitivity paints a different picture. The River City leak – represented by the larger blue dot below – is surpassed in severity by hacks at Yahoo, at web design platform Weebly, and even at adult video provider Brazzers.

    Much of the data lost in the River City hack was made up of long lists of consumer email addresses to be used for spam email distribution, while the other hacks listed compromised items like account passwords, banking information, addresses, phone numbers, or health records. While having your email address become the target for spam exploitation is a serious annoyance, the hacking of much more sensitive personal data has quickly become the norm.

    The fact that more and more of our data is being stored “in the cloud” and among devices on the Internet of Things means that increasingly sensitive types of data are now more vulnerable than ever to being hacked. This looks to be even more cause for concern than the rapidly rising volume of records that have been exposed, whether intentionally or by accident.

  • Did James Comey's Document Leaks Violate The FBI Employment Agreement?

    Authored by Bre Payton via The Federalist,

    Former FBI director James Comey's decision to leak FBI documents to a friend may have violated the FBI's employment agreement regarding unauthorized leaks.

    During his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, former FBI director James Comey revealed that he was the source of leaked memos about his conversations with Donald Trump surrounding the Russia investigation. Comey explained that he shared the memos with his friend, a professor at Columbia University, who then shared them with the New York Times, actions that may violate the FBI’s own employee agreement.

    “My judgment was I needed to get [the memos] out into the public square,” Comey said.

     

    “So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

    By his own account, it seems that Comey may not have followed the agency’s employee agreement, which places numerous restrictions on the use of information or documents acquired during an individual’s employment by the FBI. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the FBI employment agreement appear to cover Comey’s distribution of content he says he created on government property in his capacity as a government official:

    Paragraph 2 states that all materials acquired in connection with an employee’s official duties are property of the U.S. government and that such materials must be surrendered to the FBI upon an employee’s separation from the agency. Paragraph 3 states that employees are prohibited from releasing “any information acquired by virtue of my official employment” to “unauthorized individual[s] without prior official written authorization by the FBI.” Paragraph 4 of the agreement requires FBI employees, prior to disclosing or publishing information acquired during their employment, to submit the information to FBI authorities for review to determine whether it is authorized for public release.

    So if Comey followed protocol and surrendered all government property, including the memos he produced in his capacity as an FBI employee, it would have been impossible for him to provide the memos to his friend. The fact that he was able to provide hard copies of the memos to both his friend and special counsel Robert Mueller suggests that Comey did not surrender them to authorities as required by the FBI employment agreement.

    Page two of the agreement lists the types of information disclosures which are strictly prohibited. Included in the list of information that may not be released without prior written approval by the FBI is “information that relates to any sensitive operational details or the substantive merits of any ongoing or open investigation or case.” While the agreement states that unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a violation of the contract, information does not have to be classified in order to be prohibited from unauthorized disclosure. Comey claims that his memos were unclassified.

    Comey’s claim that it would not have been proper to publicly disclose that Trump was not a target of any FBI investigation because the investigation was ongoing and facts could change flies in the face of his decision to provide to his friends records of his meetings about the investigation with the president. If he could not publicly note that Trump was not a target of an ongoing investigation, then why was he able to release FBI records related to that investigation to his friends for the purpose of having those details leaked to the public via the news media? In light of the FBI’s prohibition on publicly sharing documents or information related to ongoing investigations absent prior written authorization, Comey’s dual explanations make little sense.

    The FBI employment agreement states that violating any of the included terms may result in termination, civil liability, revocation of security clearances, or even criminal sanctions.

     

  • Meet The 22 Economists That Want To Kill Your Purchasing Power

    After the Fed failed to spark any notable increase in aggregate demand despite keeping interest rates at zero for seven years, a group of economists is pressuring the central bank to rethink one of its most closely held-policy parameters.

    The group of 22 economists, which includes Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, delivered a letter to the Fed on Friday pressuring it to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to reevaluate its policy targets in a way that’s transparent and also involves officials with a diversity of viewpoints. Ultimately, the group hopes the central bank will reevaluate its inflation target, which has stood at just below 2% since 2012.

    Borrowing the reasoning from a paper published by the San Francisco Fed earlier this year called “Monetary Policy in a Low R-Star World,” the group argued that structural shifts in the US economy appear to have shifted the real rate of interest permanently lower – and that the US economy can now tolerate higher inflation as a form of compensation.

    Here's a passage from the letter:

    “Even if a 2 percent inflation target set an appropriate balance a decade ago, it is increasingly clear that the underlying changes in the economy would mean that, whatever the correct rate was then, it would be higher today. To ensure the future effectiveness of monetary policy in stabilizing the economy after negative shocks – specifically, to avoid the zero lower bound on the funds rate – this fall in the neutral rate may well need to be met with an increase in the long-run inflation target set by the Fed.”

    Such a reassessment would be particularly appropriate now, the economists argue, because “the lack of evidence that moderately higher inflation would harm Americans’ standard of living is juxtaposed with the tremendous evidence that a tighter labor market would improve Americans’ standards of living.”

    Some Fed officials have already expressed tentative support for raising the inflation target, or at least changing the system by which the central bank’s parameters are set.

    Williams noted the need for the Fed “to adapt policy to changing economic circumstances” in his paper, and Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren has said that the Fed should adapt policy to changing circumstances. Vice Fed Chairman Stanley Fischer has praised the system adopted by the Bank of Canada, where policy targets are reviewed every five years, then re-set with the participation of the legislature.

    The argument for why a central bank should aim to push consumer prices even higher might seem obtuse to some readers – so Kocherlakota explained his reasoning for signing the letter in a column published by Bloomberg.

    Raising the inflation target would give the Fed more room to maneuver during the next slowdown by allowing it to focus on reining in inflation if benchmark rates are already low, Kocherlakota said. “If, for example, people expect inflation to be 3 percent, then a zero nominal rate translates into a negative 3 percent real rate — a full percentage point lower than the Fed could achieve if expected inflation were 2 percent.”

    Experience suggests the Fed could use the support. During the most recent period of near-zero interest rates, the U.S. unemployment rate remained above 5 percent for nearly seven and a half years. And Yellen has suggested that, if another recession takes the Fed to the zero lower bound, the unemployment rate might stay above 5 percent for close to five years.

    But while the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s seasonally adjusted CPI slumped to a 19-month low in April, other measures, like a gauge of consumer prices from PriceStat, have consistently recorded higher levels of inflation.

    And regardless of what the rate of price growth is right now, the hard truth of the situation for many American workers is that real average wage growth is mired in the red while average household debt levels have climbed to record highs.

    While many would welcome higher wages and better jobs, the relationship between inflation and employment – as Janet Yellen herself admitted – has seemingly broken down. Whether the central bank can successfully push inflation higher is up for debate; it has struggled in recent years – despite pumping trillions of dollars into the economy. But regardless, higher consumer prices are not what Americans need right now.

    In addition to Stiglitz and Kocherlakota, the letter a signed by Dean Baker from the Center of Economic and Policy Research, Heather Boushey, from Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Brad DeLong, University of California, Berkeley, Joseph Gagnon, Peterson Institute, Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute, William Spriggs, Howard University, Valerie Wilson, Economic Policy Institute, Gene Sperling, Obama Administration Economist, Jared Furman, Peterson Institute, Marc Jarsulic, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Bell, Johns Hopkins University, Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute, Tim Duy, University of Oregon, Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California, Mark Thoma, University of Oregon, Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan, David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College, Mike Konczal, Roosevelt Institute, Michael Madowitz, Center for American Progress.

    *****

    Read the full text of the letter below:

    Dear Chair Yellen and the Board of Governors,

     

    The end of this year will mark ten years since the beginning of the Great Recession. This recession and the slow recovery that followed was extraordinarily damaging to the livelihoods and financial security of tens of millions of American households. Accordingly, it should provoke a serious reappraisal of the key parameters governing macroeconomic policy.

     

    One of these key parameters is the rate of inflation targeted by the Federal Reserve. In years past, a 2 percent inflation target seemed to give ample leverage with which the Fed could lower real interest rates. But given the evidence that the equilibrium interest rate had fallen substantially even prior to the financial crisis, and that the Fed’s short-term policy rate remained at zero for seven years without sparking any large acceleration of aggregate demand growth, a reassessment of this target seems warranted. Such a reassessment is particularly appropriate when the lack of evidence that moderately higher inflation would harm Americans’ standard of living is juxtaposed with the tremendous evidence that a tighter labor market would improve Americans’ standards of living.

     

    Some Federal Reserve policymakers have acknowledged these shifting realities and indicated their willingness to reconsider the appropriate target level. For example, San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams noted the need for central banks to “adapt policy to changing economic circumstances,” in suggesting a higher inflation target, and Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren cited the different context in which the inflation target was set in emphasizing the need for debate about the right target. In May, Vice Chair Stanley Fischer highlighted the Canadian system of reconsidering the inflation target every five years, saying, “I can envisage – say, in the case of inflation targeting – a procedure in which you change the target or you change the other variables that are involved on some regular basis and through some regular participation.”

     

    The comments made by Fischer, Rosengren, and Williams all underscore the ample evidence that the long-term neutral rate of interest may have fallen. Even if a 2 percent inflation target set an appropriate balance a decade ago, it is increasingly clear that the underlying changes in the economy would mean that, whatever the correct rate was then, it would be higher today. To ensure the future effectiveness of monetary policy in stabilizing the economy after negative shocks – specifically, to avoid the zero lower bound on the funds rate – this fall in the neutral rate may well need to be met with an increase in the long-run inflation target set by the Fed.

     

    More immediately, new, post-crisis economic conditions suggest that a reiteration of the meaning of the Fed’s current target is in order. In its 2016 statement of long-run goals and strategy, the Federal Open Market Committee wrote: “The Committee would be concerned if inflation were running persistently above or below this objective.” Some FOMC participants, however, appear to instead consider 2 percent a hard ceiling that should never be breached, and justify their decision-making on that basis. It is important that the Federal Reserve makes clear – and operates policy based on – its stated goal that it aims to avoid inflation being either below or above its target.

     

    Economies change over time. Recent decades have seen growing evidence that developed economies have harder times generating faster growth in aggregate demand than in decades past. Policymakers must be willing to rigorously assess the costs and benefits of previously-accepted policy parameters in response to economic changes. One of these key parameters that should be rigorously reassessed is the very low inflation targets that have guided monetary policy in recent decades. We believe that the Fed should appoint a diverse and representative blue ribbon commission with expertise, integrity, and transparency to evaluate and expeditiously recommend a path forward on these questions. We believe such a process will strengthen the Fed as an institution and its conduct of monetary policy, and help ensure wise policymaking for the years and decades to come.

    The endgame, of course, is to pay off the old 'expensive' dollars with new 'cheap' dollars… quietly taxing the citizenry to death…

  • The American Architects Of The South-African Catastrophe

    Authored by Ilana Mercer via The Mises Institute,

    Yes, it has happened. A mere 23 years after the 1994 transition, in South Africa, to raw ripe democracy, six years following the publication of a wide-ranging analysis of that catastrophe, Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, a Beltway libertarian think tank has convened to address the problem that is South Africa.

    The reference is to an upcoming CATO “Policy Forum,” euphemized as “South Africa at a Crossroad.” One of the individuals to headline the “Forum” is Princeton Lyman, described in a CATO email tease as having “served as the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa at the time of the transfer of power from white minority to black majority.” At the “Forum,” former ambassador Lyman will be discussing “America’s original hopes for a new South Africa and the extent to which America’s expectations have been left unfulfilled.” (Italics added.)

    The chutzpah!

    The CATO Institute’s disappointment in the South Africa the United States helped bring about is nothing compared to the depredations suffered by South Africans, due to America’s insistence that their country pass into the hands of a voracious majority. Unwise South African leaders acquiesced. Federalism was discounted. Minority rights for the Afrikaner, Anglo and Zulu were dismissed.

    Aborted Attempts at South African Decentralization

    This audacity of empire is covered in a self-explanatory chapter of Into the Cannibal’s Pot, titled “The Anglo-American Axis of Evil,” in which Lyman makes a cameo. (It’s not flattering.) From the comfort of the CATO headquarters, in 2017, the former ambassador will also be pondering whether “growing opposition will remove the African National Congress [ANC] from power.” The mindset of the DC establishment, CATO libertarians included, has it that changing the guard  —replacing one strongman with another — will fix South Africa, or any other of the sites of American foreign-policy interventions. 

    So, what exactly did Princeton Nathan Lyman do on behalf of America in South Africa? Or, more precisely, who did he sideline? 

    Ronald Reagan, who favored “constructive engagement” with South Africa, foresaw the chaos and carnage of an abrupt transition of power. So did the South Africans Fredrick van Zyl Slabbert, RIP (he died in May 2010), and Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The first was leader of the opposition Progressive Federal Party, who, alongside the late, intrepid Helen Suzman became the PFP’s chief critic of Nationalist policy (namely Apartheid). The second was Chief Minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). At the time, Buthelezi was the only black leader with any mass following who could act as a counter to the ANC. These men were not “lunch-pail liberals” from the West, but indigenous, classical liberal Africans — one white, one black — who understood and loved the county of their ancestors and wished to safeguard it for their posterity.

    Both Buthelezi and Slabbert had applied their astringent minds to power-sharing constitutional dispensations. Both leaders were bright enough to recognize democracy for the disaster it would bring to a country as divided as theirs; they understood that “a mass-based black party that received enough votes could avoid having to enter into a coalition and could sweep aside the minority vote.” Thus, Buthelezi espoused a multi-racial, decentralized federation, in which “elites of the various groups” would “agree to share executive power and abide by a system of mutual vetoes and spheres of communal autonomy.” Paramount to Buthelezi was “the preservation of the rights of cultural groups and the protection of minorities.” Slabbert studied a “new system that entrenched individual rights, encouraged power-sharing through a grand coalition of black and white parties, and gave a veto right to minorities in crucial issues.”

    Although he eventually threw his intellectual heft behind simple majority rule, in better days, Slabbert had spoken with circumspection about “unrestrained majoritarianism,” expressing the eminently educated opinion that, were majority rule to be made an inevitable corollary of South Africa’s political system, the outcomes would be severely undemocratic. It’s worth considering that even Zimbabwe for its first seven, fat years of independence, allowed “white members of parliament [to be] elected on a special roll to represent white interests.”

    Washington Destroyed South African Federalism Before It Began

    In his tome, Partner to History: The US Role in South Africa’s Transition to Democracy (2002), Princeton Lyman, the American Ambassador to South Africa from 1992 to 1995, records the active role Americans performed in the transition to democracy, especially in “dissuading spoilers” — the author’s pejorative, it would appear, for perfectly legitimate partners to the negotiations. One such partner, introduced above, was Buthelezi; another was military hero and former chief of the Defense Force, Constand Viljoen.

    Avoid “wrecking the process”: This ultimatum was the message transmitted to the Afrikaner general and the African gentleman, loud and clear. The United States, with Lyman in the lead, failed to lean on the African National Congress (Nelson Mandela’s goons) to accommodate a federal structure. It promised merely to hold a future South African government to its “pre-election commitments, including shared power and the protection of minorities.” Until then, the skeptical Buthelezi was instructed to trust the ANC to relinquish the requisite power. Enraged, Buthelezi threatened to take his case to the American people and “spotlight” the knavish confederacy between their government and the ANC. (Then, Republicans were generally with Buthelezi, Democrats with the ANC. These days, both parties are with the ANC.) Being the man Prime Minister, F. W. de Klerk was not, Buthelezi rejected the pressure and overtures from the West. “I am utterly sick of being told how wrong I am by a world out there,” he wrote to Lyman. The dispensation being hatched was “an instrument for the annihilation of KwaZulu.”

    Viljoen, who represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces, believed de Klerk had abdicated his responsibilities to this electorate. He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state. Likewise, Buthelezi, whose championship of self-determination had been denied, was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined. He and his Zulu impis were every bit as fractious as Viljoen; every bit as willing to fight for their rightful corner of the African Eden. For setting his sights on sovereignty, the Zulu royal and his following (close on twenty percent of the population) were condemned as reactionaries by the West (and by CATO’s point person).

    Hardly a dog of an American commentator missed the opportunity to lift his leg in protest against Buthelezi, for making common cause with Afrikaner decentralists and against the ANC. “Wreckers” is how the gray eminence of American newspapers — The New York Times, also known as “Pravda on the Hudson” — dubbed the two leaders and the millions whom they represented. The two, alleged the Times in a 1994 editorial, were locked in an “unscrupulous alliance to disrupt the first elections in South Africa in which all races will have a vote.” Following the might-makes-right maxim — and committing a non sequitur in the process — Times editorialists demanded that the leaders of these African and Afrikaner ethnic minorities relinquish demands for sovereign status because their political power was at best “anemic.” Meanwhile the Times dismissed Buthelezi as a puppet in Pretoria’s blackface minstrelsy.

    This was drivel. Buthelezi, a crafty leader who had rejected “the ignoble independence accorded to other homelands” within apartheid’s framework, was never a collaborator. Understand: For two centuries Africans and Afrikaners had been clashing and alternately collaborating on the continent. Shaka (1787–1828), Dingane (1795–1840), Mpande (1798–1872), Cetshwayo (1826–1884) — Buthelezi was heir to these Zulu kings who had been wheeling, dealing, and warring with Boers well before the inception of The New York Times.

    Masters of mass mobilization, the ANC used the political tinderbox ignited in the ramp-up to the first democratic elections to great effect in discrediting the security forces, and claiming that the apartheid government was fomenting the intra-ethnic violence between Inkatha (Zulu) and the ANC (Xhosa). But while the ANC accused the security forces of arming Inkatha, the latter faction blamed the security forces for allying themselves with the ANC, especially when Zulu hostels and squatter camps were raided in response to ANC pressure. For the National Party government, the ongoing ethnic conflict was a lose-lose proposition.

    But not for the savvy ANC.

    Nelson Mandela harnessed the situation by accusing Prime Minister de Klerk of “either complicity or of not caring enough about black deaths” to stop black-on-black violence. The foreign press helped fuse fact with fancy by transmitting this claim, later to be dismissed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (That body eventually determined that there was “little evidence of a centrally directed, coherent and formally instituted third force.”) Nevertheless, a constellation of unfavorable circumstances was aligned against Buthelezi, who capitulated in the end.

    Buthelezi was the intellectual bête noire of the communist ANC — and one of the few leaders in South Africa to mine the Western canon widely and wisely for what it teaches about liberty and the dangers of centralizing political power. He cited with characteristic passion and poignancy, in July 2009, a poem (“The Second Coming”) that W. B. Yeats wrote in January 1919:

    Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned …

    In contrast to what South Africa became, the United States is a country where the constitution was supposed to thwart the tyranny of the majority. This averting was meant to occur by means of a federal structure, in which powers are divided and dispersed between — and within — a central government and the constituent states. Yet the Americans sided with the ANC — the consequence of which has been the raw, ripe rule of the mob and its dominant, anointed party. 

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th June 2017

  • Putin Warns Of "Hot War" And Nuclear Holocaust: "I Don't Think Anyone Would Survive"

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    With tensions among the world’s super powers mounting in places like Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and  most recently Qatar and Iran, it may only be a matter of time before someone pushes the red button.

    When they do, all bets are off, and as we’ve learned from the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in June of 1914, once the trigger is pulled there’s no going back and hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps billions, will hang in the balance.

    Considering that Russia is closely allied with Syrian President Assad, has a direct interest in maintaining control of Ukraine’s former Crimea region, and its ties to Iran, ignoring the possibility of a global war in coming years could be a devastating oversight.

    We are, in fact, at war right now. But just as was the case from the 1960’s through the end of the 1980’s, it is a “cold war.” There have been no direct troop engagements that we know of between the Russians and the United States. But look to cyber space and it should be clear that there is a battle taking place on a daily basis. Moreover, as we’ve previously reported, nuclear war may well be on the horizon, because the confrontations taking place on the geo-political stage are no longer just talk.

    Action has already been taken by both sides:

    Putin and the Russian people believe the U.S.’s actions are going to lead to a nuclear conflict initiated by the United States.  The leadership of the U.S. is made up of politicians who began their careers as Marxist-Socialists.  Traitors now have their fingers on the triggers of the nuclear warheads, aided by “yes-men” of the general staffs who will not remember their oaths to the Constitution of the United States and the American people.  They will ignore that these charges take precedence above any orders given by a petty, dope-smoking, Marxist community organizer of dubious citizenship who was “emplaced” into office to destroy the country.

     

    Instead of statesmen and diplomats, we now have self-interested, politically-motivated belligerents backing Russia and other nations into corners and pushing them toward war.  How long the war of words will be continued is unknown; however, when the missiles begin to fly you can be certain of something.  You can rest assured that the men who spoke those words will be in bunkers and other safe places and out of harm’s way…paid for by the American taxpayer.

     

    Full Report: Nuclear War Is On The Horizon: “This Is Not Just Talk… Action Has Been Taken”

    Indeed, those who push the buttons will likely be in bunkers well before the missiles hit their targets. That’ll likely be the case on both sides.

    For the rest of us?

    Vladimir Putin has made clear how it will play out:

    The Putin Interviews between the Russian leader and the Oscar-winning director, which will be screened on Showtime, were shot between summer 2015 and February this year and give an extraordinary insight into one of the most powerful men in the world.

     

    Stone asked Putin whether the US would be ‘dominant’ in the event of a ‘hot war’ between the two nuclear powers.

     

    ‘I don’t think anyone would survive such a conflict,’ Putin said.

    Earlier this year the hacking collective Anonymous issued a frightening warning about World War III, highlighting the fact that while we are all busy enjoying the good times, elite Deep State insiders are planning for what comes next:

    All the signs of a looming war on the Korean Peninsula are surfacing… we’re watching as each country moves strategic pieces into place… but unlike past world wars… although there will be ground troops the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick.

     

    It will also be globally devastating on the environmental and economic levels.

     

     

    This is a real war with real global consequences… With three super powers drawn into the mix… Other nations will be coerced into choosing sides.

     

     

    The citizen will be the last to know…

     

    Video

    And because the citizen will be the last to know, now may be a good time to review your nuclear war preparedness strategies and stock up on survival essentials that should include FDA approved anti-radiation pills and NBC rated tactical gas masks.

    The elite will have plenty to go around in their bunkers, but you can be 100% assured that none of the supplies they’ve been stockpiling for the last decade will ever make their way to the general population.

    Prepare accordingly.

  • EXPOSED: The Secret TRUTH about the FBI is not so different than their suspects

    (GLOBALINTELHUB.COM) – 6/9/2017 For those who are not drooling on their lazy-boy high on Prozac and Lays (both strong brands) know that the world is not as seen on TV.  But even in TV, on shows such as “White Collar” – the strange relationship between the ‘police’ and the ‘bandits’ can be seen and understood.  The differences in many cases between a career Special Agent and cat burglar can be thin circumstantial nuances; and they often ‘flip’ sides, most notably in the case we all know about Frank Abagnale, now a successful security and fraud consultant, working with the FBI to detect serious financial fraud.  Let’s take a step back for a moment; the “FBI” hires mostly accountants, and they pursue a number of crimes but most notably financial fraud.  They serve as the police for the CFTC, the SEC, for extreme enforcement actions, as well as investigating a number of issues – from their website:

    Our Priorities
    Protect the United States from terrorist attack
    Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
    Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
    Combat public corruption at all levels
    Protect civil rights
    Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
    Combat major white-collar crime
    Combat significant violent crime
    Our People & Leadership
    The FBI employs 35,000 people, including special agents and support professionals such as intelligence analysts, language specialists, scientists, and information technology specialists. Learn how you can join us at FBIJobs.gov. For details on our executives and organizational structure, see our Leadership & Structure webpage.

    What should stick out to readers in an environment where a potentially politicized and corrupt FBI (at least, the leadership) is the “Combat public corruption at all levels” – and going back to the age old regulatory paradox, ‘who watches the watchers’ let’s take a look at the old dog who made the FBI what it is today; J. Edgar Hoover.

    In case you have not, and are interested in this topic, take a weekend and read this must read book about the FBI: J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets – why bother reading about a figure who is long gone and has no surviving heirs?  Because in order to understand where we are today, with the situation with the FBI and Trump, we need to understand where we came from.  Certainly the FBI has transformed since 1972; however the power, scope, size, methods, political leanings, and other elements of the FBI still remain as established by Hoover.

    Let’s dismantle some of the false images many have about the FBI.  The FBI doesn’t ‘solve crimes’ as on popular TV shows like “CSI” – although they do have excellent forensics labs, this rarely (but sometimes) leads to a conviction.  Primarily, the FBI relies on informants, “Confidential Informants” (CIs), tips, and ‘turning’ – a technique popularized by Hoover and used to this day.  Global Intel Hub interviewed several anonymous sources to confirm this information.  Here’s how it works.  The FBI will arrest a petty low level criminal and get him to ‘turn’ on his boss; they will threaten him with life in prison, maybe poke his eyes a little or something, and get him to become a witness in court.  Also they will want a full blueprint of the organization – and in exchange they will get into the Witness Protection Program – yes this program really exists and there are literally thousands of people in this program:

    As of 2013, 8,500 witnesses and 9,900 family members have been protected by the U.S. Marshals Service since 1971.

    But before entering WITSEC, which is an endgame, the FBI can use informants for years.  CIs can be bank employees (i.e. Wall St.), mafia agents, corporate executives .. basically anyone.  Take a look at the case of CI gone bad:

    For 30 years, DeVecchio was one of the FBI ‘s most important mob busters.

    DeVecchio was Scarpa’s handler, and Scarpa was more than an ordinary stool pigeon — he had also allegedly served as muscle for the FBI when the bureau needed some extra legal assistance in making difficult cases. As a result, he was allegedly accorded special, sometimes questionable, favors, including tips on coming indictments that allowed Scarpa’s associates to skip town in advance. But, in aiding his informant to commit murder, prosecutors now allege that DeVecchio went too far in protecting his valuable mob asset. Law enforcement sources say DeVecchio may have also enriched himself in the process.

    Yes, you read correctly – for 30 years, “DeVecchio” was a CI that gave the FBI information about mob activities.  A useful asset, but the underlying conclusion is simple – the FBI doesn’t ‘solve’ crimes.   With the recent testimony of James Comey, a lawyer by trade, all of this needs to be taken into consideration.  How has the FBI and its internal politics & policies affected significant events in American history; JFK, 911, the credit crisis, and others?

    Another strategy which now is no secret used by Hoover, was obtaining secret information by trickery or surveillance, and then using it to blackmail the target to get them to do what they want.  Hoover supposedly kept dossiers on over 10,000 americans; however long the list is – the method was simple.  Get the dirt on the target then use it to manipulate them.  If you think this is fanciful; again – read this book  J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.

    The point is that, there’s no way to know for sure what’s going on inside the FBI today.  The reason we need to look at Hoover’s FBI is because now that he’s long gone, and there’s even been a DiCaprio film about him, we can see a bigger picture of what was really going on in the FBI at that time.

    So it should be no surprise, that an FBI director, would be meddling in domestic politics – whether it be in elections or by dealing with sitting Presidents.  Everyone was scared of Hoover, even US Presidents both before and after they were elected.  Now, clearly this was a unique individual who built the FBI in his own image during a unique period in history – there will never be another Hoover.  But all this history about the FBI should be noted, following to today’s FBI that literally is ‘creating’ terrorists right here in the USA:

    WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. has significantly increased its use of stings in terrorism cases, employing agents and informants to pose as jihadists, bomb makers, gun dealers or online “friends” in hundreds of investigations into Americans suspected of supporting the Islamic State, records and interviews show.

    Undercover operations, once seen as a last resort, are now used in about two of every three prosecutions involving people suspected of supporting the Islamic State, a sharp rise in the span of just two years, according to a New York Times analysis. Charges have been brought against nearly 90 Americans believed to be linked to the group.

    The increase in the number of these secret operations, which put operatives in the middle of purported plots, has come with little public or congressional scrutiny, and the stings rely on F.B.I. guidelines that predate the rise of the Islamic State.

    While F.B.I. officials say they are careful to avoid illegally entrapping suspects, their undercover operatives are far from bystanders. In recent investigations from Florida to California, agents have helped people suspected of being extremists acquire weapons, scope out bombing targets and find the best routes to Syria to join the Islamic State, records show.

    Here’s how it works.  The FBI ‘suspects’ someone may be an extremist (they are Muslim, or at least look like).  They pose as another Muslim and start to engage in a conversation about making a ‘plot’ such as a ‘bomb’ – but at the last moment, arrest the entrapped individual.  This accomplishes a few things, one – they can make a long list of cases ‘solved’ that would have otherwise become terrorist attacks (they are working hard for their 8 Billion budget).  Two, it scares the population that the threat of terrorism is ‘real’ (when in reality, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be attacked by a terrorist).  This is reinforced by the media ‘terrorism terrorism terrorism’.

    The paradoxical question here is – left to their own would these potential ‘terrorists’ have committed any acts of terror, or not?  Of course, foiling a crime before it happens is always ideal.  But at what point does entrapment become ‘encouragement’ – we’re not talking about drug dealing here, terrorism is a serious thing (people can be killed).

    But defense lawyers, Muslim leaders and civil liberties advocates say that F.B.I. operatives coax suspects into saying and doing things that they might not otherwise do — the essence of entrapment.“They’re manufacturing terrorism cases,” said Michael German, a former undercover agent with the F.B.I. who researches national security law at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. In many of the recent prosecutions, he said, “these people are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.”

    The American Mafia, once seen as one of the most popularized ‘threats’ has been on the wane, as most of them have moved from petty crimes to legitimate businesses (or semi-legit) .. An organization like the FBI needs terrorists and other artificial ‘threats’ to justify 35,000 + employees, just as the military and other parts of the DOD need “Russia” to act as a looming potential threat to justify trillions in military spending.  (Anyone with mild room temperature IQ knows Russia, China, Iran, North Korea all working together pose no real threat to USA militarily, economically, or culturally).

    Bear this in mind next time the news media tries to distract viewers from real news – Comey is not news.  It’s irrelevant.  Trump’s reaction, irrelevant.  Remember, the entire “Russia Investigation” never existed, it was all a liberal conspiracy created or to use their term ‘fake news’ in order to destroy Trump and use it in Illuminati style ‘killing two birds with one stone’ as a prelude to war and specifically to build a pipeline through Syria as the next “Iraq” to plunder, with project Ukraine a failure the virus needs to expand into untapped resources to colonize, and Trump simply stood in the way of that policy.  The FBI being a critical component of the giant global octopus with hands everywhere, needed to jump in with their own tune to play in the melody.

    For a detailed breakdown of how the global system works in reality (not ‘as seen on TV’) checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex

    Order stuff online – save money, save time – enjoy your life!  @ www.pleaseorderit.com

  • Mall Tenants Seek Shorter Leases As America's Relics Of The 80's Teeter On The Brink

    As if things weren’t bad enough for America’s mall owners, what with the having to filling their retail space with high schools, grocers and churches, it seems that retailers have grown so uncertain about the future of these 1980s relics that they’re only willing to sign 1-2 leases these days.

    As Bloomberg points out this morning, leases renewals used to be 5-10 years in length but are increasingly only being signed with 1-2 year terms.  Meanwhile, thousands of stores are closing each year and it’s only expected to get worse over time.

    After more than a dozen bankruptcies this year contributed to thousands of store closures, visibility for the industry is so poor that retailers are pushing for lease renewals as short as a year or two — down from five to 10 years.

     

    “You’re certainly seeing the renewals geared toward the shorter term, rather than the five-year renewal,” said Andrew Graiser, head of A&G Realty Partners. Retailers are now struggling to figure out how many stores they actually need, he added, and landlords are looking at them “with a much closer eye than they did before.”

     

    Somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 stores will close in the U.S. this year, said Garrick Brown, vice president of Americas retail research for commercial broker Cushman & Wakefield — more than twice as many as the 4,000 last year. He sees this figure rising to about 13,000 next year.

     

    “Everyone’s trying to figure out where the bottom of the market’s going to be,” Brown said. He estimates it could occur in 2018 or early 2019.

     

    Not surprisingly, retailers are finding it difficult to sign long-term leases in an environment where 26% of malls around the country are expected to close their doors over the next five years.

    Further complicating the lease-length dilemma is the question of which shopping centers will still be around in a decade. Cushman & Wakefield’s Brown sees about 300 of 1,150 U.S. malls shutting down in the next five years.

     

    Perry Mandarino, senior managing director and head of corporate finance at B. Riley & Co., predicts that retail bankruptcies and restructurings will further accelerate in 2018. Some of this will be the result of a long-overdue shakeout of the surfeit of U.S. store space, but the downturn is also compounded by shifts to online shopping and consumers spending on experiences rather than physical stuff, he said.

    Meanwhile, landlords are trying to fight back, though it’s a fairly difficult task both arms tied behind their backs.

    Landlords “have their backs against the wall, so they’ve been fighting back, hard,” he said. “What you have is a game of chicken up to the end.”

     

    “With all this excess inventory, landlords are trying to do whatever they can to keep malls occupied,” Agran said. “The more empty spaces, the more difficult it is to attract new tenants.”

    Frankly, it’s shocking that Abercrombie wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to scoop up some prime square footage in this mall…it already has the Chili’s awning and everything.

    Mall

  • The "Nonsense" Behind The Impeach-Trump Conspiracy

    Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    Pressed by Megyn Kelly on his ties to President Trump, an exasperated Vladimir Putin blurted out, “We had no relationship at all. … I never met him. … Have you all lost your senses over there?”

    Yes, Vlad, we have.

    Consider the questions that have convulsed this city since the Trump triumph, and raised talk of impeachment.

    Did Trump collude with Russians to hack the DNC emails and move the goods to WikiLeaks, thus revealing the state secret that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was putting the screws to poor Bernie Sanders?

    If not Trump himself, did campaign aides collude with the KGB?

    Now, given that our NSA and CIA seemingly intercept everything Russians say to Americans, why is our fabled FBI, having investigated for a year, unable to give us a definitive yes or no?

    The snail’s pace of the FBI investigation explains Trump’s frustration. What explains the FBI’s torpor? If J. Edgar Hoover had moved at this pace, John Dillinger would have died of old age.

    We hear daily on cable TV of the “Trump-Russia” scandal. Yet, no one has been charged with collusion, and every intelligence official, past or prevent, who has spoken out has echoed ex-acting CIA Director Mike Morrell:

    “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. … There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark.”

    Where are the criminals? Where is the crime?

    As for the meetings between Gen. Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, it appears that Trump wanted a “back channel” to Putin so he could honor his commitment to seek better relations with Russia.

    Given the Russophobia rampant here, that makes sense. And while it appears amateurish that Flynn would use Russian channels of communication, what is criminal about this?

    Putin is not Stalin. Soviet divisions are not sitting on the Elbe. The Cold War is over. And many presidents have used back channels. Woodrow Wilson sent Col. Edward House to talk to the Kaiser and the Brits. FDR ran messages to Churchill through Harry Hopkins.

    As for Trump asking Director James Comey to cut some slack for Flynn, it is understandable in human terms. Flynn had been a loyal aide and friend and Trump had to feel rotten about having to fire the man.

    So, what is really going on here?

    All the synthetic shock over what Kushner or Sessions said to Kislyak aside, this city’s hatred for President Trump, and its fanatic determination to bring him down in disgrace, predates his presidency.

    For Trump ran in 2016 not simply as the Republican alternative. He presented his candidacy as a rejection, a repudiation of the failed elites, political and media, of both parties. Americans voted in 2016 not just for a change in leaders but for a revolution to overthrow a ruling regime.

    Thus this city has never reconciled itself to Trump’s victory, and the president daily rubs their noses in their defeat with his tweets.

    Seeking a rationale for its rejection, this city has seized upon that old standby. We didn’t lose! The election was stolen in a vast conspiracy, an “act of war” against America, an assault upon “our democracy,” criminal collusion between the Kremlin and the Trumpites.

    Hence, Trump is an illegitimate president, and it is the duty of brave citizens of both parties to work to remove the usurper.

    The city seized upon a similar argument in 1968, when Richard Nixon won, because it was said he had colluded to have South Vietnam’s president abort Lyndon Johnson’s new plan to bring peace to Southeast Asia in the final hours of that election.

    Then, as now, the “t” word, treason, was trotted out.

    Attempts to overturn elections where elites are repudiated are not uncommon in U.S. history. Both Nixon and Reagan, after 49-state landslides, were faced with attempts to overturn the election results.

    With Nixon in Watergate, the elites succeeded. With Reagan in Iran-Contra, they almost succeeded in destroying that great president as he was ending the Cold War in a bloodless victory for the West.

    After Lincoln’s assassination, President Andrew Johnson sought to prevent Radical Republicans from imposing a ruthless Reconstruction on a defeated and devastated South.

    The Radicals enacted the Tenure of Office Act, stripping Johnson of his authority to remove any member of the Cabinet without Senate permission. Johnson defied the Radicals and fired their agent in the Cabinet, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

    “Tennessee” Johnson was impeached, and missed conviction by one vote. John F. Kennedy, in his 1956 book, called the senator who had voted to save Johnson a “Profile in Courage.”

    If Trump is brought down on the basis of what Putin correctly labels “nonsense,” this city will have executed a nonviolent coup against a constitutionally elected president. Such an act would drop us into the company of those Third World nations where such means are the customary ways that corrupt elites retain their hold on power.

  • Summing Up The Week For Democrats (In 1 Cartoon)

    Time to find a new narrative…

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • Actions Have Consequences! Ask Venezuela

    Authored by Bill Bonner via InternationalMan.com,

    Let’s turn to an economy getting doomier by the day: Venezuela.

    Actions have consequences. In public policy, it is impossible to say what the consequences will be. There are too many delusions and too much smoke.

    Take a policy said to eradicate city rats. Its real purpose is to reward a large political donor who owns a pest control firm. It ends up killing the pigeons.

    Often, policies with clear and obvious purposes end up producing outcomes completely at odds with the stated objectives.

    Prohibition, for example, increased the number of drunks. The War on Drugs fattened drug dealers’ profits.

    The War on Poverty has made poverty respectable… even attractive… to poor people.

    The War on Terror has probably made a million otherwise sane and sensible Muslims yearn to blow up something with a U.S. flag on it.

    Most often, these outcomes are not exactly surprises. Look more closely and you will often find, hidden behind the promises… a pest control firm!

    News reports, for example, tell us that U.S. arms dealers are about to get a $110 billion payday. President Trump announced a weapons deal with the Saudis – the biggest in history.

    Into the Abyss

    Although the exact consequences of public policies are obscure, the patterns are familiar.

    Win-lose deals always reduce total human satisfaction.

    Win-lose deals – unless they are imposed by petty criminals or local bullies – require government insistence. Otherwise, no one would take the losing side.

    So the more government there is… the more active, ambitious, and overbearing it is… the more win-lose deals subtract from the sum of human happiness.

    A month ago, as many as a million of these disappointed people demonstrated against the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. It was the “Mother of All Protests,” they said.

    What was their beef?

    Inflation is running at about 700% a year. Last year, GDP plunged 19%. Food staples – beans, rice, bread – are disappearing. Families cross the border into Colombia to buy toilet paper.

    Hospitals have no medicine, no equipment, not even rubber gloves and disinfectants. Sometimes, they have no electricity. Deaths of premature babies have increased 10,000% in the last five years.

    How did a country make such a mess of itself?

    Win-Lose

    In a sense, the country was a victim of its own good luck… and then a victim of its own bad judgment.

    The good luck happened in 1914 when the first oilfield was drilled. The money followed.

    By the 1950s, with a basically market-oriented government, Venezuela rose to become the world’s fourth-richest country in terms of GDP per capita.

    Today, the country has the largest proven oil reserves in the world – 297 billion barrels of the stuff compared to 267 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia.

    But good luck allows you to make bad judgments. With the oil wealth flowing, Hugo Chávez – who described himself as a Trotskyist two days before his inauguration as president in 2007 – could impose win-lose deals on the whole economy.

    Key industries were nationalized. Price controls were put in place. Wealth was redistributed.

    Win-lose deals can redistribute wealth but only to the extent win-win deals create it. Take away the win-win deals, and the wealth soon runs out… as it did in Cuba and the Soviet Union.

    Now the tank is about empty in Venezuela, too.

    Banana Republic

    It doesn’t matter what you call it – government is always a means for the few to exploit the many.

    The few use every resource available to them to keep the hustle going, with special attention given to manipulating the gullible mob.

    The typical citizen rarely has any idea of what is going on… and doesn’t have much curiosity about it. As long as he has credit for a new pickup and a champion who promises to smite his enemies, the common man will go along with almost anything.

    But the Venezuelan auto industry has been ruined. And there’s no credit available. So there are few new pickups on the streets, and much of the public has turned against the government.

    Not surprisingly, the policies that destroyed Venezuela delighted U.S. economists and politicians – who were eager to impose win-lose deals of their own.

    In 2007, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz praised the “positive policies” in health and education of the Chávez government.

    And in 2011, Bernie Sanders wrote:

    These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who’s the banana republic now?

    Sanders had no idea what was really going on in Venezuela. But he was right about what was going on in the U.S. It was on its way to becoming a banana republic.

    Only without the bananas. Or the republic.

  • Pelosi Has Some Advice For Donald Trump

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says President Trump would be a much more effective leader if he would just get some rest.

    When asked what advice she would have for the President during a segment on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Pelosi said the president should “get some sleep,” before questioning his fitness for office.

    “Bring yourself to a place where those synapses are working. I think there’s something not — more sleep might be a solution for him,” adding that his family should be concerned about his health.

    Pelosi recounted a time when Trump called her after launching a missile strike on a Syrian airbase back in April.

    “It was late at night well after it was all finished it was like midnight and he was going on and on and I said, ‘why don’t you go to sleep’.”

    The former speaker of the house also played down talk of impeachment, saying that – “unless you have the facts” – talk of removing the president just “inflames the situation.”

  • Retired FBI Special Agent Blows The Whistle On The Real Robert Mueller

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Shortly after former FBI Director Robert Mueller was announced as the special counsel for the Russia investigation, the screeching hordes of America’s “always wrong about everything” punditry class cheered in near unison, lauding the man as some sort of second coming. This sort of thing should always be seen as a red flag, and thanks to an excellent article written by retired FBI special agent Coleen Rowley, everyone can now know exactly why.

    But first, who is Coleen Rowley?

    Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI’s pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine’s “Persons of the Year” in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled “Questions for the FBI Nominee” was published on the day of James Comey’s confirmation hearing.

    It’s important to be aware of that background as you read the following excerpts from the excellent post published at CounterPunch titled, Comey and Mueller: Russiagate’s Mythical Heroes:

    Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.

     

    Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.

    Well of course, that’s how you get promoted in America.

    TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a “bombshell memo” to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller’s having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

     

    I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI’s pre 9/11 failures.

     

    A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney’s ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.

     

    Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the “post 9/11 round-up” of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI “progress” in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists.

     

    For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives. Comey also defended the Bush Administration’s three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.

     

    What’s not well understood is that Comey’s and Mueller’s joint intervention to stop Bush’s men from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.

     

    The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn’t. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.

     

    Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any “war crimes files” were made to disappear. Not only did “collect it all” surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller’s (and then Comey’s) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

     

    Neither Comey nor Mueller — who are reported to be “joined at the hip” — deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like “G-men” with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George “Slam Dunk” Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence.

     

    It seems clear that based on his history and close “partnership” with Comey, called “one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen,” Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

     

    Mueller didn’t speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn’t speak out against torture. He didn’t speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn’t tell the truth about 9/11. He is just “their man.”

    Not good.

  • Trump Hints He Has Comey Tapes, Tells Press: "You're Going To Be Very Disappointed, Don't Worry"

    Trump just dropped an awful lot of bombs in a very short period of time during a brief press conference with the Romanian President held in the White House Rose Garden.

    First, on the issue of the infamous ‘Comey tapes,’ Trump hinted that they do, in fact, exist and he will “tell you about it over a short period of time.”

    Reporter: “And you seem to be hinting that there are recordings of those conversations.” 

     

    Trump:  “I’m not hinting anything.  I’ll tell you about it over a very short period of time….Oh, you’re going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Don’t worry.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    On whether he would be willing to refute Comey’s testimony under oath, Trump said he would “100 percent” be willing to tell Special Counsel Mueller that he did not ask for Comey’s loyalty or ask for him to drop the Flynn investigation.

    Reporter:  “Would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version of events?”

     

    Trump:  “100%.  I hardly know the man, I’m not going to say “I want you to pledge allegiance.”  Who would do that?  I mean think of it.  I hardly know the man.  It doesn’t make sense.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    And on why Trump felt vindicated by Comey’s testimony:

    “No collusion, no obstruction, he’s a leaker…”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th June 2017

  • Mapping Where Where U.S. Troops Are Based In The Middle East

    On Monday, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Yemen, Libya's eastern-based government and the Maldives cut diplomatic ties with Qatar, creating a new crisis in the Arab world. U.S. President Donald Trump quickly waded into the row, lambasting Qatar in a series of tweets. Joining the Gulf states in labeling Qatar a funder of extremism, Trump tweeted that his visit to Saudi Arabia "was already paying off" and that Monday's developments could mark the "beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism."

    However, as Statista's Nial McCarthy notes, despite Trump's tweets and his accusations against Qatar, the country actually plays host to the largest U.S. base in the Middle East. Located southwest of Doha, Al Udeid Air Base hosts an estimated 10,000 U.S. troops and the facility has been proven crucial in the fight against ISIS. Qatar invested $1 billion in constructing the base and it's also home to the the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center, responsible for coordinating U.S. and allied air power across the Middle East, particularly in airspace over Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

    Indeed, the base is likely to become even more important in the coming weeks as a U.S. backed alliance of Kurdish and Arab fighters gain traction in their offensive towards the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa. In the wake of Monday's events and Trump's comments, the Defense Department praised Qatar for hosting the base and its "enduring commitment to regional security". State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said "we recognize that Qatar has made great efforts to stop the financing of terrorism but they still have a lot of work to do."

    The following infographic highlights just how important Qatar is to the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

    Infographic: Where U.S. Troops Are Based In The Middle East  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    The country hosts an estimated 10,000 U.S. troops, second only to Kuwait's 15,000. Neighboring Bahrain is also vital to American interests in the region, home to the Naval Support Activity Bahrain, the U.S. Fifth Fleet and a substantial military presence at Isa Air Base.

  • LiBTaRD ToDaY…
  • Democrats Chase Red Herring Of 'Russia-Gate'

    Authored by Norman Solomon via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    President Trump has caused many prominent progressives to degrade their own political discourse. It’s up to us to challenge the corrosive effects of routine hyperbole and outright demagoguery.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Consider the rhetoric from one of the most promising new House members, Democrat Jamie Raskin, at a rally near the Washington Monument over the weekend. Reading from a prepared text, Raskin warmed up by declaring that “Donald Trump is the hoax perpetrated on the Americans by the Russians.”

    Soon the congressman named such varied countries as Hungary, the Philippines, Syria and Venezuela, and immediately proclaimed: “All the despots, dictators and kleptocrats have found each other, and Vladimir Putin is the ringleader of the unfree world.”

    Later, asked about factual errors in his speech, Raskin floundered during a filmed interview with The Real News.

    What is now boilerplate Democratic Party bombast about Russia has little to do with confirmed facts and much to do with partisan talking points.

    The same day that Raskin spoke, the progressive former Labor Secretary Robert Reich featured at the top of his website an article he’d written with the headline “The Art of the Trump-Putin Deal.” The piece had striking similarities to what progressives have detested over the years when coming from right-wing commentators and witch-hunters. The timeworn technique was dual track, in effect: I can’t prove it’s true, but let’s proceed as though it is.

    The lead of Reich’s piece was clever. Way too clever: “Say you’re Vladimir Putin, and you did a deal with Trump last year. I’m not suggesting there was any such deal, mind you. But if you are Putin and you did do a deal, what did Trump agree to do?” From there, Reich’s piece was off to the conjectural races.

    Propaganda Techniques

    Progressives routinely deplore such propaganda techniques from right-wingers, not only because the Left is being targeted but also because we seek a political culture based on facts and fairness rather than innuendos and smears. It’s painful now to see numerous progressives engaging in hollow propaganda.

    CIA seal in lobby of the spy agency’s headquarters. (U.S. government photo)

    Likewise, it’s sad to see so much eagerness to trust in the absolute credibility of institutions like the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency — institutions that previously earned wise distrust. Over the last few decades, millions of Americans have gained keen awareness of the power of media manipulation and deception by the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Yet now, faced with an ascendant extreme right wing, some progressives have yielded to the temptation of blaming our political predicament more on a foreign “enemy” than on powerful corporate forces at home.

    The over-the-top scapegoating of Russia serves many purposes for the military-industrial complex, Republican neocons, and kindred “liberal interventionist” Democrats. Along the way, the blame-Russia-first rhetoric is of enormous help to the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party — a huge diversion lest its elitism and entwinement with corporate power come under greater scrutiny and stronger challenge from the grassroots.

    In this context, the inducements and encouragements to buy into an extreme anti-Russia frenzy have become pervasive. A remarkable number of people claim certainty about hacking and even “collusion” — events that they cannot, at this time, truly be certain about. In part that’s because of deceptive claims endlessly repeated by Democratic politicians and news media.

    One example is the rote and highly misleading claim that “17 U.S. intelligence agencies” reached the same conclusion about Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee — a claim that journalist Robert Parry effectively debunked in an article last week.

    What Americans Want

    During a recent appearance on CNN, former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner offered a badly needed perspective on the subject of Russia’s alleged intrusion into the U.S. election. People in Flint, Michigan, “wouldn’t ask you about Russia and Jared Kushner,” she said. “They want to know how they’re gonna get some clean water and why 8,000 people are about to lose their homes.”

    White House adviser Jared Kushner, who is also President Trump’s son-in-law

    Turner noted that “we definitely have to deal with” allegations of Russian interference in the election, “it’s on the minds of American people, but if you want to know what people in Ohio — they want to know about jobs, they want to know about their children.” As for Russia, she said, “We are preoccupied with this, it’s not that this is not important, but every day Americans are being left behind because it’s Russia, Russia, Russia.”

    Like corporate CEOs whose vision extends only to the next quarter or two, many Democratic politicians have been willing to inject their toxic discourse into the body politic on the theory that it will be politically profitable in the next election or two. But even on its own terms, the approach is apt to fail. Most Americans are far more worried about their economic futures than about the Kremlin. A party that makes itself more known as anti-Russian than pro-working-people has a problematic future.

    Today, 15 years after George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” oratory set the stage for ongoing military carnage, politicians who traffic in unhinged rhetoric like “Putin is the ringleader of the unfree world” are helping to fuel the warfare state — and, in the process, increasing the chances of direct military conflict between the United States and Russia that could go nuclear and destroy us all.

    But such concerns can seem like abstractions compared to possibly winning some short-term political gains. That’s the difference between leadership and demagoguery.

  • Questioning Government Is What Makes You An American

    Authored by Rachel Blevins via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Questioning your government does not make you Un-American.

    It shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand, but based on a lot of the messages and the comments I have received this week, it sounds like some of y’all need a little help…

    The United States was founded on the principle that citizens should have free speech, and they should be able to question their government. Yet today, we live in a country where if you use your First Amendment rights in a way that people don’t like, they tell you that if you don’t like what is going on, you should leave the country.

    Seriously? This is what it has come to? You just have to take everything you’re fed, and then thank your masters, because at least you’re a slave in the best country in the world?

    It amazes me that even at a time when our shiny new Republican president is doing exactly what his Democratic opponent would have done, we still have a public that is brainwashed into believing there is actually a difference between the two parties.

    I have been accused of being both a leftist liberal snowflake, and a right-wing conspiracy theorist, and I am often asked where I stand politically, and what party I align with. The answer is always, none of the above.

    I believe that the government should be as small as possible, and it’s not my job to tell you which master should rule over you, or how you should live your life. As long as you’re not harming anyone, I believe you should be able to do what you want—it’s your life.

    I believe that mass surveillance is unacceptable, and that citizens should turn to their communities when they need help, instead of waiting for government handouts.

    I believe that both police officers and politicians should be held accountable for their actions.

    In a world filled with problems, I believe that we should take care of our own issues before pointing the finger at others.

    I believe that overthrowing governments in sovereign nations is wrong, war should be avoided at all costs, and absolutely nothing justifies killing innocent civilians.

    Most importantly, I believe that questioning authority is what truly makes you patriotic—not the other way around.

  • Visualizing The Global Demographic Timebomb

    With record-high amounts of student debt, questionable job prospects, and too much avocado toast in their bellies, many millennials already feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.

    But, as Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, there’s another economic headwind they face as they are coming of age: the percentage of the global population that is 65 or older will double from 10% to 20% by 2050.

    As millennials enter their peak earning years, there will be 1.6 billion elderly people on the planet.

    SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL

    Today’s infographic comes to us from Aperion Care, and it highlights how demographics are shifting as well as the economic challenges of a rapidly aging global population.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    With an older population that works less, support and dependency ratios get out of whack.

    After all, countries already spend trillions of dollars each year on healthcare and social security. These systems were designed a long time ago, and were not setup to work with so few people paying into the programs.

    WHICH COUNTRIES FACE HEADWINDS?

    While most countries face similar obstacles with aging populations, for some the problem is more severe.

    The Potential Support Ratio (PSR), a measure of amount of working people (15-64) for each person over 65+ in age, is anticipated to fall below 5.0 in countries like Japan, Italy, Germany, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. These countries will all have significant portions of their populations (>30%) made up of elderly people by 2050.

    The United States sits in a slightly better situation with 27.9% of its population expected to hit 65 or higher by the same year – however, this is still analogous to modern-day Germany (which sits at 27.6%), a country that is already dealing with big demographic issues.

    Here’s one other look, from our previous Chart of the Week on dropping fertility rates and global aging:

    Will millennials be able to diffuse the demographic timebomb, or will an aging population be the final straw?

  • Tolerance-Preaching Professor: 'Diversity Of Opinion' Is "White Supremacist Bullshit"

    Authored by Justin Caruso via Campus Reform blog,

    • At a recent conference on Critical Race Theory, professors discussed how "there is no virtue in whiteness," with some saying "whiteness" is "inherently violent."
    • Other conference-goers reportedly called the concept of intellectual diversity "white supremacist bullshit," while another said "research" is a "colonial, white supremacist, elite process."

    Professors at a recent conference hosted by Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis reportedly called whiteness “inherently violent,” saying “diversity of opinion” is just “white supremacist bullshit.” 

    The conference, held between May 31 and June 2, was organized by the Critical Race Studies in Education Association (CRSEA), an organization that frequently hosts similar events to bring together an “interdisciplinary consortium of experts who recognize global implications of race and education for minoritized people.”

    “As a community, we are committed to (1) countering and combating systemic and structural racism with scholarship and praxis, (2) recognizing the multiple locations of oppression and the myriad manifestations and effects of their intersections and (3) co-constructing liberating knowledge that facilitates collective agency to transform schools and communities,” the group describes itself on its website, a description supported by several attendees at its most recent conference, who quoted highlights from the event on Twitter.  

    “Whiteness has already been constructed against blackness. There is no virtue in whiteness, it is inherently violent,” one conference-goer tweeted, referencing a quote from Michael Dumas, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who spoke at the event.

    “Whiteness and the United States knows itself through the violence and death of the subordinated,” another attendee quoted Dumas as saying, with one academic at the conference noting Dumas claimed that there “is no position of whiteness that isn’t already violent.”

    Dumas, notably, has expressed similar views in the past, tweeting that “whiteness” is “violent and delusional, delighting in Black death in every historical moment," claiming at the recent conference that “there will never be anything close to justice in the U.S. because the system is built upon violence.”

    Other conference speakers, such as Indiana University at Purdue Professor David Stovall, apparently called the term “diversity of opinion” “white supremacist bullshit,” saying “white tears are an act of physical and political violence.”

    According to another attendee, Professor James Scheurich, who also teaches at Indiana University’s Purdue campus, claimed that “research” is a “colonial, white supremacist, elite process,” while Professor Theodorea Berry suggested that “some people need to be slapped into wokeness.”

    Berry explained to Campus Reform that the "notion of being 'slapped into wokeness' is one where an individual comes to gain [a] level of understanding about others' oppression by experiencing oppression," saying this is "especially true for those socially marginalized" people "who subscribe to respectability politics." 

    "The proverbial 'slap' is the incident of marginalization," she added. "The 'wokeness' is the realization that regardless of your privilege, marginalization can occur." 

    One attendee, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago, concluded her time at the conference by noting that she’s “happy” since she managed to collect “a few white tears.”

    Campus Reform reached out to all of the professors quoted in this article, and will update it if and when responses are received.

  • Home-Flippers Reliance On Leverage Rises To Highest Level In 9 Years

    In the latest sign that the US housing market has peaked after an astounding post-crisis run-up, a report by ATTOM Data Solutions showed that the number of homes flipped by speculators fell to its lowest level in two years.

    The report showed that 43,615 single family homes and condos were flipped nationwide during the first quarter of 2017, the lowest number since the first quarter of 2015.

    However, even as the number of flipped homes has fallen, their share of total real-estate transactions has actually risen. During the first quarter, they accounted for 6.7% of all transactions, up from 5.8% in the fourth quarter of 2016, and unchanged from the same period a year earlier.

    “The business of financing for home flippers continued to grow in the first quarter of 2017 even as the home flipping rate plateaued compared to a year ago and average home flipping returns decreased for the second consecutive quarter,” said Daren Blomquist, senior vice president at ATTOM Data Solutions.

    “Home flippers financed an estimated $3.5 billion in purchases for homes flipped during the quarter, up from $3.3 billion in the previous quarter and up from $2.4 billion a year ago to the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2007 — a more than nine-year high.”

    The explosion in home valuations in urban markets like Brooklyn, Washington D.C. and San Francisco has inspired real-estate speculators to search for the next big score, with the highest percentage of home flips completed with the aid of outside financing occurring in Colorado Springs, Colorado (69.3 percent); Denver, Colorado (54.8 percent); Seattle, Washington (51.6 percent); Boston, Massachusetts (51.3 percent); and Providence, Rhode Island (47.3 percent).

    Matthew Gardner, chief economist at Windermere Real Estate noted that escalating home prices in Seattle forced flippers to rely on financing their purchases.

    “Seattle has such a high number of flippers who are financing their purchases relative to the U.S. as a whole due to escalating home prices in our region. The decision to finance is proof that these flippers believe the risks of financing are low due to our booming housing market,” Gardner said in a statement.

    Other markets where more than 40 percent of home flips completed in Q1 2017 were originally purchased by the speculator using financing included San Diego, California (46.3 percent); Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (46.2 percent); Phoenix, Arizona (44.1 percent); San Francisco, California (43.0 percent); and Washington, D.C. (40.5 percent).

    Hottest Home Flipping Zips in Q1 2017

    var divElement = document.getElementById(‘viz1496883624231’); var vizElement = divElement.getElementsByTagName(‘object’)[0]; vizElement.style.width=’604px’;vizElement.style.height=’669px’; var scriptElement = document.createElement(‘script’); scriptElement.src = ‘https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js’; vizElement.parentNode.insertBefore(scriptElement, vizElement);

    “With low interest rates, and available lenders willing to provide non-owner occupied loans, we are seeing many of our investors across Southern California take advantage of leverage financing when participating in housing flips,” said Michael Mahon, president at First Team Real Estate, who covers the Southern California housing market.

    The areas where home flipping constituted the highest share of all real-estate transactions was Washington, DC, with a rate of 10.7%, followed by Nevada (9.8 percent); Alabama (9.0 percent); Tennessee (8.9 percent); Maryland (8.5 percent); and Missouri (8.0 percent).

    Among 85 metropolitan statistical areas with at least 90 single family and condo home flips completed in Q1 2017, those with the highest home flipping rate were Memphis, Tennessee (15.1 percent); York-Hanover, Pennsylvania (12.5 percent); Fresno, California (11.1 percent); Birmingham, Alabama (10.3 percent); and Las Vegas, Nevada (10.0 percent). Nationwide, the average return for flipped homes fell for the second straight quarter: The average gross flipping profit translated to an average 47.4 percent gross return for homes flipped in Q1 2017, down from an average 49.0 percent gross flipping ROI in Q4 2016 and an average 48.5 percent gross flipping ROI in Q1 2016.

    The markets with the highest home-flipping returns were Pittsburgh, PA (141.8 percent); Allentown, Pennsylvania (122.2 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (118.6 percent); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (111.7 percent); and Baltimore, Maryland (106.0 percent).

    The median size of homes flipped in Q1 2017 shrunk to 1,402 square feet – the smallest median square footage going back to Q1 2000, the earliest quarter for which data are available.
    That’s down from a median 1,409 square feet in the previous quarter, and 1,428 square feet a year ago.

    The median year of construction for homes flipped in Q1 2017 was 1978, the same as in the previous quarter but down from a median of 1981 for homes flipped in Q1 2016.

    ATTOM defines home flipping as "an arms-length sale of a property for the second time within a 12-month period."

  • What Do "Think Tanks" Think About?

    Authored by Bonner & Co.'s Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

    “Russiagate”

    First, there is a dust-up in the Washington, D.C., area. “Russiagate,” it is called. As near as we can make out, some people think the Trump team had or has illegal or inappropriate contacts with the Russian government.

     

    It’s all very obvious, if one looks closely…  Putin has inundated the brains of US voters with his evil Putin rays from his redoubt in Moscow, causing them to make the wrong choice.

     

    This knowledge, such as it is, has apparently been obtained by illegal or inappropriate leaks of information gotten by illegal or inappropriate eavesdropping by government agencies doing illegal or inappropriate things for illegal or inappropriate reasons.

    Does it matter one way or another? Probably not. The insiders are firmly in control no matter which way it turns out. What we have here is a fight among insiders – a scrap over who gets to rip us off and how.

    Mr. Trump has proven to be flexible and compliant. He is willing to go along with practically every scam and bamboozle in the Deep State repertoire. But much of the establishment finds him unreliable, embarrassing, and vulnerable.

    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

    In Saudi Arabia, for example, the president delivered the big bucks to Raytheon and other arms merchants. But then he stiffed the “alternative energy” industry by rejecting the Paris climate change agreement. Both moves, he claimed, would lead to “jobs, jobs, jobs.”  Trump:

    “I have just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. It was a very, very successful trip, believe me.”

    White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer:

    “The visit also included historic economic development deals for the United States, totaling well over half a trillion dollars and the creation of tens of thousands of American jobs.”

     

    First he engages in professional sword dancing and then he single-handedly makes the sea levels rise… is there anything he cannot do?

     

    The Saudi feds have money. They get it by selling oil to people who need it to power their factories, fuel their cars, and heat their houses. The money comes out of the productive, win-win economy.

    Every penny of this money gets applied to something. They can use it to buy tanks and fighter jets. Or they can buy tomatoes or make movies. Big arms deals get the headlines, but do they create more jobs other than spending?

    Does money spent by the feds ever create more wealth and satisfaction than money spent by the people who earned it?

    The answer to both those questions is “no.” We know that only win-win deals add real wealth. Government arms deals are not win-win.

    “But wait,” you say. “They might buy their tomatoes from anywhere… but we’ve got the high-tech killing machines. When they buy from Raytheon, they put Americans to work.”

    Hmmm… Somewhere, someone looks at the Big Scheme of Things. He must wonder: Why is it better for an American to have a good job than, say, a Canadian? He must also wonder: Why is it better to pay people to build a tank than to build a truck?

     

    All Downhill

    Fighter jets are bought by the government – with money it took, by force, from its citizens. Most often, military spending serves no purpose other than to protect or enhance the power of the government. Only rarely does it pay to build a tank.

    The last time American civilians were targeted by a conventional military attack was when Sherman’s Yankee army marched through Georgia – more than 150 years ago.

     

    Sherman’s march to the sea –  Sherman didn’t like railroad tracks, so he ordered his troops to remove them and tie them around trees (these tree ornaments became known as “Sherman’s necklaces”).

    Like government itself, a little bit of “defense” spending may be necessary, but it fast reaches the point of declining marginal utility. Then, it is all downhill. The money is either wasted or used to create a bloodbath.

    In the Middle East, it’s been going downhill for many decades; the odds that these weapons will be put to any honest service – such as preventing an attack on Saudi Arabia – are close to zero.

     

    Drunken Bards

    Weapons and warfare are favorite Deep State scams; they are ways to transfer wealth and power from the people who earn it to governments and their crony military suppliers.

    And here, we draw a line – from “The Donald’s” trip to the Middle East… to a think tank called the Center for Gulf Affairs at the Middle East Institute… to the Raytheon corporation.

     

    It always was and always will be the by far biggest racket of all time…

     

    Reports Just Security, an online forum for national security issues:

    “In March of this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee invited former ambassador Gerald Feierstein – director of the Center for Gulf Affairs at the Middle East Institute – to speak about the situation in Yemen and about his views on the sale of U.S. arms to the Saudis.

     

    As one might have anticipated from his interview in the Washington Post, Feierstein told the committee, “Accusations of war crimes leveled against Saudi and Coalition armed forces and threats to end arms sales to the Saudis have the potential to inflict long-lasting damage to these relationships.” Limiting the supply of munitions, he said, would be “counter-productive” […]

     

    Never disclosed in the Washington Post interview or in the Senate hearing was the source of funding for Feierstein’s Middle East Institute. According to its most recent public report, the Institute counts among its chief donors leading members of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and major arms manufacturers.

     

    Saudi Arabia and Kuwait provide the highest level of support as “Platinum Sponsors,” and the UAE [United Arab Emirates] is also a donor. Raytheon, the manufacturer of the very weapons at issue in the Senate hearing, is a Gold Sponsor of the Institute. It is worth noting, of course, that the Middle East Institute is not unique in Washington. The defense industry and foreign governments pump money into many think tanks.”

    (emphasis added)

    What do think tanks think about? Whatever they are paid to think about, of course. Like drunken bards, they sing praises to whomever will buy them a drink.

     

    Post war rumors making the rounds.

     

  • Tucker Talks Tentacle Porn After Kurt Eichenwald Caught Red Handed

    Oh boy…

    Senior Newsweek writer and MSNBC contributor Kurt Eichenwald was caught red handed Wednesday night after posting a screenshot to Twitter which happened to include several open tabs in his browser…

    Users on 4chan noticed the tabs immediately and ENHANCED

    And what did that lead to? Why – Japanese tentacle porn (Hentai)!

    Kurt’s response

    “I was looking up tentacle porn with my kid in order to prove to my wife it exists…”

    Whatever Kurt, looking up tentacle porn with your adult offspring is beyond creepy.

    Tucker’s on the case…

    Tucker Carlson, who presided over Eichenwald’s “self immolation” last december as a guest of Tucker Carlson Tonight, couldn’t resist covering the latest in the saga of Kurt Eichenwald.

    “Well of course! Just another afternoon of surfing the internet for hardcore porn with your kids!” -Tucker

    VIDEO HERE (sorry for quality, will update):

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Reactions have been hilarious

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js



Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 8th June 2017

  • USA Plunges To 114th 'Most-Peaceful' Nation On Earth

    The 2017 Global Peace Index was released last week and it found that the world has actually become a slightly safer place during the past year. However, as Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, the divisive presidential election in the United States and its fallout has resulted in peace levels in North America deteriorating.

    161 countries were analyzed in the index and the U.S. actually experienced the greatest decline in peace out of all them, plummeting 11 places to 114th most-peaceful country.

    Infographic: The World's Most And Least Peaceful Countries  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    Iceland was named the world's most peaceful country with New Zealand and Portugal coming second and third respectively. Unsurprisingly, Syria is has the lowest peace rating worldwide.

    Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan and Yemen also find themselves at the very bottom of the peace list.

    According to the index, global violence in 2016 came to $14.3 trillion in purchasing power parity terms, equivalent to 12.6 percent of the world's GDP or $1,953 for every person.

  • EuRoPeaN VaCaTioN 2017
  • British Think Tank Warns Hackers Could Access Nuclear Subs, Fears "Catastrophic Exchange Of Warheads"

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Cyber security has become a preeminent issue in the modern world. That’s because so much of our standard of living is now reliant on computers that can often be easily hacked. Computers may make our lives easier, but they’ve given our civilization a whole new vulnerability to worry about. Our privacy, our infrastructure, and our financial systems are now at the mercy of hackers.

    But those threats pale in comparison the vulnerability of our nuclear arsenals. Yes, you read that correctly. You’d think that the nuclear arsenals fielded by Western governments would have levels of security that are so tight, that they’d be virtually impossible to hack, but that’s not the case. According to the British American Security Information Council think tank, the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines are certainly vulnerable to hackers, contrary to the claims of the government.

    “Submarines on patrol are clearly air-gapped, not being connected to the internet or other networks, except when receiving (very simple) data from outside. As a consequence, it has sometimes been claimed by officials that Trident is safe from hacking. But this is patently false and complacent,” they say in the report.

     

    Even if it were true that a submarine at sea could not be attacked digitally, the report points out that the vessels are only at sea part of the time and are vulnerable to the introduction of malware at other points, such as during maintenance while docked at the Faslane naval base in Scotland.

     

    The report says: “Trident’s sensitive cyber systems are not connected to the internet or any other civilian network. Nevertheless, the vessel, missiles, warheads and all the various support systems rely on networked computers, devices and software, and each of these have to be designed and programmed. All of them incorporate unique data and must be regularly upgraded, reconfigured and patched.”

    Fortunately, this kind of cyber attack couldn’t be committed by just any old yahoo with a computer. It would require the resources that governments typically have access to. Still, this threat is sobering when you consider that these submarines apparently utilize the same Windows software that is used by Britain’s National Health Service, which was thoroughly infiltrated by the WannaCry malware last month.

    So if someone did manage to hack these missiles, what could they do with them? Let’s just say that what could be done with these missiles will keep you up at night.

    Hackers could take control of Britain’s atomic weapons and use them to start a “catastrophic” global nuclear war, tech experts have warned.

     

    In a report published today, the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) said that cyber-spies could commandeer the systems which power the nation’s Trident submarines and then launch devastating attacks.

     

    “A successful attack could neutralise operations, lead to loss of life, defeat or perhaps even the catastrophic exchange of nuclear warheads,” the report warned.

    Back in the Cold War, people used to worry about the wrong people having access to “the red button.” But now nuclear war appears to be “just a click away.”

  • Drug Overdoses Now The Leading Killer Of American Adults Under 50

    The opioid crisis that is ravaging urban and suburban communities across the US claimed an unprecedented 59,000 lives last year, according to preliminary data gathered by the New York Times. If accurate, that’s equivalent to a roughly 19% increase over the approximately 52,000 overdose deaths recorded in 2015, the NYT reported last year.

    Overdoses, made increasingly common by the introduction of fentanyl and other powerful synthetic opioids into the heroin supply, are now the leading cause of death for Americans under 50. And all evidence suggests the problem has continued to worsen in 2017. One coroner in Western Pennsylvania told a local newspaper that his office is literally running out of room to store the bodies, and that it was recently forced to buy a larger freezer.

    The initial data points to large increases in these types of deaths in states along the East Coast, particularly Maryland, Florida, Pennsylvania and Maine. In Ohio, which filed a lawsuit last week accusing five drug companies of abetting the opioid epidemic, the Times estimated that overdose deaths increased by more than 25 percent in 2016.

    In some Ohio counties, deaths from heroin have virtually disappeared. Instead, the primary culprit is fentanyl or one of its many analogues. In Montgomery County, home to Dayton, of the 100 drug overdose deaths recorded in January and February, only three people tested positive for heroin; 97 tested positive for fentanyl or another analogue.

    In some states in the western half of the US, data suggest deaths may have leveled off for the time being – or even begun to decline. Experts believe that the heroin supply west of the Mississippi River, traditionally dominated by a variant of the drug known as black tar which is smuggled over the border from Mexico, isn't as easily adulterated with lethal analogues as the powder that's common on the East Coast.

    First responders are finding that, with fentanyl, carfentanil and the other analogues, overdoses can be so severe that multiple shots of naloxone – the anti-overdose medication that often goes by the brand name Narcan – are needed to revive people. One EMT in Warren County, Ohio told the Times that sometimes as many as 14 doses of Narcan are needed to revive a patient.

    “It’s like a squirt gun in a house fire,” the EMT said.

    But, as Robert Anderson, chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch of the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC explains, toxicology results, which are necessary to assign a cause of death, can take three to six months or longer.

    “It’s frustrating, because we really do want to track this stuff,” he said.

    While the process in each state varies slightly, death certificates are usually first filled out by a coroner, medical examiner or attending physician. These death certificates are then collected by state health departments and sent to the N.C.H.S., which assigns what’s called an ICD-10 code to each death. This code specifies the underlying cause of death, and it’s what determines whether a death is classified as a drug overdose, the NYT reported.

    We can say with confidence that drug deaths rose a great deal in 2016, but it is hard to say precisely how many died or in which places drug deaths rose most steeply. Because of the delay associated with toxicology reports and inconsistencies in the reported data, our estimate could vary from the true number by several thousand.

  • Alan Dershowitz Schools CNN Panel: ‘It Simply Is Not A Crime For the President to Exercise His Constitutional Authority’

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

     

     
    Constitutional expert and famed Harvard law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, took on Jeffrey Toobin to discuss the ongoing Trump-Comey saga, saying in no uncertain terms that “this is not obstruction of justice.”
     
    He explains, “That is his constitutional power. He has the right to say, ‘You will not investigate Flynn.’ The best proof of that is he could have simply said to Comey, ‘Stop the investigation, I’ve just pardoned Flynn.’”
     
    To back up his assertions, Dershowitz reminded viewers of when Bush I pardoned Casper Weinberger the night before trial. After doing so, no one cried ‘obstruction’ because it was within the rights of the President of the United States to do so.
     

    “That’s what President Bush did,” Dershowitz said, citing the case of Caspar Weinberger. “You cannot have obstruction of justice when the president exercises his constitutional authority to pardon, his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI, or his constitutional authority to tell the director of the FBI who to prosecute and who not to prosecute.”

     
    He made the point that impeachment and obstruction are two entirely different things, which reduced Jeffrey Toobin to look like an 11th grade history student learning the constitution for the first time. The President can be impeached for all manners of things, but not for firing Comey and/or asking him to stop investigating Flynn — because it is his right to do so.
     

    “You can impeach him if you don’t like what he did,” he said. “But you cannot say it’s a crime. It’s simply not a crime for the president to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon or to direct the FBI.”

     
    He concludes, “If you and I were expert witnesses in an impeachment trial of President Trump, and we were asked the question, ‘has President Trump committed an obstruction of justice by pardoning Flynn or by firing Comey, or by telling Comey not to investigate Flynn?’, my answer, as an expert on the constitution would be ‘absolutely not, he didn’t commit an obstruction of justice […] it simply isn’t a crime for the President to exercise his constitutional authority.’

    Watch.

  • Operation Temperer – U.K. Will Likely Institute Martial Law Measures Within A Year

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    After the Manchester suicide bombing only two weeks ago I warned my readers that the repetition of terror attacks is breeding complacency within the public, in Europe most acutely. It is not uncommon now for attacks killing dozens to be forgotten within a week of the event. The news feeds are awash in distraction, and of course, sometimes these events themselves act as distractions.

    In a recent newscast of MSNBC's “Morning Joe”, BBC anchor Katty Kay stated:

    Europe is getting used to attacks like this, Mika. They have to, because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out…”

    To me, this attitude is rather indicative of the European victim-culture mindset. Many in Europe (not all, but many) seem to enjoy a steady routine of self-flagellation. Countless centuries of the feudal serf system will do that to a society. The British still pay taxes to maintain a royal family, after all. I also think that the results of the Brexit vote in the UK might mislead those of us in America into thinking that the the British are turning over a new leaf in terms of liberty and conservative-like values. While I do think there is a fierce underlying drive to protect sovereignty of the British nation, the British individual has all but abandoned any hope of their own personal sovereignty and self determination.

    In mainland Europe the self-loathing natural born citizen has become a bit of a mainstay and has been exploited quite successfully by the globalist establishment. In particular, the great fear among predominantly liberal Europeans is a return to the nationalist fervor that they believe spawned the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich (I have written numerous articles outlining the involvement of the corporate and banking elite in funding and supplying vital technology to the Nazis before and during WWII). It is this “guilt” of association with the Nazi legacy that has left Europe vulnerable to manipulation from the other end of the political spectrum – the socialist/Marxist end.

    It is also this mindset that allowed globalists to forcefully inject millions of Muslim immigrants through open border policies and refugee policies into EU nations without proper vetting procedures. The majority of Europeans that saw the policy as irrational and dangerous were afraid to say anything for fear that they would be labeled “fascists”.

    The greatest threat is not only the conditioning of the population to accept cultural invasion without assimilation. Nor is the greatest threat the pacification of the populace in the face of rampant terror attacks. No, the pinnacle threat is what will inevitably come next – the apathy of a nation in the wake of incremental martial law and the death of personal liberty.

    This past week, a team of three Muslim men struck pedestrians with a white van, then emerged wielding hunting knives in a rampage through a crowded London night spot. This is only one attack in a steady stream that have plagued Europe ever since the Cloward-Piven program of Muslim relocation allowed millions of “refugees” into the EU's borders. The vaporous ISIS terror group has since claimed responsibility.

    In response, Prime Minister Theresa May has declared “enough is enough”, and demanded a review of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy. London police have been asked to adjust to new tactical conditions, patrolling streets heavily armed and utilizing surveillance helicopters with the aid of special forces units.

    NOTE – After finishing this article on Sunday, I find this quote from Theresa May on Tuesday:

    “We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."

     

    "And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them…"

    The deployment of over 5000 British troops at strategic locations by Theresa May is all part of a plan established in 2015 called “Operation Temperer”. The plan calls for the deployment of troops within the UK border in response to “major terrorist threats”. Essentially, it is a martial law program that acts incrementally, rather than overtly. Once implemented, Temperer would be difficult to reverse. As UK military chiefs warned when the operation was publicly exposed, troops would likely not be pulled back after commitment unless the terror threat was “reduced”, leaving the definition of the “threat level” open for rather broad interpretation.

    Operation Temperer is now in full swing as police departments ask for military aid. The prime minister has obliged, replacing officers in numerous locations with military units on patrol. So, is this “martial law”? Perhaps not quite, but it is damn close to the line, and this is how tyranny is commonly implemented; not all at once, but a stepping stone at a time.

    First, I would point out that May introduced Temperer measures after the Manchester bombing, and they do not seem to have done much to disrupt the latest attack in London. Second, I would also point out that the UK general elections for parliament are only a today, and it is highly likely that the latest attacks will solidify Theresa May and her Brexit base.

    The timing is rather interesting…

    Many in the Liberty Movement would say that this is a good thing; that finally the British will be able to reverse the forced cultural invasion of an incompatible Muslim mass. I would say that this is all part of the plan.

    As I have argued since before the Brexit vote last year, we are witnessing perhaps the largest 4th Gen psy-op in history. The globalists have deliberately engineered conditions by which European nations in particular will either be enveloped by an alien ideology with no protection from their own governments, or, they will have to respond with overarching countermeasures. Meaning, Europeans have been given a false choice between the ideological cult of multiculturalism, or, martial law conditions.

    In my view, the UK has been slated for the latter measure, and this makes perfect sense if you understand the game plan of the globalists.

    Brexit and by extension the rise of Donald Trump in the US has been ALLOWED to happen. Despite the delusions of some in the liberty movement, the so-called “deep state” is perfectly positioned to take advantage of both events. They are not opposed in the slightest. Why? Because this is about destroying the name of sovereign nationalism and conservative principles. This is about the long game.

    The UK appears to be first in the line-up. Terror attacks are mounting, May has already initiated Operation Temperer, and the attacks have continued anyway. The solution they will present will be MORE militarization, not less. It is my prediction that after a year of incrementalism and continued attacks, the entire UK will be in the midst of what many would define as full spectrum martial law. The UK government might not openly call it that, but that is what it will be.

    While I personally find Muslim based societies to be abhorrent in their attitude towards individual liberty, I do see a disturbing trend developing on the other side of the coin. Western nations like the UK and the US have every right to defend their borders, to deny immigration from ANYWHERE for any reason, and to deport illegal immigrants and immigrants with provable ties to terror groups. However, the line that should not be crossed but probably will be crossed is the persecution or deportation of people merely for holding particular ideological views.

    Even if the majority of citizens don't necessarily support an outright broad brush response towards all people that hold Muslim views as potential terrorists, the temptation will be overwhelming, and our respective governments will oblige it. Once we step into the world of thought crime, there is no turning back.

    And, what this does is paint conservative/nationalist movements as monstrous in the eyes of future generations. They will be taught that the globalists “warned the world” about the dangerous “racist” populists and alt-right groups, and look what happened when they came to power; they vaporized the economy (see my previous articles on the Trump scapegoat narrative) and rounded up innocent people because of their belief system even though they committed no specific crimes. My fear is that what is happening here is that conservative movements are going to be driven to such madness in the name of security that we will actually make the globalists look like “good guys” by comparison.

    So, what is the solution? Well, look at the choices the British people have been given: Accept multicultural sublimation without question, or, initiate complete military oversight and sacrifice personal liberty. Are there no other options available?

    What about this: The UK citizenry DEMANDS the return of their right to self defense and the legalization of firearms ownership for those without a criminal background? The real solution is for UK citizens to begin providing their own security, not handing over their country to militarization because they are all disarmed and afraid.

    Will this happen? I seriously doubt it. But, I do want to point out that there is clearly another path far superior to the two being offered.

    Again, I believe the UK will be under martial law in a year's time. Unless the people of the UK do something NOW to assert their right to determine their own security, they will fall to a complete totalitarian framework. And, in the long run, they will only be helping the very globalists the Brexit movement in particular sought to fight against. They will do this by trampling the image of nationalism and sovereignty with the jackbooted philosophy of externalized security and government dependency, making globalism, the offered antithesis, look pleasant and tolerable in retrospect.

  • China Trade Data Beats As Crude Demand Surges (Ahead Of Maintenance)

    Thanks to a 13% surge in crude imports (as refiners prepare for maintenance season), China’s trade surplus hit its highest since Jan (though -4% YoY). Imports (+14.8% YoY) and Exports (+8.7% YoY) both beat expectations.

    China’s overseas shipments accelerated in May from a year earlier, as Bloomberg suggests global demand shows signs of picking up.

    Exports rose 8.7 percent in May in dollar terms, the customs administration said Thursday. Imports increased 14.8 percent, leaving a trade surplus of $40.81 billion dollars. (In yuan terms, exports rose 15.5 percent and imports surged 22.1 percent, bringing the trade balance to 281.6 billion yuan.)

    A brighter international outlook may provide support to the world’s largest trading nation, with the World Trade Organization saying it expects trade to “expand moderately” in the second quarter.

     

    Still, after a robust start to the year, the domestic economy is displaying some signs of weakening momentum. The official factory gauge held up in May, but a private gauge signaled contraction for the first time in 11 months.

     

    China and the U.S. announced a deal in May to promote Chinese access for U.S. natural gas, financial services and beef as an “early harvest” of a 100-day review of the bilateral trade relationship that’s due to wrap up in July. China also vowed it will import $2 trillion from neighbors participating in its Belt and Road Initiative in the coming five years.

    China’s crude imports increased as refiners snatched up cargoes to prepare for the end of seasonal maintenance.

    Buying by China, which Bloomberg notes has overtaken the U.S. this year as the world’s biggest importer, averaged about 8.8 million barrels a day in May, up 4.8 percent from the previous month, according to Bloomberg calculations using General Administration of Customs data released Thursday. Net exports of oil products jumped 50 percent from April to 1.51 million tons.

    Crude demand by the world’s biggest energy user has marched higher on growing need for transportation fuels and strategic stockpiling. Meanwhile, domestic output has stagnated as producers shut high-cost wells that can’t survive with prices struggling to stay above $50 a barrel. The nation’s oil processing is expected to pick up this month after the annual maintenance season ended in May, according to ICIS China, a Shanghai-based commodity researcher.

     

    “Crude imports may have risen because of higher oil processing in months going forward,” Jean Zou, an analyst with ICIS China, said before the data were released.

     

    On a monthly basis, China imported 37.2 million tons of crude, Thursday’s data showed. Inbound shipments are up 13 percent during the first five months of the year to 176.3 million tons, or about 8.56 million barrels a day. The U.S. imported about 8.17 million barrels a day during that period, Bloomberg calculations using weekly data show.

    There was barely any reaction in markets around the world to this data.

  • The New Gold Rush… For Gold Vaults

    Negative interest rates and the populist uprising that spurred the UK to vote for Brexit and Americans to elect Trump has helped reignite a rush into physical safe haven assets like gold and silver, which however has led to a shortage of safe venues where to store the precious metals (unlike bitcoin, gold actually has a physical dimension). And now companies that operate storage facilities for precious metals and other valuables are ramping up their capacity to help cash in on the soaring demand for storage facilities.

    Two firms told Bloomberg they’re planning to open vaults in Europe capable of holding more than 100 million euros ($112 million) in gold, offering customers lower costs than exchange-traded products and protection from rising prices.

     As we reported last year, demand for vaults and other safe storage spaces among Swiss, German and Japanese buyers surged when one after another central adopted negative interest rates. Many older investors, worried their deposits might soon be taxed, opted to hoard money under the mattress – exactly what central bankers like Kuroda hoped wouldn’t happen.

    “I was just dealing with a customer here in Germany who got charged negative interest rates on his bank account,” Daniel Marburger, the CEO of CoinInvest.com, said by email from Frankfurt. The client decided to buy gold and silver with some of his cash.

     

    “That is definitely a driving factor and will lead to more sales and also more storage clients.”

    In addition to deflation, investors are also worried about, you guessed it, runaway inflation, which would crush the value of fixed income portfolios.

    “Inflation is a key concern for many of our clients,” said Ross Norman, chief executive officer of bullion dealer Sharps Pixley Ltd., which operates a gold vault within walking distance of Buckingham Palace. “A safe-haven asset isn’t just about what you buy—it’s also about where you keep it.”

    One such European gold dealer, CoinInvest, is in negotiations over the construction of a 100 square-meter (1,076 square-foot) vault that would hold more than 100 million euros of the precious metal. The safe will weigh 82 metric tons, with the door alone tipping the scales at 1.5 tons. Users of the largest online platform for physical gold trading, BullionVault.com, added about 3 tons of the metal in the 12 months through May, bringing their combined holdings to almost 38 tons, worth $1.5 billion at current prices. The company holds the gold in vaults in Zurich, London, New York, Singapore and Toronto, said Paul Tustain, one of the company’s founders, Bloomberg reported.

    Meanwhile, gold in storage at the Bank of England which operates one of the largest commercial vaults, climbed about 6% since the start of 2016 to 5,067 tons in February. The central bank holds gold for the UK Treasury, other central banks and private firms. One company seeking to capitalize on this boom is INTL FCStone, which started a platform to allow investors with gold in vaults to trade with one another, i.e. a gold barter service. Since starting in February, it linked 1,500 locations with more than a hundred customers active in the $170 billion professional gold market. More than 10 tons of gold has traded.

    “I’ve been in the gold market 30 years, and suddenly, I’ve got people asking to be on the platform I’ve never even heard of,” said Barry Canham, who heads the company’s precious metals division, in an interview from London.

    “They’re coming out of the woodwork.”

  • The Demographic Divide: A Police State Of Mind

    Authored by Danielle DiMartino Booth,

    Fake news is so old.

    How else did, “I am prepared to veto any bill that has as its purpose a federal bailout of New York City to prevent a default,” become, “DROP DEAD” way back in October, 1975? Oh, those hellbent headline writers. Whatever will they think of next? Besides, the Daily News headline worked wonders, if infuriating die hard New Yorkers was the objective.

    The insult so unhinged one William Martin Joel that he soon found himself saying goodbye to Hollywood and headed back to his native New York by way of a Greyhound bus on the Hudson River Line. Had the songwriter and singer we’ve all come to know and love as Billy Joel not been on that bus, he’d have never been inspired to pen the classic New York State of Mind, an anthem to the City only Sinatra himself can claim to have bested in his time.

    So thank you, President Ford for refusing to treat the “insidious disease.” At least that’s how he characterized New York’s profligate spending ways. Without the media’s dramatization of Ford’s ire, the world would have been robbed of some of the most poetic lyrics ever written. And, by the way, a feasible blueprint for the years to come as some budget-strapped cities run their tills dry.

    In the unique case of New York City in the late 1970s, federal assistance accompanied fiscal reforms. The details of the détente should thus be de rigueur study materials for the judicial and legislative arms of so many at-risk municipalities nationwide.

    At the risk of feigning any pretense of legal expertise, municipal bankruptcies come down to the limitations of the federal government’s power to provide relief to ‘units of states,’ whether they be cities, counties, taxing authorities, municipal utilities or school districts.

    Though a variety of other state-led interventions have been successfully deployed, many of us are most familiar with voluntary Chapter 9 bankruptcy filings, permitted by half the states and employing the powers of the judiciary in conjunction with creditor workouts. Jefferson County, Alabama and Stockton, California may ring mental bells. But it is 2013’s record $18 billion Detroit, Michigan Ch. 9 filing that reset precedent on how engaged the bankruptcy courts can be.

    Suffice it to say, default via the court system is a lengthy process and most lucrative for the lawyers retained. In relative terms, New York City’s effective default occurred in a New York Minute. After the banks cut off New York City in the spring of 1975, the State created an emergency financial control board and a borrowing entity to provide immediate relief to the city. Rather than “default,” the city declared a “moratorium” on $1.6 billion in obligations, a hotly debated designation. A thorny rose it nevertheless was.

    In December 1975, with the financial management wrested out of the city’s control, Congress passed and Ford signed into law legislation allowing the Treasury to extend loans to the city to keep it up and running. Future New York state and city revenues were promised to repay the loans and spending reforms that had been intractable were implemented by force.

    Looking back at the 40th anniversary of the extraordinary federal-led intervention, American Enterprise Institute’s Alex Pollock applauded Ford’s staunch stance: “That’s what happens when you run out of money and the music stops. Intensely needed reforms of the city’s spending and financial controls actually did follow.”

    Why raise the specter of federal assistance if it’s patently apparent other means can be deployed in today’s modern municipal era? The crush of retiring Baby Boomers will keep Uncle Sam up at night for years as he struggles to keep federal entitlements solvent. Why even consider federal involvement in municipal pensions that are at least backed by some semblance of assets? The answer comes down to demographics.

    Forty years ago, Baby Boomer were entering their prime earning years. Opportunity in the land of America was expanding at a rapid clip. The level of education was rising among those entering the workforce vis-à-vis their older counterparts at the same time women were growing the overall workforce (just under half of women worked then; today it’s 70 percent). In the simplest terms, the size of the pie was growing.

    Today, roughly 10,000 Boomers exit the workforce every day, which should present an opportunity in and of itself for Millennials to backfill the depleting workforce. Census data tell a different story. In 2016, median personal income for workers aged 24 to 34 was $35,000. In modern dollar terms, that same age cohort was earning $37,000 in 1975.

    It’s difficult to square lower earnings with the educational makeup of the labor force. In 1975, 23 percent of young workers had earned a bachelor’s degree. Forty years on, 37 percent have achieved the same. Shouldn’t that improvement have lifted per capita earnings?

    It comes down to comparative advantage. Back then, it was easy enough for a younger, better-educated worker to displace an older, less-educated and therefore less-qualified older worker. Today’s workforce is largely educated and intent on working longer; it’s stickier and less tractable. At the same time, the double governors of technological innovation and globalization have reduced the aggregate demand for warm bodies.

    At the risk of getting buried in the weeds, there are more workers exiting the workforce than there are those joining it. Those making way for the exits are otherwise known as ‘retirees.’ It is at this critical juncture that municipal finance re-enters the picture.

    As has been written on these pages, over the past few years, public pensions have been reducing the stated returns they anticipate their portfolios generating on investments. These reduced expectations necessarily trigger the need for higher contributions on the part of state and local governments.

    That’s exactly what took place last year. The Census’ 2016 Annual Survey of Public Pensions found that state and local government contributions rose by 6.5 percent to $191.6 billion from 2015’s $179.7 billion. By contrast, earnings on investments, which include both realized and unrealized gains, tumbled 67.9 percent to $49.9 billion from $155.5 billion in 2015.

    Meanwhile, the number of pensioners collecting checks marched upwards to 10.3 million people, up 3.3 percent over 2015. The benefits they received last year rose even more, by 5.4 percent to $282.9 billion from $268.5 billion in 2015. And finally, total pension assets fell 1.6 percent to $3.7 trillion from $3.8 trillion the prior year.

    In the event you sense you’ve been felled by death by numbers, back out to the big picture. Paid benefits exceeded contributions to the tune of $40 billion in 2016 against the relentless backdrop of an increasing number of Boomers retiring (in 2014, there were 9.9 million receiving benefits).

    Microcosm this demographic dynamic to the extreme example of Chicago. In 2015, the latest year for which we have full data, some $999 million was paid out to 29,296 recipients. That compares to the $90 million in investment income generated by the two employee pension funds that year. Back out the timeline a decade – in 2006, these two pensions held a combined $8.5 billion in assets. Since then the two funds have generated $3.1 billion in investment returns but paid out $8.511 billion to retirees.

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently proposed raising new city employees’ contribution to help fill the gulf of underfunding but Illinois’ Governor quickly vetoed the measure declaring Emanuel was, “trying to fix a drought with a drop of rain.”

    Projections suggest that one of the two funds will be cash flow negative by 2023; the other will run short by 2025. If all else remains the same, a big IF with risky asset prices trading at frothy high valuations, property taxes would need to be doubled to cover the coming shortfalls.

    Many Cook County taxpayers are forsaking a wait-and-see approach. Chicago was the only large city in America to lose population last year, its resident count dropped at nearly double the rate of 2015.

    As convenient as it might seem to excoriate the Windy City, there are plenty of other major cities deep in hock. According to a Moody’s report, though Chicago does indeed top the list, Dallas is the second-most underfunded city followed by Phoenix, two magnets for nomads in search of lower costs of living. Rounding out the top ten list are Houston, Los Angeles, Jacksonville, Detroit, Columbus, Austin and Philadelphia.

    In other words, running and hiding in lower tax haven hamlets will be even more challenging in coming years. According to a Milliman report, 2015 marked the first time retirees outnumbered active employees in the nation’s 100 largest public pensions; there were 12.6 million retirees covered by the toils of 12.5 million workers.

    Look back no further than 2012 to appreciate how the trend has accelerated; in that year retirees numbered 10.5 million vs. 12.3 million active employees. Absent a surge in state and local payrolls, further fiscal deterioration is poised to persist.

    To take the case of the case of the country’s largest pension, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, in 20 years’ time, retirees supported by the plan will be roughly double the number of active workers. CalPERS won’t be alone in this predicament.

    Again, it comes down to the demographic divide that’s opened up since President Ford was in office. In the 1970s, the typical public pension’s active employees outnumbered retirees by a factor of four-to-five times; today that ratio is 1.5-to-1 and continues to fall as Boomers retire in droves and Millennials fail to fill the yawning gap.

    After a grisly year that ended with a tally of 4,000 homicides, Chicago has begun to coordinate with federal authorities to control a crime wave driven by gangs’ unencumbered access to firearms. The last thing the city can withstand is further cuts to public service funding. By the same token, taxpayers have already begun to vote with their feet as rising taxes and foundering pensions promise to beget more tax hikes to come.

    It’s plain that the last thing any of us want to see is a Police State of any kind. But the growing risk is that the next recession and deflating asset prices could well alter the rules of engagement between federal and state authorities on more levels than any of us care to envision.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 7th June 2017

  • "Stressed" Australians Struggle With Record Debts As Housing Market Overheats

    Australians are dialing back their spending on everything from clothes to cars as sky-high housing costs, the result of a housing bubble fueled by Chinese buyers, threaten to finally derail the country’s twin asset bubbles – housing and stocks.

    But rising mortgage debt isn’t the only thing squeezing Australian customers, as Reuters reports. Inflation on essential items like food, electricity and insurance is accelerating, meaning Australians are also paying higher prices for basic consumer goods.

    Australia’s real-estate prices have been rising for more than 25 years with hardly a pause – the last time real estate prices saw a meaningful pullback was during its last recession, in 1987. Reuters reported Tuesday that Australia’s debt-to-income ratio has climbed to an all-time peak of 189%, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia.

    While sky-high home prices are, in part, responsible for Australians’ record debt, a sudden drop in valuations would only exacerbate the problem by squeezing those who paid a premium for their homes when the market was at or near the top. Many of these buyers are now saddled with high mortgage payments and little equity in their homes.

    "We are seeing a considerable spike in stress even in more affluent households. Large mortgages, big commitments but no income growth," said Digital Finance Analytics Principal Martin North. "Stressed households are less likely to spend at the shops, which acts as a drag anchor on future growth."

    North estimates that a record 52,000 households risk default in the next 12 months, and that 23.4 percent of Australian families are under mortgage stress, meaning their income does not cover ongoing costs. That compares with about 19 percent from a year ago.

    "People are up to their ears in mortgages," said Brad Smith, a car sales consultant at MotorPoint Sydney which has seen a stark slowdown in sales in the past six months. "They are all on a budget. Everyone's got all their money in houses, that's how it is."

    For an economy that has achieved a remarkable winning streak – it has avoided a recession for more than 25 years – circumstances are looking bleak.

    "As the housing market slows, we see consumption growth as a major risk amid record-low wages growth and ongoing headwinds to discretionary cash flows," Morgan Stanley economist Daniel Blake said.

    Retail sales have hardly grown in the past few months. Even online sales have slowed, with all major categories including homeware, games and toys, daily deals and takeaway food shrinking in April, according to the NAB Online Retail Sales Index. Car sales have flattened this year after solid growth in 2016 while sales of luxury cars and sports utility vehicles are at a four-year low.

    For consumers like Sydney resident Marie-Aimee Guillermin, there's little 'play money' left after stepping into Sydney's housing market with a A$1.4 million 3-bedroom house last month.

    "We thought once we had the house we could take our foot off the brake a little bit but now that we have it I feel even less certain in terms of stability and financial security," she told Reuters.

    "So whether we'll end up spending a bit more on clothes and restaurants and going out and what have you I don't see that happening."

    Stock valuations have gotten so out of hand that one firm, Altair Asset Management, made the extraordinary decision to liquidate its Australia-focused fund and return "hundreds of millions" of dollars to its clients.

  • Partitioning Syria: Oil, Gas, And Peace

    Authored by James Durso via OilPrice.com,

    It’s the 101st anniversary of the Sykes–Picot Agreement and, in light of the non-stop Syrian Civil War, it’s time to ask, “How’s that working out for you?”

    The Sykes–Picot Agreement formalized the British and French spheres of influence in the Middle East and set the stage for the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, which ran from 1923 to 1946. In 1936, Ali Sulayman al-Assad, grandfather of Syrian President Bashir Assad, and other Alawite notables petitioned French President Leon Blum, in an attempt to stay under French protection: “The spirit of hatred and intolerance plants its roots in the heart of Muslim Arabs toward everything that is non-Muslim, and is forever fueled by the spirit of the Islamic religion. There is no hope that the situation will change. If the Mandate is canceled, therefore, the minorities in Syria will become exposed to a risk of death and annihilation…”

    Al-Assad’s thoughts are timely in light of a proposal by Jamsheed and Carol Choksy of Indiana University for an “impartial partition plan” for Syria. The proposal would complement a cease fire with partition along ethnic lines (with concomitant population transfers) and no role for Russia, Iran, and Turkey who have acted as belligerents. The majority Sunni Arabs would get the provinces in the center and the north, the Kurds would take the northeast, the Alawites and Shiites would keep the Mediterranean coastal provinces, the Christians, Druze, and Jews would share the southwest and south, and the Yezidis would get an enclave on the Syria-Iraq border.

    The proposal recognizes that Syria’s many sects were never “bonded together by secularism and tolerance” and that the pitiless fighting since 2011 has only sharpened ethno-sectarianism. Autonomous areas may ensure a measure of security for minority Christians, Jews, Druze, and Yezidis whose cooperation with the Assad regime secured protection, and who will want to escape Sunni retribution.

    The international community should seriously consider a proposal for independent ethnic states or autonomous areas and take the opportunity to avoid repeating the sectarian character of Iraq’s constitution which, Iraqis point out, was not drafted by Iraqis. This goes against the grain in the West, which “celebrates diversity” but has been dealing, often unsuccessfully, with strains bought on by uncontrolled immigration from Africa and Latin America.

    Four factors will bedevil the negotiators of an ethnic autonomy arrangement: the oil and natural gas in the Levant Basin Province; two competing proposals for natural gas pipelines that cross Syria; Iran’s transport corridor through Syria, which Iran needs to support the Assad regime and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah; and the Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons.

    1. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are potential mean recoverable resources of “1.7 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of [natural] gas” in the Levant Basin Province, which is offshore Israel, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria. Israel is developing its fields and is becoming an energy exporter. Lebanon likely has a similar bounty and has passed legislation governing oil and gas exploration, but development has stalled as Lebanon and Israel are disputing a 300 square mile area both countries claim for their Exclusive Economic Zones. The gas in Gaza’s waters won’t be safe to develop until the Israelis and Arabs conclude a peace deal and the Palestinians adopt rigorous transparency measures due to the Palestinian Authority’s corruption. Syria has limited oil reserves in eastern Deir ez Zor province which have been productive through the civil war, and both the Assad regime and ISIS have benefitted from smuggling oil to Turkey.

     

    The ethnic states/autonomous areas will likely demand a share of the oil and gas revenue from the fields offshore the two provinces controlled by the Alawites and Shia before they agree to a cease fire and partition. A solution may be to form an operating company with transparency as the foundation of its corporate charter or endow it with a governance structure informed by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

     

    It will be important to keep track of the money as it will be needed for reconstruction, estimated to cost at least $180 billion. Russia and Iran have enough money to disrupt Syria, but not to rebuild it. The U.S. is focusing on domestic concerns and, if America is out, Europe will never be all-in. Turkey will want a piece of the action, but no one will tether a reconstruction effort to the authoritarian Pasha. The Gulf states have cash but may lack the contract administration skills to oversee rebuilding. China may want to include Syria in the One Belt, One Road transport network, but only if it gets security and natural resource guarantees.

     

    2. Competing natural gas pipelines that cross Syria will be vital. In 2009, Qatar approached Syria about routing its planned 1,500 mile natural gas pipeline to Europe via Syria’s Aleppo province. Qatar wanted a pipeline to Europe as its gas transport modes were limited to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tanker, mostly to Asia with limited spot shipments to Europe, or the Dolphin pipeline to the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Syria refused Qatar’s offer and, in 2011, Syria, Iran, and Iraq agreed to build a pipeline to connect Iran’s South Pars gas field to Europe. The pipeline would run from Assalouyeh, Iran to Europe via Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, with Syria as the center of assembly and production.

     

    The projects are dead, but the obituaries haven’t been published. The physical risk is “at 11” so no lender will touch them, even if a long term purchase contract could be conjured up. The political risk is almost as bad, as pipeline transits would have to be negotiated with sub-national groups and maybe a surviving Syrian government with little remaining institutional capacity. With an abundance of gas discoveries in the region, there are other ways for a natural gas company CEO to get a headache than getting involved in Syria.

     

    But the projects aren’t useless; they have political utility. Their sponsors – Iran and Qatar – can manipulate the fighting and keep the politicians’ and warlords’ dreams of transit fees alive by saying “when the time is right”.

     

    3. Iran’s Syrian corridor. Iran built a corridor through Syria to support the Assad regime and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah. The route originally skirted the Syria-Turkey border before turning south to Homs and Latakia. In response to the U.S. troop build-up in the northeast, Iran shifted the route 140 miles south, mostly though Homs and Deir ez Zor provinces, which will be Sunni-controlled in the mooted partition.

     

    Under partition the loss of the corridor through Sunni territory would be a strategic setback for Tehran as it would have to rely on ocean shipments, many of which have been intercepted, and air shipments, which are expensive and limit the size of the cargo. In addition, increased use of Iran’s airlines to support Assad and Hezbollah will expose them to increased Western sanctions – and may cripple the deals with Boeing and Airbus – at a time when Iran is trying to integrate with the world economy. This will cause tensions between the siloviki and the economic reformers which may dilute Iran’s expansionist efforts, to the benefit of Iran’s neighbors, and the victims of Assad and Hezbollah.

     

    4. The last issue, and one that may swamp the others, is Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). There are almost five million registered Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. Turkey has the largest contingent of refugees, almost three million, but also has the most developed economy and capacity to host them – for now. Jordan hosts over 650,000 Syrian refugees, and Lebanon hosts over 1 million, over twenty percent of the native population of 4.5 million. Iraq hosts over 200,000 refugees, all in areas controlled by the Kurdish Regional Government. There are six million IDPs, many caused by combat operations. Increased military activity by the U.S. and alleged forced displacement of civilians by U.S. proxies may be sowing the seeds of future trouble.

     

    Jordan and Lebanon are least financially able to indefinitely host the refugees, and they have the most precarious ethnic balancing acts and lack the money to paper over the differences, so the priority should be repatriating the Syrians in Jordan and Lebanon. But repatriate them to where? The only lure may be a share of the oil and gas revenue allocated to the independent ethnic states or autonomous areas. Given that, Lebanon and Jordan won’t be interested in delays or excuses.

    The above list isn’t all inclusive. Other potential troubles are:

    – The status of the Golan Heights. If Syria goes away, will Israel annex the Golan and just get it over with?

    – Absorption of the ethnic states/autonomous areas by neighboring states. Turkey won’t like a semi-autonomous Syrian Kurdish province; it might like a larger Iraqi Kurdistan even less. And in Iraq, will a larger Iraqi Kurdistan cause the Kurds to demand a greater share of oil and seats in the Council of Representatives?

    – Russia playing the spoiler. Russia will make things difficult, on the ground and in the UN Security Council, unless it secures naval and air bases in the “Alawite entity” and its national champions Gazprom and Rosneft participate in the development of the Levant Basin. Both firms, however, are under Crimea-related sanctions so they may be weak players.

    The word “unprecedented” has been thrown around a lot in regards to Syria. It may be time to apply that thinking to Syria’s partition. The default setting for the international community will be to try to patch the old Syria back together within the internationally recognized borders, but that is make-work for bureaucrats, the aid agencies and their contractors. The impartial partition plan for Syria will give each ethnic or sectarian group territory under its own control.

    Should Syria be patched back together? Maybe, but that’s a question for the Syrians and the answer won’t be rendered in this political cycle. Reconstruction after America’s Civil War took 12 years, from 1865 to 1877, and that was for a fight between people of the same ethnic group and religion that weren’t determined to exterminate each other. In Syria, the final decision on unity will be made by the grandchildren.

  • Venezuela's "Mysterious" Bond Deal Reappears, And This Time China Wants Out

    As its foreign reserves dwindle to less than $10 billion, the government of Venezuela – desperate for any kind of financial lifeline – has partnered with a Chinese brokerage to try and resell $5 billion in bonds that it initially issued at a deep discount, according to the Wall Street Journal. The brokerage, Haitong Securities USA, a unit of China’s Haitong Securities, is quietly marketing the bonds to yield-starved hedge fund managers.

    What makes today’s news particularly notable is that the original bond transaction in question was highlighted here back in January when in a post titled “In “Mysterious” Bond Sale, Venezuela Issues $5 Billion In Debt To Itself With China As Underwriter we reported that the Maduro government appeared to be effectively selling debt, and raising dollar funds, from (and to) itself with China as an intermediary; as Reuters added at the time, the deal was peculiar in that the transaction did not bring in actual new funds for the cash-strapped OPEC nation.

    Quoted by Bloomberg in January, Francisco Rodriguez, the chief economist at Torino Capital in New York, said that “my guess – but it’s just a guess – is that given uncertainty as to whether Venezuela would be able to deliver the oil necessary for repayment, the Chinese may have asked for the loan to be also guaranteed with a bond,” he told Bloomberg by email, adding that he had been expecting a disbursement of $5 billion related to the renewal of a loan from China.

    Bond traders were just as confused as reporters and analysts: Russ Dallen, a managing partner at Caracas Capital, told Bloomberg that “bond markets will likely react with “befuddlement. Taking place on Dec. 29 with no approval by the National Assembly and no promulgation notice in the Official Gazette, this smells of some kind of end of the year financial shenanigan from a government that is out of cash and is desperately trying to hide it,” he said.

    As we concluded at the time, “With that assumption in place, we look forward to learning the details of just how China is now funding insolvent supplier sovereigns by the back door, and where else besides Venezuela is this arrangement in place.”

    Five months later, we may have gotten the answer, and it now appears that Haitong had simply kept the bond without syndicating to end buyers, and – for whatever reason – is now desperate to dump them to any willing purchaser, a move which bodes poorly for China’s ongong relationship with Venezuela.

    Reports that Venezuela is shopping around the bonds arrived just a week after Goldman Sachs Asset Management inadvertently ignited a PR crisis when it bought $2.8 billion worth of Venezuelan bonds issued by state oil company PDVSA from an obscure UK brokerage. Opponents of the brutal regime of Nicolas Maduro accused the bank of buying “hunger bonds” and Venezuela opposition leader Julio Borges accused it of “aiding and abetting the country’s dictatorial regime.”

    As we noted last week, it appears that Goldman turned around and sold those same bonds, which it bought at a discount, for a tidy profit.

    Haitong is reportedly offering the bonds at an even deeper discount than the 31 cents on the dollar that Goldman paid. But the latest batch of bonds currently on sale is different from those purchase by Goldman (and Nomura) as they remain unregistered with clearing organizations like Euroclear and the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., which is required for the bonds to trade electronically, WSJ reported.

    Aside from the illiquidity issue, potential buyers have other reasons to be wary of lending to the Maduro regime: The political opposition has argued that the bond sales are illegal because they were never approved by the legislature.

    Some would-be buyers told WSJ they’re afraid that if Venezuela defaults, the owners of the 2036 bonds wouldn’t have the same claim on the country’s debt as other bondholders because the bonds were issued through an intermediary. Of course, any potential buyer should probably be concerned about the huge sheer size of the discounts, as the WSJ points out tongue-in-cheek.

    “It’s like they’re having a going out of business sale,” said Russ Dallen, a partner at Brokerage Caracas Capital.

     

    “And that’s what buyers should be worried about. Either they’re really desperate, or they’re just filling up their credit card with no plans of paying back.”

    There is a reason for Venezuela’s desperation: after two decades of economic mismanagement, the largest global banks refuse to do business with the insolvent socialist country – which has on numerous occasions tried to lease or sell outright some of its gold reserves – making it impossible to plug holes in its budget by issuing debt. Instead, the country must rely on small and often little-known institutions to peddle its bonds. 

    That, and of course, hyperinflating away its debt. Venezuela’s economy has shrunk by an estimated 27% since 2013. The International Monetary Fund says inflation this year will hit 720%, and the country’s central bank hasn’t publishing basic economic indicators like balance of payments and gross domestic product since September 2015, rendering the country’s basic economic indicators, let alone calculations of its capacity to repay, a giant question mark for investors and credit rating firms alike.

    With that in mind, we’re curious to see who – if anyone – is willing to step up and buy the latest batch of “hunger bonds” in the aftermath of the shock treatment that Goldman received after it was revealed that Blankfein’s firm may have been covertly funding Maduro’s central bank.

    But the far bigger question is whether China – as the Haitong firesale appears to suggest – has finally given up on the melting Venezuelan ice cube, also known as one of its main foreign crude oil vendors. If so, Maduro’s days are indeed numbered.

  • Twilight Of The Courts: The Elusive Search For Justice In The American Police State

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

    We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state.

    As the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez makes clear, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. 

    Continuing its disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of excessive use of force, a unanimous Court declared that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sleeping.

    Understandably, the Mendezes were startled by the intruders, so much so that Angel was holding his BB gun, which he used to shoot rats, in defense. Despite the fact that police barged into the Mendez’s backyard shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence and fired 15 shots at the couple, who suffered significant injuries (Angel Mendez suffered numerous gunshot wounds, one of which required the amputation of his right leg below the knee, and his wife Jennifer was shot in the back), the Court once again gave the police a “get out of jail free” card.

    Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

    In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

    Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

    These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

    While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.

    A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

    Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

    Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully.

    Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits.

    Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.

    Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint.

    Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. A divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. In doing so, the Court opened the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

    Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Incredibly, a report by the Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”

    Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.”

    Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals actually ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing.

    Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” This “license to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and without a warrant.

    Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home.

    Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

    Police can interrogate minors without parents present.

    It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. A majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute.

    Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by police.

    The military can arrest and detain American citizens.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat, who are nevertheless subjected to such excessive police force as to end up maimed or killed.

    When all is said and done, what these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the police, corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for the underclasses—that is, you and me.

  • Seattle Follows San Francisco, Philadelphia In Passing Job-Killing Soda Tax

    Following in the footsteps of Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland and San Francisco, Seattle has approved its own version of a job-killing soda tax.

    In a 7-1 vote with one councilmember absent, the Seattle City Council passed the tax on soda distributors by an overwhelming margin. The council ultimately agreed on a tax rate of $1.75 per ounce, which translates to about $1.18 for a 2-litre bottle of soda. Unless opponents of the measure succeed in blocking it, the tax will be collected beginning next year, the Seattle Times reported.

    A coalition involving restaurant owners, grocery owners and the local chamber of commerce opposed the bill, which was backed by the American Heart Association. One grocery owner was quoted in The Seattle Times discussing how the tax would hurt his business. Husik Harutyunyan, who owns a small grocery store in North Seattle, urged the council to reject the tax. He said his customers may begin buying soda in Shoreline, Wash. if the tax leads him to raise his prices.

    “I have to close my store and go find some job,” the 44-year-old told the Seattle Times.

    Diet soda won’t be taxed, while baby formula, medicine, weight-loss drinks and 100% fruit juice will also be exempt. Sports drinks like Gatorade, energy drinks like Red Bull and fruit drinks like Sunny D will all be taxed, along with the syrups used in fountain soda. It remains unclear whether the tax will apply to the syrups used in flavored lattes like those served at Starbucks, the Times reported.

    The council will use the revenues from the tax – about $15 million a year – to help fund healthful-eating programs like “Fresh Bucks,” which will help people with food stamps buy more healthy food. The council will also disburse funds to soup kitchens and food pantries. Anti-obesity advocates rejoiced after the measure was passed. “It’s a huge win for Seattle,” said Victor Colman, director of the Seattle-based Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition.

    “It’s not a panacea for the problem of childhood obesity, but it’s a huge marker to take this step. Consumption drops will happen, and we’re going to see stronger health in the communities that need this the most.”

    The tax, initially proposed by Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, was debated for months after some labor unions warned that the plan would be a burden for entrepreneurs and result in job losses. But luckily for the supermarket employees and teamsters who will lose their jobs because of this tax, the council has set aside some of the revenues for job retraining programs.

    As the receipt below shows, a 10 pack of flavored water purchased in Philadelphia carries a 51% beverage tax. And since PA has a sales tax of 6% and Philly already charges another 2%, the total sales tax was 8%. In other words, a purchase which until last year came to $6.47 had overnight become $9.75.

    The dramatic price increase led to a 30% to 50% drop in beverage sales, forcing supermarkets and beverage distributors to lay off some staff.
     

  • Fighting Systems Of Oppression: UCLA Will Now Pay Students To Be "Social Justice Advocates"

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    As the warped social justice ideology has proliferating on college campuses, “bias response teams” have also multiplied. Though they were unheard of several years ago, they now exist on over two hundred college campuses. They consist of students and administrators who basically act as “speech police.” They narc on students (and encourage students to narc on each other) who are guilty of speech that isn’t sensitive or politically correct.

    Recently, UCLA has decided to form a bias response team consisting of 8-10 students, who the school will actually be paying to bully classmates who are guilty of thought crimes. James Allsup, a college student and reporter for TruthRevolt.com, breaks down the insanity and idiocy of this decision.

    When it comes to colleges spending money on dumb stuff, UCLA is setting the bar pretty high. Last week it was reported that UCLA would begin employing a fleet of students to serve as on campus social justice warriors. While actually their job title is “social justice advocates” they’ll certainly need the strength of warriors to take on all this job is asking of them. The job of these social justice advocates will be to educate fellow students about “systems of oppression.”

     

    Nothing says “I’m oppressed” like attending a school that costs anywhere from 28,000 and 51,000 dollars a year to attend, and getting on average 9,000 dollars a year from the school to do so. What exactly will these social justice advocates be fighting against? Which heads of the privileged hydra will these warriors be attempting to cut down?

     

    As reported by Campus Reform, the social justice advocates program seeks students who want to help their classmates “navigate a world that operates on whiteness, patriarchy, and heteronormativity as the primary ideologies.” These forces; whiteness, the patriarchy and heteronormativity, are being described as “systems of oppression.” Then, after identifying white people, straight people, and men as the enemy, they say that their goal is to make UCLA a “more equitable space for everyone.” Unless of course you’re a white straight man, in which case you are literally a Nazi.

    Those standards it turns out, are quite ironic according to Allsup. That’s because only 26% of students at UCLA are white, 56% are women, and being a school based in California, UCLA is already very friendly to students who aren’t “heteronormative.”

    In other words, while UCLA is working to pass on this myth that minorities are oppressed by white, straight males, their wealthy and prestigious school is actually chock full of students aren’t white, straight, or male. So who exactly is being oppressed at this school?

    And these policies shine a light on the real problem with political correctness on college campuses. It would be easy to place all of the blame on the students for the culture of Marxism and political correctness that has risen on college campuses. But according to Allsup, it’s the administrators on these campuses who have largely enabled the far-left to take over our schools.

    But to be honest, I can’t completely blame these students. College kids, especially those at left-leaning institutions like Evergreen, are always going to be acting up and making demands. It’s the job of the university administrators to be the adults in this situation. So while I do place some blame on the students, and yes on their parents, I also blame the universities. I blame the bias reporting systems, and the type of administrator who would sign off on paid social justice activists.

     

    They’re the ones who hold the real power on these campuses, and by cracking down on free speech, creating a legitimately hostile environment towards white students, male students, or students with any right-wing political beliefs, they’re using their power to embolden, encourage, and help radicalize far-left.

    Is it any wonder then, that our college campuses have become hives of radical leftists?

  • Fukushima Remains "A Nuclear Radiation Nightmare", In Pictures

    "This is an accident that does not exist in the past tense, but in the present progressive form," exclaimed Fukushima Gov. Masao Uchibori earlier in March, criticizing Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for not explicitly the disaster in his annual speech. “It’s not possible to avoid using the important and significant terms of the nuclear plant accident of nuclear power disaster.”

    As IBTimes's Juliana Rose Pignataro notes (and exposes in the images below), it's been an uphill battle for the coastal prefecture of Fukushima, Japan, since an earthquake and tsunami devastated the region in 2011, causing a nuclear disaster at its power plant.

    Six years later, workers are still battling to decommission the plant, where radiation is deadly. Officials expect the cleaning won’t be finished for decades.

    In this handout provided by TEPCO, the deformed grating vessel of Fukushima's No. 2 reactor is shown Jan. 30, 2017.

    Workers remove nuclear fuel rods from a pool inside the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, Nov. 18, 2013

    A TEPCO employee looks at the destroyed reactor in Fukushima, Japan, Feb. 25, 2016

    Personal items were left behind in Fukushima, Japan, Feb. 26, 2016.

    A wild boar roams in barren, Fukushima, Japan, Mar. 1, 2017

    The damaged No. 3 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan is shown Feb. 25, 2016.

    A deserted home is shown in Fukushima, Japan, Mar. 11, 2016.

    Workers stand near the deserted nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, Feb. 25, 2016.

    The barren landscape of Fukushima, Japan sits empty, Mar. 11, 2016.

    Despite the ongoing decommissioning, increasingly high levels of radiation and wild boar problem, officials have begun welcoming some evacuated people back to their homes. It’s unclear how many residents will choose to return.

    Read more here…

     

  • Saudi Arabia Used U.S. Veterans To Lobby Against 9/11 Bill

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Elements of the charm offensive include the launch of a pro-Saudi Arabia media portal operated by high-profile Republican campaign consultants; a special English-language website devoted to putting a positive spin on the latest developments in the Yemen war; glitzy dinners with American political and business elites; and a non-stop push to sway reporters and policymakers.

     

    That has been accompanied by a spending spree on American lobbyists with ties to the Washington establishment. The Saudi Arabian Embassy, as we’ve reported, now retains the brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, the leader of one of the largest Republican Super PACs in the country, and a law firm with deep ties to the Obama administration. One of Jeb Bush’s top fundraisers, Ignacio Sanchez, is also lobbying for the Saudi Kingdom.

     

    In September, the Kingdom helped sponsor opulent galas for Washington’s business elite at the Ritz Carlton and the Andrew Mellon Auditorium. The events were attended by King Salman, along with the chief executives of General Electric and Lockheed Martin, the chairman of Marriott International, and prominent think tank officials.

    -From the 2015 post: A Look Inside Saudi Arabia’s Elaborate U.S. Propaganda Machine

    Some of the information in today’s piece was widely reported last month, but I didn’t have a chance to look into it until now. What the Saudis are up to in Washington D.C., throwing their money around everywhere is absolutely revolting. One of the more despicable things the barbaric, terrorist-supporting, absolute monarchy did recently was recruit U.S. veterans to go to D.C. and lobby against a bill passed under the Obama administration (Obama vetoed it, but his veto was overridden), permitting terrorist attack victims to sue foreign states. The bill was driven by the desire of 9/11 victims’ family members to have the opportunity to sue Saudi Arabia for its obvious and disturbing role in that attack.

    A couple of months ago, I highlighted the fascinating story of attorney Jim Kreindler who is intimately involved in this fight.

    Here are a few snippets from the post, Meet the Lawyer Who’s Suing Saudi Arabia for Financing the 9/11 Attacks:

    When Jim Kreindler got to his midtown Manhattan office on Friday, July 15, 2016, he had a surprise waiting for him. Twice in the previous eight years, Kreindler had been in the room as then-President Barack Obama promised Kreindler’s clients he would declassify a batch of documents that had taken on near mythic importance to those seeking the full truth of who had helped plan and fund the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Now, Kreindler learned, “the 28 pages” as they were known, were open for inspection and it was up to his team to find something of value. It wasn’t long before they did—a single, vague line about a Somali charity in Southern California.

     

    That obscure reference would soon become part of the backbone of an argument that Kreindler and his firm have been making for a long time: Without financial and logistical support from members of the government of Saudi Arabia, the 9/11 attacks would have never taken place.

     

    Sometimes it seemed as though Kreindler’s own government were actively working against the firm; agencies denied Freedom of Information Act requests and shared information with the Saudis as often as with his team. “I’ve stopped calling what our government has done a cover-up,” says former Senator Bob Graham, the co-chair of Congress’s 9/11 Joint Inquiry and the most prominent voice alleging a connection between the Saudis and the hijackers. “Cover-up suggests a passive activity. What they’re doing now I call aggressive deception.”

     

    What happens next in Kreindler’s case against Saudi Arabia is unclear. JASTA allowed him and his firm to name the country as a defendant, but the bill has come under serious attack since its passage. (Congress overrode Obama’s veto, the first of his two terms.) Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham have spent a considerable amount of time arguing against it, and continue to argue to water it down, saying that if other countries pass similar laws the nation hurt most by the trend may be our own. Then there is the Saudi lobbying apparatus, which at one point last fall numbered more than 10 firms and millions of dollars in fees per month.

    It’s pretty obvious to everyone by now that the Saudis played a major role in the attacks of 9/11, which is why its rulers are scrambling ferociously to rally its D.C. puppets behind a nefarious push to gut the JASTA bill. The tactics used by the Saudis are many, but essentially boil down to throwing around as much money as possible though a network of lobbyists and consultants.

    As the Daily Caller outlined in a recent article:

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has paid Trump International Hotel nearly $270,000 through its Washington, D.C. lobbying firm over the past several months, new foreign lobbying disclosure filings show.

     

    The payments, from Qorvis MSLGroup, were made for hotel rooms and catering services for dozens of U.S. veterans who the lobbying firm recruited as part of an influence campaign aimed at watering down legislation that could put Saudi Arabia on the hook financially for the 9/11 attacks.

     

    Disclosures filed with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act show that Qorvis MSLGroup paid $190,272 to Trump International for lodging expenses, $78,204 for catering, and $1,568 for parking.

     

    The hotel payments, which are just a small part of a massive $8.4 million campaign aimed at lobbying lawmakers against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), could reinvigorate allegations that Trump’s hotels violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting U.S. officials from receiving payments from foreign governments.

     

    The mammoth Saudi lobbying effort on JASTA suggests it has pulled out all the stops to neuter the bill, which allows U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments who have sponsored terrorist attacks.

     

    Though JASTA was passed into law in September after Congress overrode a veto by President Obama, Qorvis MSLGroup is pushing an amendment co-sponsored by Arizona Sen. John McCain (whose McCain Institute has received $1 million from the Saudis) and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham that would soften the language in the bill.

    McCain and Graham. Of course.

    Qorvis MSLGroup’s latest filing sheds new light on its pro-Saudi influence campaign, which The Daily Caller uncovered in December after several veterans published op-eds in newspapers across the U.S. opposing JASTA.

     

    The recent filing shows that the firm hired 75 consultants from all across the U.S. to recruit veterans. Consultants hired by Qorvis MSLGroup were paid anywhere from several thousand dollars to several hundred thousand for the work.

     

    Another $3.1 million was paid to Community Strategies, Inc. for “grassroots activation and supervision,” the filing shows.

     

    Emails released by some of the veterans who visited Washington, D.C. show that Community Strategies’ founder, Michael Gibson, was included in discussions about travel arrangements to the Capitol.

     

    Many of the veterans who were recruited to lobby against JASTA have since claimed that they were misled about the reasons for visiting Washington, D.C. Some of the recruits said that they were told — falsely, it turns out — that JASTA would make U.S. service members vulnerable to “retaliatory lawsuits” from foreign governments.

     

    Others have said that they did not know that the Saudi government was behind the campaign.

     

    At least seven groups of veterans were flown to Washington, D.C. between November and February, according to Brian McGlinchey, the founder of 28Pages.org, a website that has pushed for the declassification of a portion of a joint congressional review that details links between 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government.

     

    “The entire scam was a waste of the Saudis money because Congress is now well aware of their using our U.S. veterans to do their dirty work.”

    Simply revolting that the Saudis used their cash to trick U.S. veterans into supporting a push to prevent family members from pursuing justice against the Kingdom for its role in the attacks of 9/11.

  • Alabama Sees 85% Drop In Food Stamp Participation After Work Requirements Reinstated

    13 Alabama counties experienced some ‘shocking’ results, or maybe not depending on your natural level of cycism, when they decided to once again require able-bodied food stamp recipients, without dependents, to be employed and/or engaged in a job-training program in order to participate in the program for more than 3 months over a 3-year period.

    As background, Alabama, like many states, lifted their work/training requirements associated with food stamp benefits after the great recession.  That said, starting Jan. 1, 2017 the last of Alabama’s 13 counties reinstated those requirements and they promptly experienced an 85% decline in taxpayer-funded food subsidies.  Per AL.com:

    Thirteen previously exempted Alabama counties saw an 85 percent drop in food stamp participation after work requirements were put in place on Jan. 1, according to the Alabama Department of Human Resources.

     

    During the economic downturn of 2011-2013, several states – including Alabama – waived the SNAP work requirements in response to high unemployment. It was reinstituted for 54 counties on Jan. 1, 2016 and for the remaining 13 on Jan. 1, 2017. As of April 2017, the highest jobless rate among the 13 previously excluded counties was in Wilcox County, which reported a state-high unemployment rate of 11.7 percent, down more than 11 percentage points from the county’s jobless rate for the same month of 2011.

     

    As of Jan. 1, 2017, there were 13,663 able-bodied adults without dependents receiving food stamps statewide. That number dropped to 7,483 by May 1, 2017. Among the 13 counties, there were 5,538 adults ages 18-50 without dependents receiving food stamps as of Jan. 1, 2017. That number dropped to 831 – a decline of about 85 percent – by May 1, 2017.

    Food Stamps

    Statewide, the number of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps in Alabama fell by almost 35,000 since Jan. 1, 2016.  Meanwhile, with each recipient receiving about $126 a month in benefits, that equates to over $50 million in annual savings for taxpayers based on just the state of Alabama alone. 

    But sure, there is no fraud in the entitlement programs.

    * * *

    For those who missed it, below is a look back at a prior post which detailed exactly how Americans are spending the nearly $7 billion they receive through the SNAP program each year.

    A new study just released by the USDA, offers a very detailed look at exactly how participants in the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” (SNAP, aka Food Stamps) spend their taxpayer-funded subsidies.  Unfortunately for taxpayers, the amount of money spent on soft drinks and other unnecessary junk foods/drinks is fairly staggering.  But, we suppose it’s a nice taxpayer funded subsidy for the soda industry…so score one for Warren Buffett and the Coca Cola lobbyists.

    Per the study, nearly $360mm, or 5.4% of the $6.6BN of food expenditures made by SNAP recipients, is spent on soft drinks alone.  In fact, soft drinks represent the single largest “commodity” purchased by SNAP participants with $100mm more spent on sodas than milk and $150mm more than beef.

    Soft drinks were the top commodity bought by food stamp recipients shopping at outlets run by a single U.S. grocery retailer.

     

    That is according to a new study released by the Food and Nutrition Service, the federal agency responsible for running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as the food stamp program.

     

    By contrast, milk was the top commodity bought from the same retailer by customers not on food stamps.

     

    In calendar year 2011, according to the study, food stamp recipients spent approximately $357,700,000 buying soft drinks from an enterprise the study reveals only as “a leading U.S. grocery retailer.”

     

    That was more than they spent on any other “food” commodity—including milk ($253,700,000), ground beef ($201,000,000), “bag snacks” ($199,300,000) or “candy-packaged” ($96,200,000), which also ranked among the top purchases.

    SNAP

     

    Even worse, when we added up all of the commodities that would typically be considered “junk food” (i.e. soft drinks, candy, cakes, energy drinks, etc.), we found that roughly $950mm, or just over 14% of the aggregate $6.6BN of food expenditures made by SNAP recipients, is spent on unnecessary, unhealthy products.

    SNAP

     

    It’s a good thing democrats re-branded Food Stamps as the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”….otherwise we would have confused it for a blatant waste of taxpayer money on sodas and energy drinks.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 6th June 2017

  • Americans Are Taking More Time Off Work

    The United States, unlike many other industrialized countries, has no statuary agreement on taking paid vacation. Meaning: There is no law telling employers the minimum number of days they need to give their employees off work – that are also paid for.

    However, as Statista's Dyfed Loesche notes, Project:Time Off, which is sponsored by the U.S. Travel Association, has good news: After two decades of almost steady decline the average days of vacation have risen by 0.6 days year-over-year to 16.8 days in 2016.

    Infographic: Americans Are Taking More Time Off Work | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    "Despite this encouraging sign, taking time off continues to be a challenge in America’s always-on work culture," the authors of the latest report conclude. Still, in 2016, 662 million vacation days were left unused, four million days more than 2015.

    Taking time off doesn't just profit the individual workers who is said to become more productive after being able to recharge their batteries. According to the project's estimates, "the jump in vacation usage from 16.2 to 16.8 days delivered a $37 billion impact to the U.S. economy."

  • US Missile Defense Test: Realistic Assessment Of "Incredible Accomplishment"

    Authored by Andrei Akulov via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    «The intercept of a complex, threat-representative ICBM target is an incredible accomplishment for the GMD system and a critical milestone for this program», said Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director Vice Adm. Jim Syring. «This system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat». The MDA press release says the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the ballistic missile defense system provides combatant commanders the capability to engage and destroy intermediate and long-range ballistic missile threats to protect the U.S.

    Sounds really impressive but is it really a credible deterrent against any threat, especially in view that the single test cost about $244 million? Actually, the statement made by the head of the MDA implies that from now the US has the capability to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles. If so, the strategic balance with Russia is going to change in the US favor. It calls for going deeper into the subject.

    The upgraded Ground-based Midcourse Defense is destined to kill ICBMs in space. On May 30, the GMD was for the first time fired against an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) – a much faster vehicle than short or intermediate range missiles. This time Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) tested new engines while intercepting and destroying a target in a direct collision. Previous tests did not use an ICBM as a target or only tested certain components of the complicated system. One has to give the devil his due – it’s a significant step forward.

    A relatively small target was hit at a great distance measured in thousands of miles with both objects moving at breath taking speed at roughly 15,000 mph (24,000 km/h). The speed guarantees a kinetic kill and no explosive is required. It’s a good start though many more tests are needed to really acquire real exo-atmospheric kill capability. Only 32 interceptors are stationed at Fort Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base with eight more to be deployed till the end of the current year. The interceptors have never operated in combat conditions and there are many more tests to go through before full operational capability is reached.

    Today, the GMD is hardly reliable.19 tests have been conducted since 1999 with only 9 of them successful. Combined with the high cost, the tests gave the system a bad reputation. The EKV is the main problem. If the May 30 test were a failure, the future of the GMD program would be questioned. It was a matter of survival rather than achieving a technological breakthrough.

    One does need to be a military expert to realize that a real success would be achieved after a number of tests conducted under various conditions. Will the interceptors hit the targets when electronic countermeasures and decoys are used? Normally, such measures reduce efficiency by roughly 50%. Russian and Chinese missiles carry sophisticated suites of countermeasures to overcome advanced ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. The GMD interceptors can hit only unsophisticated missiles launched by those who are new to the game, like North Korea, for instance. It leaves open the question of how the GMD interceptors would perform under real war conditions.

    With its limited efficiency, the program’s estimated cost is $40 billion – an enormous sum to benefit the producers. But that’s not all. There is another costly program run by the MDA to counter Russian and Chinese missiles with the help of «directed-energy airborne laser» fired from a military drone. A weapon carried by remote-control aircraft loitering high over launch sites would add early interception ability to the GMD system, but it will require much time, effort and money and the doubts are great the laser will be powerful enough to do the job.

    The MDA has also accelerated development of a Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV), which turns each interceptor into a kind of precision-guided shotgun, firing multiple warheads at multiple incoming targets from a single GBI rocket. Originally scheduled to enter service around 2030, the MOKV will now go on GMD interceptors (GBIs) in 2025. Funding requested for 2018 is $259 million, out of a $7.9 billion MDA budget. Costly enough to make taxpayers ask questions about the expediency and efficiency of the plans.

    So, the May 30 test was not a great breakthrough and not a quantum leap as raving media reviews describe it. It was big step forward, but not more than that. The GMD remains rather powerless against contemporary ICBMs like the Russian RS-24 Yars, for instance. But it’s hardly a coincidence that the test was conducted against the background of three carrier groups being deployed near North Korea and the urgent deployment of THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea without prior knowledge of the South Korean government! This is a sign that the US mulls a preventive strike against Pyongyang.

    The May 30 test will no doubt soothe Americans’ concern over a possible North Korean response in case such an attack is carried out. The missiles North Korea has in the inventory are believed to threaten Hawaii with 11 bases across multiple service branches and the island of Guam, which is a military asset too.

    And it will certainly inspire the MDA to ask for more appropriations. The agency «relative to its size has probably wasted more money on canceled technology projects than any other federal organization in modern times», Loren Thompson, a well-known defense expert wrote for Forbes in 2011. More than five years has passed and some experts are warning that as a whole the testing record is not enough to instill confidence. The system may not be as reliable as people might think. Philip Coyle, a senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation told CNN on May 31, «Based on its testing record, we cannot rely upon this missile defense program to protect the United States from a North Korean long-range missile».

    The US media ravishment appears to be exaggerated. The May 30 test was a limited success. But the North Korean threat will be exploited to spur the GMD and other very costly BMD programs.

  • Paul Craig Roberts Warns "Washington's Empire Is Not Unraveling"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The military/security complex spent seven decades building its empire. The complex assassinated one American president (JFK) who threatened the empire and drove another (Richard Nixon) out of office. The complex does not tolerate the election of politicians in Europe who might not follow Washington’s line on foreign and economic policy.

    Suddenly, according to the Western and even Russian media, the complex is going to let one man, Trump, who does not rule America, and one woman, Merkel, who does not rule Germany, destroy its empire.

    According to the presstitutes, by pulling out of the Paris Accord (the global climate pact) and stating that NATO members should contribute more to the alliance’s budget for which the US taxpayer has an overweighted share, Trump has caused Merkel to conclude that Europe can no longer rely on Washington. The discord between Trump and Merkel and Washington’s resignation of its leadership position has destroyed the Western alliance and left the EU itself on the verge of being torn apart.

    All of this is nonsensical sillyness. What has happened is this:

    Just as men in dark suits and dark ties carrying briefcases explained to Trump that it was not Washington’s policy to normalize relations with Russia, they explained to him that it was not Washington’s policy to exit the Paris Accord. Trump said something like this: Look, you guys, you have already required me to abandon my peace initiative with Russia and my intent to pull out of Syria. Now you are forcing me off my “America First” pledge. If people realize that I am not really the president, who are you going to rule through? What about a compromise?

     

    Here is the deal, as Trump made perfectly clear in his speech. He is temporarily pulling the US out of the Paris Accord while he immediately opens negotiations to rejoin the Paris Accord on terms less burdensome to Americans. In other words, the “pull out” is a face-saving gesture that will result in a small reduction in America’s share of the cost. We will have a “Trump victory” and no damage to the Paris Accord.

     

    Merkel facing reelection needs a boost that will refocus German attention from the one million Muslim refugees, bringing crime, rape, and terrorism in their train, that Merkel brought into Germany. Her dramatic statement that Europe can no longer rely on America was a perfect way to refocus attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump and Merkel got together and agreed on how they would play this.

    Yet neither reporters nor commentators could report the obvious truth. Why? The Western media could not let pass the opportunity to denounce Trump for destroying American leadership and the climate, and environmental organizations seized the fundraising opportunity to oppose Trump’s climate destruction. Russian commentators saw hope for Russia in NATO and the EU breaking up as consequences of America going its own way.

    There are two serious implications of this media deception.

    One is that Americans and the world are blinded to the fact that there are power centers that constrain a president and are capable of substituting their agendas for the agendas on which the president campaigned. We saw this with Obama, but were given the explanation that Obama never meant it in the first place. Now we will get the same explanation of Trump. The fact that the president is constrained by the military/security complex and the financial sector will not come through. Thus, The Matrix’s myth of democracy bringing change via elections will continue to blind people to reality.

     

    A second consequence is that the Russians, ever hopeful to be part of the West while retaining national sovereignty, which no member of the EU or NATO is permitted to do, will see in the reported withdrawal of American leadership renewed hopes of joining Europe. If the Russians take seriously the New York Times anointment of Germany’s Merkel as “the liberal West’s last defender”, Russia might leave herself militarily and economically exposed by slowing military preparations and the development of economic relations with Asia.

    People can have little idea of actual events as long as news reporting and commentary reflect political agendas and hopeful aspirations.

  • "Create Your Re-Education Camp On Your Own Dime" – Lawmakers Propose Defunding Evergreen College

    Republicans in the Washington State legislature have proposed a bill to revoke $24 million in annual state funding for Evergreen State College after social justice warriors effectively shut down the school's campus for two weeks after a faculty member objected to a planned demonstration that asked all white students and staff to leave campus for a day, as Campus Reform reported.

    Protests erupted late last month after biology professor Bret Weinstein sent an email to his colleagues arguing that the planned “day of absence” protest was itself a “form of oppression.”

    The email was eventually published in the student newspaper, angering snowflakes on campus. On May 23, more than a month after Weinstein sent the email detailing his objections, an angry mob of about 50 students disrupted his class, accused him of being a racist and demanded that he resign, as Weinstein recounted in a column published in The Wall Street Journal.

    As Weinstein noted in WSJ, the day of absence protest is a tradition at Evergreen. In previous years, students and faculty of color would meet off campus. But this year, the events’ organizers – who claimed that the election of President Donald Trump made them feel “unwelcome” on the campus of the far-left institution – instead invited white students, staff and faculty to leave campus.

    Weinstein objected to the protest in an email sent to staff and faculty back in March where he argued that “on a college campus, one’s right to speak – or to be – must never be based on skin color.”

    And now, in response to the farce, Washington state lawmakers have proposed legislation to revoke Evergreen's public funding, calling the students an "embarrassment." The bill is being spearheaded by Republican State Representative Matt Manweller, who introduced it alongside a letter to Washington State's Human Rights Commission requesting an investigation into the administration’s conduct.

    “You are a taxpayer funded school and the taxpayers expect you to provide an environment of education not a dystopia of indoctrination,” Mr. Manweller wrote.

     

    “If your goal is to create a modern-day version of a reeducation camp, then do it on your own dime.”

    While it would strip away some of the school's funding, students at Evergreen would still be eligible for financial aid if it passes.

    Evergreen’s administration kowtowed to the protesters, with President George Bridges promising that no students would be disciplined for their disruptive and threatening behavior.

    “That they would allow students to threaten professors and other students based on their race is simply horrifying,” Manweller continued.

     

    “The administration bears direct responsibility for this situation. They hired the professors who have elevated the pseudo-science of ‘social justice’ to a religious movement. Now all dissent is crushed by threats of violence or actual violence."

     

    "These students and their administration are trying to undo the Civil Rights Movement. They are trying to re-institute a Jim Crow approach to education that Americans rejected over 50 years ago,” Manweller told Campus Reform.

     

    “We must never go back to a segregated society – whether it be drinking fountains, buses, or school buildings."

     

    “It is incredibly frightening that the administration at Evergreen would tacitly support Brown-shirt tactics we have not seen since 1930s Germany. That they would allow students to threaten professors and other students based on their race is simply horrifying,” Manweller exclaimed.

    While the bill’s chances of passing are unclear, Manweller says he’s optimistic.

    Meanwhile, the Washington Times reports that more than 50 faculty members have sent a letter urging the administration to discipline Weinstein for…wait for it…endangering the college’s students, faculty and staff:

    "Weinstein has endangered faculty, staff, and students, making them targets of white supremacist backlash by promulgating misinformation in public emails, on national television, in news outlets, and on social media.”

    Of course, the irony of this is statement is staggering. As Weinstein told WSJ: Campus police recommended he hold class off campus because of threats made by protesters, some of whom stopped and searched cars traveling through campus, allegedly looking for Weinstein.

  • One Belt, One Road, And One Debt Hangover

    Autohred by Jim Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    China is not only one of the world’s largest debtors, it is one of the world’s largest creditors.

    China uses debt not in the customary financial manner, but as a political tool to generate employment and maintain social stability. Likewise China uses loans and investment as a tool to advance its strategic interests. This may be good geopolitics in the short run, but it will be a disaster economically in the long run.

    Just as Chinese state owned enterprises (SOEs) can’t repay debts to Chinese banks, China’s foreign partners will not be able to repay debts to China itself. These twin disasters-in-the-making may converge in such a way that China’s assets disappear or become illiquid at exactly the time they are most needed to bail-out its own banking system.

    China has launched four major overseas investment initiatives in the past ten years. The oldest is their sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation, or CIC, established in 2007. Sovereign wealth funds are a way for countries to invest their reserves in securities other than safe instruments such as U.S. Treasury notes.

    CIC today has assets of over $800 billion, spread among stocks, corporate bonds, hedge funds, private equity, commodities, and commercial real estate. Some of CIC’s investments are directly-owned enterprises, including gold mines in Zimbabwe.

    While these assets may outperform Treasury notes over time, they are also illiquid, and would tend to decline in value during a financial panic. This means that about 20%, of China’s reserves are unavailable for critical tasks such as bailing out the banking system or defending the currency.

    The second and third initiatives are the New Development Bank, NDB, created by the BRICS in 2014, and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, created by China in 2016. These have participation from 35 countries in the Asia/Australia region, and 18 other countries from outside that region, mostly in Europe. The United States refused to join.

    Although NDB and AIIB are both multilateral institutions, China was the principal sponsor and a major source of funding. It provided about $10 billion to NDB and $30 billion to AIIB.

    These banks will expand their lending capacity by issuing notes and will fund infrastructure projects in competition with the World Bank and its regional development banks — without interference from the U.S. on priorities.

    China, One Belt, One Road

    By far, the most ambitious outbound investment effort by China is the “One Belt, One Road” initiative. The “belt” refers to overland routes from central China to Europe. The “road” refers to maritime routes from eastern China to Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe.

    It is a recreation of the original Silk Road caravan route of the thirteenth century, and China’s glory days as a naval power led by Admiral Zheng He in the Ming Dynasty in the early fifteenth century.

    The scope of the One Belt, One Road initiative is immense. It will include port facilities, railroads, highways, telecommunications channels, airports, transshipment facilities, renewable energy sources, and more strung out from Xian to Rotterdam, and from Guangzhou to Venice.

    The graphic on the previous page shows the main corridors of the belt and road, but there are many ranches and capillaries not shown in detail. Of these offshoots, one of the most critical is a transportation link from Kashgar in western China to the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea in Pakistan. This route passes through disputed territory in Kashmir that could lead to a war with China and Pakistan on one side, and India on the other.

    Another critical belt link runs from Kunming in southern China through Myanmar, Thailand, and Malaysia before terminating in Singapore.

    Silk Road China

    Main routes in China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative are shown above. The overland belt is in green and the maritime road is in blue.

    At a global leaders’ summit in Beijing on May 14–15, 2017, President Xi Jinping of China laid out his vision for the One Belt, One Road and committed $55 billion of lending capacity.

    Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, was one of many foreign leaders present. The U.S. sent a low level delegation, probably including CIA assets, attempting to get a read on Putin, Xi and the North Korean delegation.

    The problem with One Belt, One Road is that many of the potential recipients of development loans are not highly creditworthy or have a track record of defaulting on debts or requiring substantial debt restructuring in order to stay current.

    As with Chinese bank loans to SOEs, the NDB, AIIB, and One Belt, One Road efforts are not primarily economic but political. China is seeking to use its economic clout to create jobs and control critical infrastructure.

    In the end, China is attempting to create a geopolitical sphere of influence of even greater scope than the Japanese Empire prior to World War II, called by Japan “The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

    As with its other policies, China will turn liquid assets into illiquid assets in order to pursue its ambitions. This could make sense if nothing goes wrong. But, things will go wrong.

    China will face a monumental liquidity crisis sooner than later and find that its liquid assets have been turned into bridges to nowhere.

  • Bitcoin Spikes Above $2800 For First Time As "Japanese Buying Frenzy" Continues

    It appears the Japanese bought the f**king dip in Bitcoin last week, as tonight's session has seen s sudden surge in the price of the virtual currency, taking out prior record highs and topping $2800.

    Additionally, Bloomberg reports, the speculative frenzy in bitcoin is spilling over into several small cryto-currency-related stocks on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

     

    But it's not just Bitcoin that is soaring, Bloomberg reports that Remixpoint Co., Infoteria Corp. and Fisco Ltd., have all seen volatile swings in their share prices after announcing businesses related to digital currencies.

    Remixpoint, which has more than doubled since tying up with Peach Aviation Ltd. to let customers pay for tickets with bitcoin, fell as much as 9 percent in Tokyo on Tuesday.

     

    Infoteria, up more than 50 percent in the past month, is testing ways to let shareholders vote by proxy using blockchain, bitcoin’s underlying technology. 

     

    Fisco, a financial information services provider, began operating a bitcoin exchange last year and is up about 25 percent since early May.

    All of these gains coincide with bitcoin’s rally, with the value of the virtual currency doubling against the U.S. dollar since early May. That has made the stocks of the these small-cap companies an attractive way for speculators to invest in cryptocurrency markets without buying them directly. That’s because investors can make bets via their brokerage accounts instead of taking risks with bitcoin exchanges, according to Naoki Murakami, a well-known day trader in Japan.

    “From about a month ago when all these virtual currencies started spiking like crazy, we began seeing the so-called ‘stocks of the virtual currency bubble,”’ said Murakami, a frequent speaker at investor conferences.

     

    “Not everyone is sure they can trust bitcoin exchanges. And some don’t have accounts there. That’s why they’re using the stock market to speculate.”

    Another reason why these stocks can become proxies for bitcoin is due to Japan’s relatively loose listing laws, some of which require no income and a market value of as little as $10 million before a company can go public. That’s made the Tokyo Stock Exchange home to hundreds of small companies.

    “It’s pure frenzy,” Murakami said.

    In April, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government legalized digital currencies as a form of payment and placed rules around audits and security. That lent credibility to digital currencies, leading to some Japanese companies seeking partnerships with bitcoin startups.

  • London Mayor Responds To Trump, Says UK Government Should Cancel His Visit

    President Trump's repeated jabs

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    at London Mayor Sadiq Khan drew responses from various UK politicians today, but until now Khan had calmly responded he "has better and more important things to focus on than" to waste his time responding to the president of the united states…

     

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    However, as The Telegraph reports, Khan has now spoken out, saying the US president's state visit to the UK should be cancelled.

    Following Tim Farron's, leader of the Liberal Democrat party, comments that Trump's invitation to visit the UK should be withdrawn. Mr Khan said Mr Trump had been wrong about "many things" and that the Government should cancel his state visit to the UK, which is expected to take place in October.

    “I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for,” he said.

     

    “When you have a special relationship it is no different from when you have got a close mate. You stand with them in times of adversity but you call them out when they are wrong.

     

    "There are many things about which Donald Trump is wrong.”

    Theresa May, the Prime Minister, defended the mayor, while stopping short of directly criticising Mr Trump.

    "I think Sadiq Khan is doing a good job and it's wrong to say anything else – he's doing a good job," she told reporters at an election campaign event in London.

    The White House on Monday denied suggestions from US reporters that Mr Trump "picked a fight" with Mr Khan "because he was Muslim".

    "I think that to suggest something like that is utterly ridiculous," Sarah Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, told reporters.

  • The Qatar Turmoil Fallout: Flights, Food, Football And More

    Today’s stunning expulsion of Qatar from the Saudi “circle of friends” prompted some analysts to ask if in Qatar’s immediate futures is a departure from OPEC. In a note by Mitsubishi UFJ, the bank notes that “a full-fledged confrontation will, without any doubt, put pressure on the current compliance rate of OPEC members to the adherence of the 9-month agreement to cut production” and adds that “whilst Qatar’s pledge was only to cut 30,000 barrels to 628,000 barrels (as part of the OPEC agreement), there are potential risks of Qatar leaving OPEC which could significantly impact oil prices.”

    That said, the political fallout for Qatar, and its remaining allies, could have broader implications than merely the collapse of the already dying oil cartel; as MUFJ notes “a rapprochement between Iran and Qatar would be a vast security risk to the U.S. military” while closure of land/sea/air contacts could have adverse “implications for the airlines, shipping and road freight industries.”

    According to analysts and pundits cited by the BBC, the biggest threats facing the tiny but rich nation, with a population of 2.7 million, include food, flights, construction, people, trade and… football.

    Flights

    As reported overnight, Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways and Dubai’s Emirates are suspending all flights to and from Doha, starting from Tuesday morning. Both carriers operate four daily return flights to Doha. Budget carriers FlyDubai and Air Arabia are also cancelling routes to Doha, with other airlines, including Bahrain’s Gulf Air and Egyptair expected to follow suit. It comes after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt all said they would stop flights in and out of Qatar, and close their airspace to the country’s airline, Qatar Airways.

    And it is Qatar’s flag carrier that risks being the biggest loser. Its flights to places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and Cairo will stop. That is dozens of flights a day.

    Qatar Airways has already said it is cancelling its services to Saudi. It said: “All customers booked on affected flights to and from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be provided with alternative options, including the option of a full refund on any unused tickets and free rebooking to the nearest alternative Qatar Airways network destination.”

    But a bigger, if not existential threat, to Qatar Airways is being banned from large chunks of airspace: according to a report by CAPA — Center for Aviation, “losing Saudi, Bahrain and UAE airspace would effectively ground Qatar Airways,” CAPA. That’s because Qatar actually has very little airspace relative to the size of the country.

    “It is largely surrounded by Bahrain airspace (the Bahrain FIR), a slither on the south is managed by Saudi Arabia while the UAE is on the eastern border,” CAPA stated. While losing access to Saudi airspace will force Qatar Airways into the costly maneuver of rerouting its Africa-bound flights, losing access to Bahrainian airspace could be catastrophic because it almost completely encircles Qatar.

    That said, while the various gulf nations are free to refuse landing rights, it remains unclear if Bahrain and the UAE can legally ban Qatar Airways from their airspace. As signatories to the International Air Services Transit Agreement, Bahrain the UAE can’t legally shut off its airspace to fellow signatory Qatar. Saudi Arabia, however, is not an IASTA member country and can legally shut Qatar Airways out.

    On Monday, Flightradar24 reported that neighboring Bahrain notified pilots that it will limit flights to and from Qatar by Qatari aircraft through its airspace to a single air route. This means, even if Qatar Airways isn’t grounded, it will be subject to heavy air traffic congestion.

    Qatar Airways’ growth has come through positioning itself as a hub airline, connecting Asia and Europe via Doha. “If a journey to Europe that used to take six hours now takes eight or nine because it has had to change routes, then that makes it far less appealing and passengers might look elsewhere,” says Ghanem Nuseibeh, director at advisory firm Cornerstone Global.

    Food

    While desert states in general struggle to grow food, food security is a particular issue for Qatar given the only way into the country is a single border with Saudi Arabia. Every day hundreds of trucks cross the border, and food is one of the main supplies. About 40% of Qatar’s food is believed to come via this route. That may no longer be an option after Saudi Arabia said it will close that border and when the trucks shipments end, Qatar will become reliant on air and sea freight.

    “It will immediately cause inflation and that will directly affect normal Qatari people,” says Nuseibeh. “If things start costing significantly more, then you’re going to see the Qatari people putting increasing political pressure on the ruling family for either a change of leadership or a change of direction.” The Cornerstone analyst also pointed out that many poorer Qataris make daily or weekly trips to Saudi to do their grocery shopping as it is cheaper. Clearly a closed border means this will no longer be possible.

    Football

    The prospect of Qatar hosting the 2022 World Cup has plunged into the most serious doubt after the diplomatic scandal. According to the Guardian, the multibillion-dollar preparations to host the 2022 tournament, which involve building nine stadiums and huge infrastructure, is put into perspective by local reports that Qataris are so worried about the blockade that they are stocking up on food. The border with Saudi Arabia is the only road route into the country; Qatar relies on sea ports for its materials and the blockade of airspace is a huge logistical handicap to the country and its flagship airline, Qatar Airways.

    The “supreme committee” responsible for building the 2022 World Cup facilities did not issue a public statement but a source acknowledged that the seriousness of the crisis is greater than any of the formidable challenges Qatar has faced since winning the vote in 2010 from Fifa’s now discredited executive committee. The tournament has been switched to the winter to avoid searing summer temperatures, a series of investigations has been held into strongly denied corruption allegations and there has been worldwide criticism of the country’s treatment of its migrant construction workers.

    The English Football Association did not comment on the crisisbut the German FA (DFB) president, Reinhard Grindel, said he would discuss it with the German government and Uefa. Grindel promised to look for a “political solution” but said: “The football community worldwide should agree that … major tournaments should not be played in countries that actively support terror.”

    Construction

    A new port, a medical zone, a metro project and eight stadiums for the 2022 World Cup are just some of the major construction projects going on in Qatar right now. Key materials, including concrete and steel come in by ship but also by land from neighbouring Saudi. The closure of that border could, as with food – push up prices and lead to delays.

    A materials shortage is already a threat that looms over Qatar’s construction industry. This risks making things worse. A lengthy closure of the airspace and land borders would “wreak havoc on the timeline and delivery” of the World Cup, says Kristian Ulrichsen, a Gulf expert at the US-based Baker Institute.

    People

    The move to end ties bans citizens from Saudi, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Libya and Yemen from travelling to Qatar, living there or passing through it, according to the Saudi government. People affected have 14 days to leave. Meanwhile Qataris will have the same amount of time to get out of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain.

    More significant though would be if Egypt issued a similar ban. According to one recent report about 180,000 Egyptians live in Qatar – with many involved in engineering, medicine and law as well as construction. A loss of that workforce would pose a problem for both local and international firms operating in the Gulf state.

    Trade and business

    Nervousness over the unprecedented situation left Qatar’s main share index more than 7% lower on Monday – its biggest drop in nearly a decade – amid worries about the investment climate. Many Gulf firms have a presence in Qatar, including in retail. Those stores are likely to to close, at least temporarily, believes Nuseibeh. Indeed, we’re already seeing business deals begin to crumble – major Saudi football team Al-Ahli has cancelled a sponsorship deal with Qatar Airways.

  • FBI Arrests NSA Contractor Who Leaked Top Secret "Russian Hacking" Document To The Intercept

    Earlier this afternoon, the Intercept reported that according to a “top secret NSA document”, Russian Military Intelligence “executed a cyberattack on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials days before election.”

    The NSA document, reportedly dated May 5, analyzes recently acquired intelligence about “a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the U.S. election and voting infrastructure.” The document notes that investigation only began in the last few months. The document claims the investigation was spurred by “information that became available in April 2017.”

    According to the Intercept, the report is “the most detailed U.S. government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light. It is said to reveal that that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into U.S. voting systems than was previously understood” and “states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document.” This is what the document alleges:

    Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors … executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. … The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to … launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations.

    While the manufacturer victimized by the attack has its name masked throughout the report, the Hill suggests that it might be VR Systems. The email account used to spear-phish customers is listed as vr.elections@gmail.com, and the attack made use of malware-infected files with titles that reference to the EViD poll book system. The report makes reference to voter-registration themed phishing attacks against third parties possibly using information from the account, making it likely the company is somehow related to registration or voter roles. VR’s website says EViD products were used in California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, New York and Virginia. The company is based in Florida.

    The NSA document alleges the GRU hacked the voting systems company using a false Google alert requiring a target to enter login credentials. According to the report, it also attempted a parallel campaign using a false email account meant to be confused with a second company.  And yet, despite all that “sophistication”, Russia’s smartest, government hackers somehow left a trail so obvious that it would allow the NSA to conclude in under a month, that Russia’s GRU was behind it. Which is also where the story become questionable because at roughly the same time, another set of alleged Russian hackers, the Shadow Brokers, was in possession (and trying to sell) weaponized CIA methods, allowing any potential hacker to adopt the identity of anyone else, even the CIA or NSA.

    Lack of coherent narrative aside, according to the official report, on one hand the NSA summary judgment conflicts with Vladimir Putin’s ongoing denials that Russia had interfered in foreign elections: “We never engaged in that on a state level, and have no intention of doing so.” The NSA report, the Intercept claims, “displays no doubt that the cyber assault was carried out by the GRU.”

    That said, the report does not claim that voting machines were hacked, a once-popular post-election theory from Democrats, nor does it state whether the information pertaining to the voting systems could be used to hack those systems. 

    On the other hand, the same Intercept article notes that  “a U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive.” Still, the assessment concluded with high confidence that the Kremlin ordered an extensive, multi-pronged propaganda effort “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

    It is not immediately clear how Russian GRU hackers would make the leap between a spear-phishing campaign of election officials to successfully “denigrating Secretary Clinton, and her electability and potential presidency” unless of course that is merely the biased assessment of the original report’s author, in which case it is no different, or “useful”, than the intel report released in January which “found” Russian involvement (much like this one allegedly did).

    Since the document is confidential, and is only held by the Intercept, and since it will not be unclassified, nothing that is contained inside it can be verified, aside from the Intercept’s own summary take. Furthermore, according to the author, not even the leaked document “shows the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based.” In other words, just like the January Russian hacking report, it is yet another allegation. At that point, it once again devolves to “he said, she said” mutual allegations.

    Where the story gets more interesting, however, is that  just hours after the Intercept reported on the top secret document, the FBI arrested and charged the woman (with the peculiar name Reality Leigh Winner) they say leaked a Top Secret document to The Intercept.

    This is what the DOJ released moments ago:

    Federal Government Contractor in Georgia Charged With Removing and Mailing Classified Materials to a News Outlet

     

    A criminal complaint was filed in the Southern District of Georgia today charging Reality Leigh Winner, 25, a federal contractor from Augusta, Georgia, with removing classified material from a government facility and mailing it to a news outlet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e).

     

    Winner was arrested by the FBI at her home on Saturday, June 3, and appeared in federal court in Augusta this afternoon.

     

    “Exceptional law enforcement efforts allowed us quickly to identify and arrest the defendant,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. “Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s security and undermines public faith in government. People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.”

     

    According to the allegations contained in the criminal complaint:

     

    Winner is a contractor with Pluribus International Corporation assigned to a U.S. government agency facility in Georgia. She has been employed at the facility since on or about February 13, and has held a Top Secret clearance during that time. On or about May 9, Winner printed and improperly removed classified intelligence reporting, which contained classified national defense information from an intelligence community agency, and unlawfully retained it. Approximately a few days later, Winner unlawfully transmitted by mail the intelligence reporting to an online news outlet.

    Once investigative efforts identified Winner as a suspect, the FBI obtained and executed a search warrant at her residence. According to the complaint, Winner agreed to talk with ag

     

    nts during the execution of the warrant. During that conversation, Winner admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a “need to know,” and with knowledge that the intelligence reporting was classified. Winner further admitted removing the classified intelligence reporting from her office space, retaining it, and mailing it from Augusta, Georgia, to the news outlet, which she knew was not authorized to receive or possess the documents.

     

    An individual charged by criminal complaint is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.

     

    The prosecution is being handled by Trial Attorney Julie A. Edelstein of the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia. The investigation is being conducted by the FBI.

    Meet Reality Winner: the new Edward Snowden:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    So another “Snowden”-type NSA contractor who went rogue, only this one wasn’t smart enough to cover her tracks, and instead of seeking asylum in Russia, Reality Winner will now spend years in US Federal Prison. Also, perhaps notable, is that instead of approaching Wikileaks, the leaker decided to go with The Intercept this time.

    As for the underlying allegation, that Putin lied not only in St Petersburg and to Megyn Kelly most recently, and that Russia somehow did try to hack a “named US company to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions”, even though the report does not reveal the underlying “raw” intelligence – i.e., evidence – on which the analysis is based, we look forward to this stirring up yet another round of media frenzy just as the Russian hacking narrative was slowly taking a back seat to the the upcoming featured spectacle, this Thursday’s James Comey testimony about being strongarmed by Trump to stop investigating Mike Flynn, which among other things will hopefully explain how nearly a year after these alleged hacks, aside from the occasional leaked report without evidence, there is still no actual evidence – leaked or otherwise – confirming that Russia’s GRU did indeed “hack” the election.

    * * *

    Update: some additional details have emerged about leaker Reality Leigh Winner, who for some inexplicable reason had a top security clearance.

    According to the Guardian’s John Swaine, Winner  is a former US Air Force linguist who speaks Pashto, Farsi & Dari

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Here she is calling the president a “piece of shit” on Facebook over his handling of DAPL:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Winner posting an autographed photo of Anderson Cooper on facebook.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Her facebook post before the election in which she says “this Tuesday when we become the United States of the Russian Federation, Olympic lifting will be the national sport.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Here she is visiting the office of US Senator Perdue before leaking the classified docs.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 5th June 2017

  • Stocks, Bonds, Euro, and Gold Go Up, Report 4 June, 2017

    The jobs report was disappointing. The prices of gold, and even more so silver, took off. In three hours, they gained $18 and 39 cents. Before we try to read into the connection, it is worth pausing to consider how another market responded. We don’t often discuss the stock market (and we have not been calling for an imminent stock market collapse as many others have).

    The initial reaction in the US equities market (futures, as this was before the opening bell) was down. But it was muted, and then in a few hours turned around and the market ended even higher.

    Each stock represents a business. Presumably, if jobs growth was disappointing then this is bad for stocks on two grounds. One is that companies hire based on their revenue expectations. Slow or no hiring means slow or no revenue growth. The other is that people who aren’t hired don’t buy as much, and so there is a feedback loop into sluggish business revenue growth.

    However, the stock market disagreed. It said let’s cut the earnings yield a bit more, from 3.94% to 3.93%. This presumably means that earnings are set to take off (or it could mean that everyone from wage-earners who pour their surplus into the stock market to older speculators are not thinking about earnings yield).

    Not only did the stock market go up, so did the euro. As did US Treasury bonds. And, finally, gold and silver. What is the one thing that these all have in common?

    It is possible to borrow to buy these assets.

    We read this as a garden-variety day of credit expansion. Folks, this is how the monetary system is supposed to work, according to mainstream economic thought. Based on <insert story du jour>, people borrow to buy assets. This creates a wealth effect, as rising asset prices makes people (at least those who own those assets) feel richer. When they feel richer, they go out to eat more, buy more Rolexes and Porsches, and that employs everyone else. Or so their theory goes.

    Stock analysts have a wealth of material to study the fundamentals of public companies. We leave that work to them. We have a theory, model, and now a robust software platform to study and calculate the fundamentals of gold and silver.

    We will show charts of the fundamental prices we calculate. But first, a look at the prices of the metals and gold-silver ratio.

    letter-jun-04-prices

    Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It moved up a bit, though down on Friday.

    letter-jun-04-ratio

    In this graph, we show both bid and offer prices. If you were to sell gold on the bid and buy silver at the ask, that is the lower bid price. Conversely, if you sold silver on the bid and bought gold at the offer, that is the higher offer price.

    For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

    Here is the gold graph.

    letter-jun-04-gold

    We had a dropping price of the dollar (the mirror image of the rising price of gold), and a slightly falling abundance (the basis) and slightly rising scarcity (the cobasis).

    Our old model shows an increase in the gold fundamental price of $19 ($1,267 to $1,286). Our new software also shows an increase, though smaller and at a higher level ($1,330 to $1,334). We plan an article to discuss this difference.

    Now let’s look at silver.

    letter-jun-04-silver

    In silver, there is a slight increase in abundance and decrease in scarcity as the price has risen.

    Our old model shows an increase in the silver fundamental price of $0.05 ($16.12 to $16.17). Our new software, however, shows a decease and not a small one ($17.97 to $17.62). Here is a graph.

    letter-jun-04-ag-fund

    Note that the fundamental price (new software platform) is rangebound from early March. It is considerably less volatile than the market price, which is what we would hope for.

     

    Keith will be in London the week of June 19, and in New York the week of June 26. If you’re interested in attending a Monetary Metals seminar on GOFO and transparency in the gold market in either city, or to meet with Keith to discuss gold investment, please click here.

     

    © 2017 Monetary Metals

  • Accept Islamic Terror As The New Normal?

    Authored by Nonia Darwish via The Gatestone Institute,

    • "The use of terror under this doctrine [Targhib wal tarhib, "luring and terrorizing"] is a legitimate sharia obligation." — Salman Al Awda, mainstream Muslim sheikh, on the Al Jazeera television show "Sharia and Life".
    • Part of the tarhib or "terrorizing" side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs.
    • Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

    After terror attacks, we often hear from Western media and politicians that we must accept terrorist attacks as the "new normal."

    For Western citizens, this phrase is dangerous.

    Islam's doctrine of jihad, expansion and dawah (Islamic outreach, proselytizing) rely heavily on the use of both terror and luring. Targhib wal tarhib is an Islamic doctrine that means "seducing (luring) and terrorizing" as a tool for dawah, to conquer nations and force citizens to submit to Islamic law, sharia. It amounts to manipulating the instinctive parts of the human brain with extreme opposing pressures of pleasure and pain — rewarding, then severely punishing — to brainwash people into complying with Islam.

    Most ordinary Muslims are not even aware of this doctrine, but Islamic books have been written about it. Mainstream Muslim sheikhs such as Salman Al Awda have discussed it on Al Jazeera TV. On a show called "Sharia and Life," Al Awda recommended using extremes "to exaggerate… reward and punishment, morally and materially… in both directions". "The use of terror under this doctrine,"' he said, "is a legitimate sharia obligation."

    People in the West think of terror as something that Islamic jihadists inflict on non-Muslims, and it is. But terror is also the mechanism for ensuring compliance within Islam. Under Islamic law, jihadists who evade performing jihad are to be killed. Terror is thus the threat that keeps jihadists on their missions, and that make ordinary Muslims obey sharia.

    An online course for recruiting jihadists contains this description:

    "Individual Dawa depends on eliciting emotional responses from recruits (and building a personal relationship). Abu 'Amr's approach illustrates a recruitment concept called al-targhib wa'l-tarhib, which is a carrot-and-stick technique of extolling the benefits of action while explaining the frightening costs of inaction. The concept was introduced in the Qur'an and is discussed by many Islamic thinkers exploring the best way to call people to Islam (several scholars, for example, have written books titled al-targhib wa'l-tarhib). According to Abu 'Amr, recruiters should apply the concept throughout the recruitment process, but emphasize the benefits of action early in the process and the costs of inaction later."

    In other words, recruiters of jihadists should start by emphasizing the "good stuff" first, the "lure" — the future glory, supremacy and fulfillment of every lustful wish, such as virgins in heaven. Later, they should threaten the recruits with "terror" and shame — the consequence if they fail to participate in jihad.

    Part of the tarhib or "terrorizing" side of this doctrine is to make a cruel example of those who do not comply with the requirements of Islam. That is the reason Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and entities such as ISIS, intentionally hold ceremonial public beheadings, floggings, and amputation of limbs. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are more discrete, but they tolerate and support honor killings; killing apostates; beating women and children, and torture and murder in their jails. The doctrine of targhib and tarhib is alive and well, not just in Islamic theocracies but also in the so-called "moderate" Muslim countries.

    Islam has been using these "pleasure and pain" brainwashing techniques, and cruel and unusual punishment, from its inception and until today. While the Bible — the Western Judeo-Christian tradition — is in harmony with, and nurtures, kindness in human nature, Islam does the opposite: it uses the human instincts for self-preservation and survival to break the people's will and brainwash them into slavish obedience.

    Like the majority of Muslims, I never heard of this foundational Islamic doctrine when I was growing up in Egypt, but have felt the impact of this doctrine on my life — in every aspect of Islamic culture; in Islamic preaching, in my Islamic family relations; in how Islamic governments operate and how people of authority, in general, treat the people under them.

    The Islamic doctrine of "lure and terror" has produced a culture of toxic extremes: distrust and fear, pride and shame, permission to lie ("taqiyya"), and rejecting taking responsibility for one's actions.

    Having lived most of my life under Islam, I am sad to say that people the West calls "moderate Muslims" are frequently, in fact, citizens who have learned to live with and accept terror as normal. For centuries, many have made excuses for terror, condemned victims of terror, remained silent or equivocal, and have even compromised with the terrorists to survive. The Islamic culture in which I lived looked the other way when women were beaten. When girls were honor-murdered, the question was "what did she do?" instead of "how could that be?" When Christians were killed and persecuted, many blamed the Christians for their own persecution at the hands of Muslims. The normal Islamic response to terror became: "None of my business."

    And now the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib, has moved to the West and aims at changing Western humanistic culture. It would replace respect for human rights, caring for one's neighbor and the values of freedom and peace, with the values of bondage, terror, tyranny and fear.

    Islamic jihad has always counted on people in conquered lands eventually to yield, give up and accept terrorism as part of life, similar to natural disasters, earthquakes and floods.

    It did not take long for the Islamic doctrine of Targhib wal Tarhib to work on the psyche of Western leaders and media, who are now telling us to live with it as the "new normal." Islam counts on turning everyone into "moderate" Muslims who will eventually look the other way when terror happens to the person next to you.

    The new normal? Police help survivors of the terrorist attack on London Bridge, June 4, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

  • Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, & Bahrain Cut Diplomatic Ties, Shut All Borders With Qatar

    Just days after president Trump left the region, a geopolitical earthquake is taking place in the Middle East tonight as the rift between Qatar and other members of the (likely extinct) Gulf Cooperation Council explodes with Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt cutting all diplomatic ties with Qatar accusing it of "speading chaos," by funding terrorism and supporting Iran.

    The dispute between Qatar and the Gulf's Arab countries started over a purported hack of Qatar's state-run news agency. It has spiraled since, and appears to be climaxing now… just days after President Trump left the region.

    As Al Arabiya reports, Bahrain has announced it is cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar, according to a statement carried on Bahrain News Agency.

    The statement on Monday morning said Bahrain decided to sever ties with its neighbor “on the insistence of the State of Qatar to continue destabilizing the security and stability of the Kingdom of Bahrain and to intervene in its affairs”.

     

    The statement also said Qatar’s incitement of the media and supporting of terrorist activities and financing groups linked to Iran were reasons behind the decision.

     

    “(Qatar has) spread chaos in Bahrain in flagrant violation of all agreements and covenants and principles of international law Without regard to values, law or morals or consideration of the principles of good neighborliness or commitment to the constants of Gulf relations and the denial of all previous commitments,” the statement read.

     

    Qatari citizens have 14 days to leave Bahraini territories while Qatari diplomats were given 48 hours to leave the country after being expelled. Meanwhile, Bahrain has also banned all of its citizens from visiting or residing in Qatar after the severance of ties.

    Additionally, Bahrain has has closed both air and sea borders with Qatar.

    Saudi Arabia then confirmed the same – cutting ties and shutting down all sea, airspace, and land crossings with Qatar as well as dissolving Qatar's role in the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Yemen. Emirates, Etihad, Saudia, Gulf Air, and Egypt Air are no longer allowed to fly to Qatar and Saudi Arabia is providinhg facilities, services to Qatari pilgrims

    Egypt then followed, confirming it was cutting diplomatic ties with

    Then UAE confirmed it would cut ties, shut down all sky, water, and land crossings, and expel all Qataris within 48 hours.

    The Maldives also just cut diplomatic ties with Qatar.

    All of this happens within 24 hours of Iran calling out 'The West' for ignoring the real sponsors of terrorism around the world and UK's Labor party leader outright name-shaming Sauid Arabia's funding of terrorism.

    Qatari officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    As a reminder, documents obtained by Middle East Eye show strategic alliance includes pledge by Ankara to protect Gulf state from external threats…

    In December 2015, Turkey announced, to the surprise of many, that it planned to establish a military base in Qatar. Behind the scenes, the agreement was about forming a major strategic alliance.

     

    After a 100-year hiatus, Turkey is militarily back in the Gulf and ramping up its presence overseas. In January, Ankara announced that it would also establish a military base in Somalia.

     

    Specific details about the Qatar agreement, which Turkey described as an alliance in the face of "common enemies", remain scant, but Middle East Eye has acquired copies of the agreements, as well as further details, which include a secret pledge by Ankara to protect Qatar from external threats.

    Did Qatar just get scapegoated in the 'war on terror'? One thing seems clear, support for a Syrian gas pipeline will be dwindling and with it the need for a Syrian war.

    Notably, this raises further doubts about OPEC's stability. As Bloomberg notes, while Middle East ructions have historically added risk premia to oil prices, discord here could theoretically put downward pressure on prices as OPEC members struggle to maintain unity and compliance on production cuts.

  • Tesla Furious After AAA Hits Carmaker With Higher Premiums Due To "Abnormally High Claims"

    AAA is raising premiums on Tesla vehicles by 30% after data showed that owners of Model S and Model X cars filed claims at abnormally high rates, and that those claims cost more compared with other cars in the same class, Automotive News reported.

    Tesla, of course, is disputing the insurer's analysis.

    "This analysis is severely flawed and is not reflective of reality," the electric-vehicle maker said in a statement emailed to Automotive News. "Among other things, it compares Model S and X to cars that are not remotely peers, including even a Volvo station wagon."

    AAA’ chief actuary said the insurer noticed the anomaly in its own data before confirming it with data provided by a second source, the Highway Loss Data Institute.

    "Looking at a much broader set of countrywide data, we saw the same patterns observed in our own data, and that gave us the confidence to change rates," he said.

    Other large insurance companies, including State Farm and Geico, said that claims data is a major factor in calculating premiums. But they would not disclose if their Tesla-owning customers would also see rates rise.

    The Highway Loss Data Institute report covered the 2014-2016 model years. Vehicles are divided into classes based on size, weight and competing models. The frequency and severity of claims are compared with overall average claims. The report found that the frequency, and cost, of claims related to Tesla vehicles was much higher.

    "Teslas get into a lot of crashes and are costly to repair afterward," said Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is the Highway Loss Data Institute's parent organization. "Consumers will pay for that when they go to insure one."

    Tesla said the Highway Loss Data Institute's system placed it with the wrong competitors. If it were compared with similar rivals, the company argued, its crash data would not stand out negatively.

    Tesla said the high rate of acceleration in both the Model S and Model X make it "false and misleading" to compare against vehicles such as the XC70, adding that the Model S also holds the lowest likelihood of injury, according to an evaluation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    "We expect Model X to receive the best score for any SUV ever tested," a Tesla spokesperson said.

    Collision damage claims for large luxury vehicles are reported 13 percent more frequently than average, and those claims cost about 50 percent higher than average, the Highway Loss Data Institute said. The rear-wheel-drive Tesla Model S is involved in 46 percent more claims than average, and those claims cost more than twice the average, it said.

    In the large luxury SUV class, where collision coverage claim frequency is the same as the average for all vehicles and the cost of claims is 43 percent above average, the owners of the Model X file for claims 41 percent more often than average, and those claims cost 89 percent more than average, according to the institute.

    New approaches to calculating premiums may eventually benefit Tesla owners, Automotive News reported. Root is an insurance startup that sets premiums based on individual driving behavior. Customers download the Root app and drive with their smartphone in the car for two weeks. Rates are determined from the habits observed over that period.

    Semi-autonomous driving features help bring rates down, said Root CEO Alex Timm. The company gives a special discount for Tesla vehicles equipped with Autosteer — part of Tesla's suite of Autopilot semi-autonomous tech — which NHTSA found reduced crash rates by 40 percent.

    "Insurance premiums should reflect risk," Timm said. "Autonomous vehicles are safer and will continue to get safer. It's proven in the data."

    Tesla said that it is working with insurance companies to properly evaluate the benefits of Autopilot.

    "As part of the Insure My Tesla program, Tesla is working with leading insurers resulting in lower prices for Tesla insurance, not higher," Tesla said in its statement. "These leading insurers also appreciate the added safety benefit of Autopilot."

    The big question, of course, is that if Tesla owners have to pay considerably higher insurance premiums, what happens to the marginal new Tesla car sale?

  • CNN Host Calls Trump "Piece Of Shit… Embarrassment To Humankind"

    Update: late on Sunday afternoon, Aslan apologized, tweeting “I should not have used a profanity to describe the President when responding to his shocking reaction to the #LondonAttacks.”

    His statement

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    * * *

    Shortly after Saturday’s latest Islamic terrorist attack in London, when Trump was once again bashed for assuming that it was, well, a terrorist attack – which in retrospect turned out to be accurate – a CNN host slammed Trump for his kneejerk reaction to the attack and his renewed call for a travel ban. As noted last night, Trump took to Twitter Saturday evening, saying, “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Trump’s tweet prompted numerous angry responses including one from the ACLU which said that “glad we both agree the ban is a ban,” but by far the most triggered was CNN’s Reza Aslan, a vocal Trump critic and host of Believer, who as the American Mirror pointed out first, lashed out with his own tweet half an hour later:

    “This piece of shit is not just an embarrassment to American and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This in turn prompted the now traditional twitter back and forth in which conservative media pundit Mark Dice responded: “CNN host more upset about trump denouncing the attack than the attack itself.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It quickly devolved from there into a partisan name-calling back and forth.

    This was not the first time a CNN host has used profanity to criticize the president. Fareed Zakaria repeatedly used the term “bulls***” to describe Trump during an appearance on CNN Tonight back in March. The network also cut ties with comedian Kathy Griffin last week after she shared a graphic image of herself holding a severed, bloody head meant to resemble President Trump.

    NBC News was also unimpressed with the president’s Twitter feed Saturday night. In addition to his comments about his immigration order, Trump also re-tweeted a link from The Drudge Report that suggested the incident was a terrorist attack long before police made that determination.

    In an unprecedented move, NBC News’ twitter feed followed up with its own dismissive comment:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Aslan used the statement by NBC News to criticize Trump even further, calling him a “man baby” and urging his followers to ignore the president.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It was not clear if NBC did relay the president’s tweet later when “the info” was confirmed.

    “Trump is in a position to be the most-informed person in the world,” Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold said on CNN Saturday night,  yet he keeps relying on “third-hand info.” In this case Trump was right.

  • When Mother Jones Was Investigated For Spreading "Kremlin Disinformation"

    Authored by Mark Ames via ExiledOnline.com,

    Mother Jones recently announced it’s “redoubling our Russia reporting”—in the words of editor Clara Jeffery. Ain’t that rich. What passes for “Russia reporting” at Mother Jones is mostly just glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks — a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because we’re free.

    Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called “Russia reporting” of the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths — whether it’s from Mother Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.

    But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic about Russian “disinformation”. It wasn’t too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones for spreading “Kremlin disinformation” and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin “disinformation” and “active measures” in America, and the American “dupes” who helped Moscow subvert our way of life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using “terrorism” as the main threat, and “disinformation” as terrorism’s fellow traveller. The way the the SST committee put it, “terrorism” and “Kremlin disinformation” were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.

    And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee’s sights.

    Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold’s Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, “Dis-(Mis-?)Information”, Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness— a “disinformation expert” named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called “The Spike” — about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule the world.

    Here’s how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:

    “In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. ‘disinformation’ – the planting of false or misleading items in news media.
     
    “Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don’t know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don’t know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians.”

    Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the “Kremlin disinformation” conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn’t a Kremlin agent.

    Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another “Red Scare”, warning,

    “[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
     
    "…Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America’s news media, then anything must seem possible.”

    It’s a damn shame today’s editorial staff at Mother Jones aren’t aware of their own magazine’s history.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn’t care if you shoved their faces in their own recent history — they’re way too donor-deep invested in pushing this “active measures” conspiracy. Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.

    This is quite literally the case with Mother Jones, which has been a little coy about the deal it cut to “redouble” its “Russia reporting.” That deal involves partnering with a straight-up Red-baiting, Cold War-mongering website project called “PutinTrump” featuring a scary Soviet hammer and sickle in case the Cold War mongering wasn’t clear enough — with no mind to history and the fact that Russia is a neoliberal dystopia with a flat 13% income tax rate hailed as a “miracle” by the Heritage Foundation.

    PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can’t stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on — this?

    One would’ve thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they didn’t fear-monger enough, so they’re “redoubling” on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this — donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones’ editorial focus. And it really is this crude.

    Take for example a PutinTrump section titled “Russian Expansion” — the scary Red imagery and language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones’ donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism—a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to “stop” this alleged “expansionism” in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here’s what MJ’s partner writes now:

    RUSSIAN EXPANSION

     

    Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual expansionism committed by Putin.

     

    Might does not equal right—and it never has for Americans—but Putin’s Russia plays by different rules. Or maybe no rules at all.

    The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven’t noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude pr campaign to blame their candidate’s loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I’ve been smeared as “alt-left” by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan’s “Kremlin disinformation” hysteria — the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not.

    * * *

    What’s kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign — “Kremlin active measures”; “Kremlin disinformation”; “Kremlin dupes” — terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That’s what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it’s how this one will end up too.

    Today we’re supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that’s now how I remember it, it’s not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time — and it’s not how it looks when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s — defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals — was an “active measures” treason conspiracy.

    As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the next Woodward-Bernsteins — the cultural heroes at the time — got scared. The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University’s student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee’s assault on Mother Jones. The headline read:

    The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been…

    and the the full-page article begins,

    If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton’s new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you.

    It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees — only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.

    By the end of Reagan’s first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn’t subtle at all — such as the Republican Senate mailer accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:

    “To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not want to miss telling off today’s new McCarthyites.”

     

    So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones’ editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks — yesterday’s journalism stars, today’s traitors — as “Russia[’s]…willing dupes and propagandists” while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America’s spies peddling the same warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Jeremiah Denton — the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into Kremlin “disinformation” and its dupes like Mother Jones — believed that America was being weakened from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most dangerous threats to America’s survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger “global terrorism” plot masterminded by Moscow.

    To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a “Chastity Bill” funding federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs. A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything — Pauly Shore’s “Alabama Man” unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.

    Less funny were Denton’s calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting women’s right to abortion.

    Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America’s most famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps—two years longer than McCain—and he was America’s most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse code message: “T-O-R-T-U-R-E”.

    In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, “Operation Homecoming,” it was Denton who was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must’ve happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians — and they really want the rest of us to hate Russians too.

    Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis! Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover’s America — only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn’s futon, soaked in Bill Ayers’ bodily fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once — as sudden and as jarring as, well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last November.

    Sex, immorality & military defeat—these were inseparable in Denton’s mind, and in a lot of reactionaries’ minds. Attributing all of America’s social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities — then, as now.

    “No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their sexual appetites until marriage.” — Jeremiah Denton

    What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex. It’s hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans. It’s a hate wound that’s still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn’t look like it’ll burn out any time soon.

    Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.

    Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trumpism is Made In America—so Denton and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America’s values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!

    And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.

    A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins,

    “Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political ‘disinformation’—and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s, he warns, ‘we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington’s troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge.’”

    Sexual immorality—it’s a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years—whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton’s nightmares, or Trump’s supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . .

    To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators—Orrin Hatch, who’s still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986.

    Sen. East’s staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis — now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate’s “Russia disinformation” witch hunt. Funny how that works — today’s #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers — from the alt-Right’s guru, Samuel Francis.

    Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I’ll have to save John Rees for another post — he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer’s maxim that this world is run by demons.

    These were the people who first cooked up the “disinformation” panic. You can’t separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today’s panic-mongering over disinformation — you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture’s ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. I don’t think this is something as simple as hypocrisy — it’s actually quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn’t recognize and loathes and feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned into the Establishment culture’s DNA; it’s a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative, view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer “white working class” Americans feel threatened and panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics — Latinos and Muslims these days — a xenophobia that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale. The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who’s threatened and who’s doing the threatening…

    The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan’s plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled “dupes” of Kremlin “active measures” and “disinformation” conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton’s subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian “active measures” grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The “active measures” panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret “FBI terrorist photo album”.

    I’ll get to that “FBI Terrorist Photo Album” story later. There’s a lot of recent “Kremlin disinformation” history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.

    After Reagan’s inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history), Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: “disinformation” is terrorism:

    “When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda, disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.”

    Congratulations Mother Jones, you’ve come a long way, baby!

    Next post, I’ll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps and spooks who fed Denton’s committee.

  • Putin Hints JFK Was Murdered By The "Deep State" Which Is Now After Trump And Russia

    In Megyn Kelly’s much anticipated interview with Vladimir Putin for her debut episode of NBC’s “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly”, the Russian President said he never met Donald Trump during his business trips to Russia (including Trump’s 2013 visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant), stated that he was unaware of any proposal from Jared Kushner to set up an alleged “secret line” of communications between the Trump administration and the Russian government, and that it’s “nonsense” to say Russia has collected compromising material about Trump among many other topics covered in the 7 minute interview (see below).

    “I am not aware of such a proposal,” Putin said referring to Kushner’s alleged proposal. “No such proposal ever reached me.” Putin said many CEOs of major U.S. companies visit Russia and then asked rhetorically, “do you think we’re gathering dirt on all of them right now or something?” Putin asked, before saying: “Have you all lost your mind?”

    While previously the NYT and WaPo reported that Kushner discussed the idea of creating a secret channel to discuss the crisis in Syria, with Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak in December, the line was never established, according to a source cited by Bloomberg. A secret line with Russia – which H.R. McMaster said is a normal thing in diplomatic relations with international counterparties – could have allowed the Trump transition team and Russian officials to communicate outside of the scrutiny of the departing Obama administration. It’s become a centerpiece of the questions swirling around Trump and his campaign and possible ties to Russia.

    Putin also said that his nation had no channels of communication with the campaigns of either Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but that there may have been official contacts, which he called a “standard diplomatic practice.”

    * * *

    Putin also said he’d never met Trump, including during a visit by Trump to Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, and called the existence of a secret Russian dossier on Trump “just another piece of nonsense.”

    “There was no relationship whatsoever. Yes, he visited Moscow in his day. But, you know, I never met him,” Putin says, according to transcript.

    Putin also said that he’s not aware of any meetings between Kislyak and officials from the Trump campaign, and that he doesn’t talk to Russian ambassadors every day. He called the allegations “domestic political squabbles” and a line of attack against Trump.

    “Well, this is just another load of nonsense,” Putin said in response to a question about Kislyak meeting Trump campaign officials. “Because if there had been something meaningful, he would have made a report to the minister, and the minister would have made a report to me. There weren’t even any reports” the Russian president said cited by Bloomberg. And despite saying there had been no reports, Putin volunteered that “there was not even a specific discussion of sanctions or something else.” In a discussion moderated by Kelly on Friday, Putin said it was “nuts” to suggest the Trump administration had moved to ease economic sanctions on Russia.

    * * *

    Additionally, as previewed earlier in the day by Reuters, Putin also said that he barely interacted with Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, during a dinner in Moscow in 2015 when the pair were seated together. Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was paid $45,000 to speak at the anniversary gala for the Russia Today television network.

    “You and I personally have a much closer relationship than I had with Mr Flynn…. When I came to the event for our for our company, Russia Today, and sat down at the table, next to me there was a gentleman sitting on one side. I made my speech. Then we talked about some other stuff. And I got up and left… afterwards I was told, ‘You know there was an American gentleman, he was involved in some things. He used to be in the security services.’ ….That’s the extent of my acquaintance with Mr Flynn.” As a reminder, the payments Flynn received from RT, and his appearance next to Putin at the dinner, have been raised frequently amid speculation about his relationship with the Kremlin.

    Asked whether all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded Russia interfered with the election are lying, Putin said “they have been misled” and said he has not seen “any direct proof of Russia’s interference.”

    “What fingerprints or hoot-prints or horn-prints, what are you talking about,” he said. Putin even suggested that former President Barack Obama “started having doubts” when they spoke about it. The pair met on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Peru in November, weeks after Trump’s upset election win.

    The Russian president accused the U.S. of “actively interfering in electoral campaigns of other countries” while denying that Russia has any motive to do so. “Even if we wanted to, it wouldn’t make any sense for us to interfere,” Putin said.

    Meanwhile, Putin accused the US of doing precisely what Russia has been charged with doing in the US: “Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes,” he said, adding that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But, I repeat, we don’t even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change.”

    Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the “political direction” that the United States seems to be heading in. “It wouldn’t make sense for us to interfere,” he said.

    * * *

    But the most notable highlight of the interview was Putin’s tongue in cheek hint that the Deep State – the same entity that may have been behind the Kennedy assassination according to the Russian president – is now behind the attempt to topple Trump and the ongoing push to sour ties with Russia:

    “There is a theory that Kennedy’s assassination was arranged by the United States intelligence services. So if this theory is correct, and that can’t be ruled out, then what could be easier in this day and age than using all the technical means at the disposal of the intelligence services and using those means to organize some attacks, and then pointing the finger at Russia.”

    Full interview below.

  • Mission Accomplished? Civilian Casualties In Afghanistan Are Mounting

    A massive Truck bomb shook the center of Kabul, killing at least 80 and injuring up to 400 civilians on Wednesday. Attacks against civilians have been on the rise in recent years, causing more than 11,400 deaths and injuries in 2016, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).

    Infographic: Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan are Mounting | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    As Statista's Dyfed Loesche notes, the figure has almost doubled compared to 2009.

    This appalling conflict destroys lives and tears communities apart in every corner of Afghanistan. Real protection of civilians requires commitment and demonstrated concrete actions to protect civilians from harm and for parties to the conflict to ensure accountability for indiscriminate and deliberate acts of civilian harm.”

    -Tadamichi Yamamoto, United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan, Kabul, February 2017.

     

    Children have been killed, blinded, crippled – or inadvertently caused the death of their friends – while playing with unexploded ordnance that is negligently left behind by parties to the conflict. Women continue to be brutally punished in parallel so-called ‘justice’ processes while religious minorities are targeted as they pray in their mosques. The consequences of each act of violence ripple through families and entire communities that are left broken, unable to sustain themselves and largely failing to obtain any semblance of justice or reparation. After nearly 40 years of constantly evolving armed conflict in Afghanistan, a Daesh franchise has now surfaced as an additional, deadly component. It is about time the various parties to the conflict ceased the relentless commission of war crimes and thought about the harm they are doing to their mothers, fathers, children and future generations by continuing to fuel this senseless, never-ending conflict.”

    -Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, February 2017.

    Especially in conflicts like in Afghanistan, where the warring factions do not all wear uniforms, most notably the Taliban, it can be hard to make a clear distinction between civilians and non-civilian combatants.

  • Hillary Clinton's Deceptive Blame-Shifting

    Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Hillary Clinton has grown even more insistent that she was not at fault for her stunning election defeat last November, claiming that 1,000 Russian “agents” and their American collaborators were a decisive factor, a bizarre twist that further locks the Democrats into their evidence-light “Russia-gate” obsession.

    Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017.

    In comments at a California technology conference on Wednesday, Clinton also repeated one of her favorite falsehoods – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia hacked Democratic emails and ran a covert influence campaign against her.

    Referring to a report released by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on Jan. 6, Clinton asserted that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election. They did it through paid advertising we think; they did it through false news sites; they did it through these thousand agents; they did it through machine learning, which you know, kept spewing out this stuff over and over again. The algorithms that they developed. So that was the conclusion.”

    But Clinton’s statement is false regarding the unanimity of the 17 agencies and misleading regarding her other claims. Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.

    Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.

    Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

    And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”

    However, as any intelligence veteran will tell you, if you hand-pick the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion since the agency chiefs would know who was, say, a hardliner on Russia and who could be trusted to deliver the desired product.

    On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.

    “It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.

    In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”

    The Mysterious ‘Agents’

    But Clinton’s false claim about the intelligence consensus was not her only dubious assertion. Her reference to the 1,000 Russian “agents” is not contained in the Jan. 6 report, either. It apparently derived from unconfirmed speculation from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, who mentioned this claim at a news conference on March 30, admitting that he didn’t know if it was true.

    President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

    Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said:

    “We know about the hacking, and selective leaks, but what really concerns me as a former tech guy is at least some reports – and we’ve got to get to the bottom of this – that there were upwards of a thousand internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia, in effect taking over a series of computers which are then called botnets, that can then generate news down to specific areas.

     

    “It’s been reported to me, and we’ve got to find this out, whether they were able to affect specific areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, where you would not have been receiving off of whoever your vendor might have been, Trump versus Clinton, during the waning days of the election, but instead, ‘Clinton is sick’, or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”

    Of course, many stories about Clinton being sick or her taking money from special interests weren’t “fake news.” In late 2012, she suffered from a blood clot and – during the 2016 campaign – she was staggered by a bout of pneumonia. She also was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches to Wall Street and other groups.

    Warner didn’t specify where his information about the “trolls” came from but it paralleled a claim by freelance journalist Adam Chen who asserted in a podcast with Longform that Russian “trolls” began writing favorably about Trump in late 2015. (The CIA/FBI/NSA report also apparently alluded to the same report without mentioning the name of the journalist or specifying the number of alleged “trolls.”)

    “I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching,” Chen said, referring to a 2015 reporting project that he turned into a rather thinly sourced New York Times Magazine article accusing a Russian oligarch of funding a professional “troll” operation in St. Petersburg, Russia. “I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don’t know what’s going on, but they’re all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff.”

    Although such “troll” and “hacking” complaints are treated as a one-way street – coming only from the evil Russians – the reality is that U.S. intelligence agencies, their allies and U.S.-government-funded “non-governmental organizations” have mounted similar operations against Russia and other targets.

    It is always difficult to nail down precisely where such operations are originating, but the Russians have cited previous cases of malicious hacking aimed at senior officials, including Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, whose accounts were hacked in 2013 and 2014 including publication of a false resignation and a confession of wrongdoing.

    In 2015, the “Panama Papers,” a vast trove of documents purloined from a Panamanian law firm, became an investigative project that involved a USAID-funded news outlet and led to attacks on President Vladimir Putin for corruption even though his name did not appear in the documents.

    So, this high-tech spy-vs.-spy game – if that’s what it is – does not appear to be originating entirely from the Russian side of the street. But the U.S. intelligence community is not going to divulge what it knows about the attacks against Russia, only what it can “assess” about Russia’s possible attacks against Western targets.

    No Self-Criticism

    Neither, of course, are Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party eager to engage in a serious self-criticism about how they managed to blow an extremely winnable race against an extraordinarily flawed candidate in Donald Trump. Rather than look at their own missteps and misjudgments, they are presenting themselves as innocent victims.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

    In Wednesday’s interview – after misrepresenting what the Jan. 6 report actually said – Clinton suggested that the Trump campaign must have colluded with the Russians in “weaponizing” the data.

    “How did they know what messages to deliver?” Clinton asked. “Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, or colluding with? … [The Russians] were conveying this weaponized information and the content of it. … So the Russians — in my opinion and based on the intel and the counterintel people I’ve talked to — could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided. … Guided by Americans and guided by people who had polling and data information.”

    Although Clinton lacked any proof of this convoluted accusation, she cited as her “best example” the fact that “within one hour, one hour of the ‘Access Hollywood’ tapes being leaked [in which Trump was caught boasting about groping women], within one hour, the Russians — let’s say WikiLeaks, something — dumped the John Podesta emails.”

    However, if you changed the context of this claim slightly – and made a similar jump in logic – you would surely be labeled a nutty conspiracy theorist, but instead Clinton has drawn nods of agreement for this wholly unsubstantiated speculation.

    Yet, besides blaming the Russians and WikiLeaks for her loss, Clinton spread the blame even wider, for instance, to The New York Times for focusing too much on her decision to use a private email server while Secretary of State – “they covered it like it was Pearl Harbor” – and for the Times’ Nate Silver publishing optimistic odds on her chances for victory. “I also think I was the victim of a very broad assumption I was going to win,” she said.

    Clinton also placed blame on the Democratic National Committee for lacking money and sophisticated technology. “I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party,” she said. “I mean it was bankrupt; it was on the verge of insolvency; its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.”

    Yet, when Clinton was asked about some of her own “misjudgments,” she slipped back into the defensive posture that contributed to her troubles as a presidential candidate. For instance, regarding why she gave lucrative speeches to Goldman Sachs between her time leaving the State Department and announcing her White House run, she answered coyly, “They paid me.”

    When pressed on the point, Clinton retreated behind the sanctity of the 9/11 terror attack and the issue of women’s rights. Reminded that “you’re not somebody who needed that money for the next week’s shopping, and you knew you might run, so why do it?” – she responded:

    “The most common thing that I talked about in all those speeches was the hunt for Bin Laden. You know, that was one of the central missions that I felt from the time the towers fell on 9/11 as a Senator from New York.”

    Then, Clinton added, “you know, men got paid for the speeches they made. I got paid for the speeches I made. And it [the paid-speech issue] was used, and I thought it was unfairly used.”

    Blocking Witnesses

    So, while the Democrats dig themselves deeper into the so-far empty pit of blaming Russia for their electoral disaster, the Russia-gate investigation continues to take on other curious aspects, such as an unwillingness to hear from some of Donald Trump’s advisers who have been named in accusations and who have volunteered to testify publicly.

    Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

    On Wednesday, Carter Page, a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Russia, announced that his plans to defend himself in testimony next week before the House Intelligence Committee had been placed on hold by the Democrats.

    Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee and a major sparkplug powering the investigation, offered a curious denial of Page’s complaint while confirming the truth of it.

    The New York Times, which has been another advocate for blaming Russia, phrased the postponement of Page’s testimony as if Page were the unreasonable one, reporting:

    “Representative Adam Schiff … dismissed accusations from Carter Page, another Trump adviser who is under scrutiny, that the committee is preventing him from testifying. Mr. Schiff …. said the investigation would first review relevant documents before interviewing witnesses.”

    In other words, Page, who has been portrayed via intelligence leaks to the news media as essentially a traitor, won’t be given the opportunity to defend his reputation until Schiff and the other Democrats decide the time is ripe.

    Yet, it’s not as if the House Intelligence Committee has not taken public testimony about Russia-gate. For instance, former CIA Director Brennan was allowed to speak indirectly about Page and other possibly treasonous Americans amid media reports naming Page as one of those suspected Russian “agents.”

    Normal investigations grant the people under attack at least the opportunity to defend themselves and their reputations in a timely fashion, rather than make them live under the cloud of suspicion without having a chance to state their case.

    If their sworn testimony is later undermined by evidence developed by investigators, the witnesses can be called back and called out on possible perjury. So, it’s not as if Schiff and the other Democrats are surrendering prerogatives by letting Page testify now rather than later. Indeed, Page would be putting himself in legal jeopardy if he is caught lying.

    Even the Republican-driven “Benghazi investigation,” which also had the look of an over-the-top “witch hunt,” gave Secretary of State Clinton and other Obama administration officials multiple opportunities to explain their response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate.

    But, so far, a similar courtesy has not been extended to the targets of the Russia-gate investigation.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 4th June 2017

  • British Media Reporting London Bridge Attacks as 'Crude' Team of Lone Wolves

     

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

     

    Aren’t you glad to have that giant ocean between you and the nutjobs in Europe?

    Three men mowed people down and exited their clowncar on the London Bridge and began knifing people to death — screaming ‘this is for Allah” — and the British media is reporting this as a ‘team’ of lone wolves committing a rather crude, yet heinous, act of terror on the British people. The fellow in the beginning of this clip was rather impressed by the ‘rapid’ response by the British police, only taking 8 fucking minutes to arrive at the scene, where 6 people were murdered, 30 injured.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Multiculturalism is necessary, so that banks can issue credit cards and student loans. Anyone who views this attack as some sort of depraved Islamic orgy of human sacrifice isn’t seeing the profit opportunity of having these pavement apes man factory machinery and bankrupt themselves under a mountain of 35% yielding plastic card bank debt.

    Eyewitness accounts

    “3 men of Mediterranean colouring”

     

  • Gold and Silver Hated Now, Cryptocurrencies Loved. The Debate Rages Onward, and Here’s a Solution!

    by JS Kim, Founder of SmartKnowledgeU and skwealthacademy, this article was first posted at smartknowledgeu.com/blog on 1 June 2017.

     

    As most of you know, the rise of the cryptocurrency has dominated financial headlines as of late, compelling many to comment on bulletin boards and message boards that they will never buy physical gold or physical silver ever again, and that from now on, it’s cryptocurrencies or bust! Given Bitcoin and Ether’s recent parabolic rise, strictly from a price standpoint, physical gold makes more sense as a a purchase at this current time than Bitcoin or Ether, though certainly given performance and the benefit of hindsight, buying Bitcoin and Ether at the start of the year made more sense than buying gold. But again this statement is only valid given the two entirely different purposes of buying gold and cryptocurrencies. And technically speaking, Ether, or Ethereum is not a cryptocurrency, but rather a token that user receive users for using their computing power to validate transactions and for helping pay for the development of the Ethereum network. As I will explain later in this article, even despite the massive parabolic rise in the price of BTC, if one were seeking to fulfill the very specific purpose that purchasing physical gold achieves in a wealth preservation plan, then purchasing gold over cryptocurrencies at the start of the year still would have made sense for a lot of people.

     

    Those that have truly followed me this year, and not just read the occasional article I write about precious metals that is posted on ZeroHedge every several months, know that I have warned of big dips in spot gold and spot silver prices and advocated shorting paper gold and paper silver several times already this year, right before significant price dips materialized, as a means to protect oneself against banker price manipulations of spot PM prices. However, the current time is not one of them, as I believe the prices for both physical gold ($1258) and physical silver ($17.28) are solid long-term buys right now. However, this doesn’t mean there won’t be interim volatility in price, as in today’s Central Banker asset price-distorted world, volatility has become the norm, not the exception. For those that want to follow my opinion about PMs, you can do so on my Snapchat skwealthacademy channel, where I post snaps nearly every day, and very often discuss the state of PMs and to a lesser extent, cryptocurrencies.

     

    Although many in the gold community do not like cryptocurrencies because they conveniently fit into the global banking cartel end goal of pushing society into wide acceptance of a 100% digital currencies, at this point, no one knows whether Bitcoin is part of the global banking cartel’s plan to take the world into 100% digital currency, including yours truly. Way back in 2012, I wrote that the banking cartel’s end game was clearly to gain control over every citizen’s financial life by eradicating the world of all paper currency and pushing wide acceptance of a 100% digital currency . It is of my opinion, that there is a possibility that bankers are behind either the development and/or marketing of Bitcoin, as acceptance of Bitcoin will help drive acceptance of the bankers’ end game of 100% eradication of paper money and 100% acceptance of digital currency across the world. I believe that my opinion is firmly in the minority, and many cryptocurrency supporters contend that there is zero possibility that Bitcoin was part of a banking project (by the way, if you keep reading, you will see that I discovered a new cryptocurrency I am backing for the long-term). However, in this debate, the only definitive conclusion that can be drawn is the following: without knowing the identity of the group of people known as Satoshi Nakamoto, no one can end this debate, so both sides of the debate at this point are based not on evidence, but pure speculation. The key to knowing which opinion is correct is unveiling the identity of Satoshi Nakaomoto beyond a shadow of a doubt, and is this is still an unknown today. Thus, one side cannot say “my lack of evidence supports my opinion more so than your lack of evidence”, which unfortunately, has evolved (or more appropriately “devolved”) into an argument that many people today utilize, and strongly believe, is perfectly valid, when in reality, such an argument is based entirely on emotion, irrationality and a lack of critical thought.

     

    When one of my friends noticed that I was working on a piece about the cryptocurrency versus gold debate, he asked me, “Are you sure you want to publish that article and take on the crytpocurrency advocates, as they will heap scorn on you for doubting the anti-banking cartel nature of cryptocurrencies? That’s like trying to convince a hardcore vegan that eating meat is not evil. That takes a lot of courage.” To that, I replied, “First of all, I’m not belittling cryptocurrency advocates, because if you read the article after I publish it, you will see that I recently became aware of a brand-new crytprocurrency that I support. Secondly, it doesn’t take courage to express logical views, as that is all I am doing. Thirdly, I am not stating that Bitcoin advocates that believe BTC is independent of the global banking cartel are wrong. I am merely expressing reservations because no one has any evidence that is conclusive on either side of the debate. The flip side of that statement is that they may be right as well. To me it seems harmless to point out an indisputable fact, which is that hard conclusions should never be drawn from a lack of evidence, but this is routinely done.” I continued, “I know that people hate to deal with uncertainties, and will do anything to rid themselves of that uncertainty, which leads to many wrong conclusions. This is a fact propelled by many psychology studies, so when I point this out, I am again, just pointing out a fact. Just look at how financial markets deal with uncertainty. They don’t like it all. But that does not mean, because uncertainty exists, that one should make conclusions out of thin air to explain that uncertainty to get rid of it. To me, that is totally irrational. Yet the mainstream financial media does this on a daily basis with their headlines, To make my point, just go to YouTube and search for a topic called “demon magicians”, in which people claim that amazing magicians have sold their souls to the devil for powers to manipulate solid objects instantly into different states of matter, simply because they don’t know the tricks executed by these magicians to pull off their amazing illusions. I mean, there is a whole segment of people on YouTube that actually believe magicians are given powers by the devil, simply because of their desire to provide a certain explanation to a topic about which they are uncertain and can find zero evidence to explain the uncertainty. As mad as this sounds, this kind of irrationality persists in the financial world to, in mainstream financial media, to explain uncertain things whereby correlation for financial events are wrongly announced to the world as causation on a daily basis.”

     

    It may be true that the global banking cartel’s iteration of their 100% digital currency will differ substantially from the cryptocurrencies of today, and that they were never involved in the development of BTC and other early-stage cryptocurrencies on the horizon, as even JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon publicly derided cryptocurrencies as fads that will not survive. In this article, Dimon stated, “No government will ever support a virtual currency that goes around borders and doesn’t have the same controls [as fiat currency]. It’s not going to happen”, convincing many that this was proof that the global banking cartel had no hand in the development of early crytpocurrencies like BTC, and that a definitive fork exists between early stage cryptocurrencies, outside-the-control of the global banking cartel, and other later-stage, ongoing developments of cryptocurrencies, under the auspices of the global banking cartel. However, one must be aware that bankers rarely ever tell the truth, and the same people that often deride 99% of Jamie Dimon’s statements will point to this particular Dimon statement as “proof” that early cryptocurrencies are independent of the global banking cartel.

     

    For sure, there is a massive difference between “speculation” and “proof” and any statement uttered by Jamie Dimon lands squarely on the side of speculation and not fact, because as we well know, Alan Blinder, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and Princeton University economist, infamously stated on a 1994 PBS television program, “The last duty of a Central Banker is to tell the public the truth.” For example, eight-months prior to Dimon’s issuance of that statement, Dimon already was building close connections to blockchain technology when JP Morgan executive Blythe Masters left his firm to head up Digital Assets Holdings, LLC, a blockchain development company that is currently working on blockchain technology for use in the Australian stock exchange. Furthermore, earlier this year, Dimon revealed that JP Morgan had built an Ethereum Alliance with other global banks and corporations to wield more influence over blockchain implementation and acceptance, an alliance that obviously was years in the planning. Understanding that JP Morgan was privately deeply involved in blockchain development at the same time their CEO was publicly deriding cryptocurrencies like BTC obviously exposes the disingenuous nature of Dimon’s comments, and furthermore, still does not discredit the possibility that a member of the global banking cartel had a hand in the development of BTC.

     

    Dimon’s statement, once we know the dishonesty of it, could lead to an infinite number of interpretations. It could mean that BTC is a virtual currency outside the global banking system and that’s why Dimon derided it, because JP Morgan will only support a virtual currency that he controls. It could be controlled opposition, whereby JP Morgan bankers have secretly had a hand in the development and acceptance of BTC despite their publicly stated opposition, a ploy meant to throw people off the trail of their plan to financially subjugate humanity further as they push through acceptance of 100% digital currencies. Recall that when the Morgans, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, etc. tried to establish another Central Bank in the United States after the charter of the First Bank (1791-1811) and Second Bank (1861-1836) of the United States was revoked, they initially failed, because 100 years ago, Americans were properly educated to understand that the establishment of a Central Bank was meant to enslave them. So what did the banking cartel do in response? By the Congressional record documented of US Congressman and Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee Louis McFadden’s speeches, delivered on the floor of Congress in the 1930s, we know that, at first, bankers tried to fool Congress into voting for a bill to establish a Central Bank by lying to Congress about overwhelming public support that existed for a Central Bank, that was in fact, generally mild and tepid at best. McFadden stated, “It has been said that the draughts man who was employed to write the text of the Aldrich bill because that had been drawn up by lawyers, by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York. It was a copy, in general a translation of the statues of the Reichsbank and other European central banks. One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for it and the kind of currency that goes with it.”


    Paul M. Warburg, who represented the Rothschild bankers, and whom many claim as the key figure in bringing the US Federal Reserve into existence, shed additional light into the banking cartel’s propaganda campaign in his deliverance of a speech to the New York YMCA on 23 March, 1910, in which he insisted that a national reserve bank would not be “controlled by Wall Street or any monopolistic interest”, explaining that the words “Central Bank” should be avoided, as he was not proposing a monopolistic Central Bank, but rather a decentralized national bank with 4 regional reserve banks, even though this was a complete lie and power was centralized in the New York Federal Reserve branch, after the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, as it still is today. Bankers presented the exact same, monopolistic centralized bank a second time to US Congress, this time posing as a decentralized “federal” bank on the side of the people as opposed to a Central Bank that would work against the people’s best interests, and with this fake narrative, US Congress voted it into existence. This was the use of controlled opposition at its best, publicly pretending to be on the side of the people while privately working against the people’s best interests. Since bankers have a history of such deviant acts of convincing the public to support financial instruments that they would then later us to control humanity, to dismiss the possibility that they could be using cryptocurrencies in the same manner would be reckless. Thirdly, there is a possibility that global banks other than JP Morgan had a hand in developing BTC, thus compelling Dimon to denigrate BTC in favor of the digital currency that JP Morgan will eventually back. Again, all the above are possibilities, the validity of all unknown, none provable, no one possibility stronger than any other, and none ably dismissed.

     

    No matter which of the above possibilities are true, the rise of cryptocurrencies are rapidly spreading acceptance of the global banking cartel’s push to create a world without any paper money and with only 100% digital money. There is, by no means, a clean a divide between the PM and cryptocurrency communities as agitators try to delineate, as there are also many in the PM community that hold both PMs and cryptocurrencies. Up to this point in this article, I have merely relayed my opinion and relayed the possibilities behind the origins of BTC, but I will explain later in this article, why my belief and the numerous possibilities I presented above may very well be irrelevant in the debate about the future of cryptocurrencies. In today’s world, we allow others to manipulate us like a herd of cattle into taking divisive, opposition sides, both sides often based on zero evidence, as we live in a world where the financiers of every nation have made it unacceptable for us not to take a side and to simply admit facts, that some things remain unknown. Today, a lot of anger is fomented seemingly on every topic, whether religion, politics or finance, often successfully conjured up even amidst a complete absence of evidence and facts. In any event, I thought it would be an illuminating exercise to sift through the comment section of a recent ZeroHedge bitcoin article, simply because it may be a useful discourse to provide a little bit of clarity to some misunderstandings and anger (that should not exist) about the ongoing raging PM versus Bitcoin debate. I am going to paraphrase the most popular comments below.

     

    FIVE FALSE DIVISIONS BETWEEN GOLD AND CRYPTOCURRENCY COMMUNITIES


    (1) One Has to Choose Between Gold and Cryptopcurrencies

    This opinion is definitely not true, as I know plenty of people that own both cryptocurrencies and gold and this divide should not exist. As long as one recognizes that the purchase of gold and the purchase of cryptocurrencies serve very different purposes, one can buy both to fill these two very different goals. Despite the belief of many that prices of cryptocurrencies are out of the control of the bankers, but the price of gold is not, and this is a critical factor that separates cryptocurrencies from gold, this belief is only partially true. Paper gold trading is in control of the bankers. Physical gold trading is not. This is why, in parts of the world plagued by financial instability, premiums for physical gold will soar enormously higher than the artificially banker-set paper/digital price of gold. For example, the price of BTC, due to a recent feeding frenzy in Korea recently soared above USD$3,000. However, even though speculators foolish enough to chase BTC and pay $3,000 per BTC in South Korea existed, I snapchatted screenshots of BTC dealers in South Korea during this buying frenzy on my Snapchat channel that illustrated decent supply of BTCs in South Korea at just a slight premium over Western market prices, so the $3,000 BTC purchases that hit the market in South Korea were executed by people that did not shop around on various exchanges for a much better price that was clearly available.

     

    An analogous situation was recently observed in the physical gold market as well. When PM Narendra Modi initially banned the 500 and 1000 rupee note in India, the price of physical gold soared well over $2,000 an ounce in India, with some unconfirmed reports of gold hitting prices of more than $3,000 an ounce in Indian black markets. Did people that payed $2,500 or $3,000 an ounce for physical gold have to spend this amount? Certainly not, and these prices only hit because people panic bought during a buying frenzy instigated by rupee uncertainty and the Indian Prime Minister’s attempt to demonetize gold. At the time of the physical gold buying frenzy, the spot price of gold was roughly $1,220. However, this incident illustrated that during a fiat currency crisis, bankers can continue to control and suppress paper/digital gold prices, but they have no control over suppressing soaring physical gold prices caused by high physical demand and tight supply during a financial crisis. In any event, if one wants to purchase both, one should understand, from the hugely different levels of volatility in gold prices versus cryptocurrency prices, that gold should be purchased to preserve purchasing power over time, while cryptocurrencies should be purchased for highly speculative returns Again, two different currencies serve two entirely different purposes.

     


    (2) I Made a Ton of Money on Cryptocurrencies, But Have Lost a Ton on Gold, So I’m Never Buying Gold Again!

    This statement is all about timing, as if anyone buys at a short-term buying frenzy during a long bull market, then one has a much greater chance of sitting on losses a few years later. However, timing on buying gold was not particularly difficult during this current bull run of 17 years now and here are indisputable facts to back up this statement. If one purchased gold at the start of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2016, one would have ended the year in the black every single one of those years. Furthermore, during the past 17 years, including this one, if one purchased gold at the very beginning of the year in 14 of the past 17 years, one would still be profitable at today’s price, and extremely profitable if one had purchased physical gold in the early portion of this timeline. The reasons that made gold a strong purchase during 2001 are the exact same reasons that make gold a strong purchase today, so for someone that understood the real reasons to buy gold versus chasing a speculative rise, one was much more likely to have bought and hold physical gold during the early years of this cycle and added more on every severe dip, thus still maintaining a nice average buy-in price over this time frame.

     

    Even though gold is volatile, it hasn’t been difficult, despite contrary belief, to manage the volatility when buying physical gold for the past 17 years, and the timing of when to buy physical gold has not been particularly difficult to ensure a profit over this time period as well, as only buying at the start of 3 of the past 17 years would have resulted in losses by the end of the year, and only buying at the start of 3 of the past 17 years are still yielding losses at the present time. And unless you purchased gold during the worst 28-months out of a nearly 200-month timeline, most likely you are heavily in the black right now or about to be back in the black again. Likewise, if anyone chased Bitcoin in South Korea and bought it at an absolute short-term peak at USD$3,000, as some have, then there is no one to blame but themselves when they were sitting on an almost immediate 36% loss just a couple of days later. While certainly, in hindsight, it may have been easier to buy Bitcoin at nearly any point on its bullish timeline, versus gold, and still be profitable today, no one should expect parabolic price rises to be the norm for Bitcoin, and prices will likely remain very volatile until they stabilize in the future.

     


    (3) I Don’t Want to Carry Gold Around. There’s No Digital Gold, and Digital Currencies Are a Ton More Convenient to Use than Gold.

    Most forms of paper gold, including gold futures contracts, ARE digital gold, so digital gold definitely exists right now, but the only problem is that no one wants the current form of digital gold (except for the most recently introduced form of 100% physical backed digital gold recently introduced last week that I discuss at the end of this article). When bankers trade gold futures contracts using HFT algorithms, their entered trades are being executed through high-speed fiber optic cable that minimize latency times to less than one millisecond. Certainly, real physical gold is never trading hands during these times, and in fact, outside of Shanghai and Hong Kong markets, gold derivative produces almost never settle in real physical gold. So bankers that trade the paper gold futures markets in London and New York are constantly trading 100% digital gold. It they were not, there would be no infrastructure that would allow them to dump $1 billion, $2 billion, or more, of notional gold in the form of gold futures contracts in a matter of minutes to suppress price. They are dumping, in essence, digital gold backed by air. As I stated above, there are some instances when gold futures contracts are asked to settle in physical, but outside of Shanghai and Hong Kong, the percentages of gold futures contracts that settle in physical are miniscule compared to the percentages that settle in fiat. However, no one that truly understands the reasons for buying physical gold would ever buy digital gold that wasn’t backed 100% by physical gold, as is the case in New York and London gold futures markets. Thus unlike with digital currencies, the reverse alchemy, physical into computer digits, demonetization-of-gold scheme executed by bankers in London and New York is a massive problem, and not a benefit. However, there is a way to fix this, as I will explain in the solution below. Lastly, if you purchase physical gold today, there is no need to carry it around as you can easily store it in vaults that have been vetted and are outside of the global banking system.

     

    (4) No One Hates Bitcoins More than Goldbugs!

    In the short-term, cryptocurrencies may or may not have peaked. No one knows for certain, so any guess to its peak price is pure speculation. Bitcoin may have peaked for the short-term at $3,000 in Asia in South Korea recently. My guess is that in the west, BTC prices have not yet peaked. Despite the opinion of some (notice I said some, not all, as “some” is a fact, and “all” is not) cryptocurrency owners that believe gold owners are jealous of their profits and hate cryptocurrency owners solely due to the profits reaped, this voiced antagonism should not only not exist, but it doesn’t even make sense, if indeed, the claim that Bitcoin is out of the control of the banking cartel is true. If cryptocurrencies like BTC are actually helping to free humanity from the control of bankers, and will stop the massive transference of wealth from the 99.9% to the 0.1% that has been happening over the past several decades, then people that own physical gold, and people that own cryptocurrencies, are clearly on the same side of this battle. Thus, even though I have voiced skepticism about the origins of Bitcoin being completely independent of the global banking cartel, if I am proven to be wrong in the future, and the continued existence of Bitcoin 10 years from now will prove me wrong, then I will gladly become the biggest advocate for BTC on planet Earth as any currency that is outside of the global banking cartel’s control should be unilaterally supported by anyone that values freedom. However, because I have some questions at this point that I think are tangible and valid, such a cautious approach shouldn’t make me the enemy of Bitcoin owners and it definitely doesn’t mean that I am not happy for those that made a ton of money on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to date.

     

    In fact, to the contrary, I am extremely happy for people that have made a lot of money on cryptocurrencies up to this point if they are on the side of humanity that wants to establish a sound monetary system and eradicate our current unsound debt-based monetary system. If this faction of cryptocurrency owners is authentic as I believe them to be, then this only means that gold owners have a strong coalition of people, now with significantly more resources to fight the global banking system and to fight to establish a new monetary system. The doubt or belief of BTC as being independent of the global banking system is entirely irrelevant to this point. Any gold owner that hates cryptocurrency owners solely for the large profits that they have potentially made at this point or any cryptocurrency owner that hated on gold owners when gold soared from $250 to near $2,000 an ounce is simply wasting a whole lot of energy on hate, and the expression of such hate is more a reflection on the hater’s insecurity issues, as such expressed hatred and jealousy impedes the monetary freedom movement. If we truly want to achieve the same goal, and I think most cryptocurrency and gold owners do (again, most, but not all), then anyone that engages in deliberate divisiveness is executing the bankers’ divide and conquer strategy for them, and should be completely expelled from the monetary freedom coalition, as they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. And as far as a solution that can tie the existing differences of gold and cryptocurrency owners together and solve the concerns I have with cryptocurrencies at the current time, I propose one below, so please keep reading. In any event, owners of gold and cryptocurrencies should be on the same side, and if we allow the financiers of nations to manipulate us into divisiveness, we are merely falling victim to a learned helplessness role of willing captor to our captives.

     

    (5) Gold Will Never Appreciate at the Rate Cryptocurrencies Appreciate, So No Thank You to Any Physical Gold Ownership

    Regarding the statement that gold will never match the appreciation rate of some cryptocurrencies, an owner of Monero commented that he has made 120,000% gains thus far, meaning that he must have bought Monero at inception at $0.034762697752, which translates into a 120,000% gain at its current price of $41.75. Kudos to this person! And he is correct in that gold will likely never appreciate 120,000% because this means that from its initial starting price of this current bull market of about $250, gold would have to rise to $30,250 per troy ounce to equal this person’s 120,000% gain on Monero. In the absence of a hyperinflationary environment, I don’t see gold going to this price. But who knows, I could be wrong, and maybe gold will appreciate this much in price. Again, this is an unknown, and as many of you that have followed me for years already well know, I’ve always stated to absolutely disregard all “Gold to $10,000” predictions that pop up every year, as devoting any brainpower to analyzing unknowable timing predictions such as these is not only a complete waste of energy, but also a complete waste of time. However, exploration of this concept allows me to reinforce an earlier, very important point between the massively different purposes between buying gold and buying cryptocurrencies. People that own gold and are hardcore gold believers buy gold because of its ability to preserve purchasing power over not just 10 years or 20 years, but also over hundreds of years, over their lifespan and over the lifespan of their children. Cryptocurrencies are way too young and in some sense, still in an embryonic stage, so there is no way that cryptocurrencies are, at the current time, able to make the same claim of purchasing power preservation.

     

    In my opinion, of all the qualities sound money should have, the preservation of purchasing power over lengthy periods of time is the most critical quality to possess, and since cryptocurrencies are too young to prove up this quality, they cannot, in my opinion, be considered sound money at this point in their business cycle, as they are obviously in the rapid growth segment of the cycle. In fact, for those that stay away from gold because its price is too volatile, Bitcoin’s price has been far more volatile than gold’s price since Bitcoin came into existence. In fact, gold’s quintupling of price over 17 years is generally considered peanuts to cryptocurrency investors. Consequently, people that buy gold buy it to preserve their wealth over time, and not to make rapid spectacular gains. This is a completely different reason than the reason why people buy cryptocurrencies. There may come a time many years from now, when cryptocurrencies prove themselves to be a store of purchasing power over time, and if that time comes, I will move cryptocurrencies out of the speculative growth category, but not before then. So, while massive gains are much more likely in cryptocurrencies than gold, the opposite is true as well. Massive losses in cryptocurrencies, until they move out of their growth stage and find more price stability, are much more likely to occur than in gold, as well.

     

    THREE CONCLUSIONS


    (1) At the Current Time, NEITHER Cryptocurrencies or Gold are Fully Outside the Manipulative Powers of the Global Banking Cartel

    Although many cryptocurrency owners claim that cryptocurrencies are “free money” while fiat currencies are the money of “slaves”, the very fact that cryptocurrencies are denominated in fiat currency prices means that they are still not independent of the global banking cartel. Bankers have ensured that all cryptocurrencies are denominated in THEIR form of debt-money for the very same reason that bankers have ensured that gold is as well. As long as the price of an asset is denominated in a form of debt-money, the asset can never truly serve the purpose of being the money of a free man or free woman, because this link necessitates the conversion into debt-based slave-money for use, and keeps humanity dependent upon debt-based slave money. Even if we don’t convert cryptocurrencies into fiat currencies and pay for merchandise directly in BTCs, as long as the price of BTCs remains denominated in a form of debt-based slave money, it cannot escape the intimate link to the global banking cartel’s monetary system.

     

    As an example of why tying the price of an asset to fiat currencies grants bankers the ultimate control over that asset, let me use the stock market in Zimbabwe in 2006 and 2007 to illustrate my point. The Zimbabwe Industrial Index, for a rolling period of time slightly more than a year, in 2006-2007, gained 7,990%, a prolific increase that caused many to proclaim the Zimbabwe stock markets as the “best performing” stock market of that time period, though it was clearly the worst performing stock market for the following reasons. The 7,990% gain was denominated in hyperinflating Zimbabwe dollars, which rendered a 8,000% or even an 80,000% gain worthless during this time period, as monthly inflation peaked in Zimbabwe at 79,600,000,000% a year later. In other words the Zimbabwe dollar was losing valuation and purchasing power at a much faster clip than the stock gains were accumulating, so all of the stock gains were quickly rendered worthless as the gains could not be spent before they were devalued. However, if the 7,990% gains were instead denominated in gold weight, then no amount of Zimbabwe dollar devaluation could have prevented this increase from producing a massive gain in real wealth. Of course, US dollars are not hyperinflating at the current time, so why make such a comparison? I’m not making so much as a comparison as I am making a point. If the currency in which an asset is priced fails, then the asset will fail too, thereby unfortunately still granting bankers ultimate control over the fate of the asset. In response, some will argue that if dollars or Euros fail, and cryptocurrencies subsequently fail, then won’t gold ultimately fail as well? On the surface, this seems like a logical argument, but I will reveal below, why in such a situation, gold will be king of the monetary pile.

     

    (2) Price is NOT the Same as Value

    Today, many business school graduates still confuse the concepts of value and price in the world of finance. I have uploaded many vlogs on my YouTube channel that explain why the value of gold and silver is its weight and not its price. Does it make sense to claim the value of real money like physical gold is its price, a unit of measurement that is denominated in unsound immoral, fiat currencies like Euros or dollars? Of course not! The real value of gold, as its weight, is always constant. In other words, the value of gold is constant everywhere in the world, as 10g of gold in Libya equals 10g of gold in Canada equals 10g of gold in Brazil equals 10g of gold in Uruguay equals 10g of gold in Romania. The price of gold changes all the time, but the value of gold does not change simply because bankers price gold in their deteriorating and devaluing fiat currencies. Price is an immensely different concept than value when it comes to the world of PMs, though bankers like to fool us and interchangeably use these two terms in the financial media to confuse us into believing they are the same. Now some will counter by stating that they can cash out their Bitcoins and buy gold with it anytime they like, but if so, then are these people valuing cryptocurrencies in terms of how much gold it can buy? For the very same reasons it makes no sense to value gold in an illegitimate, debt-based currency, it also makes no sense to value cryptocurrencies in illegitimate, debt-based currencies. So what is the value of Bitcoin and other cryptos? If we try to apply the above analogy to cryptocurrencies and reject the fact that the value of cryptocurrencies is its unit of measurement, since this unit of measurement is not tangible, it doesn’t translate as well as it does for gold. For example, if we say the value of Bitcoins should be measured by its amount of Satoshis, and not its dollar, won, or Euro price, what does this really mean?

     

    Of course, some claim that the value of cryptocurrencies is its store of wealth. However, as I explained above, perhaps after 50 more years, this claim can be made, but this claim cannot seriously be considered at the current time given the infancy of cryptocurrencies. Therefore, I would state, that at the current time, the only way to measure a cryptocurrencies value is by its price, as we can’t measure it by their digital bytes, and in the case of hyperinflation, the value of cryptocurrencies will be severely debased, no matter the gain in underlying fiat currencies (see the Zimbabwe Industrial Index explanation above). However, since the value of gold is its weight, the weight of 10 ounces of gold will still remain 10 ounces of gold even if the price collapses through hyperinflation. Hyperinflation and currency collapse will always give rise to a new currency, so owners of gold, in such an event, would just hold gold until a new currency was born, and the price of their ounces would be re-established. I argue that the case for the valuation of cryptocurrencies during and after a hyperinflationary event would not be so clear. Of course, we are speaking of a worst-case scenario here, but a case study of fiat currencies have demonstrated that they always revert to their intrinsic value of zero over time, so who’s to say that event won’t happen in our lifetime?

     

    (3) All Comparisons of the Price of 1 BTC to 1 Troy Ounce of Gold are Completely Baseless and Without Merit

    I never understood why financial journalists ran numerous articles that always compared the price of 1 BTC to 1 troy ounce of gold, yielding headlines like “Bitcoin now exceeds gold in price” when the price of 1 BTC overtook the price of 1 troy ounce of gold. One troy ounce, or 31.1035 grams, the unit of measurement of gold, is a unit of weight. Unless one Bitcoin, the unit of measurement for BTC, is also a unit of weight, then comparing the price of one unit of weight of gold to the price of one unit of Bitcoin is an impossible comparison that makes zero sense, no matter how much the mainstream financial media wants to sell us this comparison as a valid one. Making such a comparison is totally random, and is literally as absurd as comparing the price of 1 barrel of oil to the price of a 1/2 carat ruby and saying that rubies are a much better investment that oil because 1/2 carat of rubies exceeds the price of one barrel of oil. It’s absurd as comparing the price of a 212kg Japanese bluefin tuna that sold for more than $3,100 per kg in Tokyo at the start of this year and stating that the tuna was more valuable than an untitled Basquiat painting whose last auctioned price was $19,000 at the start of this year, simply because the Basquiat painting was worth less than $3,000 per kg (by the way, that painting just sold last month for $110M). You can’t compare the price of one Bitcoin to ounce of gold as people always do anymore than you can compare the Basquiat painting to a bluefin tuna because fine art is not measured by its weight. Even if there was a way to weigh 100M Satoshis, the unit of measurement for one Bitcoin, because the unit of measurement for BTC is not a weight, this still would not be a valid comparison. Therefore, comparing 500M Satoshis to 1,000 ounces of gold, 1B Satoshis to 1M troy ounces of gold, 100,000 Satoshis to 50,000 pineapples, or 1M Satoshis to 50,000 cubic metres of air has as much validity as comparing the price of 100M Satoshis, or 1 BTC, to 1 troy ounce of gold.

     

    ONE SOLUTION


    Tie Cryptocurrencies to a Finite Amount of Gold Backing, and We Have the Best of Both Worlds

     

    Bankers have pursued control of the blockchain as their identified most valuable part of the cryptocurrency market. This is precisely why JP Morgan executive Blythe Masters left JP Morgan to work for Digital Asset Holdings, a distributed ledger, or blockchain, development firm. In fact, control of the blockhain, the distributed ledger technology invented by Satoshi Nakaomoto, makes all my speculation about BTC perhaps not being completely independent from the global banking system completely irrelevant. JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and every large global bank all realize this as well as all have heavily invested in blockchain development companies. It’s like the war that developed between HD DVD optical disks and blurays when higher resolution movies entered the market. Both formats delivered crystal clear clarity using similar technology but in the end, blurays survived and HD DVD optical disks went the way of the dinosaur. Control of the blockchain technology will have the same relevance to survival or extinction in the cryptocurrency market. I believe that whoever controls the blockchain technology that is universally implemented worldwide will control which cryptocurrencies survive and which ones die. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, and Blythe Masters, have already made it clear that they 100% believe that control of the blockchain technology that is implemented worldwide by the global banking cartel is the key to controlling the fate of all cryptocurrencies.

     

    If the global banking cartel does not control BTC, then I have no doubt they will try to crush BTC as they only will allow their digital currencies to survive. If they however also control BTC, then BTC will not only survive, but it will flourish. All it would take for the global banking cartel to eradicate any cryptocurrency they don’t like is to make that cryptocurrency illegal. This may not be able to prevent declared “illegal” cryptocurrencies from trading, just as bankers’ declaration that physical gold and physical silver are “illegal” currencies have not halted gold and silver trading, but certainly such declarations will kill the utility of that currency. Though people may wonder why I say bankers have declared gold and silver illegal currencies while national mints in many nations continue to print and circulate gold and silver coins, have you ever tried to spend a gold or silver coin at its relevant price in a store? Since physical gold and silver are not as widely accepted worldwide as are fiat currencies, for all intents and purposes, bankers have rendered them illegal currencies.

     

    Once the global banking cartel gains control and is able to implement their preferred blockchain, then they can set the rules for all digital currencies, and it’s game over, but for one joker card. I know the inherent decentralization nature of blockchains ensures that no one can really gain direct control of them. However, leave it up to lawyers to invent and impose regulations that apply to blockchains, and regulations will be invented in the futre that effectively will give bankers control over blockchains through indirect control (regulations). Furthermore, last year, problems with the DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) for venture capital funding revealed how problems can arise with decentralized systems even when blockchains are secure. Shortly after the launch of the DAO in April 2016, someone was able to exploit a vulnerability in the DAO’s code and steal $50 million of cryptocurrency, a full third of the $150M raised through crowdfunding, though apparently he, or she, was only able to eventually withdraw a miniscule amount of the stolen cryptocurrency. But certainly, the incident with the DAO raises issue about other aspects of the distribution chain outside of the blockchain that may remain exploitable.

     

    That said, what is the joker card? To me, the joker card is the marriage of sound money with intrinsic value, like gold, to blockchain technology to form a completely new and different class of cryptocurrency. I want to end this discussion by asking all of you to consider this solution. I’ve heard many owners of both cryptocurrencies and gold admit that cryptocurrencies are a speculation at this point, and that in order to preserve their gains and turn cryptocurrencies into a store of wealth, they will sell cryptocurrencies for fiat currencies during their parabolic rises and consequently use fiat currencies to buy physical gold and hold it when price pullbacks and uncertainty plague cryptocurrencies. Then, when they believe these cryptocurrency pullbacks are ending, they will convert their physical gold back into fiat currencies and use fiat currencies to repurchase cryptocurrencies in hopes of capitalizing on another parabolic rise. And if the cryptocurrencies rise rapidly again, they repeat this process. In the end, however, this process always requires reverting back to holding debt-based fiat currencies at some point, even if for just brief periods of time, which ultimately makes holders of PMs and cryptocurrencies still beholden to the power of global bankers. However, as I stated above, what if there were a cryptocurrency backed by a finite weight of gold instead of a finite amount of digital bytes or satoshis, and the value of this cryptocurrency was not denominated by a fiat currency price whose purchasing power is perpetually destroyed by bankers, but by a weight of gold? Then there would be no need to constantly exchange cryptocurrencies into gold and vice versa!

     

    If such a gold-backed cryptocurrency became popular and was widely accepted, then this would obviate the need to ever convert the cryptocurrency into any debt-based fiat currency, solving two problems at once. The only reason to convert gold or cryptocurrencies into debt-based fiat currencies is to buy goods and services that don’t accept cryptocurrencies for payment, or due to worry of the volatility quickly debasing the price of the cryptocurrency after a volatile rise (i.e, its purchasing power). Combining the two solves all problems simultaneously. Such a physical gold-backed cryptocurrency that relies on blockchain technology could also be used to eradicate the current artificial banking valuation of gold to a fiat currency price and help to re-establish the true value of gold back to weight only, as spending of the cryptocurrency would result in units of gold weight being deducted from an account and purchase of the cryptocurrency would result in units of gold weight being added to the account. And though this cryptocurrency would have to be developed on a blockchain outside the control of the global banking cartel and its existence may have to survive on some type of black market, as the global banking cartel would almost definitively try to regulate the blockchain technology used by a gold-backed cryptocurrency to invalidate the use of this cryptocurrency anywhere in the eventual global digital currency system they construct, they could never invalidate this cryptocurrency’s value as its value would be in units of gold weight, while their cryptocurrency’s value would still be a fiat currency price.

     

    So here are the questions I pose, which I would love to hear responses to these questions posed below. Regardless of any opinion I expressed above that you may believe to be wrong, please strip away all emotional responses to this article to focus on this proposed solution, as even if you believe some of my opinions above to be wrong, one belief that should unite all gold and cryptocurrency owners is that we are all seeking a monetary solution outside the control of the global banking system that enhances, instead of destroys it, and this may be it.

     


    In other words, could a cryptocurrency backed by a finite weight of gold truly be the first currency completely independent and outside the control of the global banking cartel?


    What if all goods and services purchased by this gold-backed cryptocurrency allowed for gentle inflation up and down over the years, but at a fraction of the massive real inflation experienced by prices denominated in fiat currencies? Could worldwide adoption of such a currency be accomplished simply because people would want to own this gold-backed cryptocurrency knowing that they would receive the best possible price for all goods and services year after year after year by using this currency, as it would strip away the destructive effects of Central Banker-created inflation? And could we foster wide acceptance worldwide of cryptocurrency developed with a unit of weight, the true value of gold as its unit of measurement, and convince people to stop accepting the artificial debt-based fiat currency price bankers assign to gold as its value? This question may be the most important of all, because bankers will continue to assign a debt-based fiat currency price or 100% digital currency price to gold as its “value” en perpetuity, until they die, so this may be the biggest obstacle to overcome – to convince people to stop basing the value of gold on a perception of fake value created by bankers called price.

     

    For example, what if the price of filet mignon rose one year from USD$23 a pound to USD$30 a pound, but in the gold backed cryptocurrency called GCC (Gold CryptoCurrency), filet mignon only rose from 20 GCC (gold cryptocurrency) to 20.1 GCC, where one GCC is a unit of gold weight? Would not everyone want to pay for everything in GCC instead of USD? AT first, many retailers might shun acceptance of the gold backed cryptocurrency if they compare banker established gold prices and calculate that they could receive a higher price by accepting fiat currencies. However, if the marketplace that accepted GCCs was large enough, shunning would eventually turn into hoarding for the following reason. By accepting GCCs for their merchandise, they would then be able to buy other goods and services at more stable and lower prices, and therefore be able to manage their savings over the long-term in a much better capacity as the greatest price stability of all goods and services worldwide, year after year after year, would be witnessed in those markets that priced their goods and services in GCCs. On the contrary, if merchants accepted more fiat currencies for their goods and services, they then would be required to spend higher amounts of fiat currencies in the marketplace as well, not knowing if their food costs were going to be double or triple the costs of the prior year. History tells us that people prefer certainty over uncertainty, especially in financial markets. Thus, if a stable gold-backed cryptocurrency really allowed people to budget and plan more efficiently, as is not allowed by the current state of highly devaluing fiat currencies, would not people widely adopt a gold-backed cryptocurrency that served this purpose?

     

    I haven’t really spent an enormous amount of time fleshing out the detailed complexities of the above topic, and consider the above as more the written manifestation of a brainstorming session, so forgive me if parts are not so well thought-out at this current time. Of course a gold-backed crytpocurrency will never provide wild, speculative gains of 100,000% to the owner, as this would defeat the very mission of this cryptocurrency, which would be to provide owners with strong price stability in their purchase of goods and services over decades of tie. However, I strongly believe that those that think pure digital currencies are in competition with the global banking cartel’s monetary system and is a global banker “killer” are completely missing the point, as fiat currencies in use today are already very close to pure digital currencies. Just remember, in the world of banking, nothing, and I do mean, nothing is ever as it first sees to be. Still, I would love to hear what advocates of gold, advocates of cryptocurrencies, and advocates of both think about a gold-backed, blockchain-enabled crytpocurrency a as a potential solution that could free humanity from the ball and chain of the wealth destructive powers of our current global debt-based monetary system. And if you’d like to hear more musings about this topic, please follow me on my Snapchat channel, SKWealthAcademy.

     
    ONEGRAMCOIN

     

     

    Amazingly, as I’ve been writing this article for about a week now, during my writing of this article, the UAE announced the launch of my exact proposal above just a few days ago, the OGC (OneGramCoin), a physical gold0-backed cryptocurrency. Here are just a few facts about the one gram gold-backed cryptocurrency via their website:

     

    Is the OneGram blockchain public? The blockchain is public and all codebase is open source.


    What is the block size? What is the approximate transaction confirmation time?
      The max block size is 1MB, however, the average block time is only 1 minute, so there is effectively 10x more capacity than Bitcoin.


    If the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) distributes 100% of the total issuance, then will there be mining?
     
    100% of total coin supply is pre-mined and is distributed during the ICO. There is a block reward following the genesis block. OGC holders that indicate they wish to stake their OGC will be rewarded with the fees produced from the transactions in the present block.


    How will new versions find consensus for adoption? How will the blockchain address soft and hard forking?
     
    We will employ automatic checkpointing with the seed nodes to guarantee consensus.


    Can I trade OGC (OneGramCoin)?
     
    Yes. Following the ICO and the issuance of OGC, cryptocurrency exchanges may choose to list OGC for trade.


    How are you addressing privacy?
     
    We are exploring confidential transaction and various other privacy technologies at the moment. Once the technology matures, we will adopt the one that best addresses privacy without sacrificing security and other critical concerns.

     

    As full disclosure, I have zero business affiliations with any physical gold/silver dealers and with OneGramCoin, and you can read more about it by clicking the link in this sentence. I may contact them in the future, however, to correct some small errors I found in their white paper upon reading it. You may also participate in its ICO right now by signing up here. One interesting point I thought made in the OGC whitepaper is the following: “Most Muslims today have no idea that the money they use is arguably not Sharia-compliant. Most of the world uses fiat currency, which is money backed only by legal tender laws. Historically, money was either created from or backed by precious metals.” I’ve known that fiat currency was an is non Sharia-compliant for decades, and there is an Islamic bank in my neighborhood which I frequently pass by that I know breaks Sharia law every day. I’ve often thought about walking into this bank, and asking the loan officers if they know they are violating Sharia law, as charging interest on loans is against Sharia law as well. In addition, most Christians don’t understand that working in a bank is against Christian law as well, as the Bible states, in the book of Deuteronomy, “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” But walk into any bank and ask for a Christian bank officer and try to get an interest-free mortgage or business loan, and see what happens!

     

    In any event, let me know if you think, as I do, that the marriage of physical gold to cryptocurrencies that utilize the blockchain, is the solution to the creation of truly free money that all of us desire.

  • Gold and Silver Hated Now, Cryptocurrencies Loved. The Debate Rages Onward, and Here’s a Solution!

    by JS Kim, Founder of SmartKnowledgeU and skwealthacademy, this article was first posted at smartknowledgeu.com/blog on 1 June 2017.

     

    As most of you know, the rise of the cryptocurrency has dominated financial headlines as of late, compelling many to comment on bulletin boards and message boards that they will never buy physical gold or physical silver ever again, and that from now on, it’s cryptocurrencies or bust! Given Bitcoin and Ether’s recent parabolic rise, strictly from a price standpoint, physical gold makes more sense as a a purchase at this current time than Bitcoin or Ether, though certainly given performance and the benefit of hindsight, buying Bitcoin and Ether at the start of the year made more sense than buying gold. But again this statement is only valid given the two entirely different purposes of buying gold and cryptocurrencies. And technically speaking, Ether, or Ethereum is not a cryptocurrency, but rather a token that user receive users for using their computing power to validate transactions and for helping pay for the development of the Ethereum network. As I will explain later in this article, even despite the massive parabolic rise in the price of BTC, if one were seeking to fulfill the very specific purpose that purchasing physical gold achieves in a wealth preservation plan, then purchasing gold over cryptocurrencies at the start of the year still would have made sense for a lot of people.

     

    Those that have truly followed me this year, and not just read the occasional article I write about precious metals that is posted on ZeroHedge every several months, know that I have warned of big dips in spot gold and spot silver prices and advocated shorting paper gold and paper silver several times already this year, right before significant price dips materialized, as a means to protect oneself against banker price manipulations of spot PM prices. However, the current time is not one of them, as I believe the prices for both physical gold ($1258) and physical silver ($17.28) are solid long-term buys right now. However, this doesn’t mean there won’t be interim volatility in price, as in today’s Central Banker asset price-distorted world, volatility has become the norm, not the exception. For those that want to follow my opinion about PMs, you can do so on my Snapchat skwealthacademy channel, where I post snaps nearly every day, and very often discuss the state of PMs and to a lesser extent, cryptocurrencies.

     

    Although many in the gold community do not like cryptocurrencies because they conveniently fit into the global banking cartel end goal of pushing society into wide acceptance of a 100% digital currencies, at this point, no one knows whether Bitcoin is part of the global banking cartel’s plan to take the world into 100% digital currency, including yours truly. Way back in 2012, I wrote that the banking cartel’s end game was clearly to gain control over every citizen’s financial life by eradicating the world of all paper currency and pushing wide acceptance of a 100% digital currency . It is of my opinion, that there is a possibility that bankers are behind either the development and/or marketing of Bitcoin, as acceptance of Bitcoin will help drive acceptance of the bankers’ end game of 100% eradication of paper money and 100% acceptance of digital currency across the world. I believe that my opinion is firmly in the minority, and many cryptocurrency supporters contend that there is zero possibility that Bitcoin was part of a banking project (by the way, if you keep reading, you will see that I discovered a new cryptocurrency I am backing for the long-term). However, in this debate, the only definitive conclusion that can be drawn is the following: without knowing the identity of the group of people known as Satoshi Nakamoto, no one can end this debate, so both sides of the debate at this point are based not on evidence, but pure speculation. The key to knowing which opinion is correct is unveiling the identity of Satoshi Nakaomoto beyond a shadow of a doubt, and is this is still an unknown today. Thus, one side cannot say “my lack of evidence supports my opinion more so than your lack of evidence”, which unfortunately, has evolved (or more appropriately “devolved”) into an argument that many people today utilize, and strongly believe, is perfectly valid, when in reality, such an argument is based entirely on emotion, irrationality and a lack of critical thought.

     

    When one of my friends noticed that I was working on a piece about the cryptocurrency versus gold debate, he asked me, “Are you sure you want to publish that article and take on the crytpocurrency advocates, as they will heap scorn on you for doubting the anti-banking cartel nature of cryptocurrencies? That’s like trying to convince a hardcore vegan that eating meat is not evil. That takes a lot of courage.” To that, I replied, “First of all, I’m not belittling cryptocurrency advocates, because if you read the article after I publish it, you will see that I recently became aware of a brand-new crytprocurrency that I support. Secondly, it doesn’t take courage to express logical views, as that is all I am doing. Thirdly, I am not stating that Bitcoin advocates that believe BTC is independent of the global banking cartel are wrong. I am merely expressing reservations because no one has any evidence that is conclusive on either side of the debate. The flip side of that statement is that they may be right as well. To me it seems harmless to point out an indisputable fact, which is that hard conclusions should never be drawn from a lack of evidence, but this is routinely done.” I continued, “I know that people hate to deal with uncertainties, and will do anything to rid themselves of that uncertainty, which leads to many wrong conclusions. This is a fact propelled by many psychology studies, so when I point this out, I am again, just pointing out a fact. Just look at how financial markets deal with uncertainty. They don’t like it all. But that does not mean, because uncertainty exists, that one should make conclusions out of thin air to explain that uncertainty to get rid of it. To me, that is totally irrational. Yet the mainstream financial media does this on a daily basis with their headlines, To make my point, just go to YouTube and search for a topic called “demon magicians”, in which people claim that amazing magicians have sold their souls to the devil for powers to manipulate solid objects instantly into different states of matter, simply because they don’t know the tricks executed by these magicians to pull off their amazing illusions. I mean, there is a whole segment of people on YouTube that actually believe magicians are given powers by the devil, simply because of their desire to provide a certain explanation to a topic about which they are uncertain and can find zero evidence to explain the uncertainty. As mad as this sounds, this kind of irrationality persists in the financial world to, in mainstream financial media, to explain uncertain things whereby correlation for financial events are wrongly announced to the world as causation on a daily basis.”

     

    It may be true that the global banking cartel’s iteration of their 100% digital currency will differ substantially from the cryptocurrencies of today, and that they were never involved in the development of BTC and other early-stage cryptocurrencies on the horizon, as even JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon publicly derided cryptocurrencies as fads that will not survive. In this article, Dimon stated, “No government will ever support a virtual currency that goes around borders and doesn’t have the same controls [as fiat currency]. It’s not going to happen”, convincing many that this was proof that the global banking cartel had no hand in the development of early crytpocurrencies like BTC, and that a definitive fork exists between early stage cryptocurrencies, outside-the-control of the global banking cartel, and other later-stage, ongoing developments of cryptocurrencies, under the auspices of the global banking cartel. However, one must be aware that bankers rarely ever tell the truth, and the same people that often deride 99% of Jamie Dimon’s statements will point to this particular Dimon statement as “proof” that early cryptocurrencies are independent of the global banking cartel.

     

    For sure, there is a massive difference between “speculation” and “proof” and any statement uttered by Jamie Dimon lands squarely on the side of speculation and not fact, because as we well know, Alan Blinder, former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and Princeton University economist, infamously stated on a 1994 PBS television program, “The last duty of a Central Banker is to tell the public the truth.” For example, eight-months prior to Dimon’s issuance of that statement, Dimon already was building close connections to blockchain technology when JP Morgan executive Blythe Masters left his firm to head up Digital Assets Holdings, LLC, a blockchain development company that is currently working on blockchain technology for use in the Australian stock exchange. Furthermore, earlier this year, Dimon revealed that JP Morgan had built an Ethereum Alliance with other global banks and corporations to wield more influence over blockchain implementation and acceptance, an alliance that obviously was years in the planning. Understanding that JP Morgan was privately deeply involved in blockchain development at the same time their CEO was publicly deriding cryptocurrencies like BTC obviously exposes the disingenuous nature of Dimon’s comments, and furthermore, still does not discredit the possibility that a member of the global banking cartel had a hand in the development of BTC.

     

    Dimon’s statement, once we know the dishonesty of it, could lead to an infinite number of interpretations. It could mean that BTC is a virtual currency outside the global banking system and that’s why Dimon derided it, because JP Morgan will only support a virtual currency that he controls. It could be controlled opposition, whereby JP Morgan bankers have secretly had a hand in the development and acceptance of BTC despite their publicly stated opposition, a ploy meant to throw people off the trail of their plan to financially subjugate humanity further as they push through acceptance of 100% digital currencies. Recall that when the Morgans, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, etc. tried to establish another Central Bank in the United States after the charter of the First Bank (1791-1811) and Second Bank (1861-1836) of the United States was revoked, they initially failed, because 100 years ago, Americans were properly educated to understand that the establishment of a Central Bank was meant to enslave them. So what did the banking cartel do in response? By the Congressional record documented of US Congressman and Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee Louis McFadden’s speeches, delivered on the floor of Congress in the 1930s, we know that, at first, bankers tried to fool Congress into voting for a bill to establish a Central Bank by lying to Congress about overwhelming public support that existed for a Central Bank, that was in fact, generally mild and tepid at best. McFadden stated, “It has been said that the draughts man who was employed to write the text of the Aldrich bill because that had been drawn up by lawyers, by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York. It was a copy, in general a translation of the statues of the Reichsbank and other European central banks. One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for it and the kind of currency that goes with it.”


    Paul M. Warburg, who represented the Rothschild bankers, and whom many claim as the key figure in bringing the US Federal Reserve into existence, shed additional light into the banking cartel’s propaganda campaign in his deliverance of a speech to the New York YMCA on 23 March, 1910, in which he insisted that a national reserve bank would not be “controlled by Wall Street or any monopolistic interest”, explaining that the words “Central Bank” should be avoided, as he was not proposing a monopolistic Central Bank, but rather a decentralized national bank with 4 regional reserve banks, even though this was a complete lie and power was centralized in the New York Federal Reserve branch, after the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, as it still is today. Bankers presented the exact same, monopolistic centralized bank a second time to US Congress, this time posing as a decentralized “federal” bank on the side of the people as opposed to a Central Bank that would work against the people’s best interests, and with this fake narrative, US Congress voted it into existence. This was the use of controlled opposition at its best, publicly pretending to be on the side of the people while privately working against the people’s best interests. Since bankers have a history of such deviant acts of convincing the public to support financial instruments that they would then later us to control humanity, to dismiss the possibility that they could be using cryptocurrencies in the same manner would be reckless. Thirdly, there is a possibility that global banks other than JP Morgan had a hand in developing BTC, thus compelling Dimon to denigrate BTC in favor of the digital currency that JP Morgan will eventually back. Again, all the above are possibilities, the validity of all unknown, none provable, no one possibility stronger than any other, and none ably dismissed.

     

    No matter which of the above possibilities are true, the rise of cryptocurrencies are rapidly spreading acceptance of the global banking cartel’s push to create a world without any paper money and with only 100% digital money. There is, by no means, a clean a divide between the PM and cryptocurrency communities as agitators try to delineate, as there are also many in the PM community that hold both PMs and cryptocurrencies. Up to this point in this article, I have merely relayed my opinion and relayed the possibilities behind the origins of BTC, but I will explain later in this article, why my belief and the numerous possibilities I presented above may very well be irrelevant in the debate about the future of cryptocurrencies. In today’s world, we allow others to manipulate us like a herd of cattle into taking divisive, opposition sides, both sides often based on zero evidence, as we live in a world where the financiers of every nation have made it unacceptable for us not to take a side and to simply admit facts, that some things remain unknown. Today, a lot of anger is fomented seemingly on every topic, whether religion, politics or finance, often successfully conjured up even amidst a complete absence of evidence and facts. In any event, I thought it would be an illuminating exercise to sift through the comment section of a recent ZeroHedge bitcoin article, simply because it may be a useful discourse to provide a little bit of clarity to some misunderstandings and anger (that should not exist) about the ongoing raging PM versus Bitcoin debate. I am going to paraphrase the most popular comments below.

     

    FIVE FALSE DIVISIONS BETWEEN GOLD AND CRYPTOCURRENCY COMMUNITIES


    (1) One Has to Choose Between Gold and Cryptopcurrencies

    This opinion is definitely not true, as I know plenty of people that own both cryptocurrencies and gold and this divide should not exist. As long as one recognizes that the purchase of gold and the purchase of cryptocurrencies serve very different purposes, one can buy both to fill these two very different goals. Despite the belief of many that prices of cryptocurrencies are out of the control of the bankers, but the price of gold is not, and this is a critical factor that separates cryptocurrencies from gold, this belief is only partially true. Paper gold trading is in control of the bankers. Physical gold trading is not. This is why, in parts of the world plagued by financial instability, premiums for physical gold will soar enormously higher than the artificially banker-set paper/digital price of gold. For example, the price of BTC, due to a recent feeding frenzy in Korea recently soared above USD$3,000. However, even though speculators foolish enough to chase BTC and pay $3,000 per BTC in South Korea existed, I snapchatted screenshots of BTC dealers in South Korea during this buying frenzy on my Snapchat channel that illustrated decent supply of BTCs in South Korea at just a slight premium over Western market prices, so the $3,000 BTC purchases that hit the market in South Korea were executed by people that did not shop around on various exchanges for a much better price that was clearly available.

     

    An analogous situation was recently observed in the physical gold market as well. When PM Narendra Modi initially banned the 500 and 1000 rupee note in India, the price of physical gold soared well over $2,000 an ounce in India, with some unconfirmed reports of gold hitting prices of more than $3,000 an ounce in Indian black markets. Did people that payed $2,500 or $3,000 an ounce for physical gold have to spend this amount? Certainly not, and these prices only hit because people panic bought during a buying frenzy instigated by rupee uncertainty and the Indian Prime Minister’s attempt to demonetize gold. At the time of the physical gold buying frenzy, the spot price of gold was roughly $1,220. However, this incident illustrated that during a fiat currency crisis, bankers can continue to control and suppress paper/digital gold prices, but they have no control over suppressing soaring physical gold prices caused by high physical demand and tight supply during a financial crisis. In any event, if one wants to purchase both, one should understand, from the hugely different levels of volatility in gold prices versus cryptocurrency prices, that gold should be purchased to preserve purchasing power over time, while cryptocurrencies should be purchased for highly speculative returns Again, two different currencies serve two entirely different purposes.

     


    (2) I Made a Ton of Money on Cryptocurrencies, But Have Lost a Ton on Gold, So I’m Never Buying Gold Again!

    This statement is all about timing, as if anyone buys at a short-term buying frenzy during a long bull market, then one has a much greater chance of sitting on losses a few years later. However, timing on buying gold was not particularly difficult during this current bull run of 17 years now and here are indisputable facts to back up this statement. If one purchased gold at the start of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2016, one would have ended the year in the black every single one of those years. Furthermore, during the past 17 years, including this one, if one purchased gold at the very beginning of the year in 14 of the past 17 years, one would still be profitable at today’s price, and extremely profitable if one had purchased physical gold in the early portion of this timeline. The reasons that made gold a strong purchase during 2001 are the exact same reasons that make gold a strong purchase today, so for someone that understood the real reasons to buy gold versus chasing a speculative rise, one was much more likely to have bought and hold physical gold during the early years of this cycle and added more on every severe dip, thus still maintaining a nice average buy-in price over this time frame.

     

    Even though gold is volatile, it hasn’t been difficult, despite contrary belief, to manage the volatility when buying physical gold for the past 17 years, and the timing of when to buy physical gold has not been particularly difficult to ensure a profit over this time period as well, as only buying at the start of 3 of the past 17 years would have resulted in losses by the end of the year, and only buying at the start of 3 of the past 17 years are still yielding losses at the present time. And unless you purchased gold during the worst 28-months out of a nearly 200-month timeline, most likely you are heavily in the black right now or about to be back in the black again. Likewise, if anyone chased Bitcoin in South Korea and bought it at an absolute short-term peak at USD$3,000, as some have, then there is no one to blame but themselves when they were sitting on an almost immediate 36% loss just a couple of days later. While certainly, in hindsight, it may have been easier to buy Bitcoin at nearly any point on its bullish timeline, versus gold, and still be profitable today, no one should expect parabolic price rises to be the norm for Bitcoin, and prices will likely remain very volatile until they stabilize in the future.

     


    (3) I Don’t Want to Carry Gold Around. There’s No Digital Gold, and Digital Currencies Are a Ton More Convenient to Use than Gold.

    Most forms of paper gold, including gold futures contracts, ARE digital gold, so digital gold definitely exists right now, but the only problem is that no one wants the current form of digital gold (except for the most recently introduced form of 100% physical backed digital gold recently introduced last week that I discuss at the end of this article). When bankers trade gold futures contracts using HFT algorithms, their entered trades are being executed through high-speed fiber optic cable that minimize latency times to less than one millisecond. Certainly, real physical gold is never trading hands during these times, and in fact, outside of Shanghai and Hong Kong markets, gold derivative produces almost never settle in real physical gold. So bankers that trade the paper gold futures markets in London and New York are constantly trading 100% digital gold. It they were not, there would be no infrastructure that would allow them to dump $1 billion, $2 billion, or more, of notional gold in the form of gold futures contracts in a matter of minutes to suppress price. They are dumping, in essence, digital gold backed by air. As I stated above, there are some instances when gold futures contracts are asked to settle in physical, but outside of Shanghai and Hong Kong, the percentages of gold futures contracts that settle in physical are miniscule compared to the percentages that settle in fiat. However, no one that truly understands the reasons for buying physical gold would ever buy digital gold that wasn’t backed 100% by physical gold, as is the case in New York and London gold futures markets. Thus unlike with digital currencies, the reverse alchemy, physical into computer digits, demonetization-of-gold scheme executed by bankers in London and New York is a massive problem, and not a benefit. However, there is a way to fix this, as I will explain in the solution below. Lastly, if you purchase physical gold today, there is no need to carry it around as you can easily store it in vaults that have been vetted and are outside of the global banking system.

     

    (4) No One Hates Bitcoins More than Goldbugs!

    In the short-term, cryptocurrencies may or may not have peaked. No one knows for certain, so any guess to its peak price is pure speculation. Bitcoin may have peaked for the short-term at $3,000 in Asia in South Korea recently. My guess is that in the west, BTC prices have not yet peaked. Despite the opinion of some (notice I said some, not all, as “some” is a fact, and “all” is not) cryptocurrency owners that believe gold owners are jealous of their profits and hate cryptocurrency owners solely due to the profits reaped, this voiced antagonism should not only not exist, but it doesn’t even make sense, if indeed, the claim that Bitcoin is out of the control of the banking cartel is true. If cryptocurrencies like BTC are actually helping to free humanity from the control of bankers, and will stop the massive transference of wealth from the 99.9% to the 0.1% that has been happening over the past several decades, then people that own physical gold, and people that own cryptocurrencies, are clearly on the same side of this battle. Thus, even though I have voiced skepticism about the origins of Bitcoin being completely independent of the global banking cartel, if I am proven to be wrong in the future, and the continued existence of Bitcoin 10 years from now will prove me wrong, then I will gladly become the biggest advocate for BTC on planet Earth as any currency that is outside of the global banking cartel’s control should be unilaterally supported by anyone that values freedom. However, because I have some questions at this point that I think are tangible and valid, such a cautious approach shouldn’t make me the enemy of Bitcoin owners and it definitely doesn’t mean that I am not happy for those that made a ton of money on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to date.

     

    In fact, to the contrary, I am extremely happy for people that have made a lot of money on cryptocurrencies up to this point if they are on the side of humanity that wants to establish a sound monetary system and eradicate our current unsound debt-based monetary system. If this faction of cryptocurrency owners is authentic as I believe them to be, then this only means that gold owners have a strong coalition of people, now with significantly more resources to fight the global banking system and to fight to establish a new monetary system. The doubt or belief of BTC as being independent of the global banking system is entirely irrelevant to this point. Any gold owner that hates cryptocurrency owners solely for the large profits that they have potentially made at this point or any cryptocurrency owner that hated on gold owners when gold soared from $250 to near $2,000 an ounce is simply wasting a whole lot of energy on hate, and the expression of such hate is more a reflection on the hater’s insecurity issues, as such expressed hatred and jealousy impedes the monetary freedom movement. If we truly want to achieve the same goal, and I think most cryptocurrency and gold owners do (again, most, but not all), then anyone that engages in deliberate divisiveness is executing the bankers’ divide and conquer strategy for them, and should be completely expelled from the monetary freedom coalition, as they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. And as far as a solution that can tie the existing differences of gold and cryptocurrency owners together and solve the concerns I have with cryptocurrencies at the current time, I propose one below, so please keep reading. In any event, owners of gold and cryptocurrencies should be on the same side, and if we allow the financiers of nations to manipulate us into divisiveness, we are merely falling victim to a learned helplessness role of willing captor to our captives.

     

    (5) Gold Will Never Appreciate at the Rate Cryptocurrencies Appreciate, So No Thank You to Any Physical Gold Ownership

    Regarding the statement that gold will never match the appreciation rate of some cryptocurrencies, an owner of Monero commented that he has made 120,000% gains thus far, meaning that he must have bought Monero at inception at $0.034762697752, which translates into a 120,000% gain at its current price of $41.75. Kudos to this person! And he is correct in that gold will likely never appreciate 120,000% because this means that from its initial starting price of this current bull market of about $250, gold would have to rise to $30,250 per troy ounce to equal this person’s 120,000% gain on Monero. In the absence of a hyperinflationary environment, I don’t see gold going to this price. But who knows, I could be wrong, and maybe gold will appreciate this much in price. Again, this is an unknown, and as many of you that have followed me for years already well know, I’ve always stated to absolutely disregard all “Gold to $10,000” predictions that pop up every year, as devoting any brainpower to analyzing unknowable timing predictions such as these is not only a complete waste of energy, but also a complete waste of time. However, exploration of this concept allows me to reinforce an earlier, very important point between the massively different purposes between buying gold and buying cryptocurrencies. People that own gold and are hardcore gold believers buy gold because of its ability to preserve purchasing power over not just 10 years or 20 years, but also over hundreds of years, over their lifespan and over the lifespan of their children. Cryptocurrencies are way too young and in some sense, still in an embryonic stage, so there is no way that cryptocurrencies are, at the current time, able to make the same claim of purchasing power preservation.

     

    In my opinion, of all the qualities sound money should have, the preservation of purchasing power over lengthy periods of time is the most critical quality to possess, and since cryptocurrencies are too young to prove up this quality, they cannot, in my opinion, be considered sound money at this point in their business cycle, as they are obviously in the rapid growth segment of the cycle. In fact, for those that stay away from gold because its price is too volatile, Bitcoin’s price has been far more volatile than gold’s price since Bitcoin came into existence. In fact, gold’s quintupling of price over 17 years is generally considered peanuts to cryptocurrency investors. Consequently, people that buy gold buy it to preserve their wealth over time, and not to make rapid spectacular gains. This is a completely different reason than the reason why people buy cryptocurrencies. There may come a time many years from now, when cryptocurrencies prove themselves to be a store of purchasing power over time, and if that time comes, I will move cryptocurrencies out of the speculative growth category, but not before then. So, while massive gains are much more likely in cryptocurrencies than gold, the opposite is true as well. Massive losses in cryptocurrencies, until they move out of their growth stage and find more price stability, are much more likely to occur than in gold, as well.

     

    THREE CONCLUSIONS


    (1) At the Current Time, NEITHER Cryptocurrencies or Gold are Fully Outside the Manipulative Powers of the Global Banking Cartel

    Although many cryptocurrency owners claim that cryptocurrencies are “free money” while fiat currencies are the money of “slaves”, the very fact that cryptocurrencies are denominated in fiat currency prices means that they are still not independent of the global banking cartel. Bankers have ensured that all cryptocurrencies are denominated in THEIR form of debt-money for the very same reason that bankers have ensured that gold is as well. As long as the price of an asset is denominated in a form of debt-money, the asset can never truly serve the purpose of being the money of a free man or free woman, because this link necessitates the conversion into debt-based slave-money for use, and keeps humanity dependent upon debt-based slave money. Even if we don’t convert cryptocurrencies into fiat currencies and pay for merchandise directly in BTCs, as long as the price of BTCs remains denominated in a form of debt-based slave money, it cannot escape the intimate link to the global banking cartel’s monetary system.

     

    As an example of why tying the price of an asset to fiat currencies grants bankers the ultimate control over that asset, let me use the stock market in Zimbabwe in 2006 and 2007 to illustrate my point. The Zimbabwe Industrial Index, for a rolling period of time slightly more than a year, in 2006-2007, gained 7,990%, a prolific increase that caused many to proclaim the Zimbabwe stock markets as the “best performing” stock market of that time period, though it was clearly the worst performing stock market for the following reasons. The 7,990% gain was denominated in hyperinflating Zimbabwe dollars, which rendered a 8,000% or even an 80,000% gain worthless during this time period, as monthly inflation peaked in Zimbabwe at 79,600,000,000% a year later. In other words the Zimbabwe dollar was losing valuation and purchasing power at a much faster clip than the stock gains were accumulating, so all of the stock gains were quickly rendered worthless as the gains could not be spent before they were devalued. However, if the 7,990% gains were instead denominated in gold weight, then no amount of Zimbabwe dollar devaluation could have prevented this increase from producing a massive gain in real wealth. Of course, US dollars are not hyperinflating at the current time, so why make such a comparison? I’m not making so much as a comparison as I am making a point. If the currency in which an asset is priced fails, then the asset will fail too, thereby unfortunately still granting bankers ultimate control over the fate of the asset. In response, some will argue that if dollars or Euros fail, and cryptocurrencies subsequently fail, then won’t gold ultimately fail as well? On the surface, this seems like a logical argument, but I will reveal below, why in such a situation, gold will be king of the monetary pile.

     

    (2) Price is NOT the Same as Value

    Today, many business school graduates still confuse the concepts of value and price in the world of finance. I have uploaded many vlogs on my YouTube channel that explain why the value of gold and silver is its weight and not its price. Does it make sense to claim the value of real money like physical gold is its price, a unit of measurement that is denominated in unsound immoral, fiat currencies like Euros or dollars? Of course not! The real value of gold, as its weight, is always constant. In other words, the value of gold is constant everywhere in the world, as 10g of gold in Libya equals 10g of gold in Canada equals 10g of gold in Brazil equals 10g of gold in Uruguay equals 10g of gold in Romania. The price of gold changes all the time, but the value of gold does not change simply because bankers price gold in their deteriorating and devaluing fiat currencies. Price is an immensely different concept than value when it comes to the world of PMs, though bankers like to fool us and interchangeably use these two terms in the financial media to confuse us into believing they are the same. Now some will counter by stating that they can cash out their Bitcoins and buy gold with it anytime they like, but if so, then are these people valuing cryptocurrencies in terms of how much gold it can buy? For the very same reasons it makes no sense to value gold in an illegitimate, debt-based currency, it also makes no sense to value cryptocurrencies in illegitimate, debt-based currencies. So what is the value of Bitcoin and other cryptos? If we try to apply the above analogy to cryptocurrencies and reject the fact that the value of cryptocurrencies is its unit of measurement, since this unit of measurement is not tangible, it doesn’t translate as well as it does for gold. For example, if we say the value of Bitcoins should be measured by its amount of Satoshis, and not its dollar, won, or Euro price, what does this really mean?

     

    Of course, some claim that the value of cryptocurrencies is its store of wealth. However, as I explained above, perhaps after 50 more years, this claim can be made, but this claim cannot seriously be considered at the current time given the infancy of cryptocurrencies. Therefore, I would state, that at the current time, the only way to measure a cryptocurrencies value is by its price, as we can’t measure it by their digital bytes, and in the case of hyperinflation, the value of cryptocurrencies will be severely debased, no matter the gain in underlying fiat currencies (see the Zimbabwe Industrial Index explanation above). However, since the value of gold is its weight, the weight of 10 ounces of gold will still remain 10 ounces of gold even if the price collapses through hyperinflation. Hyperinflation and currency collapse will always give rise to a new currency, so owners of gold, in such an event, would just hold gold until a new currency was born, and the price of their ounces would be re-established. I argue that the case for the valuation of cryptocurrencies during and after a hyperinflationary event would not be so clear. Of course, we are speaking of a worst-case scenario here, but a case study of fiat currencies have demonstrated that they always revert to their intrinsic value of zero over time, so who’s to say that event won’t happen in our lifetime?

     

    (3) All Comparisons of the Price of 1 BTC to 1 Troy Ounce of Gold are Completely Baseless and Without Merit

    I never understood why financial journalists ran numerous articles that always compared the price of 1 BTC to 1 troy ounce of gold, yielding headlines like “Bitcoin now exceeds gold in price” when the price of 1 BTC overtook the price of 1 troy ounce of gold. One troy ounce, or 31.1035 grams, the unit of measurement of gold, is a unit of weight. Unless one Bitcoin, the unit of measurement for BTC, is also a unit of weight, then comparing the price of one unit of weight of gold to the price of one unit of Bitcoin is an impossible comparison that makes zero sense, no matter how much the mainstream financial media wants to sell us this comparison as a valid one. Making such a comparison is totally random, and is literally as absurd as comparing the price of 1 barrel of oil to the price of a 1/2 carat ruby and saying that rubies are a much better investment that oil because 1/2 carat of rubies exceeds the price of one barrel of oil. It’s absurd as comparing the price of a 212kg Japanese bluefin tuna that sold for more than $3,100 per kg in Tokyo at the start of this year and stating that the tuna was more valuable than an untitled Basquiat painting whose last auctioned price was $19,000 at the start of this year, simply because the Basquiat painting was worth less than $3,000 per kg (by the way, that painting just sold last month for $110M). You can’t compare the price of one Bitcoin to ounce of gold as people always do anymore than you can compare the Basquiat painting to a bluefin tuna because fine art is not measured by its weight. Even if there was a way to weigh 100M Satoshis, the unit of measurement for one Bitcoin, because the unit of measurement for BTC is not a weight, this still would not be a valid comparison. Therefore, comparing 500M Satoshis to 1,000 ounces of gold, 1B Satoshis to 1M troy ounces of gold, 100,000 Satoshis to 50,000 pineapples, or 1M Satoshis to 50,000 cubic metres of air has as much validity as comparing the price of 100M Satoshis, or 1 BTC, to 1 troy ounce of gold.

     

    ONE SOLUTION


    Tie Cryptocurrencies to a Finite Amount of Gold Backing, and We Have the Best of Both Worlds

     

    Bankers have pursued control of the blockchain as their identified most valuable part of the cryptocurrency market. This is precisely why JP Morgan executive Blythe Masters left JP Morgan to work for Digital Asset Holdings, a distributed ledger, or blockchain, development firm. In fact, control of the blockhain, the distributed ledger technology invented by Satoshi Nakaomoto, makes all my speculation about BTC perhaps not being completely independent from the global banking system completely irrelevant. JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sachs, and every large global bank all realize this as well as all have heavily invested in blockchain development companies. It’s like the war that developed between HD DVD optical disks and blurays when higher resolution movies entered the market. Both formats delivered crystal clear clarity using similar technology but in the end, blurays survived and HD DVD optical disks went the way of the dinosaur. Control of the blockchain technology will have the same relevance to survival or extinction in the cryptocurrency market. I believe that whoever controls the blockchain technology that is universally implemented worldwide will control which cryptocurrencies survive and which ones die. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, and Blythe Masters, have already made it clear that they 100% believe that control of the blockchain technology that is implemented worldwide by the global banking cartel is the key to controlling the fate of all cryptocurrencies.

     

    If the global banking cartel does not control BTC, then I have no doubt they will try to crush BTC as they only will allow their digital currencies to survive. If they however also control BTC, then BTC will not only survive, but it will flourish. All it would take for the global banking cartel to eradicate any cryptocurrency they don’t like is to make that cryptocurrency illegal. This may not be able to prevent declared “illegal” cryptocurrencies from trading, just as bankers’ declaration that physical gold and physical silver are “illegal” currencies have not halted gold and silver trading, but certainly such declarations will kill the utility of that currency. Though people may wonder why I say bankers have declared gold and silver illegal currencies while national mints in many nations continue to print and circulate gold and silver coins, have you ever tried to spend a gold or silver coin at its relevant price in a store? Since physical gold and silver are not as widely accepted worldwide as are fiat currencies, for all intents and purposes, bankers have rendered them illegal currencies.

     

    Once the global banking cartel gains control and is able to implement their preferred blockchain, then they can set the rules for all digital currencies, and it’s game over, but for one joker card. I know the inherent decentralization nature of blockchains ensures that no one can really gain direct control of them. However, leave it up to lawyers to invent and impose regulations that apply to blockchains, and regulations will be invented in the futre that effectively will give bankers control over blockchains through indirect control (regulations). Furthermore, last year, problems with the DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation) for venture capital funding revealed how problems can arise with decentralized systems even when blockchains are secure. Shortly after the launch of the DAO in April 2016, someone was able to exploit a vulnerability in the DAO’s code and steal $50 million of cryptocurrency, a full third of the $150M raised through crowdfunding, though apparently he, or she, was only able to eventually withdraw a miniscule amount of the stolen cryptocurrency. But certainly, the incident with the DAO raises issue about other aspects of the distribution chain outside of the blockchain that may remain exploitable.

     

    That said, what is the joker card? To me, the joker card is the marriage of sound money with intrinsic value, like gold, to blockchain technology to form a completely new and different class of cryptocurrency. I want to end this discussion by asking all of you to consider this solution. I’ve heard many owners of both cryptocurrencies and gold admit that cryptocurrencies are a speculation at this point, and that in order to preserve their gains and turn cryptocurrencies into a store of wealth, they will sell cryptocurrencies for fiat currencies during their parabolic rises and consequently use fiat currencies to buy physical gold and hold it when price pullbacks and uncertainty plague cryptocurrencies. Then, when they believe these cryptocurrency pullbacks are ending, they will convert their physical gold back into fiat currencies and use fiat currencies to repurchase cryptocurrencies in hopes of capitalizing on another parabolic rise. And if the cryptocurrencies rise rapidly again, they repeat this process. In the end, however, this process always requires reverting back to holding debt-based fiat currencies at some point, even if for just brief periods of time, which ultimately makes holders of PMs and cryptocurrencies still beholden to the power of global bankers. However, as I stated above, what if there were a cryptocurrency backed by a finite weight of gold instead of a finite amount of digital bytes or satoshis, and the value of this cryptocurrency was not denominated by a fiat currency price whose purchasing power is perpetually destroyed by bankers, but by a weight of gold? Then there would be no need to constantly exchange cryptocurrencies into gold and vice versa!

     

    If such a gold-backed cryptocurrency became popular and was widely accepted, then this would obviate the need to ever convert the cryptocurrency into any debt-based fiat currency, solving two problems at once. The only reason to convert gold or cryptocurrencies into debt-based fiat currencies is to buy goods and services that don’t accept cryptocurrencies for payment, or due to worry of the volatility quickly debasing the price of the cryptocurrency after a volatile rise (i.e, its purchasing power). Combining the two solves all problems simultaneously. Such a physical gold-backed cryptocurrency that relies on blockchain technology could also be used to eradicate the current artificial banking valuation of gold to a fiat currency price and help to re-establish the true value of gold back to weight only, as spending of the cryptocurrency would result in units of gold weight being deducted from an account and purchase of the cryptocurrency would result in units of gold weight being added to the account. And though this cryptocurrency would have to be developed on a blockchain outside the control of the global banking cartel and its existence may have to survive on some type of black market, as the global banking cartel would almost definitively try to regulate the blockchain technology used by a gold-backed cryptocurrency to invalidate the use of this cryptocurrency anywhere in the eventual global digital currency system they construct, they could never invalidate this cryptocurrency’s value as its value would be in units of gold weight, while their cryptocurrency’s value would still be a fiat currency price.

     

    So here are the questions I pose, which I would love to hear responses to these questions posed below. Regardless of any opinion I expressed above that you may believe to be wrong, please strip away all emotional responses to this article to focus on this proposed solution, as even if you believe some of my opinions above to be wrong, one belief that should unite all gold and cryptocurrency owners is that we are all seeking a monetary solution outside the control of the global banking system that enhances, instead of destroys it, and this may be it.

     


    In other words, could a cryptocurrency backed by a finite weight of gold truly be the first currency completely independent and outside the control of the global banking cartel?


    What if all goods and services purchased by this gold-backed cryptocurrency allowed for gentle inflation up and down over the years, but at a fraction of the massive real inflation experienced by prices denominated in fiat currencies? Could worldwide adoption of such a currency be accomplished simply because people would want to own this gold-backed cryptocurrency knowing that they would receive the best possible price for all goods and services year after year after year by using this currency, as it would strip away the destructive effects of Central Banker-created inflation? And could we foster wide acceptance worldwide of cryptocurrency developed with a unit of weight, the true value of gold as its unit of measurement, and convince people to stop accepting the artificial debt-based fiat currency price bankers assign to gold as its value? This question may be the most important of all, because bankers will continue to assign a debt-based fiat currency price or 100% digital currency price to gold as its “value” en perpetuity, until they die, so this may be the biggest obstacle to overcome – to convince people to stop basing the value of gold on a perception of fake value created by bankers called price.

     

    For example, what if the price of filet mignon rose one year from USD$23 a pound to USD$30 a pound, but in the gold backed cryptocurrency called GCC (Gold CryptoCurrency), filet mignon only rose from 20 GCC (gold cryptocurrency) to 20.1 GCC, where one GCC is a unit of gold weight? Would not everyone want to pay for everything in GCC instead of USD? AT first, many retailers might shun acceptance of the gold backed cryptocurrency if they compare banker established gold prices and calculate that they could receive a higher price by accepting fiat currencies. However, if the marketplace that accepted GCCs was large enough, shunning would eventually turn into hoarding for the following reason. By accepting GCCs for their merchandise, they would then be able to buy other goods and services at more stable and lower prices, and therefore be able to manage their savings over the long-term in a much better capacity as the greatest price stability of all goods and services worldwide, year after year after year, would be witnessed in those markets that priced their goods and services in GCCs. On the contrary, if merchants accepted more fiat currencies for their goods and services, they then would be required to spend higher amounts of fiat currencies in the marketplace as well, not knowing if their food costs were going to be double or triple the costs of the prior year. History tells us that people prefer certainty over uncertainty, especially in financial markets. Thus, if a stable gold-backed cryptocurrency really allowed people to budget and plan more efficiently, as is not allowed by the current state of highly devaluing fiat currencies, would not people widely adopt a gold-backed cryptocurrency that served this purpose?

     

    I haven’t really spent an enormous amount of time fleshing out the detailed complexities of the above topic, and consider the above as more the written manifestation of a brainstorming session, so forgive me if parts are not so well thought-out at this current time. Of course a gold-backed crytpocurrency will never provide wild, speculative gains of 100,000% to the owner, as this would defeat the very mission of this cryptocurrency, which would be to provide owners with strong price stability in their purchase of goods and services over decades of tie. However, I strongly believe that those that think pure digital currencies are in competition with the global banking cartel’s monetary system and is a global banker “killer” are completely missing the point, as fiat currencies in use today are already very close to pure digital currencies. Just remember, in the world of banking, nothing, and I do mean, nothing is ever as it first sees to be. Still, I would love to hear what advocates of gold, advocates of cryptocurrencies, and advocates of both think about a gold-backed, blockchain-enabled crytpocurrency a as a potential solution that could free humanity from the ball and chain of the wealth destructive powers of our current global debt-based monetary system. And if you’d like to hear more musings about this topic, please follow me on my Snapchat channel, SKWealthAcademy.

     
    ONEGRAMCOIN

     

     

    Amazingly, as I’ve been writing this article for about a week now, during my writing of this article, the UAE announced the launch of my exact proposal above just a few days ago, the OGC (OneGramCoin), a physical gold0-backed cryptocurrency. Here are just a few facts about the one gram gold-backed cryptocurrency via their website:

     

    Is the OneGram blockchain public? The blockchain is public and all codebase is open source.


    What is the block size? What is the approximate transaction confirmation time?
      The max block size is 1MB, however, the average block time is only 1 minute, so there is effectively 10x more capacity than Bitcoin.


    If the ICO (Initial Coin Offering) distributes 100% of the total issuance, then will there be mining?
     
    100% of total coin supply is pre-mined and is distributed during the ICO. There is a block reward following the genesis block. OGC holders that indicate they wish to stake their OGC will be rewarded with the fees produced from the transactions in the present block.


    How will new versions find consensus for adoption? How will the blockchain address soft and hard forking?
     
    We will employ automatic checkpointing with the seed nodes to guarantee consensus.


    Can I trade OGC (OneGramCoin)?
     
    Yes. Following the ICO and the issuance of OGC, cryptocurrency exchanges may choose to list OGC for trade.


    How are you addressing privacy?
     
    We are exploring confidential transaction and various other privacy technologies at the moment. Once the technology matures, we will adopt the one that best addresses privacy without sacrificing security and other critical concerns.

     

    As full disclosure, I have zero business affiliations with any physical gold/silver dealers and with OneGramCoin, and you can read more about it by clicking the link in this sentence. I may contact them in the future, however, to correct some small errors I found in their white paper upon reading it. You may also participate in its ICO right now by signing up here. One interesting point I thought made in the OGC whitepaper is the following: “Most Muslims today have no idea that the money they use is arguably not Sharia-compliant. Most of the world uses fiat currency, which is money backed only by legal tender laws. Historically, money was either created from or backed by precious metals.” I’ve known that fiat currency was an is non Sharia-compliant for decades, and there is an Islamic bank in my neighborhood which I frequently pass by that I know breaks Sharia law every day. I’ve often thought about walking into this bank, and asking the loan officers if they know they are violating Sharia law, as charging interest on loans is against Sharia law as well. In addition, most Christians don’t understand that working in a bank is against Christian law as well, as the Bible states, in the book of Deuteronomy, “You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” But walk into any bank and ask for a Christian bank officer and try to get an interest-free mortgage or business loan, and see what happens!

    In any event, let me know if you think, as I do, if you believe that the marriage of physical gold to cryptocurrencies that utilize the blockchain, is the solution to the creation of truly free money that all of us desire.

  • The Biggest Real Estate Bubble Of All Time Just Did The Impossible

    One month ago, we said that “the Vancouver housing bubble Is back, and it’s (almost) bigger than ever.”

    Fast forward to today, when we can scrap the almost part: according to the latest data from the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, nearly a year after British Columbia implemented a 15% property tax targeting foreign buyers, in May the biggest real estate bubble of all time did the impossible and in a testament to the persistence of Chinese oligarchs, criminals, money launderers and pretty much anyone who is desperate to park their cash as far away as possible, after a modest drop following last summer’s tax the Vancouver housing bubble has bounced right back to new all time highs, as prices of detached, attached houses and apartment all surged to new record highs.

    According to the Real Estate Board, rhe breakdown in prices by category was as follows:

    • For condominiums, the benchmark price was C$571,300 last month, a 17.8% jump over the past 12 months and 3.1% more than April 2017.
    • The benchmark price of an attached unit was C$715,400, 13.1% more than a year ago, and a 1.9% increase compared to April 2017.
    • The benchmark price for detached properties was $1,561,000, an 3.1% increase over the last 12 months and a 2.9% increase compared to April 2017.

    The only thing that did fall in May was the number of actual transactions, as residential property sales in the region totaled 4,364 in May 2017, a decrease of 8.5% from the 4,769 sales in May 2016, an all-time record.

    In other words, all that the 15% surtax achieved was to drastically slowdown the rate of transactions (or perhaps home flipping). Meanwhile, as sellers held out to find more aggressive buyers, they were in luck as the new wave of buyers has emerged, and undeterred by the 15% premium, they have been slowly but surely lifting all available offers.

    While there is little we can add to this month’s update that we didn’t already say a month ago, below we again put Canada’s housing market, and bubble, in perspective with some of our favorite charts, first showing total Canadian household debt compared to the US. Most of this is in the form of mortgages.

    Next, despite Canada’s low rates, the debt service ratio of an average Canadian household is nearly 40% higher than when compared to the US.

    And finally, the punchline: indexed home prices in Canada compared to the US. This needs to commentary.

    In retrospect, perhaps Canada was lucky that the attempt to deflate the Vancouver housing bubble failed, had it succeeded and spread across the nation leading to a historic crash and collapse in collateral values and widespread defaults, the “mean-reversion” outcome would have been devastating for the Canadian banking sector. Which of course, is not to say that Canada’s problem has been fixed, but at least for the time being, the can has been kicked once again, courtesy of Chinese buyers who would rather park their cash in Canada than at home.

  • Putin Tells Stone: "Snowden Is Not A Traitor"

    Just hours after Megyn Kelly announced on NBC’s Today show that she would be interviewing Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg tomorrow at the International Economic Forum, Showtime released the first trailer and extended clip for The Putin Interviews, a sit-down with the Russian president conducted by the film-maker Oliver Stone for a four-part special that premieres on 12 June.

    In the extended clip released on Thursday, The Guardian reports Stone and Putin can be seen driving in a car with an English translator in the backseat, discussing topics such as Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing and Russian intelligence.

    “As an ex-KGB agent, you must have hated what Snowden did with every fiber of your being,” Stone asks in the clip.

     

    “Snowden is not a traitor,” Putin replies. “He did not betray the interests of his country. Nor did he transfer any information to any other country which would have been pernicious to his own country or to his own people. The only thing Snowden does, he does publicly.”

    Even though Putin condemned the NSA's spy operation, he told Stone that Snowden shouldn't have leaked the documents they way he did.  
     
    "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further," Putin said in a clip of the interview released Saturday.  
     
    Stone, whose 2016 film Snowden detailed the rise and fall of the whistleblower, goes on to ask Putin about his own intelligence activities, and though the clip features no overt references to rumors of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, Stone can be seen asking Putin about hacking in the special’s official 30-second trailer.
     

    “I think they’re working quite well,” Putin says of Russian intelligence. “Our intelligence services always conform to the law. That’s the first thing. And secondly, trying to spy on our allies if you really consider them allies and not vassals is just indecent. Because it undermines trust. And it means that in the end, it deals damage to your own national security.”

    Stone recently took to Facebook to express his views on Trump and Putin. This film comes against a frightening background wherein the US is sleepwalking into a situation where it becomes more and more likely that Russia will react. Which is precisely what so many angry American neocons and Hillary-wing Democrats seem to want! Why? Is it really worth it to push the world closer to the nuclear precipice for this anger? Is it Trump they hate or is it truly the Russians? And why have they conflated these 2 issues?

  • Retired Green Beret Warns The World Is Short-Fused On Multiple Flash-Points

    Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

    It has been reported that the USS Nimitz will join the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Carl Vinson for a total of three U.S. carriers and their groups deployed to respond to or initiate actions against North Korea.  There is a small excerpt from an article entitled 3rd US Naval Strike Force Deployed to Deter North Korea that bears mention:

    The U.S. military, meanwhile, will test a system to shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time next week.  It is intended to simulate a North Korean ICBM aimed at the U.S.

    As you may see from that quote, it is blatantly obvious that the U.S. military is taking the North Korean threat a bit more seriously.  In the wake of two more missile tests by North Korea and the intention (after the latest test) to mass-produce missiles, the rhetoric seems to be working toward actions.  We’ve already covered numerous articles on the threat of EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapons by North Korea, as attested to by Dr. Peter V. Pry and other experts on the subject.  Now the U.S. has declared intentions of more “sanctions,” yet is emplacing a third carrier-group in the area.

    Also, on Monday, May 27, two Russian Tupolev TU-160 Blackjack bombers passed closely to British airspace…close enough that the RAF scrambled two Typhoon fighters from Lossiemouth Air Force base in Scotland to intercept them.  Many may label this as routine; however, the UK Daily Mail released an article on this incident yesterday that provides some interesting facts, under a subparagraph entitled “Putin’s Patrols: Two Years of Russian Raids,” that reports on Russian aircraft running Cold-War routes.

    When paired with all of the activities taking place off of the Alaskan coast this April and the scrambling of U.S. aircraft in response, these activities cannot be discounted as any kind of routine.  What they evidence is a growing preparedness on all sides and a ratcheting-up of tensions as the world moves closer to a major war.  The Chinese dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands is far from over, and the presence of the U.S. Navy in the region regarding North Korea has increased China’s belligerent rhetoric and her activities.

    The terrorist incidents are on the rise around the world.  All News Pipeline’s Stefan Stanford just released an excellent piece with comments from former 4-Star General John Kelly, currently the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  Entitled “Retired 4-Star General’s Dire Warning To America Should ‘Awaken’ Millions! What DOES He Know That We Don’t Know?“ the article details the heightened tensions and a worldwide sense by governments and citizens alike that the terrorist attacks will increase and not abate.

    The nations are beset by widespread domestic violence within their borders from the illegal aliens in Europe, and terrorist incidents are rising exponentially.  The United States is also seeing a rise in shootings and civil unrest along racial and political lines.

    Theaters such as North Korea, Syria, and Ukraine can morph into a state of regional war that may grow into something much larger at any given moment.  How soon? Well, it’s overdue, and whether or not it can be prevented from occurring is another matter of conjecture that only time will answer.

  • Millennials Seek "Generic Father Figure" For Backyard BBQ On Craigslist

    A group of millennials in Spokane, Washington are seeking a “generic father figure” to help them host a barbecue on Father's Day weekend.  In the Craigslist post which has explicably since gone viral, college student Dane Anderson and his “boys” are offering free food and booze to any enterprising area dad who’s willing to come to their party next Saturday and man the grill for a few hours.

    Anderson, who was interviewed by local NBC affiliate KHQ, says he created the post because he and his roommates, who range in age from 21 to 26, live too far away from their own dads.

    http://khq.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=409621149;hostDomain=www.khq.com;playerWidth=500;playerHeight=281;isShowIcon=true;clipId=13383719;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=fixed

    For any interested dads, duties include:

    • Grilling hamburgers and hotdogs (whilst drinking beer)
    • Bringing your own grill (though this is subject to change. We will provide all of the meat)
    • Refer to all attendees as "Big Guy', "Chief", "Sport", "Champ" etc. (whilst drinking beer)
    • Talk about dad things, like lawnmowers, building your own deck, Jimmy Buffet, etc. Funny anecdotes are highly encouraged. All whilst drinking beer.

    The "boys" are looking for dads with a minimum of 18 years' experience as a father, a minimum of 10 years' grilling experience and "an appreciation of a nice, cold beer on a hot summer day." For what it's worth, Anderson & Co. say they know how to grill, but that “none of us are prepared to fill the role of BBQ dad.”

    Oh, and since we are talking about millennials broke college students, Anderson says he and his roommates can’t afford to pay their stand-in “dad", though they’re offering compensation in the form of "all the food and cold beer your heart desires.”

    Anderson told KHQ that the ad has yielded a handful of responses. But at least one interested dad didn’t pan out.

    "There was one guy stan who sent us a message but then he stopped replying,” Anderson told KHQ. Now that the media has helped transform Anderson's post into a viral sensation, he and his roommates might try and recruit as many as three dads to help with the festivities.

    “We’re just looking for a dad to come and crack a cold one with the boys,” Dane said. The nature of Anderson's relationship with his own father – and whether or not he plans to call and wish him a happy father’s day – remains unclear.

  • UK Soccer Players Abandon Pound, Demand Payment In Euros

    Leading English Premier League football (soccer) stars are demanding to be paid in euros because of the weak value of the Pound, according to Manchester United, the wealthiest club in world football.

    As The FT reports, speaking at the KPMG Football Benchmark event in London on Wednesday. Cliff Baty, the English Premier League side’s chief financial officer said that last summer’s Brexit vote, which led to a sharp drop in the pound against the euro, had complicated the transfers of big-name players.

    “It was a bit difficult last year when we were trying to make signings and you had players questioning the value of being paid in sterling,” he said.

     

    “A lot of European players will want to be paid in euros, understandably to a degree. But we are a sterling company . . . [and] managing that is quite tricky.”

     

    The biggest clubs are hedged against currency movements, earning euros from playing in European competition and dollars from international sponsorship deals. Even so, Mr Baty said his club does not have enough euros in hand to accede to the request, insisting players be paid in pounds instead.

    The club’s highest paid footballer is Paul Pogba, who earns a staggering £290,000 a week.

    Before the referendum his salary was worth 380,000 euros but it has since plunged to 330,000 euros.

    Mr Baty said other players had questioned the sterling-only policy…

    “It is a natural request [from players] in understanding how much you will get paid,” he said. “We’re not going to lose signings over it. It just makes the finances more complicated.”

    We would imagine the British public would be less than worried if x-thousand bankers leave Britain for Europe's shores, but a 'Brexodus' of its best soccer players would likely mean open revolt…

  • 93% Of All Jobs "Created" Since 2008 Were Added Through The Birth/Death Model

    According to the prevailing narrative, job growth in the US, where GDP over the past decade has been on par with that in the 1930s, is one of the otherwise brighter economic indicators in a time when much of the economic data such as capital spending, productivity and especially wage growth (so critical for the Fed’s future plans) has been a chronic disappointment. Today, for example, headlines blast that the US has enjoyed 80 months of continuous jobs growth with unemployment hitting 4.3% – the lowest since 2001. However, there is more to this “strong” number than meets the untrained eye.

    As our friends at Morningside Hill calculate, a full 93% of the new jobs reported since 2008 – 6.3 million out of 6.7 million – and 40% of the jobs in 2016 alone were added through the business birth and death model – a highly controversial model which is not supported by the data. On the contrary, all data on establishment births and deaths point to an ongoing decrease in entrepreneurship.

    Here are the details of how over 90% of the jobs created in the past decade were nothing more than a “statistical” adjustment in some BLS model.

    The controversial birth death adjustments

    In order to account for jobs created or lost by new business formations or bankruptcies each month, the BLS introduced the birth/death adjustment. It started during the Reagan administration as Reagan was complaining that the bureau was undercounting the jobs he created. The birth-death model used to have a terrible name – the “bias adjustment factor.” This adjustment is computed using a model based on probability-based sampling methodology.

    The table below shows the number of jobs that were added through birth/death adjustments over the past 17 years and the percentage of jobs added through the birth/death model

    Let’s analyze the data.

    • Before 2003 few jobs were added through the adjustment, despite the fact that net business formations were much stronger back then (see data below).
    • Then, what strikes us as odd, is that according to the BLS in the depths of the 2007-2009 recession, the birth/death adjustment continued to add a lot of jobs – 904,000 jobs were added in 2009 alone. One would assume that in the nadir of the Great Recession when business defaults skyrocketed, the birth and death adjustment would be a net negative and subtract from the overall jobs number instead of adding to it.
    • Lastly, it turns out that a full 30% of jobs created since 2010 or 4.5 million out of 15 million jobs were added via the birth/death adjustment. It is also interesting to note that 40% of the jobs added in 2016 came through the adjustment.

    The reason the BLS wanted to include this adjustment was a perception that they were undercounting jobs created through new start-up business formations (that were too young and too small to show up in the Establishment Survey). Those start-ups would eventually appear in their data, but with a few months’ lag. Therefore, if there was a steady supply of new start-up businesses and no sudden shifts in the trend, no adjustment would be necessary. Logically, it would only make sense to apply the adjustment if there is a significant increase in the rate of start-up formations, which has not materialized. On the contrary, multiple studies track a consistent decline in new business creation. Literally every study we have found documents the consistently deteriorating entrepreneurial environment in the US.

    The following charts trace a clear downward trend in both employment gained from private sector births and the number of business births per year. Notice the suppressed level of births after 2008.

    Furthermore, self-employed persons as a percentage of the working age population and the number of jobs created by establishments less than one year old are also declining.

    A study by Harvard Business School entitled “Problems unsolved and a nation divided” summarizes the findings of its multi-year long project called “The US competitiveness project.” The study is a “fact-based effort to understand the disappointing performance of the American economy.” We found this project to be well worth the read and have selected the following chart (below to the left) depicting the multi-decade slowdown in new business formation. Further supporting the Harvard study findings, a Brookings Institution paper called “Declining business dynamism in the United States: a look at states and metros” shows that business formations slowed down and business deaths accelerated after the crisis of 2008 (below to the right).

    Below to the left we have a chart from the Economic Innovation Group showing the net annual change in the number of US firms. Notice the significant slowdown after 2008, including 3 negative years. This is clearly not captured by the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Below to the right we have a few charts from the Wall Street Journal summarizing some data points that confirm these trends.

    With the data on new business formations and deaths in mind let us now go back to the BLS’s official birth / death adjustments. We have charted the net jobs added through the BLS model and ran a linear trend line to see if it captures the deteriorating entrepreneurial environment. In the chart below, the upward-trending line representing net jobs added through the adjustment is in complete dissonance with all the other data.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) seems to be alone in its belief that the entrepreneurial environment in the US is improving. We believe that the BLS has been artificially inflating the monthly payroll numbers via the birth and death adjustment. This overstatement is not trivial in nature – the adjustment added 30% of all jobs reported since 2010.

    h/t Morningside Hill

Digest powered by RSS Digest