- The Public Should Demand To See The Michael Flynn Transcript
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.
The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.
President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It’s weaponized spin.
In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That’s bad. But the answer isn’t to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.
– From The Week article: America’s Spies Anonymously Took Down Michael Flynn. That is Deeply Worrying.
I never intended to write about the Michael Flynn affair. I figured it had been covered to death and I probably wouldn’t have anything to add to the conversation. That said, I hadn’t been following the story closely so I decided to get caught up by reading a diverse selection of articles on the topic. One of my favorite sources on such subjects is Glenn Greenwald, and I eagerly read his latest piece on the matter: The Leakers Who Exposed Gen. Flynn’s Lie Committed Serious — and Wholly Justified — Felonies.
There are several key points he outlines in the piece, most of which I agree with. First, he proves that the leakers committed serious felonies under the law. Second, he states that if illegal leaks lead to the disclosure of information that is clearly very much in the public interest, then such action is not only justified, but ethically necessary. I agree with this as well. Where he doesn’t really convince me, is the argument that this particular leak represented some sort of great public service. He writes:
This Flynn episode underscores another critical point: The motives of leakers are irrelevant. It’s very possible — indeed, likely — that the leakers here were not acting with benevolent motives. Nobody with a straight face can claim that lying to the public is regarded in official Washington as some sort of mortal sin; if anything, the contrary is true: It’s seen as a job requirement.
Moreover, Gen. Flynn has many enemies throughout the intelligence and defense community. The same is true, of course, of Donald Trump; recall that just a few weeks ago, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer warned Trump that he was being “really dumb” to criticize the intelligence community because “they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
It’s very possible — I’d say likely — that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble. Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House.
But no matter. What matters is not the motive of the leaker but the effects of the leak. Any leak that results in the exposure of high-level wrongdoing — as this one did — should be praised, not scorned and punished.
Glenn’s conclusion here is that the Flynn leak exposed high-level wrongdoing. What wrongdoing are we talking about specifically? Yes, it seems he clearly lied to the public and Mike Pence about the content of his conversation with the Russian ambassador. The lie to Mike Pence in particular led to Pence embarrassing himself publicly by repeating that lie, and this betrayal seems to be the primary motivator (from my seat) of why Trump fired him. Others are referring to potential violations of the Logan Act, but as we learned from Lawfare:
Flynn certainly breached protocol. He may also have broken the law by interfering with U.S. diplomatic efforts while still a private citizen, which is forbidden by the Logan Act. The centuries-old law is vague, however, and has never resulted in a conviction. Furthermore, there may be significant First Amendment problems with enforcing it. Officials became more alarmed when Flynn was not forthcoming with Vice President-Elect Pence and others, possibly including federal agents, about the conversations. Those officials feared that Flynn’s dissembling might open up him up to risks of blackmail.
Yes, Flynn was a private citizen, but he was less than a month away from being a high-level government official, and the Obama administration was doing everything it possibly could to antagonize Russia during its last few weeks in office. I’m not justifying what Flynn said in those conversations, or the lies he told about it, but there’s a key problem with this whole leak. It wasn’t really a leak meant to inform the public. It was a leak to specific journalists, at specific papers, with a clear intent of political assassination through the manipulation of public opinion via cryptic releases of filtered information.
For example, here’s how the New York Times reported on the information in its February 9 article, Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office:
WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials.
Throughout the discussions, the message Mr. Flynn conveyed to the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak — that the Obama administration was Moscow’s adversary and that relations with Russia would change under Mr. Trump — was unambiguous and highly inappropriate, the officials said.
But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues.
The officials said that Mr. Flynn had never made explicit promises of sanctions relief, but that he had appeared to leave the impression it would be possible.
How do we know what was really said without the transcript?
During the Christmas week conversation, he urged Mr. Kislyak to keep the Russian government from retaliating over the coming sanctions — it was an open secret in Washington that they were in the works — by telling him that whatever the Obama administration did could be undone, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified material.
Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions.
Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser.
I have so many issues with the above reporting it’s hard to know where to start. Everything mentioned above is given to us secondhand via “anonymous American officials.” Nowhere do I see any specific quotes from the transcript, despite the fact that the paper admits it talked with federal officials who read it. Why not? Why must we hear about the content of the transcripts secondhand from anonymous officials? This is the most significant red flag with this whole story. If the leakers were truly interested in transparency, and wanted the public to know the truth, why not leak the transcript to Wikileaks and let the public decide?
I’ll tell you why. They didn’t do this because transparency was never the goal here. They wanted to illegally use intelligence information to take a scalp from a Trump administration they hate, and they knew they could do this via mainstream media journalists. I know what you’re thinking, Edward Snowden didn’t leak everything to Wikileaks either. He likewise picked a few journalists and trusted them to responsibly report the information. How is this any different?
It’s different in two important respects. First, we are talking about a single transcript, or a few transcripts, as opposed to the enormous intelligence data-dump that Snowden provided. Secondly, The Intercept and others who reported on the Snowden material provided a huge amount of primary source documentation for the public to see so that it could come to its own conclusion. They didn’t simply tell everyone what to think about leaked documents while refusing to share any actual content. Where are the specific, comprehensive quotes from the Flynn transcript? Why doesn’t the public have a right to see the entire thing? Instead, we are being told what happened and what to think via secondhand anonymous sources. Sorry, but this doesn’t cut it for me.
I have yet to see any excerpts from the transcript. All I’ve seen is what anonymous officials say was discussed. This is absurd. We the people should demand the content of the relevant transcripts so we can decide for ourselves just how bad Flynn’s actions were. In the absence of this, we’re essentially being manipulated on a massive scale by rogue intelligence agents and told what to think through the major newspapers. This doesn’t cut it for me. I want to see the content of these conversations so I can make up my own mind. Perhaps it’s even worse than we know. So be it. We should be treated as adults and allowed to see the actual conversation if it’s going to be made into a story of such huge national importance.
Finally, I want to end with the mind-boggling absurdity of those who wanted Edward Snowden’s head on a platter, but are somehow ok with these leaks. As Lawfare explains:
Furthermore, these leaks are criminal. As Edward Snowden has learned, the Espionage Act makes intentional disclosure of classified “communications intelligence activities” a felony if such disclosure is made in a “manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 798(a). This particular group of leakers might argue their motives were in defense of U.S. interests—to protect the nation from national security policy guided by a hand tainted by Russian influence—but under current law, that argument is highly unlikely to prevail. As Snowden well knows, there is no public interest defense to prosecution for violations of the Espionage Act.
Somehow I doubt the Flynn leakers will find themselves in the same position as Snowden, scrambling to get to a country that will provide them safe haven from the vast, vindictive reach of the U.S. government. That’s because the leakers in this case are powerful operatives of the deep state. As Greenwald explained:
It’s hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people — from both parties, across the ideological spectrum — who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn.
It’s even more surreal to watch Democrats act as though lying to the public is some grave firing offense when President Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, got caught red-handed not only lying to the public but also to Congress — about a domestic surveillance program that courts ruled was illegal. And despite the fact that lying to Congress is a felony, he kept his job until the very last day of the Obama presidency.
But this is how political power and the addled partisan brain in D.C. functions. Those in power always regard leaks as a heinous crime, while those out of power regard them as a noble act. They seamlessly shift sides as their position in D.C. changes.
Finally, if you want to get a sense of the mindset behind the most adamant defenders of the Flynn leaks, take a look at the following tweets from former NSA analyst and Naval War College professor, John Schindler.
If that’s “the resistance,” I want no part of it. As I summarized on Twitter:
Thus far, "the resistance" seems to consist primarily of violent social justice warriors, and deep state sycophants.
No thanks.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) February 15, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
- Arguing Immigration with a Compassionate Liberal -or- How to Twist Your Head into a Pretzel
The following article by David Haggith was published first on The Great Recession Blog:
![Dorothea Lange [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons](https://i0.wp.com/thegreatrecession.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/Langechildren2.jpg?resize=477%2C599)
Arguing with a liberal about the economic impact of rampant immigration will twist your brain into a pretzel. It inevitably goes something like this:
“Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are taking millions of our jobs.”
“No, they’re not.”
“Then they’re all on welfare.”
“No, they’re not. Even most undocumented workers are productive members of society.”
“How are they productive if they’re not taking jobs?”
“Undocumented workers are only taking jobs American’s don’t want.”
“Americans don’t want those jobs because migrant workers have been taking them for so many decades that wages have remained stagnant at a level that only a totally desperate person would work for. That is exactly how they are hurting us by taking jobs. They are not just taking up jobs, but they are keeping wages suppressed because Americans would have to reduce themselves to living like many migrant workers in substandard housing and driving badly broken vehicles in order to stay alive at those wages if they accepted those jobs.”
“Migrants only live at that level because they are forced to.”
“Exactly. They are forced to because the pay for those jobs never goes up because they are willing to live at that level out of desperation if that is what it takes to stay alive, and you’re willing to exploit them.”
“And if migrant workers didn’t do that, you’d have to pay more for all the food you eat. Do you really want to pay more for everything?”
Migrant workers in a California field.
Maintaining a peasant immigrant labor class is what it is really all about
And that, you see, is the bottom line — cheap labor via a peasant class. We don’t want to pay more for everything, so both political parties turn a blind eye to the cheap, illegal labor and keep the peasants coming, regardless of the social costs of maintaining a peasant class.
They are truly peasants, not just because of their living conditions, but because they supposedly have no voting rights (debatable). They have no say in the laws that govern them so live by the rules of another class of people, and they have to keep their heads low to keep from being deported. That means they dare not complain about working conditions either, as Americans most certainly would.
Peasants have to take what they get. That’s why we keep them illegal, and why we just catch and release them, letting them stay here in spite of the fact we know they have no legal right to because we just caught them crossing the border. It all forces them to keep their heads low … until one day they rise enough in numbers that they don’t keep their heads low any longer, and the peasants revolt against their slavish conditions.
Caesar Chavez, Migrant Workers Union leader.
What about the compassionate liberal argument for immigrant labor
At this point, the liberal turns to the compassion argument, since the economic argument for immigrant labor leads to ruin. The compassionate argument runs like this, this time started by the liberal:
“You are mean and cruel for wanting to kick a million and a half undocumented workers out of this country.”
“No more mean and cruel than you are for insisting on keeping out the hundreds of millions more people who want in but are kept out because they respect our immigration laws.”
“I don’t insist on keeping anyone out.”
“Of course you do. Otherwise, you’d spend all this protest energy trying to get the government to declare open borders to the whole world and let in everyone who wants in so long as they’re not criminals.”
“There wouldn’t be that many that would come in anyway.”
“Eliminate all immigration laws, except those barring criminals, and find out.”
“That is ridiculous. We have to have some reasonable limits because we cannot absorb hundreds of millions all at once.”
“So, you only want to keep out the ones who are respecting the legal process but keep in all the ones that jumped ahead of them in line? I want to kick out 1.5 million or more who jumped ahead in line, but you want to keep out hundreds of millions, and that makes you more compassionate?”
“Yes, it does. We cannot absorb hundreds of millions. It’s ridiculous. I would if we could, but it’s not even possible.”
“So, there is nothing wrong with having immigration laws, but just with enforcing them?”
“Yes, that’s mean and cruel because you are breaking up families.”
“Didn’t they know that was the huge risk they took in breaking the law and coming into the country illegally — that it might be really messy when they’re forced to leave?”
“You’re a racist with no heart.”
“What if I’m of English decent and also don’t want 1.5 million illegal aliens from the UK?”
“You’re English? See, I knew you were racist.”
“What if I just don’t want more people of any color, including my own, because we already have too many people in the US?”
“Why don’t you just leave the country and solve the problem then?”
“Aren’t you the one who promised you would leave if Trump was elected? Why should I just force the problem onto some other nation? You see, at one time, we had a vast land we wanted to occupy in order to keep the Indians from having it all, so bringing in immigrants was the only way to occupy all of it. But I think we’re full, and we can stop now.”
“See, you’re a racist.”
“No, I love Indians and even have some as relatives; but I’ll bet the Indians would have been glad to have a lot fewer migrants, too, starting with the Mayflower. Look, my point is that there was once a lot of land available. Now the land is overstrained. We don’t need more housing developments all over the countryside. Don’t need more congested streets and more auto pollution and more petroleum consumption. Don’t need more landfills filling up faster and more sewage, and we don’t even have enough potable water in the places that want immigrants the most. There is simply no way to bring in millions more people without adding to all those problems because we’re full now. The land simply cannot absorb more without it having a negative impact.”
“That makes no sense. We’d have no economy if we stopped immigration. We have to keep bringing in people so that we have people to build housing for. Building those developments is what keeps the economy perking.”
“So, we need all of our cities to endlessly grow like Mexico city or like California has been doing and never stop increasing the population because that is the only way to sustain a healthy economy? Is that the Californian version of sustainability? California has grown to where it doesn’t even have enough water for all of its people without going to another state to get it. So, doesn’t water, at least, force a point at which you say population growth is enough already? Yet, California wants immigrants more than any state. That’s why they’ve made themselves a sancturary against immigration law enforcement. Where is it going to get the additional water?”
“That is ridiculous. Haven’t you seen that it is raining in California now? They’ve solved this problem. They now need more people in order to drink the water fast enough to keep their reservoirs from overflowing and breaking their damn dams.”
“Maybe they just want to use all those people to fill the holes in the dam and plug the damn leaks.”
“That’s horrible. They want them because they are compassionate.”
“Then why are they so uncompassionate toward the millions of others that they keep out with immigration laws? Maybe they just don’t need all those others to pick their oranges for a penny each and mow their lawns at a nice low price. Maybe they just want enough to keep the price stable and low.”
“That is a racist comment that assumes migrant workers are only good for mowing lawns and picking crops.”
“It’s not me bringing them all in and then paying them poorly for mowing my lawn. I mow my own lawn. Isn’t that the situation you’re keeping all of them in? Why don’t you pay them more so they can live like you in a house right beside you, instead of mow your lawn and then return to their trailer? You know, open the community gates.”
“That is ridiculous. Why is that my responsibility? I pay my gardeners fine. I pay them as much as anyone else does. I cannot help what the economy will bare.”
“Of course you can, because maintaining such a huge supply of immigrant workers, especially the cheaper illegal ones, makes sure the cost of their labor stays low for you.”
And there we are, full circle. It’s all about maintaining a peasant class for the privileged. How else will they enjoy a liberal lifestyle?
- Youtube’s Biggest Personality, PewDiePie, Wrongly Defamed for Being an Anti-Semite
PewdiePie used to do videos about video games, luring 53 million youngsters to subscribe to his channel — making it the biggest channel on Youtube ever, by a very large margin.
Recently, he’s been dropping redpills on his subs, discussing media hypocrisy, with a slight conservative bent. He did a comedy video about Hitler and the result was manufactured outrage, spawned by a Wall Street Journal article and subsequent cancellation of a deal he had with Disney.
Here’s the lesson gleaned from this episode of more main stream media FAKE NEWS: young people are getting pissed off by this and have taken to the internets to vent their rage.
My son, who is 20, sent this to me.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
- Meet China's Hedge Fund Capital
China has often found itself in trouble over the past couple of decades for its attempts to replicate technology from other developed countries. But technological advances aren’t the only things being mimicked in China as the country is also littered with fake replicas of monuments from around the world including the Great Sphinx of Giza, the Sydney Opera House and the U.S. Capitol building, just to name a few.
Now, in an effort to replicate the United States’ bustling hedge fund industry, China has apparently also decided to knock off Greenwich, CT. Appropriately named Yuhuang Shannan Fund Town, more than 1,000 hedge funds and private equity funds, overseeing a combined 580 billion yuan ($84 billion), have registered in the village since its official re-branding in May?2015. And, with subsidies amounting to 30% of a typical firm’s tax bill adding to the area’s appeal, it’s no wonder that Yuhuang Shannan now boasts one of China’s largest hedge fund clusters outside the mega-cities of Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen…hedgies do love their tax havens. Per Bloomberg:
Nestled between the Qiantang River and Jade Emperor Hill, the village of Yuhuang Shannan feels a world removed from the surrounding metropolis of Hangzhou. The city of 9 million is hectic and loud, while this gated community—on the same site where emperors in the Song dynasty prayed for good harvests centuries ago—is quiet and green, exuding the feeling of a laid-back, high-end oasis.
Almost non-existent just a couple of years ago, China’s hedge fund industry has blossomed recently with the total number of hedge funds almost doubled in 2016, and assets under management that have more than tripled over the past two years.
In part, the Chinese hedge fund industry is booming thanks to cautious support from securities regulators and the gradual liberalization of local equity and bond markets. Despite some scandals—including a high-profile market manipulation conviction—policymakers are starting to view hedge funds as worthwhile contributors to Asia’s largest economy.
As Bloomberg notes, “fund towns”, like Yuhuang Shannan, are attracting alumni from some the largest U.S. banks and hedge funds from Goldman Sachs to Bridgewater.
Alumni of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch have moved in, while a representative of Connecticut-based Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund firm, is said to have made a recent visit. “The natural environment is fantastic, and I believe the cluster effect will become stronger and stronger,” says Ted Wang, a former co-head of equities trading for the Americas at Goldman Sachs who now runs Puissance Capital Management, a global investment firm with offices in New York and China. Wang has registered two of his Chinese equity funds in Yuhuang Shannan.
In many ways, the evolution of Yuhuang Shannan mirrors that of the entire country. The area was used mostly for farmland until the 20th?century, when industrialization brought factories and warehouses. About a decade ago the local government made a big push into services, promoting the area first as a tourism zone and then as a design hub. Neither of those efforts was successful, but when hedge funds began moving in and authorities heard about Greenwich, the idea for a fund managers’ village took root.
Today, Yuhuang Shannan is one of the most prominent examples of what policymakers call “characteristic small towns.” The village hosts about 3,000?employees of funds and related businesses, a figure local officials predict will climb as new residential and office space comes online.
Of course, for economic planners keen to reduce the nation’s reliance on infrastructure spending and heavy manufacturing, there’s a lot to like about hedge funds…after all, you can’t just keep constructing buildings then knocking them down and rebuilding them to engineer economic growth…better to pursue that strategy with financial markets instead.
Unfortunately for China’s newest financial wizards, in addition to replicating Greenwich architecture, the hedge fund managers also managed to replicate the negative 2016 fund returns of American’s largest “2 & 20” billionaires.
While Chinese hedge funds lost money on average last year, they avoided a client backlash by outperforming local equity and credit markets. Funds tracked by Shanghai Suntime Information Technology were down 2.5 percent in 2016, vs. a 12 percent slide in the Shanghai Composite Index and a 10 percent retreat in high-yield corporate bonds. Client inflows fueled a 55?percent jump in industry assets, while the number of registered funds rose to a record 27,015, according to the Asset Management Association of China.
Charlie Wang, who ran Bank of America’s global equity quant group in London before leaving to start his own investment firm in 2015, launched two funds in China last year. He says the country’s markets have entered something of a sweet spot; while they’ve grown more sophisticated, adding new tools such as futures and options, they’re still inefficient enough to produce attractive returns for savvy managers. That’s thanks in part to the outsize impact of individual investors, who drive more than 80 percent of volume in the Chinese stock market, vs. about 15 ?percent in the U.S.
“It’s easier to achieve alpha here,” says Wang, 53, who oversees about 350 million yuan as the chairman of MD Grand Investments. He opened a commodity futures fund in Yuhuang Shannan last March and added an equity fund in July, connecting with some of his early clients through the village’s management committee.
This should end well…
- The Difference Between "F##k You Money" And "F##k Everybody Money"
Submitted by Daniel Drew via Dark-Bid.com,
Something strange happened at Google recently. Bloomberg alleges that Google paid its top level employees so much that they crossed the line into "F*** You Money" territory, prompting the employees to pack up and quit. While this intriguing turn of events may have transpired at Google and other technology companies, this would never happen on Wall Street for one reason alone: "F*** You Money" is simply not good enough for the fast money crowd. The pinnacle achievement in the investment industry is "F*** Everybody Money."
As the Wall Street Journal aptly noted in their concise chart, most people making less than $10,000 are dissatisfied with life.
As people approach the $100,000 mark, most of them are satisfied. That's why it's not terribly surprising to see stories like this one. Bloomberg reports,
"Early staffers had an unusual compensation system that awarded supersized payouts based on the project's value. In addition to cash salaries, some staffers were given bonuses and equity in the business and these awards were set aside in a special entity. After several years, Google applied a multiplier to the value of the awards and paid some or all of it out. The multiplier was based on periodic valuations of the division, the people said. A large multiplier was applied to the compensation packages in late 2015, resulting in multi-million dollar payments in some cases, according to the people familiar with the situation. One member of the team had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years, one of the people said."
The whole purpose of compensation is to prevent employees from leaving. Ironically, Google's high pay caused just the opposite, turning traditional compensation theory on its head. This whole episode will be a case study for human resources departments for years. Why does high pay cease to be an incentive after a certain point? The compensation analysts apparently forgot to read the Wall Street Journal study. Most people are satisfied with "F*** You Money."
Legitimate retention efforts start at the hiring process. If you have such a valuable project, finding highly qualified people is not enough. You have to find people who are both qualified and exponentially driven by money – with no cutoff point. You need someone who isn't satisfied with "F*** You Money." What you need is someone who settles for nothing less than "F*** Everybody Money."
What is "F*** Everybody Money," and where can you find these people? Look no further.
- On The Verge Of Treason: US Spies Withhold Intelligence From Trump
Following President Trump’s exclamations today with regard “un-American” leaks of classified intel, it appears he has a bigger, more serious problem on his hands. WSJ reports that US intel officials have withheld information from President Trump due to concerns it could be leaked or compromised.
The Wall Street Journal, citing unidentified current and former officials familiar with the matter, reports that officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.
In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.
In some ways Trump may not care: according to the WSK, “Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr. Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.”
However, now that the WSJ brought up this topic, one can be absolutely sure the first demand Trump will make during his next intel briefing: “show me all the information.” That’s when things could get rough.
The officials quoted by the WSJ emphasized they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted, although if indeed “some” information is withheld, it is the functional equivalent of Trump making decisions blind.
While a White House official said: “There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening”, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he has heard concerns from officials about sharing especially sensitive information with Mr. Trump.
“I’ve talked with people in the intelligence community that do have concerns about the White House, about the president, and I think those concerns take a number of forms,” Mr. Schiff said, without confirming any specific incidents.
“What the intelligence community considers their most sacred obligation is to protect the very best intelligence and to protect the people that are producing it.”
So, why are they worried?
The current and former officials said the decision to avoid revealing sources and methods with Mr. Trump stems in large part from the president’s repeated expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his call, during the presidential campaign for Russia to continue hacking the emails of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.
As the long-running tensions between the pro-Hillary intelligence community and President Trump rise, it is becoming increasingly clear that this escalating distrust between the top US spies on one hand and the White House on the other, will lead to a vicious circle of less information-sharing and implicitly more distrust until Trump moves from tweet-castigation to treason charges, or alternatively the spooks dig deep into the NSA server’s bag of goodies, and unleash full out mutiny (see John Schindler’s narrative for big details how this may play out).
- How Much Must A Family Earn To Live In Each Major US City
London-based realtor Nested produced the 2017 Rental Index in conjunction with their recent Real Estate Index. The study illustrates the price of renting per square foot in 10 major US cities and a number of metropolises worldwide. The research conveys the minimum gross salary required to support an individual and a family of four in rented property based on the minimum space recommended for one person, and for four people respectively.
Some of the key findings:
- The top three most expensive cities to rent in worldwide are American: San Francisco, New York City and Boston
- At $1.09 per square foot, Detroit is the cheapest of the American cities included, and is more affordable than Cape Town, Bangkok and Jakarta.
- New York City and San Francisco are five times more expensive than Detroit, and three times more expensive than Houston
The study was undertaken to understand the costs associated with renting as an individual and as a family, and to determine whether cities are becoming increasingly unaffordable. The inclusion of the global ranking alongside the US ranking allows easy comparison between the two, and illustrates the relative unaffordability of major US cities compared to other global settlements.
The price per square foot of property was calculated based upon current market listings for all locations researched, while the minimum space recommended for one person and four people is laid out in guidelines from an urban planning authority. The gross salary guideline was included to help illustrate relative affordability.
Here are the study’s core findings about the US market.
- The most expensive city in the United States to rent property is San Francisco, at $4.95 per square foot.
- To afford to rent the minimal rental space recommended for one person and cover additional living costs in San Francisco, an individual needs a gross income of $85,985.38 per year.
- The minimal rental space recommended for a family of four costs $3,942.82 per month in San Francisco. To afford that and cover additional living costs, a gross income of $163,151.17 per year is required.
- The most affordable American city in the list is Detroit, where a square foot costs $1.09.
- To live alone in Detroit and cover additional living costs, an annual salary of only $18,933.96 is required.
- The afford the minimal space recommended for a family of four and cover additional living costs in Detroit, an income of $35,926.34 is required.
- A family rental in Detroit is cheaper than a single rental in seven US cities in the list, including Miami, Los Angeles and Seattle.
- Rental properties in New York City and San Francisco are more than three times more expensive than in Houston, and almost five times more expensive than in Detroit.
The results for the United States, ranked by the cost of rental per square per foot, are as follows:
* * *
Expanding to all global cities:
- The three most expensive cities to rent globally are all in America: San Francisco, New York City and Boston. 120 global cities were included in the study.
- Of the cities included in the list, five of the top ten most expensive cities to rent are in the US.
- The most expensive city outside of the US for rental is Hong Kong, where a annual gross income of $66,530.07 is required to afford the minimum space recommended for one person and living costs.
- To afford the minimum space recommended for a family of four and cover additional living costs in Hong Kong, an annual income of $126,236.28 is required.
- Of the 120 cities included, Cairo is the cheapest city to rent property, at just 28 cents per square foot.
- To afford the recommended space for one person and cover additional living costs in Cairo, a gross income of $6,130.89 per year is needed.
- To pay for family rental and additional living costs in Cairo, a gross income of $11,633.11 per year is needed.
- At $1.09 per square foot, rental in Detroit is cheaper than in Cape Town, Bangkok or Jakarta.
The top 25 results for the global cities list, ranked by the cost of rental per square per metre, are as follows:
For the full list, go here.
- The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil "Populism"
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves. In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.
Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up. However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea. They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.
Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.
Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation. It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas. But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.
For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith. The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity. The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional "free markets" anymore.
Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used. It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it. They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”
While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard. One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.
Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?” I can’t really say. What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent. Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”
This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.
Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.” This is not quite true, though.
When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts. We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are. We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.
This is not what they do to us. Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us. They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles. They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us. This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question. They have no idea what we really stand for. In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.
This brings us to “populism.”
There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general. I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win. The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:
Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations. This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump. Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries. It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds. It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism. Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them. Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.
You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets. The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example. The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.
Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.” This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.
But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made. The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED. Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane. See how that works?
The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives. Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.
So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”
Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.
Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of "fake news".
If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists. They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow. This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.
Not possible, you say? By all means, read my article 'The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017' for further explanation. If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.
In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?
One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical. Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest. The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.
We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet. Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react. A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views. We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”
Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us. Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.
In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us. The real issue is, will those labels stick? Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?
Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people. In 100 years, how will we be remembered? This is what the globalists value most – future impressions of today by generations not yet born. Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALL moments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of. If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible.
- FBI Reportedly Will Not Pursue Charges Against "Cooperative And Truthful" Mike Flynn
Amid a day of condemnations and escalating supposition – if authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., "it could expose him to a felony charge" – it appears the Flynn story may be about to fade from the news cycle. Exposing The New York Times' "alternative facts" about Flynn, CNN's Jim Sciutto reports The FBI is not expected to pursue charges against Michael Flynn.
Earlier today, media reports hit that FBI agents interviewed Michael Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
While it is not clear what he said in his interview, the FBI now adds that investigators "believed that Mr. Flynn was not entirely forthcoming, the officials said." That avenue raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job, and which Sean Spicer explained today was merely a matter of Trump "losing trust" in his Security advisor, because if authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., "it could expose him to a felony charge", even though some have questioned how an illegally obtained transcript of his phone conversation could be admissable as evidence in a court of law.
But now, CNN's Jim Sciutto reports,
Breaking: FBI NOT expected to pursue charges against #MichaelFlynn regarding phone calls w/Russian Ambassador, reports @evanperez
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) February 15, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And even more disappointingly for those calling for his head…
More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) February 15, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Seems fair, The FBI had no problem letting Hillary Clinton off the hook despite numerous attempts to hide the truth.. and from what it seems now, Flynn didn't even do that.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...