- Tucker Carlson Takes on Idiot Huffpo Columnist Over Russian Hacking Claim
Robert McElvaine has been a busy little bee on Huffington Post, fomenting strife, disunity and complete horseshit, following the electoral college win by Donald J. Trump.
Let’s review some of his recent ‘work’ and then segue over to Tucker Carlson’s debate with the good Professor, attempting to get to the bottom of this great big Russian ordeal.
Source: HuffPo
12/12/16
How Putin Would Be Able to Control TrumpRonald Reagan completed the winning of the Cold War. Donald Trump as president would be very likely to transform that American victory into a Russian triumph.
Are Republicans prepared to live with that outcome? Those who aren’t need immediately to join with concerned Democrats and hammer out a Compromise of 2016 that will create a National Unity Government without a Putin puppet in the Oval Office.12/11/16
Where Is the Outrage? Where Are the Patriots?We have only seven days to save the Republic from a hostile takeover by billionaire American oligarchs and their Russian backers. Are there no courageous patriots in the top ranks of the news media? How about political leaders from both parties who could come forward and work out a compromise Government of National Unity not including Trump, such as the one suggested here, that could be presented to the Electors. Are there not at least 38 Republican Electors who would be willing to put their nation above their party and do what the Framers of the Constitution intended Electors to do in a crisis such as this: prevent the election of a dangerous demagogue and a foreign power gaining, as Alexander Hamilton put it in The Federalist No. 68, “an improper ascendant in our councils … by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
12/10/16
Save America through a Compromise of 2016After each side comes up with a proposal, leaders from each group can enter negotiations to reach an agreement acceptable to both by next weekend that can be announced before December 19, with a call on Electors from both parties to support the chosen candidates. In light both of her large margin of victory in the actual vote and of the Russian intervention against her, it is entirely reasonable that the president chosen in these negotiations should by Hillary Clinton, with a Republican Vice President. Only if acceptance of that outcome proves impossible to achieve should Mrs. Clinton agree to step aside and call for the Electors from both parties to join together in choosing a ticket of sane people not under the influence of Mr. Putin.
12/07/16
Hillary Can Be A Hero By Saving America From TrumpGiven the general disarray of the Trump campaign during the primaries, it is likely that a good number of the people chosen as Republican Electors in states that he carried are not particularly loyal to him. One, Chris Suprun of Texas, declared on Monday that he will not vote for Trump. “I am here to elect a president, not a king,” he said. He is leaning towards voting for Gov. Kasich. If Hillary Clinton and Democratic Electors get the ball rolling, it is likely that more Republicans who are fearful of what Trump might do can be brought into the compromise for the good of the nation.
It is a no-lose proposition for Democrats, because, as Mr. Cannon says, “If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat to the republic, and signal this is not okay by reaching across the aisle to marginalize and stop him, then win or lose, Democrats could legitimately claim they put partisanship aside for the good of the country.”
This is an opportunity that must be seized immediately. Go for it, Mrs. Clinton and Democrats! There’s not a moment to waste. This proposal can determine, in Lincoln’s words, whether we shall “nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth.”
Such a selfless, patriotic act would be a crowning achievement for Secretary Clinton’s career of public service.
What in the actual fuck?
You get the gist. Sorry to have put you through that drivel. Now bear witness to Professor Robert McElvaine’s complete and total destruction.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
- Is Obama Setting-Up War With Russia By 'Unraveling' The Situation In Syria?
Submitted by Eric Zuesse via Strategic-Culture.org,
A 12 August 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency warning that the Obama Administration’s strategy might drive ISIS from Mosul in Iraq to Der Zor in Syria, is now being actually carried out as a plan instead of a warning — a plan to weaken and ultimately oust Syria’s non-sectarian President Bashar al-Assad and replace him with a Sunni Sharia-law regime (one led by jihadists). The DIA warning had called this scenario an “unraveling,” but Obama and the U.S. Congress are now actually choosing it, so as to set the incoming President Trump up with an opportunity to replace Assad’s government by one that the Sauds and their U.S.-made weapons will control.
The DIA warning in 2012 had said:
“C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST [fundamentalist Sunni] PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS [U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey] TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE [pro-Russian and pro-Iranian] SYRIAN REGIME.”
Whoever wrote this assessment recognized that though the option would mean an “unraveling” of Syria, it’s what the U.S. and its allies were actually seeking.
On September 17th, U.S. and UK jets bombed the compound of Syrian government troops who were fighting to oust jihadists from Deir Ezzor (or “Der Zor”), and killed 62 Syrian soldiers, with a hundred more injured, in that U.S.-led bombing attack. Der Zor was being softened-up for the coming U.S.-and-allied takeover.
The brilliant anonymous military blogger “Moon of Alabama” then became the first reporter to notice the possible connection that the DIA’s warning might end up having to what is now the joint U.S.-Turkish-Iraqi operation against ISIS in Mosul; he headlined on 20 September 2016, “Deir Ezzor Attack Enables The ‘Salafist Principality’ As Foreseen In The 2012 DIA Analysis”, and he wrote:
“Two recent attacks against the Syrian Arab Army in east-Syria point to a U.S. plan to eliminate all Syrian government presence east of Palmyra. This would enable the U.S. and its allies to create a ‘Sunni entity’ in east-Syria and west-Iraq which would be a permanent thorn in side of Syria and its allies [Russia and Iran]. A 2012 analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency said” — and he then quoted the above DIA excerpt.
Then on October 12th, he bannered “The ’Salafist Principality’ — ISIS Paid Off To Leave Mosul And To Take Deir Ezzor?”, and reported that the Obama Administration had just negotiated with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, and with Saudi Prince Salman (who is the decision-maker in Saudi military matters), to provide safe passage into the large Syrian city of Deir Es Zor, for the ISIS jihadists who were occupying the large city of Mosul in Iraq.
He cited also a tweet on the morning of October 12th, from the celebrated Syrian historian and journalist Nizar Nayouf, reporting: “Breaking news: Sources in #London say: #US&#Saudi_Arabia concluded an agreement to let #ISIS leave #Mosul secretly & safely to #Syria.”
Furthermore, on October 15th, the Turkish government posted online a map showing the “‘Sensitive’ Operation Plan for Mosul” including six steps, one of which was “An escape corridor into Syria will be left for Daesh [ISIS] so they can vacate Mosul.” Though the U.S. government wasn’t public about this part of the plan — moving the jihadists “into Syria” instead of killing the jihadists (as Obama always claimed to be his intention) — the Turkish government was.
Slightly beyond Der Zor is Palmyra — another Syrian city that the U.S.-Saudi alliance want to grab.
On December 11th, Russian Television headlined “4,000 ISIS fighters regroup, make new attempt to capture Palmyra”, and reported that:
“Over 4,000 Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists, reinforced by tanks, have started an offensive to retake the key Syrian city of Palmyra after regrouping themselves. … The terrorists have received considerable reinforcement, including heavy military hardware from the regions of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. …The terrorists are receiving support from jihadists coming from Iraq. … In October, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that terrorists ‘could flee from Mosul and go to Syria.’”
That’s precisely what is now happening.
So: the Obama Administration seems to be making considerable progress to set up the next U.S. President, Trump, with an “unraveling” situation in Syria, so as to enable Trump to continue Obama’s war against Russia and all its allies (such as Syria).
Whether President Trump will continue Obama’s policy isn’t yet clear.
* * *
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity
- China to Slap Penalty On Unnamed American Automaker for 'Monopolistic Behavior'
Apparently, the Obama White House and republic shill, John McCain, didn’t do a good enough job cow towing to the demands of their Chinese overlords, following Trump’s outrageous behavior of receiving a phone call from the democratically elected Taiwanese President and also suggesting that the American people weren’t bound to accept the absurdity of a ‘One China’ policy.
These people would’ve been great friends of Germany in the 1930s and 40’s, perhaps ceding to a ‘One Germany’ policy — pan Europe.
In response to Trump’s lack of servile behavior, China has announced they will penalize an unnamed American automaker for price rigging.
Source: Reuters
China will soon slap a penalty on an un-named U.S. automaker for monopolistic behavior, the official China Daily newspaper reported on Wednesday, quoting a senior state planning official.
Investigators found the U.S. company had instructed distributors to fix prices starting in 2014, Zhang Handong, director of the National Development and Reform Commission’s price supervision bureau, was quoted as saying.
“We are unaware of the issue,” said Mark Truby, Ford’s chief spokesman for its Asia-Pacific operations.
GM did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Following the Trump-Wallace interview, where he displayed an egregious level of disobedience to Chinese slavers, the White House scrambled to appease Beijing with sweet words of surrender.
The White House on Monday insisted that Washington’s “one China” policy should not be used as a “bargaining chip” with Beijing after President-elect Donald Trump said the United States did not necessarily have to be bound by its long-standing position that Taiwan is part of China.
Signaling further resistance Trump will face in Washington if he tries to overturn a principle that has underpinned more than four decades of U.S.-China relations, Republican U.S. Senator John McCain said he personally backed the “China policy” and no one should “leap to conclusions” that the president-elect would abandon it.
“I do not respond to every comment by the president-elect because it may be reversed the next day,” McCain told Reuters when asked about Trump’s statement in an interview broadcast over the weekend.
Trump set off a diplomatic firestorm when he told Fox News: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.” This followed an earlier protest from China over the Republican president-elect’s decision to accept a telephone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen on Dec. 2.
After Trump’s phone conversation with Taiwan’s president, the Obama administration said senior White House aides had spoken with Chinese officials to insist that Washington’s “one China” policy remained unchanged.
Both Ford and GM have been posting record sales in China — representing their highest growth markets in the world. Sales for Ford vehicles in China have topped 1 million for 2016 — higher by 17.1% in November, or 124,113 vehicles. Ford Explorer sales were up 73% and Ford Edge sales were higher by 21%. (source: DetroitNews)
“Ford is gaining more momentum in China each month and we are on pace for a record year in China,” Peter Fleet, vice president of marketing, sales and service for Ford Asia Pacific, said in a statement. “We are seeing increasing demand across our lineup, particularly our full family of SUVs.”
GM sales in China leaped higher by 7% in November — recording sales of 371,740 vehicles. Buick, Cadillac and Baojun are all enjoying record sales and have sold upwards of 3.4 million vehicles in China for 2016 — an increase of 8.5%. (source: GMAuthority)
“With less than a month to go, we are on track for record sales in 2016,” said GM Executive Vice President and GM China President Matt Tsien. “All recently launched products, such as the new-generation Buick GL8 and Baojun 310, have gotten off to a very good start of deliveries.”
In a bizarro world, both $F and $GM will shoot higher on this news.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
- Dallas Police Resignations Soar As "Insolvent" Pension System Implodes
A few days ago we noted that the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System (DPFP) took the unprecedented step of halting withdrawals from their DROP fund after a “run on the bank” pushed to the entire pension system, and the City of Dallas, to the brink of liquidity crisis (see “In Unprecedented Move, Dallas Pension System Suspends Withdrawals“). Now, a local CBS affiliate in Dallas is reporting that the pension crisis is driving a massive surge in police resignations.
Interim Dallas Police Chief David Pughes told city council members Monday that 99 officers have left the department since October 1.
City councilman Philip Kingston is among those who blame the situation on the cash-starved police and fire pension fund.
“It’s concerning, but it’s not very surprising with the turmoil surrounding the pension system,” said Kingston.
In a statement, Mayor Mike Rawlings said, “This is why we are working so hard to address our pension crisis.”
The Dallas Police Association said in any given year, about 180 officers leave the department — either to retire or work at higher-paying departments.
About half the number have left in a two and a half month period.
Of course, not surprisingly, the majority of the resignations came from older, tenured officers who had the most to lose.
“I think most of those 99 were tenured officers, so those are our most experienced officers, the majority investigative detectives who solve crimes everyday,” said Mata.
Councilman Kingston acknowledges the department’s challenge. “I think Chief Pughes is going to have to be creative. There’s nothing we can do to fix that in the short term. He has the number of officers he has and he has got to get results using those officers.”
Meanwhile, just like any other government problem, Dallas city council members have decided that the appropriate solution to their liquidity crisis is to offer police officers a 27% pay increase to be phased in over the next three years…that should be “roughly” inline with inflation, give or take 25%.
After months of negotiations, city council members will vote Wednesday on a new contract not only for police officers, but firefighters and paramedics as well.
Under the terms, most police officers, firefighters and paramedics would receive merit increases of ten percent the first year, five percent the second year, and ten percent the third year.
The Dallas Police Association and a city council member say they think the raises will help keep younger officers from leaving for other departments.
“Those individuals who possibly were thinking of leaving, yes, I think this prevents them from leaving. It helps them stay,” said Mata. “So it was definitely a move in the right direction.”
“It was important to get those numbers up what our younger officers can make at other places,” said Kingston. “It’s just the right thing to do in general.”
As we’ve stated many times over the past several months of following the DPFP implosion, taxpayers will be the ultimate loser here…looks like that’s already starting to play out.
* * *
For those who missed it, here is what we recently posted after the DPFP decided to halt pension withdrawals.
Two days after the Mayor of Dallas, Mike Rawlings, filed a lawsuit against the Dallas Police and Fire Pension system to block withdrawals, which he referred to as a “run on the bank” of an “insolvent” pension system in “financial crisis, the Pension’s board has finally taken steps to halt further withdrawals. Of course, this delayed action has come only after $500 million in deposits have been withdrawn since just August.
According to the Dallas Daily News, an incremental $154mm in withdrawal requests were pending at the time the decision was made earlier today.
The Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s Board of Trustees suspended lump-sum withdrawals from the pension fund Thursday, staving off a possible restraining order and stopping $154 million in withdrawal requests.
The system was set to pay out the weekly requests Friday. Pension officials said allowing the withdrawals would leave them without the liquid reserves required to sustain $2.1 billion fund.
“Our situation is currently critical, and we took action,” Board chairman Sam Friar said.
While Dallas citizens cheered the decision, even opponents of the Mayor’s admitted that the redemptions had to be halted if the city had any chance of saving the pension system from insolvency.
Rawlings on Thursday afternoon told a crowd gathered at a Dallas Regional Chamber that “the bleeding has stopped. We can turn this ship around.”
The crowd responded with cheers after the mayor’s announcement of the board’s decision.
At the pension board meeting, the mood was more somber.
Council member Scott Griggs said he couldn’t let the $154 million “go out the door” on Friday.
His council colleague, Philip Kingston, a board trustee, said the mayor “unquestionably” forced the pension board’s hand. He said Thursday was “the worst day I’ve had in public office.”
“Unfortunately, financially, this had to happen,” he said.
The fund has about $729 million in liquid assets. It needs to keep about $600 million on hand, meaning the restrictions could have been coming at some point even without the mayor’s actions. The withdrawal requests this week alone would have meant the fund would dip below that level.
Of course, not everyone was happy with the decision as at least one retired police officer threatened a lawsuit to force the fund to honor redemption requests while another declared that Mayor Rawlings had “successfully screwed over the retirees, the firefighters and the police officers.”
One retired police sergeant, Pete Bailey, suggested a lawsuit could be in the offing if the system didn’t pay out the requests that were made Tuesday. Friar understood that they might deal with more litigation.
“We may just have to deal with that, but that’s what the board decides,” Friar said. “We acted in the best interest of the pension fund today.”
Retired Dallas police officer Jerry Rhodes, a pension meeting fixture, said he believed the board did what it had to do. Then he sarcastically lauded Rawlings.
“Merry Christmas, mayor,” he said. “Hopefully you have a good Christmas because you have successfully screwed over the retirees, the firefighters and the police officers.”
Perhaps future ponzi schemes pension systems will take note of Dallas’ current situation prior to guaranteeing 8% returns on retirees’ pension balances. Who could have ever guessed that a decision like that could have backfired so badly?
- Oxford University Joins The List Of Liberal Institutions Urging "Gender Neutral Pronouns"
The University of Oxford has joined many other bastions of liberalism in the U.S. who, in an effort to endlessly cater to our overly sensitive millennials, have urged students to ditch gender-based pronouns like “he” and “she” for the gender-neutral alternative “ze.” Per EAG News, Oxford’s behavior code states that inadvertently using the wrong pronoun for someone is technically “considered an offense” while British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell said that giving people the gender-neutral “ze” option is just a “thoughtful, considerate move.”
The university’s behavior code states that using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person is considered an offense, and a new leaflet distributed by the student union supposedly aims to cut down on hurt feelings and discrimination by encouraging students to use “ze” instead, the Independent reports.
British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell applauded the move.
“It is a positive thing to not always emphasize gender divisions and barriers,” he told the Daily Mail.
“It is good to have gender-neutral pronouns for those who want them but it shouldn’t be compulsory,” Tatchell said. “This issue isn’t about being politically correct or censoring anyone. It’s about acknowledging the fact of changing gender identities and respecting people’s right to not define themselves as male or female.”
“Giving people the ‘ze’ option is a thoughtful, considerate move,” he said.
Meanwhile, a leaflet distributed on campus warned students to “veer away” from the completely ridiculous notion that there are “only two genders”…after all using such binary language as “boys and girls” tends to “subtly reinforce that gender is a significant difference about behavior patterns.”
Of course, American institutions of higher education are not immune to this insanity. A few months back we pointed out that Princeton University was fed up with people using “gender binary” hate speech like “freshman” (see “Princeton University Kindly Requests You Stop Using “Gender-Binary” Hate Speech Like “Freshman”“) and had released an official guide on how to develop “gender-inclusive” speech.
Meanwhile, we also noted that the lunacy of the educated elitists in New England also spread, like an infectious disease, to schools south of the Mason-Dixon line. As pointed out by the Daily Caller, Vanderbilt University’s “Faculty Senate Gender Inclusivity Task Force” recently posted the following flyers around campus urging students and faculty to announce their “preferred pronouns” when introducing themselves.
Offer your name and pronoun in faculty meetings, committees, and other spaces where students may not be present
- “I’m Steve and I use he/him/his pronouns. What should I call you?”
- “My pronouns are they/them/theirs. May I ask yours?”
People who “identify” as “gender-fluid” were encouraged to use newly created pronouns “Ze/Zir/Zirs” or “Ze/Hir/Hirs.”
Finally, students and staff were encouraged to admit when they made a gender assessment mistake and learn from it for the next encounter.
Graciously accept correction. Apologize and learn for next time.
Take initiative. Do not expect others to remind you of their name and pronouns.
“Thank you for reminding me. I apologize and will use the correct name and pronoun for you in the future.”
Isn’t it amazing that 99.9% of us have managed to get through life without ever encountering this massive epidemic of hate crimes that have struck our elitist institutions in recent years…leave the poor kids alone you relentless, gender-binary hatemongers.
- Poised For Collapse: How "Unrest Could Become Real Revolution" Inside America
There are many ways this could play out, but as SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo notes, few could deny that any number of critical factors are coming to a head right here at home.
If economic collapse is particularly harsh, things could easily spiral out of control. Civil unrest could become the norm, and things could reach a very desperate point.
But depending upon what specific events take place, the police and military may not remain on the side of the federal government, but may support and defend the American people, and what could be a violence, bloody and drawn out struggle to rebuild what once was. What do you think will happen?
5 Factors That Could Transform Civil Unrest Into a Full-Blown Revolution
Authored by former Jeremiah Johnson via ReadyNutrition.com,
As mentioned in Part I of this series, the U.S. is (even after the election) on the cusp of a revolution. The potential for revolution exists in all countries at any given time. We will first list some of the factors that cause an uprising to transform into an all-encompassing revolution.
- Economic Factors: This could take the form of an economic collapse and/or runaway inflation/devaluation of a nation’s currency, as well as chronic or acute unemployment, lowered manufacturing base accompanied by firings or closure of positions or plants.
- Warfare: can lead to a country’s dissolution either by insurgency or occupation, followed by an attempt to resist (revolt) either against a foreign oppressor or a country that has (in the manner of the Hessians in the Revolutionary war) “invited in” an occupying army.
- Religious/Theological: in the form either of persecution of a culture’s predominant religion or factions/schisms leading to confrontation of conflict between two different religious groups.
- Government Oppression: in the form of excessive taxation, taxation with either no representation (as when an executive branch secures a ruling outside of actual legislative bodies or processes) or misrepresentation (a tax is declared for one thing and ends up being “sequestered” for another. Other forms of oppressive acts from a “legitimate” established government include martial law declarations or unlimited police power in the hands of the State.
- Civil Unrest: due to any of the above factors, with the added problems of cultural or racial strife in the citizenry, with revolution as recourse, when the people suffer from the (genuine or perceived) blight of believing/knowing there is no legislative or demonstrative recourse in a peaceful vein. It can also parallel economic factors when the abolition of the middle class occurs with a great disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor.
Revolutions usually are not an instantaneous occurrence, but rather have a slow buildup toward their culmination or climax. When a population suffers for a long period of time without any hope of change in a democratic fashion and their basic needs as individuals and families are not being met, many times matters are taken into their own hands. This is not necessarily a “right” or a “wrong” issue: it just is. Revolution is endemic, so to speak, of the human race.
Societies and nations come into being as a result of revolutions, and usually follow a cycle: an upswing, or rise, followed by a peak where the country or culture is at its zenith, and then a slow (sometimes sudden) decline, and then collapse. For some extra reading, the work “Collapse,” by Jared Diamond gives several examples of civilizations that have declined slowly or disappeared suddenly and swiftly that are really worth reading.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were adamant when the nation was in its infancy that the Revolutionary War was intended to be a “one-time thing, not repeated” because (they so believed) the framework of our government was intended to be one of checks and balances. These safeguards were meant to ensure that power does not accrue only into the hands of one branch (especially the executive branch) to prevent a dictatorship.
They were not, however, able to envision a nation of 320 million people and the technological advances that enable almost a complete surveillance state to be set into place. They also were (mostly) of English stock and forbears and did not foresee the ethnic, social, and cultural diversities and challenges that would arise with the influx of millions of immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. In their wisdom, however, they placed the 2nd Amendment into the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights: the purpose of this was not to enable hunting and marksmanship so much as it was to enable the people to have recourse to arms if a government ever became dictatorial or totalitarian.
A government that is in the process of being overthrown always labels the rebels as “terrorists” or “criminals” because it is a process that overthrows the existing social and political order. A government’s primary function is to perpetuate itself while quelling or preventing dissent or overthrow: survival of the entity and not the individual is the goal. “Bloodless” revolutions never truly occur: a life will always be lost in the process somewhere.
Revolution usually is (and should be) a last resort. One of the greatest dangers in the overthrow of an existing government is that the revolutionaries will become the very thing they sought to overthrow: a dictatorship with no room for dissent in any way, shape, or form. The most successful revolutions occur when the rebels muster up enough popular support that even when not supplied with men or materials, the populace (at bare minimum) stays neutral and gets out of the way of the rebels.
In the U.S. we currently have a ton of demonstrations and protests regarding the presidential election (those just jumping on the bandwagon to be a part of a cause, although liberals at heart), paid disrupters/agents provocateur (on the Soros payroll to instigate, for example), and Clinton supporters. These are not revolutionaries, although they view themselves as such. They are not out to “overthrow” the government but to perpetuate the state of continuous “soft-socialism” we have been living under for the past 8 years.
If a revolution occurs in the U.S. it will come as the result of clashes between the Right and the Left as the Left continues to jockey for position and attempt to discredit and reverse the election results, and the Right is just sort of standing around to see what happens. It may also come if the current administration refuses to end, either by a declaration of martial law or involvement in a new war that has catastrophic consequences that enable the executive branch to stay in power. Only time will tell if one occurs in the U.S. as a result of these elections and any possible post-election chicanery, but make no mistake: the citizens are “keyed up” and we may just see it. As Gary Franchi and his band so eloquently state it, “Revolution never comes with a warning,” and this is because it usually seethes on the back burner until the top blows off.
- The New York Times Explains How It Became An "Instrument Of Russian Intelligence"
In a massive (in a literal sense, printing at 25 pages and over 8,000 words as there is little new information revealed in the piece itself) expose issued by the NYT tited “The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.” and meant to piggyback on the WaPo’s recent reporting and solidify the left-leaning media’s case that Hillary lost the election, the New York Times try to summarize all the recent publicly available information on alleged Russian hackings of everything from the DNC server to the Podesta email.
While the 8,000 words do provide a good recap of the widely accepted mainstream media version of events, we hoped to find some actual incremental news, like, for example: proof, so we promptly scoured the report for any incremental evidence that Russia was indeed behind the hack – after all that’s what the NYT is writing about. Alas, we could not find it, instead there was nothing but more innuendo, more “believes”, and more “possible linkages.” Some examples:
- American intelligence officials said they believed that the hackers were associated with two Russian intelligence agencies.
- Investigators believe that the G.R.U., or a hacking group known as Fancy Bear or A.P.T. 28, was the second group to break into the D.N.C., but it has played a bigger role in releasing the committee’s emails.
- A self-proclaimed hacker that investigators believe was a group acting as an agent of the G.R.U. It published documents itself and leaked a series of D.N.C. documents.
- A hacking group possibly linked to the agency, the main successor to the K.G.B., entered Democratic National Committee servers undetected for nearly a year, security researchers said. The group was nicknamed Cozy Bear, the Dukes or A.P.T. 29 for “advanced persistent threat.”
Finally, on Wikileaks:
- The website released about 50,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers. It is unclear how WikiLeaks obtained the emails. But Russian intelligence agencies are prime suspects, researchers said.
This, despite recent refutations by both Wikileaks, and those close to them, that the source is not Russian, although short of naming the disgruntled employee, this particular case of fingerpointing will remain an impasse indefinitely. Making matters for the mainstream narrative – i.e. the one pushed by the NYT – worse, overnight Reuters reported that the ODNI – the top US spy agency – refused to endorse the CIA’s “assessment” that Russia was behind the hacking, citing a “lack of evidence” – which just happens to be the weakest link in the attempt to demonize Putin – one which the NYT likewise fails to address.
That out of the way, the NYT does an awesome job of presenting even more unconfirmed innuendo as undisputed fact, all of which points in one direction. Russia in general, and the Kremlin in particular, are responsible for Hillary’s failure: there are 98 instance of the word Russia or Russian in the article. Some examples:
- At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
- An examination by The Times of the Russian operation — based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.
- The D.N.C.’s fumbling encounter with the F.B.I. meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost. The failure to grasp the scope of the attacks undercut efforts to minimize their impact. And the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions, a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.
- The low-key approach of the F.B.I. meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top D.N.C. officials were alerted to the attack and hired cyberexperts to protect their systems. In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the D.N.C., including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.
- By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.
In the case of those “Russian” hackers identified by the NYT, the publication itself admits that “attribution, as the skill of identifying a cyberattacker is known, is more art than science.”
It is often impossible to name an attacker with absolute certainty. But over time, by accumulating a reference library of hacking techniques and targets, it is possible to spot repeat offenders. Fancy Bear, for instance, has gone after military and political targets in Ukraine and Georgia, and at NATO installations.
And here, once again, comes inference which the NYT – and apparently the CIA – is happy to use in lieu of firm evidence:
That largely rules out cybercriminals and most countries, Mr. Alperovitch said. “There’s no plausible actor that has an interest in all those victims other than Russia,” he said. Another clue: The Russian hacking groups tended to be active during working hours in the Moscow time zone.
And hey, presto: it must be Russia. Which, incidentally, the Democrats quickly tried to spin in their favor:
In mid-June, on Mr. Sussmann’s advice, D.N.C. leaders decided to take a bold step. Concerned that word of the hacking might leak, they decided to go public in The Washington Post with the news that the committee had been attacked. That way, they figured, they could get ahead of the story, win a little sympathy from voters for being victimized by Russian hackers and refocus on the campaign.
But the very next day, a new, deeply unsettling shock awaited them. Someone calling himself Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the web, claiming to be the D.N.C. hacker — and he posted a confidential committee document detailing Mr. Trump’s record and half a dozen other documents to prove his bona fides.
For Zero Hedge readers who have followed our writing over the past 6 months, there is really nothing new in the entire NYT article, with one exception: despite not providing any proof that Russia is behind the hacks, the article drowns the readers in constant accusations that the Russian government is the guilty party, to the point where this allegation becomes fact, and in the process the NYT itself succumbs to spreading, you guessed it, “fake news” and government “propaganda.” Amusingly , the NYT does realize this, and notes that “in recent days, a skeptical president-elect, the nation’s intelligence agencies and the two major parties have become embroiled in an extraordinary public dispute over what evidence exists that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election.”
So is there actual evidence? Alas, on this one most important topic, the NYT is silent: there are 5 instances of the word “evidence” in the entire 8000+ word piece, and 0 instances of “proof” – the authors had hoped that drowning readers with “Russia, Russia, Russia” would be sufficient. It also had no problem presenting belief as fact, as noted above. To wit:
“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
Well, Mr. Rogers, we do have some doubt: could you please show us the evidence that would eradicate it? Alas, so far not a single liberal publication has been able to provide that particular missing link, and is why the latest rift between the pro-Clinton CIA and the pro-Trump FBI has opened up. As the NYT writes, “This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook.
Over the weekend, four prominent senators, two Republicans and two Democrats, joined forces to pledge an investigation while pointedly ignoring Mr. Trump’s skeptical claims.
“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” said Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed.
“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they said. “The stakes are too high for our country.”
We agree: so let’s see the evidence that would align everyone on the same side of the argument. What, there is none? And instead the objective press is making an emotional appeal is lieu of actual proof? That does not sound very professional. In fact, it sounds very “fake news”-ish.
One notable interlude is the previously reported story of one possible way that hackers penetrated John Podesta’s email. As the NYT explains, for those who missed it, the hack and eventual release of a decade’s worth of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails may have been caused by a typo. Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email” and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”
Instead of telling the aide that the email was a threat and that a good response would be to change his password directly through Google’s website, he had inadvertently told the aide to click on the fraudulent email and give the attackers access to the account. Delavan told the Times he had intended to type “illegitimate,” a typo “he still has not forgiven himself for making.”
The email was a phishing scam that ultimately revealed Podesta’s password to hackers. Soon after, WikiLeaks began releasing 10 years of his emails. In late October the firm SecureWorks identified a Bit.ly account and WikiLeaks-released email that appeared to have been used to attack Podesta’s account.
Naturally, the fact that – according to this narrative – the crack group of Russian cyber hacks had to resort to a simplistic, childish malware attack to get to a person’s password, is seemingly completely ignored, as it the reality that if the “Russians” wanted Podesta’s email, there were countless many, far more sophisticated ways of obtaining it.
But all is fair in “fake news” ans perpetuating a narrative.
And since this particular narrative is extremely time consuming, here is a simplifying infographic that supposedly explains all anyone who wants to believe the government’s side of the story, needs to know.
But wait a minute, if it was common knowledge that the Russians were hacking the DNC, Podesta and anyone else close to Clinton with a computer – but not her own server of course, that was impenetrable to hacking by Russia, just ask the FBI – why didn’t Obama call out the Russians? And here is the laugh out loud part of the entire NYT piece:
Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions. There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.
“We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”
So the Russians escalated again — breaking into systems not just for espionage, but to publish or broadcast what they found, known as “doxing” in the cyberworld.
That this is beyond stupid goes without saying, however if – in the odd chance it is also true – then it is not Russia, but president Obama who should be held accountable for not standing up to protecting US interests in what he clearly understood was a cyberwar.
But let’s blame Putin for apparently outsmarting the entire US intelligence apparatus.
Actually, Putin also outsmarted the New York Times itself: as the paper admits, “by last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.”
And the punchline:
Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.
To which, all we can say, is well done comrades: Vladimir is very proud of you for helping take down the candidate you yourselves endorsed.
Or something just as stupid, which continues the now month-old campaign of deflecting blame and accepting responsibility for Hillary’s campaign which failed not because of some “Kremlin mastermind hackers”, but because millions of disenfranchised workers in battleground states had had enough with a system that had forgotten all about them.
And now we sit back and wait for the next “fake news”, “Russian hacker propaganda” hit piece to come out. Why not: after all just last week the Senate took the first step toward banning free speech with the passage of the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act.” If nothing else, once passed into law, it will help mainstream outlets like the NYT regain the narrative they so painfully lost control over in 2016.
- 40 Electors Demand Russian Interference Briefing Before They Vote
Update: Forty members (up from 29 earlier) of the Electoral College on Tuesday signed a letter demanding an intelligence briefing on Russian interference in the election ahead of their Dec. 19 vote.
As The Hill reports, ten electors originally signed the letter when it was published Monday, and 30 more have since added their names.
Original 10:
- Christine Pelosi (CA)
- Micheal Baca (CO)
- Anita Bonds (DC)
- Courtney Watson (MD)
- Dudley Dudley (NH)
- Bev Hollingworth (NH)
- Terie Norelli (NH)
- Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
- Clay Pell (RI)
- Chris Suprun (TX)
Newly Added Electors:
- Edward Buck (CA)
- Donna Ireland (CA)
- Vinz Koller (CA)
- Katherine Lyon (CA)
- John P. MacMurray (CA)
- Andres Ramos (CA)
- Gail Teton-Landis (CA)
- Olivia Reyes-Becerra (CA)
- David Scott Warmuth (CA)
- Gregory H. Willenborg (CA)
- Jerad Sutton (CO)
- Robert Nemenich (CO)
- Nancy Shepherdson (IL)
- Dori Dean (MA)
- Jason Palitsch (MA)
- Parwez Wahid (MA)
- Paul G. Yorkis (MA)
- Robert Leonard (MD)
- Salome T. Peters (MD)
- Melissa Mark-Viverito (NY)
- Stuart Appelbaum (NY)
- Stephanie Miner (NY)
- Melissa Sklarz (NY)
- Andrea Stewart-Cousins (NY)
- Sam H.W. Sappington (OR)
- Beth Caldwell (WA)
- Bret Chiafalo (WA)
- Deb Fitzgerald (VA)
- Terry C. Frye (VA)
- Jeanette Sarver (VA)
The open letter — led by Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — urged Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to give a detailed briefing on President-elect Donald Trump's ties to Russia.
“We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States,” the letter read.
The Clinton campaign applauded the effort Monday, saying it had repeatedly warned about Russian interference aimed at swaying the election in Trump’s favor.
However, while 40 electors would be enough to turn the election in Hillary Clinton's favor, the so-called "Hamilton Electors" are almost uniformly Democratic voters anyway and so with Ashley-Madison fan Chris Suprun the only Trump turncoat, for now the 'soft coup' remains a long shot.
“I am not looking to be satisfied with just the vote on Dec. 19 or 20, but on January of 2030, when Mr. Trump has either served no time, one term or two terms,” Suprun told The Hill. “History is going to judge my actions on whether he turned out to be Ronald Reagan, Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon.”
But, as The Hill adds, Republican electors are coming under intense pressure to change their votes:
Bob Muller, a GOP county chairman in North Carolina and a Trump elector, said he’s gotten correspondence from “everywhere from Maine to California” asking him to vote differently.
“I just ignore them,” Muller said.
So far, only a few Electoral College voters have publicly declared that they will not back the candidates that their states supported — including just one of the 37 Trump voters that the self-styled Hamilton Electors, a group of mostly Democrats, need to make any noise on Monday.
And even if the rogue electors achieve their aims, they would only succeed in sending the election to a Republican-majority House, which would almost certainly certify Trump’s victory.
Virtually all Republican electors reached by The Hill said they will vote enthusiastically for Trump.
“I’m voting how the people of Florida have told me to vote,” said Brian Ballard, a Florida elector who raised money for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio during the GOP primary. “I don’t know anyone who isn’t. I appreciate people using First Amendment rights to reach out and try to convince me otherwise, but I’m obligated to support Trump because he won Florida.
“Also, I love the guy and want him to be president.”
Faithless electors are rare but not unheard of in American history.
At this point, the effort appears to be more about undermining Trump, complicating his ability to govern and following personal convictions — and less about actually winning the Electoral College for another candidate.
* * *
As we detailed earlier, Donald Trump could have the election legally stolen from him on either December 19th when the Electoral College casts their votes or on January 6th when a joint session of Congress gathers to count those votes. As The Economic Collapse blog's Michael Snyder notes, the establishment is in full-blown panic mode at this point, and they seem to have settled on "Russian interference in the election" as the angle that they will use to unleash this 'soft coup' as today, the Hill reports more Democratic electors are joining the call for an intelligence briefing before they cast their votes for president on Monday.
Twenty-nine electors now are pressuring Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to disclose more information about the CIA’s conclusion that Russian interference helped sway the election in President-elect Donald Trump’s favor.
On Monday, 10 electors — spearheaded by Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — wrote an open letter to Clapper, demanding more information ahead of next week's vote.
“The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations,” the letter reads.
“We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.”
Twenty-eight Democrats and one Republican have now signed the letter.
On Monday, the Clinton campaign voiced support for the effort.
“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” said John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, in a statement.
“Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”
But ultimately, as The Economic Collapse blog's Michael Snyder warns, this is not about Russian interference in our election.
Rather, this is all about the elite doing whatever is necessary to stop Donald Trump. The elite are going to fight against him every step of the way, and they are never, ever going to give up. This is a point that I made during an interview with Alex Jones on Monday…
The next key date that we need to be watching for is December 19th.
On Monday, members of the Electoral College will gather in Washington D.C. and in all 50 state capitols to cast their votes. We know that at least one Republican elector that is supposed to be pledged to Trump will not be voting for him, and that elector claims that there are others that also will not be voting for Trump.
If 37 Republican electors can be persuaded to cast their votes for someone other than Trump, that would throw the election into the House of Representatives, and it is unclear what the House would do in that scenario.
If Trump is not stopped at the Electoral College, there is also the possibility that he could be derailed when a joint session of Congress gathers to count the Electoral votes on January 6th.
As I discussed yesterday, all it takes to force a vote on the validity of Electoral College votes is an objection in writing that is signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. As the official House.gov website explains, if both the House and the Senate vote to approve the objection, the votes covered by the objection are not counted…
Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.
In both the Senate and the House, there are anti-Trump Republicans that would absolutely cherish the opportunity to deny him the presidency.
I don’t know if it will happen, but this Russian interference issue is the kind of thing that could be used to justify taking this kind of action.
Of course if the election was stolen from Donald Trump that would likely throw the entire nation into a state of chaos, but I think that at this point the elite would be willing to risk just about anything to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.
* * *
If you think this is all too far-fetched for modern-day Western democracies, here is Keith Olbermann literally losing it over "the Russian coup under way in America"…
- Bank Of Japan Intervenes, Boosts Bond Buy Ahead Of Fed Decision
Having seen 10Y JGB yields spike to 10bps (highest since Feb), The Bank of Japan has decided enough is enough and intervened to bring yields back to the stable 0.00% level they decree as fair. The entire Japanese curve is bull-flattening as the long-end is also rallying after Kuroda and his cronies up their purchases to 200 billion yen, from 190 billion previously. All else equal, this will prompt more demand for US paper from Japanese sources.
10Y Yields had risen to their highest since Kuroda unleashed NIRP.
And so it was time to step in
And the 30Y rallying even more
As Bloomberg's Mark Cranfield noted, The Bank of Japan is back in the JGB market. Yields sliding across the longer end of the bond curve as the BOJ buys super longs. If the Fed does a dovish hike later today, that could be the end of rising yields for this year.
This move also follows Jeff Gundlach's earlier bond bull case, noting that he's increasing duration and investor fear of bonds seems to be getting overdone.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...